Should sportsbooks give prop bets BACK on Aaron Rodgers after super early injury in Jets/Bills game?

Some of the new legalized US sportsbetting industry has established a dumb precedent in recent years, giving BACK bets to customers when they should otherwise have lost.

Predictably, this has led to entitled behavior by the customer base, believing themselves due a refund whenever something bad occurs involving their bet. Or, simply put, "This is why we can't have nice things."

In the last Monday night football game between the Jets and Bills, Aaron Rodgers injured himself near the beginning of the game, played for 4 minutes, and left. This made a lot of people with "over" Rodgers props angry, feeling like they never really had a chance to win.

A pro sportsbettor who goes by "Spanky" said it well:

https://twitter.com/spanky/status/1701675894727721354



Spanky is correct. As long as the player enters the game -- which Rodgers did -- all props on him should be considered valid, win or lose.

Had Rodgers never played, it would be a different story. Then everyone would be refunded.


One of Spanky's followers disagreed, and said that recreational players deserve a refund just for goodwill. However, Spanky wasn't having any of it:

https://twitter.com/spanky/status/1701736857959125064



I don't know why this is even up for debate. Does anyone here believe a refund is warranted?

Sports books don’t make their money handing back cash for a bad luck outcome on a bet. The only reason I can see this would be if the rec bettor has a clear history of being a donkey and they do it knowing they’ll still get the money and then some more on top. If it’s a line in the sand then Spanky is correct.

“A pro sports bettor, spanky…..”

Kind of funny to put it this way. Spanky is more than just s sports bettor like our generations billy walters.

And yes, anytime a player gets hurt or sees major playing time reduction you get a legion of people who come out and demand a refund. There are quite literally entire outfits that scrub the internet looking for playing time situations in the NBA to bet. Its quite a profitable angle and ive worked with a few of these people in tbe past to great profit.

When these refunds are “paid” its almost never out of the books budget but the marketing budget. If you have a book trying to get your business because they offer bad beat protection its not because they respect your play.

Books either public or private will do almost anything to retain a square bettor. I once saw a guy who was 10’s of thousands in the hole bet on Tony Romo in golf. He is a boarder line tour level player. He was -300 vs a bunch of other amateur players. He fucking sucked first three rounds and was near the bottom of scoring. He threw a hissy fit on Sunday and decided to quit. It this degenerates mind he felt like shouldn't have to pay it. After the back and forth the book said “fine pay me the rest of what you owe me….” And he didnt have that either. Point being books will allow all sorts of rule-breaking so long as the $$ is coming in.

Look at this shit.

BetFred, a legal US book, is voiding winners too!

https://twitter.com/betfredsports/st...54351394078957

:wtf2

People don't realize they can bet "under" on these player props too....

Embedded Tweet

Seems to me this is PR game playing for their own benefit. It really makes sense void the bets the degenerates will shove that money on another bet and they'll still win it and because of the idiots thinking the book really cares about doing the right thing they'll deposit more money, and the book comes out ahead scoring more money. It's a small cost for a bigger win in the end for them.

The ultimate bettor who lost the biggest is the GM of Green Bay. He's now getting a 2nd Pick instead of what should've been a lock 1st Rnder with the 65% of snaps threshold for the trade between NYJ and GB.

Also Rumors are now Jets will have either newly retired Chad Henne or Jacoby Brissett in the locker room for Week 3.

I obviously agree with everything in the OP.

I would assume that the potential for a player getting injured can be taken as priced into whatever the O/U line is on a prop bet.

With that being the case, the only way anyone should expect a refund/void is if Rodgers hadn't even participated in the game, such as somehow sustaining an injury prior to the game. Even if, not that it would ever happen, the team decided to not play a healthy Rodgers, then I would suggest that the bet is still valid unless the T&C's state otherwise/must take one snap, whatever.

Voiding the bet is good PR, though, particularly for online, so it's for the books to decide if they want to do that on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I would just issue a, 'Free Bet,' token for whatever the amount of the bet was that way the individuals in question at least have to bet that amount again; that has less value for them than a straight up refund does. (The sort of 'Free Bet' token I'm thinking of pays only to the extent of winnings and would not result in the 'original bet' being paid on a win.)

Of course, most individuals will just end up cycling the money anyway---but I'd want to be absolutely sure of that if I am going to give sports bettors charity as a goodwill move.

personally I would never refund a bet, player injury is just part of the risk. if me and my buddy have a bet on rodgers and I win by default due to injury I am not going to give a shit how my buddy feels, in fact I might take enjoyment in their pain of having to pay out the bet to me and rub their money on my titties
but if I owned a big sportsbetting company, seems like an easy win to refund in this case, you get some punters that would normally be disgruntled getting a refund instead. I'm sure they are just gonna punt it off to you later again anyway. From a customer service standpoint any moves like this are gonna be a win, I'm sure even with refunding these bets they still made a nice little profit on the first weekend of NFL action