Re: Historically low double payoff triggers investigation (270 Views)
Posted by: BitPlayer (IP Logged)
Date: August 10, 2026 09:40PM
If they were laying off risk, weren't they stupid for doing so in the DD pool rather than the win pool, where the pool was larger, and the first-leg winner paid more per $1 than the DD? Could it have been just badly coordinated betting by a bunch of people who were tipped by the barn?
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
 Historically low double payoff triggers investigation (419 Views)
|
statuette | 08/10/2026 08:10PM |
 Re: Historically low double payoff triggers investigation (294 Views)
|
Boscar Obarra | 08/10/2026 08:59PM |
  Re: Historically low double payoff triggers investigation (270 Views) |
BitPlayer | 08/10/2026 09:40PM |
 Re: Historically low double payoff triggers investigation (284 Views)
|
Boscar Obarra | 08/10/2026 10:36PM |
 Re: Historically low double payoff triggers investigation (274 Views)
|
Boscar Obarra | 08/11/2026 04:29PM |
| Re: Historically low double payoff triggers investigation (236 Views)
|
billk5300s | 08/13/2026 09:13AM |
| Re:The Fairhill Five (249 Views)
|
Tavasco | 08/13/2026 01:21PM |
| Re: Re:The Fairhill Five (256 Views)
|
Boscar Obarra | 08/13/2026 03:53PM |
| Re: Re:The Fairhill Five (300 Views)
|
Boscar Obarra | 08/13/2026 09:45PM |
| Re: Re:The Fairhill Five (328 Views)
|
Tavasco | 08/14/2026 08:17AM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.