Odds are up!


#42

For TDs who would like to avoid their tournament being next for offshore betting, make the entry list private.

IFPA could also keep everything behind a login to make it a little tougher for gathering information but then we wouldnt have those youtube videos with IFPA ID and name. :stuck_out_tongue:


#43

I wonder it would an Official Offshore Betting Site of NYCPC sponsorship would get us.


#44

I applaud this rule change, it’s certainly the right one.

But, IMHO, the IFPA is sending slightly mixed messages when they publish blog posts linking to the odds. Don’t gamble on this, says the rules, but the governing body is letting you know what the odds are. I know that a lot of times any press is good press, but I don’t think its good for competitive pinball to promote that its being gambled on. I’m not a prude, its fine that people bet on sports and games, but I don’t think the IFPA should promote that it is.

I’m also not at all still mad i’m the ‘field’ :smiley:


#45

Don’t gamble on this if you’re a participant/organizer/volunteer of the event. By all means if you’re one of the visitors to our website that isn’t participating in these events . . . the player conduct rules we’ve laid out do not apply to you.


#46

Yes, that’s certainly the letter of the rules spelled out. But I am struggling to think of any other competitive governing body that is promoting the odds/existence of gambling on their sport (other than maybe poker). You may not agree, but I don’t think its a good look and I don’t think hype around odds and gambling will end up with a net positive for pinball.


#47

Just to clarify: i am competing in TPF but not pinburgh. So if i were to bet on any player at TPF i would be supressed for a year, but no punishment for placing bets on pinburgh. Is this correct?


#48

The NBA.


#49

Worked out great in 2007.


#50

I absolutely don’t agree and hope to do everything I can to make pinball the next poker.

Time will tell if the decisions we’re making end up being net positive or negative but I’m driving this bus where I feel is appropriate … All with the best of intentions.


#51

Yes … Clearly the NBA has never recovered from that scandal :confused:


#52

Back in 2007 they were pretending it didn’t exist. You’re right, worked out great!


#53

What the hell is Wisconsin going to do it took them a year to adapt to the $1 rule change and now there is full blown sport betting in pinball, man that state might implode.


#54

So side bets and wagers are 1yr offenses for any ifpa event now?

There’s a killjoy.


#55

#56

Side bets between players are fine and not the intention of this rule. The intent is to prevent folks from betting via a third party if they are participating in a tournament. So as long as you are not going to MyBookie and placing a bet on a tournament you are in or associated with, you are fine.


#57

@SAFBrian, that’s not what the text of Josh’s rule says. It says any bet. The way I read this, for example, league players who choose to spice things up with $1 on the side will be suppressed from WPPR. Good luck with that.


#58

Ultimately I have the responsibility and authority to issue penalties as I feel are appropriate.

I feel like my sense of what is “reasonable” here will be a fine foundation for how I plan on dealing with betting issues that are presented to me.

I have no problem with $1 side bets among players. I’ll judge these on a case-by-case basis as necessary.


#59

@joe I mean it says, “Players are strictly prohibitied from placing, soliciting, or facilitating any bet, whether directly or indirectly through a third-party, on any IFPA sanctioned tournament in which they are a participant.” It seems fairly clear to me that this isn’t about $1 games or side pots.


#60

Yup, but it’s behavior caught by this rule… which is why it’s written poorly if the intent is not to catch that behavior.

When you bet with another player… that’s directly placing a bet. The rule as written clearly makes side pots, and head to head betting by players in an IFPA tournament illegal.

but again we’re relying on the ‘if we want to enforce it’ mantra… which means it will always be messy.

$1 games seems easy… but what if Paul wants to put a $100 bet between the players to spice up the tournament final?

What if someone wants to SPLIT a pot if they win? That’s effectively betting too…


#61

So what rules a TD choses to enforce on their event is no longer a factor?

This is the first rule that I can think of where the ‘punishment’ is at the IFPA level… across events… rather than within the scope of the event. so this opens up a whole other can of worms with jurisdiction.

What if two players want to bet $100 between themselves?

Your judgement ruling also relies completely on evaluating and administering punishment POST motorum… which gives no ability for the parties involved to consult with your judgement before damage is done.