Yes, but it's also good practice and good design to make the most important rule of the pool as clear as possible. If you don't, you're vastly increasing the chances someone is not going to understand. In this case, the entire issue could have been avoided if the invite PM mentioned it was for money and the rules mentioned it was for money at the top, not 62% the way down the page.
It's also clear that the OP did not know he was playing for money he could lose, thus it's not clear if he agreed to a bet.
You kind of have to explain the game before the whys and hows of someone owing money are going to make sense, though. I guess I could say, "This is a game and bet structured as follows:," in the OP of next year's game, so I probably will.
It was also discussed, at-length, in the Discussion thread in which MinnesotaJoe committed to playing, and partially on the same page, though it is apparent that he did not read the Discussion Thread, either.
I could see where this is a retroactive problem, but in fairness, it's not like I had a ton of people (or anyone, really) in the thread that openly questioned whether or not there was any bet involved. There were some who did not understand exactly what the bet was, true.
Let it also be shown, in my defense, that MinnesotaJoe also invoked a Confidence Pick, such Rule being immediately before the PAYS Rules in the OP.
I'm not saying MJ knew about it or accusing anyone of anything, I'm just saying that if he read far enough into the Rules to know what a Confidence Pick is, then he came really close to reading about the pays.
That having been said, he clearly made no meaningful attempt to play the game.
So I guess if I play one week and go 3-2 (60%), and the winner finishes at 60.01% I then owe him 10 cents.. But if the top picker finished at 59.8%..my 60% doesn't count but I owe nothing.
Those 5 games certainly become hugely meaningful for the one week and doners
What I don't understand is, if he had gone 5-0 the first week and then quit..the rules say he doesn't win the money for top win % because he skipped more than one week, fine. Well then how come violating that same rule doesn't also exclude him from owing ? Is that so people doing poorly with two weeks to go in the season can't quit and thereby exclude themselves from paying because they missed two weeks? That would be a pathetic move
It doesn't necessarily have to be with two weeks left, you could know you are all but finished with six-seven to go, sometimes less.
If you are allowed one week of zero picks and by neglect happen to submit picks in time, does this terminate your participation?
Fine Print???? Should be darn little of that ... particularly amongst experts who know where the Free Throw line is.
I knew that I did not understand what was being offered but I don't know how to run a sports book or sports pool or whatever.
How much does it cost to enter
what do I win
If I have a continuing duty to select and submit picks , what happens upon default of such duty am I fined, tarred, dropped from the pool, ...
I think the poster was correct: COMMON SENSE.
And common sense means SPELL IT OUT.
Must affirmatively sign up for this.
Once you sign up must get First picks list in by xxx. Default means death.
Subsequent Picks list must be in by xxxxx. First default means "Bye" Second default means Death
Sheet... its obvious I don't know what I'm talking about but that is because the terms were not disclosed with sufficient particularity for experienced sports bettors to know what would happen much less curious but inexperienced bettors who might have entered the shallow end of the pool.
This is a great idea.
It seems like it was almost a freeroll for those who did read the rules.
Don't agree at all, I think the rules were very clear that it wasn't a freeroll and the participants had something at stake.
I mean, let's face facts, any time you offer any sort of contest, some people just aren't going to read the full rules.
True enough, although one would think that on a site focused on gambling that a read of the rules is important. This isn't like some grocery store promotion with 2 pages of fine print.
It looks like Mission PMed him with reminders for weeks 2 and 3, and then per the official rules, auto-forfeited him after he missed two weeks. But it would have been nice if someone had written to him saying "hey, if you skip all these picks you're guaranteed to lose about $60."
Mission did PM him? How is anyone going to "write" him if he isn't looking at his inbox?
Also, it's clear he read the rules since he selected a "Confidence Pick".
I don't know if this is angle on his part or not, but I somehow think if he had gone 5-0 the first week instead of 0-5 he would have been back for week two.