it's a good argument and interesting to ponder, but i'm certain it just means placing bets with an expectation to break even, such as betting black and red on roulette, banker and player on baccarat (though there is a commission of banker wins so not exactly even money but close enough to make it an abusive bonus clearing tactic). they want you risking money, not hedging to play against only the zero/tie by betting right and wrong simultaneously.
edit: on further inspection i see you also say such games where this is possible are barred anyway. maybe there is another game like sic bo or something they haven't excluded where you can bet over and under, or odd and even, or heads and tails. or maybe they mean games that pay even money only, like paigow and war (albeit paigow has a commission so it's less than even and war has a tie bet that is 8:1 or whatever so there are multiple payouts). my best guess would be it is just pasted from a previous t and c that used that phrase instead of barring roulette, baccarat and craps, and is thus redundant. anything else like you suggest, lumping in any other game that regularly or possibly pays out 1:1, would be a ridiculous condition indeed.
+++ like a midget at a urinal, i was going to have to stay on my toes +++
. . . +++ if you can read this, well done you +++ . . .
+++ and don't call me shirley +++ ...R.I.P. Leslie Nielsen...
Bookmarks