NYSRWB put that rule in 2005...

The rule is criminal.

I'm sure they'll blame it on someone who is no longer working with them.

Yeah, I felt sorry for you and Jason trying to talk about 3 & 4 horses fields, with a straight face.

If they want a triple digit carryover for Sunday - all they need to do is take the last two races off of the turf after the sequence starts.

Even if the weather is nice ... why not keep pulling two races a day and forcing carryovers until we get like a $5 million carryover? That would be fun. There's nothing to stop it from happening. They have a rule that gives them power to make a carryover anytime they want one.

I felt sorry for the people who had $34,680 stolen from them - but that's just me.

And I'm not saying they would - nor would doing so help them - even today it didn't help despite the fact it manufactured a carryover for a tomorrow.

But does anyone not see how this is hands down the worst rule - perhaps in the entire history of horse racing?

I'm really starting to wonder about you guys if no one else sees how horrible this rule is.

Thanks, but don't feel sorry for me. I have a great job.

What do you think of this rule BTW?

Over/Under on when it gets changed?

Obviously I didn't play the P6. It just blows my mind how anyone could have allowed such a rule to be implemented. How is it different than stealing?

Isn't it a better alternative than making bettors have to keep their turf choices in dirt races like Florida does when a race gets rained off after a multi has started?

If I'm not mistaken this is the first time this rule has been used since it was implemented. That's mainly because the track super at NYRA does a great job and rarely has to take multiple races off the turf in the middle of the card.

It sucks for the people who were 4-4 but the majority of them certainly used turf horses who were scratched and they might have been forced to land on PT favorites they didn't like. I have been victimized by the lack of off the turf provisions in South Florida and that certainly felt like a kick in the ass.

I don't think that is the part of the rule he is arguing. They kept 75% of the pool. It is a rule that rarely comes into play obviously, but it seems a very bad rule not to payout the entire pool after takeout there are tickets with all winners. Because of this, didn't most (all?) people that played lose money whether they cashed or not to basically fund a carryover?

Agreed. The rule that 'all wins' when it comes off the turf is great for the bettors and should be kept as is in NY and implemented in all jurisdictions. It's the fact that the 2-legs-off provision creates a carryover is a flat out crime. Honestly, after reading the rule, it sounds like it was written by someone who didn't understand what they were talking about.

I don't think for one second it was written with bad intentions, but today it created a bet with a 75% or so takeout

Exactly.

It was almost certainly extreme incompetence over bad intentions by the people or person who designed and implemented the rule.

In order for a fair-shake - the people who got $7.60 (for hitting what amounted to a $2 pick 4! Ever see a P4 pay $3.80 for a buck? It did today) should have recieved the carryover portion of the pool. They were basically robbed.

It's obviously a much better alternative - so long as the takeout is kept and the rest of the pool is redistributed in form of winning payoffs.

To confiscate the majority of the pool - like in this instance - that should never have been permitted to happen.

Here is the worst old-time rule I could find:

Up until the year 1886 - a jockey could not dismount after a race unless he first asked permission to dismount from the stewards.

This made it easy to stiff a superior horse - all you do is go out and win the race at odds of 1/10 - and the jockey hops off before he asks permission - horse gets DQ'd - bettors become outraged.

I hear ya. I missed that part the first time around.

from the article: