Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Anyone play 27 horse Pick 6 at Belmont today? (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42991)

VOL JACK 07-08-2011 05:04 PM

Anyone play 27 horse Pick 6 at Belmont today?
 
That has to a record for the fewest number of runners in a NYRA Pick 6.

blackthroatedwind 07-08-2011 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VOL JACK (Post 789479)
That has to a record for the fewest number of runners in a NYRA Pick 6.

God I hope so.

Tough day.

herkhorse 07-08-2011 05:44 PM

34,000 carryover

Storm Cadet 07-08-2011 06:50 PM

If people hit the pick 6 today @ $7.60 how is there a carryover?

herkhorse 07-08-2011 07:03 PM

My info was from twinspires, so it's probably incorrect.

Travis Stone 07-08-2011 07:32 PM

Equibase says there is too.

Alan07 07-08-2011 07:34 PM

What the status of the non-important turf races tomorrow?

Travis Stone 07-08-2011 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan07 (Post 789518)
What the status of the non-important turf races tomorrow?

They will either be on or off... Or some combination of the two.

NTamm1215 07-08-2011 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan07 (Post 789518)
What the status of the non-important turf races tomorrow?

Very, very unlikely there's anything on turf beyond the stakes and the MOW will almost certainly be Gio Ponti-less.

PatCummings 07-08-2011 08:11 PM

There is a carryover, NYRA sent the text alert.

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 08:25 PM

There shouldn't be a carryover.

$2 Pick 6 (5-5-8-12-ALL-ALL) 6 Correct Paid: $7.60

How does that only pay $7.60 for $2 even with the bet basically reduced to a Pick 4?

trackrat59 07-08-2011 08:29 PM

Sounds like a hellofa day at Belmont.

Indian Charlie 07-08-2011 08:33 PM

the winner in the last paid 13.80.

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie (Post 789540)
the winner in the last paid 13.80.

So?

That payoff posted everywhere is obviously not right. No way in hell is there a carryover.

Alan07 07-08-2011 08:42 PM

Believe it has to do with the final two races coming off the turf later in the day as they are ALL-ALL in the P6.

Storm Cadet 07-08-2011 08:47 PM

NYRA web site says there is a carryover! Here's why:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=85050 explains NYRA rules on P6 payouts!

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan07 (Post 789545)
Believe it has to do with the final two races coming off the turf later in the day as they are ALL-ALL in the P6.

So?

It doesn't make it a carryover situation.

The bet would have to be paid out with the whole pool minus the takeout to the people who correctly had winners in the first four legs.

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet (Post 789547)
NYRA web site says there is a carryover!

If there is - it's a crime.

Storm Cadet 07-08-2011 09:05 PM

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=85050

Here's the new NYRA rule put in place awhile ago!

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet (Post 789554)
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=85050

Here's the new NYRA rule put in place awhile ago!

Whoever put the rule in place should be fired ASAP.

I don't know if it was the state wagering board or NYRA or whoever who makes the rules - I don't care either - but someone has to be fired for it.

That is a crime - plain and simple.

$34,680 was stolen from the pockets of anyone who had the winners of the first four legs of the P6 today.

Hopefully the person who gets fired over it offers the people who collected $7.60 a sincere apology.

Storm Cadet 07-08-2011 09:20 PM

NYSRWB put that rule in 2005...

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet (Post 789560)
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.

VOL JACK 07-08-2011 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 789482)
God I hope so.

Tough day.

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

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone (Post 789520)
They will either be on or off... Or some combination of the two.

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.

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VOL JACK (Post 789567)
Yeah, I felt sorry for you and Jason trying to talk about 3 & 4 horses fields, with a straight face.

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

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord (Post 789569)
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.

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.

blackthroatedwind 07-08-2011 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VOL JACK (Post 789567)
Yeah, I felt sorry for you and Jason trying to talk about 3 & 4 horses fields, with a straight face.

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

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 10:24 PM

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?

Dahoss 07-08-2011 10:37 PM

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?

NTamm1215 07-08-2011 10:44 PM

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.

cmorioles 07-08-2011 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTamm1215 (Post 789609)
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?

philcski 07-08-2011 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 789617)
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.

cmorioles 07-08-2011 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski (Post 789621)
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

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 789623)
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.

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 789601)
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?

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.

Calzone Lord 07-08-2011 11:32 PM

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.


Dahoss 07-08-2011 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord (Post 789629)
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.

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

Indian Charlie 07-09-2011 11:10 AM

http://www.drf.com/news/belmont-pick...d-over-mistake

robfla 07-09-2011 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie (Post 789706)

from the article:
Quote:

Two legs of Friday’s pick six were transferred from the turf to the dirt, but before wagering had closed, so there was no reason to enact that rule. But apparently that news wasn’t received by the mutuel department until after the first leg of the pick six had been run.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.