Return to consos on P4/P5/P6
 

So if you follow me on Twitter, I've been in a huff about the late scratch of Point of Entry.

I singled POE in the pick five and pick six. Shug is rarely so overtly bullish about his horses, but he was about Point of Entry, all week. At one point, when asked about Johnny V being back on POE instead of going back to Wise Dan, Shug was almost boisterous - saying something like - "he's on the best horse" he said. I thought he was fairly bullish about Orb, but he was OVER THE MOON about POE.

I profited from the scratch when POE became Wise Dan as the post-time favorite. The Wise Dan bettors (and specifically, singlers) saw their payouts deflated when all the POE money went onto them.

Shug is well within his right to scratch up to the point the track says he can. As Mike Welsch reported on ATR's show Friday - he was contemplating scratching if the grass came up wet. Mike MacAdam from the Schenectady Gazette reported today that Shug said they would run if the rain stopped after the fourth race...but it didn't, and yet they kept holding off to make the call (waiting until after the 8th race to talk with (EDIT - Castellano) after riding Hungry Island).

For whatever reason, despite that, the pick six, pick five, and pick four ALL started with Point of Entry still in the race.

Once he was scratched, announced just after the Distaff Turf Mile ran (start of pick four), all that Point of Entry money floated over to Wise Dan. Now, if you had known this before the P5/6 started - what seemed like a two horse race (doubling your P6 outlay if you used both of them), pretty clearly became a one-horse race, giving players the opportunity to restructure tickets. Instead, Wise Dan plays probably like 1-5 instead of 3-5 or 4-5.

Surely, it will impact tickets in other ways too...

But if consolation payouts are given for pick threes...why not the p4/5/6? Does that approach maintain wagering integrity?

The argument that the situation is a non-issue because Wise Dan won as post-time favorite does not fly with me. Warning on an overly dramatic metaphor...what if I got shot, but the bullet missed all major organs/arteries, is it not an issue?

Wagering integrity dodged a bullet when Wise Dan won - but it's no way to conduct business, ducking the deadly shots while enduring minor "no big deal, no one really got hurt" blows.

A greater conversation should be had regarding consolation payouts in p4/5/6. As all the winners in the p4 and p5 were fairly short, no one will see this as much of a problem, but it is a problem that will rear its ugly head at some point in the future. With so many variables in play, wagering confidence is essential, and if you don't have confidence, it will eventually result in declining play, especially from more sophisticated players who dig into the exotic pools with fervor.

i had pick 4's with poe and also marketing mix who both scratched....i thought for sure i would get a refund of part of the wager at otb but sure enough i didn't and am guessing my .50 pick 4 turned into a 1.00 with the post time favorite in the wise dan race and marketing mix race...honestly though i have no clue how the hell the rules play out in these instances and it is EXTREMELY confusing when you get a refund, when you get the pt favorite, when you get a consolation etc etc...maybe i'm just retarded but i have been in the game for almost 10 years now and i simply check the tickets in the machine win or lose...no clue sometimes what to expect

JV did not ride Hungry Island.

Thanks - amended...

I will agree with you that having different rules on horizontals is probably not optimal, but that said, you should only be angry at yourself for not knowing the rules, especially since you put your own money on the line. There was no hit to wagering integrity. Integrity is doing exactly what you say you will, which is the case here. You may not like the rule, which is fine, but don't get all moralistic after the fact when you didn't know what the rule was. That one is on you alone.

He never said he didn't know the rules. Please read carefully.
He was just expressing his view.

Ok, but he did say he was in a huff after they were applied correctly. Does this make it different? I didn't know the rules is at least an honest if foolish answer. I knew the rules but don't agree they should be applied is something else entirely. I happen to agree with him that the rules should be uniform. However, this is not the appropriate way to set this argument, but sounds rather like sour grapes. It affected me, so now I'll be angry? And why should one way be preferred to another? Maybe all bets should consolations for late scratches for example. This is not, as he indicated, an integrity issue.

How is it sour grapes when he profited either way? You seem to take offense to it for some odd reason. I suggest you start betting instead of preaching and pointing your fingers as a snob to others who actually do

Seriously?

Guess he doesn't like the rule either....or more like doesn't know them either. Ever notice how people constantly complain something isn't fair based alone on the fact it doesn't go the way they wanted it too? Frankly after Saturday I kind of wish I didn't bet so much. I'll get over it I'm sure. As for him, well.....

You couldn't have misinterpreted my post any more. I completely benefitted by getting the post time favorite after POE scratched...

If for some reason Wise Dan didn't win, there would be massive blather about this. It's worth at least discussing the conso. v. post time fave.

The problem is there is never going to be a "fair" thing to do. Some people will prefer a conso and some will prefer the post time favorite. Either way one group will not be happy with how it is handled.

The fairest thing to do would be to allow people to select a replacement horse in the place of the scratched horse. But that is a logistic nightmare and would create chaos.

Personally my opinion on this is situational based on how it will benefit me the most. If the scratch leaves me with the favorite that I like, I think the rule is fine. If I get the favorite I don't like, I would prefer the conso.

Unfortunately I suspect most think this way, which puts us back where we started. One group is going to be upset.

How about a deadline for trainers to scratch their horse? Based on what I read from the original posters post....the delayed scratch by the trainer is what caused this a discussion.

There is never a right answer to this stuff. It is sort of annoying they scratched so late in the day. Rain was the topic of conversation for the entire week.

I've always thought that giving each ticket the "next lowest uncovered horse" was an interesting idea.

Although I rarely play the pick 6, I think having a conso is a bad idea. People play the pick 6 to make a "life changing score", not to make back their investment plus a couple hundred bucks. Denying them the right to the top payout doesnt seem fair and I would think most pick 6 players would be against it. If you don't want to default to the favorite, make alternate selections before the start of the pick 6 an option, I don't know if any jurisdictions still do that after the Volponi Breeders Cup fiasco.

you'd still have late scratches with gate issues and the like.

yes, shug waited as long as possible to declare, which tells me he was hoping to run, but the weather didn't cooperate.
this is one of the reasons why it's called gambling, not winning. plenty of factors come into play.

seriously? what a mess that would turn into. and better a conso/live ticket then just a cancellation of the entire bet.
it's part of playing the pick 6 ticket, things happen.

I think you guys are seriously underestimating the blow back had Wise Dan not won.

It is, but what do you mean by "next lowest uncovered". If you mean from win pool odds, now you are asking for trouble because one pool is influencing another, which is specifically forbidden in the rules that I have seen. Pools must be completely seperate. If you mean within the framework of the leg of the horizontal, then that would solve problem #1, but due to pool inefficiency, I would then have no idea who I had for sure. Idea is good in theory, but execution is going to be a problem.

First, because it was a stakes race, the scratch was completely within the rules. Second, all most likely senarios that happen by making that horse run are bad. If the trainer knows the horse, and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume he does, the horse would have had a boatload of money bet on him and he would have run badly. His backers are screwed and the participants in the race are endangered. Finally, this is no different at its most fundemental level than if the horse flipped in the paddock and killed himself. Going to try to make rules so he has to run then?

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, nobody (at least not me) is talking about ticket cancellation at all. Here in CA at the otb if you fill out a bet card for a pick 4/5/6/etc there is one field of numbers for your main selections in a race, and then right below it there is a separate field for alternate selections. If one of your main choices was scratched and you chose an alternate for that race, it would become the replacement pick. If no alternate was chosen, you would receive the post-time favorite.

I know it was done that way for years and only turned into a mess because of one unscrupulous employee at autotote. But I think the current method of defaulting to the favorite is fine and in my opinion is better than depriving people the chance at a big score by reducing their ticket to a conso.

And they would have been wrong.

Let's discuss this without being in a huff or citing issues of morality. The following is, I believe, a complete list of what happens on bets in the US if a horse scratches and the type of bet it is attached to. I'll go by NY rules as I am most familiar with them, but they seem pretty standard.

1. You lose (futures wager)
2. Refund (WPS, verticles, first leg of most horizontals)
3. Consolation (P3 and DD after first leg)
4. Post time favorite (P4, P6....NY doesn't have a P5 but likely would be the same)

So we already have 4 different possible outcomes in the different pools from the same scratch.

Now, the next part of the argument would be to determine why each of these were done differently. That I do not know, but after reading the rules on how a conso is determined in a P3, I have to believe that it is due to the complexity of the calculations. Consos on P3s have 3 different ways to be calculated depending on if the scratch was in the second, third or both second and third legs. Try reading them sometime, just this simple case will make your head spin. This increases at a geometric rate for each additional leg, so a P4 would have 7 ways, 15 (I think) with a P5 and so on. Could we argue that computation is much easier today and these things could be done? Perhaps, but that depends how these calculations are being done in the totalizer and what part of the program itself is governing these things. Believe it or not, even brand new software packages have underlying root code written in something like COBOL that pretty much no one in the industry even knows anymore. This makes fixing such issues extremely expensive and impractical. Some day the whole thing should be overhauled, but even a great overhaul will come with glitches initially,so it's quite understandable why well enough would be left alone. Also given the fact that pretty much everyone does these things the same way leads me to believe that there must have been a rationale for it. Deride this comment if you wish, but one would assume if there were a real benefit to doing it a different way, someone would. Maybe HK has found that way with the single pool thing.

The next part of the argument would involve some sort of equity argument, but as Travis already rightly pointed out, you can always come up with a case where you would have been better off (or at least think you would have been) if a different rule had applied, even the you lose senario. In the end, as long as the rule is clearly stated and covers all foreseeable circumstance, then the bettor must abide by those rules if a bet was placed. Sorry I didn't know does just as well as if you get caught making an illegal turn.

Perhaps the alternate selection scenario would be of benefit. That however would come with a load of caveats: how many alternates, what happens if 2 horses or more scratch, what happens when there is a scratch if all are already covered, just to name a few. It could be beneficial but it will also be very messy. And again implementation might be difficult for the above reason.

No, I agree with you. I was REALLY mad when the scratch came down despite using both in nearly the same amount. However, with the scratch, I had twice as much invested in Wise Dan as I originally intended and on top of that had the unenviable position of having to root AGAINST my own pick because of the payoff which would have occurred if he had lost (I think at least).

We had $5 on a Wise Dan-Orb/Overanalyze ticket, $4 on a PoE-Orb/Overanalyze ticket, and between $1-$5 to other horses. If either of those two loses we have $1 to Orb and a couple others and $.50 to a bunch of others. At that point there was probably 95% of the pick 4,5,and 6 pools going through Wise Dan so it would have actually benefitted to lose. That isn't what I intended to bet and I'm sure others were in the same situation.

Shug is a great horseman, among the greatest of all time. Obviously I am very happy he won the big one. But he did everyone a huge disservice this time around- it's not the 9th on a Thursday at Belmont, it's the highest handle day of the entire year and if you're questionable to run, scratch early.

I don't think he has any business considering anyone but his horse and owner. In fact, I think what he did demonstrated a great amount of integrity. He wanted to run the horse. He waited to the last legal minute to try to do that. When it was clear that he could not run the horse in good conscience, he scratched. I know many players don't want to hear this, but trainers should never concern themselves with what is going on in the betting pools when making decisions. Had he run even though he didn't think it was a good idea or scratched earlier, just so players wouldn't be inconvenienced, I believe he would have done the worst thing possible. Wanting trainers and owners to make decisions based on what betting pools look like is asking for big trouble no matter what the size of the pool or race. If you know Latin, my sig line says all you need to know on the subject.

It's A Bet!
 

There is no argument here,The bet and the payoffs are clearly defined before the bet is made!
If you don't like the rules of the pick 4,5,or 6 then don't play or parlay your bets for what would be surprisingly close payoff to the exotic price anyway(not exactly but close enough to quell any arguments either way!
ONE MORE THING WISE DAN WAS NEVER GOING TO LOSE!:eek:

i think shug waited as long as he did because he was hoping the weather would clear. and of course he has no control over the weather. i think he wanted to run the horse. if he was ducking, he would have declared first thing.

So much for a greater discussion. Too bad as I was interested to see what people think. The lack of response seems telling.

I don't think the blame, if any, should be directed towards the trainer. He was well within the rules to scratch when he pleased. He has no obligation to the bettor.

The track, however, should have placed a deadline before the start of the exotics for trainers to scratch their horses. Any scratch after that deadline would only be a vet scratch.

It would have been the same situation if Point of Entry was scratched after injuring himself in the gate.

If we know the rules we have to be accordingly.

The frustrating thing for me is the rules are different in every jurisdiction.

Speaking of multi-race wager rules, got hammered by something I had never seen before yesterday at Arlington Park.

Was singled to the favorite in the last race, final leg of pick 5. Will pay was $440.

They get to the gate, and the jock loses control of the 9 horse, who runs off and is a late scratch. Now I understand the rules, and I know the $ switches from the 9 to the favorite, my horse. He wins and the pick 5 comes back $300:(

Again, I get why it happened and how, but this seems terribly unfair to me and anyone who had the favorite on the ticket, while of course it's quite fortuitous for anyone who used the 9 horse.

Gate scratches in the final leg of a pick 4 or 5 sequence can be very costly.

:tro: for inovative redboard. :D I agree, it seems like you are seldom helped by these type of situations. The horses that gate scratch almost always seem the most hopeless.

Even though I thought he was hopeless, he was actually 6-1 at time of scratch, and by the extreme drop in payout, it's obvious the number was on many tickets.

I'm sure this happens more frequently than most realize, it's only because it was the final leg after will pays were posted, and that it happened to ME, that led me to take notice.

A 30% + hit is pretty noticeable.

I took a hit on the P4 too (no redboard, I posted it) but I forget how much, any chance you saw that too?

I did not see that, but it's a good bet it was similarly substantial.

They call them probable will pays for a reason. ( You're probably going to get screwed. ) One of the risks of playing horizontal.

The standard is a fixed time for regular races and one hour before stakes races. Such a rule is not unreasonable, but likely was created before all the superexotics came into play. A review of such rules is not unreasonable.

Not sure how it is costly, or how the final leg affects the sequence any more than any other leg. You are making the mistake known as the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. The event in which your horse won was not one in which the 9 horse ran. How can you say you lost out with any certainty? You have no idea what would have happened if the 9 ran. You could have lost completely and got nothing. It actually could have been beneficial to you that he was scratched. You do once again prove my supposition that people feel rules are unfair only when they are adversely effected. I'm sure everyone who had the 9 thought it was quite fair as well.