Quote:
Originally Posted by PatCummings
I think you guys are seriously underestimating the blow back had Wise Dan not won.
|
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.