Need Another Reason to Hate "Single Ticket" Jackpot Bets?

[ScottJ]

See this story : https://www.paulickreport.com/horsep...ackpot-winner/

Imagine having the only winning ticket, having a deadheat in one of the legs, having both in the deadheat covered, and not winning the single ticket jackpot because there were "two winning tickets".

I am still trying to decide if this counts as a bad beat, but I am sure that these parasitic pools are the worst thing to hit parimutuel racing since _____. (You're choice here.)

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

See this story : https://www.paulickreport.com/horsep...ackpot-winner/

Imagine having the only winning ticket, having a deadheat in one of the legs, having both in the deadheat covered, and not winning the single ticket jackpot because there were "two winning tickets".

I am still trying to decide if this counts as a bad beat, but I am sure that these parasitic pools are the worst thing to hit parimutuel racing since _____. (You're choice here.)

I think that counts as a bad beat, and then some. I bet Remington will cave and pay the guy.

[hi_im_god]

I must love being hated but I think the big, bad, awful, track got it right.

We like to think of our big multi-race bets as a single ticket. But they aren't. A $403.20 pick 6 on a .20 base is 2016 individual bets. Because of the dead heat, 2 of those 2016 individual bets hit.

It's awful for the player. But the fact is, he hit 2 of his 2016 tickets.

Unless the track wants to start paying out single ticket winner pools to multiple players, they can't pay the major award to a single player that holds multiple winning tickets.

[blackthroatedwind]

It would be interesting if their multi-race rules also have them splitting payoffs evenly when there is a dead heat and the jackpot isn't involved.

[herkhorse]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

I must love being hated but I think the big, bad, awful, track got it right.

We like to think of our big multi-race bets as a single ticket. But they aren't. A $403.20 pick 6 on a .20 base is 2016 individual bets. Because of the dead heat, 2 of those 2016 individual bets hit.

It's awful for the player. But the fact is, he hit 2 of his 2016 tickets.

Unless the track wants to start paying out single ticket winner pools to multiple players, they can't pay the major award to a single player that holds multiple winning tickets.

I'd have to agree. The degenerate in me has fantasized about being live to all in a jackpot sequence. My next thought is always "there would probably be a dead heat."
Probably one of the toughest beats ever, but he had two winning tickets.

[jms62]

Single winning ticket... He had the only one. If he had 1500 Combos and they printed him 1500 tickets then he wouldn’t have a single winning ticket. If this went to court and I was on the jury I’d find in his favor unless of course they documented that 1500 combos on 1 ticket is 1500 tickets. I don’t think they did and as such they should be held to the literal interpretation. Single winning ticket.

[ScottJ]

One of this guy's actual selections was scratched in that dead heat leg and that piece of the ticket was moved to the post time favorite who was involved in the dead heat.

(This now qualifies as a double-bad-beat and I didn't even know that was such a thing.)

[herkhorse]

Bring back the 2.00 pick 6, these jackpot bets are no bueno

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It would be interesting if their multi-race rules also have them splitting payoffs evenly when there is a dead heat and the jackpot isn't involved.

It took about 30 minutes of reading of the Remington Park posted parimutuel rules from their web site at the following link. (Amazing what you will do during quarantining while watching harness racing from Umaker.)

https://www.remingtonpark.com/wp-con...-Sept-2019.pdf

Section 325:65-9-7 talks about Pick(n) Pools. Based on the fact that there are separate sections for Double and Win-3 pools, it is safe to say these rules apply for n >=4.

In subsection (c) of 325:65-9-7, there is the following text.

(c) If there is a dead heat for first in any of the Pick (n) contests involving:
(1) contestants representing the same betting interest, the Pick (n) pool shall be distributed as if no dead heat occurred.
(2) contestants representing two or more betting interests, the Pick (n) pool shall be distributed as a single price pool with each winning wager receiving an equal share of the profit.

Specifically, these rules stand proud of sections (b)(6), (7) and (8) talking about the jackpot rules.

So, each wager is treated to an equal share.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by jms62

Single winning ticket... He had the only one. If he had 1500 Combos and they printed him 1500 tickets then he wouldn’t have a single winning ticket. If this went to court and I was on the jury I’d find in his favor unless of course they documented that 1500 combos on 1 ticket is 1500 tickets. I don’t think they did and as such they should be held to the literal interpretation. Single winning ticket.

Very interesting point talking about single winning ticket versus single winning combination because the Remington rules use neither term and instead talk about "Unique Wager" where the term is left undefined.

Is a wager a combination or a ticket? Over to the lawyers.

[herkhorse]

So if a longshot and a favorite dead heat, the payouts are the same. I Never could understand that rule, especially in a pick 3.

[hi_im_god]

If I held one of these combinations and someone else here had the other, would be having this debate? The fact that it exists on a single players ticket doesn’t change the logic

X/X/X/5/X/X and X/X/X/7/X/X both won. Each ticket got 1/2 the minor award because there isn’t a single winning combination.

You can’t have separate rules for when this circumstance occurs on a single bettor’s winning combination or on two tickets held by two bettors.

The ONLY way you can argue that he should get the major award is if you also agree that you and I should split the major award if we each held one of the two winning combinations.

[NoLuvForPletch]

It’s not in a Pick 3. It is is a Pick 4/5/6 from what I recall. I only know this because I had the Pick 4 the year Golden Ticket and Alpha Dead Heated in the Travers. I had Golden Ticket at like 30-1 and when the payouts were posted I went nuts. After reading the rules of NYRA, I drank a lot of beer and moved on.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by herkhorse

So if a longshot and a favorite dead heat, the payouts are the same. I Never could understand that rule, especially in a pick 3.

In Hong Kong, the doubles/P3 pay a consolation to the second placed horse in the last leg. For example, if you have the winner of the first leg and second in the second leg (double), or the winners of the first two legs and the second in the third leg (P3), you get a consolation payout. I have seen this consolation payout pay even more than getting both / all three winners, especially when it's a bomb that runs second.

[moses]

My thoughts:

1. The track got it right.
2. People should see this and stop betting on this crap.
3. People will see this and will not stop betting on this crap.

[ScottJ]

This was the update from last weekend for those who had not seen the latest in this story.

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...its-sooner-6ix

Key points :

[1] The wager has been suspended.

[2] A claim has been made legally against Remington due to the unclear rules associated with the "unique wager" concept.

[ScottJ]

I have been trying to understand the impact of these Jackpot wagers on the racetracks and parimutuel handles and, not surprisingly it is somewhat difficult to model. Apologies for the length of this note.

Consider yesterday's Fonner Park Jackpot Pick-5 pool. A total of $2,300,000 was wagered chasing a carryover pool of $355,000 on a mandatory payout. A quick back of the napkin calculation shows that with a 15% takeout, wagering on this mandatory payout day negated any effect of the takeout which is a good thing for the bettor.

But what about the $355,000 that was locked up in increasing amounts for two weeks and not churning? The University of Arizona estimates that every dollar brought to the track will turnover between 3 and 4 times during the course of a wagering day.

(Source : https://cals.arizona.edu/classes/ans...Module-02.html)

Let's assume that this is also true off-track (which it might not be) and assume the lower churn of 3x. If the jackpot increased smoothly to make the argument easier, we would be increasing about $60,000 per day on the six days of racing that built this Fonner Park pool.

This would mean that the missed churn would be as follows :

($60,000 x 6 days x 3 multiplier) +
($60,000 x 5 days x 3 multiplier) +
($60,000 x 4 days x 3 multiplier) +
($60,000 x 3 days x 3 multiplier) +
($60,000 x 2 days x 3 multiplier) +
($60,000 x 1 days x 3 multiplier) = $3,780,000 total churn missed

So, on the surface, it would seem that the value of the churn is worth more than the actual handle chasing the Jackpot day. If we get slightly more complex by saying there are more dollars taken out of circulation to the end of the jackpot chase period, we might get the following.

($20,000 x 6 days x 3 multiplier) +
($20,000 x 5 days x 3 multiplier) +
($50,000 x 4 days x 3 multiplier) +
($60,000 x 3 days x 3 multiplier) +
($70,000 x 2 days x 3 multiplier) +
($80,000 x 1 days x 3 multiplier) = $2,460,000 total churn missed

In essence, it would seem that the track is likely to be relatively neutral to negative on this wager over the long term along however the impacts to the bettor are highly varied as expected. Again, all of this argument depends on the churn factor.

[herkhorse]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

It’s not in a Pick 3. It is is a Pick 4/5/6 from what I recall. I only know this because I had the Pick 4 the year Golden Ticket and Alpha Dead Heated in the Travers. I had Golden Ticket at like 30-1 and when the payouts were posted I went nuts. After reading the rules of NYRA, I drank a lot of beer and moved on.

Pick 3's paid the same in yesterdays dead heat at Fonner.

[NTamm1215]

I'm really surprised anyone thinks the track did the right thing in this situation. So a guy makes ONE ticket which contains every winner, including in a race where there was a dead heat, and he should not receive the jackpot because there are technically two winners of one leg? That just doesn't work in my opinion.

There need to be provisions in these bets where you still get the jackpot in this scenario, as well as when you have a scratch that forces you into the favorite who you already had, thus giving you two winners in a leg. Obviously those rules only apply when there are no other winning tickets amongst the bettors in the pool, just as was the case here.

It seems pretty clear to me Remington is willing to do whatever necessary to keep their pool growing, knowing there's a chance during a time where competition is minimal (or non-existent some evenings) that they can see a nice handle boost on payout night.

[herkhorse]

If there were no jackpot involved, the guy would be bragging that he hit it twice.