Anyone play 27 horse Pick 6 at Belmont today?

[Calzone Lord]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

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]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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]

Originally Posted by philcski

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]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

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]

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

[robfla]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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

from the article:

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.

[Indian Charlie]

I wonder what the real payout should have been.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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

Between the actual rule itself - and the mutual dept screw-up .... it's like a three stooges bit.