Del Mar "Guaranteed Pick 4"

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by jms62

Is it written anywhere that the Guarantee is based upon full fields? And what defines a "full field" ? What about the player that put in his ticket before the card started and then took the family out to dinner? They should have cancelled the card.

I doubt it's written anywhere but it should be. It's not so much about what defines a full field it's about the expectation going into the days card that the races would be run on the scheduled surface and in two of the races the fields were cut in half. It's not like they waited until 10 minutes to post time to withdraw the guarantee. It was an abberation that occured.

My issue isn't that they withdrew the guarantee but that the guarantee itself is somewhat deceptive to unknowledgeable players who may believe added money will increase the payout. Takeout reduction increases the payout not these phony guarantees.

The guy who took his family to dinner would have a legitimate complaint if he wagered prior to the scratches, cashed the p-4 and the pool only reached 500 k.Using yesterday's results and assuming for a moment there was only 500k wagered he would be entitled to the difference between the actual payoff and ($76,000/number of winning tickets), in this case roughly $39 above the actual payoff of $259. A 10% reduction in takeout would have increased the payoff by $34.

[jnunan4759]

I think it was a PR snafu and ended up with DM looking anti-player. The ended up going over the guarantee anyway, even with the scratches.

These are merely designed to attract interest in the pool and I've never seen a pool not exceed it's guarantee. It just doesn't happen because they have them down to a science.

What happened yesterday was the track got the "willies" and bailed right out to avoid even the possibility they might have to supplement the pool.

Wouldn't be surprised to see all these include fine print going forward. It's a thinly-veiled con. If I like the Pick 4, I play it. If it's a big day, it will have a big pool. I'm never going to get any track money in them.

[NTamm1215]

If NYRA cancelled a guaranteed wager after rain at Saratoga, the noise from the ferocious clicking of keyboards by enraged racing journalists would be heard in NYC.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

If NYRA cancelled a guaranteed wager after rain at Saratoga, the noise from the ferocious clicking of keyboards by enraged racing journalists would be heard in NYC.

Exactly

[Danzig]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spor...317084471.html

We've all seen tracks have to cancel due to rain, heat, snow, hurricanes, etc. Bad weather is exceedingly rare at Del mar. They had no way of knowing how it would turn out when they pulled the bet. It was unknown ground for them.

[pointman]

It is comical when people completely ignore questions to which the answers logically undermine their arguments and continue to try to push a nonsensical position instead of just admitting that logically they are wrong.

Lack of full fields allows them to pull the guarantee? jms has completely shot that argument. Further, go to their website and try to find where it says that. What other grounds do they have to pull it? Is there an asterisk next to the word guarantee anywhere? Is it a guarantee when they have conditions where they can pull it?

I am amazed that people are not only willing to be slapped in the face by the track, they are willing to take it and then support the track for doing it.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by jms62

Is it written anywhere that the Guarantee is based upon full fields? And what defines a "full field" ? What about the player that put in his ticket before the card started and then took the family out to dinner? They should have cancelled the card.

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

If NYRA cancelled a guaranteed wager after rain at Saratoga, the noise from the ferocious clicking of keyboards by enraged racing journalists would be heard in NYC.

Exactly.

I can recall a number of times where NYRA has not met the minimum and filled the pool with the guarantee. You are no doubt correct Nick.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spor...317084471.html

We've all seen tracks have to cancel due to rain, heat, snow, hurricanes, etc. Bad weather is exceedingly rare at Del mar. They had no way of knowing how it would turn out when they pulled the bet. It was unknown ground for them.

So what?

You continue to ignore the fact that it was not so bad that they didn't just run the entire card, they kept the 4th race on the turf, which, by the way, was run in a legitimate time that suggested the exceedingly rare weather on the turf course didn't really slow the horses at all. Not to mention they turf course is firm today.

[saratogadew]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spor...317084471.html

We've all seen tracks have to cancel due to rain, heat, snow, hurricanes, etc. Bad weather is exceedingly rare at Del mar. They had no way of knowing how it would turn out when they pulled the bet. It was unknown ground for them.

But they didn't "pull the bet". They kept the bet. They pulled their "guarantee" on the bet. If they would have pulled (cancelled) the bet. No problem. But keeping the bet and pulling their guarantee on the bet, that's an issue. I'm with Pointman on this.

[philcski]

I am with Pointman as well. You can't advertise something as a "guarantee", get worried it's not going to reach said number, then pull it. I don't care what the external forces were, poor decision on their part.

And I played the sequence yesterday and I'm going to Del Mar today so it's not that I'm anti-DMR.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by saratogadew

But they didn't "pull the bet". They kept the bet. They pulled their "guarantee" on the bet. If they would have pulled (cancelled) the bet. No problem. But keeping the bet and pulling their guarantee on the bet, that's an issue. I'm with Pointman on this.

I neither agree nor disagree with what they did. Just explaining why they did. They faced something that they didn't foresee, and acted how they thought best. In having dealt with something new, they'll know in future they can still reach the guaranteed amount. And since they still got over 600k, I don't know why it matters.
I figure they'll make sure to have language in place in case it ever happens again