pk4 payout to the Travers

[ranger5830]

The payoff on Golden Ticket dropped from $7,485 for $1 to $495, or over 93%. The payoff on Alpha dropped from $530 to $495, or just over 6%. How anyone can say this is remotely fair or acceptable is beyond me.

[OTM Al]

It's completely "fair" and "acceptable" because it's in the rules

4011.26 (h) Dead heats. In the event of a dead heat for win in any or all pick four races, all pick four tickets designating either horse to win in said race or races shall be eligible for participation in the remaining pick four races, and the net pool shall be equally distributed to the winners, that is, the net pool will be divided by the total amount represented by all winning tickets and the resulting price, per dollar, and after breakage, shall be the payoff price, which shall be uniform for any winning combination.

If you don't know the rules of a bet and you still play it, it's your fault when something like this happens.

Originally Posted by OTM Al

It's completely "fair" and "acceptable" because it's in the rules

4011.26 (h) Dead heats. In the event of a dead heat for win in any or all pick four races, all pick four tickets designating either horse to win in said race or races shall be eligible for participation in the remaining pick four races, and the net pool shall be equally distributed to the winners, that is, the net pool will be divided by the total amount represented by all winning tickets and the resulting price, per dollar, and after breakage, shall be the payoff price, which shall be uniform for any winning combination.

If you don't know the rules of a bet and you still play it, it's your fault when something like this happens.

How is it the bettors fault when a dead heat happens?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

How is it the bettors fault when a dead heat happens?

It's the bettor's fault for playing the bet and not knowing the rules.

Originally Posted by OTM Al

It's the bettor's fault for playing the bet and not knowing the rules.

Fault is the wrong choice of words. No one is questioning the rules here.
Looks like you have the case of schadenfreude.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

Fault is the wrong choice of words. No one is questioning the rules here.
Looks like you have the case of schadenfreude.

Fault is the exact word I mean. And how is it misfortune? If Alpha sticks his nose in front, those backing Goldem Ticket get nothing. If it goes the other way a few people hit it big, but a lot more get nothing. In this outcome, more people won something.

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Fault is the exact word I mean. And how is it misfortune? If Alpha sticks his nose in front, those backing Goldem Ticket get nothing. If it goes the other way a few people hit it big, but a lot more get nothing. In this outcome, more people won something.

In the case of the poster, what should he have done if had taken into consideration a dead heat possibility . What kind of a pick 4 ticket should he have placed to ensure a higher payout. Please advise.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Fault is the exact word I mean. And how is it misfortune? If Alpha sticks his nose in front, those backing Goldem Ticket get nothing. If it goes the other way a few people hit it big, but a lot more get nothing. In this outcome, more people won something.

I do get it, that is the "rule" and I am not claiming "foul play". I am simply asking the question, why do they pay the win pool, double pool and pick 3 pool out with different amounts to each horse, based on how many people held winning tickets to their "half" of the pool, but the pick 4 gets paid out evenly? I would just like to know the reasoning behind the rule. I wouldn't expect to get my 7500 or so dollars, but as someone earlier pointed out, the dead heat cost me 7000, and those holding a ticket to alpha barely more than you tip the guy in the bathroom after a days worth of good drinking.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

How is it the bettors fault when a dead heat happens?

I think the point was that they know it's a possibility and should bet accordingly. The rule is clear and everybody should know it going in. It's not an obscure scenario to have a dead heat, is it? Does it suck that someone's payout was affected? Sure. I'd feel hosed. Looking over the rule, though, it seems pretty logical. Not really sure how to make it any "fairer." Many people seem to think fair is whatever result nets them more money as opposed to what makes more sense.

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

I think the point was that they know it's a possibility and should bet accordingly. The rule is clear and everybody should know it going in. It's not an obscure scenario to have a dead heat, is it? Does it suck that someone's payout was affected? Sure. I'd feel hosed. Looking over the rule, though, it seems pretty logical. Not really sure how to make it any "fairer." Many people seem to think fair is whatever result nets them more money as opposed to what makes more sense.

I take it you dont bet often or at all

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

I think the point was that they know it's a possibility and should bet accordingly. The rule is clear and everybody should know it going in. It's not an obscure scenario to have a dead heat, is it? Does it suck that someone's payout was affected? Sure. I'd feel hosed. Looking over the rule, though, it seems pretty logical. Not really sure how to make it any "fairer." Many people seem to think fair is whatever result nets them more money as opposed to what makes more sense.

Fair to most people in this world seems to occur only when they get treated better than the next guy. It ticks me off when people think they were mistreated when they didn't even bother to know the rules of the game. Can't wait for someone to write somewhere how this is NYRA's fault and blah blah blah the biggest travesty since they created the AIDS....

[ranger5830]

Just to clarify, I didn't have a pick 4 bet so it didn't cost me anything one way or the other.

I certainly don't doubt that the rule is as stated above, my point is it's a terrible rule and needs to be changed. The people who had the 3 in the last leg had half the winners but got less than 7% of the pool, that is patently unfair. The rule IMO should be in a dead heat the pool is split evenly, which in this instance would have led to approximate payouts of 3700 on the 3 and about 265 on Alpha.

They changed the off-the-turf pick 6 rule at gulfstream, why can't they change this one too?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by ranger5830

They changed the off-the-turf pick 6 rule at gulfstream, why can't they change this one too?

They probably will now. It happened in a spot where enough people will complain about it -- and I can't really think of a position anyone can argue or make to say that it is a fair or competent rule.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

They probably will now. It happened in a spot where enough people will complain about it -- and I can't really think of a position anyone can argue or make to say that it is a fair or competent rule.

The argument would be that the pool is split amongst all winning tickets, just as would happen had only one horse won. One could argue that the rules on the win, double, etc. are the wrong way to do it and inconsistant with standard payoff rules and they should be changed.

Pretty much everything else suggested is based on subjective ideas of "fairness", whatever that is supposed to mean. Fair to me means unbiased, that the rules were followed exactly and not interpreted, which is what happened here. What is more "fair", reducing the payoff of the majority of winners by a lower percentage or rewarding the few who had the longshot by reducing the payoff by a lower percentage? The answer to that question is completely subjective, but I'd dare say if you took a vote amongst the winning ticket holders, the current rule would stand. This wouldn't be the case with the P6 rule you mentioned.

What is also a fact is people will complain when an oddity like this happens regardless of the rules.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ranger5830

They changed the off-the-turf pick 6 rule at gulfstream, why can't they change this one too?

Gee, I wonder how that happened.

[dylbert]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

It's completely "fair" and "acceptable" because it's in the rules

4011.26 (h) Dead heats. In the event of a dead heat for win in any or all pick four races, all pick four tickets designating either horse to win in said race or races shall be eligible for participation in the remaining pick four races, and the net pool shall be equally distributed to the winners, that is, the net pool will be divided by the total amount represented by all winning tickets and the resulting price, per dollar, and after breakage, shall be the payoff price, which shall be uniform for any winning combination.

If you don't know the rules of a bet and you still play it, it's your fault when something like this happens.

Thanks for being voice of reason... I will gladly trade my tickets that had Nonios and Street Life.

If one does not like terms and conditions under which one chooses to wager, simply do not make wager. Personally, dead heat impacts a successful wager for me about every 5 to 7 years.