Not the first time this has happened at Louisiana Downs

I'll be shocked if they pay him.

[Travis Stone]

The LSRC rules state that we were not required to pay him, but we did. He was paid this afternoon. The story unfairly portrays the situation, but in the end, it was made right.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The LSRC rules state that we were not required to pay him, but we did. He was paid this afternoon. The story unfairly portrays the situation, but in the end, it was made right.

If the rules do not require you to pay him, then that's wrong. It is basically impossible for player's to know all the rules governing wagering. I wonder how many rules like this are in effect unknown to horseplayers around the country.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by golfer

If the rules do not require you to pay him, then that's wrong. It is basically impossible for player's to know all the rules governing wagering. I wonder how many rules like this are in effect unknown to horseplayers around the country.

That particular La rule was enacted after LaD didn't pay a huge winning pick 6ticket when the bet wasn't transmitted to the Hollywood Park pools.

[golfer]

If the "right" thing to do is to pay the guy, then why does the rule say they don't have to? Is it unreasonable for a bettor to asssume when he walks away from a window or betting machine with a written record of a wager, that he has placed a bet? I sure hope not.

[jpops757]

Originally Posted by golfer

If the "right" thing to do is to pay the guy, then why does the rule say they don't have to? Is it unreasonable for a bettor to asssume when he walks away from a window or betting machine with a written record of a wager, that he has placed a bet? I sure hope not.

What amazes me is all the legislation to protect the "HOUSE", but the lowlybettor is left out in the cold. It seems only fair if the "HOUSE" accepts a bet and the patron has proof of the acceptance, someone should be responsible for paying the winners. Im sure the "HOUSE" keeps the proceds of the losing tickets. If the current gambling establishments arent willing to accept these terms, Im sure others will line up to make application. How Travis can feel that Harrahs did the right thing only reflects that he works for them. The only thing that harrahs need to do was to verify the ticket wasnt a forgery. Harrahs only paid after the bad pub and not because the wanted to do the right thing. They probably took in more money for the affected races than the paid on the one ticket they ended up paying . They still probably made a profit on the affected races.

[Travis Stone]

Announcements are made, refunds are rewarded.

Bets not getting into host track pools is actually more common than most of us think.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by jpops757

What amazes me is all the legislation to protect the "HOUSE", but the lowlybettor is left out in the cold. It seems only fair if the "HOUSE" accepts a bet and the patron has proof of the acceptance, someone should be responsible for paying the winners. Im sure the "HOUSE" keeps the proceds of the losing tickets. If the current gambling establishments arent willing to accept these terms, Im sure others will line up to make application. How Travis can feel that Harrahs did the right thing only reflects that he works for them. The only thing that harrahs need to do was to verify the ticket wasnt a forgery. Harrahs only paid after the bad pub and not because the wanted to do the right thing. They probably took in more money for the affected races than the paid on the one ticket they ended up paying . They still probably made a profit on the affected races.

It says plain as day in the article that the Lousiana Downs VP found out about it on Wednesday and then the guy got paid on Thursday, that is pretty quick. There has to be some sort of due-diligence in the situation and this seems more like an overzealous reporter looking to stir the pot in a locale with very little news. Whether LaD paid him the next day or the next week, the fact of the matter is they paid him and they cannot concern themselves with any other effected patrons until they come forward.

NT

[jpops757]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The LSRC rules state that we were not required to pay him, but we did. He was paid this afternoon. The story unfairly portrays the situation, but in the end, it was made right.

If they didnt refund all the bets made during the outage, they didnt make it right.