Beyer: The worst bad-beat story of all time

[randallscott35]

Of course if they had info on a post time fave move for that other ticket they could have bet the 2nd choice into favoritism to make sure they had a single ticket...horse still needed to win of course. And did.

[tanner12oz]

I hit it on Friday for 850.. Didn't see the probables..thank god..probably would have had a heart attack for no reason

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Cardus

"I don’t believe that anybody would have bought a ticket at 8 in the morning and singled the 5 horse," Appell said.

So who is he indicting?

Does he think that there was a fraudulent ticket -- meaning that there was fraud committed at Arlington Park -- or does he believe that Louisiana Downs committed fraud of some kind? Or the tote company?

Since Louisiana Downs posted the incorrect Will Pay, I understand their anger -- and who wouldn't be livid? -- but I wish there was clarification on that point. From the column, it is not clear who Appell believes has cheated him.

Yes I read it as a "Volponi" like situation which I'm sure it was not...guy is pissed and emotional.

[Travis Stone]

The probable feed was actually never incorrect. It was based upon, at the time, the #11 being the favorite (which he was for a while in the early betting). For those who watch the races at Louisiana Downs, anytime an Al Stall ends-up the favorite is no surprise.

Obviously I would have never added the jackpot to my call nor would we have shown probables prior to the race if any of us had any idea this might have happened. The same set of probables were shown on every ADW out there because they all come from the same source.

I feel bad about it all, but nobody did anything wrong... it's just, like I've said, an awful set of circumstances.

[Aly-Sheba]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The probable feed was actually never incorrect. It was based upon, at the time, the #11 being the favorite (which he was for a while in the early betting). For those who watch the races at Louisiana Downs, anytime an Al Stall ends-up the favorite is no surprise.

Obviously I would have never added the jackpot to my call nor would we have shown probables prior to the race if any of us had any idea this might have happened. The same set of probables were shown on every ADW out there because they all come from the same source.

I feel bad about it all, but nobody did anything wrong... it's just, like I've said, an awful set of circumstances.

If a track offers a bet and does not know all scenarios, isn't that doing something wrong?

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

If a track offers a bet and does not know all scenarios, isn't that doing something wrong?

Wrong would have been an incorrect payout, which didn't happen here. We show the same probables for all multi-race bets day-in and day-out. Scratches happen, alter the probable and subsequently impact the payoff. In this case, it was a massive payoff that got knocked.

My first thought it was to find-out whether or not tote can support updating those probables every x-seconds, similar to have the probables for Ex/DD are shown, but that is really just a band-aid.

[blackthroatedwind]

If you look at Pick-4 willpays often and carefully, you will see situations where all scratched horses show a payoff equal to the favorite in the pool, yet sometimes this horse does not end up going off favored, and those willpays are thus "incorrect" and the payoff to the eventual post time payoff, should it win, will likely be lower as well. I had never thought of how this could affect one of these jackpot bets, and in this extreme example, we see another potentially problematic situation.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Your track posted a will pay for Tsavo winning the race that was incorrect, regardless of the reason.

Sure you did something wrong, Travis. How could you say otherwise?

It was correct data at the time of the posting and calculation of the probables. It's technically not a will pay... it's a probable. An additional scratch of any other horse live to the Jackpot between its initial cycle and race time would have had the same impact.

[Travis Stone]

Just one more note... this was all a nasty set of circumstances that I wish never would have happened. I know of partners who have six figures worth of reasons to agree and another who might not because he/she backed into a $12k payoff. That said, because it happened, we can now look to make adjustments going forward.

I do think there is a general public perception that those who run racing don't care. We see it all the time with the endless barrage of jabs toward NYRA and other racing entities. In reality, I have never met anyone who works at a racetrack that doesn't care about the sport or wants it to succeed, and the same applies here.

I promise you that everyone in my office, in our racing office and beyond would have rather seen the Jackpot get distributed versus having to deal with what happened. But like I said, hopefully we can figure out the right solution and get it implemented as soon as possible.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I do think there is a general public perception that those who run racing don't care. We see it all the time with the endless barrage of jabs toward NYRA and other racing entities. In reality, I have never met anyone who works at a racetrack that doesn't care about the sport or wants it to succeed, and the same applies here.

Are there criticisms of racing entities that are without foundation? Absolutely. However, there are critiques of racing operations, customer service, etc., that are completely valid and are never addressed. That they are never addressed can probably be attributed to one of two factors: indifference or incompetence. I'm not sure which is worse.

That said, in this case, I don't attribute the result to either: it's one of the unintended consequences of these relatively new jackpot-type wagers.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I'd like to believe what I highlighted above is true, but then there is this paragraph from the column:

"Kennedy phoned Louisiana Downs and was told that another ticket had been sold on the combination at Arlington Park, but he couldn’t get a clear explanation. "Everybody was blowing me off and telling me to grin and bear it," he said."

A quote like this -- I have no idea if it is accurate or not -- certainly adds to that perception.

He called my office before I even made it downstairs after the last race. I was on the phone with him within an hour, and at least three or four times after that. Same with our Dir. of Operations. I then followed-up the next day.

I do think he was sort of stuck in "switchboard" land at one point... sometimes they have a hard time figuring out where to send racing guests. But everyone here knows... I like to play the races too and so I totally understood what he was going through and promised him I would find the answer.

[3kings]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I'd like to believe what I highlighted above is true, but then there is this paragraph from the column:

"Kennedy phoned Louisiana Downs and was told that another ticket had been sold on the combination at Arlington Park, but he couldn’t get a clear explanation. "Everybody was blowing me off and telling me to grin and bear it," he said."

A quote like this -- I have no idea if it is accurate or not -- certainly adds to that perception.

His perception of how he was dealt with was certainly skewed by him being miffed at his percieved shortage. I'm sure this was compounded by no one being able to give him a definitive answer.

I'm not sure anyone's feelings at that time could be an accurate depiction of what happened.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Cardus

"I don’t believe that anybody would have bought a ticket at 8 in the morning and singled the 5 horse," Appell said.

So who is he indicting?

Does he think that there was a fraudulent ticket -- meaning that there was fraud committed at Arlington Park -- or does he believe that Louisiana Downs committed fraud of some kind? Or the tote company?

Since Louisiana Downs posted the incorrect Will Pay, I understand their anger -- and who wouldn't be livid? -- but I wish there was clarification on that point. From the column, it is not clear who Appell believes has cheated him.

I think it depends on the size of that ticket. It would have made no sense to play an expensive ticket singling a seemingly hopeless (I presume) 30-1 ML horse in the last. But if it was a smallish ticket, and the bettor wanted to have the only winning ticket, then using a 30-1 ML horse might make more sense.
Although admittedly singling it would be somewhat suspicious.

But just to add to the bizarre aspect of the bet, if this person had used 2 horses, and one was the winner, while the other was the 30-1 ML horse, who scratched, then he would have scratched into his own horse, thereby having it twice, and costing himself the entire pool?? Had there been no other tickets on the winner of course.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by golfer

I think it depends on the size of that ticket. It would have made no sense to play an expensive ticket singling a seemingly hopeless (I presume) 30-1 ML horse in the last. But if it was a smallish ticket, and the bettor wanted to have the only winning ticket, then using a 30-1 ML horse might make more sense.
Although admittedly singling it would be somewhat suspicious.

The record of the wager I received was the actual winning bet, so I saw just the 50-cent wager. I have no idea whether or not he made additional wagers or if it was one bet in a pile of bets on the same ticket. I was told it was a "Quick Pick" ... although I can't confirm that, but that would explain the oddity of the selection and be an appropriate ending to an already crazy story.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The record of the wager I received was the actual winning bet, so I saw just the 50-cent wager. I have no idea whether or not he made additional wagers or if it was one bet in a pile of bets on the same ticket. I was told it was a "Quick Pick" ... although I can't confirm that, but that would explain the oddity of the selection and be an appropriate ending to an already crazy story.

That would be the most likely explanation.

But all this does go back to the problems of being put on the favorite in a scratch situation. There are times when a simulcast player won't even know who the favorite was until after the race, as the odds are available, but the pools aren't, and there could be multiple horses at the same odds. And the track announcer wouldn't even be able to tell everyone at post time, because we all know the money hasn't all been co-mingled at that point.
Strange game we play.

[randallscott35]

Quick Pick on horses? Beyond bizarre

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Quick Pick on horses? Beyond bizarre

it worked tho...

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Cardus

If you cannot confirm that, then why post that it was a "'Quick Pick'"?

"I wonder if it were a Quick Pick" would have been responsible.

I shouldn't say I "can't confirm" ... I was told that it was by someone who would know on Sunday morning as a follow-up to the gathering of info the night before. I was not made aware of it until I spoke with Andy Beyer, which is why he didn't mention it.