pk4 payout to the Travers
 

That is a crime that the pk4 pays to both eaqually and the win/double and pk3 pay out separately.

My wife gets her wish. Pk4 is out of my betting menu.

I got roayally jobbed.

I would have to agree with you. I hope you atleast hit it to the bigger price.
It used to be the same way in California, but i think it is changed.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 take it you dont bet often or at all

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....

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

Ensure a higher payout? Kinda figured this was what it was all about. The concept of knowing rules and agreeing to abide by them when you place a bet seems to be quite beyond you. Rules just aren't fair...

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.

Because for whatever reason the P4 is not split for dead heats but calculated on the number of winning tickets. This bet also has many other different features from the P3. They do it because that's what the rule is. The dead heat didn't cost you 7000, it resulted in a fixed payoff exactly like it is supposed to. Your horse didn't win outright, but unlike most times that happens, at least you got something for it. You don't like a rule, try to get it changed, but complaining about an outcome of a rule you accepted when you put your money down seems foolish to me.

Still waiting for you to answer the original question....

The answer to your question is to be able to accurately foresee the future. Let us all know when you figure that out.

I remember OTM AL once arguing this about the forced P6 carryover rule in the event of a mid sequence surface switch ... that eventually had Steve Crist flying off the handlebars on his blog after the second time it happened in about a month.

I agree with OTM Al here... it's a rule (maybe not a fair one) and no one got robbed (unlike the forced carryover rule -- which is basically downright robbery and turns all winning tickets into losers with only a conso and makes the bet a higher takeout than you'd have if you responded to all of the E-mails you get from Nigerian Princes )

Obviously, the people who had only Alpha got a good break -- the people who had Golden Ticket in a winning sequence got a genuine bad break.

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?

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.