Del Mar "Guaranteed Pick 4"
 

It turns out it is not really guaranteed to have a minimum. They pulled the "guarantee" of a minimum $600,000 pool today "due to inclement weather."

What kind of BS is that? Is it really a guarantee if there are situations where they pull it? I wonder what other circumstances they can pull it. Too many scratches? Fields too small? Not enough money bet in the pool?

Sounds like false advertising to me.

Inclement weather isn't an apt description of what they dealt with IMO. Completely understand their decision.

I feel that they gave ample notice prior to the start of the first leg. As it turned out the pool was over 600k.

Then how does it fit within the definition of the word guarantee?

If it was so bad, why didn't they cancel the card?

Hell, why didn't they take the 4th off turf?

To me that even puts more egg on their face. They were so afraid they couldn't meet the minimum they cancelled it when they didn't have to.

What kind of "guarantee" is it if they are going to pull it when they think they can't meet it?

I don't see who was harmed or misled here. They guaranteed 600k prior to two legs of the sequence being cut from 24 horses to 11. Had they waited until after the first leg was run when bettors had placed their wagers expecting more bang for their buck then I could see your point.

These guarantees, no matter what jurisdiction are almost always meaningless. Marketing knows they will meet the threshold based on previous handle and field size. Someone was on the ball enough to recognize the scratches could affect handle and informed the public before the sequence began that there would be no guarantee. I don't mind playing if I know the rules going in.

Instead of being insulted by these hollow "big money guarantees" I would rather have them lower the takeout.

But that is the whole point, they are aimed to sucker people. I wasn't playing the sequence anyway and I surely don't fall for such nonsense, but a guarantee is not a guarantee if they can pull it when they want to, particularly when they think they can't get the minimum pool and actually have to put up what they have advertised. That is plain and simply false advertising. The definition of the word is clear.

Why make excuses in a situation where the track is plainly in the wrong? I'm tired of horseplayers making excuses when we are being insulted and that is what those that are defending it are trying to do.

If it is meaningless, then why do they advertise a guaranteed minimum pool?

If you know what the rules are going in, then please tell us exactly what circumstances they are permitted to pull their "guarantee?"

The track carded a p-4 that was depleted by scratches well before the first leg started.The guarantee was based on full fields. That's the excuse. No one was harmed here. To an extreme if there were 4 two horse fields they'd have to be idiots to guarantee 600k.

I've already stated why they're meaningless. (to horseplayers)

The rules going in before the first leg were clear, there would be no guarantee and everyone was made aware of that. There is false advertising if I wagered believing there was a guarantee.

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 know some tracks have a clause written in that if there is a surface switch then there is no guarantee. (Arlington had this written in their program the last couple years)

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.

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.

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

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.

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. :zz:

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.

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.

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.