Quote:
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.