What would it take to change this rule....

[docicu3]

With the dead heat in the last at Aqueduct Sunday it seemed unfair that both the 6-1 shot Yield Bogey and the 15-1 Blues Street paid the same in the P4 and P6 but not the P3. Is there history here in NY that changed this rule for the P3 but not the P4 and P6?

How do they (NYRA) initiate a rule change like this should they choose to do so? It just seems a bit odd that it is recognized that payoffs according to mutuel odds are respected in one form of multi race play but not others.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by docicu3

With the dead heat in the last at Aqueduct Sunday it seemed unfair that both the 6-1 shot Yield Bogey and the 15-1 Blues Street paid the same in the P3 but not the P4 and P6. Is there history here in NY that changed this rule for the P3 but not the P4 and P6?

How do they (NYRA) initiate a rule change like this should they choose to do so? It just seems a bit odd that it is recognized that payoffs according to mutuel odds are respected in one form of multi race play but not others.

Other way around... P3 payoffs are split but P4 and P6 are not. Point well taken, though. It really isn't a fair rule but they blame technology for it. I blame laziness.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by philcski

Other way around... P3 payoffs are split but P4 and P6 are not. Point well taken, though. It really isn't a fair rule but they blame technology for it. I blame laziness.

Thanks Phil for catching that .....


How do they blame technology for this? Are you saying that calculating the change in payouts is beyond the computer system that NYRA uses. Are there differences for how California handles this?

I seem to remember that other issues like late scratches in multi's were handled differently in California then NY with solutions like post time favorites and consolation payoffs differing.

[pointman]

This has been discussed before and Steve has talked about it on the show. There is no doubt that the computers can calculate the payouts based on the different odds, but the rule has not been changed. Of course, it makes no sense and should be changed.

That being said, I had $20W on Yield Bogey and would have been better if I had put it to place. I think he led all the way before and after the wire, just not on it!

[docicu3]

So nobody knows what it takes to alter these rules??

Contact your Senator?

Email your Congressman?

Bribe BTW?

A contest between Hoss and Byk??

How does the mass of the DT voice get heard........Does it take a note from Obama??

These rules need to be consistent.......If a DH is ruled payoffs in P3,4,6's should be altered to reflect the difficulty of the selections.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by philcski

Other way around... P3 payoffs are split but P4 and P6 are not. Point well taken, though. It really isn't a fair rule but they blame technology for it. I blame laziness.

i'm not sure i understand the problem. on a dead heat you have 2 winners of 1 race. all multi-race tickets with either of those winners is alive to split whatever the pool is.

it doesn't matter if one was 4-5 and the other 30-1. those are win pool odds. they have nothing at all to do with how a multi-race pool is paid. 2 different animals.

on yesterdays deadheat at aqueduct, two pick 6 tickets were alive to yield bogey and one to blues street. everyone alive at the end had their payout reduced by the deadheat. instead of getting 1/2 the pool, the yield bogey bettors got 1/3. instead of all the pool the blues street bettor got 1/3.

that seems like the only fair result. i know if i had a live pick 6 ticket to yield bogey and they tried to pay me less than the 1/3 i had earned by giving more to someone else based on win pool odds, i'd be seeing a lawyer.

[Holland Hacker]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'm not sure i understand the problem. on a dead heat you have 2 winners of 1 race. all multi-race tickets with either of those winners is alive to split whatever the pool is.

it doesn't matter if one was 4-5 and the other 30-1. those are win pool odds. they have nothing at all to do with how a multi-race pool is paid. 2 different animals.

on yesterdays deadheat at aqueduct, two pick 6 tickets were alive to yield bogey and one to blues street. everyone alive at the end had their payout reduced by the deadheat. instead of getting 1/2 the pool, the yield bogey bettors got 1/3. instead of all the pool the blues street bettor got 1/3.

that seems like the only fair result. i know if i had a live pick 6 ticket to yield bogey and they tried to pay me less than the 1/3 i had earned by giving more to someone else based on win pool odds, i'd be seeing a lawyer.

Why shouldn't the bettor who had the only live ticket on Blues Street Bettor get 1/2 of the pool as he was the only one alive to that horse. This ridculous rule cost him about $15K. I do not think that is fair.

[ALostTexan]

Originally Posted by docicu3

So nobody knows what it takes to alter these rules??

Contact your Senator?

Email your Congressman?

Bribe BTW?

A contest between Hoss and Byk??

How does the mass of the DT voice get heard........Does it take a note from Obama??

These rules need to be consistent.......If a DH is ruled payoffs in P3,4,6's should be altered to reflect the difficulty of the selections.

I will inquire tomorrow (Tues) regarding this issue and get back to you...

[Payson Dave]

I'm thinking that the number of tickets alive to Yield Bogey should have split half the pool.... and the number of tickets alive to Blues Street should have split the other half...
why wouldn't that make sense??

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Holland Hacker

Why shouldn't the bettor who had the only live ticket on Blues Street Bettor get 1/2 of the pool as he was the only one alive to that horse. This ridculous rule cost him about $15K. I do not think that is fair.

I could argue both sides and it's surely more complicated than some people are suggesting. What about dead heats in earlier races? What about multiple dead heats?

The arguement, especially in Pick-6s, is that it's a bet about winning races and not exactly selecting winners. Three tickets survived the six races....thus it is split three ways.

Look, I'm not saying I completely agree or disagree, just trying to point out that it's a larger discussion.

[blackthroatedwind]

One more thing, and I know it doesn't really matter, but don't you think in this case one person got 2/3 of the pool instead of 3/4?

It is very reasonable to assume that the person who hit it with the 5 also hit it with the 1.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Payson Dave

I'm thinking that the number of tickets alive to Yield Bogey should have split half the pool.... and the number of tickets alive to Blues Street should have split the other half...
why wouldn't that make sense??

I guess it would if that's how the rules were established. i hadn't thought of that option and it would be fairer. I was responding to the initial post which made a comapraison of the win pool odds which are meaningless in a multi-race pool.

but you're right. splitting it that way would be more equitable. now you just have to convince whomever writes the rules.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'm not sure i understand the problem. on a dead heat you have 2 winners of 1 race. all multi-race tickets with either of those winners is alive to split whatever the pool is.

it doesn't matter if one was 4-5 and the other 30-1. those are win pool odds. they have nothing at all to do with how a multi-race pool is paid. 2 different animals.

on yesterdays deadheat at aqueduct, two pick 6 tickets were alive to yield bogey and one to blues street. everyone alive at the end had their payout reduced by the deadheat. instead of getting 1/2 the pool, the yield bogey bettors got 1/3. instead of all the pool the blues street bettor got 1/3.

that seems like the only fair result. i know if i had a live pick 6 ticket to yield bogey and they tried to pay me less than the 1/3 i had earned by giving more to someone else based on win pool odds, i'd be seeing a lawyer.

A better example is Saturday at CD. Let's say you used Demarcation in the pick 4 at 35-1 and he dead-heated for the win in the River City with 3rd choice Karelian (who was 5-1.) Guess what, instead of a blockbuster payoff in the pick 4 in the $20k range (so 1/2 the pool allocated to you would have been $10k), you got the same $1500 that those that used Karelian got. How exactly is that fair? It should work the same way as a dead heat for win, half the pool goes to each of the winners, as the pick 3 payoffs are allocated in this situation (for reference, the pick 3 payoffs were $697 and $138, so obviously a huge difference and probably even more so in the pick 4 pools)

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I could argue both sides and it's surely more complicated than some people are suggesting. What about dead heats in earlier races? What about multiple dead heats?

The arguement, especially in Pick-6s, is that it's a bet about winning races and not exactly selecting winners. Three tickets survived the six races....thus it is split three ways.

Look, I'm not saying I completely agree or disagree, just trying to point out that it's a larger discussion.

and then there's splitting up the pool for 5/6 with multiple dead heats.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

One more thing, and I know it doesn't really matter, but don't you think in this case one person got 2/3 of the pool instead of 3/4?

It is very reasonable to assume that the person who hit it with the 5 also hit it with the 1.

In this example, it is very reasonable to assume that. I don't know if that's the case in my CD Saturday example as the stratification in the payoffs was much higher.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by philcski

A better example is Saturday at CD. Let's say you used Demarcation in the pick 4 at 35-1 and he dead-heated for the win in the River City with 3rd choice Karelian (who was 5-1.) Guess what, instead of a blockbuster payoff in the pick 4 in the $20k range (so 1/2 the pool allocated to you would have been $10k), you got the same $1500 that those that used Karelian got. How exactly is that fair? It should work the same way as a dead heat for win, half the pool goes to each of the winners, as the pick 3 payoffs are allocated in this situation (for reference, the pick 3 payoffs were $697 and $138, so obviously a huge difference and probably even more so in the pick 4 pools)

you also make a good point. so i've decided to retire from my self appointed position as arbitor of fairness and leave it up to people that get paid to do these things.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I could argue both sides and it's surely more complicated than some people are suggesting. What about dead heats in earlier races? What about multiple dead heats?

The arguement, especially in Pick-6s, is that it's a bet about winning races and not exactly selecting winners. Three tickets survived the six races....thus it is split three ways.

Look, I'm not saying I completely agree or disagree, just trying to point out that it's a larger discussion.

however many deadheats (involving however many horses) results in a certain distinct number of unique winning combos....split the pool after takeout into the appropriate pots and make the different payoffs based upon the number of winning tickets associated with the individual pots...
why does not that make sense.....for instance 3 dh's each involving two horses should result in 8 different winning combos...if there is only one live ticket for one of these combos then that ticket gets one eighth of the pool (after takeout of course)....where is the hole in my thinking???