Del Mar "Guaranteed Pick 4"

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

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.

[Port Conway Lane]

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

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

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

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?

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by pointman

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.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

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?"

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by pointman

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.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

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.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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

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?