pk4 payout to the Travers

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

How is it the bettors fault when a dead heat happens?

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.

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

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.

I take it you dont bet often or at all

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

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.

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....

[ranger5830]

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?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by ranger5830

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.

[OTM Al]

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.

[Immanuel Kant]

It's completely "fair" and "acceptable" because it's in the rules


Wow!

If history has taught us anything......and I'm not convinced it has......statements like the one above allow for excuses such as , "I was only folllowing orders" or, "I'm just doing my job"

Just because it is a rule does not make it right...

If the other exotics can have different pay-outs the pick 4 should as well.

The rule is wrong...it is wrong because it is not a FAIR rule and it should be changed

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Immanuel Kant

It's completely "fair" and "acceptable" because it's in the rules


Wow!

If history has taught us anything......and I'm not convinced it has......statements like the one above allow for excuses such as , "I was only folllowing orders" or, "I'm just doing my job"

Just because it is a rule does not make it right...

If the other exotics can have different pay-outs the pick 4 should as well.

The rule is wrong...it is wrong because it is not a FAIR rule and it should be changed

I've yet to see a convincing argument about how it isn't "right". But as I said before, by playing the bet, you have subject yourself to the rules. Don't play the bet and then complain the outcome isn't fair when the rules have been followed to the letter just because you don't like the outcome. The outcome was fair.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

I've yet to see a convincing argument about how it isn't "right". But as I said before, by playing the bet, you have subject yourself to the rules. Don't play the bet and then complain the outcome isn't fair when the rules have been followed to the letter just because you don't like the outcome. The outcome was fair.

Ok dude, we get it. It is the rule. You find that the be logical and reasonable and therefore accept it as "fair". Specifically in terms of what I got paid to the 3 yesterday, it was "fair". In terms of what I find logical and reasonable, I am still in search of an explanation as to why that is the rule, and applied differently than every other wager with the exception of the pk6. There was nobody at the track that could actually explain it and once they uncovered the "rule", there was certainly nobody to provide a reasonable explanation. I only point that out because of your insistence that we should have not made the bet without knowledge of the rule. I'm pretty sure at least 90% of the sharp folks on this board were as surprised to see a single payout in the pk4 yesterday.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ranger5830

They changed the off-the-turf pick 6 rule at gulfstream, why can't they change this one too?

Gee, I wonder how that happened.