Return to consos on P4/P5/P6

[ranger5830]

Originally Posted by Danzig

seriously? what a mess that would turn into. and better a conso/live ticket then just a cancellation of the entire bet.
it's part of playing the pick 6 ticket, things happen.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, nobody (at least not me) is talking about ticket cancellation at all. Here in CA at the otb if you fill out a bet card for a pick 4/5/6/etc there is one field of numbers for your main selections in a race, and then right below it there is a separate field for alternate selections. If one of your main choices was scratched and you chose an alternate for that race, it would become the replacement pick. If no alternate was chosen, you would receive the post-time favorite.

I know it was done that way for years and only turned into a mess because of one unscrupulous employee at autotote. But I think the current method of defaulting to the favorite is fine and in my opinion is better than depriving people the chance at a big score by reducing their ticket to a conso.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by PatCummings

I think you guys are seriously underestimating the blow back had Wise Dan not won.

And they would have been wrong.

Let's discuss this without being in a huff or citing issues of morality. The following is, I believe, a complete list of what happens on bets in the US if a horse scratches and the type of bet it is attached to. I'll go by NY rules as I am most familiar with them, but they seem pretty standard.

1. You lose (futures wager)
2. Refund (WPS, verticles, first leg of most horizontals)
3. Consolation (P3 and DD after first leg)
4. Post time favorite (P4, P6....NY doesn't have a P5 but likely would be the same)

So we already have 4 different possible outcomes in the different pools from the same scratch.

Now, the next part of the argument would be to determine why each of these were done differently. That I do not know, but after reading the rules on how a conso is determined in a P3, I have to believe that it is due to the complexity of the calculations. Consos on P3s have 3 different ways to be calculated depending on if the scratch was in the second, third or both second and third legs. Try reading them sometime, just this simple case will make your head spin. This increases at a geometric rate for each additional leg, so a P4 would have 7 ways, 15 (I think) with a P5 and so on. Could we argue that computation is much easier today and these things could be done? Perhaps, but that depends how these calculations are being done in the totalizer and what part of the program itself is governing these things. Believe it or not, even brand new software packages have underlying root code written in something like COBOL that pretty much no one in the industry even knows anymore. This makes fixing such issues extremely expensive and impractical. Some day the whole thing should be overhauled, but even a great overhaul will come with glitches initially,so it's quite understandable why well enough would be left alone. Also given the fact that pretty much everyone does these things the same way leads me to believe that there must have been a rationale for it. Deride this comment if you wish, but one would assume if there were a real benefit to doing it a different way, someone would. Maybe HK has found that way with the single pool thing.

The next part of the argument would involve some sort of equity argument, but as Travis already rightly pointed out, you can always come up with a case where you would have been better off (or at least think you would have been) if a different rule had applied, even the you lose senario. In the end, as long as the rule is clearly stated and covers all foreseeable circumstance, then the bettor must abide by those rules if a bet was placed. Sorry I didn't know does just as well as if you get caught making an illegal turn.

Perhaps the alternate selection scenario would be of benefit. That however would come with a load of caveats: how many alternates, what happens if 2 horses or more scratch, what happens when there is a scratch if all are already covered, just to name a few. It could be beneficial but it will also be very messy. And again implementation might be difficult for the above reason.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by PatCummings

I think you guys are seriously underestimating the blow back had Wise Dan not won.

No, I agree with you. I was REALLY mad when the scratch came down despite using both in nearly the same amount. However, with the scratch, I had twice as much invested in Wise Dan as I originally intended and on top of that had the unenviable position of having to root AGAINST my own pick because of the payoff which would have occurred if he had lost (I think at least).

We had $5 on a Wise Dan-Orb/Overanalyze ticket, $4 on a PoE-Orb/Overanalyze ticket, and between $1-$5 to other horses. If either of those two loses we have $1 to Orb and a couple others and $.50 to a bunch of others. At that point there was probably 95% of the pick 4,5,and 6 pools going through Wise Dan so it would have actually benefitted to lose. That isn't what I intended to bet and I'm sure others were in the same situation.

Shug is a great horseman, among the greatest of all time. Obviously I am very happy he won the big one. But he did everyone a huge disservice this time around- it's not the 9th on a Thursday at Belmont, it's the highest handle day of the entire year and if you're questionable to run, scratch early.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by philcski

No, I agree with you. I was REALLY mad when the scratch came down despite using both in nearly the same amount. However, with the scratch, I had twice as much invested in Wise Dan as I originally intended and on top of that had the unenviable position of having to root AGAINST my own pick because of the payoff which would have occurred if he had lost (I think at least).

We had $5 on a Wise Dan-Orb/Overanalyze ticket, $4 on a PoE-Orb/Overanalyze ticket, and between $1-$5 to other horses. If either of those two loses we have $1 to Orb and a couple others and $.50 to a bunch of others. At that point there was probably 95% of the pick 4,5,and 6 pools going through Wise Dan so it would have actually benefitted to lose. That isn't what I intended to bet and I'm sure others were in the same situation.

Shug is a great horseman, among the greatest of all time. Obviously I am very happy he won the big one. But he did everyone a huge disservice this time around- it's not the 9th on a Thursday at Belmont, it's the highest handle day of the entire year and if you're questionable to run, scratch early.

I don't think he has any business considering anyone but his horse and owner. In fact, I think what he did demonstrated a great amount of integrity. He wanted to run the horse. He waited to the last legal minute to try to do that. When it was clear that he could not run the horse in good conscience, he scratched. I know many players don't want to hear this, but trainers should never concern themselves with what is going on in the betting pools when making decisions. Had he run even though he didn't think it was a good idea or scratched earlier, just so players wouldn't be inconvenienced, I believe he would have done the worst thing possible. Wanting trainers and owners to make decisions based on what betting pools look like is asking for big trouble no matter what the size of the pool or race. If you know Latin, my sig line says all you need to know on the subject.

[goodcopy]

There is no argument here,The bet and the payoffs are clearly defined before the bet is made!
If you don't like the rules of the pick 4,5,or 6 then don't play or parlay your bets for what would be surprisingly close payoff to the exotic price anyway(not exactly but close enough to quell any arguments either way!
ONE MORE THING WISE DAN WAS NEVER GOING TO LOSE!

[Danzig]

i think shug waited as long as he did because he was hoping the weather would clear. and of course he has no control over the weather. i think he wanted to run the horse. if he was ducking, he would have declared first thing.

[OTM Al]

So much for a greater discussion. Too bad as I was interested to see what people think. The lack of response seems telling.

I don't think the blame, if any, should be directed towards the trainer. He was well within the rules to scratch when he pleased. He has no obligation to the bettor.

The track, however, should have placed a deadline before the start of the exotics for trainers to scratch their horses. Any scratch after that deadline would only be a vet scratch.

[JohnGalt1]

It would have been the same situation if Point of Entry was scratched after injuring himself in the gate.

If we know the rules we have to be accordingly.

The frustrating thing for me is the rules are different in every jurisdiction.

[golfer]

Speaking of multi-race wager rules, got hammered by something I had never seen before yesterday at Arlington Park.

Was singled to the favorite in the last race, final leg of pick 5. Will pay was $440.

They get to the gate, and the jock loses control of the 9 horse, who runs off and is a late scratch. Now I understand the rules, and I know the $ switches from the 9 to the favorite, my horse. He wins and the pick 5 comes back $300

Again, I get why it happened and how, but this seems terribly unfair to me and anyone who had the favorite on the ticket, while of course it's quite fortuitous for anyone who used the 9 horse.

Gate scratches in the final leg of a pick 4 or 5 sequence can be very costly.

[3kings]

Originally Posted by golfer

Speaking of multi-race wager rules, got hammered by something I had never seen before yesterday at Arlington Park.

Was singled to the favorite in the last race, final leg of pick 5. Will pay was $440.

They get to the gate, and the jock loses control of the 9 horse, who runs off and is a late scratch. Now I understand the rules, and I know the $ switches from the 9 to the favorite, my horse. He wins and the pick 5 comes back $300

Again, I get why it happened and how, but this seems terribly unfair to me and anyone who had the favorite on the ticket, while of course it's quite fortuitous for anyone who used the 9 horse.

Gate scratches in the final leg of a pick 4 or 5 sequence can be very costly.

for inovative redboard. I agree, it seems like you are seldom helped by these type of situations. The horses that gate scratch almost always seem the most hopeless.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by 3kings

for inovative redboard. I agree, it seems like you are seldom helped by these type of situations. The horses that gate scratch almost always seem the most hopeless.

Even though I thought he was hopeless, he was actually 6-1 at time of scratch, and by the extreme drop in payout, it's obvious the number was on many tickets.

I'm sure this happens more frequently than most realize, it's only because it was the final leg after will pays were posted, and that it happened to ME, that led me to take notice.

A 30% + hit is pretty noticeable.

[South Beach Luv]

Originally Posted by golfer

Even though I thought he was hopeless, he was actually 6-1 at time of scratch, and by the extreme drop in payout, it's obvious the number was on many tickets.

I'm sure this happens more frequently than most realize, it's only because it was the final leg after will pays were posted, and that it happened to ME, that led me to take notice.

A 30% + hit is pretty noticeable.

I took a hit on the P4 too (no redboard, I posted it) but I forget how much, any chance you saw that too?

[golfer]

Originally Posted by South Beach Luv

I took a hit on the P4 too (no redboard, I posted it) but I forget how much, any chance you saw that too?

I did not see that, but it's a good bet it was similarly substantial.

[herkhorse]

They call them probable will pays for a reason. ( You're probably going to get screwed. ) One of the risks of playing horizontal.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

I don't think the blame, if any, should be directed towards the trainer. He was well within the rules to scratch when he pleased. He has no obligation to the bettor.

The track, however, should have placed a deadline before the start of the exotics for trainers to scratch their horses. Any scratch after that deadline would only be a vet scratch.

The standard is a fixed time for regular races and one hour before stakes races. Such a rule is not unreasonable, but likely was created before all the superexotics came into play. A review of such rules is not unreasonable.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by golfer

Speaking of multi-race wager rules, got hammered by something I had never seen before yesterday at Arlington Park.

Was singled to the favorite in the last race, final leg of pick 5. Will pay was $440.

They get to the gate, and the jock loses control of the 9 horse, who runs off and is a late scratch. Now I understand the rules, and I know the $ switches from the 9 to the favorite, my horse. He wins and the pick 5 comes back $300

Again, I get why it happened and how, but this seems terribly unfair to me and anyone who had the favorite on the ticket, while of course it's quite fortuitous for anyone who used the 9 horse.

Gate scratches in the final leg of a pick 4 or 5 sequence can be very costly.

Not sure how it is costly, or how the final leg affects the sequence any more than any other leg. You are making the mistake known as the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. The event in which your horse won was not one in which the 9 horse ran. How can you say you lost out with any certainty? You have no idea what would have happened if the 9 ran. You could have lost completely and got nothing. It actually could have been beneficial to you that he was scratched. You do once again prove my supposition that people feel rules are unfair only when they are adversely effected. I'm sure everyone who had the 9 thought it was quite fair as well.