Return to consos on P4/P5/P6

[PatCummings]

So if you follow me on Twitter, I've been in a huff about the late scratch of Point of Entry.

I singled POE in the pick five and pick six. Shug is rarely so overtly bullish about his horses, but he was about Point of Entry, all week. At one point, when asked about Johnny V being back on POE instead of going back to Wise Dan, Shug was almost boisterous - saying something like - "he's on the best horse" he said. I thought he was fairly bullish about Orb, but he was OVER THE MOON about POE.

I profited from the scratch when POE became Wise Dan as the post-time favorite. The Wise Dan bettors (and specifically, singlers) saw their payouts deflated when all the POE money went onto them.

Shug is well within his right to scratch up to the point the track says he can. As Mike Welsch reported on ATR's show Friday - he was contemplating scratching if the grass came up wet. Mike MacAdam from the Schenectady Gazette reported today that Shug said they would run if the rain stopped after the fourth race...but it didn't, and yet they kept holding off to make the call (waiting until after the 8th race to talk with (EDIT - Castellano) after riding Hungry Island).

For whatever reason, despite that, the pick six, pick five, and pick four ALL started with Point of Entry still in the race.

Once he was scratched, announced just after the Distaff Turf Mile ran (start of pick four), all that Point of Entry money floated over to Wise Dan. Now, if you had known this before the P5/6 started - what seemed like a two horse race (doubling your P6 outlay if you used both of them), pretty clearly became a one-horse race, giving players the opportunity to restructure tickets. Instead, Wise Dan plays probably like 1-5 instead of 3-5 or 4-5.

Surely, it will impact tickets in other ways too...

But if consolation payouts are given for pick threes...why not the p4/5/6? Does that approach maintain wagering integrity?

The argument that the situation is a non-issue because Wise Dan won as post-time favorite does not fly with me. Warning on an overly dramatic metaphor...what if I got shot, but the bullet missed all major organs/arteries, is it not an issue?

Wagering integrity dodged a bullet when Wise Dan won - but it's no way to conduct business, ducking the deadly shots while enduring minor "no big deal, no one really got hurt" blows.

A greater conversation should be had regarding consolation payouts in p4/5/6. As all the winners in the p4 and p5 were fairly short, no one will see this as much of a problem, but it is a problem that will rear its ugly head at some point in the future. With so many variables in play, wagering confidence is essential, and if you don't have confidence, it will eventually result in declining play, especially from more sophisticated players who dig into the exotic pools with fervor.

[tanner12oz]

i had pick 4's with poe and also marketing mix who both scratched....i thought for sure i would get a refund of part of the wager at otb but sure enough i didn't and am guessing my .50 pick 4 turned into a 1.00 with the post time favorite in the wise dan race and marketing mix race...honestly though i have no clue how the hell the rules play out in these instances and it is EXTREMELY confusing when you get a refund, when you get the pt favorite, when you get a consolation etc etc...maybe i'm just retarded but i have been in the game for almost 10 years now and i simply check the tickets in the machine win or lose...no clue sometimes what to expect

[RockHardTen1985]

JV did not ride Hungry Island.

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

JV did not ride Hungry Island.

Thanks - amended...

[OTM Al]

I will agree with you that having different rules on horizontals is probably not optimal, but that said, you should only be angry at yourself for not knowing the rules, especially since you put your own money on the line. There was no hit to wagering integrity. Integrity is doing exactly what you say you will, which is the case here. You may not like the rule, which is fine, but don't get all moralistic after the fact when you didn't know what the rule was. That one is on you alone.

Originally Posted by OTM Al

I will agree with you that having different rules on horizontals is probably not optimal, but that said, you should only be angry at yourself for not knowing the rules, especially since you put your own money on the line. There was no hit to wagering integrity. Integrity is doing exactly what you say you will, which is the case here. You may not like the rule, which is fine, but don't get all moralistic after the fact when you didn't know what the rule was. That one is on you alone.

He never said he didn't know the rules. Please read carefully.
He was just expressing his view.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

He never said he didn't know the rules. Please read carefully.
He was just expressing his view.

Ok, but he did say he was in a huff after they were applied correctly. Does this make it different? I didn't know the rules is at least an honest if foolish answer. I knew the rules but don't agree they should be applied is something else entirely. I happen to agree with him that the rules should be uniform. However, this is not the appropriate way to set this argument, but sounds rather like sour grapes. It affected me, so now I'll be angry? And why should one way be preferred to another? Maybe all bets should consolations for late scratches for example. This is not, as he indicated, an integrity issue.

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Ok, but he did say he was in a huff after they were applied correctly. Does this make it different? I didn't know the rules is at least an honest if foolish answer. I knew the rules but don't agree they should be applied is something else entirely. I happen to agree with him that the rules should be uniform. However, this is not the appropriate way to set this argument, but sounds rather like sour grapes. It affected me, so now I'll be angry? And why should one way be preferred to another? Maybe all bets should consolations for late scratches for example. This is not, as he indicated, an integrity issue.

How is it sour grapes when he profited either way? You seem to take offense to it for some odd reason. I suggest you start betting instead of preaching and pointing your fingers as a snob to others who actually do

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

How is it sour grapes when he profited either way? You seem to take offense to it for some odd reason. I suggest you start betting instead of preaching and pointing your fingers as a snob to others who actually do

Seriously?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Seriously?

Guess he doesn't like the rule either....or more like doesn't know them either. Ever notice how people constantly complain something isn't fair based alone on the fact it doesn't go the way they wanted it too? Frankly after Saturday I kind of wish I didn't bet so much. I'll get over it I'm sure. As for him, well.....

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Guess he doesn't like the rule either....or more like doesn't know them either. Ever notice how people constantly complain something isn't fair based alone on the fact it doesn't go the way they wanted it too? Frankly after Saturday I kind of wish I didn't bet so much. I'll get over it I'm sure. As for him, well.....

You couldn't have misinterpreted my post any more. I completely benefitted by getting the post time favorite after POE scratched...

If for some reason Wise Dan didn't win, there would be massive blather about this. It's worth at least discussing the conso. v. post time fave.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by PatCummings

You couldn't have misinterpreted my post any more. I completely benefitted by getting the post time favorite after POE scratched...

If for some reason Wise Dan didn't win, there would be massive blather about this. It's worth at least discussing the conso. v. post time fave.

The problem is there is never going to be a "fair" thing to do. Some people will prefer a conso and some will prefer the post time favorite. Either way one group will not be happy with how it is handled.

The fairest thing to do would be to allow people to select a replacement horse in the place of the scratched horse. But that is a logistic nightmare and would create chaos.

Personally my opinion on this is situational based on how it will benefit me the most. If the scratch leaves me with the favorite that I like, I think the rule is fine. If I get the favorite I don't like, I would prefer the conso.

Unfortunately I suspect most think this way, which puts us back where we started. One group is going to be upset.

How about a deadline for trainers to scratch their horse? Based on what I read from the original posters post....the delayed scratch by the trainer is what caused this a discussion.

[Travis Stone]

There is never a right answer to this stuff. It is sort of annoying they scratched so late in the day. Rain was the topic of conversation for the entire week.

I've always thought that giving each ticket the "next lowest uncovered horse" was an interesting idea.

[ranger5830]

Although I rarely play the pick 6, I think having a conso is a bad idea. People play the pick 6 to make a "life changing score", not to make back their investment plus a couple hundred bucks. Denying them the right to the top payout doesnt seem fair and I would think most pick 6 players would be against it. If you don't want to default to the favorite, make alternate selections before the start of the pick 6 an option, I don't know if any jurisdictions still do that after the Volponi Breeders Cup fiasco.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

How about a deadline for trainers to scratch their horse? Based on what I read from the original posters post....the delayed scratch by the trainer is what caused this a discussion.

you'd still have late scratches with gate issues and the like.

yes, shug waited as long as possible to declare, which tells me he was hoping to run, but the weather didn't cooperate.
this is one of the reasons why it's called gambling, not winning. plenty of factors come into play.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ranger5830

Although I rarely play the pick 6, I think having a conso is a bad idea. People play the pick 6 to make a "life changing score", not to make back their investment plus a couple hundred bucks. Denying them the right to the top payout doesnt seem fair and I would think most pick 6 players would be against it. If you don't want to default to the favorite, make alternate selections before the start of the pick 6 an option, I don't know if any jurisdictions still do that after the Volponi Breeders Cup fiasco.

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.

[PatCummings]

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

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

There is never a right answer to this stuff. It is sort of annoying they scratched so late in the day. Rain was the topic of conversation for the entire week.

I've always thought that giving each ticket the "next lowest uncovered horse" was an interesting idea.

It is, but what do you mean by "next lowest uncovered". If you mean from win pool odds, now you are asking for trouble because one pool is influencing another, which is specifically forbidden in the rules that I have seen. Pools must be completely seperate. If you mean within the framework of the leg of the horizontal, then that would solve problem #1, but due to pool inefficiency, I would then have no idea who I had for sure. Idea is good in theory, but execution is going to be a problem.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

How about a deadline for trainers to scratch their horse? Based on what I read from the original posters post....the delayed scratch by the trainer is what caused this a discussion.

First, because it was a stakes race, the scratch was completely within the rules. Second, all most likely senarios that happen by making that horse run are bad. If the trainer knows the horse, and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume he does, the horse would have had a boatload of money bet on him and he would have run badly. His backers are screwed and the participants in the race are endangered. Finally, this is no different at its most fundemental level than if the horse flipped in the paddock and killed himself. Going to try to make rules so he has to run then?