A tough best

[ajkreider]

Made all the tougher because the bettor got beat - by himself.

Sooner Six

[BB]

ajkreider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Made all the tougher because the bettor got beat -
> by himself.

Beg to differ. The track screwed him, pure and simple. The DH in the last made for two winning combinations, and his was the only ticket with either combination (he had both). The rules did not specifically address this eventuality. He should have scooped the pot.

If he loses his case (interested to hear rezlegal\'s take), I think we can safely lump Oklahoma in with Saudi Arabia as places where justice is not only blind, but bound and gagged in a closet and held for ransom.

[P-Dub]

What was the pool??

No way does this person not get paid, that\'s ridiculous.

[ajkreider]

35K - he got 8K-ish

Fuller account is here

Remmington Pick Six

[P-Dub]

ajkreider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 35K - he got 8K-ish
>
> Fuller account is here
>
> Remmington Pick Six

Those were consolation tickets.

How much if he scooped the pool?

[BB]

P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Those were consolation tickets.
>
> How much if he scooped the pool?

I was imprecise. The DH was in the first leg, not the final leg. He did get paid for the non-jackpot portion of the P6 ... $4.5K x 2 combos for about $8900. No 5/6 paid when someone hits all 6 on the rainbows.The resulting carryover was $35,145, so that\'s the amount he was screwed out of.

The thing that gets me ... why, in these instances where the rules are poorly written and the track can clearly go either way, why, why, why do tracks almost always end up taking the path that screws the bettor? You\'d think a bettor scooping a $45K pot on a quarter horse card would be good for publicity.

[BitPlayer]

I wonder if the track even knew the full story when the payouts were posted.  I\'m not a computer guy, but I\'d guess that the tote company\'s computers have an algorithm to determine whether a jackpot should be paid out.  They probably store each ticket as a bunch of sequences and then compare all those sequences with the winning sequence(s).  In this case, the dead heat resulted in two winning sequences (which could also happen when there are late scratches in a race won by a favorite), both of which were hit. Ergo no jackpot.

Perhaps in a fairer world the algorithm would also check to see if all the winning combinations were on a single ticket, but I doubt fairness was top of mind when jackpot bets were created.

[BB]

Good call, Bit. I checked, and your take is how it works in NY (and, I\'d guess, most states). My understanding of the Remington situation was that the rule is not spelled out that way.

[hellersorr]

\"Nice little Jackpot 6 you got going there.  Be a shame if anything happened to it. . . .\"

https://www.paulickreport.com/horseplayers-category/commission-orders-remingtons-jackpot-pick-6-removed-from-wagering-menu/