This is new to me!!!

[Knowclew]

I realize this is Will Rogers, but it is still pari-mutuel wagering.

Race 1 today, final results:

1
1A
4
2
6

Of course the EX is 1-4, the tri 1-4-2, and super 1-4-2-6.

But how does the 4 pay out to place and show, and the 2 to show???
The place price on the entry was 2.20, so if you bet place on the entry you
got no bonus either. I didn't bet the race, but this cannot possibly be correct, can it???

[Capper Al]

I realize this is Will Rogers, but it is still pari-mutuel wagering.

Race 1 today, final results:

1
1A
4
2
6

Of course the EX is 1-4, the tri 1-4-2, and super 1-4-2-6.

But how does the 4 pay out to place and show, and the 2 to show???
The place price on the entry was 2.20, so if you bet place on the entry you
got no bonus either. I didn't bet the race, but this cannot possibly be correct, can it???

Thanks for the post. It good to see post from minor tracks.

[speed]

You misread the payoffs, check them again. As for no bonus to place just because the entry runs 1,2 does not guarantee a large place price. The betting in the pool is all that matters.

[Jay Trotter]

I'm not sure how this would be "new"?

The "entry" is just that -- one betting interest. They represent one wagering pool and therefore can't be differentiated. The exotics would not take the 2nd part of the entry into account.

As far as I know this is normal and how it is paid out everywhere???

[picojim]

thats weird..equibase has

# Horse Win Place Show
1 Spinning Slew 4.00 2.20 2.10
1A Every Memory 4.00 2.20 2.10
4 Rapid Rita Replies .......... 2.80

twinspires payed out

1 $4.00 $2.20 $2.10
4..........$3.40 $2.80
2.....................$3.60

[speed]

thats weird..equibase has

# Horse Win Place Show
1 Spinning Slew 4.00 2.20 2.10
1A Every Memory 4.00 2.20 2.10
4 Rapid Rita Replies .......... 2.80

twinspires payed out

1 $4.00 $2.20 $2.10
4..........$3.40 $2.80
2.....................$3.60
Looks like the TS upgrade yesterday went off without a hitch.

[LAP_520]

thats weird..equibase has

# Horse Win Place Show
1 Spinning Slew 4.00 2.20 2.10
1A Every Memory 4.00 2.20 2.10
4 Rapid Rita Replies .......... 2.80

twinspires payed out

1 $4.00 $2.20 $2.10
4..........$3.40 $2.80
2.....................$3.60


Watching the replay of the race shows that #1 won the race with #1A FINISHING second and #4 FINISHING about four horse lenghts back in THIRD.

There is NO way the #4 can be paid out in the place position as twinspires is showing in the results.. and they still are showing it that way at this time of my post.

I suspect, because the #1 and #1A finished 1, 2 then you HAVE to go to the 3third place finishing horse for the Exacta and so on,,,which the race announcer stipulated. And because of that, a BIG OVERSIGHT on somebody's part in paying off the #4 in the place spot occured. Wonder how they figured the payouts... ( maybe manually)


Do not be surprised when twinspires takes out the money from the accounts that received this payout because of this error..

[picojim]

TVG also has the same payouts as Twinspires

[speed]

I don't believe there was a DQ so if not then Equibase has it correct.

[Knowclew]

There was no dq at all. We sat and watched the payoffs in disbelief.

The payoffs shown in this thread by others we posted ON TRACK as well.
That is the part I have never seen.

I am going to send a note to WRD and ask for an explanation....I am sure I am not the only one questioning this to them.

I'll let you know if they respond.

[Knowclew]

I don't believe there was a DQ so if not then Equibase has it correct.

Equibase has what should have been correct, but not what was paid out.
I just called my otb and asked the manager to print payouts for the race.....they match the payoffs including a place payoff for the 4.

[speed]

Twinspires TV lists the wrong payoffs but if you check the results on twinspires.com they are correct. Wacky :)

[rrpic6]

Is it possible that one of the entries was running "for purse money only"?

RR

[racingfan378]

Equibase has what should have been correct, but not what was paid out.
I just called my otb and asked the manager to print payouts for the race.....they match the payoffs including a place payoff for the 4.

That means only one thing, someone in the tote dept at WRD messed up entering the info. TVG, Twinspires or anyone would have paid off based on the tote price in the computer coming from the host track.

This was a on-track tote issue for sure despite what Equibase had. Tote must have entered the 1 4 2 combo

http://www.ohrc.org/rules/2012%20Unofficial%20ROR%20July.pdf

page 89 is the rule about entries for Oklahoma racing

[v j stauffer]

All I know is one thing. If I can cash a show ticket on a horse that runs 4th. That's my kinda bet!!!:jump:

Sign me up.

[Knowclew]

Is it possible that one of the entries was running "for purse money only"?

RR

This is the only "logical" explanation I could think of.

BUT- their graphics show the 1 and 1A separately on screen (some do, some don't), and I went back and watched the feed to be sure....and both 1 & 1A
are listed at even money.

Good thought though.

[Ocala Mike]

Undoutedly a screwup by people who don't know the basics of pari-mutuel operations.

[classhandicapper]

All I can say is Wow

[Knowclew]

I wanted to follow up that I received a response today from Jesse Ullery, the racing secretary from WRD. Very impressed to get a quick response from someone at his level.

That said, really??? I guess you can make the rules however you want....

Here is his letter:

Thank you for taking the time to email us with your concern.



The way that the race was paid out was correct per the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission Rules (OHRC). OHRC Rule 325:65-1-43 section (b) states specifically that, “For the purpose of price calculations only, coupled entries and mutual fields shall be calculated as a single finisher, using the finishing position of the leading contestant in that coupled entry or mutual field to determine order of placing.”



Essentially, when the first part of the entry crosses the finish line, that is the recognized placing for the entry, regardless of where the other part(s) of the entry finished. So in this instance, once the 1 horse crossed the line, the 1A no longer mattered where it finished as far as wagering was concerned, as is in accordance with our OHRC Rulebook.



I hope this provides some sort of an explanation for you as to why the race was paid out the way it was, but it was done correctly. My contact information is listed below, please feel free to contact me if you need any further help.



Sincerely,

Jesse Ullery

Racing Secretary, Cherokee Casino- Will Rogers Downs

[Ocala Mike]

I can't believe that any jurisdiction other than Oklahoma would have that interpretation, but then I hear that Arizona doesn't use daylight time.

Guess it's up to the states to write pari-mutuel laws any way they want, but this interpretation goes against everything I ever learned about pari-mutuel.

I'd be curious to see how the purse was distributed.

[cj]

I can't believe that any jurisdiction other than Oklahoma would have that interpretation, but then I hear that Arizona doesn't use daylight time.

Guess it's up to the states to write pari-mutuel laws any way they want, but this interpretation goes against everything I ever learned about pari-mutuel.

I'd be curious to see how the purse was distributed.

I've never seen that interpretation ever, in Oklahoma or anywhere else.

[iceknight]

While we are talking about coupled entries, imagine the horrors of DQ's (of one half of the entry)!

PDF
http://www.governmentlaw.org/files/DisqualificationsandCoupledEntries.pdf

MASSACHUSETTS GAMING RULES:

http://massgaming.com/about/horse-racing/racing-rules-and-regulations/205-cmr-6-00/

Scroll down to 6.12

(2) For the purpose of price calculations only, coupled entries and mutuel fields shall be calculated as a single finisher, using the finishing position of the leading contestant in that coupled entry or mutuel field to determine order of placing. 205 CMR 6.12 shall apply to all circumstances, including situations involving a dead heat, except as otherwise provided by 205 CMR 6.00. (ARCI c. 9 g.p. § L(2))


Ohio Rules are Very very similar
(search for "Coupled Entries and Mutuel Fields" in the document)

http://www.racing.ohio.gov/pdfs/HarRul13.pdf

[davew]

you should email

Jesse Ullery

Racing Secretary, Cherokee Casino- Will Rogers Downs


back and ask them to explain rule 325:65-9-3. Place Pools to you ,

specifically under section (b) The net Place pool shall be distributed to winning wagers in the following precedence, based upon the official order of finish:
(1) If contestants of a coupled entry or mutual field finish in the first two places, as a single price pool to those who selected the coupled entry or mutual field; otherwise....

which you interpret to mean all of the place pool should have gone to the 1 entry which finished first and second, which is the only pay-off you question.

[Knowclew]

I just emailed mr. Ullery with the info Davew posted....sure will be interesting.

[cj]

I just emailed mr. Ullery with the info Davew posted....sure will be interesting.

It isn't like this is the first time an entry has run 1-2 in Oklahoma. It is the first time it has been paid this way.

They screwed it up, but as usual in the racing industry, they either don't want to admit it or are too dumb to know it.

[rastajenk]

Actually, I was under the impression that this Oklahoma interpretation was the commonly used method, up until maybe 10-15 years ago; maybe more, not really sure. I can't say whether someone goofed in this case, but I will say that that method is not unheard of.

[cj]

Actually, I was under the impression that this Oklahoma interpretation was the commonly used method, up until maybe 10-15 years ago; maybe more, not really sure. I can't say whether someone goofed in this case, but I will say that that method is not unheard of.

I can't say for sure this method was never used. I'm sure you are probably right. But, it wasn't 10-15 years ago, or even 20-25 years ago.

[Robert Fischer]

This is a rule that I didn't know.

Had a an entry across the board early this year (probably ran 1st and 3rd) .

They tend to be overbet enough that it would be hard to purposely exploit a place or show pool if you thought the entry was 1,2.

Still good to know what the official rule is for payouts.

[devilsbag]

I believe NYRA experimented with this method (1-4-3 rather than 1-1A-3) for a brief period, and if I had to guess it was in the 1980s.

I believe it was implemented by the same man who created the NYCOTB lettering system.

[Ocala Mike]

devilsbag, I worked as a pari-mutuel auditor at NYRA tracks during the period you mentioned, and I never encountered such an "experiment." Are you thinking somewhere other than NYRA? Doubt it was in NY, either flat or harness.

[usedtolovetvg]

Never in my life heard or saw this at any track. Would often load up on an entry, usually not favored, in the place and show positions hoping thy would both run in the money; better than bridge jumping for me and a lot less costly. I will admit though, I used to love the 1-1 exactas. Hated when they took that away.

[Knowclew]

Update for those that are interested:

I received a response this morning from racing secretary Jesse Ullery:

If you have any further questions in regards to this matter, specifically with questions in regards to the Rulebook, I encourage you to contact Gary Rohr, who is the Racing Enforcement agent for the OHRC at Will Rogers Downs. He will be able to direct you further on the rules more than I can if you have questions regarding the Commission regulations.



Thank you again for your concern.




That is the entire e-mail....not a comment of any kind. While I do appreciate him responding, I get the impression he would like me to forget about this, telling me who to contact, but not telling me how to do it.


Well, I found some contact info, and will try Mr. Rohr next.

I'll post if I get a response.

[cj]

Update for those that are interested:

I received a response this morning from racing secretary Jesse Ullery:

If you have any further questions in regards to this matter, specifically with questions in regards to the Rulebook, I encourage you to contact Gary Rohr, who is the Racing Enforcement agent for the OHRC at Will Rogers Downs. He will be able to direct you further on the rules more than I can if you have questions regarding the Commission regulations.



Thank you again for your concern.




That is the entire e-mail....not a comment of any kind. While I do appreciate him responding, I get the impression he would like me to forget about this, telling me who to contact, but not telling me how to do it.


Well, I found some contact info, and will try Mr. Rohr next.

I'll post if I get a response.


That sounds like "I thought you were just another dumb racing fan that would take my word as gospel. Now I don't know what to say."

[davew]

That is pretty bad - the rulebook is online
There is even a rule about 'complaints to parimutual department'
325:65-1-47. Which basically says that complaints made by patrons need to be followed by a report to the racing commission within 48 hours.

I was wrong, and the show pool should have also been a profit split, with 2/3rds going to entry..

[devilsbag]

Ocala Mike...it finally popped into my head, and I realized this exact scenario happened in the 1981 Acorn Stakes. Who doesn't remember the 1981 Acorn like it was yesterday?

I dipped into the archives and uncovered a recording of the race. Apologies on the sound quality, but I'll let Marshall Cassidy take over from here:

http://soundcloud.com/devilsbag/1981-acorn-stakes