I'm shocked

[cj]

Not a peep on this board about the Del Mar Pick 6 fiasco today.

[cj]

I love the wording..."hang on to"

[EasyGoer89]

This is cray cray. Never seen this before, we will pay you at a later date. Be interesting to see if any gamblers 'lawyer up' and ask for 'interest accrued' on the money. Amazing.

Jay Privman talking about this on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/DRFPrivman

[acorn54]

popular strategy of lowering the bar in customer service for horseplayers, after all, it is the only game in town, as i was told early in my horseplaying career. in other words, put up or shut up and find something else to pipe dream about to make some easy income.

[Tom]

Del what now???


What a miserable excuse of a track.
Best thing would be a tsunami put it out its misery.
Can't figure our a payout....morons.

[Exotic1]

Not a peep on this board about the Del Mar Pick 6 fiasco today.

There is only so much simulation the programmers can plan for and a "Closing Day" scenario was not one of them. That Q&A team is really funny.

[theiman]

My understanding is Santa Anita will be offering the same Pick 6 format(jackpot carryover) at the meet starting on December 26th. I am sure the details for the mandatory payout information will be clear by the end of their winter spring meet.

[upthecreek]

https://mobile.twitter.com/NotSoDRF/status/805755101658812416?s=09

[Exotic1]

There is only so much simulation the programmers can plan for and a "Closing Day" scenario was not one of them. That Q&A team is really funny.


Maybe this wasn't a programming glitch at all. The Tote software may have worked properly as intended.

[foregoforever]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2HwTiDKu_FHZ2VtUFJkLTFFelk/view?usp=sharing

Thus speaketh the rule (105G, subsection 12):

Unless otherwise stated in writing by the Commission under subsection (9), on the last Pick (n) race on the final day of the meeting, the net pool, including any applicable carryover, shall be distributed as a single price pool to those who selected the first-place finisher in the greatest number of Pick (n) contests, based upon the official order of finish.

So, if anyone hit all 6, there is no payout for 5 of 6.

Earlier in the rule, it discusses numerous schemes with consolation pools (referred to as minor pools). It appears that Del Mar was using "Method 9, Pick (n) with the pool split into three shares, with Carryovers, and a Unique Winning Ticket Provision". The conso pool is the second of the three pools. Nothing in that section says that the conso payout doesn't apply on the final day.

But, the final day subsection doesn't provide for consos. Thus the ambiguity. It's screwy and doesn't reflect well on the rules, but Del Mar seems to have been following them.

[Tom]

This ain't rocket science.
And the last day of the meet was not sprung on them yesterday morning.

Do they not act professional and TEST all their software before going live with it?

Who sold them the algorithms, CRATOS? :bang:

[burnsy]

popular strategy of lowering the bar in customer service for horseplayers, after all, it is the only game in town, as i was told early in my horseplaying career. in other words, put up or shut up and find something else to pipe dream about to make some easy income.

Exactomundo, the horse racing "Leading minds" are delusional enough to think it is the only game in town and still operate accordingly. Their idea if "innovation" is adding another goofy bet to the menu or saying "lower the take out".

Customer service and making the player feel welcome, like they give a crap about you and your money is still floating around out there on the horizon.......somewhere over Lake Michigan, north of Terra Haute.

No one really says a "peep" because experienced people are numb to it, it happens so often they are trained to just bend over. Chances are, the hard core, regular bettor will keep playing......the "casuals" are only needed a few times a year anyway. Until the handle flat lines even more, don't expect much, they are not desperate enough yet, or are just taking it while the getting is good. Anyone that is shocked, where have you been for 30 years? You hit that at any other joint......they are looking for you! The comps will fly in hopes you keep playing. Do some of these guys even gamble?

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I just got done looking at the pools for the jackpot pick 6 compared to last year. Daily handle on it was about $312k per card compared to $275k in 2015, so it did better. They ran 20 days in 2015 compared to 15 days this year. Thursdays and Saturdays saw growth in respect to daily average with declines on Friday and Sundays.

I think the growth was attributed to more carryovers with no single ticket selecting 6 versus the jackpot carry provision when there is multiple winners of 6 and or course 5 out of 6.

I still think it rewards the bigger bettors and syndicates that target these pools with the jackpot carry provision than the every day player that may hit and share in the pool only getting the 15% of the consos. I fully expect to see this at Santa Anita.

[cj]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2HwTiDKu_FHZ2VtUFJkLTFFelk/view?usp=sharing

Thus speaketh the rule (105G, subsection 12):

Unless otherwise stated in writing by the Commission under subsection (9), on the last Pick (n) race on the final day of the meeting, the net pool, including any applicable carryover, shall be distributed as a single price pool to those who selected the first-place finisher in the greatest number of Pick (n) contests, based upon the official order of finish.

So, if anyone hit all 6, there is no payout for 5 of 6.

Earlier in the rule, it discusses numerous schemes with consolation pools (referred to as minor pools). It appears that Del Mar was using "Method 9, Pick (n) with the pool split into three shares, with Carryovers, and a Unique Winning Ticket Provision". The conso pool is the second of the three pools. Nothing in that section says that the conso payout doesn't apply on the final day.

But, the final day subsection doesn't provide for consos. Thus the ambiguity. It's screwy and doesn't reflect well on the rules, but Del Mar seems to have been following them.

Those aren't Del Mar rules though. They sort of dug up rules after the fact from an organization that has nothing to do with them best I can tell.

[dilanesp]

Del what now???


What a miserable excuse of a track.
Best thing would be a tsunami put it out its misery.
Can't figure our a payout....morons.

The payouts at California tracks are not handled by the track. They are handled by the regional simulcast entity.

This is why you occasionally have to wait at the windows after a result is put up as official at a California track. They get the payoff information from HQ.

EDIT: On second thought, this is an issue with Del Mar. The simulcast entity handles the CALCULATION of payouts, but Del Mar instructs them on how to pay out. So this is Del Mar's fault.

[Spalding No!]

The first obvious question, since there have been many mandatory payouts on closing days in SoCal, is what has gone on in the past and is this situation unique?

According to the CHRB Rule, the track determines what proportions of the Pick 6 pool are the major share and minor share respectively. However, it is not clear whether the track needs to adhere to the same proportions throughout the meet.

The association shall designate the percentage of the net pool considered the major share, and the percentage of the net pool considered the minor share, if any. The number of races comprising a Pick (n) must be at least four but no more than ten. Subsequent changes to the Pick (n) shall be requested in writing by the association. The Board or its designated representative shall respond in writing to such requests within five working days of their receipt at Board headquarters.

The other unclear (or rather unmentioned) situation is when someone actually hits the Pick 6 on a mandatory payout day. There is no mention of the entire pool being distributed as a win pool. However, it does spell out what is to happen when no one hits the Pick 6 on the mandatory payout day:

(i) If the Pick (n) carryover is designated for distribution on a specified date and performance in which no wager selects the first-place finisher in each of the Pick (n) races, the entire pool including the carryover shall be distributed as a win pool to ticket holders whose selection finished first in the greatest number of Pick (n) races.

So the presumption is that only if no one hit the Pick 6 would the entire pool be distributed as a win pool. If someone does hit the Pick 6 (which happened here) it seems like it should be business as usual, i.e., major share + carryover to winners and minor share to the rest.

[EasyGoer89]

I just got done looking at the pools for the jackpot pick 6 compared to last year. Daily handle on it was about $312k per card compared to $275k in 2015, so it did better. They ran 20 days in 2015 compared to 15 days this year. Thursdays and Saturdays saw growth in respect to daily average with declines on Friday and Sundays.

I think the growth was attributed to more carryovers with no single ticket selecting 6 versus the jackpot carry provision when there is multiple winners of 6 and or course 5 out of 6.

I still think it rewards the bigger bettors and syndicates that target these pools with the jackpot carry provision than the every day player that may hit and share in the pool only getting the 15% of the consos. I fully expect to see this at Santa Anita.

One advantage they have is they could keep flashing the 'jackpot carryover' sign which gives the illusion that there's an actual carryover, so cal players are conditioned to bet Into carryovers, it gives off the vibe that says 'everyone else is playing this bet, you don't want to be the only one who is not' it's good strategy, creates a 'buzz' around the pick 6.

[upthecreek]

https://mobile.twitter.com/raypaulick/status/805862463526858752?s=09

[cj]

The ACRI has no jurisdiction over anything that happens in California. They are trying to cover up a screw up. If they knew the possibilities and the outcomes, it wouldn't have taken them nearly a full day to explain themselves.

Possibilities:

1 6 of 6 ticket
>1 6 of 6 tickets
0 6 of 6 tickets

That is it and they couldn't figure it out?

[therussmeister]

This is cray cray. Never seen this before, we will pay you at a later date. Be interesting to see if any gamblers 'lawyer up' and ask for 'interest accrued' on the money. Amazing.

Jay Privman talking about this on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/DRFPrivman
Interest accrued would be about $1.72 before paying the lawyers.

[VeryOldMan]

https://mobile.twitter.com/raypaulick/status/805862463526858752?s=09
The underlying Del Mar statement said that they applied to CHRB for the "modification to its Pick Six" under ARCI rule 004-105G.

When was that modification notified and did CHRB accept it?

ARCI isn't jurisdictional here. What really matters is the authority of the underlying regulator and how this situation fits into its rules as written or interpreted.

I have no dog in this fight. Just experience in administrative law.

[JohnGalt1]

My understanding is that in past years they paid 70% to winners of six of six and 30% to five of six, and this year made it 85% and 15%.

I did not know there was a jackpot provision (my fault for not understanding what I read, or it wasn't my fault if it wasn't clearly written.)

I played Del Mar closing day, an played a pick six ticket. Went 4/6 so knew I didn't win. When I checked the results chart I was surprised to find it did not pay 5/6.

What happened to the 15% to 5/6?

Even though it did no effect me Sunday, I would've been pissed if I went 5/6.

I've stated many times here and in person how much I hate jackpot sucker bets.

A carryover of a jackpot bet is a fraud carryover.

I seldom play tracks with jackpot bets, and I like playing pick sixes if I can put together a bet. I have won the pick six ten times.

To me all these jackpot pick 5's and 6's are fixing something that isn't broken. Only GP gets play on their Rainbow version, but if you miss one race you're screwed. But at least we know the rules.

Two tracks I used to play a lot but seldom play anymore are Arlington and Hawthorne because of this. I liked Arlington's $1 pick six, it got decent play and the cost was more affordable than the $2 version.

When tracks I usually play tick me off, I find other tracks, until they tick me off.

[EasyGoer89]

Seems like DMR paying 89k to conso winners out of their own pocket. Well done if that's the case.

[cj]

Seems like DMR paying 89k to conso winners out of their own pocket. Well done if that's the case.

Where did you see this?

[Augenj]

Where did you see this?
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/218240/del-mar-to-pay-out-consolations-for-pick-6

[cj]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/218240/del-mar-to-pay-out-consolations-for-pick-6

Nice, good for them. A small expense to do the right thing.

I see SRU still doesn't know how to post links :)

[EasyGoer89]

Nice, good for them. A small expense to do the right thing.

I see SRU still doesn't know how to post links :)

:lol: good one.

[ultracapper]

Not being a P6 player, I didn't realize they'd went the way of the rainbow format until half way through the meet.

I was hoping Del Mar, of all places, would stay with the traditional P6. Again, it has no direct, race to race, effect on me. But 1) for image sake, I hoped Del Mar would stay away from the Rainbow format, and 2) the handle in the win/place pools is appreciably increased on the traditional P6 carryover days. The Rainbow carryover does not have much of an effect, if any at all, on the win/place pools.

[the little guy]

Not being a P6 player, I didn't realize they'd went the way of the rainbow format until half way through the meet.

I was hoping Del Mar, of all places, would stay with the traditional P6. Again, it has no direct, race to race, effect on me. But 1) for image sake, I hoped Del Mar would stay away from the Rainbow format, and 2) the handle in the win/place pools is appreciably increased on the traditional P6 carryover days. The Rainbow carryover does not have much of an effect, if any at all, on the win/place pools.


They didn't go " the way of the rainbow format. They withheld 15% of the pool for a carryover to go to a single winner. Not as significant an amount as Gulfstream and others. Don't get me wrong, I still personally hate the whole concept, I'm just clarifying.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Kudos to them for doing this. I have no dog in this fight, but to see a track do right by the player says alot. Similar to NYRA with the super mixup this past summer, it speaks volumes.

[AskinHaskin]

Seems like DMR paying 89k to conso winners out of their own pocket. Well done if that's the case.



LOL - yeah, "seems like"...


But what percentage of the 1095 tickets with 5 right were ON the winning pick-6 tickets, which are not eligible for the extra payment??


IF every winning pick-6 ticket, for wild example, went 2-deep in each leg, then each has 6 consos, and accounts for a total of 264 of the 1095.

A winning ticket that went 4x2x5x3x1x4 would have 13 consos which were NOT eligible for the extra payment.


And as it was a mandatory payout day, the syndicates were probably out in force, with wider/deeper tickets, perhaps making up a considerable number of those 1095 theoretical consos ON winning pick-6 tickets.

[SG4]

Kudos to them for doing this. I have no dog in this fight, but to see a track do right by the player says alot. Similar to NYRA with the super mixup this past summer, it speaks volumes.

Honestly I think the volumes being spoke the loudest are how pitiful it is that tracks continue to have issues with things which should 100% not be problems in the first place. I wouldn't go out of my way to pat an organization on the back for taking several days to figure out they need to do the right thing, not to mention do it in a half-assed way.

[dilanesp]

LOL - yeah, "seems like"...


But what percentage of the 1095 tickets with 5 right were ON the winning pick-6 tickets, which are not eligible for the extra payment??


IF every winning pick-6 ticket, for wild example, went 2-deep in each leg, then each has 6 consos, and accounts for a total of 264 of the 1095.

A winning ticket that went 4x2x5x3x1x4 would have 13 consos which were NOT eligible for the extra payment.


And as it was a mandatory payout day, the syndicates were probably out in force, with wider/deeper tickets, perhaps making up a considerable number of those 1095 theoretical consos ON winning pick-6 tickets.

I don't understand this argument. The people with 6 winners received a higher payoff for 6 than they would have received had the track paid out 5 winners. That isn't being taken away from them.

Giving them a payout on the fives would give them a windfall.

[cj]

I don't understand this argument. The people with 6 winners received a higher payoff for 6 than they would have received had the track paid out 5 winners. That isn't being taken away from them.

Giving them a payout on the fives would give them a windfall.

I took it to mean the extra amount they are paying out is actually much smaller than the number of actual 5 of 6 combos, that is all.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Honestly I think the volumes being spoke the loudest are how pitiful it is that tracks continue to have issues with things which should 100% not be problems in the first place. I wouldn't go out of my way to pat an organization on the back for taking several days to figure out they need to do the right thing, not to mention do it in a half-assed way.

Yes, some of these things shouldnt have happened in the first place. However, at least they are trying to make it right. Once a result goes official, regardless if it is wrong, there is usually no recourse. There have been several instances of that happening where it went to the courts and the ruling goes against the player.

The bettor is usually the last one thought about. A horse tests positive for a drug violation and the purse gets redistributed to the connections involved. What happens to the bettor that gets screwed? Nothing.

[AskinHaskin]

I don't understand this argument. The people with 6 winners received a higher payoff for 6 than they would have received had the track paid out 5 winners. That isn't being taken away from them.

Giving them a payout on the fives would give them a windfall.


Yeah, where is there an "argument".


There is factual reality, and whatever it is that you're seeing and/or talking about.

[dilanesp]

Yeah, where is there an "argument".


There is factual reality, and whatever it is that you're seeing and/or talking about.

The factual reality is what I said it is.

[AskinHaskin]

The factual reality is what I said it is.


Uh, fine, but where is the "argument" you were somehow manufacturing?