Santa Anita screwing bettors again

[cj]

Last race comes off turf because jockeys say it is dangerous. First, they didn't tell anyone until after the 7th even though there were no intervening turf races.

But the real problem is in the P6 rules. Santa Anita pays out 70% to those that hit all 6, 15% to consos, and carries over 15% if there isn't a single winning ticket. But they made the last race an all, so there is NO CHANCE of a single winning ticket. Yet they are just carrying over the 15% anyway, essentially stealing it from bettors.

It is published beforehand, so buyer beware. That still doesn't make it right. These jackpot bets open up way too many cans of worms for me.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

CJ you have a real legitimate point here. Management rarely, if ever puts themselves in the shoes of the customers ( bettors), especially the serial bettors who wager decent sums of money. I wish I could say things will change but they never do. years ago Steven Crist spoke in favor of the bettors to management on a number of occasions on the NYRA circuit with some success.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Is that how the CHRB rules read?

[iamt]

Theoretically at least making a race an ALL wouldn't preclude the possibility of a single winner.

[Fager Fan]

So 15% carried over is stealing from the bettors? Not just this time but all times?

What would've been your solution, leave the bets as they were? There'd be fussing about that, no?

[cj]

ISo 15% carried over is stealing from the bettors? Not just this time but all times?

What would've been your solution, leave the bets as they were? There'd be fussing about that, no?


The right thing to do would be pay out all the money that was bet yesterday in this situation, not every day.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Agreed, the full 30% should be paid out here.

I play pick 6s, but not here anymore. While I dont think anyone really plays the pick 6 hoping for consos, it shifts that extra 15% to the larger bettors and syndicates. Not for me. Esp in this scenario.

[Exotic1]

I


The right thing to do would be pay out all the money that was bet yesterday in this situation, not every day.

Good idea. For Extraordinary circumstances such as this.

[foregoforever]

But they made the last race an all, so there is NO CHANCE of a single winning ticket. Yet they are just carrying over the 15% anyway, essentially stealing it from bettors.

I'm confused. I gather that there were potential single winners going into the last, so that the ALL eliminated the possibility of a single winner. You'd have them pay out the 15% as if there was one.

So how would you write the rule? Any sequence with an ALL always pays out the extra 15%? Or do you try to make it contingent on the nature of the ticket pool in the specific case?

This is too confusing. I'm feeling ill. :puke:

[cj]

I'm confused. I gather that there were potential single winners going into the last, so that the ALL eliminated the possibility of a single winner. You'd have them pay out the 15% as if there was one.

So how would you write the rule? Any sequence with an ALL always pays out the extra 15%? Or do you try to make it contingent on the nature of the ticket pool in the specific case?

This is too confusing. I'm feeling ill. :puke:

I'd write the rule so that if any race comes off the turf, resulting in an "all", the entire amount bet that day is paid out. Of course any carryover from prior days wouldn't be included in that.

Forgetting the Pick 6 for a minute, it was very unfair to anyone that played a P3. The 7th race should have been held up until a decision was made. Santa Anita certainly has no problems holding up a race to meet a "guaranteed" pool or to build up a pool that is getting a lot of action, like yesterday's P5. They certainly could have held the race up five or 10 minutes in this situation.

[dilanesp]

I'd write the rule so that if any race comes off the turf, resulting in an "all", the entire amount bet that day is paid out. Of course any carryover from prior days wouldn't be included in that.

Forgetting the Pick 6 for a minute, it was very unfair to anyone that played a P3. The 7th race should have been held up until a decision was made. Santa Anita certainly has no problems holding up a race to meet a "guaranteed" pool or to build up a pool that is getting a lot of action, like yesterday's P5. They certainly could have held the race up five or 10 minutes in this situation.

Holding races isn't all that easy in the modern world. There are contracts with simulcast partners that specify post times.

I agree with you about the Pick 6, but the reality is that there's no way to fully protect bettors in these situations, and as long as there's no insider trading involved (i.e., someone betting the Pick 3 knowing that the race is coming off the turf even though it isn't public knowledge), it doesn't seem THAT problematic especially when weighed against the safety concerns.

[JohnGalt1]

This is another reason Jackpot, or in SA's case, semi-jackpot bets, are sucker bets.

In this case they should have awarded 100% of the pool because of the change in surface.

[airford1]

I live REAL CLOSE to Santa Anita and there wasn't enough rain for me not to water my Lawn, so you decide who was looking to manipulate the pool.

[cj]

Holding races isn't all that easy in the modern world. There are contracts with simulcast partners that specify post times.

Bullcrap! They do it all the time when it suits their purposes. Santa Anita has shown time and again that post times are just a suggestion. NYRA has often sped up post times for bad weather, and delayed them for bad weather as well. Santa Anita does it too and like I mentioned, no problem doing it to meet a guarantee.

I agree with you about the Pick 6, but the reality is that there's no way to fully protect bettors in these situations, and as long as there's no insider trading involved (i.e., someone betting the Pick 3 knowing that the race is coming off the turf even though it isn't public knowledge), it doesn't seem THAT problematic especially when weighed against the safety concerns.



As for the Pick 3, they knew there was a potential issue and yet didn't tell the public a thing. It was very unfair to anyone betting the P3. The 6th race had just been run on turf and there was no more rain. There was no reason for bettors so suspect the race might come off the surface. To wait until after the 7th to announce it was a big middle finger to the public.

[dilanesp]

Bullcrap! They do it all the time when it suits their purposes. Santa Anita has shown time and again that post times are just a suggestion. NYRA has often sped up post times for bad weather, and delayed them for bad weather as well. Santa Anita does it too and like I mentioned, no problem doing it to meet a guarantee.





As for the Pick 3, they knew there was a potential issue and yet didn't tell the public a thing. It was very unfair to anyone betting the P3. The 6th race had just been run on turf and there was no more rain. There was no reason for bettors so suspect the race might come off the surface. To wait until after the 7th to announce it was a big middle finger to the public.

1. Actually, Santa Anita's post times are a much, much more accurate than they were 30 years ago, when races were routinely held 5 or even 10 minutes after post time. Nowadays they start within a minute or 2 of announced post times, and it's due to simulcasting.

2. It doesn't bother me that they did this, as long as nobody had insider information. So long as everyone is equally in the dark, it's just another form of bad racing luck.

[cj]

1. Actually, Santa Anita's post times are a much, much more accurate than they were 30 years ago, when races were routinely held 5 or even 10 minutes after post time. Nowadays they start within a minute or 2 of announced post times, and it's due to simulcasting.

2. It doesn't bother me that they did this, as long as nobody had insider information. So long as everyone is equally in the dark, it's just another form of bad racing luck.


1) Yes, most of the time, though I'd say within five minutes. But they have held races way beyond that to meet "guarantees". The only guarantee is that they will keep the windows open until the advertised minimum is met.

2) No wonder we get treated like we do. Luck had nothing to do with this. Mismanagement.

[therussmeister]

Holding races isn't all that easy in the modern world. There are contracts with simulcast partners that specify post times.

Parx must not engage in such contracts, or else they know in advance their listed post times are a pure work of fiction.

[ultracapper]

Santa Anita is always holding up races when there is a "hot" pool involved. I've watched when they've needed another 30% bet into guaranteed pools to meet the minimum at post time, yet they drag it out long enough to allow that extra betting. I'd love all the bettors to just sit down at post time when the $400k guaranteed pool is sitting at $275K, and just see what the hell SA would do.

[ultracapper]

And as to CJ's big middle finger, it was 2 middle fingers. Why couldn't SA put up on the reader board at 15MTP 7th race that "There are reports from the jockeys that the turf course may not be suitable for racing. We are in consideration of removing the 9th from the turf course"? Even if they don't delay the 7th, at least the bettors have that.

[cj]

Holding races isn't all that easy in the modern world. There are contracts with simulcast partners that specify post times.

I did some research on this. It simply isn't true. I wish it were, then we wouldn't get races run on top of each other all the time.

[dilanesp]

I did some research on this. It simply isn't true. I wish it were, then we wouldn't get races run on top of each other all the time.

Wow. I will take your word for it. I know that back when we started statewide simulcasting, there was extensive discussion of post times between the tracks, which led to the :00 and :30 format for Southern California and :15 and :45 for Golden Gate, which is still followed today, and that Santa Anita stopped delaying races on weekends to get more handle (which was ROUTINE until the 1990's). Races started actually going off every 30 minutes and to this day, it is very rare that a race goes off more than 3 or 4 minutes late in Southern California.

But apparently it never found its way into a contract, which surprises me.

[AskinHaskin]

Why couldn't SA put up on the reader board at 15MTP 7th race that "There are reports from the jockeys that the turf course may not be suitable for racing. We are in consideration of removing the 9th from the turf course"? Even if they don't delay the 7th, at least the bettors have that.


While you're at it, why not put up a post about "reports from PETA that horses here are being abused and drugged to suit their handlers" (and that) "their fragile legs might not be suitable for racing" (and then) "we are considering removing those PETA reporters from the entrances and exits around this fine establishment".


Brilliant idea!

[cj]

While you're at it, why not put up a post about "reports from PETA that horses here are being abused and drugged to suit their handlers" (and that) "their fragile legs might not be suitable for racing" (and then) "we are considering removing those PETA reporters from the entrances and exits around this fine establishment".


Brilliant idea!

A bit overdramatic...the public could have been told, even if not in those exact words.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Or just flash the inquiry sign. Nobody will be shocked and dismayed by the wrong call that way.

[ultracapper]

They could have said something, however they may have worded it.

[classhandicapper]

I'm glad I mostly bet win/place and verticals. ;)

[burnsy]

I'm glad I mostly bet win/place and verticals. ;)

Same here! Ill play a pick 3 or 4 when I like the conditions, those have been my biggest scores but I love me some exactas, win and place. That's my everyday "bread and butter".

People are talking 30 minutes.......in some sequences, its 90 minutes to almost 200 minutes or MORE. People bitch but in any sport that kind of time is like eternity. Anything can and does change in that amount of time, its the luck of a wager like that! People can complain all they want, the track can plan all they want and make goofy rules that cut the pay off.......there's no beating mother nature or fate. I feel way better knowing the result will come in 2 minutes or less. As we all know from playing, even that is asking for a lot! When you make those bets, you gotta be willing to kiss that money goodbye and live to fight the next day. Its the nature of the beast.

[dilanesp]

Same here! Ill play a pick 3 or 4 when I like the conditions, those have been my biggest scores but I love me some exactas, win and place. That's my everyday "bread and butter".

People are talking 30 minutes.......in some sequences, its 90 minutes to almost 200 minutes or MORE. People bitch but in any sport that kind of time is like eternity. Anything can and does change in that amount of time, its the luck of a wager like that! People can complain all they want, the track can plan all they want and make goofy rules that cut the pay off.......there's no beating mother nature or fate. I feel way better knowing the result will come in 2 minutes or less. As we all know from playing, even that is asking for a lot! When you make those bets, you gotta be willing to kiss that money goodbye and live to fight the next day. Its the nature of the beast.

Best comment in the thread IMO.

If there's insider information, that's a very different story, but as long as everyone is betting on the same information, these sorts of things don't bother me that much. They fall in the category of "bad racing luck", same as what happened to people who singled Shared Belief in their exotics on BC day in 2014. There's no system that will ensure that nothing bad will possibly happen when you are betting races in advance. As long as everyone is running the same risk, this stuff is just not that problematic.

[sour grapes]

completly wrong,according to the big gamblers here they should be making millions instead of a couple of bucks due to the conspiracy theorys against them:D