Beyer on GP cancellaton

[karlskorner]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/sports/columns/beyerandrew/

[JimG]

Thanks for the link. This situation has got more press than it deserves. (Between Beyer and Hovdey) Time to move on....that race is over with...kind of like listening to the guy next to you complain about the wet track or the jockey's ride....next race anyone?

Jim

[ranchwest]

Betting on one thing and getting something else has long been a problem. If you bet a coupled entry and the better horse is scratched, you end up with a lesser horse but you still have the live ticket.

I was recently standing next to a guy who didn't realize that the more attractive side of an entry was scratched. The morning line was something like 8/5 and the entry mate won at something like 8-1. This guy at the track was mumbling about how this showed how fixed racing is. Of course, everything that people miss or they don't understand shows how fixed racing is.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it is a problem.

[cj]

This situation has got more press than it deserves. (Between Beyer and Hovdey) Time to move on....Jim

Jim,

I feel if more light is shed on these situations, it will cut down on the number of times it happens. If you just forget it and move on, the tracks have no reason not to do it again and again.

CJ

[JimG]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski


Jim,

I feel if more light is shed on these situations, it will cut down on the number of times it happens. If you just forget it and move on, the tracks have no reason not to do it again and again.

CJ

"What happened" is the jockeys decided it was unsafe to ride. That is not going to change. Bettors making bets on future races (pick 6, pick 3) are upset at the change from turf to dirt (and that will not change as long as the turf is deemed unsafe to ride on) If you make these types of bets, you must accept the additional risks. I know I do.

Jim

[Jeff P]

Originally quoted by Andrew Beyer in his column
The sport needs to deal with such situations in a more fair way, and should do it this way: In pick threes, tracks should treat the switched race as if it were canceled and pay off on the basis of a pick-two. The same would be true in a pick six; bettors who picked five would share the entire pool wagered that day, but they wouldn't be entitled to any share of the carry-over jackpot.

I'll offer what I have always thought might be a better solution to the problem from the perspective of the bettor. What if the mutuel tote system had the ability to handle scratches in multiple race bets in this manner:

In the event of a scratch in a multiple race bet, what if the bettor had the option of taking his ticket to the mutuel window and exchanging the scratched horse or horses for an equal number of live horses of his choice.

Example: Lets say that Brubaker, the guy in Beyer's column who was live in the first five legs of the pick six to Bluebird Day, knowing that Bluebird Day was scratched, is not happy with whoever the apparent favorite for the final race is going to be. He's live to a single horse that is scratched. He takes his ticket to the mutuel window. The clerk runs the ticket through the machine which now has a function allowing only a scratched horse or horses to be replaced with an equal number of horses that are still live runners. Brubaker tells the cashier, "Make it the 7 horse." Bluebird Day is replaced by another horse.

The result?

1. The race is still off the turf- that part was never going to change.

2. Bluebird Day is scratched- the connections always have the option to do that.

3. The bettor at least now has a chance to select what horse or horses he wants on his ticket in the event of a scratch or scratches. He can now replace scratches on his ticket with an equal number of live runners at any point along the way in multiple race bets. If no replacement is made or requested then the bettor receives the post time favorite. If only one part of an entry is scratched, the bettor still has the option to replace it on his ticket with another live horse.

What do the rest of you guys think of this?

[GR1@HTR]

CJ-Milk,

What the heck are you feeding that little phocker. The thing is hummin quite nicely. Nice Avatar...

[cj]

Til I bet on him, then he'll spit the bit...lol!

CJ

[rrbauer]

In California, P6 bets (and maybe the Place-All bet) provide an option that allows selection of an "alternate" in the case of a scratch. The alternate-selection has to be declared at the time the bet is placed. If you do not choose an alternate then you get the post-time fav in event of a scratch.

Recently the CHRB pari-mutuel committee approved extending the alternate-selection option to P3 and P4 bets which also use the post-time fav in the event of a scratch. It's currently being worked on by Autotote.

I like Jeff's idea of being able to name the substitute at racetime, but my guess is that the logistics to implement that given the amount of betting being done with self-service terminals, over the phone and on the internet make it a lead balloon.

[tanda]

I love how whenever anybody proposes an improvement, somebody writes that the "logistics are too complicated."

According to these people, the following are too complicated:

1) Post odds in decimal form, if not on the toteboard, then the monitors,

2) Time each horse,

3) Transmit wager data from off-track sources nearly instantly so that odds update in near real-time,

4) Allow alternate picks on all serial wagers,

etc., etc.

In 1968, we could send signals to the moon with only a 1.5 second delay. In 2002, Belmont Park cannot send wager data to Keeneland in less then several minutes. So, we see horses dropping/rising in odds after the race is finished as data arrives several minutes late.

It is not "complicated logistics" at all. These things can all be done. It is a failure of will.

By the way, I love the track president saying that Bruhaker should have been happy with the consolation. There is nothing sweeter then a person screwing you and then saying that you should be happy that you got screwed.

Now, if the track only paid out part of the purse, then told the trainers, jockeys and owners that the money winners should be happy just to receive the reduced purse, I wonder what the reaction would be?

[ranchwest]

Maybe the track should have given him the $35K and then he could have told them that they should be happy that he would be remaining a customer since he didn't get the $7K.

Delta Downs' original board was in decimal. I think the current board is in odds.

Most newbies don't do very well with the fractional odds.

I was watching a race Saturday where my horse was second favorite loading in the gate at 2-1. By the time they hit the turn, he was the even money favorite.

[anotherdave]

I remember a tote board at a harness track from 35 years ago (I think in Ainslie) where they gave the win price in dollars and cents and a range of place and show prices. (It would say the place on 2 would pay between $3.60 and $5.40). And the odd track does show the win pay in dollars and cents-e.g. Stampede Park.

We still have 8-5 and nothing about place or show. (A few years ago I remember some guy getting tossed out because he was throwing chairs. He had $20 to show on a 50-1 shot who came third and got 2.10, couldn't seem to understand why - the 1-5 shot won the race.

I don't mind it, but for a newcomer it is confusing. There is no reason (except nostalgia?) for a more readable toteboard.

Same with the individual timing of horses - this has been brought up before, but it is possible and the right thing to do. It seems that most of the changes in the last decade in the DRF were developed because of competition, not because they wanted a better product-maybe that will happen again.

As far as the alternate horse thing. If we could designate it at the time, fine, but to do it by exchanging tickets would be a hard thing to do logistically - especially with the different ways (phone, in person, internet) and places people wager. That would take some work.

AD