Remington disallows a jackpot ticket on a technicality

[dilanesp]

This is almost a law school hypothetical.

This guy had the only ticket on the jackpot pick 6. Unfortunately, there was a dead heat in the sequence, and he covered both horses in the dead heat. Had he been half-wrong on the race, he would have won the jackpot, but because he correctly identified both winners, he loses.

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/remington-park-fails-to-pay-jackpot-to-single-ticket-winner/#.XpjcgQYt5jk.twitter

[Robert Fischer]

bummer

I don't know how I feel about the ruling. Sounds fair, but unfortunate at first glance. :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

Horrible ruling...but it serves him right for betting that kind of money on quarter horses. :)

[Immortal6]

Sucks for the guy but “technically” the track is correct. There were 2 winning tickets...still pretty sleazy of them though.

[jay68802]

Remington Park will debut a new wager on its racing program this Friday night, Oct. 5. The Sooner 6ix will challenge horseplayers and offer a jackpot payoff if there is only one ticket with six of six correct.

This unique “pick six-style” wager is a 20-cent bet and will cover the final six races on the Remington Park racing card every race date. The Sooner 6ix races on Friday night (races 4 thru 9) have 59 horses entered for an average field size of 9.83 per race.

The Sooner 6ix will payout 50% of the wagering pool to winning tickets with six of six correct. If there are no tickets with the winners of all six races picked, then the payoff moves down to tickets with five of six correct, and so on. The other 50% of the wagering pool will carryover to the jackpot pool. That carryover pool will grow until there is one unique ticket with six-of-six correct, winning the entire pool for the wager, plus the carryover, or until there is a mandatory payout situation on the final day of the season.

Tough one for Remington. If it would say "one unique winning combination", I would think they have a chance. But their rules clearly state "ticket".

PAY THE GUY HIS MONEY!

[jay68802]

Sucks for the guy but “technically” the track is correct. There were 2 winning tickets...still pretty sleazy of them though.

Got to disagree. He had 1 ticket.

[dilanesp]

One thing is if I were his lawyer I would subpoena the photo. Because if there was even one micrometer of distance between those two horses, I would contend they have to pay off.

[thaskalos]

Two winners because of a dead heat...and the same guy holds both winning tickets. I remember reading about another instance a few years ago...where someone bet a combination twice...and that proved to be the only winning sequence. But it was viewed as if there were "two winners"...and he didn't get paid either.

[castaway01]

Technically the track is right but it's awful luck for the bettor.

[dilanesp]

Two winners because of a dead heat...and the same guy holds both winning tickets. I remember reading about another instance a few years ago...where someone bet a combination twice...and that proved to be the only winning sequence. But it was viewed as if there were "two winners"...and he didn't get paid either.

It's good to know Chris Harn can't hit the jackpot pick 6.

[Mason]

PAY THE GUY HIS MONEY!

Based on the rules written by Remington Park, the guy did in fact have the only unique ticket https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Jeff-Arthur-P6.jpeg so I agree, he deserves the jackpot.

Time for them to re-write the rules reflecting the dead heat procedure.

[moneyandland]

Two winners because of a dead heat...and the same guy holds both winning tickets. I remember reading about another instance a few years ago...where someone bet a combination twice...and that proved to be the only winning sequence. But it was viewed as if there were "two winners"...and he didn't get paid either.

IIRC it was a single ticket holder who had a scratched horse tranferred to the post time favorite which won so got 2 winning tickets and was screwed out of the pk6

[Elkchester Road]

It is a terrible decision.

It is times like these that I am glad I am too "slow" to play multi-race wagers.

Hopefully, this guy doesn't get to "chasing" that money in that carryover.

[Poindexter]

Remington Park will debut a new wager on its racing program this Friday night, Oct. 5. The Sooner 6ix will challenge horseplayers and offer a jackpot payoff if there is only one ticket with six of six correct.

This unique “pick six-style” wager is a 20-cent bet and will cover the final six races on the Remington Park racing card every race date. The Sooner 6ix races on Friday night (races 4 thru 9) have 59 horses entered for an average field size of 9.83 per race.

The Sooner 6ix will payout 50% of the wagering pool to winning tickets with six of six correct. If there are no tickets with the winners of all six races picked, then the payoff moves down to tickets with five of six correct, and so on. The other 50% of the wagering pool will carryover to the jackpot pool. That carryover pool will grow until there is one unique ticket with six-of-six correct, winning the entire pool for the wager, plus the carryover, or until there is a mandatory payout situation on the final day of the season.

Tough one for Remington. If it would say "one unique winning combination", I would think they have a chance. But their rules clearly state "ticket".

PAY THE GUY HIS MONEY!


I completely agree with you.

[horses4courses]

Bad ruling - and even worse PR for the track.

It's not as if they were booking the bet.
They win regardless.
Unless, they do something stupid like this.

The ruling won't help their handle down the road on this wager.
Putting a $ figure on goodwill and reputation is harder, but it will hurt them.

[cj]

Another case, and there have been many, where the people implementing a new bet didn't understand enough about the sport and about to betting to consider all the possibilities. And this isn't some crazy thing that couldn't be foreseen, it is a dead heat which is far from rare in horse racing.

I can't believe they are willing to take this PR hit over such a measly amount for a racetrack.

[GMB@BP]

Well, it was two tickets printed on one ticket. Same as getting consolations in the pick 6.

I dont see how the track was wrong here. Tough break but the guy wasnt wronged.

[cj]

Well, it was two tickets printed on one ticket. Same as getting consolations in the pick 6.

I dont see how the track was wrong here. Tough break but the guy wasnt wronged.

The track didn't even have a rule in place, so not sure how you can defend them. Other jurisdictions have a rule in place for this situation and the ones I've seen favor the bettor.

[horses4courses]

Well, it was two tickets printed on one ticket. Same as getting consolations in the pick 6.

I dont see how the track was wrong here. Tough break but the guy wasnt wronged.

Having only one ticket, although containing multiple wagers,
actually proves the bettor's case beyond a doubt.

Dead-heating results in having half winner/half loser.
This bettor actually having both horses gives him both winning halves.
There really is no conceivable argument against him not receiving the jackpot.

If it was me, I would hire a lawyer (assuming the jackpot was large enough).

[ReplayRandall]

It's the only game in town, but horse racing has to screw it up as usual, first with the Will Rogers tote delay fiasco, and now this....It just never ends...:bang:

[JerryBoyle]

Piling on to Remington, how was the 5 in race 9 tonight (4/16) not declared a non-starter? Not only did the 5 not clear the gate, it made negative progress lol. I always thought any runner that never cleared the gate was considered a non starter, but do tracks have more discretion than that?

[jay68802]

Piling on to Remington, how was the 5 in race 9 tonight (4/16) not declared a non-starter? Not only did the 5 not clear the gate, it made negative progress lol. I always thought any runner that never cleared the gate was considered a non starter, but do tracks have more discretion than that?

From the Oklahoma Rules of Racing.

"Starter" means a horse whose stall door of
the starting gate opens in front of such horse at the
time the Starter (the Official) dispatches the
horses.

[jay68802]

Another interesting tidbit from the Oklahoma Rules on racing.


(c) If there is a dead heat for first in any of the
Pick (n) contests involving:
(1) contestants representing the same
betting interest, the Pick (n) pool shall be
distributed as if no dead heat occurred.
(2) contestants representing two or more
betting interests, the Pick (n) pool shall be
distributed as a single price pool with each
winning wager receiving an equal share of the
profit.

I read this as if there is a dead heat, each winning wager receives a equal share. Since this was the only winning ticket, each wager would be awarded 1/2 the total pool.

PAY HIM HIS MONEY!

[The_Turf_Monster]

The reasons to not bet into the jackpot pools never cease to amaze me, this one might top it

[JerryBoyle]

From the Oklahoma Rules of Racing.

"Starter" means a horse whose stall door of
the starting gate opens in front of such horse at the
time the Starter (the Official) dispatches the
horses.

Ahh, thank you sir

[JerryBoyle]

Another interesting tidbit from the Oklahoma Rules on racing.


(c) If there is a dead heat for first in any of the
Pick (n) contests involving:
(1) contestants representing the same
betting interest, the Pick (n) pool shall be
distributed as if no dead heat occurred.
(2) contestants representing two or more
betting interests, the Pick (n) pool shall be
distributed as a single price pool with each
winning wager receiving an equal share of the
profit.

I read this as if there is a dead heat, each winning wager receives a equal share. Since this was the only winning ticket, each wager would be awarded 1/2 the total pool.

PAY HIM HIS MONEY!

That reads like he should be paid wtf

[Waquoit]

Another interesting tidbit from the Oklahoma
I read this as if there is a dead heat, each winning wager receives a equal share. Since this was the only winning ticket, each wager would be awarded 1/2 the total pool.

PAY HIM HIS MONEY!

Exactly. I know there isn't much we can do but I sent an email to RP saying I've bet my last dollar there until they pay the man.

[Boomer]

Had his ticket included only one of the dead-headed horses he wins the jackpot.


The irony is his successful handicapping costs him the jackpot. So much for handicapping acumen weighing into the equation.


Remington, this is not your money anyways. PAY THE MAN. The optics of this is horrible. Why make a decision for him to lose this bet when there is no rule on he books? This should be about handicapping not numbers like a blind lottery

[JohnGalt1]

Oh the folly of the SUCKER jackpot bets.

If this was a traditional pick six, even a dollar pick six, he would have split the whole pool with himself.

I do believe he should get paid the whole pool.

[airford1]

This just wrong. He had the ticket, it's a pool not like a Casino.

[BIG RED]

I would love to see the ruling, in court, on this. Then they would re-word the rules of wagers, and have it in 'ink'. I'm stuck

When I first read the article, I went with the track. To me it is technically two different wagers.

Then I seen Jays post of rules stating they will pay the jackpot if there is only one ticket. Hence, there is only one. How rare is it that one person has the only dead heat ticket in a jackpot poll? I understand what CJ said about DHs, but this is rare and probably why it wasn't thought out and put in ink.

But I say now....PAY THE MAN!

[cj]

https://twitter.com/RemingtonPark/status/1251278916343549952

[cj]

I would love to see the ruling, in court, on this. Then they would re-word the rules of wagers, and have it in 'ink'. I'm stuck

When I first read the article, I went with the track. To me it is technically two different wagers.

Then I seen Jays post of rules stating they will pay the jackpot if there is only one ticket. Hence, there is only one. How rare is it that one person has the only dead heat ticket in a jackpot poll? I understand what CJ said about DHs, but this is rare and probably why it wasn't thought out and put in ink.

But I say now....PAY THE MAN!

I guess we define rare differently. Dead heats happen often enough, should have been foreseeable. I would say a triple dead heat is rare. If something is foreseeable it should have been thought through and included in the rules.

[dilanesp]

https://twitter.com/RemingtonPark/status/1251278916343549952

Ruh roh. Someone is in deep doo doo....

[cj]

Ruh roh. Someone is in deep doo doo....

Could have been worse, it was up for grabs last night!

[thaskalos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwEIjbfOHD0

[jay68802]

Could have been worse, it was up for grabs last night!

Yeah, I would think the track is on the hook if the bet was hit twice. Glad to see that they did this. To me, it means that they are taking a second look at things and have been advised that they may be wrong on their decision not to pay this guy.

[JohnGalt1]

So if he had only one of horses, and not both, he would've taken the whole pool.

[castaway01]

So if he had only one of horses, and not both, he would've taken the whole pool.

Yes

[Red Knave]

Do we know what would have happened if 2 different ticket holders each had a different one of the dead-heated pair and all the rest of the winners? Would they then each get half since they would each have had the only ticket with that sequence?
Inquiring minds want to stir the pot. :confused: :)

[Jeff P]

I think under that scenario there would be two winning ticket holders and two winning tickets, and therefore: no single jackpot winner.


Btw, I'm very strongly in the "pay that man his money" camp.

If the image I saw is accurate: He's in possession of a single printed "ticket."


-jp

.

[alhattab]

I think under that scenario there would be two winning ticket holders and two winning tickets, and therefore: no single jackpot winner.


Btw, I'm very strongly in the "pay that man his money" camp.

If the image I saw is accurate: He's in possession of a single printed "ticket."


-jp

.

Would you feel differently if the same player made the exact same play, but on two "tickets". One ticket has the one DH winner, and the other has the other DH winner? I always thought each play i.e., each combination represented 1 "ticket". Not sure if this still happens but I recall making horizontal bets and the printed ticket would actually say "x" tickets representing the # of individual combos. Another way to think about this would be if he hit 5/6 with the losing race being the DH race. If it paid 5/6 he would get paid 2x, so my view is there are 2 winning tix.

[Muddy]

Could have been worse, it was up for grabs last night!It was canceled last night also.

10 race payouts
$2 DOUBLE 5/7 $45.00
$2 EXACTA 7/8 $42.60
$0.50 PICK-3 9/5/7 $24.30
$0.50 PICK-4 8/9/5/7 $372.35
PICK-6 Refunded $0.00
$0.10 SUPERFECTA 7/8/11/1 $131.49
$0.50 TRIFECTA 7/8/11 $90.80

[cj]

It was canceled last night also.

10 race payouts
$2 DOUBLE 5/7 $45.00
$2 EXACTA 7/8 $42.60
$0.50 PICK-3 9/5/7 $24.30
$0.50 PICK-4 8/9/5/7 $372.35
PICK-6 Refunded $0.00
$0.10 SUPERFECTA 7/8/11/1 $131.49
$0.50 TRIFECTA 7/8/11 $90.80

It is canceled until further notice.

[JerryBoyle]

Do we know what would have happened if 2 different ticket holders each had a different one of the dead-heated pair and all the rest of the winners? Would they then each get half since they would each have had the only ticket with that sequence?
Inquiring minds want to stir the pot. :confused: :)

Ahhh, that is an interesting wrinkle. I was in the pay him camp, but now idk. Seems like first we have to define what a single ticket holder is. To me, one ticket is one single combination. This is more robust and less arbitrary to me than "anything that was on a single ticket, combinations included", which lends itself to different payouts based on how you may have structured.

If the single combination definition is used, 2 combinations hit so no jackpot :(. To me, that's the logical answer, but it's definitely a horrible look for racing...

[cj]

Ahhh, that is an interesting wrinkle. I was in the pay him camp, but now idk. Seems like first we have to define what a single ticket holder is. To me, one ticket is one single combination. This is more robust and less arbitrary to me than "anything that was on a single ticket, combinations included", which lends itself to different payouts based on how you may have structured.

If the single combination definition is used, 2 combinations hit so no jackpot :(. To me, that's the logical answer, but it's definitely a horrible look for racing...

You should not be able to lose out because of a dead heat. Other jurisdictions already have this rule in place. Oklahoma just didn't think to institute I guess. The same goes for scratching into a favorite. If you wind up with the ticket twice because you had the favorite already, you shouldn't be ineligible for the jackpot payout in that case either. For example, you are the only person alive going into the last leg and you have the 3 and 6. The 6 is the favorite, the 3 scratches at the gate. You now have two winning tickets. That shouldn't disqualify you either.

[thaskalos]

You should not be able to lose out because of a dead heat. Other jurisdictions already have this rule in place. Oklahoma just didn't think to institute I guess. The same goes for scratching into a favorite. If you wind up with the ticket twice because you had the favorite already, you shouldn't be ineligible for the jackpot payout in that case either. For example, you are the only person alive going into the last leg and you have the 3 and 6. The 6 is the favorite, the 3 scratches at the gate. You now have two winning tickets. That shouldn't disqualify you either.

I agree totally. But you are asking for "logic" in a game where logic is usually avoided.

[JerryBoyle]

You should not be able to lose out because of a dead heat. Other jurisdictions already have this rule in place. Oklahoma just didn't think to institute I guess. The same goes for scratching into a favorite. If you wind up with the ticket twice because you had the favorite already, you shouldn't be ineligible for the jackpot payout in that case either. For example, you are the only person alive going into the last leg and you have the 3 and 6. The 6 is the favorite, the 3 scratches at the gate. You now have two winning tickets. That shouldn't disqualify you either.

But how would handle the situation of 2 separate ticket holders each having 1 runner in the dh? Scratching is different. Define a combination as a single ticket. No matter how you break the funds up on that ticket. So if I get scratched onto the favorite, but already have it, that's still 1 combination I hold.

[thaskalos]

But how would handle the situation of 2 separate ticket holders each having 1 runner in the dh? Scratching is different. Define a combination as a single ticket. No matter how you break the funds up on that ticket. So if I get scratched onto the favorite, but already have it, that's still 1 combination I hold.

If there is a dead heat, and 2 different ticket holders have the 2 dead-heated horses...then there are 2 winners and the money carries over. But when the SAME bettor holds both sides of the DH...then the guy needs to get paid.

[JerryBoyle]

If there is a dead heat, and 2 different ticket holders have the 2 dead-heated horses...then there are 2 winners and the money carries over. But when the SAME bettor holds both sides of the DH...then the guy needs to get paid.

Taht to me is the break in logic then

[horses4courses]

But how would handle the situation of 2 separate ticket holders each having 1 runner in the dh?

That's a different situation.
Two separate winners there - no jackpot, imo.

[horses4courses]

Taht to me is the break in logic then

How so?
If either horse gets an inch in front, bettor wins jackpot.

In the case of a dead heat, the same bettor has each winning half.
Pay the jackpot.

[thaskalos]

And if the same guy bets a winning combination twice...and no-one else has that winning combination...then this guy has to take down the whole pool. The idea of having the same bettor betting against HIMSELF is ridiculous, IMO. Especially when multiple combinations are encouraged in order to collect more when the wager carries over.

[Redboard]

And if the same guy bets a winning combination twice...and no-one else has that winning combination...then this guy has to take down the whole pool. The idea of having the same bettor betting against HIMSELF is ridiculous, IMO. Especially when multiple combinations are encouraged in order to collect more when the wager carries over.

Since most bets are made online with numerous ADWs would the host track have that information? (whether two winning combinations were made by the same guy)

Most who play the jackpot bet realize that one can nullify the jackpot if one bets multiple overlapping tickets, which is a very common way of betting.

The fact that a dead heat caused this situation probably wont happen again in my lifetime( I'll give anyone here 100-1), but the case where one bettor has multiple winning tickets, and nobody else has any, is a lot more likely.

[BSniff]

The guy is the only winner. Pay him.

[jay68802]

Remington Park will debut a new wager on its racing program this Friday night, Oct. 5. The Sooner 6ix will challenge horseplayers and offer a jackpot payoff if there is only one ticket with six of six correct.


Define a ticket.

(1) To be deemed a valid pari-mutuel ticket,
(G) the number or numbers
representing the betting interests for which the wager is recorded.

A ticket can have multiple "numbers representing the betting interests" and is considered a wager. Wager is singular, not plural. One ticket with multiple betting interests is considered one wager and one ticket.

To compare the difference between Pick 3 and Pick n payouts in dealing with dead heats.

Pick 3

(c) If there is a dead heat for first in any of the
three contests involving:
(1) contestants representing the same
betting interest, the Win Three pool shall be
distributed as if no dead heat occurred.
(2) contestants representing two or more
betting interests, the Win Three pool shall be
distributed as follows:
(A) as a profit split to those whose
selections finished first in each of the three
contests; but if there are no such wagers,
then

Pick N

(c) If there is a dead heat for first in any of the Pick (n) contests involving: (1) contestants representing the same betting interest, the Pick (n) pool shall be distributed as if no dead heat occurred. (2) contestants representing two or more betting interests, the Pick (n) pool shall be distributed as a single price pool with each winning wager receiving an equal share of the profit.

The difference is in a pick 3 pool, the pool is treated as a profit split pool. Basically just as win bet would be treated.

In the Pick N, the pool is treated as a single price pool. In other words it is paid out as if no dead heat happened. This is all in the OHRC rules. They have had plenty of time to make a decision on this. The fact that this has taken so long is unbelievable.

[wisconsin]

Here's the funny part: Remington Park is NOT even on the hook for the money. It's already been bet into the pool. :bang:


Pay the man and be done with it.

[dilanesp]

Here's the funny part: Remington Park is NOT even on the hook for the money. It's already been bet into the pool. :bang:


Pay the man and be done with it.

They still had a financial interest in not paying off, so the jackpot grew.

[ReplayRandall]

They still had a financial interest in not paying off, so the jackpot grew.Wrong...See CJ's post #32.

[dilanesp]

Wrong...See CJ's post #32.

That happened a few days AFTER the decision not tonpay out

At the time of the initial ruling, the incentive was as I described.

[Redboard]

I'm confused. Did they pay the man?

[wisconsin]

They still had a financial interest in not paying off, so the jackpot grew.



They can start over. It was not going to become a 6 or 7 figure jackpot any time soon.

[Robert Fischer]

this kinda stuff does not seduce my brain


excuse any 'brain-farts', not going beyond a read-n-react


but at superficial, 'first - thought',
a situation like this doesn't provide a jackpot advantage to the player. He used (at least) '2' in the leg, happened to be the only winner?, with the help of either/both horses, just that they were tied in a 'dead-heat'? Sounds like a payout.

At first thought, I'd also say the same for if a knucklehead bet twice the minimum (rather than the minimum) and hit '2' tix rather than one... No inherent advantage.

If others had one or both of dead-heat horses + the remaining sequence, then no 'jackpot'...

again, I could be missing something relevant

[Jeff P]

Robert, I don't think you're missing anything.

The problem is, and Imo CJ stated it pretty well early on in this thread:

Remington Park didn't fully think things through before going live with the bet.

Scratches happen all the time.

Players bet multiple combos on the same "ticket" all the time.

Dead heats aren't that uncommon.

Other events, like having to take races off the turf or cancel the remainder of a card because of weather, etc. while your single winner jackpot pick-n bet is underway - stuff like that happens every once in a while too.

Other tracks offering single winner jackpot pick-n bets have discovered (in some cases through baptism by fire) they need rules in place that clearly define how each of these (and more) foreseeable contingencies are handled for purposes of paying out their single winner jackpot pick-n bets.

Before you go live with a single winner jackpot pick-n bet:

You need a clearly defined set of rules for all of your foreseeable contingencies.

I'll go a step further than that.

For single winner jackpot pick-n bets, it might be a good idea for tracks to add a 'catch-all' rule to cover the truly unforeseen.

Something along the lines of: "In the event some unforeseen contingency not covered in sections i. through viii. (above) happens during the running of the single winner jackpot pick-n wager:

The Commissioners of the <fill in the name of the state regulatory body> Racing Commission shall determine whether or not to pay out the carryover jackpot by majority vote and the decision of the Racing Commissioners shall be final."

Had Remington Park fully thought things through ahead of time this wouldn't be a news item.

But they didn't and here we are.

All of that said --

I say pay that man his money.


-jp

.

[ReplayRandall]

That happened a few days AFTER the decision not tonpay out

At the time of the initial ruling, the incentive was as I described.Yaaaawnnn…..:sleeping::sleeping:

[dilanesp]

Yaaaawnnn…..:sleeping::sleeping:

You said something wrong. I corrected you. You yawned....

[ReplayRandall]

You said something wrong. I corrected you. You yawned....Stop with your nonsense....I'll embarrass you...Fair warning, Sport....I ain't TLG...:rip:

[foregoforever]

Stop with your nonsense....I'll embarrass you...Fair warning, Sport....I ain't TLG...:rip:

Come after me too. dilanesp is correct, and he explained why. Tracks ALWAYS have an incentive to not pay out on Jackpot bets and let the pot grow.

[ReplayRandall]

Come after me too. dilanesp is correct, and he explained why. Tracks ALWAYS have an incentive to not pay out on Jackpot bets and let the pot grow.They've stopped the bet....It is in litigation...Quit being a pop-up mole martyr.

[dilanesp]

They've stopped the bet....It is in litigation...Quit being a pop-up mole martyr.

They stopped the bet by order of the racing commission after keeping it going at least one day.

And stop calling me "Sport". It's condescending.

[ReplayRandall]

They stopped the bet by order of the racing commission after keeping it going at least one day.

And stop calling me "Sport". It's condescending.Ok Pal, whatever you say....this will be fun...:pound:

[woodbinepmi]

Pay that man his money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwc5uC7ojxs

[v j stauffer]

Ok Pal, whatever you say....this will be fun...:pound:

C'mon Tiger that's no way to address a good Kid like Dilan

[kingfin66]

C'mon Tiger that's no way to address a good Kid like Dilan

You best be watching yourself too sparky. :)

[v j stauffer]

You best be watching yourself too sparky. :)

You're right Champ

[mountainman]

Wagering off-shore thru Pinnacle, a partner and I once had the numbers right on a long-bomb Santa Anita daily double that nobody hit in the official pool.

The problem, as quickly became apparent, was that, while Pinnacle rules stipulated the entire pool be paid in such instances regarding a pic 3, pic 4, or pic 6, no such provision was laid out for dd's.

They paid us, anyway. In full.

[cj]

Wagering off-shore thru Pinnacle, a partner and I once had the numbers right on a long-bomb Santa Anita daily double that nobody hit in the official pool.

The problem, as quickly became apparent, was that, while Pinnacle rules stipulated the entire pool be paid in such instances regarding a pic 3, pic 4, or pic 6, no such provision was laid out for dd's.

They paid us, anyway. In full.

Pinnacle was a dream come true for a long time. Great rebates, money didn't make the pools and they seemed to stick to it. They also handled situations like the above as total pros. Alas, they shut out US a while back. I was still overseas at the time and got a couple extra years, but I had to cash out when I moved back home.

[cardinalsfan]

Yup. This guy will 100% win in court if he goes that direction. One unique ticket means just that, it could not ne clearer.

[BIG RED]

Pinnacle was a dream come true for a long time.

You got that right, best place I've been a part of, and always there if you needed them. What I remember in the letter of closure to us, they were forced to shut us out (aka threatened)

Keep us up to date on this please. Want to see the outcome.

Paid him / didn't pay him ....court / no court .... new written rules etc.

[mountainvalleypete]

I am in what seems to be the VAST minority here in saying Remington was absolutely justified in NOT paying out the full jackpot. What I feel seems to be obscured among people is the definition of the word "ticket" in this situation. When talking about a jackpot bet such as this one or any exotic bet for that matter, the word "ticket" does NOT refer to the physical piece of paper. It refers to the unique combination of winning horses that make up that sequence.

I am sure you all have seen at Gulfstream before each leg of the Rainbow Pick 6, they show the number of tickets remaining. That is NOT the number of live physical tickets remaining, that is the number of live COMBINATIONS remaining, more than one of which can be on the same physical ticket. Perhaps in the future, it would be better for tracks to say "Be the only winning COMBINATION," as that is the true goal in order to obtain the jackpot. I never did like the word ticket when referring to these bets, as it is very deceptive.

[Zman179]

The rules state be the only TICKET, or be the only WINNER. Both would apply in this case. Give the man his money.

[deelo]

I am in what seems to be the VAST minority here in saying Remington was absolutely justified in NOT paying out the full jackpot. What I feel seems to be obscured among people is the definition of the word "ticket" in this situation. When talking about a jackpot bet such as this one or any exotic bet for that matter, the word "ticket" does NOT refer to the physical piece of paper. It refers to the unique combination of winning horses that make up that sequence.

I am sure you all have seen at Gulfstream before each leg of the Rainbow Pick 6, they show the number of tickets remaining. That is NOT the number of live physical tickets remaining, that is the number of live COMBINATIONS remaining, more than one of which can be on the same physical ticket. Perhaps in the future, it would be better for tracks to say "Be the only winning COMBINATION," as that is the true goal in order to obtain the jackpot. I never did like the word ticket when referring to these bets, as it is very deceptive.

Much more important than defining “ticket”, “combo”, etc would be how you interpret the OHRC rule stating a contestant with tickets to a dead heat will be paid out as if no dead heat had occurred. That would seem to clear it up as needing paid to me

[BarchCapper]

Much more important than defining “ticket”, “combo”, etc would be how you interpret the OHRC rule stating a contestant with tickets to a dead heat will be paid out as if no dead heat had occurred. That would seem to clear it up as needing paid to me

I think you may be referring to this from earlier:

"(c) If there is a dead heat for first in any of the Pick (n) contests involving: (1) contestants representing the same betting interest, the Pick (n) pool shall be distributed as if no dead heat occurred. (2) contestants representing two or more betting interests, the Pick (n) pool shall be distributed as a single price pool with each winning wager receiving an equal share of the profit."

I'm fairly sure (c)(1) refers to horses (the contestants) being part of a coupled entry (the same betting interest, i.e. 1 & 1A), rather than referring to the bettor or bettors.

[JohnGalt1]

Though I'm not a lawyer, I do know that when there is a written contract, and if there is a question as to the meaning or interpretation of a clause, courts usually side against the writer of the contract.

[citygoat]

Even when you win you can't win