WTF at the Meadows in Race 3 Super

[RaceTrackDaddy]

WTF?
Seems the Meadows and its passed practice of carryovers in superfecta pools when the super is not correctly picked has ended.

Race 3, on Sep 21st, no one correcly picked the super, in fact not one ticket did not have the winner of the race #9 Vivianne in the top spot of the super. Instead of carrying over the entire pool (75% is the custom and 25% to those with the closest superfect selected), they decided to REFUND THE WHOLE POOL.

I do believe they really messed this one up. I can see refunded 25% to all of the losing tickets and carrying over 75% to the next race, but to refund it all, no way. I can see someone getting real po'd the next time the pool gets carried over. If anything, you have to be consistant in whatever process you have been using. If it were me making the decision, I would carry over the whole pool and since the pool are so small there anyway, I would not take any retention money from the pot and make sure the public knows about it.

rtd

[Pacingguy]

They are being consistent. The PA racing commission is the one that dictates it be refunded; the track is not the one making this decision; the last thing they would want to do is refund the money and give up the commission.. My guess is what happened is the unthinkable happened. Who would think there would be no ticket sold with the winner not being picked?

We all see pay-offs where the fourth place finisher is not picked, such as in the 11th race, where it was 8-1-2-all, on rare occasions we have seen a 8-1-all-all payoff, but with a 41-1 and 39-1 coming in first and second, this is what can happen, especially at a small track.

You suggested in this case they should refund only 25% of the pool. Could you imagine telling everyone that no one picket the first two horses in the superfecta so we are going to pay everyone back just a quarter of their wager and pocket the rest?

[Ray2000]

I don't know how the rule is written but the 11th race did payoff 3 of 4. I suspect the reason is if you were to payoff 3 of 4 (or worse yet 2 of 4) when the [any] appears in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd spot then the holders of [any]-3-8-2 would expect more than [any]-8-3-2 etc... depending on the number of tickets with those numbers. The number of winning 3 of 4's tickets could result in many different payoff prices.

Similar to Monti R6 Pic 3 yesterday, (which I was personally involved:)) where there was 3 different payoffs to the holders of 2 of 3. (8-2-[] $666.00), (8-[]-8 $223.00), ([]-2-8 $134.00)

I would like to see RTD's suggestion to carry over the entire pool rather than total refund. CHANGE THE RULE

[Pacingguy]

There is a bigger problem than changing the rule here. I am fine with the rule being the rule as is. What I have a problem with is why does a better have to guess what the heck is going on. With so much betting being done on line, each track should have a spot on their website where someone can read the regulations for each bet in plain English how the bet works and what happens in the case of scratches, deadheats, no one selecting the correct combination; etc.

We are not always going to agree with a rule the way it is written but we should be able to at least know how the bet works.

[RaceTrackDaddy]

The Meadows, Race 3, September 21, 2009 – The refund of the race is consistent with the track rule in place for such a circumstance concerning the payout of the superfecta. The track rule goes back to a previous Commission rule (no longer in existence) 193.13 (h) [1987] concerning superfecta payouts and probably has been in place since.
------------------------------
I see from above that it was a track rule based on a previouly held commission rule, they also replied to that incident with the horse Clear Vision which was not listed in the early trackmaster pp's. They stated that they are aware of the situation and will be addressed at their Thursday meeting as to what steps can be had to make sure somthing like that did not happen again.

rtd