Explain this please.

[rwwupl]

Can someone explain this to me? Hollywood Park canceled after the 2nd race todat 12-19-10.
I played a .50 cent p-4 (early)

1/2/3/4-1/2/4-1-3/8/9 total $18.00

I won the first two legs and the races were called off.

I got $8.85 return for $18.00 investment on a bet that I had no opportunity to win because the races were not completed.

Does not seem right to me. :confused:

[lamboguy]

even though you spent $18, you only had $1 on the winning first number. the other $17 don't mean a thing. i never play those stupid things to begin with because when i do i try to beat the favorite. if my horse gets scratched i now own the horse that i never wanted to own to begin with. the math is to tough for me to figure out to begin with.

[andymays]

Can someone explain this to me? Hollywood Park canceled after the 2nd race todat 12-19-10.
I played a .50 cent p-4 (early)

1/2/3/4-1/2/4-1-3/8/9 total $18.00

I won the first two legs and the races were called off.

I got $8.85 return for $18.00 investment on a bet that I had no opportunity to win because the races were not completed.

Does not seem right to me. :confused:

Didn't I tell you they were going to screw you? What a joke California has turned out to be.

[senortout]

Twinspires lists the p4 as a refund. 8.85 suggest a consolation pay off, which is correct?

[andymays]

another fiasco

[rwwupl]

Can someone explain this to me? Hollywood Park canceled after the 2nd race todat 12-19-10.
I played a .50 cent p-4 (early)

1/2/3/4-1/2/4-1-3/8/9 total $18.00

I won the first two legs and the races were called off.

I got $8.85 return for $18.00 investment on a bet that I had no opportunity to win because the races were not completed.

Does not seem right to me. :confused:

This is the rule on the CHRB website:

1978 Select Four.
Rule Text (a) The Select Four parimutuel pool is not a parlay and has no connection with or relation to any other parimutuel pool conducted by the association, nor to any win, place and show pool shown on the totalizator board, nor to the rules governing the distribution of such other pools. (b) A valid Select Four ticket shall be evidence of a binding contract between the holder of the ticket and the racing association, and the said ticket shall constitute an acceptance of Select Four provisions and rules contained in Article 18. (c) A Select Four may be given a distinctive name to be selected by the association conducting such races, such as "PICK 4", subject to the approval of the Board. (d) The Select Four parimutuel pool consists of amounts contributed for a selection for win only in each of four races designated by the association with the approval of the Board. Each person purchasing a Select Four ticket shall designate the winning horse in each of the four races comprising the Select Four. (e) Those horses constituting an entry of coupled horses or those horses coupled to constitute the field in a race comprising the Select Four shall race as a single wagering interest for the purpose of the Select Four parimutuel pool calculations and payouts to the public. However, if any part of either an entry or the field racing as a single interest is a starter in a race, the entry or the field selection shall remain as the designated selection to win in that race for the Select Four calculation, and the selection shall not be deemed a scratch. (f) The net amount in the parimutuel pool subject to distribution among winning ticket holders shall be distributed among the holders of tickets which correctly designate the winners in all four races comprising the Select Four. (g) If no ticket is sold combining the four winners of the Select Four, the net amount in the parimutuel pool shall be distributed among the holders of tickets which include the winners of any three of the four races comprising the Select Four. (h) If no ticket is sold combining at least three winners of the Select Four, the net amount in the parimutuel pool shall be distributed among holders of tickets which include the winner of any two races comprising the Select Four. (i) If no ticket is sold combining at least two winners of the Select Four, the net amount in the parimutuel pool shall be distributed among holders of tickets which include the winner of any one race comprising the Select Four. (j) If no ticket is sold that would require distribution of the Select Four pool to a winner under this rule, the association shall make a complete and full refund of the Select Four pool. (k) If for any reason one of the races comprising the Select Four is cancelled, the net amount of the parimutuel pool shall be distributed as provided above in subsections (g), (h), (i) and (j). (l) If for any reason two or more of the races comprising the Select Four is cancelled, a full and complete refund will be made of the Select Four pool. (m) In the event a Select Four ticket designates a selection in any one or more of the races comprising the Select Four and that selection is scratched, excused or determined by the Stewards to be a non-starter in the race, the actual favorite, as evidenced by the amounts wagered in the win pool at the time of the start of the race, will be substituted for the non-starting selection for all purposes, including pool calculations and payouts. (n) In the event of a dead heat for win between two or more horses in any Select Four race, all such horses in the dead heat for win shall be considered as winning horses in the race for the purpose of calculating the pool. (o) No parimutuel ticket for the Select Four pool shall be sold, exchanged or cancelled after the time of the closing of wagering in the first of the four races comprising the Select Four, except for such refunds on Select Four tickets as required by this regulation, and no person shall disclose the number of tickets sold in the Select Four pool or the number or amount of tickets selecting winners of Select Four races until such time as the Stewards have determined the last race comprising the Select Four to be official. Notwithstanding the above, at the conclusion of the third of the four races comprising the Select Four, an association may with the approval of the Board display potential distribution to ticket holders depending upon the outcome of the fourth race of the Select Four. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 19420, 19440 and 19590, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 19590, Business and Professions Code. HISTORY: 1. New rule filed 9-7-88; effective 9-12-88. 2. Amendment filed 12-23-96; effective 1-22-97.



According to this they screwed the players...can there be another explanation?

Roger

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Can someone explain this to me? Hollywood Park canceled after the 2nd race todat 12-19-10.
I played a .50 cent p-4 (early)

1/2/3/4-1/2/4-1-3/8/9 total $18.00

I won the first two legs and the races were called off.

I got $8.85 return for $18.00 investment on a bet that I had no opportunity to win because the races were not completed.

Does not seem right to me. :confused:
You should have been credited for a $1.50 ticket because you had one onto 3 after the second race (3 winning combos).

[andymays]

Raise hell Roger. Another screw up by the poor leadership in California.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

They must have changed the rule to allow two races to allow a pick 4 to be considered complete. The payoff was $2.95 for 4 with 2 with all with all for 50 cents.

[cj]

I'm sure the rule was already in place, but it is another one bad for horseplayers.

[CBedo]

They must have changed the rule to allow two races to allow a pick 4 to be considered complete. The payoff was $2.95 for 4 with 2 with all with all for 50 cents.Why give a refund when you can scrape your vig? :rolleyes:

[andymays]

The really ironic part is that rwwupl went in front of the CHRB several months ago at one of their meetings to get them to treat pick 3's and pick 4's the same when it came to late scratches. Of course they didn't listen. This isn't exactly the same thing but it's a story worth hearing.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Why give a refund when you can scrape your vig? :rolleyes:
You wouldn't be saying that if you were live off a couple of $30 shots.

[CBedo]

You wouldn't be saying that if you were live off a couple of $30 shots.Of course! The reality is though, that it wouldn't bother me, since it seems to me that I played the pick 4, not the double, and I'd rather get a refund when only half the wager has been completed. It's like a baseball game that has to go a certain number of innings to be official.

[rwwupl]

Raise hell Roger. Another screw up by the poor leadership in California.


This is the reply from CHRB... The rule is no good, we have another one(rule).

Still does not explain how I get $8.85 back for $18From: MikeM@chrb.ca.gov
To: wayr


oger_@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:53:42 -0800
Subject: RE: PIck 4

Roger:



Roger:



The Select Four Rule 1978 is outdated. For example, it never was amended to include the provision that a surface switch midway through the sequence gives everyone the winner in that race. We probably could repeal/delete that rule from the book. As far as I know, all of the associations utilize the alternative rule for Pick 4, Pick 5, Pick 6, Pick 7, and Pick 9, which is Rule 1976.9 (Pick ‘n’ Pool), which states:



e) The Pick (n) pool shall be canceled and all Pick (n) wagers for the individual performance shall be refunded if: (1) Three or more races included as part of a Pick 4, Pick 5 or Pick 6 are canceled or declared no contest; or (2) Four or more races included as part of a Pick 7, Pick 8 or Pick 9 are canceled or declared no contest; or (3) Five or more races included as part of a Pick 10 are canceled or declared no contest.





Mike





From: ROGER WAY [mailto:wayroger_@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:38 PM
To: Marten, Mike
Subject: RE: PIck 4

[Horseplayersbet.com]

This is the reply from CHRB... The rule is no good, we have another one(rule).

Still does not explain how I get $8.85 back for $18From: MikeM@chrb.ca.gov
To: wayr
You had the winning combo 3 times. It makes perfect sense. The only thing in question was the rule that the bet was a go.

[rwwupl]

The latest reply is that the matter will be turned over to the Pari-Mutuel Committee of the CHRB to see which of the conflicting rules apply, meanwhile no explanation how I got $8.85 back for $18 on a bet that was impossible to win.

Yes Andy is right, I was on the agenda to solve this problem last year, and I got a "no interest " answer from the Board,... Mike(CHRB Info.officer ) was very surprised then, as I think he is now.

[andymays]

The latest reply is that the matter will be turned over to the Pari-Mutuel Committee of the CHRB to see which of the conflicting rules apply, meanwhile no explanation how I got $8.85 back for $18 on a bet that was impossible to win.

Yes Andy is right, I was on the agenda to solve this problem last year, and I got a "no interest " answer from the Board,... Mike(CHRB Info.officer ) was very surprised then, as I think he is now.

Hey Roger, like we said "it's something new every day" isn't it?

What's the next crisis going to be? :lol:

[sammy the sage]

Take it to court...class action if necessary...no way you should get less than wagered...

[Stillriledup]

I had a bunch of expensive pick 6 tickets all ready to go. When i saw the rain i was thinking there's no way i'm betting horizontal bets because i figured they would just run one leg of the pick 6 and pay off winner with 5 all's and keep the takeout.

This is what seemed to happen to the early pick 4.

[Stillriledup]

You had the winning combo 3 times. It makes perfect sense. The only thing in question was the rule that the bet was a go.


It seems that there were 35 winning combos.....sort of like a 35 horse dead heat. Since the first 2 legs were heavy favorites, almost everyone in the world was still alive. Just imagine what the payout would be if there was a 5 horse dead heat in leg 3 and a 7 horse dead heat in leg 4.....they would have 35 different payouts. But, since this is a pick 4, it all gets lumped together, its not like a pick 3.

The reason Rog got less than he wagered was because of the takeout rate.

[andymays]

Yes, Stillriledup makes a great point. You should consider yourself lucky. If this would have happened after Dec. 26th you would have gotten even less with the new takeout rate. Unbelievable. :bang: :lol:

[Stillriledup]

Actually, i should have said that Rog got less than he invested because of the takeout and not the takeout rate. The rate really didnt have much to do with it because any track with a normal takeout on a bet like that would have had a low payoff, ya know, if their rules were the same as california's.

I didnt mean to imply that california's takeout specifically was the reason for the
low price.

When you pay off 'everybody' and take 20 percent for yourself, it ends up being a loser for all who played pretty much.

Now, if two 20-1 shots won the first two legs, rog would have made a profit had he had those runners.

Here's why there's a problem. You have two options. You can either refund ALL the bets, or you could pay off winner-winner-all-all. In this specific example, the first two winners had been short prices, so it looked 'bad' when the payoffs came out.

Lets play devils advocate to Roger and his situation. Lets say that the rule was this. If a pick 4 is not completed, the bets just get refunded and you get your original monies back. Lets also say that Roger hit two longshots in the first two legs of the bet instead of two favorites. He would also be mad if they refunded his entire bet and he broke even. I think at that point, he would lobby for a winner-winner-all-all payout, because then he would definitely get more money than he invested.

I think the bottom line remains that the only real fair way to do it is to pay off winner-winner-all-all.

NOW, here's what they need to do to the rules. They need to alter the takeout rate on the bet. You can't take the entire 20 percent if you aren't running 2 of the races. You need to take 10 percent (lets say 5 percent per leg).

The reason Rog's payoff was so low is because they took the FULL takeout rate of 20.68 percent on the bet.

The takeout was too high for a win/win/all/all sequence. Too many people remained alive and thus, the 20 percent takeout crushed the payoffs into oblivion.

The problem isnt really the rule of paying off all to all, its charging 'full price' for a bet that only ran 2 out of 4 legs.

[Greyfox]

They should have given the entire $18 back.

[rwwupl]

They should have given the entire $18 back.


I think so...What service am I being charged for? If a bet is offered that I have completed on my end with winners, and the track is unable to complete the "Contract" by calling off the last two races, the track did not complete their part of the deal... so, why does the track profit and I lose?

[Stillriledup]

I think so...What service am I being charged for? If a bet is offered that I have completed on my end with winners, and the track is unable to complete the "Contract" by calling off the last two races, the track did not complete their part of the deal... so, why does the track profit and I lose?


They shouldnt profit unless they ran all 4 races. They can't take the entire 20 percent of the pot unless they're going to run all 4. It was a pick 4, not a pick 2.

I agree.

[Greyfox]

I think so...What service am I being charged for? If a bet is offered that I have completed on my end with winners, and the track is unable to complete the "Contract" by calling off the last two races, the track did not complete their part of the deal... so, why does the track profit and I lose?

Even if your first two were losers, the ticket should have been refunded.
It's just that simple. They broke the contract.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Many jurisdictions do exactly the same thing on horizontal wagers if races are canceled. For example, Woodbine pays out winner, all, all in a pick three after a canceled race.

[OTM Al]

I think so...What service am I being charged for? If a bet is offered that I have completed on my end with winners, and the track is unable to complete the "Contract" by calling off the last two races, the track did not complete their part of the deal... so, why does the track profit and I lose?

Stillriledup was probably still to angry over his morning's breakfast to play devil's advocate here in any real way. That's why there's a me.

You are wrong on several fronts. You claim you had no chance to "win" the bet. However, you had a low priced second fave in the first leg and a heavy fav in the second. Had your longest shots came in in those first two legs you would have made money. Would you have demanded a complete refund then? Despite what you say, the track completed the contract with you because there was a rule in place that said (at least according to them ) that if the first two races go in the sequence, the bet pays. Finally you are seen as a represntative of HANA by these people. Do you really want to blow any political capital you and that group have built on this? Sorry, but once you become a public figure and are seen as attached to an organization, you become inseperable. Your responses become the group's responses.

Your only grounds for dispute here are that the rule was not properly posted. If you can show that, you should get your money back. Otherwise, you aren't owning what you did.

Now, no longer being devil's advocate, if you are going to dispute the rule, what should it be? In my mind these things are most defensible when they are all or nothing, so either a payoff is made if any part of the sequence is run, or no payoff is made unless the whole sequence is run. Anything in the middle is going to cause issues just like you have brought up. I feel for you, but you are likely out of luck here.

[andymays]

Stillriledup was probably still to angry over his morning's breakfast to play devil's advocate here in any real way. That's why there's a me.

You are wrong on several fronts. You claim you had no chance to "win" the bet. However, you had a low priced second fave in the first leg and a heavy fav in the second. Had your longest shots came in in those first two legs you would have made money. Would you have demanded a complete refund then? Despite what you say, the track completed the contract with you because there was a rule in place that said (at least according to them ) that if the first two races go in the sequence, the bet pays. Finally you are seen as a represntative of HANA by these people. Do you really want to blow any political capital you and that group have built on this? Sorry, but once you become a public figure and are seen as attached to an organization, you become inseperable. Your responses become the group's responses.

Your only grounds for dispute here are that the rule was not properly posted. If you can show that, you should get your money back. Otherwise, you aren't owning what you did.

Now, no longer being devil's advocate, if you are going to dispute the rule, what should it be? In my mind these things are most defensible when they are all or nothing, so either a payoff is made if any part of the sequence is run, or no payoff is made unless the whole sequence is run. Anything in the middle is going to cause issues just like you have brought up. I feel for you, but you are likely out of luck here.

Al, with all due respect you are the one who is wrong. We've had several email exchanges with Mike Marten of the CHRB since yesterday. He agrees that the rule needs to be clarified or changed. Roger is looking out for what's right in California as he usually does. On several occasions he is the only Horseplayer to attend CHRB meetings on behalf of Horseplayers. The truth be told Roger knows more about California racing than me and all the other horseplayers on this board put together.

[rwwupl]

Mike Marten (Information Officer of CHRB) is a good guy and is committed to do the right thing for all.

If you have followed this thread... here is what is going to happen... the issue will be re visited by the CHRB... may be we can get it to a better solution for horse players.

The following is the text of the last two e-mails on the subject.

rwwupl




Mike:

Not sure this is the one,but P/M Committee Meeting 3-19-10 at Arcadia City Hall approaches the subject of p-3 and p-4 wagers handled differently ,This may have been what I was referring to. Andy says he sent you his disappointment with the proceedings then also..he listened in. Customers are bewildered when horizontal bets are handled differently by a choose your rule method and the same horse, same race will be treated different depending on if you bought a pick 3 or pick four or other. I think you put this on because of my earlier e-mails, that's what I recall.

.rw


Thanks, Roger. I will look through the records and try to reconstruct what occurred. Meanwhile, I will contact the PMO Committee and suggest we look at the rules as they pertain to canceled races.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Whatever is decided, I hope it is consistent throughout the industry. One thing we don't need are new state specific rules being set by individual jurisdictions when it comes to cancellation payoffs.

[OTM Al]

Al, with all due respect you are the one who is wrong. We've had several email exchanges with Mike Marten of the CHRB since yesterday. He agrees that the rule needs to be clarified or changed. Roger is looking out for what's right in California as he usually does. On several occasions he is the only Horseplayer to attend CHRB meetings on behalf of Horseplayers. The truth be told Roger knows more about California racing than me and all the other horseplayers on this board put together.

That's part of being the devil's advocate. I think it's a bad rule too and I also think Roger is a smart guy doing good work. The root question here though is the rule and it sounds as if it is being addressed. The issue that I attacked though is an emotional response that contained elements not dealing with the root issue, ie Roger felt like he was cheated. Others agreed. This made the initial response no different than someone complaining about an outcome without being aware of the rule. There is no defense for that. It is a subtlety that rarely if ever gets acknowledged when the them vs us metality sets in, a mentality in my mind that slows rather than speeds change. The point is think first, then plan, then issue appropriate complaint, not the reverse.

[andymays]

That's part of being the devil's advocate. I think it's a bad rule too and I also think Roger is a smart guy doing good work. The root question here though is the rule and it sounds as if it is being addressed. The issue that I attacked though is an emotional response that contained elements not dealing with the root issue, ie Roger felt like he was cheated. Others agreed. This made the initial response no different than someone complaining about an outcome without being aware of the rule. There is no defense for that. It is a subtlety that rarely if ever gets acknowledged when the them vs us metality sets in, a mentality in my mind that slows rather than speeds change. The point is think first, then plan, then issue appropriate complaint, not the reverse.

OK. But when Roger posts something about California there are more to his words that when most people including myself speak about California racing. He is an encyclopedia of California racing and personally knows just about all the people at the CHRB and just about all of the Track Executives.

[OTM Al]

OK. But when Roger posts something about California there are more to his words that when most people including myself speak about California racing. He is an encyclopedia of California racing.

That was clearly missing the page containing the rule change, whether through his own fault or not. I will accept his expertise, but don't tell me someone knows everything about a subject. Especially when his opening line was asking for an explanation. I'm not picking on Roger here per se, I'm picking on everyone. Think first, then plan, then issue the complaint. Players have developed a culture of complaint. Not that there aren't things to complain about but too much counterproductive complaining about things that are either trivial or nonexistant overwhelms the important issues.

[andymays]

That was clearly missing the page containing the rule change, whether through his own fault or not. I will accept his expertise, but don't tell me someone knows everything about a subject. Especially when his opening line was asking for an explanation . I'm not picking on Roger here per se, I'm picking on everyone. Think first, then plan, then issue the complaint. Players have developed a culture of complaint. Not that there aren't things to complain about but too much counterproductive complaining about things that are either trivial or nonexistant overwhelms the important issues.

He was asking for opinions on the matter. Isn't that part of what we do here?

I don't know why you want to take this to the lengths you're taking it but..........

[OTM Al]

He was asking for opinions on the matter. Isn't that part of what we do here?

I don't know why you want to take this to the lengths you're taking it but..........

Isn't that what I'm doing? Debate and discourse? Do you need for everyone to always agree with you? Is it conceivable that I am making a point of logic and not attacking someone just because I'm taking an alternate position, one in which I may myself not even agree with? Is it possible with this illustration that all sides of the argument can be exposed and thus better annalyzed resulting in better solutions?

Dictionary.com dude. Type in "devil's advocate" and read definition #1.

[andymays]

Isn't that what I'm doing? Debate and discourse? Do you need for everyone to always agree with you? Is it conceivable that I am making a point of logic and not attacking someone just because I'm taking an alternate position, one in which I may myself not even agree with? Is it possible with this illustration that all sides of the argument can be exposed and thus better annalyzed resulting in better solutions?

Dictionary.com dude. Type in "devil's advocate" and read definition #1.

No, I don't need everyone to agree with me. In fact I enjoy being in the minority when it comes to opinions on most things.

What I'm saying is Roger is an expert on California Racing. I defer to him and his judgement on this matter. That's all. If you would rather not then have at it.