Belmont pick six carried over by mistake

[andymays]

http://www.drf.com/news/belmont-pick-six-carried-over-mistake

Excerpt:

ELMONT, N.Y. - There is a pick-six carryover of $34,680 Saturday at Belmont Park and there shouldn’t be.

The New York Racing Association will conduct an internal investigation to see where a communication breakdown occurred on Friday that resulted in the mutuel department enacting a New York state rule that mandates if two or more races in the pick-six sequence are transferred from the turf to the dirt after wagering has closed, then 75 percent of the pick-six pool must be carried over into the next live racing program.

[andymays]

I don't know what the solution is here. Maybe it would be a good gesture for NYRA to match the carryover money and double it.

I'm sure someone who knows more about this will weigh in and let us know how they're going to handle it.

[andymays]

http://nyra.com/belmont/stories/July092011.shtml

The following is a statement from The New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) regarding the $34,680 carryover resulting from the Pick 6 pool, comprising races four through nine, at Belmont Park on Friday, July 8:
Immediately following the running of race three, races eight and nine were switched from the turf to the dirt. However, this information did not reach the mutuels department until wagering had closed on race four, the first leg of the Pick 6. This resulted in races eight and nine being ruled as “all wins” for the purposes of the Pick 6, and necessitated a carryover of the wager, per New York State Racing and Wagering Board Rule 4011.23 (copied below). NYRA is conducting an official investigation into the communications failure, and upon completion of the investigation will take appropriate steps to avoid a similar occurrence in the future.

New York State Racing and Wagering Board Rule 4011.23. Pick-six pools.

(b) Winners and carry-overs. In general, after deductions for cancellations, refunds and statutory takeout, 75 percent of the resulting pick-six net pool for the day shall be distributed, less breaks, to the holders of tickets selecting the winners of all six designated races in the pool, or to the holders of the tickets selecting five winners out of six and have no more than on "all win" event, and no other races are cancelled or declared "all win" in the pick-six sequences or races, and 25 percent of such net pool shall be distributed to the holders of the remaining tickets selecting the most winners. (Such takeout shall be established [at 36 percent, except that the New York Racing Association may elect to establish a 25 percent takeout before the first pool of a meeting is conducted.)] at a rate between the range of 15 percent to 36 percent inclusively. Such rate may not be changed more than once per calendar quarter to be effective on the first day of the calendar quarter.) Should there be no wager selecting winners of all six designated races, or five winners and no more than one "all win" 25 percent of the net pool shall be distributed less breaks to the holders of tickets selecting the winners of the most pick-six races and the 75 percent of the net pool reserved for holders of tickets selecting six winners, or five winners and no more than one “all win”, shall be carried over and added to and distributed with the 75-percent net pool share of the next subsequent pick-six pool in which a wager correctly selects the winners of all six designated pick-six races, or five winners and no more than one "all win." Carryovers from prior pick-six pools, advertised guaranteed amounts or advertised added amounts will be distributed to winners in such day’s pick-six pools, provided that there is no more than one "all win" event and no other races are cancelled or declared "all win" in the pick-six sequence.

[chickenhead]

mistakes happen, the rule shouldn't have applied -- but I'm having a hard time seeing the logic behind the rule. Why would you carryover if there are 2 surface changes after betting closes?

A refund could make sense, or a normal payout could make sense. But I don't see how a forced carryover makes sense. Why decide no one can win/get back their money because of the weather?

I've only had one coffee so maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a stupid rule. I'm guessing its so rare that it hardly matters, unfortunately it surfaced here and bit some people.

[toussaud]

you know...

seriously.. that's technically fraud. like seriously, that's wire fraud.
I'm going to promote something, I'm going to take your money in good faith, then when you or anyone else win, i'm not going to pay it out. Yeah that's fraud I don't care what excuse they come up with.

if someone got really pissed and went to the Feds with this, it would get interesting. you just can't do that.


At least with the life at ten incident she ran up the track.

[OTM Al]

Repeat thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85050

Rule is the rule. It's been there for 6 years and no one had complained. It was applied properly given that the mutual department believed that the changes came after the close of the betting. However, the real issue is the communication problem. Had that not occured, the rule would not have bound.

For those screaming about the application of the rule, it is not fraud. Fraud requires intent to defraud. The rule is the law. It would have been against the law to not employ that rule when it binds. And Andy, they have no latitude to add money like that without permission from the same body that created and enforces that rule. Can't just do it, or they would get in a lot more trouble.

[andymays]

Repeat thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85050

Rule is the rule. It's been there for 6 years and no one had complained. It was applied properly given that the mutual department believed that the changes came after the close of the betting. However, the real issue is the communication problem. Had that not occured, the rule would not have bound.

For those screaming about the application of the rule, it is not fraud. Fraud requires intent to defraud. The rule is the law. It would have been against the law to not employ that rule when it binds. And Andy, they have no latitude to add money like that without permission from the same body that created and enforces that rule. Can't just do it, or they would get in a lot more trouble.
I was told this morning that seeding a future P6 was one of the things they were considering.

[cj]

Repeat thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85050

Rule is the rule. It's been there for 6 years and no one had complained. It was applied properly given that the mutual department believed that the changes came after the close of the betting. However, the real issue is the communication problem. Had that not occured, the rule would not have bound.

For those screaming about the application of the rule, it is not fraud. Fraud requires intent to defraud. The rule is the law. It would have been against the law to not employ that rule when it binds. And Andy, they have no latitude to add money like that without permission from the same body that created and enforces that rule. Can't just do it, or they would get in a lot more trouble.

I doubt many people knew of the rule until it was (mis)applied. How can you complain about a rule you've never seen used? It is a terrible rule. I don't think it is fraud, but it is just pure stupidity written the way it is. Obviously the communication lapse is an issue, but so is the rule. I don't see any defense for making a rule that in effect makes betting the pool a 75% takeout. Surely you can't think that Al.

[Rutgers]

you know...

seriously.. that's technically fraud. like seriously, that's wire fraud.
I'm going to promote something, I'm going to take your money in good faith, then when you or anyone else win, i'm not going to pay it out. Yeah that's fraud I don't care what excuse they come up with.

if someone got really pissed and went to the Feds with this, it would get interesting. you just can't do that.


At least with the life at ten incident she ran up the track.

In order for it to be fraud, among other things, the action needs to be intentional. I do not see why any reasonable person would believe it was anything more than an unintentional breakdown of communication. Nor do I believe this meets any of the other requirements needed to be deemed fraudulent.

On the other hand, libel (which is using the written word to make false claims implied to be true that causes harm to a 3rd party such as a person or corporation) does not require intent. :)

[chickenhead]

Repeat thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85050

Rule is the rule. It's been there for 6 years and no one had complained. It was applied properly given that the mutual department believed that the changes came after the close of the betting. However, the real issue is the communication problem.

The real issue is the rule. The rule is terrible. It's only saving grace is that I assume it had never been applied before.

Just like all the other tracks in all the other states with any shitty, horseplayer unfriendly rules on the books (of which NY, yes, has relatively few), NYRA needs to work on getting that rule changed. Cause its ridiculous.

[alhattab]

In order for it to be fraud, among other things, the action needs to be intentional. I do not see why any reasonable person would believe it was anything more than an unintentional breakdown of communication. Nor do I believe this meets any of the other requirements needed to be deemed fraudulent.

On the other hand, libel (which is using the written word to make false claims implied to be true that causes harm to a 3rd party such as a person or corporation) does not require intent. :)

I think it is perfectly reasonable that one may view this as intentional. Why wouldn't they do this on purpose- they guaranteed themselves a carryover going into a Saturday card? I'm not saying they did it on purpose, but I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for a skeptical person to believe that they did.

[OTM Al]

I think it is perfectly reasonable that one may view this as intentional. Why wouldn't they do this on purpose- they guaranteed themselves a carryover going into a Saturday card? I'm not saying they did it on purpose, but I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for a skeptical person to believe that they did.

For what $50,000? You think a sane person would believe an organization of that size would commit fraud for $50,000?

Didn't say I thought it was a good rule, just that it is the rule and clearly no one read it in the last 6 years. As I've said, if you are going to play a bet and you don't know the rules, you have only yourself to blame. That is a wholly different issue than if the rule is good or not. I expect something will be done about it.

And Andy, maybe they will seed a future one, but no way they could have turned that around in one day. You wouldn't believe the types of things that have to be cleared through the R&WB. A lot of stuff you would think should be regular business decisions and you'd be wrong.

[andymays]

I think it is perfectly reasonable that one may view this as intentional. Why wouldn't they do this on purpose- they guaranteed themselves a carryover going into a Saturday card? I'm not saying they did it on purpose, but I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for a skeptical person to believe that they did.

This is the last thing they want to happen. Mistakes are made at all jurisdictions and the only way to handle them is to address the problem ASAP and let people know what you're going to do to fix it along with making some kind of restitution.

[andymays]

For what $50,000? You think a sane person would believe an organization of that size would commit fraud for $50,000?

Didn't say I thought it was a good rule, just that it is the rule and clearly no one read it in the last 6 years. As I've said, if you are going to play a bet and you don't know the rules, you have only yourself to blame. That is a wholly different issue than if the rule is good or not. I expect something will be done about it.

And Andy, maybe they will seed a future one, but no way they could have turned that around in one day. You wouldn't believe the types of things that have to be cleared through the R&WB. A lot of stuff you would think should be regular business decisions and you'd be wrong.

Yes, you're right they can't do it in one day. Probably over the next couple of weeks though. That's if they do it.

[OTM Al]

Yes, you're right they can't do it in one day. Probably over the next couple of weeks though. That's if they do it.

Much more valuable I think would be to fix the rule to something people like better. The pool size was pretty poor really.

[alhattab]

For what $50,000? You think a sane person would believe an organization of that size would commit fraud for $50,000?



An organization like this? Probably not, but they are certainly not pristine. Oftentimes frauds in large organizations are committed by individuals and not the organization. I believe the whole tax issue and resulting oversight was not driven by the top of the organization but was more the work of individual tellers and their mutual managers. I don't recall exactly but I didn't think that issue arose from behavior by the "organization".

[OTM Al]

An organization like this? Probably not, but they are certainly not pristine. Oftentimes frauds in large organizations are committed by individuals and not the organization. I believe the whole tax issue and resulting oversight was not driven by the top of the organization but was more the work of individual tellers and their mutual managers. I don't recall exactly but I didn't think that issue arose from behavior by the "organization".

Yeah, they are when the person in question can make off with the money. Don't see that here.

Look, the communication issue is the most important thing here and this is why: this rule has been on the books six years and has never been used until Friday. That is about 1500 racing days. However, a communication failure of this type could happen any time there is a gate scratch for example. Imagine that not going though and the effect on every pool that goes through that race. That's just one possibility. That's why the communication problem is of primary importance to solve. I'm sure the rule will be examined as well, but is not the biggest potential problem.

[maddog42]

http://www.drf.com/news/belmont-pick-six-carried-over-mistake

Excerpt:

ELMONT, N.Y. - There is a pick-six carryover of $34,680 Saturday at Belmont Park and there shouldn’t be.

The New York Racing Association will conduct an internal investigation to see where a communication breakdown occurred on Friday that resulted in the mutuel department enacting a New York state rule that mandates if two or more races in the pick-six sequence are transferred from the turf to the dirt after wagering has closed, then 75 percent of the pick-six pool must be carried over into the next live racing program.
This is a terrible rule. If YOU were the one that won that pick 6 you would be up in arms. They actually cheated bettors. This would actually encourage tracks to take races off the turf, to sweeten the next days carryover pool, so the track would make more money.

[Spendabuck85]

From NY Daily News:
As for those who correctly followed the rules - and had all six winners legitimately - they're out of luck and had to chase the $34,680 carryover Saturday that should have been theirs to divide up Friday.

This is another mistake that resulted in bettors being robbed. Less than two years ago, the NYRA had another mutuel mistake when the wrong superfecta combination was posted and declared official, resulting in winners becoming losers.

For gamblers to wager with confidence, integrity has to be at its best, and the NYRA has failed at just that once again.

Attempts to reach the New York State Racing and Wagering Board to see if it will conduct an independent investigation went unanswered.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2011/07/10/2011-07-10_the_day_at_the_races_july_10.html#ixzz1RhxJauOZ

[toussaud]

This is a terrible rule. If YOU were the one that won that pick 6 you would be up in arms. They actually cheated bettors. This would actually encourage tracks to take races off the turf, to sweeten the next days carryover pool, so the track would make more money.
that is a good point. didn't think of that.

so then not only do you have to beat the other players you have to hope that the NYRA is in a good mood and doesn't feel like they need a carryover and there isn't any rain in sight.

[DJofSD]

Maybe there's some things about this rule I don't understand. It might explain the 'tude that seems to dominate this thread.

The rule applies only to grass races that are taken off the turf after the bet has closed, right?

Would the races coming off of the turf possibly include runners entered Main Track Only, or, would those runners have already been scratched?

[the little guy]

From NY Daily News:
As for those who correctly followed the rules - and had all six winners legitimately - they're out of luck and had to chase the $34,680 carryover Saturday that should have been theirs to divide up Friday.

This is another mistake that resulted in bettors being robbed. Less than two years ago, the NYRA had another mutuel mistake when the wrong superfecta combination was posted and declared official, resulting in winners becoming losers.
For gamblers to wager with confidence, integrity has to be at its best, and the NYRA has failed at just that once again.

Attempts to reach the New York State Racing and Wagering Board to see if it will conduct an independent investigation went unanswered.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2011/07/10/2011-07-10_the_day_at_the_races_july_10.html#ixzz1RhxJauOZ

While I cannot comment on the current situation, I would like to point out that the situation in the highlighted portion is misleading, as in the case with the Superfecta, winners ( and losers ) were paid. If you need to be refreshed about that situation you can read about it in a past article by Mr. Bossert.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2009/09/26/2009-09-26_the_day_at_the_races.html

[OTM Al]

Maybe there's some things about this rule I don't understand. It might explain the 'tude that seems to dominate this thread.

The rule applies only to grass races that are taken off the turf after the bet has closed, right?

Would the races coming off of the turf possibly include runners entered Main Track Only, or, would those runners have already been scratched?

Yes, it applies only to surface changes. Cancelled races are treated differently. MTOs in later races, when rain is in the forecast, often get held off from scratching until the P-6 begins, at which point the decision must be made.

[Stillriledup]

Ever notice in this country that when a business makes a 'mistake' they always seem to be the ones who benefit?

[toetoe]

Ever notice in this country that when a business makes a 'mistake' they always seem to be the ones who benefit?



Yes, and if we tried to weasel out of our obligations, e.g., "I have to get that money back ... it wasn't mine to bet with, to begin with," well, we'd be told to get bent, even though they had happily taken our money without familiarizing themselves with the rules/obligations of the individuals making the wagers.

You ever hear the legalistic jackballs invoking the "reasonable person" argument ? Well, which reasonable man would tolerate this bizarre turn of events, based upon the least reasonable of regulations ? I don't know him; do you ?

[aaron]

There is no way that fraud is involved here. What is involved is incompetence on the part of NYRA. They never stated anything before the pick 6 began about the rule.They have not handled this with any leadership,someone has to step up and either fire the people who made the error or give the money back to the bettors.The state and NYRA have lost so much money over time,what would be the big deal to do the right thing and payoff another $50000.00 to the bettors.
If all the companies that say they are for the player stood up for the player maybe racing would do the right thing.
The Racing Form {silent to this point} Twin Spires and other such data providers should stand up for the player and boycott NY races for 1 day. No past performances or other data. The Sheets and Thorograph should follow suit. Do this for one day and see the handle drop.
I know this will never happen,but something should be done when money is stolen from customers.

[OTM Al]

There is no way that fraud is involved here. What is involved is incompetence on the part of NYRA. They never stated anything before the pick 6 began about the rule.They have not handled this with any leadership,someone has to step up and either fire the people who made the error or give the money back to the bettors.The state and NYRA have lost so much money over time,what would be the big deal to do the right thing and payoff another $50000.00 to the bettors.
If all the companies that say they are for the player stood up for the player maybe racing would do the right thing.
The Racing Form {silent to this point} Twin Spires and other such data providers should stand up for the player and boycott NY races for 1 day. No past performances or other data. The Sheets and Thorograph should follow suit. Do this for one day and see the handle drop.
I know this will never happen,but something should be done when money is stolen from customers.

You might want to think over what you are saying here and go back and understand where the problem arose. Of course they never stated anything before the P-6 began because they had already announced the races off the turf. Thus, to the knowledge of those that make such decisions, there was no problem. Had they been able to announce what was going to happen, they would have had to have known what was going to happen and therefore could have corrected the problem before it became one. Beyond that, the rule is in print and has been for 6 years. Obscure, yes, but available to anyone. Of course this should be irrelevant because the rule should not have applied anyway.

Now, you call for leadership. You do realize this happened at the end of a late post friday card? You do realize in matters of this much money and in issues involving wagering rules, NYRA cannot act without the NYSR&WB? It's Monday morning now and I'm sure plenty of work has been done on the NYRA end and now they will take it to the board. I know we have been spoiled by the internet and live in a right now culture, but in real life, some things take a little time to iron out, so don't be so hasty to judgement.

Your boycott idea is pointless. You honestly believe ADWs care more about you as a player than tracks do? You think they are going to take money from their profits to make their customers "right" on this?

Finally, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to make right to as many as they can, people who still have tickets and those that bet through their accounts. This has been done before when problems have arisen. However what always makes me laugh about this is who actually now has the money. Other players would be the answer to that one. No one ever says we should ask them for the money back that they weren't entitled to. No, they're just lucky.

[aaron]

You might want to think over what you are saying here and go back and understand where the problem arose. Of course they never stated anything before the P-6 began because they had already announced the races off the turf. Thus, to the knowledge of those that make such decisions, there was no problem. Had they been able to announce what was going to happen, they would have had to have known what was going to happen and therefore could have corrected the problem before it became one. Beyond that, the rule is in print and has been for 6 years. Obscure, yes, but available to anyone. Of course this should be irrelevant because the rule should not have applied anyway.

Now, you call for leadership. You do realize this happened at the end of a late post friday card? You do realize in matters of this much money and in issues involving wagering rules, NYRA cannot act without the NYSR&WB? It's Monday morning now and I'm sure plenty of work has been done on the NYRA end and now they will take it to the board. I know we have been spoiled by the internet and live in a right now culture, but in real life, some things take a little time to iron out, so don't be so hasty to judgement.

Your boycott idea is pointless. You honestly believe ADWs care more about you as a player than tracks do? You think they are going to take money from their profits to make their customers "right" on this?

Finally, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to make right to as many as they can, people who still have tickets and those that bet through their accounts. This has been done before when problems have arisen. However what always makes me laugh about this is who actually now has the money. Other players would be the answer to that one. No one ever says we should ask them for the money back that they weren't entitled to. No, they're just lucky.
OTMAL
I agree with almost everything you have said. I know the ADW's could care less about the bettor,but don't you think that the player should fight for whats right ? Also,don't you think that NYRA should have explained what was going on on their telecast ? As for it happening late Friday,you are giving NYRA an excuse they don't deserve. As far as I know racing was conducted at Belmont Saturday and Sunday. Someone should have made a statement even if the issue was not resolved. If NYRA didn't make a mistake the players who hit the PIck 6 on Saturday would not have benefited.Perhaps,when you know something is wrong,common sense should be applied. Hold the undeserved carryover in escrow. I'm sure because of the letter of the law this cannot be done ,but somehow we must show common sense.

[OTM Al]

OTMAL
I agree with almost everything you have said. I know the ADW's could care less about the bettor,but don't you think that the player should fight for whats right ? Also,don't you think that NYRA should have explained what was going on on their telecast ? As for it happening late Friday,you are giving NYRA an excuse they don't deserve. As far as I know racing was conducted at Belmont Saturday and Sunday. Someone should have made a statement even if the issue was not resolved. If NYRA didn't make a mistake the players who hit the PIck 6 on Saturday would not have benefited.Perhaps,when you know something is wrong,common sense should be applied. Hold the undeserved carryover in escrow. I'm sure because of the letter of the law this cannot be done ,but somehow we must show common sense.

They did make a statement. It was released to the press and appears on their web site. It's all they can say right now and likely all the lawyers allow them to say right now. They could not hold that money out either as the rules state how they must award carrys. Trying to fix one situation by breaking a rule in another isn't a good solution and so called "common" sense often isn't good sense.

[aaron]

They did make a statement. It was released to the press and appears on their web site. It's all they can say right now and likely all the lawyers allow them to say right now. They could not hold that money out either as the rules state how they must award carrys. Trying to fix one situation by breaking a rule in another isn't a good solution and so called "common" sense often isn't good sense.
Their statement said nothing. What do you think the outcome will be? My guess is that it will be an half hearted apology and that this will not happen again.In your opinion should anyone be held accountable and who should that be ? Having no common sense is not always good sense. The powers in charge in horse racing have proved time and again they have no sense.
If I was in charge,I would have held the money for the carryover in escrow.If they did this what do you think would have happened ?

[OTM Al]

Their statement said nothing. What do you think the outcome will be? My guess is that it will be an half hearted apology and that this will not happen again.In your opinion should anyone be held accountable and who should that be ? Having no common sense is not always good sense. The powers in charge in horse racing have proved time and again they have no sense.
If I was in charge,I would have held the money for the carryover in escrow.If they did this what do you think would have happened ?

What do I think would have happened? I know what would have happened. You would be in willfull violation of State law. You would feel lucky if all that happened to you was that you got fired. And don't think people wouldn't have complained that the Saturday players were entitled to that money.

The statement said as much as it could. If you can't understand that when you read such things, then I can't explain to you what dealing with a government agency in New York entails.

[aaron]

What do I think would have happened? I know what would have happened. You would be in willfull violation of State law. You would feel lucky if all that happened to you was that you got fired. And don't think people wouldn't have complained that the Saturday players were entitled to that money.

The statement said as much as it could. If you can't understand that when you read such things, then I can't explain to you what dealing with a government agency in New York entails.
I'll take your word that this is what would have happened. I guess doing the right thing when dealing with the Government is impossible.
You seem knowledgeable,so what do you think the outcome will be?

[OTM Al]

I'll take your word that this is what would have happened. I guess doing the right thing when dealing with the Government is impossible.
You seem knowledgeable,so what do you think the outcome will be?

Don't know. I'm sure something will be done but I have no idea what limitations they will face. Be assured that they do care because, as I've said before, the issue is much larger than what some consider a bad rule.

[toussaud]

With that said, at the end of the day, regardless if it's a rule or how much bureaucracy has to be dealt with, the bottom line is, some players put money into a pool, expecting to play the pick 6, and when a few players hit the pick 6, they were told that the races were canceled, and you can't get you money back the money is carried over.

at the end of the day, that's all that matters. NYRA isn't the only organization with complexities and nuances that the avg person does not understand/comprehend. yet most organizations seem to find a happy medium when it comes to not robbing their customer base.


The bottom line, regardless of how you look at it is that it's unacceptable for a player to put 24-100-200 dollars into a pick 6, hit the pick or hell even hit 5 out of 6, then be told you aren't going to get paid even though you hit it, and even more, you aren't going to belittle me or any other horse player for wanting to get what they justly earned.

The "little guy" is not wrong for putting his foot down and saying I need my money. They aren't nats to be swatted at like a nuisance because they just don't 'get it', they are people who paid for a product that they did not receive.

[OTM Al]

With that said, at the end of the day, regardless if it's a rule or how much bureaucracy has to be dealt with, the bottom line is, some players put money into a pool, expecting to play the pick 6, and when a few players hit the pick 6, they were told that the races were canceled, and you can't get you money back the money is carried over.


If you are going to make a stand on this, at least get the facts right.

[aaron]

I agree,but according to Jerry Bossert in the NY Daily News,this is the second major blunder in less than 2 years. What this tells me is that there is an internal problem. In fairness,they did pay off on both the incorrect and correct superfecta results from Sept. 25, 2009. I guess there is a chance that they will get this right.

[OTM Al]

I agree,but according to Jerry Bossert in the NY Daily News,this is the second major blunder in less than 2 years. What this tells me is that there is an internal problem. In fairness,they did pay off on both the incorrect and correct superfecta results from Sept. 25, 2009. I guess there is a chance that they will get this right.

Yes, that occured for a very different reason, and one that was corrected as quickly as possible. Some people got a little time off after that one as well. Bossert didn't bother to mention any of that in his article, but that's Bossert. Take his "work" with a grain of salt.

[aaron]

Just curious, has there been any further statements on this pick 6 payout ? Has any one been held responsible for this error ?