Bizarre payoffs

[takeout]

This was the way the daily double was paid out after the 7th race at CT yesterday, 9-30-01. It's so bizarre that in the BRIS charts they only reported half of it.

$2 Daily Double 4-ALL $25.60
$2 Daily Double ALL-2 $26.00
Pool - 1,896

I've seen this before (they also do it with exacta payoffs). This is one of the strangest things that I've ever come across and it has some extremely nasty ramifications for the bettor. You can't ever throw an "unlive" ticket away after the first half of a double. How strange is that? And, if you happen to have a 100-to-1 shot on top in an exacta or double, you'd better not miss the place horse in the exacta or the second-half winner of the double or you'll end up with the same kind of piddling payoff if no one hits the thing.

They don't pay off trifectas or supers in this fashion so what was the motivation for this weirdness? The only suggestion that's made any sense to me so far is maybe to get some more breakage.(???)

There are other nasty nuances to this rule as well. Don't know how long it's been on the books but it looks as though it could've been written by P T Barnum. :rolleyes:

[Dave Schwartz]

Takeout,

This was due to the fact that there were no winning tickets!

Dave Schwartz

[takeout]

Yes, it only happens when nobody hits the things but with a trifecta, for instance, they would pay off on say, 1-2-all, or even 1-all-all, and only in the absence of a ticket with the winner *on top* would they then go to the second horse for payout purposes. But with this way of doing it they often pay people that didn't have the winner of the race when other people did. This may be the only payout scheme I've ever seen where the bettor gets paid for running with the herd.

If a tri comes in 1-all-all and you're the only one that has the #1 on top then you would still take the whole pool no matter how you had bet the thing. But the way they are doing the exactas and doubles is to turn around and pay everybody and their cousin Freddie for not much more than just showing up. Why would anyone even hold on to a double ticket after missing the first half (barring a consolation for a scratch)? It would sure have never occurred to me until I became aware of this.

Exactas are even worse. Some years ago, when the pools were extremely tiny and CT was all but out of business, I took a bet up there for a friend. It was a $1 three-horse exacta box with a couple of longshots in it. One of his longshots won the race and I was sensing from the time elapsed that maybe no one had hit it and he might have a shot at taking down the whole pool, tiny though it was, with his $6 investment. Nope, they paid off on the winner and all. (Nothing wrong there.) But then they turned around and also paid off on all to the horse that finished 2nd! It still boggles my mind. How do you hit an exacta by picking only the place horse when other people in the crowd have picked the winner?

Maybe it's always been like this and I just never realized it but I could swear that I've seen old charts where the entire pool has been paid out only one way on exactas just like it is on tris and supers.

Does anyone know if it's like this at other tracks or just CT? Granted, it doesn't come into play unless there are no winning tickets so you don't see it often except at small tracks with small pools.

[RECON]

SAW A VERY STRANGE ONE YESTERDAY IN BELMONTS 2ND RACE---- WAS WATCHING THE QUINELLA POOL AND CAUGHT SOMETHING VERY ODD, AT LEAST TO ME--- ALL THE PAYOUTS FOR THE Q'S WERE ABOUT HALF THE EXACTA, OR LESS, LIKE I WOULD SUSPECT WOULD BE THE CASE---- HOWEVER, FOR THE 6 HORSE,AT 16-1, AND ONLY THE 6 HORSE, ALL THE Q'S WERE GOING TO PAY MORE THAN THE EXACTA!---- I PLAYED 6-ALL AND THE 6 WAS CAUGHT NEAR THE LINE AND BEATEN OUT FOR 2ND AFTER HAVING THE LEAD IN THE STRETCH AND HAVING BEEN PASSED BY A 17-1 HORSE WHO WAS THE EVENTUAL WINNER DAMN WAS A $505 Q

[BillW]

TO,

This is indeed a bizarre situation. Even being from HOU where the pools are not staggering, I don't recall this occurring.

Due to the nature of this bet there is no "on top horse" unless you arbitrarily assign that label to the horse winning the first race. I would guess that the only other option would be to refund the tickets which would tick off just as many people as would paying both. A carryover is probably not possible due to computer limitations (i.e. the software only handles carryover in the specific cases of twin-tri, tri-super, pk6 etc)

In any case, this is a very strange event.

Bill

[PaceGuy]

Every once in a while there will be a pick three where nobody has all three winning horses. At just about every track that I can think of they pay two of three and list a single payoff. It doesn't matter which of the two horses you have on your ticket. If you happen to have two of three you have a cashable ticket. I wonder why, in this situation, CT doesn't do something similar. Why the separate payoffs? Wouldn't it be easier to just pay out a simple one correct out of two from their double pool? That would make more sense to me.

[takeout]

Originally posted by BillW

Due to the nature of this bet there is no "on top horse" unless you arbitrarily assign that label to the horse winning the first race.

I guess that's the story but it still blows my mind. At one point they were keeping a message about it in the track program so that people wouldn't throw their "unlive" tickets away in case this happened. The announcer would even announce that there were uncovered combinations in the back half of the double so hang on to your tickets in case one of them won. I imagine that more than a few tickets that were cashable hit the floor before they starting telling people about it. Something like this could bring the stoopers back in force.:D The double is also a $2 bet at CT but it can be bet at other locations for $1 tickets. How's that for making a bad deal worse? I guess that is just an equipment/tote company/track issue. You can bet everything else up there for $1 tickets.

What bothers me most about the exacta payoffs (which I think are even more bizarre than the doubles) is the inconsistency. An exacta, trifecta and super are basically all the same thing, they just keep adding on horses. So, why don't they use the same procedure to pay them off when there are no winning tickets out? They do with tris and supers but not the exacta.(?) I get warped just thinking about it.:confused:

[takeout]

PaceGuy,

I totally agree that it would be easier (and make a lot more sense to me too) if they would pay out a simple one correct out of two from their double pool. What makes it all the more bizarre is that they pay out their pick-3s exactly as you described. Go figure.

OTOH, I don't fool with pick-3s much but can't help thinking that there's something inherently wrong in a situation that doesn't reward the player that picks the longest prices, even when there are no winning tickets out. In the any-2-out-of-3 pick-3 payoffs, the person with two 6-5 shots would get the same as the guy with say one 40-1 and one 6-5, right? I realize that door swings both ways but I don't think it should. It's probably a case of tote/track equipment as has already been suggested, what with the proliferation of all the exotics these days. Still seems strange, though.

RECON,

That's a drag. That reminds me that they used to have a $5 Quinella at CT and sometimes if it came in with one chalk horse and one longshot it would still pay boxcars. Everyone had the chalk but very few would have the longshot.

One of my bigger mess-ups occurred when I keyed one horse in the Q to two others instead of boxing all three. This saved me $5. (All three were price horses.) The combo I didn't cover came in at $1,025 and I stood there with nothing but a stupid look on my face.:eek: Oh well, live and learn. Some savings, huh!

[hurrikane]

IMO this is rediculous. I usually play pick 4s...and have seen many payouts that are 1-2-3-all or 1-2-all-3.
Seems the all should only occure if noone has the winner in that race. obviously someone had the 4 horse and should have only paid the 4-all. When the first race was run and the 4 won...the only live tickets should be the tickets with the 4 in the first. No question this is some typical WV logic.

[takeout]

Originally posted by hurrikane
obviously someone had the 4 horse and should have only paid the 4-all. When the first race was run and the 4 won...the only live tickets should be the tickets with the 4 in the first.

Exactly!

A few more thoughts and ramblings on this most ludicrous situation:

At first I thought that's why the BRIS charts had reported it wrong and I would've done the exact same thing and just put down the 4-all. Trouble is, they put down only the all-2. Go figure.

I'll probably never know if the rule was changed over the years or not on daily doubles but it occurs to me that it could have possibly always been that way. Could be one of those little "gotchas" that just never came into play before. I'm wondering if similar kinds of lunacy are on the books at other tracks that players aren't aware of because they only come into play under the most extreme conditions which are no winning tickets caused by tiny pools.

I might be wrong but, if I get the time to burrow through some old charts, I'm thinking that I can find an example of when an exacta was paid off on the winner-and-all, and can maybe find one where that type of payout still only produced one winning ticket that took the whole pool.

I happened to talk to a fellow once that had hit a quinella the year before for around 6k. He said he didn't attend that often and I remembered having seen it in the charts so I asked him if he realized that he had had the only ticket. He didn't have a clue until then. :)