Man, this is bad
 

Hah! And I thought I had the rant of the day.

These Jackpots are going to be the death of racing one day (if the drugging and cheating doesn't kill it first - or the horse fatalities).

Just one more Fix on a Pick6 Jackpot could do it.

Hey, for those who pay no attention to these jackpot wagers (like me), what's the bottom line on all of this? The person who thought he won $700,000+ didn't actually win?

I didnt think anyone hit anything, it was a 25/1 shot who won the last....I am confused.

I watched the race live.

The 25/1 shot was the only live single ticket, according to track announcer Michael Wrona. He called it down the stretch...and he announced the payout after the race was official. Something like $750,000...

So, since cj entitled the thread "Man, this is bad" I'm assuming the person who thought they won, actually didn't.

Hope they cashed that ticket quickly...

PA, That would look pretty bad.
___

Not for nothing, but I've been concerned with what could happen with these Jackpots.

The money involved is so much that it could provide incentive for a trainer with multiple horses in the sequence to control the outcome. Stiffing the ones that figure, and putting over another one or two that shows nothing in the pp's.

A couple of trainers could even work together on something. It's called collusion, and it does happen.

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist.

BUT, this is horseracing that were talking about. What sport has a worse reputation than this one? With plenty of real examples of cheating having happened before.

Remember when Boxing was popular.
___

The winner did win. There was just another live horse that wasn't mentioned by the track before the race. At least that's the way I'm reading it.

Still it would have looked really bad.

Goodnight all.

I read it as thought the winner was unaffected. The issue was another horse would also have scooped the jackpot, which would have been quite a surprise post-race to everyone watching.

That is what I thought originally, but in this case, no. It could have been that bad. There were actually two horses that would have swept the jackpot, not the one that was displayed. It could have just as easily been a second ticket on the same horse making it not a jackpot winner if I'm understanding this right.

The one that was displayed happened to win.

Makes sense...

Nice glitch though. Wonder what other "glitches" are out there.

With the way these tote systems operate, you would have figured Y2K would have ended racing 18 years ago...

Exactly. The tech is so outdated there is no real way to have any faith in it. It is all piece-worked together to try to make it function with the modern game.

Correct!

Well, if the Breeder's Cup pick 6 "Drexel" scandal back in 2002 didn't kill the exotic bets, I think that the jackpot pools have some wriggle room. It was only a couple of years ago there was an uproar over the jackpot pick 6 at Louisiana Downs that ended up NOT being a jackpot, because the post time favorite resulted in a second winning ticket from a late scratch. And did that adversely affect the jackpot style wagers? Ummm, no.

Look at the carryovers across the country on a typical day of racing. Jackpots lead the way, and appear to my untrained eye to be gaining in popularity.

I agree that that drugs and cheating are big problems, if not bigger problems, and I would submit the jackpot style pools are a desperate attempt by the parasite to maintain life while the host is dying.

BUT - there is a minimum number of players that will continue to play the horses, short of the Sun going supernova, no matter what.

And as George C. Scott said so eloquently in the movie "Patton", and as paraphrased by Andy Beyer, "God Help Me, but I love it so...."

I saw the willpay on the pick 6 on DRF bets to that 7 showing $603k prior to the race. Obviously that would be a single ticket jackpot payout.

The 7 wasn't listed as a carryover horse tho, so I'm not sure how SA glitched on this one. I'm guessing the TV monitors merely did not post that jackpot label next to the number because of that difference in exchange rate.