Golden Gate Mandatory Pay Out Today

[Track Phantom]

We played a large ticket and didn't have the #3 in the 3rd leg, so it didn't really matter. Why this whole thing DOES matter is how it was handled. Do we want races run on unsafe surfaces? Absolutely not. But they ran TWO turf races well in advance of the p6 starting. Why was there not a decision at that point? There had to be forewarning of this problem. I'm sure it didn't come up all of a sudden. If the jockeys were going to balk, I'm sure management was aware this may happen at some point in the day (or did it rain after the first two turf races were run...that I don't know).

It "feels" like the track management didn't want to jeopardize the amount of money that was going to come into the pools by opening the door to many scratches. So, by delaying the decision, they ensure the money is bet with no recourse for them not to get their takeout.

I'll ask you one question...what is the likelihood that the last two races (10th and 12th) come off the turf if the ruling was ALL pick 6 wagers are refunded in total (as if it didn't happen) and the track forfeits their rake? I'll place the over/under at 99.99% that they stay on the turf.

I'm sure the track wanted the races to go as is, have 1 or 2 winning tickets and so on. But I'm also sure their first priority was to make sure all possible money that was going to be bet ended up in their pools, at any cost.

Also, what kind of horseshit was the communication by the track to what was happening and why. Vague, fragmented information, with a note on their screen 4 minutes to post of the last race. I had a large p4 going and had no idea if I got all's or the ticket was as is.

This was a bad situation everywhere but I feel like Golden Gate could have been conscientious and over communicated the problem, the adjustments, etc. I really felt like it was "oh well, money is already in the pools, not that big of a deal now". Probably not how management was feeling about the problem but it is how it came off to me. Not a good experience.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

It "feels" like the track management didn't want to jeopardize the amount of money that was going to come into the pools by opening the door to many scratches. So, by delaying the decision, they ensure the money is bet with no recourse for them not to get their takeout.

I think this is wrong. The wager was basically +EV because there was so much dead money in the pool. Even if it had been offered as a pick 4 from the outset, it would have attracted huge amounts of money because horseplayers are not stupid and like free money.

Had they moved the races before the first race in the cycle, same thing. People would have still played it.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think this is wrong. The wager was basically +EV because there was so much dead money in the pool. Even if it had been offered as a pick 4 from the outset, it would have attracted huge amounts of money because horseplayers are not stupid and like free money.

Had they moved the races before the first race in the cycle, same thing. People would have still played it.

Not to the tune of 5M new money added. No way. Not for a p4.

[tanner12oz]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Standard rule, been around forever. Any 2 horses in a pick 4,5,6 that dead heat are treating as if both won, it's that simple.

I once had a 30/1 dead heat with an even money. It's as if I hit a 4/5 shot.

id had the same..another Bs horseplayer injustice

[castaway01]

I won't copy your whole post, TrackPhantom, but the scenario you described seems closest to how it all went down.

This whole saga was too bizarre to really understand, but in the end the bettors are the ones who bet on races that the track knew were coming off the turf. The track got its handle, and the bettors got the shaft. Blame the jockeys? Well, I don't know who made the decision not to run on the turf, but I do know the track could have handled it much better (to put it mildly). Pathetic situation for a track that rarely gets much attention, and I can't imagine they encouraged anyone who tried the place today to ever bet it again.

[Donttellmeshowme]

what did the pick 6 pay?

[barahona44]

Originally Posted by Donttellmeshowme

what did the pick 6 pay?

$146.16

Not exactly life changing.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

It "feels" like the track management didn't want to jeopardize the amount of money that was going to come into the pools by opening the door to many scratches. So, by delaying the decision, they ensure the money is bet with no recourse for them not to get their takeout.

.

I think this is wrong for a couple reasons...

1. When they took the 10th and 12th off almost no one scratched
2. It's Turf to Tapeta. We all know 90%+ of the horses stay in
3. It's CLOSING DAY. Why would anyone health scratch? There's no more races to point to. It's not like they could scratch and come back next week. Everyone was running anything healthy enough to run.

I'm just convinced the track was blindsided by the jockeys refusing to ride the turf in the middle of a card with no rain. Now you can say the track should have had a Plan B but I'm not quite sire what they could have done. The jockeys kind of had them by the balls.

You know what would have been even worse? If the track pushed back and let the jockeys who wouldn't ride the turf off their mounts. So if you had Russell Baze on a horse and he decided not to ride the turf and you got a late jockey change in 10 and 12 to Jose the exercise boy or the house jock who's 3 for 145. Imagine if they dragged out a bunch of glorified exercise riders to ride those two races. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE. I think management made the best unpopular decision.

As for the person saying it's the tracks fault for card four turf races on a card I'm not even sure what to say to that. Are we so safety prone we can't do that now?

And before someone says it they couldn't carryover the money to opening day. By state law they have to distribute the money. They were literally between a rock and a hard place.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

I think this is wrong for a couple reasons...

1. When they took the 10th and 12th off almost no one scratched
2. It's Turf to Tapeta. We all know 90%+ of the horses stay in
3. It's CLOSING DAY. Why would anyone health scratch? There's no more races to point to. It's not like they could scratch and come back next week. Everyone was running anything healthy enough to run.

I'm just convinced the track was blindsided by the jockeys refusing to ride the turf in the middle of a card with no rain. Now you can say the track should have had a Plan B but I'm not quite sire what they could have done. The jockeys kind of had them by the balls.

You know what would have been even worse? If the track pushed back and let the jockeys who wouldn't ride the turf off their mounts. So if you had Russell Baze on a horse and he decided not to ride the turf and you got a late jockey change in 10 and 12 to Jose the exercise boy or the house jock who's 3 for 145. Imagine if they dragged out a bunch of glorified exercise riders to ride those two races. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE. I think management made the best unpopular decision.

As for the person saying it's the tracks fault for card four turf races on a card I'm not even sure what to say to that. Are we so safety prone we can't do that now?

And before someone says it they couldn't carryover the money to opening day. By state law they have to distribute the money. They were literally between a rock and a hard place.

+1. Way too many conspiracy theories in this thread. GGF did what they had to do (and it was better than what Hollywood did when this happened to them 25 years ago).

[shots]

Originally Posted by castaway01

I won't copy your whole post, TrackPhantom, but the scenario you described seems closest to how it all went down.

This whole saga was too bizarre to really understand, but in the end the bettors are the ones who bet on races that the track knew were coming off the turf. The track got its handle, and the bettors got the shaft. Blame the jockeys? Well, I don't know who made the decision not to run on the turf, but I do know the track could have handled it much better (to put it mildly). Pathetic situation for a track that rarely gets much attention, and I can't imagine they encouraged anyone who tried the place today to ever bet it again.

Right On!

[FunkyMonkey]

why not cancel the card at that point and give everybody their money back?

that would have been the right call...including the over $1 million in take out in the p6 pool...yeah right like that is ever going to happen! Were they forced to do this I can assure you that the decision making would have been different.

also, would love to see an in depth investigation of all tickets that had the two off the turf races with singles in those two races...that might be interesting.

bush league.

[RunForTheRoses]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

+1. Way too many conspiracy theories in this thread. GGF did what they had to do (and it was better than what Hollywood did when this happened to them 25 years ago).

It would have been nice though if the track had a safe turf course. Did these jockey objections come out of the blue? All of a sudden in the middle of the card? They should have taken care of the turf.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

It would have been nice though if the track had a safe turf course. Did these jockey objections come out of the blue? All of a sudden in the middle of the card? They should have taken care of the turf.

What often happens is that a horse steps in a hole in the turf course and that's when the jockeys complain. That's what happened at Hollywood 30 years ago.

I'd like to know what jockey complained, but we will never be told that.

[Tom]

GG seems to pretty much a VERY minor league track - run by people not too bright. Anyone who bets there deserves what they get.

At SRU Downs, you get paid.


(Does anyone in this industry have their heads out of their butts???)

[AlBundy33]

Originally Posted by Tom

GG seems to pretty much a VERY minor league track - run by people not too bright. Anyone who bets there deserves what they get.

At SRU Downs, you get paid.


(Does anyone in this industry have their heads out of their butts???)

The answer to that is nope, other than probably Canterbury and NYRA.

The only solution is to not play there at all, period. Because you don't know what they are going to do with your money as that was proven yesterday.

I mean $1.2 million in take alone for the one bet isn't enough. Stronach and his cronies are probably smoking Montecristoes and sipping Cristal champagne as we speak.