Saratoga Late Pick 5 OFF Sunday

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by cj

Weak argument. It is known the public once the announcement is made to the PUBLIC over the PUBLIC ADDRESS system.. If the bettor isn't around to hear it, that is on them. But it is also further reason the bet should have been canceled. There is a reasonable expectation many bettors wouldn't know and be able to react within the given time frame.

CJ, we agree that there is reasonable expectation that many bettors DID NOT know about the surface switch. Therefore, the situation is akin to the surface switch not being known before the close of wagering. Hence, it is as if the change of surface for many was known only after the first leg was run. Therefore, the three remaining legs were called off as "ALL" legs.

Why so many folks believe that the bet should have been cancelled amazes me. I am not trying to be hard-headed about this discussion, but this entire thread resonates with "not liking the rules" along with a healthy dose of "I didn't understand the rules".

[classhandicapper]

Couldn't they just have delayed the race to give more time to the betting public to make changes?

We deal with delays all the time for all sorts of reasons.

[Pigpen]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Couldn't they just have delayed the race to give more time to the betting public to make changes?

We deal with delays all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Exactly. This is all I and many other ask.

[1st time lasix]

I played into the pool…. I generally play all the pick fives at the meet. I felt rather angry and disrespected by the decision and outcome. I expected a full refund and a cancellation of the pool. It would have been the proper thing to do given the late decision which was not weather related on this particular day.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

CJ, we agree that there is reasonable expectation that many bettors DID NOT know about the surface switch. Therefore, the situation is akin to the surface switch not being known before the close of wagering. Hence, it is as if the change of surface for many was known only after the first leg was run. Therefore, the three remaining legs were called off as "ALL" legs.

Why so many folks believe that the bet should have been cancelled amazes me. I am not trying to be hard-headed about this discussion, but this entire thread resonates with "not liking the rules" along with a healthy dose of "I didn't understand the rules".

They didn't follow the rules, saying customers should know them and understand them falls on deaf ears when the organization putting on the show didn't follow them!

Running a daily double and calling it a Pick 5 is ridiculous, that is why it should have been called off. Like I said, they changed the rules once, why not do it again?

I think we all suspect why they likely didn't cancel the bet and it has nothing to do with treating customers fairly.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Couldn't they just have delayed the race to give more time to the betting public to make changes?

We deal with delays all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Welp, they saw the pool shrinking, it was right on the screen for all to see. What happens if they delay 5 minutes?

[$w1fT]

Only this place can a person argue so vehemently when the rule is presented to them, as CJ has done, not read it, yet continue to argue the point when he is clearly wrong.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[KidCruz]

The fact that there is someone in here defending NYRA for this just proves that people just enjoy spending their lives arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm sorry CJ you had to spend your time doing so but you provided all the relevant information needed.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Welp, they saw the pool shrinking, it was right on the screen for all to see. What happens if they delay 5 minutes?

If I was involved, the first thing I would do is cancel whatever I could. Then I'd take a little time to re-evaluate the situation to see if there was a new betting opportunity. There wasn't enough for all that and perhaps not even if they extended it another 5 minutes. So I guess it would have continued shrinking unless they delayed 10 minutes or more. Then the bleeding may have stopped and reversed, but they probably wouldn't do as well as just pulling the plug. On the flip side, fewer people would be pissed.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

CJ, we agree that there is reasonable expectation that many bettors DID NOT know about the surface switch. Therefore, the situation is akin to the surface switch not being known before the close of wagering. Hence, it is as if the change of surface for many was known only after the first leg was run. Therefore, the three remaining legs were called off as "ALL" legs.

Why so many folks believe that the bet should have been cancelled amazes me. I am not trying to be hard-headed about this discussion, but this entire thread resonates with "not liking the rules" along with a healthy dose of "I didn't understand the rules".

Are you kidding me? I read this whole thread. I read at least 5 times where you call out others for "not knowing the rules", "not understanding the rules" etc. But you are the one not following/understanding the rules.

It's plain and simple and not open for interpretation. (A rule is never EVER subjective. Otherwise it is no longer a "rule" but a guideline, or suggestion). The rule CLEARLY states that the races off the turf become ALL only in the event the public wasn't aware of it. Once announced over the PA system, and the betting being still open, that part of the rule was met. End of story.

If someone doesn't like the rule, or how it was written, or believes there should be leeway to protect the bettors on the fly, etc. they need to take it up with the creators and legislators of the rule. There is a difference between creating and enforcing rules. While the decision to make them all races in the pick 5 protected some, it also likely thoroughly screwed others. Would you be happy to sink good money into the pool having singled the #10 at 12-1 (who won) in the 2nd leg, only to get nothing for it? Was that bettor protected? Of course not.

This is not a difficult debate. NYRA delayed announcement to the last possible moment to impede bettors from withdrawing from that pool. That is blatantly obvious. Otherwise, they could have given bettors time to adjust, just like they do when there is a scratch at the gate, as they want the money on the scratched horse to end up back in the IN RACE pool.

Bottom line, they manipulated the situation for their bottom line and compounded the problem by not following the WRITTEN RULE. They feigned protecting bettors but really only wanted to retain the handle in the p5. It's like giving you an icepack after I punch you in the mouth.

[Track Phantom]

By the way, to further articulate the problem with not following the written rule regarding making those off-the-turf races ALL when they shouldn't have been.

What do you think the pick 5 would have paid if they didn't make those races all? The winning odds were 5-1, 12-1, 5-1, 2-1, 3-1. But in the 2nd, 4th and 5th legs those odds played dramatically higher than their off odds. The off odds were depressed in the in-race betting due to the smaller fields from the scratches. But they played higher in the p5 because all the scratched horses were still in play as they would have moved to the post-time favorite. Since every favorite lost in the sequence, the actual payoff on that pick 5 had to be $2,500 for .50c (probably more).

So, let's think about this. You played a straight $2 pick 5 (1/10/4/3/3) and all 5 win. If NYRA follows the rules, this ticket is worth $10,000. After the incorrect decision to make those off-the-turf races all, that ticket is now worth $100.

Try telling that player that he was "protected" by this arbitrary and subjective decision.

[Track Phantom]

One last point on this issue. I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat and throw out another thought (I'm not sure I even believe this in totality but in lieu of transparency and honesty, we tend to fill the void with wild assumptions).

Look who is involved in this situation:

1. Owners
2. Trainers
3. Jockeys
4. Track
5. CAW players
6. Non CAW players

Owners, trainers and jockeys are all whole in this situation since the purse distribution is unaffected.

The track is whole in this situation as they retain a very high pool size in which they extract their take.

CAW players might be whole (or close to it) since they are really playing to break even and win on the rebate. All of their wagers are basically refunds (depending on structure) but their wagers still qualify for a very high rebate trigger.

Non CAW players (the rest of us) get it in the ass. Those players who would've lost the pick 5 that got coverage to the all in races might feel ok to get something back. But anyone who structured bets that would've won without the all lose.

If you agree with these points, it further posits what I already believe. Tracks are catering to CAW players, not just tolerating them. While their money buoys the bottom line in the short term, their participation is a cancer. It is a significant contributor to the reduction in non CAW handle year over year.

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by cj

Weak argument. It is known the public once the announcement is made to the PUBLIC over the PUBLIC ADDRESS system.. If the bettor isn't around to hear it, that is on them. But it is also further reason the bet should have been canceled. There is a reasonable expectation many bettors wouldn't know and be able to react within the given time frame.

A big part of the problem beyond NYRA’s egregious decision to announce the surface switches when they did is the absence of any transparency or announcement thereafter. People understandably believe NYRA timed the surface change announcement to maximize the Pick 5 pool. You don’t even need to be a confirmed cynic like me to believe that. The absence of any public announcement afterward only reinforces this view that management is cravenly avoiding the issue, and suspicions that NYRA’s primary objective is to maximize player revenue at the expense of player protection and plan old fairness. I find Scott’s logic about “public awareness” compelling. However, we shouldn’t be speculating about it. NYRA should be explaining the reasoning.

The timing of the announcement is indefensible. Nobody can logically suggest otherwise. It might help if NYRA publicly stated that their actions- given the timing of the announcement- were designed to protect the large majority of bettors based on their judgement that a large portion of the public “may not have known”. This would at least illustrate how NYRA believes it appropriately applied the rules. Instead we are left to debate it amongst ourselves.

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

By the way, to further articulate the problem with not following the written rule regarding making those off-the-turf races ALL when they shouldn't have been.

What do you think the pick 5 would have paid if they didn't make those races all? The winning odds were 5-1, 12-1, 5-1, 2-1, 3-1. But in the 2nd, 4th and 5th legs those odds played dramatically higher than their off odds. The off odds were depressed in the in-race betting due to the smaller fields from the scratches. But they played higher in the p5 because all the scratched horses were still in play as they would have moved to the post-time favorite. Since every favorite lost in the sequence, the actual payoff on that pick 5 had to be $2,500 for .50c (probably more).

So, let's think about this. You played a straight $2 pick 5 (1/10/4/3/3) and all 5 win. If NYRA follows the rules, this ticket is worth $10,000. After the incorrect decision to make those off-the-turf races all, that ticket is now worth $100.

Try telling that player that he was "protected" by this arbitrary and subjective decision.

Great points Phantom. I was thinking about similar scenarios. Think of the player who singled the 2 dirt winners, handicapped for turf and spread in the turf races. Knowing the rules, the player cancels because he’s spread in races he handicapped for the wrong surface. That player got screwed too. If say he played 1x5x1x5x5 he has a $25 “daily double” 125 times. But because he knew the rules, he cancelled his ticket.