Saratoga Late Pick 5 OFF Sunday

[cnollfan]

On Sunday, Saratoga moved the 7th, 9th and 10th races off the turf shortly before post time for the 6th race. Since the Pick 5 sequence started with the 6th race, the changes were "known" before post time of the initial race. But only the most astute, time-sensitive players had an opportunity to act on this info because it was announced so close to post time. Not a level playing field IMHO.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by cnollfan

On Sunday, Saratoga moved the 7th, 9th and 10th races off the turf shortly before post time for the 6th race. Since the Pick 5 sequence started with the 6th race, the changes were "known" before post time of the initial race. But only the most astute, time-sensitive players had an opportunity to act on this info because it was announced so close to post time. Not a level playing field IMHO.

If the turf was not safe everyone agrees that it's safety first BUT announcing it and then loading them in the gate within a couple minutes was one of the worst things I've ever seen a track do. They should seed this Sundays pick 5 pool with 250K to help make up for the debacle

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

If the turf was not safe everyone agrees that it's safety first BUT announcing it and then loading them in the gate within a couple minutes was one of the worst things I've ever seen a track do. They should seed this Sundays pick 5 pool with 250K to help make up for the debacle

The three races in the Pick-5 were declared "ALL" events in accordance with the rules.

I am struggling to understand what was wrong with how business was handled. Races 6 and 8 constituted the Pick-5, period.

I will buy the argument that says, "I could have wagered less on my combinations", however that does ring hollow if the money was already put through the windows.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by cnollfan

On Sunday, Saratoga moved the 7th, 9th and 10th races off the turf shortly before post time for the 6th race. Since the Pick 5 sequence started with the 6th race, the changes were "known" before post time of the initial race. But only the most astute, time-sensitive players had an opportunity to act on this info because it was announced so close to post time. Not a level playing field IMHO.

Doesn't this describe the Pick-5 pool participants? Again, struggling to see what the argument is.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

The three races in the Pick-5 were declared "ALL" events in accordance with the rules.

I am struggling to understand what was wrong with how business was handled. Races 6 and 8 constituted the Pick-5, period.

I will buy the argument that says, "I could have wagered less on my combinations", however that does ring hollow if the money was already put through the windows.

What is wrong with it is the vast majority of people would opt not to play the bet if they knew three "alls" were part of it, but there was very little time to cancel.

And actually, it wasn't according to the rules. And you can watch the pool size shrink after the announcement. It would have shrunk a lot more if time was given.

Twitter

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by cj

What is wrong with it is the vast majority of people would opt not to play the bet if they knew three "alls" were part of it, but there was very little time to cancel.

And actually, it wasn't according to the rules. And you can watch the pool size shrink after the announcement. It would have shrunk a lot more if time was given.

There were more than two minutes after the announcement to make cancellations and please do not tell me that you are worried about Pick-5 players who bet through the windows and were shut out.

Suppose it was five minutes? Is that enough? How about ten minutes?Seriously, if anyone's goal was to cancel, unless their ATM was down, they had the time to make those changes.

As for the rule, here it is.

Pick Four, Pick Five, and Grand Slam-races off the turf
When the condition of the turf course(s) warrants a change of racing surface to a non-turf course in any of the Pick Four or Pick Five races, and such change has not been known to the public before the close of wagering in any of those wagers, the changed leg(s) will be deemed an “all win” for wagering purposes. For the Grand Slam, the changed leg(s) will be deemed “no contest” for wagering purposes. If there is only one surface transfer in the sequence of the Pick Five the previous days’ carryovers are to be paid out. If more than one, then any previous carryover shall be carried over to the next day of the meet for the wager.

Source : https://www.nyra.com/belmont/racing/betting-faq

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by cj

What is wrong with it is the vast majority of people would opt not to play the bet if they knew three "alls" were part of it, but there was very little time to cancel.

And actually, it wasn't according to the rules. And you can watch the pool size shrink after the announcement. It would have shrunk a lot more if time was given.

http://twitter.com/PatCummingsTIF/st...74317958971393

yikes

I didn't know of the Cummings cancel rule.

One discussion is whether the rules were followed, but there's also a discussion on the rules themselves. Do the rules need amending?

The State commission or whatever varies between being a scapegoat and an entity that isn't as nuanced in Horse Racing as specialists and enthusiasts.

The Stewards have consistently proven themselves of mediocre competence.

That leaves it up to the insiders to speak out, or the players to speak up.

This brain power train isn't exactly firing on all cylinders, but I don't even know exactly how I feel about a P5 being changed to a Double-&-3'ALLs'.

My gut says "WTF?! Refund! That! Sh*t!!".

However, I have not thought it through. Maybe someone who has can share some insight on both sides?

My gut needs some Metamucil and even a strong reaction in the abdomen isn't always a solid one.

[classhandicapper]

Setting aside how these things should be handled, it seems to me the extra risk involved with late scratches and surface changes that can significantly change the probabilities and payoffs makes playing some of these horizontals an inferior proposition to verticals.

[Andy Asaro]

In this case the pool should have been refunded.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

In this case the pool should have been refunded.

Perfectly fine opinion. The question is "why"? What rule covering this wager allows the bet to be cancelled and the pool refunded?

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Perfectly fine opinion. The question is "why"? What rule covering this wager allows the bet to be cancelled and the pool refunded?

Scott, not sure why you're pushing this so far. This was a no doubt debacle and one of the worst moves I've ever seen a track make. The sequence hadn't started and NOBODY would have bet the way they did if it was only a Daily Double.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Scott, not sure why you're pushing this so far. This was a no doubt debacle and one of the worst moves I've ever seen a track make. The sequence hadn't started and NOBODY would have bet the way they did if it was only a Daily Double.

Andy, I am pushing this because you said the bet should have been cancelled and refunded. I am asking under what rule in the New York State Parimutuel laws allows that to happen.

Too many people do NOT take the time to read - or understand - the rules associated with horizontal wagers despite their popularity. They are significantly more complex than dealing with vertical wagers.

As for debacle, I ask you again : What "rule" was violated other than the Asaro outrage factor?

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Andy, I am pushing this because you said the bet should have been cancelled and refunded. I am asking under what rule in the New York State Parimutuel laws allows that to happen.

Too many people do NOT take the time to read - or understand - the rules associated with horizontal wagers despite their popularity. They are significantly more complex than dealing with vertical wagers.

As for debacle, I ask you again : What "rule" was violated other than the Asaro outrage factor?

If they couldn't refund then they should have added 15 minutes to allow people to cancel their wagers. It looks to me like they didn't want people to be able to cancel sticking them with wagers they never would have made

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

If they couldn't refund then they should have added 15 minutes to allow people to cancel their wagers. It looks to me like they didn't want people to be able to cancel sticking them with wagers they never would have made

We have now gone from cancelling the bet entirely and providing refunds to all to introducing a policy change with a 15 minute delay to post time for Race 6 allowing Pick-5 bettors ($900,000 in the final pool) the chance to adjust their wagers.

And to those of you fine, yet non-Pick-5 folks who were part of the $3,000,000+ plus in wagers on Race 6, just hang out by your televisions and on the rail while we handle these selected Pick-5 bettors?

Horsehockey. Those who play in these horizontal pools must know the rules and if they don't, that's on them - not NYRA, not the fans in the stands, and not the NYS Racing and Wagering Board.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

We have now gone from cancelling the bet entirely and providing refunds to all to introducing a policy change with a 15 minute delay to post time for Race 6 allowing Pick-5 bettors ($900,000 in the final pool) the chance to adjust their wagers.

And to those of you fine, yet non-Pick-5 folks who were part of the $3,000,000+ plus in wagers on Race 6, just hang out by your televisions and on the rail while we handle these selected Pick-5 bettors?

Horsehockey. Those who play in these horizontal pools must know the rules and if they don't, that's on them - not NYRA, not the fans in the stands, and not the NYS Racing and Wagering Board.

The bet should have been cancelled IMO whether the rules allow it or not. That was the right thing to do.