Remington disallows a jackpot ticket on a technicality

[mountainman]

Wagering off-shore thru Pinnacle, a partner and I once had the numbers right on a long-bomb Santa Anita daily double that nobody hit in the official pool.

The problem, as quickly became apparent, was that, while Pinnacle rules stipulated the entire pool be paid in such instances regarding a pic 3, pic 4, or pic 6, no such provision was laid out for dd's.

They paid us, anyway. In full.

[cj]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Wagering off-shore thru Pinnacle, a partner and I once had the numbers right on a long-bomb Santa Anita daily double that nobody hit in the official pool.

The problem, as quickly became apparent, was that, while Pinnacle rules stipulated the entire pool be paid in such instances regarding a pic 3, pic 4, or pic 6, no such provision was laid out for dd's.

They paid us, anyway. In full.

Pinnacle was a dream come true for a long time. Great rebates, money didn't make the pools and they seemed to stick to it. They also handled situations like the above as total pros. Alas, they shut out US a while back. I was still overseas at the time and got a couple extra years, but I had to cash out when I moved back home.

[cardinalsfan]

Yup. This guy will 100% win in court if he goes that direction. One unique ticket means just that, it could not ne clearer.

[BIG RED]

Originally Posted by cj

Pinnacle was a dream come true for a long time.

You got that right, best place I've been a part of, and always there if you needed them. What I remember in the letter of closure to us, they were forced to shut us out (aka threatened)

Keep us up to date on this please. Want to see the outcome.

Paid him / didn't pay him ....court / no court .... new written rules etc.

[mountainvalleypete]

I am in what seems to be the VAST minority here in saying Remington was absolutely justified in NOT paying out the full jackpot. What I feel seems to be obscured among people is the definition of the word "ticket" in this situation. When talking about a jackpot bet such as this one or any exotic bet for that matter, the word "ticket" does NOT refer to the physical piece of paper. It refers to the unique combination of winning horses that make up that sequence.

I am sure you all have seen at Gulfstream before each leg of the Rainbow Pick 6, they show the number of tickets remaining. That is NOT the number of live physical tickets remaining, that is the number of live COMBINATIONS remaining, more than one of which can be on the same physical ticket. Perhaps in the future, it would be better for tracks to say "Be the only winning COMBINATION," as that is the true goal in order to obtain the jackpot. I never did like the word ticket when referring to these bets, as it is very deceptive.

[Zman179]

The rules state be the only TICKET, or be the only WINNER. Both would apply in this case. Give the man his money.

[deelo]

Originally Posted by mountainvalleypete

I am in what seems to be the VAST minority here in saying Remington was absolutely justified in NOT paying out the full jackpot. What I feel seems to be obscured among people is the definition of the word "ticket" in this situation. When talking about a jackpot bet such as this one or any exotic bet for that matter, the word "ticket" does NOT refer to the physical piece of paper. It refers to the unique combination of winning horses that make up that sequence.

I am sure you all have seen at Gulfstream before each leg of the Rainbow Pick 6, they show the number of tickets remaining. That is NOT the number of live physical tickets remaining, that is the number of live COMBINATIONS remaining, more than one of which can be on the same physical ticket. Perhaps in the future, it would be better for tracks to say "Be the only winning COMBINATION," as that is the true goal in order to obtain the jackpot. I never did like the word ticket when referring to these bets, as it is very deceptive.

Much more important than defining “ticket”, “combo”, etc would be how you interpret the OHRC rule stating a contestant with tickets to a dead heat will be paid out as if no dead heat had occurred. That would seem to clear it up as needing paid to me

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by deelo

Much more important than defining “ticket”, “combo”, etc would be how you interpret the OHRC rule stating a contestant with tickets to a dead heat will be paid out as if no dead heat had occurred. That would seem to clear it up as needing paid to me

I think you may be referring to this from earlier:

"(c) If there is a dead heat for first in any of the Pick (n) contests involving: (1) contestants representing the same betting interest, the Pick (n) pool shall be distributed as if no dead heat occurred. (2) contestants representing two or more betting interests, the Pick (n) pool shall be distributed as a single price pool with each winning wager receiving an equal share of the profit."

I'm fairly sure (c)(1) refers to horses (the contestants) being part of a coupled entry (the same betting interest, i.e. 1 & 1A), rather than referring to the bettor or bettors.

[JohnGalt1]

Though I'm not a lawyer, I do know that when there is a written contract, and if there is a question as to the meaning or interpretation of a clause, courts usually side against the writer of the contract.

[citygoat]

Even when you win you can't win