Belterra Stakes: Dead Heat. Bizzare payouts.

[rrpic6]

Just when you thought you've seen everything in racing. The Green Carpet Stakes for Ohio Breds on the turf May 29th had a dead heat for win with a 11-1 and a 30-1. With a 10-1 finishing 3rd, 1 trifecta pays $85 for 50cents, the other pays $3500! There is only one superfecta payout, not 2??? No explanation given. You can't say one of the tri's was an ALL for 3rd, yet saying no one had the other superfecta so they just paid on the one that had all 4 numbers.
http://www.equibase.com/premium/char...16&cy=USA&rn=8

RR

[lamboguy]

i had bet the Ruberto horse in the race and saw the same thing. i couldn't have picked either of the top 2 finishers in the race to save my life. its bad enough to see odds fluctuate before and after the race on win bets, blind pools is just not my bag.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by rrpic6

Ju... There is only one superfecta payout, not 2??? ...

Interesting. I'm guessing that - based on the fact that the tri combo which begins the missing super combo and appears to have had only one winning ticket - the missing superfecta combo had no winning ticket. Because there was a winning combo to be paid, my guess is that somewhere in the statutes a combo that would ordinarily have paid to ALL in one or more slots is only paid out that way if there is no winning combo sold. In this case there was a winning combo sold - it just so happens that the other winning combo was not sold. I'll drink this coffee and see if I can find it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

For whatever reason the ORC rules don't spell it out with the succinct clarity for superfectas as they do with trifectas, but I'm guessing that if I had consumed more coffee I could have concentrated a little harder and parsed it out of some other clause. But, instead I'll just post the trifecta rule since I'd be amazed if the premise didn't apply for supers also.

(3) In the case of a dead heat where there is no winning ticket on one dead heat combination, the entire net pool will
go to the other winning combination(s).

From 3769-13-22/23

[castaway01]

As usual JHS, I think you figured it out.

This isn't anything mysterious. Small pools, not much money bet, big longshots so no one had it. If you play small tracks this stuff happens sometimes.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by castaway01

As usual JHS, I think you figured it out.

This isn't anything mysterious. Small pools, not much money bet, big longshots so no one had it. If you play small tracks this stuff happens sometimes.

Yep.

We are talking about a Trifecta pool with all of $9K bet into it and a Superfecta pool with just over $5,400 bet into it. The chances of single tickets winning are intensely magnified.

Would really suck having the 30/1 over the 11/1 in this instance in which the 11/1 over 30/1 trifecta combination pays over 40 times more and the Exacta pays nearly $200 more. Crazy to think that 40 tickets have one combination while a single ticket has the other combination. Makes you wonder if some dunce hammered the 30/1 over 11/1 $.50 Trifecta 40 times while completely forgetting about the size of the pool.

[davew]

I think they screwed up - here is the ohio superfecta rules

3769-13-23. Superfecta wagering (A) The object of the superfecta is to select in exact order, on one ticket and in one combination, the first, second, third, and fourth horses (or separate betting interest if field or entries are involved), as officially posted, of a single designated race. Permit holders may give different names to this type of wagering but must notify the commission of the names selected. (B) The superfecta is calculated as an entirely separate pool and except for the contingencies below is generally calculated as a win pool. (C) If a horse or horses are scratched or excused by the judges, all money wagered on combinations which include such horses will be deducted from the superfecta pool and returned to the purchasers of such tickets unless such horse or horses are part of a field or entry and other horses remain in the entry or field. (D) If no ticket is sold combining the first four horses in exact order as officially posted, then payoffs shall be made to those who select correct ticket combinations in the following order of priority: (1) (1-2-3-all) if none, then (2) (1-2-all-all) if none, then (3) (1-all-all-all) if none, then (4) (All-all-all-all) refund Failure of anyone to select the first horse to win will result in a complete refund of the superfecta pool to all purchasers of superfecta tickets. (E) If, for any reason, less than four horses finish, the pay-off shall be made to those holding tickets selecting the horse or horses that do finish in exact order and priority of paragraph (D) of this rule. (F) In the event of a dead heat or dead heats, all superfecta tickets selecting the correct order of finish, counting a horse in a dead heat as finishing in any position involved in the dead heat, shall be winning tickets, and distribution shall be made as in a place pool. If fields or entries are involved in the dead heat, the first four separate wagering interests shall comprise the winning combination(s). Effective: 1-1-85; 5-21-90

[cj]

Seeing how they don't care if they actually time races why would anybody expect them not to screw everything else up too?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by davew

I think they screwed up - here is the ohio superfecta rules

... (D) If no ticket is sold combining the first four horses in exact order as officially posted, then payoffs shall be made to those who select correct ticket combinations in the following order of priority: (1) (1-2-3-all) if none, then (2) (1-2-all-all) if none, then (3) (1-all-all-all) if none, then (4) (All-all-all-all) refund ...

This is the section that I referred to when I was talking about parsing it out as intended. I think that if you read that opening salvo again and take it as literally as you can, you can see why I thought it easier to just post the tri rules rather than speculate that the intended interpretation here is that there was at least one ticket sold with the exact combo. It just happens that it only happened on one of the two winning combos.

[davew]

I am going off of F

(F) In the event of a dead heat or dead heats, all superfecta tickets selecting the correct order of finish, counting a horse in a dead heat as finishing in any position involved in the dead heat, shall be winning tickets, and distribution shall be made as in a place pool. If fields or entries are involved in the dead heat, the first four separate wagering interests shall comprise the winning combination(s).

Distribution as in a place pool, would be 2 pay-offs

but I guess I have seen dog races where one of the placers had no place money bet on it so the entire pool went to the one that did.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by davew

I am going off of F

(F) In the event of a dead heat or dead heats, all superfecta tickets selecting the correct order of finish, counting a horse in a dead heat as finishing in any position involved in the dead heat, shall be winning tickets, and distribution shall be made as in a place pool. If fields or entries are involved in the dead heat, the first four separate wagering interests shall comprise the winning combination(s).

Distribution as in a place pool, would be 2 pay-offs
...

I admit that I hated the wording of that clause enough to almost dismiss it outright, but I think that is referring to the case where they have to determine the proper distribution on multiple winning combinations in the ordinary DH sense. Basically how to divvy it up in a regular heater, referring to this part of the section on distribution of place pools:

(C) Place pool:
(1) The amounts wagered on horses finishing first and second shall be deducted from the net pool to determine the profit which
shall be divided in half, and each half shall be divided by the amount wagered on one of the horses thus determining the profit per
dollar, to which profit the wager shall be added in totaling the payoff.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Just to expand because I know it seems counter-intuitive when it so customary to see every combination represented with a payout in non-carryover pools. But those consos are at the core the solution to a track/host not being able to just pocket a pool without a winner and also not having to refund the pool (and i would argue a great way for many tracks/states/horsemen to get a bonus on the uncashed tickets that are probably highly prevalent in -ALL- payouts). So you pay the closest thing to a winner. In most cases it is the ticket with the most correct finishers in the top-most (if that's an expression) slots. In the case here, the closest thing to a winner are the people that actually did select the correct finish. They got it right. There really is no reason to pay a conso out to those that came close on the alternate winning combo, practically as a function of emptying the pool and keeping the take and really, logically either if you are paying the people that did select it correctly.

[rrpic6]

So assume I would have had half the superfecta pool if I had the 6 horse underneath? Another bad beat story to tell.

2016-05-29 09:28:06 Bet Belterra Park 8 Superfecta $0.10 2 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 12 / 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 11 + 12 / 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 11 + 12 / 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 11 + 12 $60.00

RR