Santa Anita screwing bettors again

[cj]

Last race comes off turf because jockeys say it is dangerous. First, they didn't tell anyone until after the 7th even though there were no intervening turf races.

But the real problem is in the P6 rules. Santa Anita pays out 70% to those that hit all 6, 15% to consos, and carries over 15% if there isn't a single winning ticket. But they made the last race an all, so there is NO CHANCE of a single winning ticket. Yet they are just carrying over the 15% anyway, essentially stealing it from bettors.

It is published beforehand, so buyer beware. That still doesn't make it right. These jackpot bets open up way too many cans of worms for me.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

CJ you have a real legitimate point here. Management rarely, if ever puts themselves in the shoes of the customers ( bettors), especially the serial bettors who wager decent sums of money. I wish I could say things will change but they never do. years ago Steven Crist spoke in favor of the bettors to management on a number of occasions on the NYRA circuit with some success.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Is that how the CHRB rules read?

[iamt]

Theoretically at least making a race an ALL wouldn't preclude the possibility of a single winner.

[Fager Fan]

So 15% carried over is stealing from the bettors? Not just this time but all times?

What would've been your solution, leave the bets as they were? There'd be fussing about that, no?

[cj]

I

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

So 15% carried over is stealing from the bettors? Not just this time but all times?

What would've been your solution, leave the bets as they were? There'd be fussing about that, no?

The right thing to do would be pay out all the money that was bet yesterday in this situation, not every day.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Agreed, the full 30% should be paid out here.

I play pick 6s, but not here anymore. While I dont think anyone really plays the pick 6 hoping for consos, it shifts that extra 15% to the larger bettors and syndicates. Not for me. Esp in this scenario.

[Exotic1]

Originally Posted by cj

I


The right thing to do would be pay out all the money that was bet yesterday in this situation, not every day.

Good idea. For Extraordinary circumstances such as this.

[foregoforever]

Originally Posted by cj

But they made the last race an all, so there is NO CHANCE of a single winning ticket. Yet they are just carrying over the 15% anyway, essentially stealing it from bettors.

I'm confused. I gather that there were potential single winners going into the last, so that the ALL eliminated the possibility of a single winner. You'd have them pay out the 15% as if there was one.

So how would you write the rule? Any sequence with an ALL always pays out the extra 15%? Or do you try to make it contingent on the nature of the ticket pool in the specific case?

This is too confusing. I'm feeling ill.

[cj]

Originally Posted by foregoforever

I'm confused. I gather that there were potential single winners going into the last, so that the ALL eliminated the possibility of a single winner. You'd have them pay out the 15% as if there was one.

So how would you write the rule? Any sequence with an ALL always pays out the extra 15%? Or do you try to make it contingent on the nature of the ticket pool in the specific case?

This is too confusing. I'm feeling ill.

I'd write the rule so that if any race comes off the turf, resulting in an "all", the entire amount bet that day is paid out. Of course any carryover from prior days wouldn't be included in that.

Forgetting the Pick 6 for a minute, it was very unfair to anyone that played a P3. The 7th race should have been held up until a decision was made. Santa Anita certainly has no problems holding up a race to meet a "guaranteed" pool or to build up a pool that is getting a lot of action, like yesterday's P5. They certainly could have held the race up five or 10 minutes in this situation.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

I'd write the rule so that if any race comes off the turf, resulting in an "all", the entire amount bet that day is paid out. Of course any carryover from prior days wouldn't be included in that.

Forgetting the Pick 6 for a minute, it was very unfair to anyone that played a P3. The 7th race should have been held up until a decision was made. Santa Anita certainly has no problems holding up a race to meet a "guaranteed" pool or to build up a pool that is getting a lot of action, like yesterday's P5. They certainly could have held the race up five or 10 minutes in this situation.

Holding races isn't all that easy in the modern world. There are contracts with simulcast partners that specify post times.

I agree with you about the Pick 6, but the reality is that there's no way to fully protect bettors in these situations, and as long as there's no insider trading involved (i.e., someone betting the Pick 3 knowing that the race is coming off the turf even though it isn't public knowledge), it doesn't seem THAT problematic especially when weighed against the safety concerns.

[JohnGalt1]

This is another reason Jackpot, or in SA's case, semi-jackpot bets, are sucker bets.

In this case they should have awarded 100% of the pool because of the change in surface.

[airford1]

I live REAL CLOSE to Santa Anita and there wasn't enough rain for me not to water my Lawn, so you decide who was looking to manipulate the pool.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Holding races isn't all that easy in the modern world. There are contracts with simulcast partners that specify post times.

Bullcrap! They do it all the time when it suits their purposes. Santa Anita has shown time and again that post times are just a suggestion. NYRA has often sped up post times for bad weather, and delayed them for bad weather as well. Santa Anita does it too and like I mentioned, no problem doing it to meet a guarantee.

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I agree with you about the Pick 6, but the reality is that there's no way to fully protect bettors in these situations, and as long as there's no insider trading involved (i.e., someone betting the Pick 3 knowing that the race is coming off the turf even though it isn't public knowledge), it doesn't seem THAT problematic especially when weighed against the safety concerns.

As for the Pick 3, they knew there was a potential issue and yet didn't tell the public a thing. It was very unfair to anyone betting the P3. The 6th race had just been run on turf and there was no more rain. There was no reason for bettors so suspect the race might come off the surface. To wait until after the 7th to announce it was a big middle finger to the public.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

Bullcrap! They do it all the time when it suits their purposes. Santa Anita has shown time and again that post times are just a suggestion. NYRA has often sped up post times for bad weather, and delayed them for bad weather as well. Santa Anita does it too and like I mentioned, no problem doing it to meet a guarantee.





As for the Pick 3, they knew there was a potential issue and yet didn't tell the public a thing. It was very unfair to anyone betting the P3. The 6th race had just been run on turf and there was no more rain. There was no reason for bettors so suspect the race might come off the surface. To wait until after the 7th to announce it was a big middle finger to the public.

1. Actually, Santa Anita's post times are a much, much more accurate than they were 30 years ago, when races were routinely held 5 or even 10 minutes after post time. Nowadays they start within a minute or 2 of announced post times, and it's due to simulcasting.

2. It doesn't bother me that they did this, as long as nobody had insider information. So long as everyone is equally in the dark, it's just another form of bad racing luck.