 |
02-18-2002, 11:26 PM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,184
|
I'll never get used to seeing this
9th race, CT, 2-17-02
$2 Daily Double 3-ALL 22.80
$2 Daily Double ALL-4 4.40
The logic of the ALL-4 payoff continues to escape me. 
|
|
|
|
02-19-2002, 12:28 AM
|
#2
|
|
Comfortably Numb
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lexington, Ky
Posts: 6,174
|
takeout,
What am I missing? Isn't it because nobody had the 3-4 double?
Bill W.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2002, 10:09 AM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,184
|
BillW,
Exactly.
I just don't understand why people that didn't hit the first half are getting paid at all. They didn't have a live ticket to begin with. I know they pay off the pick-3 like that but it still seems weird to me.
The topper is that they also pay off exactas in the same way when there are no winning tickets out. That means that you could have the winner and have to share the payoff with everyone that didn't have the winner, only the 2nd horse.
Just can't figure why they would write the rules like that. They don't pay tris or supers like that when there are no winning tickets, yet they do it with exactas which is the same type of bet.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2002, 10:16 AM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,502
|
I wonder if it pays to be one of those tote board watchers and play massive overlay combos. One could of swept the entire pool of $1200 for a $2 wager. Does the SW program that monitors tote activity catch these type of situations?
Last edited by GR1@HTR; 02-19-2002 at 10:19 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
02-19-2002, 01:02 PM
|
#5
|
|
Comfortably Numb
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lexington, Ky
Posts: 6,174
|
Aha!
takeout,
I now understand your point, "from the jaws of defeat, they snatch victory: ... or something like that. I was thinking of the situation statically. That is kinda wierd, except two oppostie situations. In the exacta situation, the question is "Why pay the ones that missed the winner: in the DD case the question is "Why pay the ones that missed the front end". In one case the logic seems to favor paying the front end only (exacta) and in the other the backend (DD). BTW the Pick-6 in a manner is the same way ... 5 of 6 pays both hitting 1-5 and 2-6.
Tough one to reach a reasonable conclusion on.
Bill W.
|
|
|
|
|
02-20-2002, 07:58 AM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,184
|
If I were racing emperor, I would pay them all from the top down, period. Close only counts in horseshoes. 
|
|
|
|
|
02-20-2002, 09:00 AM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,965
|
Yeah to....we discussed this before. There is absolutely no sense to this at all. I'm guessing it has something to do with the water in WV. 
|
|
|
|
|
02-20-2002, 01:42 PM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,184
|
That's the best theory I've heard so far.
Since it generally only comes into play when there are very small pools, I wonder if some of the milers have these same "gotcha" rules only we never realize it. Now that the pools everywhere are getting chopped up so finely by all of the exotic wagers that keep getting lumped on top of one another, I'm wondering if more of this type of thing may come to light.
Maybe WV isn't the only state that needs some bleach down the well. 
|
|
|
|
|
02-20-2002, 02:58 PM
|
#9
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
Originally posted by takeout
BillW,
Exactly.
I just don't understand why people that didn't hit the first half are getting paid at all. They didn't have a live ticket to begin with. I know they pay off the pick-3 like that but it still seems weird to me.
The topper is that they also pay off exactas in the same way when there are no winning tickets out. That means that you could have the winner and have to share the payoff with everyone that didn't have the winner, only the 2nd horse.
Just can't figure why they would write the rules like that. They don't pay tris or supers like that when there are no winning tickets, yet they do it with exactas which is the same type of bet.
|
Help me; I'm being dense. You answered Bill W's statement that nobody had the 3-4 double by saying, "exactly." Yet there was a payoff for 3-all. Clearly the 3-all bet includes 3-4. So how can there not be a ticket with 3-4? I'm really confused. Help!
__________________
Thoroughbred
|
|
|
|
|
02-20-2002, 03:15 PM
|
#10
|
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,829
|
It actually pays 3-all, but noone had the 3-4 or it wouldn't have been an all payout. Also, why would it be fair to pay 3-all and not all-4, as both tickets picked exactly one winner. I see no problem with this.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
02-21-2002, 10:56 AM
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,965
|
I believe the thinking here is once you lost the 1st leg of the DD you are off the board. Your tickets are dead.
The payout on the 3/all seems correct.
If you take this method of payout then,
On a Pick 3...if no one has the winner of all 3 races then it should pay
winner/winner/all
winner/all/winner
all/winner/winner.
So I could get 2 races wrong and still win. Doesn't make sense. Instead it only pays one way..as it should.
Same with the pick 4
Or how about the pick 6.
If no one had it then it should pay for anyone who had any horse in any race. Doesn't sound like much fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
