Belmont pick six carried over by mistake

[andymays]

http://www.drf.com/news/belmont-pick...d-over-mistake

Excerpt:

ELMONT, N.Y. - There is a pick-six carryover of $34,680 Saturday at Belmont Park and there shouldn’t be.

The New York Racing Association will conduct an internal investigation to see where a communication breakdown occurred on Friday that resulted in the mutuel department enacting a New York state rule that mandates if two or more races in the pick-six sequence are transferred from the turf to the dirt after wagering has closed, then 75 percent of the pick-six pool must be carried over into the next live racing program.

[andymays]

I don't know what the solution is here. Maybe it would be a good gesture for NYRA to match the carryover money and double it.

I'm sure someone who knows more about this will weigh in and let us know how they're going to handle it.

[andymays]

http://nyra.com/belmont/stories/July092011.shtml

The following is a statement from The New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) regarding the $34,680 carryover resulting from the Pick 6 pool, comprising races four through nine, at Belmont Park on Friday, July 8:
Immediately following the running of race three, races eight and nine were switched from the turf to the dirt. However, this information did not reach the mutuels department until wagering had closed on race four, the first leg of the Pick 6. This resulted in races eight and nine being ruled as “all wins” for the purposes of the Pick 6, and necessitated a carryover of the wager, per New York State Racing and Wagering Board Rule 4011.23 (copied below). NYRA is conducting an official investigation into the communications failure, and upon completion of the investigation will take appropriate steps to avoid a similar occurrence in the future.

New York State Racing and Wagering Board Rule 4011.23. Pick-six pools.

(b) Winners and carry-overs. In general, after deductions for cancellations, refunds and statutory takeout, 75 percent of the resulting pick-six net pool for the day shall be distributed, less breaks, to the holders of tickets selecting the winners of all six designated races in the pool, or to the holders of the tickets selecting five winners out of six and have no more than on "all win" event, and no other races are cancelled or declared "all win" in the pick-six sequences or races, and 25 percent of such net pool shall be distributed to the holders of the remaining tickets selecting the most winners. (Such takeout shall be established [at 36 percent, except that the New York Racing Association may elect to establish a 25 percent takeout before the first pool of a meeting is conducted.)] at a rate between the range of 15 percent to 36 percent inclusively. Such rate may not be changed more than once per calendar quarter to be effective on the first day of the calendar quarter.) Should there be no wager selecting winners of all six designated races, or five winners and no more than one "all win" 25 percent of the net pool shall be distributed less breaks to the holders of tickets selecting the winners of the most pick-six races and the 75 percent of the net pool reserved for holders of tickets selecting six winners, or five winners and no more than one “all win”, shall be carried over and added to and distributed with the 75-percent net pool share of the next subsequent pick-six pool in which a wager correctly selects the winners of all six designated pick-six races, or five winners and no more than one "all win." Carryovers from prior pick-six pools, advertised guaranteed amounts or advertised added amounts will be distributed to winners in such day’s pick-six pools, provided that there is no more than one "all win" event and no other races are cancelled or declared "all win" in the pick-six sequence.

[chickenhead]

mistakes happen, the rule shouldn't have applied -- but I'm having a hard time seeing the logic behind the rule. Why would you carryover if there are 2 surface changes after betting closes?

A refund could make sense, or a normal payout could make sense. But I don't see how a forced carryover makes sense. Why decide no one can win/get back their money because of the weather?

I've only had one coffee so maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a stupid rule. I'm guessing its so rare that it hardly matters, unfortunately it surfaced here and bit some people.

[toussaud]

you know...

seriously.. that's technically fraud. like seriously, that's wire fraud.
I'm going to promote something, I'm going to take your money in good faith, then when you or anyone else win, i'm not going to pay it out. Yeah that's fraud I don't care what excuse they come up with.

if someone got really pissed and went to the Feds with this, it would get interesting. you just can't do that.


At least with the life at ten incident she ran up the track.

[OTM Al]

Repeat thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=85050

Rule is the rule. It's been there for 6 years and no one had complained. It was applied properly given that the mutual department believed that the changes came after the close of the betting. However, the real issue is the communication problem. Had that not occured, the rule would not have bound.

For those screaming about the application of the rule, it is not fraud. Fraud requires intent to defraud. The rule is the law. It would have been against the law to not employ that rule when it binds. And Andy, they have no latitude to add money like that without permission from the same body that created and enforces that rule. Can't just do it, or they would get in a lot more trouble.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Repeat thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=85050

Rule is the rule. It's been there for 6 years and no one had complained. It was applied properly given that the mutual department believed that the changes came after the close of the betting. However, the real issue is the communication problem. Had that not occured, the rule would not have bound.

For those screaming about the application of the rule, it is not fraud. Fraud requires intent to defraud. The rule is the law. It would have been against the law to not employ that rule when it binds. And Andy, they have no latitude to add money like that without permission from the same body that created and enforces that rule. Can't just do it, or they would get in a lot more trouble.

I was told this morning that seeding a future P6 was one of the things they were considering.

[cj]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Repeat thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=85050

Rule is the rule. It's been there for 6 years and no one had complained. It was applied properly given that the mutual department believed that the changes came after the close of the betting. However, the real issue is the communication problem. Had that not occured, the rule would not have bound.

For those screaming about the application of the rule, it is not fraud. Fraud requires intent to defraud. The rule is the law. It would have been against the law to not employ that rule when it binds. And Andy, they have no latitude to add money like that without permission from the same body that created and enforces that rule. Can't just do it, or they would get in a lot more trouble.

I doubt many people knew of the rule until it was (mis)applied. How can you complain about a rule you've never seen used? It is a terrible rule. I don't think it is fraud, but it is just pure stupidity written the way it is. Obviously the communication lapse is an issue, but so is the rule. I don't see any defense for making a rule that in effect makes betting the pool a 75% takeout. Surely you can't think that Al.

[Rutgers]

Originally Posted by toussaud

you know...

seriously.. that's technically fraud. like seriously, that's wire fraud.
I'm going to promote something, I'm going to take your money in good faith, then when you or anyone else win, i'm not going to pay it out. Yeah that's fraud I don't care what excuse they come up with.

if someone got really pissed and went to the Feds with this, it would get interesting. you just can't do that.


At least with the life at ten incident she ran up the track.

In order for it to be fraud, among other things, the action needs to be intentional. I do not see why any reasonable person would believe it was anything more than an unintentional breakdown of communication. Nor do I believe this meets any of the other requirements needed to be deemed fraudulent.

On the other hand, libel (which is using the written word to make false claims implied to be true that causes harm to a 3rd party such as a person or corporation) does not require intent.

[chickenhead]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Repeat thread.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=85050

Rule is the rule. It's been there for 6 years and no one had complained. It was applied properly given that the mutual department believed that the changes came after the close of the betting. However, the real issue is the communication problem.

The real issue is the rule. The rule is terrible. It's only saving grace is that I assume it had never been applied before.

Just like all the other tracks in all the other states with any shitty, horseplayer unfriendly rules on the books (of which NY, yes, has relatively few), NYRA needs to work on getting that rule changed. Cause its ridiculous.

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by Rutgers

In order for it to be fraud, among other things, the action needs to be intentional. I do not see why any reasonable person would believe it was anything more than an unintentional breakdown of communication. Nor do I believe this meets any of the other requirements needed to be deemed fraudulent.

On the other hand, libel (which is using the written word to make false claims implied to be true that causes harm to a 3rd party such as a person or corporation) does not require intent.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that one may view this as intentional. Why wouldn't they do this on purpose- they guaranteed themselves a carryover going into a Saturday card? I'm not saying they did it on purpose, but I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for a skeptical person to believe that they did.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by alhattab

I think it is perfectly reasonable that one may view this as intentional. Why wouldn't they do this on purpose- they guaranteed themselves a carryover going into a Saturday card? I'm not saying they did it on purpose, but I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for a skeptical person to believe that they did.

For what $50,000? You think a sane person would believe an organization of that size would commit fraud for $50,000?

Didn't say I thought it was a good rule, just that it is the rule and clearly no one read it in the last 6 years. As I've said, if you are going to play a bet and you don't know the rules, you have only yourself to blame. That is a wholly different issue than if the rule is good or not. I expect something will be done about it.

And Andy, maybe they will seed a future one, but no way they could have turned that around in one day. You wouldn't believe the types of things that have to be cleared through the R&WB. A lot of stuff you would think should be regular business decisions and you'd be wrong.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by alhattab

I think it is perfectly reasonable that one may view this as intentional. Why wouldn't they do this on purpose- they guaranteed themselves a carryover going into a Saturday card? I'm not saying they did it on purpose, but I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for a skeptical person to believe that they did.

This is the last thing they want to happen. Mistakes are made at all jurisdictions and the only way to handle them is to address the problem ASAP and let people know what you're going to do to fix it along with making some kind of restitution.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

For what $50,000? You think a sane person would believe an organization of that size would commit fraud for $50,000?

Didn't say I thought it was a good rule, just that it is the rule and clearly no one read it in the last 6 years. As I've said, if you are going to play a bet and you don't know the rules, you have only yourself to blame. That is a wholly different issue than if the rule is good or not. I expect something will be done about it.

And Andy, maybe they will seed a future one, but no way they could have turned that around in one day. You wouldn't believe the types of things that have to be cleared through the R&WB. A lot of stuff you would think should be regular business decisions and you'd be wrong.

Yes, you're right they can't do it in one day. Probably over the next couple of weeks though. That's if they do it.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by andymays

Yes, you're right they can't do it in one day. Probably over the next couple of weeks though. That's if they do it.

Much more valuable I think would be to fix the rule to something people like better. The pool size was pretty poor really.