A quick aside to explain the rules- to win the big pay out, you need pick all six races, and there can only be one ticket sold.

So the race goes off and the guy is already thinking of how to spend the money as he will win no matter what horse comes in first. Or so he thought.

The fifth race had been a dead heat, but since he had both horses, it doesn't matter to him.

He checks his account and instead of a $35,000 payoff, he receives about $9,000.

Track claims since it was a dead heat, there are two winning combinations even if it was on the same ticket and pays two consolation prizes. Track claims that if either horse had won, he would get the whole amount, but the dead heat created two winning combinations, even if on the same ticket, and the rules say there can be only one winning combination.

the track had no rules in place to handle this situation

they made the decision on the fly - a decision that benefitted them

this is going to be challenged and maybe go to court

to me, the track's decision makes no sense at at all

having both horses on his ticket means that he made a better call than a person having only one horse on their ticket

and for that he gets penalized? because he had both? ridiculous

from the article:

"The horseplayer picked all six winners, he was the only person to pick all six winners and they were all on the same ticket. If either horse wins by a nose, he has it. If he picks one or the other, he has it. Its unconscionable that the track is making this judgment. There is nothing in the rules that state this should not be a unique payout. On a judgment call, the track decides to favor itself over the customer. That’s bad for business, bad for horseplayers and bad for racing.”

TIF Executive Director Patrick Cummings added, “Remington indicated they were not in a position to pay Mr Arthur for his win, and re-asserted he ended up with two tickets and does not get the jackpot payout of $35,145. There is no rule on the books to adjudicate this situation. Common sense says, if either horse wins by a nose, Mr Arthur wins. Remington says that if Mr Arthur had one horse in the dead heat instead of both, he wins. But they’ve decided, and the tote settlement agent reported back, that he does not win. Mr. Arthur has indicated he will file a formal complaint with the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission and pursue the matter beyond that if he does not obtain payment.”'

https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2020/04/18/report-oklahoma-track-denies-bettor-26k-of-pick-6-jackpot-because-of-dead-heat/

With the Tote it's interesting that for a Jackpot bet any tickets that include a dead-heat 1st place are considered a winner.

This with this interpretation, the Pick Six would have two winning tickets (each winning half the pool).Quote:https://tote.co.uk/betting-terms-and-rulesDead-heats

Dead-heats for first place count as equal winners in the Tote Jackpot pool.

For those really interested there's more info below.

As the first one I found, this comes from Ladbrokes

So in theory our punter has two winnings bets, but each should be considered as half a ticket. Thus if they were different people, then each would have half a ticket, and not be a sole winner. However he owns both halves, so in essence he has one ticket.Quote:https://help.ladbrokes.com/s/article/Dead-Heat

A dead heat is when two or more selections tie for a given position. In Horse Racing, that could be because both horses cross the line together and the judge cannot separate them. In other events, such as Golf, it is where players have scored the same score and are therefore classified in a joint position such as joint 2nd place.

In a dead heat for first place the stake money on a winning selection is divided by the number of winners in a dead heat. The full odds are then paid to the divided stake with the remainder of the money being lost. For example:

14:20 Newbury

1st= Young Rascal (FR) Evens f

1st= Morando (FR) 8/1

3rd Scarlet Dragon 33/1

In the result above, Young Rascal and Morando have dead heated for 1st place. So if you backed either of these horses you would actually be paid half of your stake (we pay out half the stake for both selections).

Therefore:

£10 on Young Rascal at EVS = Half Stake £10 = £5 at EVS = £10 returns.

or

£10 on Morando at 8/1 = Half stake £10 = £5 at 8/1 = £45 returns.

There is also the opposite problem why would someone who had only got one of the winners (i.e. if he'd only picked #5 or #7) get the full jackpot, when their unit stake would have been half.

The Tote, which runs a pool system, has clear rules on dead heats.

In this case the pool is divided by 2, while the £1 stake stays asis. The reason they cater for less than £1 is you can make smaller bets at an off-track bookie.Quote:https://tote.co.uk/betting-terms-and-rulesDead-heats

When two or more horses dead-heat for first place, the net pool will be divided into as many equal parts as there are dead-heating runners. The part of the net pool allocated to each dead-heating horse is divided by the total stakes on that runner to obtain a calculated dividend for each deadheating horse. The calculated dividend is then determined in accordance with the calculation of dividends above.

Holders of winning tickets are then paid in proportion to their stakes.

If a dead-heating horse is part-backed, i.e. there is less than £1 of tickets in the pool on that horse, the net pool assigned to that horse is the calculated dividend. In accordance with the rules above, this is then rounded down to the next 10 pence to obtain the payable dividend to a £1 stake. The balance of the net pool assigned to that dead-heating horse which has not been won will be carried forward to another Tote Win pool as decided by Tote. The deduction from any pool is only taken at the time the funds are won, so this is added back to the net rollover to be included within a subsequent pool.

Example 2: Suppose we have a totewin pool where the net fund available for distribution after the deduction has been removed is £1,000 and there is a deadheat for first place between two horses, A and B with the following amounts invested on each:

A: £100.00

B: £0.90 The net pool is divided into two equal parts, and £500 is allocated to each of horses A and B.

The £500 allocated to horse A is then divided by the £100 of stakes on that runner, so the calculated dividend for horse A is £5.00.

As horse B is part-backed, the £500 allocated to that horse is the calculated dividend.The total amount paid out on horse B is only (0.90 x £500) = £450, so the remaining £50 which has not been won will be carried forward to a subsequent Tote Win pool.

The deduction from any pool is only taken at the time the funds are won, so the 19.25% deduction is added back to the net funds carried forward. Therefore the gross carry-forward in this example is £50.00 / (1 - 19.25%) = £61.92.

If a dead-heating horse is not backed, the portion of the pool assigned to that dead-heating horse will be carried forward to another Tote Win pool. The deduction from any pool is only taken at the time the funds are won, so this is added back to the net rollover to be included within a subsequent pool.

The minimum dividend payable on a Tote Win bet involving dead-heating horses will be 60 pence.

Quote:billryanA man in Oklahoma picked the winners of all six races but was denied the lay out because one race was a dead Heat. Betting twenty cents per combination, according to reports, he invested over $400 in tickets and after winning the first five races, he had every horse in the sixth race. You'd think it was a sure thing but then the impossible happened.

A quick aside to explain the rules- to win the big pay out, you need pick all six races, and there can only be one ticket sold.

So the race goes off and the guy is already thinking of how to spend the money as he will win no matter what horse comes in first. Or so he thought.

The fifth race had been a dead heat, but since he had both horses, it doesn't matter to him.

He checks his account and instead of a $35,000 payoff, he receives about $9,000.

Track claims since it was a dead heat, there are two winning combinations even if it was on the same ticket and pays two consolation prizes. Track claims that if either horse had won, he would get the whole amount, but the dead heat created two winning combinations, even if on the same ticket, and the rules say there can be only one winning combination.

If it is a pick 6 that means you pick the winner of each race. No problem with that but what I don't understand is why there can only be 1 winner. Why can't more than 1 person end up with the same horses?

In this case, there were two winning bets. It does not matter but it was the same person.

Also, it does not matter that it was the same ticket. Printing multiple bets on one ticket is a convenience and paper saver but does not make it a single bet.

Quote:vegasIf it is a pick 6 that means you pick the winner of each race. No problem with that but what I don't understand is why there can only be 1 winner. Why can't more than 1 person end up with the same horses?

that can happen and fairly often does

in that case the pot is split just like a lottery which is basically what it is

what's so crazy about this situation is that they paid him for having 5 of 6

but he didn't have 5 of 6

he had 6 of 6 or 7 of 7 if you want to look at it that way

the guy really got screwed

Quote:DJTeddyBearThis is a special type of wager where if there is no single winner, the jackpot rolls over to the following week or session or whatever. Eventually, they will do a guaranteed payout where it will be split amongst multiple winners.

In this case, there were two winning bets. It does not matter but it was the same person.

Also, it does not matter that it was the same ticket. Printing multiple bets on one ticket is a convenience and paper saver but does not make it a single bet.

Bingo! There were clearly two winning wagers, making the jackpot carry over. Sad for the guy, but if the rules state that if there is more than one winner, all winners split the consolation prize, then that is EXACTLY what happened. If this guy sues, he should lose. Seems open and shut to me.

I'm wondering if this type of bet is therefore an AP opportunity? Involved in the selection would be most importantly making sure you don't have a ticket matching someone else's. Like picking all 6 favorites is possibly the worst selection, as the likelihood someone else did is high. Does the pool carry over day to day, if no one wins the big prize?

this is the best explanation from the forum about why he should have been paid in full IMO which I agree with:

"Another interesting tidbit from the Oklahoma Rules on racing.

(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 read this as if there is a dead heat, each winning wager receives a equal share. Since this was the only winning ticket, each wager would be awarded 1/2 the total pool.

PAY HIM HIS MONEY!"