Pick Six lost due to Dead Heat.

A 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.

I rarely play the pick six but I refuse to play any of these gimmick jackpot wagers where you have to hold the only winning ticket to hit big. Never thought about a dead heat being a factor at all.

Fascinating! And sounds like it was adjudicated properly. When we have a 'bad beat' thread, this has to come up near the top! How frequently is there a dead heat? 1 in a thousand?

this bad beat falls into the legendary category
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/

The UK has several rules on dead heats. Typically in bookies, suppose there's a two-horse dead-heat, the bet is considered as half the wager going on the selection. In the Tote the pool is just divided in two before looking at how many tickets are on each winner.

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

Quote: https://tote.co.uk/betting-terms-and-rules

Dead-heats

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

This with this interpretation, the Pick Six would have two winning tickets (each winning half the pool).


For those really interested there's more info below.

As the first one I found, this comes from Ladbrokes

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.

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.

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.

Quote: https://tote.co.uk/betting-terms-and-rules

Dead-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.

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: billryan

A 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?

This 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.

Quote: vegas

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?

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: DJTeddyBear

This 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 was discussed a great deal at the horse racing forum paceadvantage.com

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!"

I can see a lawyer claiming breach of contract if it is advertised and portrayed as the winning ticket is the same thing as the JP.

Quote: lilredrooster

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

Yes I also thought the pot would be split among the winners but Billryan and BJTeddybear both said there can only be 1 winner for the money to be paid out.

Quote: vegas

Yes I also thought the pot would be split among the winners but Billryan and BJTeddybear both said there can only be 1 winner for the money to be paid out.

I've lost track of who said what but the picks 6 and other exotic bets payouts are routinely split among winners



from the article:



'the remainder of the wagering pools [after the takeout] is left for the winners of the bet to share with one another"

"once the number of winning pick 6 tickets have been determined the track posts the total payout for a single winning ticket"

'this amount represents the pool amount after the track deducts its take and applies breakage"

"the total is then divided by the number of winning tickets"




http://www.ezhorsebetting.com/how-does-the-pick-6-payout-work-in-horse-racing/

Based on my understanding of these "newish" specialty Pick 6 (and some pick 5) wagers, he should have been paid the entire pool. It should have been paid as 2 winning unique tickets (created by a dead heat). So ~$17,500 per unique ticket.

It looks like they have suspened the "Sooner 6ix" wager to work this out:
https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FRemingtonPark%2Fstatus%2F1251278916343549952&widget=Tweet

What occurred is very unusual but can happen. Language in the rules detail how this situation (and others) create unique tickets.

I'd think the publicity this has brought the situation is worth far more than $36,000 if the track does the right thing.
I've seen a lot of photo finishes, but very few dead heats. There is a rather famous photograph of a three horse dead heat but I think that was a unique event.

Quote: billryan

...very few dead heats...

I knew Lewes (where I used to live and had my first ever bet of 1/-, =5p today) was part of history. In 1880 three dead-heated for 1st and two dead-heated for 4th - incl in article below.

Quote: https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/30653269/when-was-the-last-time-there-was-a-triple-dead-heat#flvWelcomeHeader

long article

There have been three quadruple and many triple dead-heats in Britain, all of them before the introduction of the photo-finish camera. In the days when judges had to reach a verdict unaided, they tended to award a dead-heat if they were unsure.

The three quadruple dead-heats took place at Bogside in June 1808, The Hoo in April 1851, and Newmarket in October 1855. The most famous triple dead-heat occurred in the Cesarewitch in 1857, when Prioress beat El Hakim and Queen Bess in a run-off, and the most recent was at Folkestone in September 1925.

Officially the closest finish of all time occurred at Lewes in August 1880, when Scobell, Wandering Nun and Mazurka were adjudged to have dead-heated for first place, a head in front of Cumberland and Thora, who dead-heated for fourth.

The number of dead-heats in Britain dropped dramatically after the introduction of the photo-finish camera, which implies that most previous dead-heats had been given wrongly. The camera was first used at Epsom in April 1947.

There's a list of dead heats and a picture of the triple-one at Freehold here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dead_heat_horse_races

I have been at quarter horse races twice when there was a triple dead heat for win, not a totally rare occurrence.

Quote: Johnzimbo

I have been at quarter horse races twice when there was a triple dead heat for win, not a totally rare occurrence.

I would think that short races without any curves would be more conducive to dead heats.
There was a quarter horse track on Long Island that was an utter failure. They spent millions to build a beautiful track and it didn't even last one summer.

Yeah, I am sure that is a factor. Doubtful there have been many triple dead heats at T-bred tracks

this is a story about another incredibly bad beat on a Super Pick 5 exotic bet from 2013
this time it wasn't that there was no rule in place - there were rules - they were just real screwy, weird rules
the 2 bettors who shared a ticket thought they were going to split $488K - instead they split $12K
its very complicated - I don't want to explain it - but it's here for anybody who wants to read it



https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/louisiana-downs-debacle-illustrates-the-absurdity-of-jackpot-wagers/2013/07/22/a7f65f30-f2e6-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html

If I was him I'd get a very good attorney to find an issue with the rules language.

Quote: lilredrooster

this is a story about another incredibly bad beat on a Super Pick 5 exotic bet from 2013
this time it wasn't that there was no rule in place - there were rules - they were just real screwy, weird rules
the 2 bettors who shared a ticket thought they were going to split $488K - instead they split $12K
its very complicated - I don't want to explain it - but it's here for anybody who wants to read it



https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/louisiana-downs-debacle-illustrates-the-absurdity-of-jackpot-wagers/2013/07/22/a7f65f30-f2e6-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/the-bad-beat-of-a-lifetime-488000-jackpot-disappears/

For those blocked by the Washington Post for reading too many articles free.