View Full Version : Sixup Div
To quote Martinus, who puts the boot into all and sundry and who has this time under done it in my
opinion; "several people were paid $10,095 less than they were entitled in the six win bonus
because someone had forgotten a $3.76m jackpot."
This is @#$%^& outragous. The Jockey club should have a system that doesnt allow for this
sort of error!! Heads should roll for this one!!
Full Article in the Lowans racing book meeting 58. Go get em Ken.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Scarper ]
In Apple Daily today, a punter Mr. Lee complained that the JC lied about the incident. According to the paper, Mr. Lee has been betting the 6-up for years and so is very familiar with how the dividends are calculated. He won the 6-win bonus on March 30 but thought that the divvies were wrong. He called the JC hotline 1817 on Apri 1 between 12:00 to 12:15 to complain about it. The first few people he talked to didn't have a clue of what he was talking about. Eventually they asked him to leave his number so they could call back. At about 2 o'clock, someone did call back admitting the error. Mr. Lee is furious that the JC lied about their staff discovering the error. A JC spokesperson explains that they had in fact already discovered the error about 11:00am. Mr. Lee called around noon. It took them some time to sort out the affair and that is why the announcement was made in the afternoon.
A JC spokesperson explains that they had in fact already discovered the error about 11:00am.
if mr. lee's description is accurate one would have to doubt the JC claim that they had discovered the error earlier.
i wonder how often they get people ringing up to complain about possible errors in dividends. i would have thought it so much a waste of time i would not even bother myself. maybe the tactic should be tried more often.
it seems the JC is only paying out the 1 dividend for 6up regardless of whether one had 5 winners or 5 2nds and carrying forward the j/pot.
regardless of what their rules say this seems INSANE. surely the normal rules should apply whereby half the net pool plus the j/pot should go to all live 5 win tickets and the remaining half of the new pool to the remainder.
EVEN IF THE J/POT IS NOT PAID OUT THE 5 WIN COMBINATIONS SHOULD PAY MORE THAN THE "CONSOLATION TICKETS "
[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: hobbes ]
i am very angry about the six-up today, if the six-up doesn't have any jackpot, will people put money on it or think about the betting strategy of the six-up. Moreover, why one who get 5 winners has the same dividend with those who get 5 2nd runner?
For example, i have got 5 winners on the six-up and on the last race, i select 5 horses in Race 8, i think if HKJC continue the last race, i can have the chance to get the jackpot, although i can get the dividends finally, but it does not come from the jackpot.
As you know, it is a very little chance to get 5 winners on 5 races.
I feel disappointing on the betting rules of HKJC.
Maybe on the coming day, i will not bet 3T, double TRIO, 6-up,.....
Maybe only on the WIN, PLACE, QUINELLA
:mad:
hobbes, let's wait and hear from the JC first. It might be the case that there were no live 5-win tickets - Indy's Gem in race 3 wasn't an easy pick. However, if it turns out there were live tickets, then the JC's decision was totally bizarre.
Re non-payment of j/pot, I am sure someone will dig out the rule book and refer to some obscure rules that no one has ever heard of. In any case, it is such poor PR. What is the harm in paying out the j/pot?
If Arculli was angry with the 6-up dividend cock-up last time, he should be really really pissed off this time.
The sixup up until the begining of the 00/01 season (if i remember correctly), paid out 87.5% of net to the sixup which is any combination of the first 2 horses in the 6 races. 12.5% went to the 6 win bonus and of the is 12.5% 15% went to a 5 winner bonus. They then changed the rules to that 50% of the pool went to the sixup and 50% to the 6 winner bonus. However it seem that the 15% of the 6 winner bonus that goes to the 5 winner bonus has been left out of the new rules.
I cant remember if the 5 winner bonus only came into play if there was no 6 winner ticket but i suspect yes. So im not sure why they didnt carry this rule over as 15% going to the 5 winer in the event of no 6 winners seems very fair.
Saying that im not all that convinced consolations are good at all for the 6up. Why should there be a difference between those that get the first 5 legs right vs any 5 legs right? So with this in mind i would be happy to have no 5 winner bouns.
The 50% going to the sixup (any combo in the first 2) could now be looked at as if it were the consolation. But if people wanted a 5 winner bonus too then i think the 2nd place horses should be left out.
who has a rule book?
THE 5 WINNER TICKETS SHOULD BE PAID THE FULL 6 WINNER POOL IN THE CASE OF AND ABANDONED LAST RACE. THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TELLS ME THE DONT HAVE THE SOFTWARE TO CALCULATE THE CORRECT DIVIDEND. QUITE REDICULOUS GIVEN ITS NOT HARD TO WRITE THIS SORT OF SOFTWARE AND CAN ONLY BE SEEN AS AN UNFORSEEN EVENT.
[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: Scarper ]
According to the August 2000 rule book,
in the event of a void race, the Jackpot goes back to the Jackpot pool and if ANY leg of the 6up is voidno dividend is paid for the Six Win bonus, which I suppose is why they have paid a 5up and no 5up bonus. can't for the life of me see how it is difficult to pay it out like a 6up and Bonus but without a last leg.
I'm sure they must have a computer there somewhere.
________
Sweetangelx1 (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Sweetangelx1)
the only thing i can tell is that, that is impossible for none get the 5 winners in six-up.
It is because i m the case who get 5 winners!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
They could redesign this bet to be something more like a lottery, only paying on correct winning numbers.
Say 50% goes to 6 winners. 30% to 5 winners. 20% to 4 winners. The 4 and 5 winners should be in any legs rather than just the first 4 or 5, soand would always be paid out. The 6 winners would jackpot often just to the 6 winner pool to keep up interest and the chance of big $$$$.
these rules would be simple to follow which is important in these complex bets.
just an idea.... ;)
[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: Scarper ]
per shapke's post the JC is paying out according to their rules.
however from a punter's point of view the rules are insane, even if they are designed to cover a situation where an earlier race is cancelled ( p'raps the programming is a little more difficult but surely not too much ).
{b]1) many people will have bet assuming the j/pot is available and will have overbet certain longshot combinations if same is removed. i cannot think of a valid reason for not paying out the jackpot. ( except to increase jockey club revenue by attracting a 2nd increased betting pool going after the same j/pot ).
2) also the assumption is 50% of the pool will be divided amongst those who have 6 winners and 50% to those who have consolation tickets. why should same split not apply re winners and consolation ( including jackpot ) whether the non cancelled races are 1 race or 5 races.[/b]
{b]1) many people will have bet assuming the j/pot is available and will have overbet certain longshot combinations if same is removed.
Shapke, can you tell us what the rules are regarding the paying out of the jackpot in case the last leg of the Triple Trio is cancelled?
Many people who are not punters will play the TT when there's a huge snowball. Can't imagine what would happen if lightning strikes again and the JC refuses to cough up the TT jackpot money.
The TT and sixup are quite differnt i think, as the live combos in the TT and all equally entitled to the same consolation div.
however the 6up 2nd's, as has been pointed out, are definitly not equal as they didnt ever have a chance of getting the 6 win bonus.
I think the only way to do this fairly, assuming the jackpot is to be kept, would be to pay the five winners 50% and the other consolations 50% of the net new pool.
Wether or not they should keep the jackpot is another matter. I can understand how people with 5 winners would feel strongly that the jackpot should be paid.
i cannot think of a valid reason for not paying out the jackpot.
I am still thinking hard why the rules were written as they are. One plausible explanation, somewhat far-fetched, is that when drafting the rules, someone was concerned that, on a race day with a huge jackpot, a punter with 5 wins might sabotage the final race to ensure that he'd collect the jackpot. What promted me to think along these lines is that I recall an incident where a soccer match in the Premier League (or at least a match in England) had to be abandoned because an illegal bookie (Malaysian?) paid someone to sabotage the lighting so that they did not have to pay the winning bets.
Whether or not they should keep the jackpot is another matter. I can understand how people with 5 winners would feel strongly that the jackpot should be paid.
agree re the 1st sentence scarper. re the latter, is it a subtle and gentle jibe or genuine empathy?
masun i have thought hard about it also but don't think your hypothesis has too much validity. if they were worrying about such unlikely scenarios they would not even allow the TT j/pots to reach even 100m for fear of a different sort of corruption. ( i wonder if same did have an effect in them limiting the carry forward to 100m ??)
agree re the 1st sentence scarper. re the latter, is it a subtle and gentle jibe or genuine empathy?
I guess im leaning towards the idea that the jackpot should be paid on todays races regardless of how many have been run (this is assuming the pool is divided properly between the live winners and consolation bets).
Masun your fears are justified - a void race in the TT and the Jackpot is also returned to the Jackpot pool. The TT div paid on the other 2 legs calculated on fresh investments only
________
Sick from nexium (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)
hobbes, after reading Shapke's explanation re TT jackpots, my hypothesis may not be so fanciful after all. Let's say there's a $100 mil TT jackpot. So someone gets a ticket with many combos in the first two legs and just one single combo in the last leg. He hits the first two legs, and then calls the police telling them that Bin Laden has planted a bomb in Shatin. So the racecourse is evacuated and all subsequent races cancelled. If the j/pot had to be paid out, the guy would collect a nice div for his efforts. Of course you and I don't worry about these things, but lawyers do.
Masun has gone and revealed my cunning plan.
i dont think your plan would work masun. even if you had every combo covered in the first two legs you would only have one combo live in the last. others would have many more so you would only get a piddly %. definitly not worth life behind bars!!! especially when you have to pay so much for it! :eek: :eek: :eek:
Scarper, the idea is not to win the whole TT j/pot but rather to turn the TT effetively into a Double Trio. Say the new pool + j/pot total $200 mil, there's a good chance that you could pick up $1 mil or so if the j/pot had to be paid out.
and then calls the police telling them that Bin Laden has planted a bomb in Shatin.
LOL but let us get back to serious discussion.
i don't think anyone has seriously suggested a good reason for not paying out the j/pot in either case. i strongly believe those betting into the new pool are entitled to receive the benefit of the j/pot even if one or more races are cancelled.
It is hard to make a sound argumant to return the jackpot to the jackpot pool. I had a go but on second reading had to delete my efforts.
Only one could be, increasing JC turnover, Gov tax and charity donations for the betterment of HK. Weak at best!!!
I assume they pay out the whole new pool to those that got the first two legs right, rather than keeping the 45% for the Jackpot as they usually do if the 3rd leg doesnt go off.
masun, in your scenario the pool would be paid on the number of live combos in the last leg, so you would still have to bet the TT like a TT to get a decent share as others would have many combos live.
[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Scarper ]
So Masun's plan could still work if he covered the first two legs heavily and had the right sorts of results - ie, just your own $30 worth of tickets live into the 3rd leg. Phonecall...bomb...payout time.
Of course, by that stage you've already spent the big investment on legs 1&2 , so if the 3 fave Trios arrive in legs one and two, you are cat food.
________
LOVE AND SPIRIT CARE CENTER. NORTH HOLLYWOOD (http://www.dispensaries.org/)
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 RACING
Abandonment provides cue to review betting rules
From at least a customer relations point of view, the Jockey Club must take last Wednesday's race eight abandonment as its cue to review the betting rules governing those void races which form part of the multi-race exotics.
Granted, this is a situation which may arise once a season or once every 20 seasons, but for the sake of its customers the Club undertakes many more complex and expensive exercises.
Last Wednesday's specific scenario - the club had a $10 million Six-Up carryover jackpot - caused many if not all regular players to crank up their Six-Up investment in the hope of a giant result. Having done the hard yards to get through the first five legs with all the winners, those still alive when the final leg was called off might have expected something quite worthwhile for their sweat and trouble.
Instead, they were horrified to learn that not only would they not get a slice of the jackpot in their dividend payout, but that they would receive the same return as those who selected five second placings. The jackpot, in the case of a void race, returns holus bolus to the jackpot pool and the Club pays out on a "Five-Up" basis, but without any Five-Win Bonus.
This is in accordance with the most recent rule book, sure, but it is not in accordance with any sensible viewpoint and definitely not in step with the expectations of horseplayers of any level. It is this writer's understanding - and I may stand corrected if anyone will assist me - that in a set of rules in the recent past allowed for a five-winner payout on the Six-Up, presumably if the Six-Win Bonus was not paid.
This rule also applies the Triple Trio jackpots, which are being used to tout for business at present. It would hardly be truth in advertising or good customer relations if punters responded to the Club's urgings to play the TT these next three weekends and then found the jackpot didn't even apply.
vBulletin v3.6.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.