Sucks for them, but they played against the rules (even though it's a petty rule) and giving them the jackpot would prevent other people that do play by the rules to receive the jackpot. In this case it is a super lame rule, but if you're going to keep moving the lines then you end up with anarchy.

Oooo - kay. . .

If you look at the historical payouts for just the Derby Trifecta, over the past 25 years it has exceeded the 500-1 cap 19 times- in 2005 for six figures.

Imagine some new bettor in Iowa or Indiana strolls into a brand new betting parlor, and puts $1 on one of these exotics. Perhaps he "hits" for $80k or what not, but gets paid $500. These books should not be allowed to steal this much EV and take these bets.

For myself, the only reason I went into Tamarack Junction was that I was on my way to my son's track meet in Carson City. Had his meet been at almost any other high school, I would have stopped at the William Hill book at the Grand Sierra, made the exact same wagers, and, because they are perimutual there, the story would have had a very different conclusion.

Hated to read about the situation with your bets. Hopefully good mojo will be headed your way!

the casino shouldn't take the bet if they aren't going to pay it

they should be forced to pay the bet or refund every single person who has ever made a bet with them that they couldn't get the full payout on

They paid the bet

Renodoc just earned $550k+ in horse racing sklansky bucks

... sry, I know its too soon.

I would've never sat foot in that place ever again. I'm just gonna assume they all took it and still play there. Also lol them for thinking they won't just come up with some other excuse not to pay the next one out.

Love the bit about the locals shouting at new sit downs too. Way to make a nice atmosphere

Far better story than OP which was already decent. Anyone got more

Why don’t they cap the amount of the water at a number that would be equal to the max payout at odds the bettor can receive?

Why are they accepting a 1000$ bet that pays 600-1 when they can only pay out 35k? Why aren’t they capping what they can accept for the amount wagered at 55$? (55$ x 600 = 35,000)

Why would they accept his 1000 bet knowing they could t pay him out at odds? Seems weird

(Numbers were ballpark hope point comes across)

This is legitimately one of the worst bad beats for a horse player of all time. Period. Even hardcore horse players likely arent aware of any establishments that still book bets (aside from offshore). And to have it be a place like William Hill, where almost all of their places have the bets go into the pools is just brutal. This rivals the guy last year who had the only ticket in the pick 6 at Gulfstream Park. He gets the whole pool if the 9 wins the last leg. The jockey fell off the horse right before the wire. Unreal.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/12/hor...ad-beats-video


Legally speaking, and at first glance, you are in a relatively bad spot. You have two ways to go...hire a prestigious law firm and a PR firm, and put William Hill to the test, with a minimum of bad publicity coming their way, or 2) Attemp to work out a compromise in exchange for a non disclosure agreement where they give you more than technically they are required to pay, in exchange for you not pursuing the matter in court or harming their reputation by speaking publicly about it.

In actuality, no knowledgeable horse player would ever dream that William Hill was booking these bets in a handful of locations. Most every reasonqable person, and reasonable horse player betting over 2k into the Derby woud also be totally blindsided, as well. So, even though they had the information posted, it is not something where all reasonable people will come to the same conclusion. There is an argument to be made in the player's favor.

This is one instance where the equities lean in favor of the player. All things considered, it is way more unjust for this guy to be stuck with low capped payouts. Certainly, you can defend it if you are William Hill, but it was the Derby, and you can argue that an extra effort and more signage should have been available, so a nightmare like this doesn't happen. When the guy lost that Gulfstream pick 6 last year when the jockey fell off just before the wire, I wondered how he could ever make another bet.

So, if the guy doesn't get an extra dime, there may be a silver lining....if he were ever inclined to quit betting horses, he now has his opportunity.

I assume you'd have zero recourse if you went to the gaming board over hitting a BBJ and someone with a rack on the table is the excuse they dont pay it.

All management decisions = final?

That is utter BS.

I once heard an unconfirmed story that a casino refused to pay a progressive royal bonus in 3 card poker because the gentleman wasn't sitting in his seat. I wasn't there, no way to confirm if thats true or not.

By cashing the tickets in for $30,000 does the holder perhaps give up any legal recourse on getting anything else? I know he has slim to no chances of getting the extra money... but maybe not cashing them immediately could make a difference?

can confirm, played at harrah's in New Orleans a few months ago and got yelled at to get my chips out of my rack before I had even taken a seat lmao

Yeah, mostly just this logic. Really tilts me that people can get rolled by casinos like this. I hope he gets most/all through some type of lawyer work.

I had $600 bet on a Mississippi Stud table. I hit a royal. It would have paid $300,000 but the table had a max payout of $20,000.

Meh

Nonsense, the house allowed the chip to cross the line and be placed into action. If the bet were not challenged by the dealer on the spot, the action should stand.

Equity is the process by which justice/equity can be done. Harrahs could keep the jackpot intact for those "other players" you fret about and still pay out the players who relied on the House management of the game they were playing.

That chip went into action, and stayed in action under the House supervision of the game. Why should Harrahs be allowed to screw over players in the game when the "illegal" bet was allowed by the House.

Too bad for Harrahs, but the equities favor making all the players whole. They relied on Harrahs. Maybe Harrahs will enforce rules, instead of freeroll violations ?

I start thread on this topic in proper place in sports betting forum. DJ starts it here 3 hours later and gets the attention.

This as well as some take a “maintenance” fee to manage it. If it is by % they make more by keeping the pool large.

Renodoc: Would you just stop with the charade. I applaud the attempt to get them to pay but you know without a doubt tamarack junction was not a part of the pari mutual pool. How do we know this? Cause you readily admit you would have went to GSR if you had time . Which leads me to believe that you 100% have bet horses before and know the difference.

William Hill certainly holds know reasonable responsibility to pay you the difference and furthermore the amount of wagers you made you should have ensured you where betting into the pool. You will now forever be known as the dumbest race player alive .

Not to mention . Atlantis and Pepper Mill are pari mutual books and where we'll within a couple miles of tamarack junction . The story you are spinning on purpose or not is that you simply didn't know and it was William Hills responsibility to tell you. I wish you luck sir yet somehow I feel the control board will investigate to the point that they will figure out you have bet horses before and clearly know the difference between a booked bet and a pari mutual bet.

I recommend stalking DJ on eBay.

Hands down one of the least intelligent posts I have ever read on 2+2. Quite simply put, all your post on this topic make absolutely no sense, and honestly not even worth acknowledging, although I will bite, as there is no charade here - just injustice hence the news story.

Why would the bettor in question have placed the wager had he known the betting cap would have applied? If he had known instead of betting 40 he would of instead bet 3 dollars to match the 11,500 to 1 and 35k max win.

To most reasonable people, the bet should be honored. However, the fine print is trying to stiff on him. Hopefully the court rules in his favor. And if not, would be nice if bookies are not allowed to offer wages in first place if they cant be paid out.So if 11,500 to 1 is bet and max pay out if 35k then they wont accept bets that are over a certain threshold. Ideally $3.04,in this specific case. Accepting a bet for $40 and taking the money while he loses and freerolling the $36.96 is just downright dishonest. And if anything, setting a precedent that sportsbooks should not be allowed to pocket this money is a good service to the sportsbetting community as a whole.

I don't disagree with you. Let's face facts the William Hill employee who took the bet 100% didn't know anything about the difference between a booked wager and a pari mutual wager. Therefore the teller couldn't and wouldn't explain the difference. Is that William Hills fault? YES!

My presumption is that RenoDoc himself knew the difference and should have known without a doubt that Tamarack Junction book is NOT a pari mutual outlet. Anybody betting $100.00 Exacta boxes would know this information. I have zero sympathy for a man who doesn't cover all his bases on such a wager and I doubt the gaming commission will either.

The very fact that he mentioned in a post that if he had more time he would have placed the wager at the GSR is implicating he knew the difference.

So while your opinion and example are correct it is simply not the truth .

Which books aren't parimutual?