Apparently Tamarack.

casinos and sports/horsebooks are such disgusting scum

If you find a wallet return it. If you get too much change in a store give it back.

But if you can screw a casino over do it every single time.Don't feel bad they'll do way worse.

exactly this

Certain books in Reno do not take regular everyday horse race wagers . They do obviously take bets on big races . Kentucky Derby, Breeders cup etc. The books in Reno and Sparks that do this are usually small books in small casinos. Tamarack Junction , Rail City , Gold Dust West these are small casinos . They are NOT places you would go to bet horse racing on a daily basis.

I am certain that 98 percent of horse players in Las Vegas, or anywhere else in the United States, would be totally shocked that William Hill has a small number of establishments that actually book the bets. No reasonable person, or reasonable horse player would even think twice about making sure it was parimutual. The days of booking horse bets in Las Vegas or anywhere else in the United States are over....have been for well over a decade...more like two decades and even three decades. If you asked 100 horse players tomorrow, almost all would be shocked that William Hill books bets in a few locations, while being parimutual in over 90 percent of their 100 plus locations in Nevada.

Considering it was the Kentucky Derby, and considering the huge betting pools the Derby has, and taking into consideration how much the guy was betting, the result is unjust, and there is no way you can put the onus on him, even if there were signs posted, especially since it appears to be normal boilerplate signs. Heck, in Las Vegas casinos today, many locations have horse rules on the wall that are decades old, listing rules pertaining to booking horse bets, when not a one of them books the bets anymore...they are all parimutual. The Westgate is one example.

Now, if this guy had bet that amount of money into a small harness or thoroughbred track, where the pools pale in comparison, then William Hill would have a stronger defense, because even though their signage isn't prominent, it is there, and large bets that go into small pools puts tremendous risk on the establishment booking the bet. Manipulation and scams are common, and that is why most offshore sites put a cap on what you can win per race, tailoring it to how big the pools are at the given track. For instance, your maximum win (profit) per given race at Santa Anita might be 30k, while at Delaware Park it might be 10K, while some smaller tracks, and many harness tracks might have a 5K limit, and sometimes less.

And that is fair because it is noted every time you bet, and if there were no limits, almost every offshore would go broke within months because you get get over on them by betting real money into a small parimutual pool somewhere, depressing the odds on some, while inflating the odds on others, and then betting the horse(s) with inflated odds offshore. And I'm sure it goes on in some form today....every day. For example, you would find the smallest pool, bet 500 to show on a hopeless long shot at a parimutual site, then play the favorite to show offshore. The favorite, assuming he ran first, second, or third might normally pay 2.40 to show, but he could pay 3.40 to show if the show pool was small, and you seeded an extra 500 into a noncontender. And offshore would pay you the full 3.40 price posted at the parimutual track.

That is why there are a few tracks that offshore are very leary about...because it happens to this day. It happened in Vegas for decades...legendary stories of getting over on the sportsbooks, almost all of whom booked the bets back in the day.

This specific case calls for full payment. Now that doesn't mean that they have to retroactively pay others. Sometimes in life circumstances call for a resolution like this one. It was the Kentucky Derby, the guy bet thousands of dollars on longshots, he had no reasonable expectation that he wouldn't get full track odds, and if he had any incllnation that he would not get paid full track odds, like 99.9 percent of the other places he could place a live horse bet at in the United States, he would have never have bet that amount or those combinations there. He would have driven up the street or not made the bets at all.

If the gaming board rules against him, he should pursue the case in court, while putting public pressure on William Hill....not because William Hill is evil, or because they are trying to scam him, but because getting paid in full, or reaching a compromise acceptable to all, that saves both sides needless legal fees, is the correct and just result for the player, and the smart, fair, and prudent thing for William Hill to do, all things considered.

If my post helps resolve this issue, please PM me so that I may forward you payment instructions for my bonus ( 3 to 5K....haha)

One final thought is that William Hill, in their response, said that they book bets at a few of these smaller locations in order to save money, because parimutuel licenses are expensive. I'm not so sure that was a smart response, for obvious reasons. That statement cannot help William Hill in any way.

And I spelled parimutuel wrong all the way, in my previous posts. It ends in uel not ual.

You are oblivious to what horse players know and don't know. While I'm not defending William Hill in this spot . If you asked 100 horse players 90% would say they DO KNOW of these small books and the specific rules about bets that are booked and not placed in the pool. Also I'd be very interested to know if the Doc used a scratch sheet provided by that particular book. Why? Because on that sheet I would 100% guarantee the capped odds are clearly stated .

All in all the book is not responsible for his stupidity. In his own statement he clearly says he knew Grand Sierra was a pari mutual book and he didn't have time to go place the bets there . So if he knew that Grand Sierra was different it's obvious he at the very least should have asked if his money was being mingled into the pool. I do understand most on here will blame the book and defend the doctor. It's a natural response thinking he got screwed when the truth is he screwed himself by not being a knowledgeable bettor. You guys thinking relates to a guy placing $2400 on a roulette spin and the ball lands on zero and the guy claiming he didn't know zero was a number he could bet

Bookmakers in Ireland and the UK (Not including on track Bookies) used to have pathetic limits of £5k daily back in the Eighties,I know this because my father hit three seperate accum', that went over the limit and he had to settle for five each time,which was heaps then,however he started working the bets out before putting the stake on the bet because the last one hit for forty grand,the price of a house and he got five!

It takes a special kind of stupid to get ****ed over like that three times and keep coming back for more.

If theres a big sign saying the place he booked the bet was not parimutual, then legally he has no leg to stand on. In reality though if Will Hill or whoever booked the bet they should've given the punter the heads up that if he went down the street he wouldn't be capped, but bet was probably taken by some low level employee wouldn't have known/given a ****. I think Hills will settle for a smaller amount, because really there should be a rule that makes them state it verbally too if they know they are capping the odds for such a large payout in the unlikely even he wins. Horrible situation to be, better hope your lawyer finds a loophole somewhere which means you get paid.

I still don’t get how they aren’t by law only allowed to accept a bet that wouldn’t exceed the capped payout at max odds.

Why are they accepting 1200$ Bets when a 50$ bet is the highest that will hit max odds?

some outcomes would benefit from the larger bet because he boxed.

Exactly. How bad do you think the bettor would be complaining if he wanted to box the 4 favorites and the bet writer told him that the maximum he could bet was a $3 box????

They have to cap the odds because the cost of the ticket is exactly the same no matter which horses are placed in the wager (favorites or longshots or combinations of both). The bet writer could not possibly determine the highest possible wager amount to make sure all win combinations do not surpass the maximum allowed win other than of course WPorS bets. Offering booked bets on exotics is what gets them into this situation.

I actually lol’d when I saw your post because it’s been at least 6 or 7 years since I played there, and the story I posted about he BBJ was from more than 10 years ago (which actually makes it sooooo much worse because the locals involved were still recovering financially from Katrina, so that money would have made a huge difference in their lives). But I’m moving back to New Orleans from Copenhagen (where everyone plays out of the rack) in a couple of months, so I’ll remember not to kill the JP

P.S.: If anyone is considering playing at Harrahs New Orleans, 100% come on a Tuesday to check out the legendary 15/30 limit Omaha high game—it’s SICK, it plays like a 30/60 or higher LHE, and Bravo shows it running regularly. Action, yeah!! (And it sometimes goes on Fridays, too.)

1) It appears that you may have a personal grudge against the player

2) You are a very unattractive poster

3) You are wrong about almost every assumption you have made

4) I would bet a lot of money that your life is filled with burned bridges, broken relationships, and alienation. I can practically guarantee that you engage in gambling activities that make you hate yourself. Daily, you hate everyone who does what you do, so you hate yourself. Whether it is poker, horse or sports betting, or advantage gambling, you wake up every day with hate because you know you wasted your life.

5) I'm right about this case, and right about my assessment of you....and you know it.

1) I don't know the player , Yet find this story interesting . If books paid everybody who claimed they didn't know the rules we would have NO books.

2) Did I hurt your feelings?

3) Possibly but I doubt it . You want me to assume the doctor woke up and said hmm. I want to bet $2400 on the Kentucky Derby and just pulled numbers out of thin air then because of an inconvenient day decides to just wager at tamarack junction I stead of going to a book he knows is part of the pool.

4) Spot on .

5) Don't bet your life on it . There is a $2.00 minimum wager .

4) was kind of like picking low hanging fruit on this forum no

This has happened to me too

Reflecting on this, I would think the chance of the player only getting the 35K out of the over 600K he expected, is almost zero. This is really close to a one-off event, where you have someone betting a few thousand on the Kentucky Derby, which just so happened to have a flukey result and a huge payout.

Sometimes in life you get unfair bounces, or just plain bad luck. And sometimes you have to take the bad beat. This is not one of those times. The gaming control board might actually rule in his favor. If they do not, William Hill can't exactly pay the full payout, because that makes a mockery of their own, and actually reasonable, rules for their establishments that book the horse bets.

The problem here is that no reasonable person walking into this place on this exact day, Derby Day, and betting a few thousand on the Derby, would ever suspect that he wasn't getting full track odds, for whatever amount he won. And the "reasonable man" carries a ton of freight in law, and in contract/business disputes. In fact, it is one of the more powerful ideas and driving forces in all of law.

William Hill may have to do an end-around, but this guy will receive multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars, and possibly the full 600K plus. The end result will be that he receives a large payment from William Hill. The quicker it is done, the better for each side, as it keeps the legal expenses down, and minimizes William Hill's reputation risk. This is simply an unfortunate event that won't arise too many times in the future. This man will have to sweat a bit, but the chances of him only getting 35k total are essentially zero.

People said similar things about the Ivey cause, then the courts had the casino's wang in its mouth as it always does, and 'reasonable' conclusions went out the window.

Everybody here gets that you hate William Hill and are rooting for the guy to get his money. The problem with your logic is that the rules are posted clearly at the window. Also they are posted on the scratch sheet. William Hill is not obligated in any way to pay this guy more then the listed capped odds.

I'm not sure what part of that you don't get or the doctor doesn't get. The responsibility clearly is on him . When you bet a horse race at any book or track they ask you to check your tickets before leaving the window . Why? Because they don't want you coming back after the race or game saying the writer made a mistake .

The guy originally had a losing ticket if Maximum Security was not disqualified his tickets where worthless . So here is my question to you Sprint. If the Wests the owners of Maximum Security win there court case and he is put back as the Derby winner can William Hill sue the doctor for the money back on the basis that his ticket is now a loser?

The media pressure he is putting on them is stupid. Nobody truly cares if this guy gets his money. William Hill is not going to pony up half a million dollars because he says he didn't understand the betting caps. The gaming commission will find that William Hill was in compliance and end this.

Do I want them to pay YES . Will they pay NO. This is simply a case of buyer beware . As I stated before he will go down in history as the dumbest horse player ever .

I am not a lawyer but to my knowledge, courts have overturned stewards decisions in the past. They did it in Pennsylvania not to long ago.

Overturning the race decision did not change the tote result.

When the results are "Official" they are "Official."

The only people who will make money off a Maximum Security court case are lawyers and the West family (Maximum Security breeding rights) if they are lucky.

I suppose the Wests would win the KY Derby purse if they won in court...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAdAbzWbUtg

Here is the video of the PA race I was mentioning.

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...fication-parx/

If you read my posts you would know that I feel that William Hill has not been sinister here. Your hypothetical about Maximum Security bettors is not relevant, because there is a long standing precedent as far as bettors in that regard. The results are final.

Simply put, all facts considered, this guy had a reasonable expectation that he would be certain to be paid his total winnings, considering it was a William Hill establishment, it was derby day, and he was betting thousands of dollars. No reasonable person in his situation would EVER make those exact bets at this location, if the person knew that the most they would get paid if the best case scenario happened would be well under ten percent of what would have been received at a parimutuel establishment.

This isn't 30 years ago. It is not reasonable for the player to have the onus be on him in this particular case. Though you, and some others may disagree, I actually believe that the huge payout of 600k helps the player here. In other words, if he had made a much smaller bet on a random race at a small track, and encountered this capped payout, then he is probably out of luck. But this was the Kentucky Derby, and the book was William Hill, and it is life changing money, so all things considered, it is far more unjust if he receives just the 35K instead of over 600K. That is how the world works.

I will give you a similar example. When people neglect to pay their real estate taxes on property they own, eventually the property goes up for sale at an auction at the county court house. Throughout the United States, there are hundreds of thousands of properties that are about to be sold at auction at any given time. Real estate investors show up at the county courthouse for the auctions, after having done their research from lists of properties given to them by the county tax office, which lists properties that will be in the sale.

Many properties are sold each day at these sales, with a vast majority being low value properties, often plots of land, where the owner is simply letting the property go on purpose. On a frequent basis, there are tremendous deals that get into the system as a result of an oversight by the property owner, whom has accidentally not paid their taxes, for various reasons, or whom otherwise has a good faith reason to not have paid.

Every once in a while you will see a national news story about a recent widower (for example), whom has lost an extremely valuable property (house) at a tax sale. Justice usually finds a way for her to keep the house, even though the buyer at the tax sale is arguing that "the law is the law", and he deserves the windfall. In the most extreme cases, even if the county has sent the delinquent tax notices properly, and followed the process according to the law, and even if the buyer has done nothing wrong, and technically should be the owner of the house, the end result will be that the lady keeps the house. If that same lady has simply neglected to pay the taxes on an adjacent plot of land, worth a few thousand dollars, she would almost certainly lose the land at the tax sale.

If you don't understand, then that is fine, but I am not going to teach you how the world works for free. And I suspect that you might be older than me, and we all know that old dogs have problems learning new tricks. You are not approaching this with the correct mindset, so you will likely be dismayed when this guy gets a large amount of money, and business continues as usual at these William Hill locations, as if this never happened, with caps in place, and others not being as fortunate as this guy. The large life changing payout helps his cause, especially given all of the facts of that particular day.

One final example that should help you understand would be a "bad line" example at a Las Vegas sportsbook. If the sportsbook puts out a bad line and loses a few thousand dollars, they aren't going to be bailed out by the gaming control board....The sportsbook will have to pay the ticket. But there is no scenario where a customer can luck into a bad line and put the casino out of business. It won't be allowed to happen. Some sportsbooks in New Jersey paid some five figure mistakes last year. If their system somehow made a mistake that allowed a player to think that he would get an excess payout of 40 million on a small bet, the sportsbook would not have paid it, and the courts would not have made them pay it, even if the rule/law stated that all bets are final.

this is bull****