Will pays totally worng

[wrongly1]

What responsibility does a ADW company have to post correct will pay information?
 
Prior to race 11 at KY Downs the $1 will pay on the 9 was posted as $1,112.80 this was after the 12 horse had scratched.  When the race was finished the $.50 pick 5 was posted as only $258.30.  Therefore the will pays were completely wrong including the will pays for the pick 3 and pick 4.  Who\'s responsible since the ADW company just blames the race track.  Is it just another case with horse racing that the customer gets screwed?

[rezlegal]

Wrongly -Before even reaching the legal obstacles to liability on the part of the ADW ( there are many) the bettor in your position must first claim to have suffered damage by the improper or incorrect posting of a will pay. Other than the understandable psychic damage you suffered,   how have you been damaged? You ultimately were  paid what you and other bettors should have been paid for your wager. Annoying, yes! Screwed- not as a legal matter.

[BitPlayer]

As a practical matter, neither the track nor the ADW could know for certain what the accurate will-pays were.  As it turned out, the 9 went off as the post-time favorite, so all selections of horses that were late scratches defaulted to the 9.  If another horse had gone favored, the payoffs would have been different.  I don\'t know how tracks deal with this when posting will-pays.

[Fairmount1]

Rez,

Hope you are well.  No Saratoga to catch up with anyone this year as backyard fans.

What if the gambler on leg 5 decided that he would hedge and placed bets to guarantee a profit to himself by placing bets on 3 uncovered runners let\'s say for an additional amount of capital?  Wouldn\'t this fall under some promissory estoppel or detrimental reliance theory that he could at least recover these amounts back?  I think ADW would be forced to pay back these extra amounts gambled in that scenario.  Is it worth the time and effort is a different question.

[wrongly1]

I don\'t think that\'s correct.  The will pays were posting following the scratch of the 12 and the amount bet on any particular entry would not have affected the pick 5 pool.

Fairmont - Your example is exactly my case.  All the will pays were wrong, pk3, pk4. and pk5.  Most glaring was the pk5 which was double the real return.  I was live to six horses, each showed a small return.  In reality it should have shown me a loss on all 6 entries.  I would have evaluated some type of hedge bet if I had the correct information.  Most likely losing additional money but that\'s not the point.

This game is drowning and the ADW just saying you\'re screwed it was the track\'s fault really pisses me off.

Will pays
https://twitter.com/tcashr/status/1304917178161008642

Pay outs
https://www.equibase.com/static/chart/summary/KD091220USA11-EQB.html

[BitPlayer]

Look at the Equibase chart you linked to.  The winning numbers in the last leg were 9/11/14/15/16/1.  If the 9 had not been the post-time favorite, then 9 would have been the only winning number, and the payoff would have been higher.  Ed DeRosa gives the same explanation in the Twitter thread you linked to.

[wrongly1]

Bit

I get that but all those scratches had happened before those will pays were posted.  Ed\'s point was that I would also got a consolation $.50 paying $258.  

My point was the will pay was stating $560 for $.50, with the consolation it should have returned the posted $1,112.80

All the will pays posted pk3, pk4, pk5 were incorrect.  Let\'s say the 9 lost would they have returned $836 if the 8 had won or would it have been $418.  Which is what I believe.

[BitPlayer]

Full disclosure:  I don\'t play pick-5\'s.  They are beyond my ability and bankroll.

My guess, however, is that they don\'t know who the post-time favorite will be when they post the will-pays, so they don\'t count tickets with scratched horses (11/14/15/16) as winners. Under my theory, you would have gotten the full $1,120.80 (for $1) if the someone other than the 9 (maybe the 4) had been the post-time favorite.  Since the 9 was the post-time favorite, the will-pays on the other horses should have been accurate.

My theory would also explain why the pick-4 will-pays were inaccurate, but is blown out of the water if the pick-3 will-pays were wrong. According to the chart, the pick-3 paid off only to the 9, not to the scratched horses.

Edit:  I now see there was a consolation payoff to the pick-3 due to a late scratch in the middle leg.  I don\'t know how that figures into the will-pays.

[rezlegal]

Thanks- The Saratoga streak went from 1973 ( the Alabama-Desert Vixen, Tom Root, Braulio Baeza) through 2019! Sad but we will all survive. As to your hypothetical, it is speculation as to how any bettor would or might hedge given the will pays. Stay safe, look forward to a new streak starting next year) and to those who observe ( actually to all) a Happy, Healthy , Prosperous and SAFE New Year.R

[wrongly1]

There are so many ways we can lose at this game, do you feel comfortable making wagers knowing that the will pay might be false on Twinspires?  The disregard the showed me as a customer was unbelievable.  I live in Louisville and primarily bet Churchill even more so since I can not use my season box.  I will not place another wager with such a company as Twinspires even again.  Best of luck to you all.  T.

[P-Dub]

My wagering is down to big days only, and the occasional trip to Santa Anita. I used to play several times a week and usually weekends. Its down to hardly anything.

I spend all my time handicapping sports. I have enough people interested in my work that it is worth my time to put my energy into that, rather than into a game that doesn\'t care about its customers.

See you the first weekend in November