Who Came Last???

[Foz]

In my Rosehill example they didn't pay a superfecta at all.
It would of paid $1100 if the horse that failed to finish was placed 6th.

They did get their $360 back.

In the HP trot example I seem to remember it was a race a few pulled out.
Only a few finished.
Again no dividend was declared.
Hope that clears that up.

There would be no change to any dividends by a horse running 23rd or 24th.

Franklin Gardens would be deemed a starter.

The question is was he a finisher?

Its the sweep rules that need clarifying.
Last over the line?
The Tab dont bet on this. Betfair might in the future so you should get clarification before you bet.

 

[Foz]

23 horses finished and he came 23rd. As mentioned by another poster, If a horse does not finish then according to racing stewards and bookies it is considered that it never took part in the race and divedends are adjusted accordingly.

So if there were 8 horses in the race and 1 does not finish then there is no third divedend as there is only considered to be 7 horses in the race.

No.
Goes on starters.
If 23 horses fell and 1 finished a winning dividend would still be paid.
Unlikely as stewards may call it a no race.
If 8 horses start and 1 doesnt finish 3 place dividends would be paid.
You wouldn't get your money back for a DNF.

If a horse is declared a non starter(as Mr Celebrity was the other day)and it was a 8 horse race it would then be deemed only 7 horses started.
Different from a Did Not Finish.

 

[Nuffs]

i checked with a few sources last night at 2 out of 3 said that FG was last, and the other said that MC was last

there is no clarification

but for the sweep purposes, the VRC declared FG last. is it a precedent for Betfair which could be legal within weeks?

 

[Southern Rooster]

Franklin Gardens did actually finish. He walked across the line eventuallly.

A few years back in the Melbourne Cup one of the horses broke down and failed to finish that horse was not declared last the horse that finished last was the last horse that finished the race.

In the Superfecta scenario above there is no way you can no before the race what it will pay as you have no idea what order the horses will finish in. If a horse fails to finish in a 6 horse race that is a superfecta race you shouldn't get your money back as that is deemed bad luck.

Once a horse is deemed to have gotten a fair start it is an official starter. The only execption to this is the hold all tickets.

Had Franklin Gardens not finished the other day Mr Celebrity would definately have been deemed as the last horse. But Franklin Gardens walked over the line a long last after pulling up lame. It had it's injury worries over the weekend and in hindsight should not have started.

 

[Nuffs]

Franklin Gardens did actually finish. He walked across the line eventuallly.

A few years back in the Melbourne Cup one of the horses broke down and failed to finish that horse was not declared last the horse that finished last was the last horse that finished the race.

In the Superfecta scenario above there is no way you can no before the race what it will pay as you have no idea what order the horses will finish in. If a horse fails to finish in a 6 horse race that is a superfecta race you shouldn't get your money back as that is deemed bad luck.

Once a horse is deemed to have gotten a fair start it is an official starter. The only execption to this is the hold all tickets.

Had Franklin Gardens not finished the other day Mr Celebrity would definately have been deemed as the last horse. But Franklin Gardens walked over the line a long last after pulling up lame. It had it's injury worries over the weekend and in hindsight should not have started.

this is where it gets confusing
if a horse fails to finish in a 6 horse race and a superfecta was available, then what happens to the money invested? if the horse doesn't finish then either a) the horse is declared last or b) all money refunded due to there not being enough runners to complete a combination

 

[waltzing Meninga]

this is where it gets confusing
if a horse fails to finish in a 6 horse race and a superfecta was available, then what happens to the money invested? if the horse doesn't finish then either a) the horse is declared last or b) all money refunded due to there not being enough runners to complete a combination

I agree. All Money should be refunded. That is just a blatant rip off by the bookies if they don't refund money for that.

I guess they got what they deserved in the last 2 melbourne cups.

 

[Southern Rooster]

this is where it gets confusing
if a horse fails to finish in a 6 horse race and a superfecta was available, then what happens to the money invested? if the horse doesn't finish then either a) the horse is declared last or b) all money refunded due to there not being enough runners to complete a combination

The money is kept by the TAB. There was in fact enough runners it is just that one did not finish. The Superfecta would not have been won and the money invested jackpots into the next Superfecta. Very simple.

 

[Southern Rooster]

I agree. All Money should be refunded. That is just a blatant rip off by the bookies if they don't refund money for that.

I guess they got what they deserved in the last 2 melbourne cups.

It's not a rip off the horse started and was a legitimate bet as the time you got on.

Take the NRL for example. You might back a player to score first try and he is dropped back to the reserves bench. You don't get the money back for it. Actually if he pulls out you don't get the money back either.

 

[Nuffs]

The money is kept by the TAB. There was in fact enough runners it is just that one did not finish. The Superfecta would not have been won and the money invested jackpots into the next Superfecta. Very simple.

how were they to know that a horse wouldnt' finish? after the race you can see that the possibility of getting the superfecta was 0% and therefore the TAB would have refunded bets. they do not run all-in betting so would have to pay the money back

 

[Nuffs]

It's not a rip off the horse started and was a legitimate bet as the time you got on.

Take the NRL for example. You might back a player to score first try and he is dropped back to the reserves bench. You don't get the money back for it. Actually if he pulls out you don't get the money back either.

you do get your money back if he isn't in the 17 on the day. it states on all betting sheets etc that the player must take part in the game to be declared a "starter". otherwise, money is refunded

it's happened to me before a few times

 

[Foz]

http://www.harness.org.au/BETTYPES.HTM

Found this for you guys.
Dont know if the rules are current (I am assuming they are) but remember there was a rule change when flexi-betting was introduced.
It may have been 10 years ago when the superfecta situation occurred at Rosehill but bets were refunded.
I'm sure the Tab would love to keep the money if 6 starters dont finish (and I can see some merit in this) but I dont know if they do.
Note this is dated 1996.

 

[Foz]

http://old.racetab.com.au/Flexi/flexi_details04.htm

Then theres this which is as clear as mud.
No idea of the date.
If I'm reading it right it would support Southern Roosters post.

http://old.racetab.com.au/toterules/ToteRule.HTM

This one under rule 11.1.4 indicates the jackpot pool would go onto the next race and they would pay a dividend on the first 5 or 4 whatever the case may be. 2003 is the date of this.
As I've said previously the rules may of changed since the flexi bet has come in.

 

[Southern Rooster]

you do get your money back if he isn't in the 17 on the day. it states on all betting sheets etc that the player must take part in the game to be declared a "starter". otherwise, money is refunded

it's happened to me before a few times

You are right about the players pulling out. But that has been changed withiun the last few years because it never used to be thjat way. I know as I lost 2 weeks out of 3 betting on players on Friday only for them to be out on the weekend and it was no money back in those days.