Reno horse bettor screwed out of $574k...

ejd_5277

EOG Dedicated
#1
...due to William Hill caps on payouts.

Ticket that should have paid $609,000 pays only $35k

https://www.actionnetwork.com/horse-racing/kentucky-derby-exacta-trifecta-bad-beat-darren-rovell

(Apparently you have to either have the app or subscribe in order to read the full article, but you'll get the jist.)

Anyway, I know next to nothing about horse racing, but apparently Nevada race books are considered "non pari-mutuel" facilities, making such a cap legal? On the surface, this doesn't make any sense.

The guy filed a claim with Gaming, which I think (from what little I know about it) he's a substantial underdog to win.

Interested in the opinions of the horseplayers here.
 

ejd_5277

EOG Dedicated
#2
The part I'm struggling with is why William Hill is allowed to offer a wager in the first place that it only intends on paying 6% of if it hits.
 

ChiTownJoe

EOG Dedicated
#3
...due to William Hill caps on payouts.

Ticket that should have paid $609,000 pays only $35k

https://www.actionnetwork.com/horse-racing/kentucky-derby-exacta-trifecta-bad-beat-darren-rovell

(Apparently you have to either have the app or subscribe in order to read the full article, but you'll get the jist.)

Anyway, I know next to nothing about horse racing, but apparently Nevada race books are considered "non pari-mutuel" facilities, making such a cap legal? On the surface, this doesn't make any sense.

The guy filed a claim with Gaming, which I think (from what little I know about it) he's a substantial underdog to win.

Interested in the opinions of the horseplayers here.
Nevada racebooks went to being co-mingled in pari-mutuel pools around 2000. Don't know how he could get shorted?

I use to bet some round-robin cross track win parlays, and they stopped taking them early 2000 because they all went pari-mutuel vs. in-house booking.
 
#4
In a nutshell, some Nevada books are in pari-mutuel pools and some are not. The ones that aren't won't get the guaranteed distribution of the pool and so they have usually put caps on the payouts. This rule is posted on the wall of the sportsbook. Its is similar to the cap (in fine print) that is put on parlay cards limiting the aggregate payout.

There is virtually no chance the appeal to the NGC will succeed.
 

ChiTownJoe

EOG Dedicated
#5
Here is an article from the RJ in August,2012 when the Nevada books were negotiating the signal fees.

“We are glad it got resolved especially being that it’s just in time for a big weekend of horse racing, with the Travelers at Saratoga and the Pacific Classic Sunday at Del Mar,” said Dan Shapiro, marketing director for William Hill U.S. “It’s good for the customer and sports book because they can bet into large exotics pools.”

https://www.reviewjournal.com/busin...da-sports-books-again-taking-horse-race-bets/

So maybe something changed with William Hill, but certainly seemed like they were part of the contract.
 
#6
Only some Will Hills are covered. Race tickets between WHs are not interchangeable, I.e. you have to cash at the same book you bet at.

The WH Grand Sierra book is pari-mutuel, the WH Tamarack Junction book (where the bets were made) is not.
 
#7
This is why you make exotic bets at track and not with street bookie, william hill is basically a street bookie mentality with bannning winners and caping payouts
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
#8
William Hill in the muck and mire once again.

Not their fault this time around.

The good doctor needs to know the house rules.

You would think someone who is betting nearly $3,000 on the Kentucky Derby would know better.

Then again, maybe not.

He will collect $35,000 and yet feel like he got robbed.

Unfortunate situation.

All parties involved lose.

If William Hill is going to cap the payouts, maybe they should be forced to cap the size of the wagers as well?

After all, the player was in a no-win situation.
 
#10
Only some Will Hills are covered. Race tickets between WHs are not interchangeable, I.e. you have to cash at the same book you bet at.

The WH Grand Sierra book is pari-mutuel, the WH Tamarack Junction book (where the bets were made) is not.
That is really strange that NEVADA GAMING allows 2 brick & mortar shops under the same corporate umbrella to have different rules. I'm sure since it is posted, it is legal and the guy is screwed.

I know Stations properties at one time wouldn't allow cross property cashing of race tickets. Said it was an accounting issue. Think they changed that recently, but honestly can't remember, might still be in place.

Agree with JK, guy is an idiot betting into CAPPED payouts for Kentucky Derby.
 
#11
William Hill in the muck and mire once again.

Not their fault this time around.

The good doctor needs to know the house rules.

You would think someone who is betting nearly $3,000 on the Kentucky Derby would know better.

Then again, maybe not.

He will collect $35,000 and yet feel like he got robbed.

Unfortunate situation.

All parties involved lose.

If William Hill is going to cap the payouts, maybe they should be forced to cap the size of the wagers as well?

After all, the player was in a no-win situation.
Bingo.

It's beyond shady (almost downright criminal) to book a wager that you KNOW ahead of time you will only be paying a small fraction of if it wins.
 
#14
Bingo.

It's beyond shady (almost downright criminal) to book a wager that you KNOW ahead of time you will only be paying a small fraction of if it wins.
Ridiculous.

Are you asserting that WH knew the Derby result before the race? Most of the time the exacta and exotic caps do not come into play. If Maximum Security did not get DQ'ed, the guy would have won nothing.
 

skinny

EOG Enthusiast
#16
All Nevada books were non parimutual before the Ron Hansen scandal at Golden gate back in the mid nineties.
Limits on everything, 20-1 on win I believe.100-1 on exotics.
 

bomzee

EOG Dedicated
#17
Quite a story -Booking it with a cap used to be the only way to bet horses in Nevada- Dr. Friedlander made the bet of a lifetime but he made a half a million dollar blunder by somehow placing his bet at the absolute wrong place. There might have been 100 places in Reno where this would not have happened and 1 or 2 where it would have.
 
Last edited:

Rockfish

EOG Enthusiast
#18
Wow. Had no idea that there were still places that booked horse bets. i have sympathy for the guy but he should have looked at the rules but i understand he just doesn't know to even look into it.
in vegas the Stardust was one of the last places to still book horse bets before going pari mutuel.
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
#19
Norm Kelley once was brought in to oversee the race book operations at the Stardust.

The year was 1989.

Why did the house continually lose money when most race books typically were holding 20-25%?

It took Kelley less than five minutes to uncover the problem.

The culprit: Bay Meadows and Golden Gate Fields.

By noon every day, there would be as much action on northern California races as all other racetracks combined.

Great sport, dirty game.
 
#20
Ridiculous.

Are you asserting that WH knew the Derby result before the race? Most of the time the exacta and exotic caps do not come into play. If Maximum Security did not get DQ'ed, the guy would have won nothing.
Of course not, Bob.

I've bolded what I feel is the key phrase in your post.

What William Hill DID know however, was that if such an unusual combination were to hit the board, that it would be (legally) paying only a small fraction of what was owed. Presumably there wasn't much action on the 20-13 exacta or the 20-13-8 tri.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this seems like a giant freeroll for William Hill. They get to pay out only a small fraction of the winning exotics, while keeping 100% of the exotics on the favorites that lost and paid nothing. They had to be creaming their panties when the 7 was DQ'ed.

The set of rules is prominenly displayed on a wall at the Tamarack Junction sportsbook.
I agree that William Hill was not at fault here, and that it was the bettor's responsibility to know the rules, especially given the amount wagered, and also that, as you stated, they are not only displayed in the sportsbook, but there are additional signs posted warning bettors that WH is booking its own action here. I also agree that the guy's appeal has next-to-zero chance with Gaming.

My qualm is purely an ethical one. The guy that bet these is someone whose business William Hill should want to cultivate, especially given the current state of horse racing. Instead, right or wrong, it's another huge black eye for William Hill from a public relations standpoint. Casual/uneducated bettors will (of course) take Dr. Friedlander's side, and now Darren Rovell is writing about it, which means national publicity over many different media sources.

Not a good look, IMO.
 

bomzee

EOG Dedicated
#21
Many years ago I was at Poker Palace and they were still booking Turf Paradise. A regular there hits the Pick 3 with a couple of long shots and
NO ONE hits it at the track - it was all 2 out of 3 consolations. The management literally did not know how to pay or resolve his ticket at poker palace.. There was a meeting behind the scenes and ultimately the upper management offered him a limit payout which he accepted.
 

Rockfish

EOG Enthusiast
#22
i am sure a supervisor had to be called to approve the bet. Considering it is derby day and many newbies and novices play that day. The supervisor has to look at the bet to approve. Just as a common courtesy the supe should have something to the guy concerning the rules.
 

Heim

EOG Master
#23
Norm Kelley once was brought in to oversee the race book operations at the Stardust.

The year was 1989.

Why did the house continually lose money when most race books typically were holding 20-25%?

It took Kelley less than five minutes to uncover the problem.

The culprit: Bay Meadows and Golden Gate Fields.

By noon every day, there would be as much action on northern California races as all other racetracks combined.

Great sport, dirty game.

I'm pretty sure after Ron Hanson's suspicious races they stopped taking bets from Northern CA.
 
#25
I know Stations properties at one time wouldn't allow cross property cashing of race tickets. Said it was an accounting issue. Think they changed that recently, but honestly can't remember, might still be in place.
You can now cash race tickets at any Stations race book no matter which Stations race book you made the bet at.
 
#26
All Nevada books were non parimutual before the Ron Hansen scandal at Golden gate back in the mid nineties.
Limits on everything, 20-1 on win I believe.100-1 on exotics.
I remember one of the first times I was in the Stardust sports book in the late 1990's -- I was reading the posted house rules for both sports and race as Arne Lange advised in his sports betting book. When doing so, I came across the section of the rules capping winning horse racing ticket payouts, as skinny notes above, and thinking what utter nonsense, and what fool would bet a horse race in a Nevada book. [note to self: make sure when going into an unfamiliar casino race book to read the rules and make sure payouts aren't capped -- don't assume its pari-mutuel, because when you assume it makes an ass out of u (you) and me.]

He obviously didn't read the rules or he never would have made the bet. In other words he assumed, and guess what happened (see above).
 

skinny

EOG Enthusiast
#29
Smaller bets isn't a way around the cap, its not on the payout itself, rather the odds, e.g. 150/1 on exacta.
This is correct.
One other thing about William Hill is their smaller books only book racing 4 times a year ky Derby Preakness, Belmont and breeders cup. The book inMesquite does and there is no rules posted on the board about limits and I doubt the ticket writers themselves don't know.
Brutal beat for the guy.
 

blueline

EOG Dedicated
#30
VSiN interviewd him

he bets horses " once a year"

was going to son's track meet so picked a location to bet that was nearby

book had a placard up saying not a pari mutuel location with fine print on the back at the other end of the counter

would have bet at another WH location if his son's track meet was at a different location such as the north side of town as it was the previous week which is a pari mutuel location
 
#31
VSiN interviewd him

he bets horses " once a year"

was going to son's track meet so picked a location to bet that was nearby

book had a placard up saying not a pari mutuel location with fine print on the back at the other end of the counter

would have bet at another WH location if his son's track meet was at a different location such as the north side of town as it was the previous week which is a pari mutuel location
Small print ? He should sue them then
 
Top