Third-place deadheat divvy rule PATENTLY INCORRECT

[steveh 2]

Just backed each way one of the deadheaters for third in the 3^rd at Wanganui, final tote was $2.50 – my div was $1.20.

Final div on the other deadheater was $3.90, declared div $1.90.

Am informed by TAB representative “that’s just the rule and its been that way for years”

 

SO, firstly, TAB gets to pocket the difference “because we don’t have 5 cents in NZ any more” (1.20 x 2 = 2.40; 1.90 x 2 = 3.80), and secondly, even tho tote place prices in NZ don’t distinguish WHATSOEVER between place divs for first, second or third (ie, it DOES NOT MATTER whether you run first second or third, your place div is still the same), we have a rule that effectively treats getting third as deserving of a lesser place dividend than getting first or second.  Its just absurd.  Logically, the place pool divvy should be apportioned equally between all 4 placegetters.

This can be distinguished from the stake money for the horses’ connections, as the way that is apportioned we DO distinguish between stakemoney for first, second and third, therefore, again by logic, the third position stake money should be split between the deadheaters, and first and second would not be penalised.

So this is a rule that needs changing.

 

 

[Idolmite 2,531]

It's not that long since it was changed, and there's been plenty  of discussion on it since, on Race Cafe. You're one of the few that agrees with me.

 

It USED to be right, place divvie split 4 ways (or more) when depending on the amount of dead-heating horses (i.e; 2 horse dead-heat for for 3rd or 3 way dead heat for second, split 5 ways if 3 way dead heat for 3rd), but now it's patently for the reasons you've just stated.  

 

A place is a place is a place..........

 

As for the stake money, 3rd & 4th would be added together and split equally.

[steveh 2]

OK - i had no idea there had been a rule change - god knows why, its not as if there is any ADVANTAGE to running first or second in the case of tote place divvies, so its unbelievable that anyone would disagree with your and my take on it.

 

Thinking more about that declaration of a div that is UNDER half of the final div, they should have at least declared $1.25 and $1.85 and worried about the 5 cents at point of payout - anyone with $100 a place on has had $5 stolen from them - really, its unbelievable to me that this should be allowed to happen.

[Bear 30]

Are you really that much of an idiot that you cannot fathom logic? No, you can't be - you must be taking the proverbial, an April Fool's Day joke, just a couple of weeks late, no?!

 

The TAB does NOT treat third-place dividends any different from first and second place dividends. What you seem to be missing is that in a dead-heat for third, there IS NO 3RD PLACING! It is NOT the same as a placing for either first or second. It is THIRD EQUAL. Since there must now be a fourth dividend paid we will have 1st, 2nd and 3rd= and 3rd=. With me so far?

 

So, why should those who back either of the first two horses across the line then give up 5% of their dividends to those who finished behind them? That is patently unfair and wrong! If you think you are being hard done by but having your dividend cut in half, look at it this way; you were a pixel-width away from receiving NOTHING!

 

And as for the dividends being rounded-down - what's wrong with that? So, the punter who put $100 on will lose five bucks? So?! The guy who put on $200,000 will lose five grand? What about the punter who put $3 to place? He loses 15 cents? As I stated earlier - there was a pixel between collecting and collecting nothing. The TAB has been declaring dividends at 10 cents since before NZ got rid of the five cent piece. Get over it!

 

But, I'm sure you did know all of this, didn't you?! You were surely just looking for a bite?

 

Got me, got me good!  

[Bear 30]

PS - sorry, made a typo with one point

 

Backers of the first two home in a three-dividend race would give up 8% of their dividend and NOT 5% - my bad!

[Idolmite 2,531]

Don't agree with you Bear, but we've been through it all before. When place betting one doesn't back a horse to come in "first place", "second place" or "third place", you back back it to finish in "a place". Therefore all horses that finish in "a place" in that type of bet should be treated equally.

[Bear 30]

Yes - but only IF THERE ARE THREE PLACINGS!

 

When you have a dead-heat for 3rd this creates FOUR didivend-bearing placings, so the rules MUST change in this instance

[steveh 2]

Are you really that much of an idiot that you cannot fathom logic? No, you can't be - you must be taking the proverbial, an April Fool's Day joke, just a couple of weeks late, no?!

 

The TAB does NOT treat third-place dividends any different from first and second place dividends. What you seem to be missing is that in a dead-heat for third, there IS NO 3RD PLACING! It is NOT the same as a placing for either first or second. It is THIRD EQUAL. Since there must now be a fourth dividend paid we will have 1st, 2nd and 3rd= and 3rd=. With me so far?

 

So, why should those who back either of the first two horses across the line then give up 5% of their dividends to those who finished behind them? That is patently unfair and wrong! If you think you are being hard done by but having your dividend cut in half, look at it this way; you were a pixel-width away from receiving NOTHING!

 

....

 

On the one hand you start saying "TAB does NOT treat third-place dividends any different from first and second place dividends" but then you say "So, why should those who back either of the first two horses across the line then give up 5% of their dividends to those who finished behind them..." - can you not see the contradiction in what you have just said?  Shall i say it louder? IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE DEAD-HEATERS FINISHED BEHIND THE FIRST TWO - IN TERMS OF PLACE DIVIES, IT IS NOT "BETTER" TO FINISH FIRST OR SECOND. 

 

 

 

[Fernlea25 110]

I disagree with Steveh and Idolmite.

 

There was nothing more frustrating under the old rules than backing a runner for a placing, have it come first or 2nd, and then lose a large portion of your dividend because 2 runners deadheated for third.  If you backed a horse and it dead-heated for third, why should you get more than half of your dividend?  Yes, your horse ran 3rd, but I guess technically it also only ran 4th - therefore half your dividend.  Surely that is fair?

 

What relevance does the fact that 2 runners dead heated for third have to do with either runner that finished ahead of it??  The old system to me was completey bizarre and I think the way it's being done now makes far more sense.

 

Stake money to the first and second runners isn't reduced so that both third place-getters still get a full pay-out for coming third, is it?

 

I'm not sure where the 8% loss of dividend calculation comes from - my understanding was that under the old rules, the place pool was divided equally into 3 lots, 33.3% each.  If there was a dead-heat between 2 runners for 3rd, the pool would be divided into 4 lots of 25% each.  Therefore, your dividend would actually be reduced by (33.3% less 25%) / 33.3% = 25%.  So you would actually lose 25% of what you would have got had 2 runners not dead heated for third (again, which should have been of no consequence to the runners finishing 1st and 2nd - in my opinion).

 

I will agree with Steve re the rounding down of these half dividends.  The take-out by the TAB on all bet types is bordering on a disgrace - surely rounding up of these would be the decent thing to do.

 

I have also noticed the TAB rounding down place dividends in order to subsidise rounding up a runner to $1 for the place where a runner places with a price of less than $1.  I'm a bit indifferent to this as I can see the reasons why, but awfully frustrating when you back a runner and end up with a lesser dividend as a result.

[Phar Lap Fan 103]

The loss is 25 per cent (of 33.33%) or 8.33 percentage points, if that helps. Agree with posters that backers of 1st and 2nd placed horses should not lose to subsidize the backers of  two 'half-3rd' placed horses.

Logic is a wondrous thing.

[Idolmite 2,531]

What relevance does the fact that 2 runners dead heated for third have to do with either runner that finished ahead of it??  The old system to me was completey bizarre and I think the way it's being done now makes far more sense.

 

Stake money to the first and second runners isn't reduced so that both third place-getters still get a full pay-out for coming third, is it?

 

The relevance is that when you bet for a place, they're not 1st, 2nd or 3rd, merely placegetters and all equal at that. There is no bigger share paid out depending on how far up the "placings" your runner finishes. When you back a horse for a place and it wins, you don't expect a share of the win divvie do you, because you actually backed a winner? 

 

Stake money is different, as that IS paid out on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on. That is quite clear, the same as a win best has to finish 1st.

[Fernlea25 110]

I understand what you're saying Idolmite... I just don't agree with you.  

 

You bet on a runner to place, yes, but your runner hasn't run third in the conventional sense, it has basically only half run third (and half run fourth).

 

I like to think of it that there are never really 4 place-getters, there are only ever 3 - it's just that the 3rd spot is shared by 2 runners in the case of a 2-runner dead heat for third.  To me, it would therefore follow that the place dividends of the 1st and 2nd runners are unchanged and the dividend of the shared 3rd place-getters is halved.  

 

To me, the argument of "When you back a horse for a place and it wins, you don't expect a share of the win divvie do you, because you actually backed a winner?" is a bit of a red herring and not actually the question at hand.

 

We just have a difference in opinion of how this should work so I doubt any level of explanation on my part would change your way of viewing this (and I'm sure the same is the case vice versa).      

 

All the best

[tackled 41]

Well, one man's logic obviously isn't the same as another man's.

I agree totally with the current rule; makes total sense to me. The old rule was grossly unfair.

[Idolmite 2,531]

Well, one man's logic obviously isn't the same as another man's.

 

And that's the bottom line. And as it's been both ways over the years, the powers that be obviously don't know either haha. 

 

Maybe they should use some of their rounding-down leftovers to pay both divvies out in full.........

[Bear 30]

Idolmite, think of this then

 

Say you back a horse to WIN and it is paying $15.00. After a photo it is shown that your horse has DEADHEATED for 1st, with the red-hot favourite which was showing $2.00 to win

 

What do you say should be YOUR winning dividend? Thanks

[Bear 30]

Oh, and for an earlier comment...

 

If there are three place dividends in a race the pool is equally split three ways (roughly 33%) and each of those thirds is divided by how much was invested on each of the three placegetters, and thus we get the dividends

 

If there is WAS deadheat for 3rd this means the pool had to be split FOUR ways, so each of those splits now contains 25% of the total pool, therefore your dividend was reduced by roughly 8% (or 1/12 (one-twelfth)

[Idolmite 2,531]

Idolmite, think of this then

 

Say you back a horse to WIN and it is paying $15.00. After a photo it is shown that your horse has DEADHEATED for 1st, with the red-hot favourite which was showing $2.00 to win

 

What do you say should be YOUR winning dividend? Thanks

 

$7.50..........but I see a "win" bet as something totally different to a "place" bet, so your logic is fatally flawed (with me at least haha).

 

You back a horse to "place", not "place 3rd", so IMHO the split divvie does not work here.

 

Oh, and the difference between 3 divvies and 4 divvies in a race is actually 25%. Each punter would lose 25% of their original divvie once split 4 ways instead of 3. If there was $30 in the pool split 3 ways that's $10 for each place pool. Split 4 ways it's $7.50. Therefore each would donate $2.50 of there $10 to make their pool $7.50, and the 3 lots of $2.50 passed across also = $7.50.   

[Bear 30]

Where on earth did you, supposedly, learn mathematics?!

 

If there are three dividend bearing placings in a race and there are no dead-heaters, so only three place dividends are paid, the entire pool is divided three ways, meaning 33.3% - with me?!

 

If this pool is now split FOUR ways due to your version of having to pay FOUR place dividends, then that entire pool is split FOUR ways, meaning 25% for each of the FOUR place-getters, savvy?!

 

The difference between 33.3% and 25% is (33.3 minus 25.0 = ) 8.3%

 

And in YOUR world those that back WINNERS of races for a PLACE have to subsidise INFERIOR runners because they were a cigarette paper width from NOTHING!

[N1MUE 1,877]

Where on earth did you, supposedly, learn mathematics?!

 

If there are three dividend bearing placings in a race and there are no dead-heaters, so only three place dividends are paid, the entire pool is divided three ways, meaning 33.3% - with me?!

 

If this pool is now split FOUR ways due to your version of having to pay FOUR place dividends, then that entire pool is split FOUR ways, meaning 25% for each of the FOUR place-getters, savvy?!

 

The difference between 33.3% and 25% is (33.3 minus 25.0 = ) 8.3%

 

Agree with you Bear on the dead heat rule - I petitioned the TAB for ages to have the rule changed and finally common sense prevailed.

 

However don't think you should be rubbishing Idolmite's maths.  He is spot on - were they to pay four place dividends rather than 3, the dividend for the winner and second place horse would be 25% lower than under the new rules.

 

Did you take maths lessons from Don?

[N1MUE 1,877]

Oops a few problems using the quote function.  My post is hidden at the bottom, ie.

 

 

Agree with you Bear on the dead heat rule - I petitioned the TAB for ages to have the rule changed and finally common sense prevailed.

 

However don't think you should be rubbishing Idolmite's maths.  He is spot on - were they to pay four place dividends rather than 3, the dividend for the winner and second place horse would be 25% lower than under the new rules.

 

Did you take maths lessons from Don?

[Idolmite 2,531]

Where on earth did you, supposedly, learn mathematics?!

 

If there are three dividend bearing placings in a race and there are no dead-heaters, so only three place dividends are paid, the entire pool is divided three ways, meaning 33.3% - with me?!

 

If this pool is now split FOUR ways due to your version of having to pay FOUR place dividends, then that entire pool is split FOUR ways, meaning 25% for each of the FOUR place-getters, savvy?!

 

The difference between 33.3% and 25% is (33.3 minus 25.0 = ) 8.3%

 

And in YOUR world those that back WINNERS of races for a PLACE have to subsidise INFERIOR runners because they were a cigarette paper width from NOTHING!

 

I'm quite happy with my mathmatics Bear. In this case 33.33333% less 25% = 25% (not 8.3%). Read Nimue's post too. It might help. The difference between 33.33333% and 25% of the total place pool is 25%. We're dealing with percentages, not subtraction.

 

I don't see ANY horse as being inferior when backing for a place. A place in NZ is not to win. not to show and not to place (if using the American terminology), but it is to run 1st, 2nd OR 3rd (or equal in any of those finishing positions) in ANY of those places in New Zealand terminology. IMHO of course. Currently the TAB does not agree. I say, like many other things they get wrong, they've got that one wrong too.

 

The 3 versus 4 divvie thing in my posts is OPINION. We are allowed that, and opinion cannot be wrong.

 

The 25% mathmatical difference between 3 and 4 dividends is an indisputable FACT.  

[scottruby 10]

completely agree with idolmite here, with both his maths and his opinion on splitting the pool. the current system is just crazy to me

[Idolmite 2,531]

completely agree with idolmite here, with both his maths and his opinion on splitting the pool. the current system is just crazy to me

 

Bear will be back to inform you that you're wrong, on BOTH counts 

[Pickel 45]

This topic is very clear cut.

 

The phrase "Deadheat for third" is an abbreviation of "Deadheat for third and fourth"  (the next horse to finish is fifth), so each horse is half third and half fourth and are paid out accordingly.

 

Looking at it from another view; 1st, 2nd and 3rd are all treated equally and so 33% of the pool gets paid out to 1st,  33% to 2nd and 33% to 3rd.  Deadheats have no affect on this, if there is a deadheat for 3rd and 4th, then each placing still gets their fair share, 33%. 

 

Idolmite suggests that the three placings are NOT equal and advocates for 1st to get 25%, 2nd 25% and 3rd 50%, clearly this would NOT be fair.

[Idolmite 2,531]

Idolmite suggests that the three placings are NOT equal and advocates for 1st to get 25%, 2nd 25% and 3rd 50%, clearly this would NOT be fair.

 

Good play on words Pickel

 

Except that, supposedly, to collect your share of the "place" pool, all your horse has to do for you to collect is finish 1st, 2nd OR 3rd. Your version relates more to the judges call ("dead heat for third"), which is relevent for Trifectas and First 4's as well as the owners obviously. It has nothing to do with 25%, 25% & 50%, it has to do with the definition of "a place" which is 1st, 2nd OR 3rd, because 3rd should be just as important, in this circumstance, as 1st or 2nd to the punter that was looking for this type of bet. Thank goodness we have photo finishes so there hardly ever is a dead heat called........