Jackpot punters need to know the rules
Clearly not, as I was taught a new lesson at Curraheen Park last week.
There was a small carryover in the jackpot and, looking at the Laurels heats, I thought it might be reasonably easy to pick up and so I invested a sum total of €36 in the hope of picking up a gross pool of only €400.
After the first three jackpot races were run, there were just five remaining units carrying forward to the last leg, two of which were mine. All going swimmingly.
Anyway, the traps opened early in the final leg and the race was declared void. No big deal. I’ve been going racing long enough to know that, in cases where a race (or races) is declared void, all units go forward as winning ones.
Therefore, after a healthy deduction from the Tote, the jackpot pool would be divided between the five remaining units.
However, when I went to collect, the dividend was far less than I expected. After some to-ing and fro-ing with the Tote, it was relayed to me that the reason for the smaller than expected dividend was that the carryover does not get paid out in cases where one or more of the jackpot races is declared void. Only the money invested on that night gets paid out. News to me!
Let’s be honest here: the figures I’m talking about are hardly worth getting upset about but I canvassed a number of other regular jackpot players, some of whom are big hitters, and I failed to find one who was aware of this rule which, I found out later, was introduced in 2007.
That got me thinking. Imagine a scenario where there was a Pick Six carryover in excess of €100,000 — as has often happened.
Say a punter invests heavily, say €20,000 (again, it has happened) and holds the six remaining units going into the last leg. With all dogs covered, they’re guaranteed to win the jackpot.
But, for some reason beyond their control, the last leg is declared void. Suddenly, their share has shrunk by the total amount of the carryover.
The winning ticket holder will lose out in the region of €80,000 (after tax). Do you think he/she would take that lying down? Of course not! They would — reasonably — be looking to get their money, however possible.
I don’t know the ins and outs of this from a legal standpoint but I’m sure the disgruntled punter would be exploring the idea of suing somebody to get their money. Is there a liability to the track or the IGB for failing to run the advertised race?
Of course, it’s a win-win for the Tote and a no-win situation for the punter.
Firstly, there is no way the punter would invest €20,000 into the jackpot without the carryover existing (I wouldn’t even have invested my €36 into the Curraheen jackpot had there been no carryover). Secondly, the Tote takes its tax from that pool and then, with the carryover running onto the next night’s racing, gets another big investment, from which it takes another hefty chunk of tax.
Now, I’m not all that wet behind the ears, and I understand one reason why it might have been introduced. In the case where a player may not have all possibilities covered in the final leg, there might be an incentive to introduce some outside interference to get the race declared void. Hence, whatever units remain automatically become winning ones.
But let’s reverse the situation. Say the punter who has invested a lot of money fails to get to the last leg but sees that all dogs are covered and the big pot will be won by somebody else. What if he/she decided to introduce some outside interference to get the race void, so that he could have another go at claiming the main prize the next night? Who is the rule protecting then?
As it stands, the rule is the rule, but if you are a jackpot player, I suggest you bear this in mind if getting heavily involved again.
