Here's a brain teaser for you. Consider the following game:
DANIA JAI-ALAI RESULTS SATURDAY EVENING 03-17-12 13 GAMES
GAME 4 -----------------------------------
6 Gorrono 18.40 10.00 4.40
8 Israel 5.40 3.80
5 Anndy 6.20
QUINIELA 6-8 51.40
EXACTA 6-ALL 7.40
TRIFECTA 6-8-5 854.60
EXACTACONS ALL-8 7.80
SFC 6-8-5-3 1641.00
Note that they paid both 6-All and All-8 Exacta consolations.
Now, this IS according to the Statute (61D-7.011) but, with the
Exacta being an exact-order bet, I really don't think they should
pay an All-8 when someone has picked the winning half, i.e., they
should pay only the 6-All. Not saying Dania was at fault,
only that I don't like the rule.
Should not the Exacta and Trifecta, both being exact-order bets,
have similar logic for determining consolations? Using the Exacta
logic, if a 6-8-5 Trifecta needed a consolation, you should also
consider paying an All-8-5 and a 6-All-5, in addition to the standard
6-8-All. Yet, the Trifecta consolation logic (61D-7.012) allows
only a 6-8-All or, in the extreme case, a 6-All-All to be considered.
Superfecta, too, for that matter. What do you think?
