Deadheat Interpretation on Hollywood (td)

@ Umlilo... the number of places is irrelevant bud... each horse has a singular dividend price, in a dead heat for 3rd between two horses, with dividends to be paid on the first three, it is the dividend that is halved. If three horses dead-heated for 3rd it would be a third as you would then have 2 losing bets (4th and 5th) and 1 winning bet (3rd) etc etc etc

Observe... that is not what they have done. You are double-halving! lol

In your specific example, if you had finished 3rd with no dead-heat you would have won 1000 x 1.9 which is 1,900, less 6% = 1786. You would have your stake returned of 1000. A total return of 2786.

Because you finish 3rd and 4th you lose 50% of the stake, 500. The winning 50% stake of 500 is applied to the full dividend of 1.9... 500 x 1.9 = 950, less 6% = 893. You have the winning stake returned of 500. A total return of 1393, which is exactly the same figure as half of the first example (2786/2 = 1393)

Thx for this guys,

I guess it's getting past the part that it is halve a losing and halve a winning bet but otherwise it is clear now ( although a bit dissapointing )

Will just make up the difference in Olympic Beijing today

HI Clanners

Thanks for clearing up the dead heat rule. It is a tough one to accept, especially where you think you have backed a winner, but you have in fact also backed half a loser. The easiest way to muster it is that as half is a losing bet, your stake is halved in the bet. The odds remain the same, but you will only see a return on half your stake.

Just a reminder that your stake is only HALVED on TWO horses/players dead heating.

You can get situations in golf betting, where you get 3 or more players dead-heating for 5th place. If the bookie is paying 5 places, and you have 4 players dead heating for 5th, then your stake will be divided by 4. Just to clear that up.

As other clanners have said, this is the rule world wide, and has been since the beginning of betting.

Neigh - I have sent you a PM. Thanks

there's nothing Dev can do about this one (tu)

It happened to me not so long ago when For the Count won at Kenilworth in the last race of the day........it's a tough pill to swallow

@ Observe - least you get a winning return (tu) - BUT I only have myself to blame...

@ Hibs and co.. So in theory if the horse deadheated for second, you would of received all the funds as stipulated correct? 500Would of gone to the 2nd placing and 500Would of gone to the 3rd placing?

Wouter Wrote:

---

> @ Observe - least you get a winning return (tu) -
> BUT I only have myself to blame...
>
> @ Hibs and co.. So in theory if the horse
> deadheated for second, you would of received all
> the funds as stipulated correct? 500Would of gone
> to the 2nd placing and 500Would of gone to the 3rd
> placing?

Never been in that situation Wouter but yup, what you say sounds right to me (tu)

It is fair. If person A backs horse A at 1900/1000 and person B backs horse B at 1900/1000 and horse A wins - Hollywood must payout R2786. If it's a deadheat they must payout R1393 x 2 = R2786

Englander Wrote:

---

> Wouter Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > @ Observe - least you get a winning return (tu)
> -
> > BUT I only have myself to blame...
> >
> > @ Hibs and co.. So in theory if the horse
> > deadheated for second, you would of received
> all
> > the funds as stipulated correct? 500Would of
> gone
> > to the 2nd placing and 500Would of gone to the
> 3rd
> > placing?
>
> Never been in that situation Wouter but yup, what
> you say sounds right to me (tu)

Yes Wouter

Good discussion.... and clearing of cobwebs!

Does that mean bookies got a lot of PR to do?

(tu)

Thanks Dev and Hollywood my issue has been resolved. Appreciated !!

And, therefore if there is a triple dead heat you receive one third your odds plus one third your stake.

The subject title of this thread is crap and marginalises "Hollywood".