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?