Contests/NHC

[Track Phantom]

I purchased an NHC membership for $50 and will try my hand at a few contests. In reading the details, it just appears to me that contests are more random in nature and actually counter to what people do that grind day in and day out.

When you are behind with a few races left, you end up betting, in some cases, hopeless runners that you may not play every day, in order to catch up. If lightning strikes and you hit that longshot and get to the top of the standings, is that good handicapping or purely luck.

I know there is strategy and some players are better at it than others, hence their repetitive appearance on the leaderboards. My only question is if it truly finds the "best handicapper in America" or the "best/luckiest handicapper for a weekend"

Would love to know other thoughts. Could there be a better process? (What about putting in all your picks before the first race instead of allowing modifications? That sure would make it more fun for TV followers if it ever came to that).

[Stillriledup]

I would love to see a contest where they cap the payouts at 10 dollars to win and 5 dollars to place...this way, the players can actually bet on horses they LIKE and not horses they feel they have to play because of the odds.

The fact that they cap the payouts at 42 dollars shows that they are at least a little bit concerned at the prospect of a 100 dollar winner messing up the entire contest.....i'm not sure why they picked 42 as the cap, it seems that's a randomly generated number, you could really cap the payouts at anything you want.

[ManU918]

I purchased an NHC membership for $50 and will try my hand at a few contests. In reading the details, it just appears to me that contests are more random in nature and actually counter to what people do that grind day in and day out.

When you are behind with a few races left, you end up betting, in some cases, hopeless runners that you may not play every day, in order to catch up. If lightning strikes and you hit that longshot and get to the top of the standings, is that good handicapping or purely luck.

I know there is strategy and some players are better at it than others, hence their repetitive appearance on the leaderboards. My only question is if it truly finds the "best handicapper in America" or the "best/luckiest handicapper for a weekend"

Would love to know other thoughts. Could there be a better process? (What about putting in all your picks before the first race instead of allowing modifications? That sure would make it more fun for TV followers if it ever came to that).

When you catch a longshot at the end when your behind in a contest its obviously luck. But you have no other play at that point. You can't bet low to mid priced animals because that isn't going to help you. It's part of the game sometimes those bombs help you and sometimes they kill you at the end.

In no way would I ever say the winner of the NHC is the "best handicapper in America". The only way I would ever crown someone with that title is if there was a year long tournament ... Lets say the buy-in was something around $1,500 and each player started with a $1000 live bankroll. Whoever at the end of the year has the most cash in their account could be given that title. One weekend will never determine who is the best in anything... IMO

There are tournaments that make you put all of your picks in before the first tournament race goes off but I don't think any of them are connected with NHC qualifiers.

[Track Phantom]

I don't like the 'cap at all. I would go with track odds but I wouldn't allow modifications to your selections. Enter them all in up front would really require you to mix and match prices with logical contenders, not just stabbing because you're behind.

I know die-hard contest players wouldn't like that because they would lose some control but, at this point, I can't help but think it is 96% random and doesn't really identify skilled handicappers.

If it was televised or online for people to follow, knowing who has what selected in advance would make it fun to follow and then watch the race unfold.

I just think there is a better way.

[Track Phantom]

When you catch a longshot at the end when your behind in a contest its obviously luck. But you have no other play at that point. You can't bet low to mid priced animals because that isn't going to help you. It's part of the game sometimes those bombs help you and sometimes they kill you at the end.

In no way would I ever say the winner of the NHC is the "best handicapper in America". The only way I would ever crown someone with that title is if there was a year long tournament ... Lets say the buy-in was something around $1,500 and each player started with a $1000 live bankroll. Whoever at the end of the year has the most cash in their account could be given that title. One weekend will never determine who is the best in anything... IMO

There are tournaments that make you put all of your picks in before the first tournament race goes off but I don't think any of them are connected with NHC qualifiers.

Agree with everything you said.

If I had my wish, I would love to see most tracks hold a season long contest where you select two entries in each race (top choice and alternate). Online contest.

Towards the end of the season, only your top 30 days (or whatever number works) qualifies (and the rest drop off) so that doesn't penalize someone from missing days here and there but rewards those that enter daily.

The top 16 with the highest top 30 day average would qualify for the "post season" in a head to head, bracket type finish that would be held over the final four days of the season. Win and you move on until there is only one left standing. To me, over the course of a long season, you can really separate those top handicappers.

All the picks would be entered before race 1 or your locked out.


I know that style isn't for everyone but I think it would be a lot more fun to follow whether you're involved or not.

[ManU918]

I would love to see a contest where they cap the payouts at 10 dollars to win and 5 dollars to place...this way, the players can actually bet on horses they LIKE and not horses they feel they have to play because of the odds.


You do realize some tournaments are live money tournaments, so players bet who they like for as much as their bankroll allows them to. For example a tournament cost might be $1,000.. $250 of that goes into the contest prize pool, the other $750 is your bankroll to wager with. So if you wanted to play a 2-1 or 3-1 shot for $750 you can. Live tournaments like these have no caps on the payouts. You can walk out turning that $750 into $10,000...you keep the $10,000 and you might win the tournament for another $10,000.

[Stillriledup]

You do realize some tournaments are live money tournaments, so players bet who they like for as much as their bankroll allows them to. For example a tournament cost might be $1,000.. $250 of that goes into the contest prize pool, the other $750 is your bankroll to wager with. So if you wanted to play a 2-1 or 3-1 shot for $750 you can. Live tournaments like these have no caps on the payouts. You can walk out turning that $750 into $10,000...you keep the $10,000 and you might win the tournament for another $10,000.

True. But, you are in the contest to win the contest, if you are just going to bet 3-1 shots, no need to enter the contest, just bet with the track.

[taxicab]

The tourneys are tricky(duh).
Most of the regulars play horses in 10-1/20-1 range (duh again).
More or less just aim to double your money.
If you are allotted 10 $2.00 WP bets, try to get your overall number to $80.
If you are able to get near that ROI, you'll do just fine.
But beware, it's no easy task to double up.

[ManU918]

True. But, you are in the contest to win the contest, if you are just going to bet 3-1 shots, no need to enter the contest, just bet with the track.

Your the one that said they should max the payouts at $10 so players would bet the animals they "like". My point was there are tournaments where you can bet the animals you "like" all day and force the players to do so because they are playing with real money and not fake tournament dollars. If it comes down to the last race and they want to unload their real money on a longshot to try to win a tournament... If it doesn't come in...Its going to cost them real cash.

[Stillriledup]

Your the one that said they should max the payouts at $10 so players would bet the animals they "like". My point was there are tournaments where you can bet the animals you "like" all day and force the players to do so because they are playing with real money and not fake tournament dollars. If it comes down to the last race and they want to unload their real money on a longshot to try to win a tournament... If it doesn't come in...Its going to cost them real cash.

Yes, if they maxed the payouts at 10 bucks, you could bet 3-1 shots all day long. But, the way contests stand now, you have to be on horses you don't necessarily like and certainly are going to end up betting on some horses you would never risk a real life dollar on.

[ManU918]

Yes, if they maxed the payouts at 10 bucks, you could bet 3-1 shots all day long. But, the way contests stand now, you have to be on horses you don't necessarily like and certainly are going to end up betting on some horses you would never risk a real life dollar on.

I have to ask have you ever played in a tournament? The only time you bet on a horse you don't "like" is when there are a few races left and you start playing bombs because you have no other option. Players look for value in tournaments just as they do in their everyday betting.

[Mystic]

I prefer the contests where everyone has to submit their picks before the first race. Evens it out I think and eliminates the crap shot picks for the most part.

[Stillriledup]

I have to ask have you ever played in a tournament? The only time you bet on a horse you don't "like" is when there are a few races left and you start playing bombs because you have no other option. Players look for value in tournaments just as they do in their everyday betting.

Yes, i've played in some tournaments and i've bet on plenty of horses i would never have played in real life.

[therussmeister]

I think one improvement would be if they never post any scores until the end of the tournament, so you don't know where you stand, you don't know what price you need to win.

[Stillriledup]

I think one improvement would be if they never post any scores until the end of the tournament, so you don't know where you stand, you don't know what price you need to win.

The only problem with that is transparency, they have to be transparent.

[Track Phantom]

After thinking about it (not even sure why), here is how I would manage the contest (NHC or similar).

15 races
Player has to put all 15 in (main and alternate) prior to post of 1st leg in the contest. After the 10th race is complete, players can go back in and modify their 5 remaining races if they so choose. They can see the leaderboard (build in an hour between races 10 and 11). However, they only have before post of race 11 to modify any or all of their remaining picks. Then they are locked in.

This would diminish the random stabbers somewhat but still offer some prior and gameday strategies.

Just an idea. I'm sure there are 1000 reasons why it wouldn't work.

[Stillriledup]

After thinking about it (not even sure why), here is how I would manage the contest (NHC or similar).

15 races
Player has to put all 15 in (main and alternate) prior to post of 1st leg in the contest. After the 10th race is complete, players can go back in and modify their 5 remaining races if they so choose. They can see the leaderboard (build in an hour between races 10 and 11). However, they only have before post of race 11 to modify any or all of their remaining picks. Then they are locked in.

This would diminish the random stabbers somewhat but still offer some prior and gameday strategies.

Just an idea. I'm sure there are 1000 reasons why it wouldn't work.

There's definitely a way to turn a tournament like this into more of a skill tourney and less of a "luck" tourney, but, they have to want to tweak this so that skill matters more. Its a problem that its only a 2 or 3 day situation, its such a short sample of races, that luck is always going to play a part in the outcome.

I like the LVH NFL tournament, its a season long tourney, its about picking winners, all the games are the same odds, players have to pony up 10k to enter, and you make 5 selections per week for all 16 weeks, there's not much of a chance that someone is going to get lucky to win this thing, the best handicappers are going to finish near the top, one lucky week from a bad handicapper isnt going to matter at all, you have to perform at a high level for all 16 weeks in order to win this thing. Maybe horse racing can have some kind of long term tournament like this where luck would sort of get washed out by the length of the tourney.

[ManU918]

There's definitely a way to turn a tournament like this into more of a skill tourney and less of a "luck" tourney, but, they have to want to tweak this so that skill matters more. Its a problem that its only a 2 or 3 day situation, its such a short sample of races, that luck is always going to play a part in the outcome.

I like the LVH NFL tournament, its a season long tourney, its about picking winners, all the games are the same odds, players have to pony up 10k to enter, and you make 5 selections per week for all 16 weeks, there's not much of a chance that someone is going to get lucky to win this thing, the best handicappers are going to finish near the top, one lucky week from a bad handicapper isnt going to matter at all, you have to perform at a high level for all 16 weeks in order to win this thing. Maybe horse racing can have some kind of long term tournament like this where luck would sort of get washed out by the length of the tourney.

I'm in the Super Contest. It's $1500 not 10k and goes 17 weeks. A contest like the NHC will never go all year long. It takes all year just to get everyone qualified so they can honor the prize pool. Each seat is worth $7500.

[cutchemist42]

The tourneys are tricky(duh).
Most of the regulars play horses in 10-1/20-1 range (duh again).
More or less just aim to double your money.
If you are allotted 10 $2.00 WP bets, try to get your overall number to $80.
If you are able to get near that ROI, you'll do just fine.
But beware, it's no easy task to double up.

I was just in my first contest at ASD and they did 10 races of choice between 12-430 of $2 WP bets. Talked to some guys while there and they said on average to win you need around $80 too. They audit it after 430 and you get the results about 30 minutes later. Unless I missed it, there was no way to know other players' scores during the tourney.

[stringmail]

It's not luck or a "coincidence" that many of the same names end up having a chance to win.

They know how to play to get in position.

People that state the picks don't represent the way they normally play are entitled to that view but it is certainly isn't in my case.

These aren't stabs. There is something redeeming about them and you would be foolish not to include them in win or exotic wagers.

This may sounds counter to what you believe but when I play in tourneys with mandatory races, if I am using a 4-1 you can bet I am not betting him to win but if I am using a 20-1, you better believe I am betting him to win. Will I use the 4-1 in horizontals? Of course.

As far as getting plays in early, I dislike that format as I will usually have several horses I like in each race and my final selection will be based on track condition, overlay..and yes, leaderboard.

And, lastly, the $42 cap is tied to 20-1. Reducing to $10 as someone suggested is a non-starter. Even Derby Wars is much less appetizing with the 15-1 cap but I recognize a cap is required to retain interest and keep more with a chance to win.

[cato]

It is a challenge to address all of the issues that go with setting up a fair tournament, BUT, this concept of not having a current scoreboard and not allowing people to try to win by making decisions based on where they are in the field is just a little goofy. What other sport or competition exists where the competitors have little or no knowledge of the other competitors scores and where each competitor stands? You occasionally hear of a golfer who claims to not know where he was in the field, but (i) I call b.s.,and (ii) if its true then they lose by 1 because they did not know the score, they deserve it. Plus the information is available -- they could gather the information and act accordingly if they wanted to.

Also, in every sport the team or competitor who is behind sometimes does some crazy stuff to try to win the game, e.g., Doug Flutie's last second toss, the Immaculate Reception, the Auburn team this year. Sure they were lucky but they were competitors who were playing with in the rules got lucky and won. Suggesting that competitors in handicapping tournaments should not be allowed to do the same thing i.e., throw a couple of hail mary's) makes no sense to me.

Having said that I do believe that reasonable caps are fine. The 20-1 cap in NHC tournaments is fine. I understand NYRA uses 15-1 and that would be fine also but they should not be lower than that.

Best, Cato

[Track Phantom]

It is a challenge to address all of the issues that go with setting up a fair tournament

Do you think requiring the players to enter ALL of their picks before race 1 and then after the, say 10th race, allow the players to adjust their final 5 picks would work?

I'm trying to figure a way you could keep the integrity of handicapping and having a legitimate opinion with the strategy of trying to win a contest.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

[Stillriledup]

What can the NHC do to change the format so its less about luck and more about skill?

How about put a cap of 10 dollars on all the winners...that way, you'll actually have to select a lot of winners to win this thing and won't be able to win with a wing and a prayer.

Is there a better way to reward skill?

[biggestal99]

I like the pick and pray format (all entries are final before 1st post time of the first contest race).

Allan

[ReplayRandall]

I'd like some posts/PM's from others who have qualified for the NHC. Love talking strategy and past triumphs or close calls.......

[tophatmert]

It is a challenge to address all of the issues that go with setting up a fair tournament, BUT, this concept of not having a current scoreboard and not allowing people to try to win by making decisions based on where they are in the field is just a little goofy. What other sport or competition exists where the competitors have little or no knowledge of the other competitors scores and where each competitor stands? You occasionally hear of a golfer who claims to not know where he was in the field, but (i) I call b.s.,and (ii) if its true then they lose by 1 because they did not know the score, they deserve it. Plus the information is available -- they could gather the information and act accordingly if they wanted to.

Also, in every sport the team or competitor who is behind sometimes does some crazy stuff to try to win the game, e.g., Doug Flutie's last second toss, the Immaculate Reception, the Auburn team this year. Sure they were lucky but they were competitors who were playing with in the rules got lucky and won. Suggesting that competitors in handicapping tournaments should not be allowed to do the same thing i.e., throw a couple of hail mary's) makes no sense to me.

Having said that I do believe that reasonable caps are fine. The 20-1 cap in NHC tournaments is fine. I understand NYRA uses 15-1 and that would be fine also but they should not be lower than that.

Best, Cato

Good post. I also think you could go with no cap for the first half of the contest . If you are willing to play 20-1 early in the day you should get paid to take that risk. If you are someone who likes betting longer odds horses the contests are made for you. I have been playing Derby Wars contests for a few years and have won more than I put in and only once or twice have I got beaten late by a stabber. I look at the card before I enter and if I think there are some long horses who can be played I get in. Betting and winning with long odds horses is a skill as much as picking a lot of winners

[ReplayRandall]

Good post. I also think you could go with no cap for the first half of the contest . If you are willing to play 20-1 early in the day you should get paid to take that risk. If you are someone who likes betting longer odds horses the contests are made for you. I have been playing Derby Wars contests for a few years and have won more than I put in and only once or twice have I got beaten late by a stabber. I look at the card before I enter and if I think there are some long horses who can be played I get in. Betting and winning with long odds horses is a skill as much as picking a lot of winners


I have one problem with Derby wars. When playing a "lockdown", Derby wars lacks transparency as you can't see players total picks as horsetourneys does. This is why I play horsetourney's "pick&pray" format, total transparency. I agree with long odds horses requiring skill, but tournaments have become a real crap-shoot especially in the last 3 years......

[Stillriledup]

Good post. I also think you could go with no cap for the first half of the contest . If you are willing to play 20-1 early in the day you should get paid to take that risk. If you are someone who likes betting longer odds horses the contests are made for you. I have been playing Derby Wars contests for a few years and have won more than I put in and only once or twice have I got beaten late by a stabber. I look at the card before I enter and if I think there are some long horses who can be played I get in. Betting and winning with long odds horses is a skill as much as picking a lot of winners

I think that my idea of capping winners at 10 dollars prevents people from betting horses they wouldn't otherwise play in real life. If you cap at 10, you can make the case that every player is betting on horses that they would pick irl.

My definition of a "Stab" is picking a horse in the tournament that you wouldn't otherwise bet. Now, if you actually like the 20-1 and are betting the horse, that's one thing, but most of the bombs people are selecting in the tourney are stabs, horses they don't even necessarily like.

[horses4courses]

I think that my idea of capping winners at 10 dollars prevents people from betting horses they wouldn't otherwise play in real life. If you cap at 10, you can make the case that every player is betting on horses that they would pick irl.

My definition of a "Stab" is picking a horse in the tournament that you wouldn't otherwise bet. Now, if you actually like the 20-1 and are betting the horse, that's one thing, but most of the bombs people are selecting in the tourney are stabs, horses they don't even necessarily like.

There should be a side prize for most winners.

Hitting big priced winners is what we all like doing.
That type of play shouldn't be discouraged completely,
and caps at least cut down on players in search of bombs.

[Stillriledup]

There should be a side prize for most winners.

Hitting big priced winners is what we all like doing.
That type of play shouldn't be discouraged completely,
and caps at least cut down on players in search of bombs.

I think if you leave bombs in the mix, people don't really have to have much skill at all....they just need to look up at the board, pick someone out who's 20-1 and stab at that horse. You don't even need a racing form and you have a shot to win the thing if you get lucky.

BUT, if the tourney was capped at 10 bucks, you would have zero shot to 'stab' and win because you would need to successfully stab much more than once. It would take the idea of "guessing" out of the equasion, the people who picked the most 8, 9 and 10 dollar winners would win, it would be about skill for the most part, luck would be eliminated.

[horses4courses]

I think if you leave bombs in the mix, people don't really have to have much skill at all....they just need to look up at the board, pick someone out who's 20-1 and stab at that horse. You don't even need a racing form and you have a shot to win the thing if you get lucky.

BUT, if the tourney was capped at 10 bucks, you would have zero shot to 'stab' and win because you would need to successfully stab much more than once. It would take the idea of "guessing" out of the equasion, the people who picked the most 8, 9 and 10 dollar winners would win, it would be about skill for the most part, luck would be eliminated.

I agree about the "bailout" bomb in the last couple of races.
Maybe there should be a "cut" like a golf tournament
after so many races?

A $10 payoff limit is too low, imo.

[Stillriledup]

I agree about the "bailout" bomb in the last couple of races.
Maybe there should be a "cut" like a golf tournament
after so many races?

A $10 payoff limit is too low, imo.

I just threw 10 out there as a number, but there's probably a perfect cap number, maybe its somewhere between 10 and 20.

I just don't like the 40 or 50 dollar cap, if you're in the NHC and a 20 or 25-1 shot wins early in the day, you're essentially eliminated for the win if you don't have the horse.

With a cap at 10 or even 15, nothing that wins eliminates you....so, no matter what comes in, you know that you still have a shot all the way to the very last race of the tournament. To me, that would make the tournament better and much more fun for people.

[Stillriledup]

I just threw 10 out there as a number, but there's probably a perfect cap number, maybe its somewhere between 10 and 20.

I just don't like the 40 or 50 dollar cap, if you're in the NHC and a 20 or 25-1 shot wins early in the day, you're essentially eliminated for the win if you don't have the horse.

With a cap at 10 or even 15, nothing that wins eliminates you....so, no matter what comes in, you know that you still have a shot all the way to the very last race of the tournament. To me, that would make the tournament better and much more fun for people.

..even if you aren't technically eliminated if a 40 or 50 dollar horse comes in early in the day, you FEEL like you're basically "done". With a lower cap, players would get to enjoy the entire tournament while always feeling like they have some hope right until the end.

Also, it would be a more enjoyable tournament for people to be betting on horses they actually like and can realistically win.

If you love a horse, the tournament should be set up where if you pick a horse you love and it wins, that should matter. As it stands, people are often passing up horses they like or love from a handicapping standpoint in order to pick a horse they have no feel for, maybe don't even like....a stab.

Lowering the cap to 10, 15 or 20 (tops) just makes it feel more like a skill tournament and less of a luck tournament, and that's what it should be all about.

[dirty moose]

..even if you aren't technically eliminated if a 40 or 50 dollar horse comes in early in the day, you FEEL like you're basically "done". With a lower cap, players would get to enjoy the entire tournament while always feeling like they have some hope right until the end.

Also, it would be a more enjoyable tournament for people to be betting on horses they actually like and can realistically win.

If you love a horse, the tournament should be set up where if you pick a horse you love and it wins, that should matter. As it stands, people are often passing up horses they like or love from a handicapping standpoint in order to pick a horse they have no feel for, maybe don't even like....a stab.

Lowering the cap to 10, 15 or 20 (tops) just makes it feel more like a skill tournament and less of a luck tournament, and that's what it should be all about.

But with this logic, you might feel done going into the last few races if you don't hit that bomb. You can't please everyone, but there is no way you can cap them @ $10 or $15. There should deff be a cap, I have no issue witht he derby wars cap of $32 for win and $18 for place. You want both type of players in these things. If you play only long shots, you want the guy who plays chalk to be in there and vis-a-versa. That's why I don't like a low cap.

It looks to me like derby wars is geared more toward cash tournaments than horse tourneys is. If you have interest in playing the NHC, horse tourneys seems to be the place to be. Horse tourneys doesn't look to even be running anything today.

I would like to see derby wars include a few games where you get one double bet, a $4 w/p bet.

[Bobzilla]

3 sets of 5 wagers each for a total of 15 picks per contest day.

Set 1) $10 Win bets with a 5/1 cap.
Set 2) $5 Win bets with a 11/1 cap.
Set 3) $2 Win bets with a 29/1 cap.

Most anyone could make with any one selection would be $60.

Could also be 6 wagers each for the $10 and $5 sets and only 3 for the $2 set as an alternative, or 7 wagers each for the $10 and $5 sets and only one for the $2 set.

If player loves a 9/2 in final race and can't wait to play it in contest he/she can save one of their $10 Win bets for it.

If player can make a rational argument for a 29/1 having a chance, they can save one of their $2 Win bets for that play.

Strategy very much in play and better reflects actual strength of opinion.

Days 1 and 2 of NHC could use this format with the top ten or twenty players advancing to a day 3.

Day 3 format could mimic a live money tournament starting with a $200 BR, Win-Place, minimum of 10 selections for the day with a $20 minimum outlay for each. $20 could be broken up between Win Place any way they want. No limit to number of wagers or amount but there would have to be at least 10 $20 plays.

I suspect a format such as this might garner more universal appeal among the horse playing public.

[horses4courses]

I paid my $50 NHC membership early in the year as I have for years now.
At that time they stated there would be 5 freeroll tourneys for
the "Big Dance". To my knowledge, they ran one.

I sent an email about it 2-3 months back.
Never got a reply.

Anyone know what's going on there?
Have they just decided to go with $165+ entry fee tourneys?

[Si2see]

I paid my $50 NHC membership early in the year as I have for years now.
At that time they stated there would be 5 freeroll tourneys for
the "Big Dance". To my knowledge, they ran one.

I sent an email about it 2-3 months back.
Never got a reply.

Anyone know what's going on there?
Have they just decided to go with $165+ entry fee tourneys?


There has been more than 1 this year.
I believe there have been 2 on nhcqualify , 2 on horse tourneys, and 1 on another site that I can't think of..... Every one was sent by email so I would check and be sure your email address on file is current.

Jason

[horses4courses]

There has been more than 1 this year.
I believe there have been 2 on nhcqualify , 2 on horse tourneys, and 1 on another site that I can't think of..... Every one was sent by email so I would check and be sure your email address on file is current.

Jason

I get bombarded with emails for tourneys.
Don't open them all, so I might have missed them.

[Si2see]

I know the feeling. There is at least 1 email per day from one of the contests sites. I quickly glance at them to make sure it isn't something I have missed but usually I am on top of the contests I want to play. I have been playing more online contests than actual wagering this year.