new contest formats ?

[djm1959]

ok we all know the general kind of contests,, win place with 20-1 cap on win and 10-1 place.. what would be a new way to make a contest format?

win only?
wps?

anyone have a suggestion on a format thats unique?

let me know


thanks
don :6: :2: :4:

[davew]

here's a couple

show odds
-pick a horse to show, get points of the win odds if it does show

exacta box
- pick 3 horses to ExB, get points of pay-off if it does exacta

[therussmeister]

here's a couple

show odds
-pick a horse to show, get points of the win odds if it does show

exacta box
- pick 3 horses to ExB, get points of pay-off if it does exacta
I can't remember the last time I bought six combos in an exacts, would I be allowed a two horse box three times?

[raybo]

Why not have a contest that determines the best win handicapper, not the most profitable bettor. Everyone bets $2 per race, bet a single horse to win, in all races, highest hit rate wins. Ties are broken by ROI. Races not bet count as a loss. All the other contests end up being longshot contests, get lucky with a pick or two and you might win.

Maybe there have been hit rate contests before, but I don't remember hearing of any. However, I'm not a contest player and have little knowledge of what has been done in the past.

[aaron]

Why not have a contest that determines the best win handicapper, not the most profitable bettor. Everyone bets $2 per race, bet a single horse to win, in all races, highest hit rate wins. Ties are broken by ROI. Races not bet count as a loss. All the other contests end up being longshot contests, get lucky with a pick or two and you might win.

Maybe there have been hit rate contests before, but I don't remember hearing of any. However, I'm not a contest player and have little knowledge of what has been done in the past.
The otb's on Long Island used to have the exact contest you are describing. It was a lot of fun.

[raybo]

The otb's on Long Island used to have the exact contest you are describing. It was a lot of fun.

It just seems that the "most likely to win" horse has been relegated to "less important" status in at least the last couple of decades. The ability to find "value" in a race depends significantly on the handicapper's ability to determine which horse has to be beaten by any so called "value" horse.

The ability to find the most likely winner applies to not only that likely winner, but also applies to the chances of any other horse in the race winning, and that is important in determining good "value" plays. Anybody can bet a longer odds horse, and hope, but he/she still has to beat the most likely winner.

[Redboard]

I was thinking about having another survivor contest. Five days, pick one horse per day, if your horse hits the board you survive. Winner is survivor with the highest accumulated show payout.

[thaskalos]

How about a contest that mimicks the way we play the game in real life? We are given a set bankroll, and the only rule is that we are supposed to wager a certain amount each race. WE pick the races to wager on...and WE decide what wager to make in each race. And whoever has the biggest bankroll after a predetermined period of time wins.

[Stillriledup]

Have a very low cap like 15 for win and 8 to place. That would put players in positions where they aren't ever going to have to worry about having to select a horse they might not otherwise bet in real life and won't have to worry about a lesser handicapper beating them on an outlier. In such a short sample of races, you take out a lot of the luck factor. Now, if this was a one year contest with thousands of picks , you wouldn't need a cap, the cream would rise to the top, with a really short sample and a low cap, the emphasis is on picking a decent amount of winners and not having to worry about losing to a worse handicapper on a stab.

[Pedalcar]

Colonial Downs had an on-line contest that went something like this:

4 races on one day or spread over several days

Race 1 bet 20.00 to win on a specified race

Race 2 30.00 on an exacta straight and/or boxed on a specified race.

Race 3 40.00 on a triple straight and/or boxed on a specified race.

Race 4 50.00 on a superfecta straight and/or boxed on a specified race.

The amount of money bet could be different and the types of bet could be anywhere from a .10 super to a 50.00 straight bet.

Total up the winnings after 4 races and declare the winner.

[Robes]

Why not have a contest that determines the best win handicapper, not the most profitable bettor. Everyone bets $2 per race, bet a single horse to win, in all races, highest hit rate wins. Ties are broken by ROI. Races not bet count as a loss. All the other contests end up being longshot contests, get lucky with a pick or two and you might win.

Maybe there have been hit rate contests before, but I don't remember hearing of any. However, I'm not a contest player and have little knowledge of what has been done in the past.


Hey man what are you trying to do? Your way will make all these contests games of skill,that will force all these stabers aka handicappers of the year,champions, etc,have to compete against real handicappers and w/o stabbing allowed they will have no chance to win, and they probably will quit the contests and horse betting and start playing the lottery,so a lot of dead money in the pools will disappear and that is no good for the real hamdiccapers.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Robes]

Have a very low cap like 15 for win and 8 to place. That would put players in positions where they aren't ever going to have to worry about having to select a horse they might not otherwise bet in real life and won't have to worry about a lesser handicapper beating them on an outlier. In such a short sample of races, you take out a lot of the luck factor. Now, if this was a one year contest with thousands of picks , you wouldn't need a cap, the cream would rise to the top, with a really short sample and a low cap, the emphasis is on picking a decent amount of winners and not having to worry about losing to a worse handicapper on a stab.

No good,makes these contests instead of of the lotteries they are now to something that it will actually take skill to win,and that will force the stabers to retire. :lol: :lol:

[horseplayer407]

So are we going to have a contest of any kind?

[Stillriledup]

No good,makes these contests instead of of the lotteries they are now to something that it will actually take skill to win,and that will force the stabers to retire. :lol: :lol:

You're right, what was I thinking trying to suggest a way to make it more skill based! :D

[thaskalos]

No good,makes these contests instead of of the lotteries they are now to something that it will actually take skill to win,and that will force the stabers to retire. :lol: :lol:
Don't tell me...let me guess. You are another one of those highly skilled handicappers, who hates the luck-factor in the game...because it allows some of those "lucky" players out there to walk away with profits that would otherwise be yours. Am I right?

[raybo]

Don't tell me...let me guess. You are another one of those highly skilled handicappers, who hates the luck-factor in the game...because it allows some of those "lucky" players out there to walk away with profits that would otherwise be yours. Am I right?

LOL - Not to answer for Robes, but in my case, a contest is just a contest, but it should somehow measure something of value. Personally, I like a balanced ratio of price to hit rate, in win betting anyway, but one must hit enough winners to make profit. Sure, I could sit around every day waiting for a big winner, but there is something to be said for "playing the game" instead of letting the game play you. I believe in "value", but in win betting value can be heavy on the hit rate side, or heavy on the price side. Why not offer a contest that measures the hit rate side, for a change. After all, handicapping starts with determining the most likely winner, for most of us, and then trying to find the balance between likelihood of winning versus degree of price for the less likely winners. The current contests only look at the end result of that, with heavy emphasis on being lucky enough to hit the horse who shouldn't win, at a big price.

In a contest of this type, weighted on hit rate, one still has to get some of the higher odds horses that win, in order to beat the low odds bettors. There will, be lots of 33-35% hit rates, but that won't be good enough in this kind of contest, in my opinion. You'll need closer to 40% in order to come out on top, because your higher odds winners will only count as much as the lower odds winners everybody else has.

[thaskalos]

LOL - Not to answer for Robes, but in my case, a contest is just a contest, but it should somehow measure something of value. Personally, I like a balanced ratio of price to hit rate, in win betting anyway, but one must hit enough winners to make profit. Sure, I could sit around every day waiting for a big winner, but there is something to be said for "playing the game" instead of letting the game play you. I believe in "value", but in win betting value can be heavy on the hit rate side, or heavy on the price side. Why not offer a contest that measures the hit rate side, for a change. After all, handicapping starts with determining the most likely winner, for most of us, and then trying to find the balance between likelihood of winning versus degree of price for the less likely winners. The current contests only look at the end result of that, with heavy emphasis on being lucky enough to hit the horse who shouldn't win, at a big price.

In a contest of this type, weighted on hit rate, one still has to get some of the higher odds horses that win, in order to beat the low odds bettors. There will, be lots of 33-35% hit rates, but that won't be good enough in this kind of contest, in my opinion. You'll need closer to 40% in order to come out on top, because your higher odds winners will only count as much as the lower odds winners everybody else has.

No matter how you slice it, the brief duration of these tournaments will always guarantee that luck will be the overriding factor when it comes to winning them. Speaking for myself...I can't argue with having the guy with the biggest bankroll win the tournament...simply because winning money is the point of the game. Making the most money MUST take precedence over betting on the most winners, IMO. It seems terribly unfair to me to count a $4 winner the same as a $20 winner.

What displeases me about the way the tournaments are run today is that the contestants have access to the tournament standings...and they structure their latter bets NOT according to the horses that they like...but according to the prices that they need to hit in order to finish atop the leaderboard. I remember the tournament at Penn National that Andy Beyer was leading going into the final race...when three desperate contestants wagered on the longest shot in the race simply because that was their only chance for a major placing...and the longshot won...placing those three guys fist, second and third in the final standings.

You have to be LUCKY to win a tournament...and that isn't likely to change, no mater WHAT modifications to the rules are implemented.

[raybo]

Of course, we all know that luck plays a decent sized portion of the game. But, you must agree that, since the players in such a contest know that the high odds winners carry no more weight than the lower odds horses, the vast majority of players would concentrate their bets on lower priced horses, the horses that look best on paper. But, the good handicapper, in his normal process of handicapping races, will, more often than lesser handicappers, come up with higher odds horses who, in his estimation, have very good chances of winning, and look, to him/her, like more likely winners than the lower priced ones. IMO, that's the difference between a good handicapper and a lesser handicapper.

[thaskalos]

Of course, we all know that luck plays a decent sized portion of the game. But, you must agree that, since the players in such a contest know that the high odds winners carry no more weight than the lower odds horses, the vast majority of players would concentrate their bets on lower priced horses, the horses that look best on paper. But, the good handicapper, in his normal process of handicapping races, will, more often than lesser handicappers, come up with higher odds horses who, in his estimation, have very good chances of winning, and look, to him/her, like more likely winners than the lower priced ones. IMO, that's the difference between a good handicapper and a lesser handicapper.
If your suggestion was to place equal weight on hit rate and mutuel payoff...then I could see your point. But you are suggesting a contest where the hit rate is the ultimate deciding factor, with the mutuel return being relegated to just a tie-breaking role...and I can't agree with that. To me...the hit rate plays a minor role, regardless of whether we are talking long-term or short-term. As far as I am concerned...the better horseplayer is always the one who ends up with the most money.

Now...if a rating could be calculated which would rate players, taking into account both hit rate and mutuel price in equal measure...similarly to the way the Quarterback Rating seeks to compare quarterbacks...then I might agree with you.

[Robes]

Don't tell me...let me guess. You are another one of those highly skilled handicappers, who hates the luck-factor in the game...because it allows some of those "lucky" players out there to walk away with profits that would otherwise be yours. Am I right?

Not at all, my comments were meant to reflect that these contests for handiccaper of the year and etc,are nothing more than a lottery,and those who run these contests know it,and that they if they wanted could make them a contest of skill. :)

[djm1959]

cap2win site -- need 12 bets a month to qualify -- win only and ROI determines winner,,,, won it a few times actually

and yes i hit a bomber on my 12th pick like 60-1

theres a cap of 35$ for anywinner ,, wasnt when i won lol like 2013



:6: :2: :4:

[AlBundy33]

Wouldn't mind seeing a format like this.

Five $2 win wagers
Three $5 win wagers
Two $10 win wagers

[ultracapper]

Wouldn't mind seeing a format like this.

Five $2 win wagers
Three $5 win wagers
Two $10 win wagers

Over a 2 day period, playing any TB race anywhere in NA with a purse of $20K or higher.

[djm1959]

how bout 10 races

2 -$ 2 win bets, $4 win bets,, $6 win bets,$ 8 win bets and 2 10$ win bets

60 bucks - save the 10$ win bets for the best bets

or something similar ?

[TurfRuler]

Ten races per day, $6000 mystical bankroll daily. Wager 200 to win on three picks each race. Bankroll only decreases if no winners selected. Carryover winning to next day of contest. Continue the wagering method till the end of the contest. Highest bankroll at end of contest wins.