Controversy at the BCBC.

[cj]

http://www.drf.com/news/breeders-cup-withholds-breeders-cup-betting-challenge-purse

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Interesting.

That is a lot of big name tournament players listed in there.

[RunForTheRoses]

It is very interesting, big players as you say. It is kind of like Poker colluders that proximity posted in the Poker thread,

[RunForTheRoses]

If they are out there reading this I'd like to hear PA posters C Davis and Nick Tamm's take on this.

[cj]

If they are out there reading this I'd like to hear PA posters C Davis and Nick Tamm's take on this.

I think we know their take, they both signed the lettet.

[098poi]

I read the article but I find what was done (allegedly) confusing.

Could someone break it down in more simple terms?

Thanks in advance.

[RunForTheRoses]

I think we know their take, they both signed the lettet.

OK I said take, how about anything further, etc. You should know what I mean. I am aware they signed the letter,

[Mulerider]

http://www.drf.com/news/breeders-cup-withholds-breeders-cup-betting-challenge-purse

Recall that in the Horseplayers TV series there was one guy that the others always suspected of "collusion" in tournaments. He's mentioned in the following article, and described as a close friend of Gabbay. Which is not to say he did anything in the BCBC, but it is an interesting coincidence.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/columnists/diane-bell/sd-me-bell-20171107-story.html

"Gabbay, who said he is saving his winnings to buy a house in Solana Beach, is no stranger to the handicapping leader board. He and his Del Mar horseplayer buddies, Kevin McFarland and Christian Hellmers, have long been known as the “Pick Six Boys.”

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I read the article but I find what was done (allegedly) confusing.

Could someone break it down in more simple terms?

Thanks in advance.

In a nutshell, you had 2 players (in theory) colluding to play against the rest of the field in which they were wagering together on a single entry till that entry was gone, and then started firing their selections on the next one, and ended up winning.

The 1st entry had a $1 Million bonus if he won.

They are also known "business" partners who share their winnings in horse wagering tournaments.

In short, it was a $7,500 tourney, and they started with $15,000 and twice as many bullets as everybody else.

[098poi]

In a nutshell, you had 2 players (in theory) colluding to play against the rest of the field in which they were wagering together on a single entry till that entry was gone, and then started firing their selections on the next one, and ended up winning.

The 1st entry had a $1 Million bonus if he won.

They are also known "business" partners who share their winnings in horse wagering tournaments.

In short, it was a $7,500 tourney, and they started with $15,000 and twice as many bullets as everybody else.

Thanks, it will be interesting to see the outcome. My prediction, (Trevor voice) "There will be no change, no change"

[JustRalph]

In a nutshell, you had 2 players (in theory) colluding to play against the rest of the field in which they were wagering together on a single entry till that entry was gone, and then started firing their selections on the next one, and ended up winning.

The 1st entry had a $1 Million bonus if he won.

They are also known "business" partners who share their winnings in horse wagering tournaments.

In short, it was a $7,500 tourney, and they started with $15,000 and twice as many bullets as everybody else.

Great post!

[Track Phantom]

It is in human nature for people to take an edge when money and opportunity meet. Those in charge have to plan for the worst and put rules and enforcement in play that assumes the worst. Not sure what specifically can be done but an outcome like this should have been predicted.

I don't see how they can make any change unless they have irrefutable evidence which is unlikely.

It's one of the reasons that my preference in a tournament would be the "pick and pray" mode. It eliminates this kind of thing while forcing those to focus on true handicapping. I think a "betting" challenge has very little to do with "handicapping".

[AndyC]

It seems that if a tournament allows for a person to have 2 entries it shouldn't have any problem with so-called collusion. Don't you still have to make the right selections and bets? If such a strategy was advantageous people should be using it every day at the track and not just in tournaments.

I met the Pick 6 boys when they first got into racing. They were taking the weekly seminars from Jim Quinn at Del Mar. Nisan, was a very bright, quiet, but self-assured 18 year old. Certainly no fluke that he was in contention for the top prize.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

It seems that if a tournament allows for a person to have 2 entries it shouldn't have any problem with so-called collusion. Don't you still have to make the right selections and bets? If such a strategy was advantageous people should be using it every day at the track and not just in tournaments.

I met the Pick 6 boys when they first got into racing. They were taking the weekly seminars from Jim Quinn at Del Mar. Nisan, was a very bright, quiet, but self-assured 18 year old. Certainly no fluke that he was in contention for the top prize.

100%.

In the end, they had to make winning picks. Turning $7,500 into $176K isn't exactly easy to do in a couple of days at the Breeders Cup. :D

Still not sure which side of the fence I sit on this one. I know if I ever made it to the NHC or BCBC (hell alone would be awesome) with another buddy or two, I'd be hard pressed we wouldn't be colluding on some kind of stategy to cash for as much as we could.

[zawaaa]

why do i feel that nobody ITT has the slightest idea what the word collusion means?

or game theory, for that matter

[Lemon Drop Husker]

why do i feel that nobody ITT has the slightest idea what the word collusion means?

or game theory, for that matter

You're the obvious expert.

Enlighten me.

[SandyW]

Impossible to stop, impossible to police, there are partners and collusion in all these tournaments including partners that may be thousands of miles away, but are in continuing contact with the partner that is on site.
There are beards playing tickets for the actual player that should be putting the plays in at all these tournaments.
What about the husband and wife that each has two entries and the husband or the wife are controlling all four entries? Collusion or strategy, you tell me.
That is why I stopped playing in all these tournaments.

[GMB@BP]

Impossible to stop, impossible to police, there are partners and collusion in all these tournaments including partners that may be thousands of miles away, but are in continuing contact with the partner that is on site.
There are beards playing tickets for the actual player that should be putting the plays in at all these tournaments.
What about the husband and wife that each has two entries and the husband or the wife are controlling all four entries? Collusion or strategy, you tell me.
That is why I stopped playing in all these tournaments.

Seems like Pick and Pray would eliminate most of these issues.

[NTamm1215]

Winning these tournaments is extremely difficult, both because of the pressure of the handicapping and betting and the quality of your competitors. There is no doubt that guys like Kevin McFarland, Nisan and anyone else they associate with are VERY good players and I have tremendous respect for their accomplishments.

When approached about joining the effort to ensure that no rules were broken, I wanted one specific item to be investigated closely. If a player did not play the required number of races and took a penalty that cost them points rather than dollars, then bet late in the contest with a full bankroll, then my feeling is that rule needs to be changed. For example, the contest requires you to play 5 races each day at a certain dollar amount. If you fail to do so on either day, you receive a 1,000 point deduction for each race you fail to bet. Thus, Nisan's total after Day 1 was 2,500 (the original $7,500-5000 point penalty). However, he still maintained a full $7,500 bankroll from which he could bet.

If what is believed to be true is, and it is clearly admitted in the story that his first bet was the Juvenile, then I'd like to see the BC change that rule. Nisan took advantage of it and I cannot fault him for doing so. But there has to be attention drawn to it so it can be changed.

That was my only concern in signing a letter that, from my perspective, was as much about getting the rules straightened out than punishing those who may have used them to their advantage this year.

[menifee]

1. More than two entries are not permitted.
2. Collusion is not permitted.
One individual did not make a selection until his partner was eliminated in the tournament.
3. They set up an LLC to share tournament proceeds with each other and admitted to sharing proceeds in past tournaments.
4. The evidence is pretty clear they colluded and intentionally violated a rule.

This is very simple -they forfeit the prize and are banned from participating in tournaments going forward. You cannot have this. Tournaments would fail as the whale teams would destroy the smaller player. Alternatively, they could allow for collusion and player teams, but at least,the individual player would know what he was dealing with in terms of his odds.

[dilanesp]

why do i feel that nobody ITT has the slightest idea what the word collusion means?

or game theory, for that matter

I don't know how handicapping contests eork.

But no story involving gambling collusion will ever surprise me.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

1. More than two entries are not permitted.
2. Collusion is not permitted.
One individual did not make a selection until his partner was eliminated in the tournament.
3. They set up an LLC to share tournament proceeds with each other and admitted to sharing proceeds in past tournaments.
4. The evidence is pretty clear they colluded and intentionally violated a rule.

This is very simple -they forfeit the prize and are banned from participating in tournaments going forward. You cannot have this. Tournaments would fail as the whale teams would destroy the smaller player. Alternatively, they could allow for collusion and player teams, but at least,the individual player would know what he was dealing with in terms of his odds.

I don't think they broke any rules Menifee.

I also don't think they tried to take advantage of the system per say.

I do think they played the system at hand, and when faced with a Full House, they nutted 4th and 5th street for the win.

NTamm1215 broke it down quite well. He, and I'm sure all contest players, want a legit and fair tournament played by all entries. Put in your wagers. Play the required plays. And let the cards fall as they may.

I don't think there is anybody "wrong" in all this, but I do think we'll see a rule change in the future. Maybe we'll call it the horse players "tuck" rule. :)

[LemonSoupKid]

I don't think they broke any rules Menifee.

I also don't think they tried to take advantage of the system per say.

I do think they played the system at hand, and when faced with a Full House, they nutted 4th and 5th street for the win.

NTamm1215 broke it down quite well. He, and I'm sure all contest players, want a legit and fair tournament played by all entries. Put in your wagers. Play the required plays. And let the cards fall as they may.

I don't think there is anybody "wrong" in all this, but I do think we'll see a rule change in the future. Maybe we'll call it the horse players "tuck" rule. :)

LemonDrop,

If what Menifee said above is true (it seems you don't deny it) how did they not break any rules?

The basic question for this is that it's a "handicapping" contest. Not a partnering contest. If you, LDH, went up against me in such a contest, and I found you were involving another person (even forgetting here they had extra handle!) how on earth could you claim that you were a better 'capper if you won?

I think this exposes your legalistic take on such a story. It's pretty poor.

[Si2see]

None of this surprises me at all, but I can tell you if they were to make a disqualification here then all live tourneys are in trouble.

I don't know that I have ever played in a live tournament where there weren't "partner entries" being played. The difference is some tournaments allow more than 2 entries, so you don't have to use several names in these tournaments.

I can also tell you that for a FACT there are players in some of the less popular Vegas contests in particular, where there could be someone playing an entry, and that person doesn't even step foot in the state of Nevada to do so. This is more of a problem to me than teaming up with a lifelong friend or wagering partner.

Jason

[Track Phantom]

Assuming they played as a team, I still don't see where their advantage was. Can someone explain it to me?

[Jeff P]

Assuming they played as a team, I still don't see where their advantage was. Can someone explain it to me?

It's game theory.

Imo, Lemon Drop Husker nailed it with post #9 of this thread:
In a nutshell, you had 2 players (in theory) colluding to play against the rest of the field in which they were wagering together on a single entry till that entry was gone, and then started firing their selections on the next one, and ended up winning.

The 1st entry had a $1 Million bonus if he won.

They are also known "business" partners who share their winnings in horse wagering tournaments.

In short, it was a $7,500 tourney, and they started with $15,000 and twice as many bullets as everybody else.


They had multiple entries.

Assuming they colluded:

The first entry had a $1M bonus if they were able to get that entry to win. So they started there.

By focusing 100% of their play on the first entry (and 0% of their play on the second entry) until it became apparent the first entry was dead:

At the point in time when they began making plays for the second entry:

The second entry had 100% of remaining bankroll and 100% of remaining bullets.

They still needed to make winning plays for the second entry.

But assuming you are able to do so: imo, the 100% of remaining bullets part gives the second entry an edge over the other entries in the tournament with less than 100% of remaining bullets.

Game theory.

However, if you assume they colluded, you also have to assume others in the tournament did the same thing.

I suspect they were not the only ones in the tournament who colluded or used game theory.

They just outperformed everybody else.



-jp

.

[AndyC]

It's game theory.

Imo, Lemon Drop Husker nailed it with post #9 of this thread:



They had multiple entries.

Assuming they colluded:

The first entry had a $1M bonus if they were able to get that entry to win. So they started there.

By focusing 100% of their play on the first entry (and 0% of their play on the second entry) until it became apparent the first entry was dead:

At the point in time when they began making plays for the second entry:

The second entry had 100% of remaining bankroll and 100% of remaining bullets.

They still needed to make winning plays for the second entry.

But assuming you are able to do so: imo, the 100% of remaining bullets part gives the second entry an edge over the other entries in the tournament with less than 100% of remaining bullets.

Game theory.

However, if you assume they colluded, you also have to assume others in the tournament did the same thing.

I suspect they were not the only ones in the tournament who colluded or used game theory.

They just outperformed everybody else.



-jp

.

If that is the sum total of the advantage obtained by colluding then perhaps the rules should encourage collusion.

[cj]

https://twitter.com/Charli125/status/929015124190404608

[lamboguy]

it sounds like the structure of the tournament is wrong. from what i gather the players were allowed to bet as much or as little as they wanted to on any particular race. in turn the structure led the way to collusion. they should make the bets the same size right straight through the whole tournament and rely on ability to pick winners rather than a high tech money management scheme.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

https://twitter.com/Charli125/status/929015124190404608

I think this is where I land.

A rules change is needed.

[AndyC]

I think this is where I land.

A rules change is needed.

You are right. The rule change should be an elimination of the rule. You can apply all the Game Theory that you desire and it will have a minuscule affect on the outcome.

[AndyC]

LemonDrop,

If what Menifee said above is true (it seems you don't deny it) how did they not break any rules?

The basic question for this is that it's a "handicapping" contest. Not a partnering contest. If you, LDH, went up against me in such a contest, and I found you were involving another person (even forgetting here they had extra handle!) how on earth could you claim that you were a better 'capper if you won?

I think this exposes your legalistic take on such a story. It's pretty poor.

How did the winner come up with the right bets if not by handicapping? Typically partnering involves covering horses in the same race where you feel longshots are likely.

It wasn't a picking winners contest it was a winning money contest. How an alleged partner succeeded or didn't succeed doesn't make the probability of the other partner's bets more likely to hit.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

You are right. The rule change should be an elimination of the rule. You can apply all the Game Theory that you desire and it will have a minuscule affect on the outcome.

Make a rule change but....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwEIjbfOHD0

[AndyC]

Assuming they played as a team, I still don't see where their advantage was. Can someone explain it to me?

They can't.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

They can't.

Agree.

Not really sure there was one. Especially with how they played it to be honest. :D

But....., it does bring in the reality of a likely needed rule change. I know if I get there, I don't want to be going head-to-head with a number of those guys. I need help. A lot of help. :jump:

[Jeff P]

They can't.

I disagree.

You're an accountant.

If you had to calculate the net present value of the second entry at the point in time when they began making plays for it in the tournament:

Is the value of an unused entry in the hands of a skilled player at that point in time worth more than other entries that have already been depleted in terms of both bankroll and bullets?

Assuming nearly equal skill among the players involved:

Is the likelihood of entries near the top of the leaderboard being caught from behind by an unused entry greater than that of being caught from behind by an already depleted entry?

In my opinion the answers to the above questions is yes.

However, all of that said:

I do agree that a rules change is needed.


-jp

.

[cj]

I don't know how anyone could play this going forward unless part of a team himself. I've avoided contests because I figured I'd be the sucker at the table. I think to this point I've made the right call.

[RunForTheRoses]

I think that one desired rule change would be that you HAVE to make 5 $600 bets on day one or you are disqualified. Probably, legally you can't just take the money out because it is on a voucher like swap card. So a dq would really be the only remedy that I could see.

[RunForTheRoses]

They did play awesomely and could *probably* have made it through day one by show betting or exact boxes, etc although that does take some skill level.

[Jeff P]

Reading the rules as currently written - it appears that points not bankroll are deducted from unused entries.

I think the logical rules change would be to allow players to save an unused entry up to a clearly defined point in the tournament - but then once that point is reached - start deducting both points AND bankroll.

In other words force players to start using those alternate entries at a clearly defined point in the tournament.

And yes - they did make some awesome plays.


-jp

.

[RunForTheRoses]

Reading the rules as currently written - it appears that points not bankroll are deducted from unused entries.

I think the logical rules change would be to allow players to save an unused entry up to a clearly defined point in the tournament - but then once that point is reached - start deducting both points AND bankroll.

In other words force players to start using those alternate entries after a clearly defined point in the tournament.


-jp

.


Logistically it might not be easy to debit money from the players card. Also, my solution could be a little cruel to someone who misses day one due to a missed flight or family emergency but...

[Track Phantom]

I don't see the issue with the winner.

He did not break the rules by waiting to make his bets. At the time he started to make his bets, he was nowhere near in an advantageous spot and had to be very good to win, which he was.

Whether or not he was "waiting out" his friend/partner entry to see where he landed was a moot point. You can't prove that was what he was doing and he did not end up with an advantage at the point he started to make his bets. This part of the complaint is extraordinarily weak, in my opinion.

If someone is partnering with other entries to cover a race or multiple races, that is different and would give them a distinct advantage, even if for a race or two.

When I've played in tournaments, there are a handful of races that I'm torn between two longshots. Having multiple entries to cover in these cases would be huge.

[AltonKelsey]

Who among you didn't assume stuff like this would and WAS going on?

[Jeff P]

That's the thing.

OF COURSE it's going on.



-jp

.

[AltonKelsey]

I don't know how anyone could play this going forward unless part of a team himself. I've avoided contests because I figured I'd be the sucker at the table. I think to this point I've made the right call.


clearly, you didn't just get off the boat.

[menifee]

I don't know how anyone could play this going forward unless part of a team himself. I've avoided contests because I figured I'd be the sucker at the table. I think to this point I've made the right call.

Right. Rule changes are needed to prevent this happening in the future.

Regardless, the rules did prohibit collusion and these guys formed a LLC for the specific purpose of splitting profits in which they colluded. I am not aware of any tournament that does not restrict collusion. They should be banned from tournaments going forward.

This is simply a form of soft-play, which has been banned in poker tournaments for years.

[GMB@BP]

I don't know how anyone could play this going forward unless part of a team himself. I've avoided contests because I figured I'd be the sucker at the table. I think to this point I've made the right call.

I only have played the small tourneys and only lockdowns/pick or prey, online.

Obviously at small ends this type of thing is not such a big deal but my main concern is that I dont see what is happening with when picks are being made and if I see all the picks before the contest starts I know its a lot more fair. I would not trust that past posting can happen, too much dishonesty when there is money involved. Life has turned me into a cynic.

[burnsy]

it sounds like the structure of the tournament is wrong. from what i gather the players were allowed to bet as much or as little as they wanted to on any particular race. in turn the structure led the way to collusion. they should make the bets the same size right straight through the whole tournament and rely on ability to pick winners rather than a high tech money management scheme.

That's just part of it. There are several questions here. First off, I never liked the fact that you can buy two entries in these things. Even the $100 ones I have been in have that rule. With two entries it gives you "wiggle-room" for funny business. People are posting that they started with 15,000, no, they had 30,000 if its like the ones I've been in, most let you buy in twice. I don't know why the organizers even allow that....its just common sense. Correct me if this isn't the case with this one.

The other thing is if I read this right. They had a third name that was neither one of them(Roger Ball had two entries) that Moomey played. I don't know if I got the whole story just reading this article but I can see why they are taking a long look. But if the format is two entries each and bets like this......you are just asking for people to "game" the game.

[AndyC]

I disagree.

You're an accountant.

If you had to calculate the net present value of the second entry at the point in time when they began making plays for it in the tournament:

Is the value of an unused entry in the hands of a skilled player at that point in time worth more than other entries that have already been depleted in terms of both bankroll and bullets?

Assuming nearly equal skill among the players involved:

Is the likelihood of entries near the top of the leaderboard being caught from behind by an unused entry greater than that of being caught from behind by an already depleted entry?

In my opinion the answers to the above questions is yes.

However, all of that said:

I do agree that a rules change is needed.


-jp

.

First off, anybody could have held back and bet against depleted bankrolls. No collusion necessary. I don't see the nexus as to why a partner betting first allowed him to wait. Again, waiting was a choice for everybody.

I am unsure of the exact rules but weren't the contestants allowed to bet their winnings from prior races? Or was it restricted to $600 bets on Friday and $900 bets on Saturday. If a player could use their entire bankroll to bet it seems to me that the advantage would be with any player who is in the black at the time Nisan started his betting.

[RunForTheRoses]

First off, anybody could have held back and bet against depleted bankrolls. No collusion necessary. I don't see the nexus as to why a partner betting first allowed him to wait. Again, waiting was a choice for everybody.

I am unsure of the exact rules but weren't the contestants allowed to bet their winnings from prior races? Or was it restricted to $600 bets on Friday and $900 bets on Saturday. If a player could use their entire bankroll to bet it seems to me that the advantage would be with any player who is in the black at the time Nisan started his betting.

At any point you can bet all your bankroll. I have the standings after each race via email and by day 2 the majority of folkshad less than $7500.

[burnsy]

None of this surprises me at all, but I can tell you if they were to make a disqualification here then all live tourneys are in trouble.

I don't know that I have ever played in a live tournament where there weren't "partner entries" being played. The difference is some tournaments allow more than 2 entries, so you don't have to use several names in these tournaments.

I can also tell you that for a FACT there are players in some of the less popular Vegas contests in particular, where there could be someone playing an entry, and that person doesn't even step foot in the state of Nevada to do so. This is more of a problem to me than teaming up with a lifelong friend or wagering partner.

Jason

that's the part that I find really shaky. the article infers that they had some third name that was neither one of them. "His" two entries went belly up. but if these guys have built up a bankroll through this LLC they just bought 3 names which equals 6 chances between two guys. they say the other guy was their friend (Roger Ball). Was this guy even there? Am I reading this right? To me, it seems like besides betting the way they did. that may be perfectly legal. are they coming up with multiple names to get more entries? From "friends" that are not even around?

for that kind of money its gotta be regulated. people will just ruin it given the chance.

[RunForTheRoses]

At the end of day 1 11 had 7500, and 288 out of 413 had less than 7500

[burnsy]

At the end of day 1 11 had 7500, and 288 out of 413 had less than 7500


That means nothing! if people can say they are playing for their "friend", buy more entries, and the so called friend is no where to be found. with a company like this that bank rolled some money, they can just contact "friends" or more like partners, that are not even in the state like one poster said. doing that you can have a couple guys that control many entries, combined with the format of this tournament...........its a good way to use multiple strategies to gain an unfair advantage.

Vs. a deal like this, the guy playing one or two entries for himself is getting screwed. they could still win but these clowns have a way better chance. and they admit the money is pooled........not good.

for every name theres gotta be an ass in the seat and a positive ID. no, I'm picking for my "friend" if this is what the article says.

[classhandicapper]

I disagree.

You're an accountant.

If you had to calculate the net present value of the second entry at the point in time when they began making plays for it in the tournament:

Is the value of an unused entry in the hands of a skilled player at that point in time worth more than other entries that have already been depleted in terms of both bankroll and bullets?

Assuming nearly equal skill among the players involved:

Is the likelihood of entries near the top of the leaderboard being caught from behind by an unused entry greater than that of being caught from behind by an already depleted entry?

In my opinion the answers to the above questions is yes.

However, all of that said:

I do agree that a rules change is needed.


-jp

.

I think I understand what you are saying, but what about this?

Let's say I am on my own and have only one entry. Let's say I make absolutely no plays for awhile while everyone else is making plays. Some have depleted their entry to zero along the way and others are on the leader board. I then decide to make my move after some are already out and I can look at the leader board and see what I need to do to win. Do I need a huge bomb, some mid prices horses etc..

What have I done wrong or differently?

I believe if you can act last without penalty you have an advantage because you get to see what you need to beat, but I'm not sure there's much difference between what I described for myself and what those guys did with 2 entries. With one entry they waited until later just like I described. Everyone can do that.

There has to be a legitimate penalty for waiting or smart people will wait to gain an advantage, but it's not really colluding to do it with 2 entries. They were simply partners.

(hope I am understanding the rules correctly)

[Jeff P]

I am not saying you've done anything wrong.

I am saying you've used game theory to improve your chances - provided you haven't passed up prime plays while sitting on the sidelines... Or alternately, provided you know there are prime plays in front of you once you decide to come off the sidelines.


-jp

.

[burnsy]

I think I understand what you are saying, but what about this?

Let's say I am not colluding and have only one entry. Let's say I make absolutely no plays for awhile while everyone else is making plays. Some have depleted their entry to zero along the way and others are on the leader board. I then decide to make my move after some are already out and I can look at the leader board and see what I need to do to win.

What have I done wrong or differently?

I believe if you can act last without penalty you have an advantage because you get to see what you need to beat, but I'm not sure there's much difference between what I described for myself and what those guys did with 2 entries.

Yeah, they pretty much controlled 6 entries. There's a huge flaw in these things if "teams" are allowed. You would have to do this just to have a fair chance against it. This whole story points out the problem with this tournament. People have multiple names, entries, and then they can basically increase their chances of winning. Of course the money gets split up, not that legit.

Nothing you guys are saying has much to do with it.....they are "buying" more lives than every one else can. With that format its a no brainer. You hammer some early, hold back some then hammer late. Hell, you have double or triple the "lives".

[classhandicapper]

If I buy 6 entries I have a way better chance of cashing, but I am also making 6 times as big an investment. On the days I don't catch any I'm going to get killed.

[AndyC]

I am not saying you've done anything wrong.

I am saying you've used game theory to improve your chances - provided you haven't passed up prime plays while having that entry sitting on the sidelines.


-jp

.

How can you quantify the so-called advantage from Game Theory? Have your chances improved against opponents who have built their bankroll? It would seem that any advantage gained would be measured in something far less than 1%.

I understand teamwork in tournaments, especially in the tournaments that don't let you choose the type of bet or alter the size of the bet. A team can just about guarantee that they will have someone in contention on the last day. Just cover races ripe for longshots and at some point a teammate will hit a big number.

[menifee]

How can you quantify the so-called advantage from Game Theory? Have your chances improved against opponents who have built their bankroll? It would seem that any advantage gained would be measured in something far less than 1%.

I understand teamwork in tournaments, especially in the tournaments that don't let you choose the type of bet or alter the size of the bet. A team can just about guarantee that they will have someone in contention on the last day. Just cover races ripe for longshots and at some point a teammate will hit a big number.

If collusion is allowed then why wouldn’t I team with 9 partners and buy 10 entries for 100k. Then I would take that 75k and play some even money favorites. If we double up twice (not too difficult in most years) we win most BC tourneys. Starting with a higher bankroll you are more likely to generate a higher ROI in a limited race pool than with a lower bankroll.

[burnsy]

Lets see? We will hammer this one the first day, take the penalty with this one the first day, play these two straight up and hammer the last two races with the one we held back...........sounds really fair to me.......:lol::lol::lol:

I call it the shotgun strategy....for 60,000 you and your friends can take home multiple prizes, depending on the final scores!

Meanwhile, the guy playing for himself...hes got one or two shots.....:pound:

[cj]

https://twitter.com/loomsboldly/status/929015775222030337

[Si2see]

that's the part that I find really shaky. the article infers that they had some third name that was neither one of them. "His" two entries went belly up. but if these guys have built up a bankroll through this LLC they just bought 3 names which equals 6 chances between two guys. they say the other guy was their friend (Roger Ball). Was this guy even there? Am I reading this right? To me, it seems like besides betting the way they did. that may be perfectly legal. are they coming up with multiple names to get more entries? From "friends" that are not even around?

for that kind of money its gotta be regulated. people will just ruin it given the chance.


I agree. I have first physical proof of someone being in two live contests on the same weekend that were held in two different states. There are only three ways this could be possible

1. To have been in Las Vegas in person to sign up for the first tournament, however handing someone else your card to play the tournament under your name for the remainder of the tournament.

2. To have never been in Las Vegas during that tournament and not needing to show your identification to play, however the rules clearly prohibit this.

3. To have been in Las Vegas, not been in contention, and instead of participating further, deciding to participate in the California contest on the final day.

* However in the situation I am posting about this wasn't the case, but I have known players to do this in the past, some of which still "played" their picks for the remainder of original tournament

Here are the exact rules.

" 11. Winners of qualifying tournaments
are non-transferable.
12. Partners, Corporations, LTD’s, INC’s and LLC’s are not
allowed. Contestants are signed up and entered into
the contest/tournament as an individual person and
must provide proper identification and social security
number/TIN number for required payouts "

Although obviously I am no means a lawyer or any kind, common sense tells me that the person would at least be required to show identification during sign up as stated by the statement "must provide proper identification ", and furthermore, you would need to swipe your own card and play the entry as yourself because of these statements " Partners, Corporations, LTD’s, INC’s and LLC’s are not
allowed. Contestants are signed up and entered into
the contest/tournament as an individual person "

Here are the rules for the second contest at least one player was entered in

"5. CHECK-IN ON CONTEST DAY
Participants must check-in for each contest at the Eddie Logan Suite, located on
the eastern side of the Club House at Santa Anita Park. For assistance finding
the Eddie Logan Suite, please call (626) 574-6384."

The first line clearly sums up you must be present to check in for this tournament as well.

So let me ask you this.... How could you possibly play in both tournaments ?

For the record I have nothing against this contest player who I will not name, or any contest player. I truly believe I can beat any player on any given day ( it just has to be my day ).

I do have a problem with investing my hard earned money, investing time, traveling expenses, etc. when some people don't have to play by the same rules that I have to play by.

Jason

[AndyC]

Lets see? We will hammer this one the first day, take the penalty with this one the first day, play these two straight up and hammer the last two races with the one we held back...........sounds really fair to me.......:lol::lol::lol:

I call it the shotgun strategy....for 60,000 you and your friends can take home multiple prizes, depending on the final scores!

Meanwhile, the guy playing for himself...hes got one or two shots.....:pound:

I am missing your point. How do the first 3 entries have any affect on the last entry? Couldn't anybody take the penalty and hammer the last two races?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

why do i feel that nobody ITT has the slightest idea what the word collusion means?

or game theory, for that matter

Never fear zawaaa has it all figured out.

I give you the floor zawaaa:

[burnsy]

I am missing your point. How do the first 3 entries have any affect on the last entry? Couldn't anybody take the penalty and hammer the last two races?



Listen to Jonathan, he's spelling it out just like I'm saying. Cj's podcast post. Hes exactly saying what I just posted.

Exactly what I'm saying.....nicer of course...lol

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Never fear zawaaa has it all figured out.

I give you the floor zawaaa:

I do always love the term Game Theory.

You mean i should strategize towards a point in which I can or will win?

Holy snowflake what a concept. Never thought of that shit before, I figured I'd take a few races off so my competitors can keep up.

I need more Game Theory in my selections goddamit.

[AndyC]

If collusion is allowed then why wouldn’t I team with 9 partners and buy 10 entries for 100k. Then I would take that 75k and play some even money favorites. If we double up twice (not too difficult in most years) we win most BC tourneys. Starting with a higher bankroll you are more likely to generate a higher ROI in a limited race pool than with a lower bankroll.

OK. Let's see where that puts you. All 10 entries bet an even money horse and for the sake of the argument 5 of them win. I am assuming they are all betting $7,500 to win. So then the 5 winners each have $15,000 of bankroll which they then bet on a second even money horse. If any of the 5 win they would only have $30,000, hardly a winning amount for the tournament. I wouldn't ask for my entry fee back if I knew 10 people were going to apply this strategy against me.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

The tournament allows WPS wagers along with Ex and Tri wagers.

So it isn't just straight winners. It is bang for buck in each race, along with races you have to bet.

I thought everybody knew this?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

The tournament allows WPS wagers along with Ex and Tri wagers.

So it isn't just straight winners. It is bang for buck in each race, along with races you have to bet.

I thought everybody knew this?

I remember the year when I pounded Fort Larned, and the contest winner rolled home a straight Fort Larned/Mucho Macho Man EX to roll it home. STRAIGHT

[menifee]

OK. Let's see where that puts you. All 10 entries bet an even money horse and for the sake of the argument 5 of them win. I am assuming they are all betting $7,500 to win. So then the 5 winners each have $15,000 of bankroll which they then bet on a second even money horse. If any of the 5 win they would only have $30,000, hardly a winning amount for the tournament. I wouldn't ask for my entry fee back if I knew 10 people were going to apply this strategy against me.

You really don't understand the downside of collusion? You don't understand the concept of dutching? After the first race, you could utilize that collective pool to get a lead right out of the gate without risk.

[burnsy]

You really don't understand the downside of collusion? You don't understand the concept of dutching? After the first race, you could utilize that collective pool to get a lead right out of the gate without risk.



I do, and that's exactly what I think happened. They didn't dutch one race but they dutched their entries. Taking the penalty lets you save entries to hammer later.......meanwhile they are still playing with other entries.

the DRF Players podcast is great he spells it out but I guess many don't understand it. he says most on Twitter don't get it either. They will probably get paid, the rules seem to fit what they pulled off. Sharp guys.

The more entries the same ":brain" controls....that's an advantage.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I do, and that's exactly what I think happened. They didn't dutch one race but they dutched their entries. Taking the penalty lets you save entries to hammer later.......meanwhile they are still playing with other entries.

the DRF Players podcast is great he spells it out but I guess many don't understand it. he says most on Twitter don't get it either. They will probably get paid, the rules seem to fit what they pulled off. Sharp guys.

The more entries the same ":brain" controls....that's an advantage.

95% of the people in this thread "get it" burnsy.

The real question is, do YOU get it?

[Robert Fischer]

It's tough. You have some smart guys whose career/hobby/love is dealing with a market(horseplaying) that's structured to F' them, and you have decent money and props on the line with a contest that happens to be structured in such a way to have loopholes and dependency on the 'honor system'.

[dilanesp]

I do always love the term Game Theory.

You mean i should strategize towards a point in which I can or will win?

Holy snowflake what a concept. Never thought of that shit before, I figured I'd take a few races off so my competitors can keep up.

I need more Game Theory in my selections goddamit.

Well it's overstated, overused, and misused, but "game theory" is actually supposed to be a branch of mathematics that deals with developing non-exploitable or optimal strategies for competitive zero-sum situations.

It's really, really, really important in poker. Indeed, you basically can't be an elite poker player without learning a fair amount of it, because poker is a pure zero-sum competition among players wagering on knowable mathematical probabilities as represented by the cards, and because good poker players seek to get their hands heads-up where avoiding being exploited by the other player (if she is also a good player) is almost always the most profitable strategy.

Not sure it's nearly as important in horse racing, for several reasons:

1. The probabilities in horse racing are not fixed mathematical truths, but rather estimates of the unknowable based on inductive reasoning from prior statistics / past performances.

2. While you certainly compete with the other gamblers in a pari-mutuel pool, you are never playing heads up and are basically unconcerned with being "exploited" by the other players by playing a strategy they can take advantage of. Rather, your goal is to simply seek out +EV bets based on the prices offered by the pool which represents the collective judgment of all your competitors.

3. The notion of a pari-mutuel pool introduces numerous mathematical distortions into the game that should require exploitative adjustments. Most obviously, the minus pool rule sets a minimum price on payoffs, while the pool size sets a maximum price. Both those things should make some otherwise non-optimal plays correct and should make some otherwise optimal plays incorrect.

There's a ton of math that is important to horse racing. Odds lines, various handicapping statistics, formulations of bets, etc. But none of that is game theory.

EDIT:

While you can argue that against-the-rules collusion is a form of game theory, it's only in the same sense that Kirk reprogramming the simulator in Star Trek was. But I wanted to include this caveat in case someone objected.

And come to think about it, ICM, which is important in poker tournaments, is also likely to be useful in handicapping contests. But ICM isn't, strictly speaking, game theory.

[cj]

http://www.drf.com/news/bcbc-rule-change-paved-way-winning-strategy

So, looks like the winner was DQed in 2015 because he got shut out. Then, he and friends lobbied to get the rule changed because he was dumb enough to get shut out---and succeeded.

Or maybe it was a long play and he is really a genius.

[Track Phantom]

This is interesting. I've read a lot on this and listened to the podcasts. It looks like those in charge did not think through all the possible scenarios and address them with rules and oversight.

I've run pretty large sports pools (Masters, March Madness, College Bowl, etc) and the two things I make sure to do is create 100% transparency to the players and consider the "gotcha" situations and then make sure the rules are clearly documented to take any subjectivity out of the equation.

From what I can tell, the rules and oversight was somewhat of an afterthought.

[Jeff P]

From the DRF article:
http://www.drf.com/news/bcbc-rule-change-paved-way-winning-strategy

Kirchner said that since the tournament’s inception different groups of players had lobbied for different rule changes – the addition of horizontal bets, for example. A small group of players, including McFarland and Christian Hellmers, had been lobbying for a removal of minimum bets as far back as 2012. He added that the more stringent rules were in place despite the knowledge “that there was already a body of evidence out there that the winning strategy might be to sit on a bankroll to make big plays at the end.”

The new rules allowed players such as Gabbay and Hellmers and approximately 10 others to sit on their bankrolls on Day 1 for an insignificant penalty of 1,000 points per race to be deducted from their final score. On Day 2, players missing minimums were deducted just 2,000 points per race from their final scores. Many tournament players assumed that the money also was deducted from their active bankrolls, but it was not. As the current rule is written, to not play on Day 1 is an advantage (note that second-place finisher Ron Ferrise also didn’t wager on Day 1). And with so few in the field understanding the new rule, the advantage was outsized.

The bolded parts (above) express the point I've trying to make in this thread.


-jp

.

[AndyC]

Listen to Jonathan, he's spelling it out just like I'm saying. Cj's podcast post. Hes exactly saying what I just posted.

Exactly what I'm saying.....nicer of course...lol

I listened to all 59 minutes and didn't really hear anything about the winner colluding. He took advantage of a rule that others were not aware of to set himself up to make one big splash at the end. After hearing their complaints I agree that the rule should be changed.

They did talk extensively about team play and how collusion happens and it fit my understanding of what is done.

[Ian Meyers]

I finished 18th, not far from a cash spot. I don't give a shit about the prize money but it's pretty ironic that by following the rules I hurt myself. Only the thoroughbred industry come up with something like that.

I don't play these very often, 3X in the last year. I thought about playing Pegasus, I'm not sure I will now. I thought these things were all about the friendly competition. I guess some of these guys are such scumbags and so desperate for the cash they'll take every edge, legit or not.

Then again that just makes them like almost every licensed thoroughbred trainer doesn't it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

At the end of day 1 11 had 7500, and 288 out of 413 had less than 7500

Assuming your info is factual, does this mean that there were at least 11 persons who made no bets on day one?

This would seem to be quite an advantage if on (day 2) 11 players had more to wager with than 3 out of 4 players...now what if those 11 were somehow able to collude all together..?

[AltonKelsey]

I recall some controversy a few years ago when Christian Hellmers approached another player asking to 'make a deal' . That player wasn't amused.

I don't recall the specific contest.

Aside: This is what gamblers do. It's in their blood. Years ago, I saw daytraders partner up so one could get 'short' a stock when normally you couldn't do it. You can't wave money in front of these folks and not expect them to get dirty.

[dilanesp]

I recall some controversy a few years ago when Christian Hellmers approached another player asking to 'make a deal' . That player wasn't amused.

I don't recall the specific contest.

Aside: This is what gamblers do. It's in their blood. Years ago, I saw daytraders partner up so one could get 'short' a stock when normally you couldn't do it. You can't wave money in front of these folks and not expect them to get dirty.

Agree with your aside.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I do not understand how the points play into this...if they pass a bet, they lose 1000 points but at the end all that matters is the cash total, I guess, so what is the point of the points deductions...?

They should just show how much has been wagered out of the $7500 and what the totals currently amount to...

[RunForTheRoses]

From the DRF article:
http://www.drf.com/news/bcbc-rule-change-paved-way-winning-strategy



The bolded parts (above) express the point I've trying to make in this thread.


-jp

.

To me that's the thing about this. I had played the previous two years and studiously followed the rules to a T making sure I made 5 $600 and ...the Spirit of the contest (which I think Ian Meyers alludes to below this post) was to play it that way. I think BCBC should make sure all do so.

[RunForTheRoses]

Assuming your info is factual, does this mean that there were at least 11 persons who made no bets on day one?

This would seem to be quite an advantage if on (day 2) 11 players had more to wager with than 3 out of 4 players...now what if those 11 were somehow able to collude all together..?

I can post it, it will be rather long. There is a slight chance that some with $7500 after day one did bet and wound up exactly where they started, unlikely but possible.

[098poi]

I do not understand how the points play into this...if they pass a bet, they lose 1000 points but at the end all that matters is the cash total, I guess, so what is the point of the points deductions...?

They should just show how much has been wagered out of the $7500 and what the totals currently amount to...

This confused me too so I tried to read the rules a little more closely.

It appears you put in 10k, 7.5k is used to wager. You keep all your money at the end so the wagers are real.

The person with the highest total wins 1st prize which is 300k (based on 400 players in the contest) 2nd prize is 200k and so on.

What they don't make clear is the "point deductions" if you fail to play a minimum required race. I am assuming that comes off your total to see who leads in the contest but does not affect your wagering bankroll. From the DRF article it seems like that last part was not clear to everyone.

Someone may correct me but that's the best I can do. Good thing I didn't enter my brain is tired just trying to figure out the rules.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I can post it, it will be rather long. There is a slight chance that some with $7500 after day one did bet and wound up exactly where they started, unlikely but possible.

That is what I was thinking also...so there could be more than one or two parties who did not bet on Day 1 in order to conserve resources for Day 2, and who, presumably have knowledge of the potential benefits of this strategy...

...a sort of inner group of methodologists, colluding together or not, to increase their chances of winning the challenge...

Does there exist the avenue for more than two entries to somehow cover multiple long shots late in the challenge...?

Might the potential for collusion involve more people...?

[AndyC]

To me that's the thing about this. I had played the previous two years and studiously followed the rules to a T making sure I made 5 $600 and ...the Spirit of the contest (which I think Ian Meyers alludes to below this post) was to play it that way. I think BCBC should make sure all do so.

The rules were followed. Perhaps some of the players who complained should have read the rules and voiced objections beforehand and/or figured out how to best use the rules to benefit their own tournament strategy. The "Spirit of the contest" means what? If rules are violated players should be DQed. if rules produce unintended consequences they should be changed.

[backinzona]

So the Breeders Cup had a focus group provide input to modify a rule vaguely and open to assumptions, and the focus group members won the contest. So what is the problem? I wonder how many of those Breeders Cup employees are part of the LLC that won.

[linrom1]

So the Breeders Cup had a focus group provide input to modify a rule vaguely and open to assumptions, and the focus group members won the contest. So what is the problem? I wonder how many of those Breeders Cup employees are part of the LLC that won.

I don't believe that the rule change was just an oversight due to lack of foresight. The rule change worked exactly as it was intended.

[zawaaa]

Perhaps some of the players who complained should have read the rules and voiced objections beforehand and/or figured out how to best use the rules to benefit their own tournament strategy.

perhaps, but, the rule change was poorly conveyed AT BEST

[classhandicapper]

OK. Let's see where that puts you. All 10 entries bet an even money horse and for the sake of the argument 5 of them win. I am assuming they are all betting $7,500 to win. So then the 5 winners each have $15,000 of bankroll which they then bet on a second even money horse. If any of the 5 win they would only have $30,000, hardly a winning amount for the tournament. I wouldn't ask for my entry fee back if I knew 10 people were going to apply this strategy against me.

I think a lot of people may be thinking in terms of probability of winning instead of long term ROI.

If you control more entries you certainly increase your chances of winning, but you are also making a much larger upfront investment that will often go totally bust and make up for the extra wins on the downside.

If you and a partner use a dutching technique to guarantee you have at least 1 entry in great shape, you are also guaranteeing that several of your entries are doomed. Many of your competitors will be disadvantaged against your guaranteed winner, but they are very advantaged against your doomed entries.

I don't think there's much of a way to change that long term math.

Granted, I am not tournament player and haven't given this a lot of thought.

[zawaaa]

classhandicapper,

the reason players want multiple entries is almost invariably:

(a) less variance
(b) more profit

[classhandicapper]

classhandicapper,

the reason players want multiple entries is almost invariably:

(a) less variance
(b) more profit


I understand the less variance part of it totally. Even when I play for cash, I sometimes bet two horses to win or win/place in part to reduce the volatility. But long term, I don't win any extra money. I just win more bets.

[zawaaa]

Long term, I don't win any extra money. I just win more bets.

yes, i understand that

you're missing my point, though http://i.imgur.com/ZA4rTqs.gif

[backinzona]

I don't believe that the rule change was just an oversight due to lack of foresight. The rule change worked exactly as it was intended.

Completely agree. One I would like to understand is Breeders Cup tournament rules years ago were originally intended to increase betting and churn by requiring a minimum number of bets each day among its participants. Then on the recommendation of this focus group, the rules were changed such that the exact opposite is most advantageous as proven by the results this year.

And there are people who actually wonder why this industry is unable to grow wagering handle the past two decades. Look no further than the management within.

[Poindexter]

I have never followed these tournaments and the only tournaments I have any experience with is the wps tournaments at Derby Wars(to date I have played in maybe 20). Thus my knowledge of tourmaments is basically nada.


My guess is that the groups that are colluding and playing in teams have mastered that art of winning these tournaments. It seems obvious to me that the penalty for not betting races that was originally part of the rules created a huge roadblock for them to successfully do so and they lobbied for rule change for that very reason. Whoever went along with it was completely suckered.

Once again I bring up the R word, Responsibility. If you are going to host a contest, it is your responsibility to make sure these tournaments are fair to everyone (alluded to by Track Phantom). Obviously the Breeders Cup Betting Challenge failed to do so. They basically took everyone's $2500 entry fee after they recklessly changed the rules to accomodate a few long time players who had ulterior motives in requesting the rule changes (not sure when these rule changes occurred). It basically reeks, but what else would you expect in the racing industry?

To be honest, I was sort of on the Andy C side of the fence (I wasn't quite understanding the advantage gained) until I heard Jonathon Kinchen explain. Then the lightbulb sort of hit. 10 entries with $7500 can basically be converted easitly into on entry with about $60,000 to $65,000 just by dutching one race and I am sure there are even better ways of doing something similar. It basically puts the guy with a $7500 starting bankroll at such a disadvantage (he has to make 23 x his bankroll, while the guy with 10 entries only has to make about 2 times his remainiing $60,000).
even if you have 3 or 4 groups of 6(entries) doing something similar it makes it extremely tough on the guy with just one entry.

[AndyC]

To be honest, I was sort of on the Andy C side of the fence (I wasn't quite understanding the advantage gained) until I heard Jonathon Kinchen explain. Then the lightbulb sort of hit. 10 entries with $7500 can basically be converted easitly into on entry with about $60,000 to $65,000 just by dutching one race and I am sure there are even better ways of doing something similar. It basically puts the guy with a $7500 starting bankroll at such a disadvantage (he has to make 23 x his bankroll, while the guy with 10 entries only has to make about 2 times his remainiing $60,000).
even if you have 3 or 4 groups of 6(entries) doing something similar it makes it extremely tough on the guy with just one entry.

I spoke only of the winner. To my knowledge he was not involved with dutching with other players. I am quite aware and agree that players would have an unfair advantage in a team dutching situation. The rap on the winner was that he was involved in lobbying for the rule change which worked with his strategy. Apparently the rule change was unknown or misinterpreted by many players.

[AndyC]

I think a lot of people may be thinking in terms of probability of winning instead of long term ROI.

If you control more entries you certainly increase your chances of winning, but you are also making a much larger upfront investment that will often go totally bust and make up for the extra wins on the downside.

If you and a partner use a dutching technique to guarantee you have at least 1 entry in great shape, you are also guaranteeing that several of your entries are doomed. Many of your competitors will be disadvantaged against your guaranteed winner, but they are very advantaged against your doomed entries.

I don't think there's much of a way to change that long term math.

Granted, I am not tournament player and haven't given this a lot of thought.

I concur with your analysis. My comment spoke specifically to a strategy of betting even money favorites.

[Quesmark]

Is there any edge a player who isn't in a tournament can gain by camp following these big tournaments,which have mandatory tracks/races they are betting into?
There are some large wagers being made into the contest pools,and many aren't going to win, leaving some extra opportunities for outside the box players to exploit;or just keep an eye on the money flows to see where the action is...

[Dave Schwartz]

To be honest, I was sort of on the Andy C side of the fence (I wasn't quite understanding the advantage gained) until I heard Jonathon Kinchen explain.

Poindexter,

Is there a link to where I could hear/see that explanation?


Dave

[Jeff P]

Dave,

CJ posted a link to the DRF Podcast back on page 5 in post #61 of this thread.



-jp

.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave,
CJ posted a link to the DRF Podcast back on page 5 in post #61 of this thread.
.

Thanks, Jeff.

[jay68802]

I spoke only of the winner. To my knowledge he was not involved with dutching with other players. I am quite aware and agree that players would have an unfair advantage in a team dutching situation. The rap on the winner was that he was involved in lobbying for the rule change which worked with his strategy. Apparently the rule change was unknown or misinterpreted by many players.

Sounds like he should be involved in politics...

[VigorsTheGrey]

If "there really was no penalty" then why go through the motions of posting presumed lowered bankroll amounts that 98% of the players thought were actualized on players who skipped bets early on...? Except as a smokescreen...? As someone said earlier...this whole thing reeks of unfairness with as many as 11 entries skipping Day 1 entirely and nearly all the rest of the players not in the know...

...but now the contest organizers are on the horns of a dilemma: What they should do is make it right for all the players by returning their original fees...change the rules back to the status quo ante or to something fair and restore their credibility...but they would no doubt face lawsuits from the top performers if they cancelled their winning proceeds...

[burnsy]

I understand the less variance part of it totally. Even when I play for cash, I sometimes bet two horses to win or win/place in part to reduce the volatility. But long term, I don't win any extra money. I just win more bets.

Yeah, but the tournament is NOT long term. Its a defined term. They can dutch certain entries and hold back on one or two, take the penalty and hammer something late. Looks like they hammered a few times because some entries went belly up. If you are playing for yourself you can't afford to take all these differing money management opportunities. You basically buy one or two shots. When people get together and manage multiple entries in unison. I have not done the math but they are getting a way higher probability rate then the average Joe in this tournament. They can say whatever they want, its a form of collusion but they also went by the rules as they are now it seems. Yes, they could lose but if they just come in the money with 1 entry its a coup.

[Robert Fischer]

If "there really was no penalty" then why go through the motions of posting presumed lowered bankroll amounts that 98% of the players thought were actualized on players who skipped bets early on...? Except as a smokescreen...? As someone said earlier...this whole thing reeks of unfairness with as many as 11 entries skipping Day 1 entirely and nearly all the rest of the players not in the know...
Any entry that skipped days or even races is certainly a 'flag'. Could be simple strategy, or could be a part of collusion.



...but now the contest organizers are on the horns of a dilemma: What they should do is make it right for all the players by returning their original fees...change the rules back to the status quo ante or to something fair and restore their credibility...but they would no doubt face lawsuits from the top performers if they cancelled their winning proceeds...
I'm not being paid to figure this shit out for them, so I haven't thought about it deeply once. However, it is clear that the contest itself has been compromised. Again, without expending energy beyond a passing message board comment, a rules change of some sort seems to be needed to preserve player confidence.

[davew]

The biggest issue I see is this ->Wager types permitted are Win, Place, Show, Exacta, Trifecta and Daily Double only.


By allowing the exotics, it allows those with multiple entries to hammer more longshot combinations in a race or 2 for their entire bankroll - and be out or win.

[VigorsTheGrey]

It would be interesting to know how many players pursue a "win or bust" strategy...Is this strategy sort of rare...? Wouldn't most players try to be more conservative and not lose all of their $7500. I don't picture most players going for the "all or nothing strategy and risk losing 10K (including their entry fee)..how many players could really afford to pursue this risky angle...?

[AndyC]

It would be interesting to know how many players pursue a "win or bust" strategy...Is this strategy sort of rare...? Wouldn't most players try to be more conservative and not lose all of their $7500. I don't picture most players going for the "all or nothing strategy and risk losing 10K (including their entry fee)..how many players could really afford to pursue this risky angle...?

You can't win most tournaments playing conservatively, especially where exotics are involved. As for the money, if you are worried about how much you stand to lose you will never win.

[davew]

It would be interesting to know how many players pursue a "win or bust" strategy...Is this strategy sort of rare...? Wouldn't most players try to be more conservative and not lose all of their $7500. I don't picture most players going for the "all or nothing strategy and risk losing 10K (including their entry fee)..how many players could really afford to pursue this risky angle...?

How could you win playing conservatively? The players needed to get in top 15 to get part of 'purse'. If you are not playing for that why go? you could stay home and save the $2500 going to purse and bet only races you like. 15th place turned their $7500 into $44,580.

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/leaderboard

[VigorsTheGrey]

How could you win playing conservatively? The players needed to get in top 15 to get part of 'purse'. If you are not playing for that why go? you could stay home and save the $2500 going to purse and bet only races you like. 15th place turned their $7500 into $44,580.

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/leaderboard

Thanks for posting the rules link. It was the first time I actually read them. I am not a tournament player and know very little about them, so this has been an education for me...The rules seem fairly straightforward to me now.

I guess that if one plays in the game one ought to be well versed in the various nuances of betting/ passing races, impact of penalties on final score and standings...

...I just wonder out of the total of 400 plus contestants, how many of them consciously considered whether passing races, and in some cases, an entire day, was a deeper plus or a negative.

The way I understand it (correct me if I am wrong), the points penalties were never actual dollar deductions and only mattered for scoring purposes. As it turned out, the worst case penalty for both days would be 14,000...if someone bet in only one race.

Now the cash rewards are only for the top 15 entries, and these points penalties may matter in the rewards final rankings.

Still, in this case, 14,000 points, penalty or other, did not alter the standing outcome of the top 3 rewards rankings.

SO, players should have considered how much penalty points are acceptable within their overall strategy...it just seems, at least, counter-intuitive to accept a 1000 point deduct in lieu of a $600 wager(s)...and I wondering how many of the the players were aware of the distinct advantage that might accrue as a result of such initial conservation.

After I scanned the Leaderboard Page, down at the bottom of the list, there are players that show a figure of (13,000).
I guess meaning their balance was minus 13,000 points. Now how can this be...?

I reasoned that these players must have lost their entire initial $7500 bankroll after betting and losing on just 2 races on Friday, which is one strategy, and the one diametrically opposed to betting the entire backroll on just 2 races Saturday and accepting the same amount of penalty points....two strategies for two different days...

[VigorsTheGrey]

And as I unravel the strategies, I notice that many of the top players have their doubles and beards listed at the bottom of the list, along with the most penalty deductions, hmmm...

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/leaderboard

[davew]

Friday 5 races or 1000 pts/race penalty
Saturday 5 races or 2000 pts/race penalty

the 4 (13,000) entries could have bet it all on the Classic or any other 1 race on Saturday


It has been a few years since I have entered any tournaments so maybe someone who was in this can correct any bad assumptions I have made.

I would still find it fascinating to see ALL the bets of the top finishers.

[AndyC]

And as I unravel the strategies, I notice that many of the top players have their doubles and beards listed at the bottom of the list, along with the most penalty deductions, hmmm...

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/leaderboard

How would you know the doubles and beards?

[davew]

How would you know the doubles and beards?

The doubles are easy, just look at the participants and many are listed twice. The beards would be another story...

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/2017-participants

[Ian Meyers]

If I were in charge of this, I would make the winner litigate to get his money. Yes, eventually he'd probably win but I'd drag his dick through the dirt and string him out years before he saw a penny of this.

Litigation can be costly and very time consuming. I'm guessing BC has an attorney on retainer. Contest winner would have to retain counsel in Cali and fight it out on someone else's turf. If nothing else I think it helps dissuade people from trying the old 'razzle-dazzle' in future tournaments.

[VigorsTheGrey]

How would you know the doubles and beards?

Look at the bottom of the list and go up from there and you will find names listed multiple times...I guess these are doubles (persons that have entered more than once)....some have two, some three.

As for beards, no one really knows...someone can get a friend to enter on their tab or a relative or partner....the point is to cover as many outcomes in as few races as are warranted with as large a bet as possible with all your doubles and beards covering the bets....

In this contest, the winner took the top prize with a $176k balance....If a $1 exacta is hit for $50, 7500 times, that equals $375,000...! Only top race pools can support these wagers without diluting the payout too much...I think this is part of the strategy.
A few large bets in giant pools...the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't beat the races" only in reverse..."You can't beat the races, BUT YOU CAN BEAT ONE RACE...!

[VigorsTheGrey]

Look at the bottom of the list and go up from there and you will find names listed multiple times...I guess these are doubles (persons that have entered more than once)....some have two, some three.

As for beards, no one really knows...someone can get a friend to enter on their tab or a relative or partner....the point is to cover as many outcomes in as few races as are warranted with as large a bet as possible with all your doubles and beards covering the bets....

In this contest, the winner took the top prize with a $176k balance....If a $1 exacta is hit for $50, 7500 times, that equals $375,000...! Only top race pools can support these wagers without diluting the payout too much...I think this is part of the strategy.
A few large bets in giant pools...the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't beat the races" only in reverse..."You can't beat the races, BUT YOU CAN BEAT ONE RACE...!

CORRECTION: I noticed double entrants, but not triple or more same person entries.

[VigorsTheGrey]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/columnists/diane-bell/sd-me-bell-20171107-story.html

[VigorsTheGrey]

https://blog.horsetourneys.com/

[AndyC]

Look at the bottom of the list and go up from there and you will find names listed multiple times...I guess these are doubles (persons that have entered more than once)....some have two, some three.

As for beards, no one really knows...someone can get a friend to enter on their tab or a relative or partner....the point is to cover as many outcomes in as few races as are warranted with as large a bet as possible with all your doubles and beards covering the bets....

In this contest, the winner took the top prize with a $176k balance....If a $1 exacta is hit for $50, 7500 times, that equals $375,000...! Only top race pools can support these wagers without diluting the payout too much...I think this is part of the strategy.
A few large bets in giant pools...the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't beat the races" only in reverse..."You can't beat the races, BUT YOU CAN BEAT ONE RACE...!

If you have the balls to bet $7,500 on a 49-1 shot then you deserve everything that you get. If you had 9 partners betting $7,500 on 49-1 chances you would most likely go bust 80% or more of the time.

[VigorsTheGrey]

If you have the balls to bet $7,500 on a 49-1 shot then you deserve everything that you get. If you had 9 partners betting $7,500 on 49-1 chances you would most likely go bust 80% or more of the time.

Gabbay bet $10k on the 5-11 exacta Gunrunner/ Collected to win the competition...It paid about 15-1. Not saying you have to bet that much at any one time...
https://blog.horsetourneys.com/2017/11/06/nisan-gabbay-wins-breeders-cup-betting-challenge/

There is obviously something up with this story regarding collusion ("multiple irregularities") otherwise the organizers wouldn't be holding out the payoffs..

This "all or nothing" strategy does seem to work as demonstrated in the past. How the organizers digest the closeness of the relations between Gabbay, Moomey, MacFarland and Hellmar as suggested by press articles remains to be seen...by the way, what agency is doing the "investigation"...?

“We thought we were going to put the money on Gun Runner, but we saw that putting the money to win wouldn’t guarantee victory,” said Gabay. “So we shifted strategy, took a little more risk in order to go for the win, and the horse we really didn’t like in the race was Arrogate….so we bet big exactas with Collected in second, West Coast in second and Gunnevara in second. Luckily Gun Runner dug in, and he held off Collected at the end.”

"Gabbay, who said he is saving his winnings to buy a house (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/columnists/diane-bell/sd-me-bell-20171107-story.html#) in Solana Beach, is no stranger to the handicapping leader board. He and his Del Mar horseplayer buddies, Kevin McFarland and Christian Hellmers, have long been known as the “Pick Six Boys.” They earned that nickname when all three chose five of six winning horses on a “Pick Six” bet on a live TV broadcast."

"In addition, executives with experience in running tournaments said that it is widely known that many players coordinate with other players or run the picks for other entries that are not in their name, and that singling out one or a handful of players for collusive behavior would open up a hornet’s nest of accusations among regular tournament participants, some of whom have contentious relationships with other competitors." DRF

Just passing along media bites...I know nothing, nor claim to...

[davew]

from the blog about second place finisher ->

Ron Ferrise finished the day in second place with a bankroll of $142,697.50. Ferrise built his bankroll on the strength of a $150 Daily Double wager combining back–to-back longshots Stormy Liberal ($65.40 to win in the Breeders’ Cup Turf Sprint) and Bar of Gold ($135.40 to win in the Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Sprint). The double paid $2,546.40—which, after withholding, left him with a total of $147,122.50. Ferrise played conservatively from there, but he held on to second place, which meant a prize pool bonus of $225,000.


-> he won a good chunk of the dd pool for that race

[Poindexter]

from the blog about second place finisher ->

Ron Ferrise finished the day in second place with a bankroll of $142,697.50. Ferrise built his bankroll on the strength of a $150 Daily Double wager combining back–to-back longshots Stormy Liberal ($65.40 to win in the Breeders’ Cup Turf Sprint) and Bar of Gold ($135.40 to win in the Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Sprint). The double paid $2,546.40—which, after withholding, left him with a total of $147,122.50. Ferrise played conservatively from there, but he held on to second place, which meant a prize pool bonus of $225,000.


-> he won a good chunk of the dd pool for that race

Why is withhoding deducted from the payoff? I assume it is in the rules which I have not read, but why? No logic whatsoever (that I can see) in excluding income tax withheld from the collection amount in scoring the tournament. All winnings are subject to income tax, so a wager that has income tax withhled gets penalized, but a wager that doesn't have income tax withhled is not penalized even though the player has tax liability on both.

edit, now I am confused because rules state that withholding is not deducted from the tournament score. Rule 7

If winnings less the wager exceed $5,000 and if the winnings are at least 300 times the amount of the wager, IRS withholding will automatically be deducted from the player's card. Whereas, for Tournament scoring purposes, the gross amount of the winning wager will be recorded in the player's score. Please note for purposes of wagering in the Tournament, only the net amount (the amount received after the IRS withholding) will be available to the player. CA state taxes will be withheld from any prize money won by a player who resides in a state other than CA.


so I have no idea what happened. Did he lose an amount similar to the withholding after that or was he scored wrong? (double came back over $189,000 before withholding)

[Parkview_Pirate]

At one end of the spectrum, we can have a live bankroll tournament, with multiple entries and exotic bets, and no restrictions on wagering amounts or minimums per race - save it all for the last race. This is the deep end of the pool.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can have the classic $2WP "pick and pray" or "all in" format, limited to a single entry. This is the kiddie pool. This is where I like to wade.

Even in the kiddie pool, there's opportunities for collusion. Increase the purses/jackpots and you tempt fate. I worry less about beards, multiple entries and even team handicapping. I worry more about collusion involving information flow and reducing the chaos of making wagers on multiple tracks during "live" formats. Having a teammate or two can provide a huge, huge edge in that respect - helping with monitoring of exotic pools, weather, changes, horses' appearance, track bias, etc.

Like the racing game itself, no tournament can be perfect (unless of course, you win it....:) )

[tholl]

I played in a lot of tournaments in the early 2000s. Qualified 6 times for the NHC Finals and finished third overall in 2002. For my 3rd place finish the prize was $10K and the winner (Steve Wolfson Jr) earned $100K. The money was nice of course but just finishing third was a bigger thrill.

Back then tournaments were fun. Many tracks had live tournaments. I would go drive to tournaments as far as New Haven, Chicago even South Dakota as well as local tournaments at Turfway, Ellis, Keeneland etc. The entry fees for these contests was usually about $100 with a max of three entries and all were restricted to a Win/Place format. These live contests actually at the tracks were fun and affordable and offered Prize money as well as entry to the Vegas finals. I met many other players that became, and still are good friends at these contests.

Now, everything has changed because we supposedly have to have a $1 Million prize in Vegas. While there still are some tracks with live tournaments, most contests now are online and most are $350-$400 an entry for the chance to qualify and no prize money on the individual tournament. To qualify for the NHC one must expect to play in may be ten tournaments. To me it is not affordable to pay $4K without a guaranteed spot in Vegas.

With so much money on the line more serious players with big bankrolls are sure to be attracted and "collusion" is bound to happen. Not sure if it has ever happened or will, but sure is possible that outcomes of particular races could be affected with this much money at stake.

Sorry for the long post, but my point is that these tournaments have basically got out of hand, just because we think we need such big prize money. $1 Million is life-changing for one individual but it sacrifices what the NHC set out to be. It was meant to be a way to give the small guy a chance at going to Vegas to play for a bit of money and fun time, some glory and ego-boost. It was meant to be a way to try to get new players into the game. These tournaments have basically become Professional whereas the should be basically catering to the Amateur player.

[keeneland jim]

The wager was a $100 double; there was no withholding due to the new IRS rules using the total amount of the wager rather the base amount when calculating the 300-1 ratio.

[Poindexter]

The wager was a $100 double; there was no withholding due to the new IRS rules using the total amount of the wager rather the base amount when calculating the 300-1 ratio.

That makes sense.

[AndyC]

Gabbay bet $10k on the 5-11 exacta Gunrunner/ Collected to win the competition...It paid about 15-1. Not saying you have to bet that much at any one time...
https://blog.horsetourneys.com/2017/11/06/nisan-gabbay-wins-breeders-cup-betting-challenge/

There is obviously something up with this story regarding collusion ("multiple irregularities") otherwise the organizers wouldn't be holding out the payoffs..

This "all or nothing" strategy does seem to work as demonstrated in the past. How the organizers digest the closeness of the relations between Gabbay, Moomey, MacFarland and Hellmar as suggested by press articles remains to be seen...by the way, what agency is doing the "investigation"...?

“We thought we were going to put the money on Gun Runner, but we saw that putting the money to win wouldn’t guarantee victory,” said Gabay. “So we shifted strategy, took a little more risk in order to go for the win, and the horse we really didn’t like in the race was Arrogate….so we bet big exactas with Collected in second, West Coast in second and Gunnevara in second. Luckily Gun Runner dug in, and he held off Collected at the end.”

"Gabbay, who said he is saving his winnings to buy a house (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/columnists/diane-bell/sd-me-bell-20171107-story.html#) in Solana Beach, is no stranger to the handicapping leader board. He and his Del Mar horseplayer buddies, Kevin McFarland and Christian Hellmers, have long been known as the “Pick Six Boys.” They earned that nickname when all three chose five of six winning horses on a “Pick Six” bet on a live TV broadcast."

"In addition, executives with experience in running tournaments said that it is widely known that many players coordinate with other players or run the picks for other entries that are not in their name, and that singling out one or a handful of players for collusive behavior would open up a hornet’s nest of accusations among regular tournament participants, some of whom have contentious relationships with other competitors." DRF

Just passing along media bites...I know nothing, nor claim to...

I read the blog. Nothing in there that is a smoking gun. What it doesn't say is that Gabbay had made a big bet on a longshot that won before making the exacta play. Smart player with the gonads to make the big play. You will often see alot of good players with a zero balance because they made the big play and lost. They realize that those plays must be tried in order to win.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I read the blog. Nothing in there that is a smoking gun. What it doesn't say is that Gabbay had made a big bet on a longshot that won before making the exacta play. Smart player with the gonads to make the big play. You will often see alot of good players with a zero balance because they made the big play and lost. They realize that those plays must be tried in order to win.
I have never been in a contest and know nothing about what goes on in them, so please take everything I say with a large grain of salt. I can only offer some observations that are no doubt already well known and a surprise to virtually no one: They are just new to me because of my sudden interest in these contests and the controversy around this one in particular.

Now regarding the statement above (in bold): It is not so much the players whose ending balance is zero that interests me so much, as many players no doubt arrive there by dwindling down wagering on many wagers on all of the (required) races. What interest me are the players whose ending balance was minus 13,000 or minus 10,000.

Now (correct me if I am wrong) how they arrive at these extreme minus balances is by avoiding the required bets on Day 1 and Day 2 in some combination (likely avoiding all bets on Day 1) and thus incurring the stated penalties after also going bust in their wagering.

377 Chris Savage ($8,000.00) 377 McKay Smith ($8,000.00) 377 John Allunario ($8,000.00) 377 Michael Doheny ($8,000.00) 377 John Manni ($8,000.00) 377 Duke Matties (NHC) ($8,000.00) 377 Eric Israel (NHC) ($8,000.00) 377 Frank Story ($8,000.00) 377 David Wilkenfeld ($8,000.00) 377 Garett Skiba (NHC) ($8,000.00) 387 John DeMartino ($8,198.60) 388 Richard Meister ($8,541.00) 389 Joe Applebaum ($9,000.00) 389 Jonathon Kinchen ($9,000.00) 391 Nick Cosato ($9,825.00) 392 Evan Trommer ($9,970.00) 393 Jeremy Dresch ($9,991.75) 394 Bruce Soulsby ($9,999.40) 395 Stephen Thompson (Bonus) ($9,999.60) 396 Sam Aguiar ($9,999.70) 397 George Chute ($9,999.75) 398 Chris Savage ($9,999.90) 398 Jim Atwell ($9,999.90) 400 David Weaver ($10,000.00) 400 Tim Darnell ($10,000.00) 400 Louis Constan ($10,000.00) 400 Tom Maloof ($10,000.00) 400 James House ($10,000.00) 400 James Henry (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Christian Hellmers (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Christian Hellmers (Bonus/NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Anthony Robb ($10,000.00) 400 Faron McCubbins (Bonus) ($10,000.00) 400 Matthew Miller ($10,000.00) 400 Ed Spaunhurst ($10,000.00) 400 Robert Traynor ($10,000.00) 400 Tony Zhou (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Jonathan Zukowski ($10,000.00) 400 Tony Trezza ($10,000.00) 400 Son Nguyen ($10,000.00) 400 Dan Real ($10,000.00) 400 David Frohardtlane ($10,000.00) 400 Nick Yerton ($10,000.00) 400 Rich Averill ($10,000.00) 400 Paul Scott ($10,000.00) 422 Rick Shanley ($10,187.50) 423 Billy Koch ($10,988.00) 424 Bobby Flay ($11,000.00) 424 Thomas Coleman ($11,000.00) 424 Marshall Gramm ($11,000.00) 424 David Ingordo ($11,000.00) 424 Steven Wells ($11,000.00) 429 Roger Ball ($12,000.00) 429 James Tunick (NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 James Tunick (NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 Eric Moomey (Bonus/NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 Thomas Coleman ($12,000.00) 429 Roger Ball ($12,000.00) 435 Joe Applebaum ($13,000.00) 435 Nick Mariani ($13,000.00) 435 Tommy Massis ($13,000.00) 435 George Chute ($13,000.00)

[Poindexter]

I read the blog. Nothing in there that is a smoking gun. What it doesn't say is that Gabbay had made a big bet on a longshot that won before making the exacta play. Smart player with the gonads to make the big play. You will often see alot of good players with a zero balance because they made the big play and lost. They realize that those plays must be tried in order to win.

Andy here is the problem with betting in these tournaments against teams. Let's say me and 2 buddies all have 2 entries each. So in total we have 6 entries. Our Strategy is to each play our entire bankroll on 2 live longshots(horses in the 10 to 20 to one range that we feel has about-will call it a 10% chance of winning).


Binomial distribution tables tell us that the chances of hitting

0 of 6 is 53.1% in which case we go belly up and wait for next year.
1 of 6 is 35.4% in which case we are near the top of the leaderboard
2 of 6 is 9.8% in which case we have 2 entires near the top of the leaderboard
3 of 6 is 1.5% in which case we have 3 entries near the top of the leaserboard.

There is a 46.9 5 chance that we will crush the typical challenger who is trying to grow his $7500. Now you can argue about penalties, but seriously, it is not that hard to play your account tight and tread water until it is time to pounce.

Now what happen if instead of 3 guys with 2 entries it is now 5 guys with 2 entries playing the same strategy.

Now you have

0 of 10 is 34.9%
1 of 10 is 38.7%
2 of 10 is 19.4%
3 of 10 is 5.7 %
4 of 10 is 1.1%.

Now this is one strategy. I am sure these teams many strategies that they comingle. Bottom line is it is the sucker bet of the ages for the lone wolf. The whole idea is stupid and has little to do with the ability to handicap. It is a betting platform that awards syndicates more than any other in this game.

[stringmail]

I have never been in a contest and know nothing about what goes on in them, so please take everything I say with a large grain of salt. I can only offer some observations that are no doubt already well known and a surprise to virtually no one: They are just new to me because of my sudden interest in these contests and the controversy around this one in particular.

Now regarding the statement above (in bold): It is not so much the players whose ending balance is zero that interests me so much, as many players no doubt arrive there by dwindling down wagering on many wagers on all of the (required) races. What interest me are the players whose ending balance was minus 13,000 or minus 10,000.

Now (correct me if I am wrong) how they arrive at these extreme minus balances is by avoiding the required bets on Day 1 and Day 2 in some combination (likely avoiding all bets on Day 1) and thus incurring the stated penalties after also going bust in their wagering.

377 Chris Savage ($8,000.00) 377 McKay Smith ($8,000.00) 377 John Allunario ($8,000.00) 377 Michael Doheny ($8,000.00) 377 John Manni ($8,000.00) 377 Duke Matties (NHC) ($8,000.00) 377 Eric Israel (NHC) ($8,000.00) 377 Frank Story ($8,000.00) 377 David Wilkenfeld ($8,000.00) 377 Garett Skiba (NHC) ($8,000.00) 387 John DeMartino ($8,198.60) 388 Richard Meister ($8,541.00) 389 Joe Applebaum ($9,000.00) 389 Jonathon Kinchen ($9,000.00) 391 Nick Cosato ($9,825.00) 392 Evan Trommer ($9,970.00) 393 Jeremy Dresch ($9,991.75) 394 Bruce Soulsby ($9,999.40) 395 Stephen Thompson (Bonus) ($9,999.60) 396 Sam Aguiar ($9,999.70) 397 George Chute ($9,999.75) 398 Chris Savage ($9,999.90) 398 Jim Atwell ($9,999.90) 400 David Weaver ($10,000.00) 400 Tim Darnell ($10,000.00) 400 Louis Constan ($10,000.00) 400 Tom Maloof ($10,000.00) 400 James House ($10,000.00) 400 James Henry (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Christian Hellmers (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Christian Hellmers (Bonus/NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Anthony Robb ($10,000.00) 400 Faron McCubbins (Bonus) ($10,000.00) 400 Matthew Miller ($10,000.00) 400 Ed Spaunhurst ($10,000.00) 400 Robert Traynor ($10,000.00) 400 Tony Zhou (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Jonathan Zukowski ($10,000.00) 400 Tony Trezza ($10,000.00) 400 Son Nguyen ($10,000.00) 400 Dan Real ($10,000.00) 400 David Frohardtlane ($10,000.00) 400 Nick Yerton ($10,000.00) 400 Rich Averill ($10,000.00) 400 Paul Scott ($10,000.00) 422 Rick Shanley ($10,187.50) 423 Billy Koch ($10,988.00) 424 Bobby Flay ($11,000.00) 424 Thomas Coleman ($11,000.00) 424 Marshall Gramm ($11,000.00) 424 David Ingordo ($11,000.00) 424 Steven Wells ($11,000.00) 429 Roger Ball ($12,000.00) 429 James Tunick (NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 James Tunick (NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 Eric Moomey (Bonus/NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 Thomas Coleman ($12,000.00) 429 Roger Ball ($12,000.00) 435 Joe Applebaum ($13,000.00) 435 Nick Mariani ($13,000.00) 435 Tommy Massis ($13,000.00) 435 George Chute ($13,000.00)


My assumption is that they went "all in" on the last bet trying to accomplish what Gabbay was able to do. I have a feeling the leaderboard simply wasn't updated to show $0 for them as opposed to those that had zeroed out prior to the last race. Several folks on that list co-signed the letter so I am sure they made the necessary bets to not incur a penalty.

[Charli125]

If they are out there reading this I'd like to hear PA posters C Davis and Nick Tamm's take on this.

Sorry, just found this thread and most of the questions been answered already.

The first issue I'll address is the skill of the winner, and Moomey. Skill is not in question. The winner and the entire Pick Six Boys group are all very good handicappers and contest players. They've proven this over and over. The betting on the last two races of the contest was excellent. Moomey in choosing the race to dutch or partially dutch, also showed his skill. A high priced favorite is the best kind of race to play that way.

My biggest issue at present is that the issue with the winner has overshadowed the most obvious case of collusion in the tournament. Moomey and Ball went all in on the same race, and I'd bet they were on different horses in a partial dutch, which had only 2 possible outcomes if they bet only 4 different horses. Outcome 1: They go bust. Outcome 2: 3 entries go bust and the other hits a big score and is now well placed to win the tournament. Anyone who plays/played contests knows that they work together, and Ball doesn't even try to hide it. This was the most glaring issue and what caused us to write the letter in the first place.

After taking a closer look to see what Gabbay hit to go from <2K to 50K, the other issue became apparent. Simply that what was shown on the leaderboard wasn't correct and he actually went from <7K to 50K. Still impressive but much easier to do than with a <2K bankroll. Also that there had been a rule change that most of us weren't aware of where instead of being dq'd you just have points taken off your final total for not betting the minimum amounts/races. This wasn't anything against the winner at all it was just that they needed to either change the rules or notify everyone of the rule change, and that they needed to change how they show the leaderboard. That would've been the end of it if not for their reaction.

Their response to the letter was really bad and I don't think the winner would be under much scrutiny without it. The first interview that jumped out was when Gabbay said that he had some bad luck on Friday but was happy to hit big on Saturday. Since he hadn't made any plays on Friday, that caused some red flags. When I learned that they actually have a formal partnership, including an LLC, to manage their combined tournament play, I was shocked. I didn't know LLC's were allowed to enter tournaments. Knowing that they do have a formal partnership they would be idiots(and they're not) not to coordinate entries to result in the best overall return. Otherwise, why have a partnership?

So where do I stand currently? I'm mostly done with tournaments. I've been done with mythical tournaments for a while and it looks like cash is heading that way too. I do just fine without tournaments though they have been a great supplement and I'll be sad to see them go.

I'd like to play in the Pegasus since it's positive expectation but if I'm playing against a team(s), I'm at a massive disadvantage. Good thing about the Pegasus is that there's no entry fee. If I see anything questionable happen or any entries that I don't trust, I'll just forget about the contest. At that point I'd rather just take my 12K and bet it like I normally would with no regard for being DQ'd for not making minimum bets.

[Charli125]

My assumption is that they went "all in" on the last bet trying to accomplish what Gabbay was able to do. I have a feeling the leaderboard simply wasn't updated to show $0 for them as opposed to those that had zeroed out prior to the last race. Several folks on that list co-signed the letter so I am sure they made the necessary bets to not incur a penalty.

They could also go all-in earlier in the tournament. If you bust early by default you'll get penalties and I know that happened to a lot of the names on that list including Bobby Flay for example. I went bust on both entries prior to the last 2 races.

If you went bust on the 1st race of day 2 your score would be 0-8K in penalty points. If you didn't play a race the whole tournament your score would be 7,500-5K for day 1-10K for day 2.

In short, it's hard to look at the negative scores at the end of the tournament to determine anything.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Andy here is the problem with betting in these tournaments against teams. Let's say me and 2 buddies all have 2 entries each. So in total we have 6 entries. Our Strategy is to each play our entire bankroll on 2 live longshots(horses in the 10 to 20 to one range that we feel has about-will call it a 10% chance of winning).


Binomial distribution tables tell us that the chances of hitting

0 of 6 is 53.1% in which case we go belly up and wait for next year.
1 of 6 is 35.4% in which case we are near the top of the leaderboard
2 of 6 is 9.8% in which case we have 2 entires near the top of the leaderboard
3 of 6 is 1.5% in which case we have 3 entries near the top of the leaserboard.

There is a 46.9 5 chance that we will crush the typical challenger who is trying to grow his $7500. Now you can argue about penalties, but seriously, it is not that hard to play your account tight and tread water until it is time to pounce.

Now what happen if instead of 3 guys with 2 entries it is now 5 guys with 2 entries playing the same strategy.

Now you have

0 of 10 is 34.9%
1 of 10 is 38.7%
2 of 10 is 19.4%
3 of 10 is 5.7 %
4 of 10 is 1.1%.

Now this is one strategy. I am sure these teams many strategies that they comingle. Bottom line is it is the sucker bet of the ages for the lone wolf. The whole idea is stupid and has little to do with the ability to handicap. It is a betting platform that awards syndicates more than any other in this game.

Exactly...! And this is what the minus balances at the bottom of the leaderboard point to, only these were the losing portions of the overall strategies....

[davew]

They could also go all-in earlier in the tournament. If you bust early by default you'll get penalties and I know that happened to a lot of the names on that list including Bobby Flay for example. I went bust on both entries prior to the last 2 races.

If you went bust on the 1st race of day 2 your score would be 0-8K in penalty points. If you didn't play a race the whole tournament your score would be 7,500-5K for day 1-10K for day 2.

In short, it's hard to look at the negative scores at the end of the tournament to determine anything.

I was wondering what score you would have if you busted after the second race on day 1 - looks like ($13,000)

[AndyC]

Andy here is the problem with betting in these tournaments against teams. Let's say me and 2 buddies all have 2 entries each. So in total we have 6 entries. Our Strategy is to each play our entire bankroll on 2 live longshots(horses in the 10 to 20 to one range that we feel has about-will call it a 10% chance of winning).


Binomial distribution tables tell us that the chances of hitting

0 of 6 is 53.1% in which case we go belly up and wait for next year.
1 of 6 is 35.4% in which case we are near the top of the leaderboard
2 of 6 is 9.8% in which case we have 2 entires near the top of the leaderboard
3 of 6 is 1.5% in which case we have 3 entries near the top of the leaserboard.

There is a 46.9 5 chance that we will crush the typical challenger who is trying to grow his $7500. Now you can argue about penalties, but seriously, it is not that hard to play your account tight and tread water until it is time to pounce.

Now what happen if instead of 3 guys with 2 entries it is now 5 guys with 2 entries playing the same strategy.

Now you have

0 of 10 is 34.9%
1 of 10 is 38.7%
2 of 10 is 19.4%
3 of 10 is 5.7 %
4 of 10 is 1.1%.

Now this is one strategy. I am sure these teams many strategies that they comingle. Bottom line is it is the sucker bet of the ages for the lone wolf. The whole idea is stupid and has little to do with the ability to handicap. It is a betting platform that awards syndicates more than any other in this game.

Again, I am not disputing the power of dutching with partners. I know how it works and have done it many moons ago. It was a common practice at most tournaments.

[AndyC]

....The first issue I'll address is the skill of the winner, and Moomey. Skill is not in question. The winner and the entire Pick Six Boys group are all very good handicappers and contest players. They've proven this over and over. The betting on the last two races of the contest was excellent. Moomey in choosing the race to dutch or partially dutch, also showed his skill. A high priced favorite is the best kind of race to play that way....

For those of you who haven't heard the latest, Christian Hellmers won both first and second place in a live money contest at Del Mar this past weekend.

[AndyC]

..... When I learned that they actually have a formal partnership, including an LLC, to manage their combined tournament play, I was shocked. I didn't know LLC's were allowed to enter tournaments. Knowing that they do have a formal partnership they would be idiots(and they're not) not to coordinate entries to result in the best overall return. Otherwise, why have a partnership?...

Are you sure the LLC is just for tournaments and not general betting as well? It is actually a smart way to run a betting operation.

[Charli125]

Are you sure the LLC is just for tournaments and not general betting as well? It is actually a smart way to run a betting operation.

All I know is what he said in the article. Gabbay and McFarland, not sure about anyone else, have an LLC that they share for contest purposes. I don't have any inside info, though I wish I did. Never met Gabbay and only met McFarland once in passing.

[Charli125]

Are you sure the LLC is just for tournaments and not general betting as well? It is actually a smart way to run a betting operation.

And I understand why an LLC would be good for betting and tournament play, but I can't think of a reason to have a multiple member LLC. Maybe there's something I haven't thought of though.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Just as a side note, I did so compiling of the BCBC Leaderboard and participants pages information available on their website:

1. Says 435 total entries (I have heard report of 444).
2. There are only 175 participants listed, of which 21 persons were listed as double entries.
3. An additional 42 persons were double entered (not listed) bringing the total double entries to at least 63 persons (I may have missed some). This represents at least 30 percent of the total entries.

Some other thoughts:

A. The fact that double entries are allowed forms the backbone for "Team Play" and sets the precedent.
B. I view this as a imbalance that works against the interests of lone players working with one entry only.
C. The Team Play is really an extension of the double entry format so it would be best to eliminate the double entry to begin with.

[VigorsTheGrey]

For those of you who haven't heard the latest, Christian Hellmers won both first and second place in a live money contest at Del Mar this past weekend.

Rules for this past contest:https://www.dmtc.com/calendar/detail/novhcrules
The Format does not include penalties on this one, just DQ for not betting on requirements.

[AndyC]

And I understand why an LLC would be good for betting and tournament play, but I can't think of a reason to have a multiple member LLC. Maybe there's something I haven't thought of though.

Simple. As a multiple member LLC you can allocate profits and losses as you see fit. The main handicapper might want a bigger cut of the winnings based on doing most of the work. Lot's of flexibility in an LLC operating agreement.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Simple. As a multiple member LLC you can allocate profits and losses as you see fit. The main handicapper might want a bigger cut of the winnings based on doing most of the work. Lot's of flexibility in an LLC operating agreement.

Isn't an LLC, technically, a legal individual...?

[davew]

It sure looks like a Pic6 group taking down carryovers and big handicapping contests.

[AndyC]

Isn't an LLC, technically, a legal individual...?

It's a legal entity. Not sure what your point is with this question.

[VigorsTheGrey]

It's a legal entity. Not sure what your point is with this question.Just wondering if contest organizers can legally NOT ALLOW LLC's to enter...?

Some background from Wiki

"Juridical personhood allows one or more natural persons (universitas personarum) to act as a single entity (body corporate) for legal purposes. In many jurisdictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction), artificial personality allows that entity to be considered under law separately from its individual members (for example in a company limited by shares, its shareholders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder)). They may sue and be sued (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit), enter contracts, incur debt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt), and own property (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property). Entities with legal personality may also be subjected to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of taxes. An entity with legal personality may shield its members (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) from personal liability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_liability)."

So if an entry is made under the person of an LLC, it's members might be able to concur, and make decisions together, and maybe it would not be considered colluding..?

Seems like two or more people would have to enter as the LLC to begin with though, but I'm no lawyer so who knows...Just like a fellow poster asked awhile back, if LLC's were permitted to enter contests...?

[dilanesp]

Just wondering if contest organizers can legally NOT ALLOW LLC's to enter...?

Some background from Wiki

"Juridical personhood allows one or more natural persons (universitas personarum) to act as a single entity (body corporate) for legal purposes. In many jurisdictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction), artificial personality allows that entity to be considered under law separately from its individual members (for example in a company limited by shares, its shareholders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder)). They may sue and be sued (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit), enter contracts, incur debt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt), and own property (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property). Entities with legal personality may also be subjected to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of taxes. An entity with legal personality may shield its members (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) from personal liability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_liability)."

So if an entry is made under the person of an LLC, it's members might be able to concur, and make decisions together, and maybe it would not be considered colluding..?

Seems like two or more people would have to enter as the LLC to begin with though, but I'm no lawyer so who knows...Just like a fellow poster asked awhile back, if LLC's were permitted to enter contests...?

Of course they can disallow LLC's. A handicapping contest is a private enterprise. Absent a special legal rule in a particular context, any enterprise can refuse to contract with limited liability entities and require that a natural person assume personal liability.

[AndyC]

.......So if an entry is made under the person of an LLC, it's members might be able to concur, and make decisions together, and maybe it would not be considered colluding..?

Seems like two or more people would have to enter as the LLC to begin with though, but I'm no lawyer so who knows...Just like a fellow poster asked awhile back, if LLC's were permitted to enter contests...?

Try not to get any stains on your clothes up there on the grassy knoll. Your focus on the use of an LLC to somehow offer a betting advantage to the members of the LLC is quite a reach.

The use of the LLC is more likely a means to fund the players for bets and entries to tournaments and/or to provide for a way to allocate profits and losses.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Try not to get any stains on your clothes up there on the grassy knoll. Your focus on the use of an LLC to somehow offer a betting advantage to the members of the LLC is quite a reach.

The use of the LLC is more likely a means to fund the players for bets and entries to tournaments and/or to provide for a way to allocate profits and losses.

No worries, I not the character assassination type, I just think it is an interesting subject matter, this whole Team Work approach looks like it is quite common in contests, and it all starts with the dual entry for a single person, branches out to the husband/ wife / brother/ son team, then on to occluded partnership, beards, directors of bets, etc...wow...who would have thunk these friendly contests are actually so complex...

...but like you, I totally see the advantages of the all-in...early/ late dutching techniques employed by these masters at the tournaments, partners obfuscated, that everybody knows about, deeds prohibited in word, yet never enforced, and virtually unenforceable...but NOW we get concerned with the tournaments being "compromised"...?

[thaskalos]

I'm glad that tournament horseplay isn't in my future.

[Poindexter]

I'm glad that tournament horseplay isn't in my future.

Not sure why. Get the financial backing, put together a team of your own and it will be the easiest money you ever made in this game. Meanwhile, the sport of horse racing will continue soliciting suckers for you to feed off.

[RunForTheRoses]

Not sure why. Get the financial backing, put together a team of your own and it will be the easiest money you ever made in this game. Meanwhile, the sport of horse racing will continue soliciting suckers for you to feed off.

Pick six boys meet the PA all stars at the ok corrall

[thaskalos]

Not sure why. Get the financial backing, put together a team of your own and it will be the easiest money you ever made in this game. Meanwhile, the sport of horse racing will continue soliciting suckers for you to feed off.

Naw...that side of the game doesn't interest me much. I'd rather play a lone hand...while sitting around in my pajamas at 2 in the afternoon.

[PICSIX]

It would be interesting to know how many players pursue a "win or bust" strategy...Is this strategy sort of rare...? Wouldn't most players try to be more conservative and not lose all of their $7500. I don't picture most players going for the "all or nothing strategy and risk losing 10K (including their entry fee)..how many players could really afford to pursue this risky angle...?

Players that have multiple backers and entries can afford to do this frequently.

[classhandicapper]

Yeah, but the tournament is NOT long term. Its a defined term. They can dutch certain entries and hold back on one or two, take the penalty and hammer something late. Looks like they hammered a few times because some entries went belly up. If you are playing for yourself you can't afford to take all these differing money management opportunities. You basically buy one or two shots. When people get together and manage multiple entries in unison. I have not done the math but they are getting a way higher probability rate then the average Joe in this tournament. They can say whatever they want, its a form of collusion but they also went by the rules as they are now it seems. Yes, they could lose but if they just come in the money with 1 entry its a coup.

You are thinking in terms of winning a specific tournament.

I agree with you on that.

I am thinking in terms of winning money over the long term.

I'm not a tournament player. So I don't even have a strategy for trying to maximize my long term edge. But if did, I would gladly compete against guys that were trying to win a specific tournament with strategies that might help them today but possibly cost them money over the long haul. I wouldn't care about any one tournament. I would care about a series of several hundred.

[classhandicapper]

I'm glad that tournament horseplay isn't in my future.

I've spent most of my life trying to find horses that have a greater chance of winning than their odds suggest. The very idea of trying to find horses that will improve my position even if they are bad value, or trying to block people behind me by picking the same horses as them, or trying to swing for the fences on some longshot underlay because it's my only way to get into the money etc... is anathema to me.

I played in one tournament in my life.

I was solidly in the money after a day of handicapping at AQU and OP. Pretty much the only way I was going to get knocked out of the money was if a bomb came in in the last race and a lot of people had it. Well guess what. The longest shot on the board came in and a bunch of people that were at the bottom and doing poorly all day jumped over me and knocked me out of the money by 1 position. Now if they liked that horse because they thought he was good value, so be it. You shake their hand and move on. But they all knew their only chance to get into the money was to get lucky on a bomb they all hated. That was already enough for me. Good thing it was a free roll. :lol:

[Poindexter]

You are thinking in terms of winning a specific tournament.

I agree with you on that.

I am thinking in terms of winning money over the long term.

I'm not a tournament player. So I don't even have a strategy for trying to maximize my long term edge. But if did, I would gladly compete against guys that were trying to win a specific tournament with strategies that might help them today but possibly cost them money over the long haul. I wouldn't care about any one tournament. I would care about a series of several hundred.

You are missing the point Unless you have the day of your lifetime, your $7500 is not going to become $100,000 or $150,000. Your long term strategy is fine for flat betting, but will leave you as an also ran in the tournaments time and time again. But as I mentioned a few posts ago, just buy having a team of 10 guys going all in on a series of longshots, I have a good chace of having 1 entry near the top as many as 3. Even if my team of 10 goes down the tubes there may be 10 other teams of 6 to 10 memebers that you have to worry about. Long term grinding gets you nothing in these tournaments. Save that for the betting windows. In these tournaments you have to get near the top and from there it is handicapping and execution and of course luck.

My guess is the guys that won this tournament, had a bunch of bullets and talisman sp? was the last one. when he won, it put them near the top and the strong play on the Gun Runner exacta put them over the top. But the point is that Talisman was one of many bullets. It wasn't one guy pinning his hopes on one horse and getting lucky, despite the winners attempt to sell it.

[thaskalos]

Are there legal restrictions prohibiting us from organizing a tournament with a modest entry fee right HERE?

[VigorsTheGrey]

You are missing the point Unless you have the day of your lifetime, your $7500 is not going to become $100,000 or $150,000. Your long term strategy is fine for flat betting, but will leave you as an also ran in the tournaments time and time again. But as I mentioned a few posts ago, just buy having a team of 10 guys going all in on a series of longshots, I have a good chace of having 1 entry near the top as many as 3. Even if my team of 10 goes down the tubes there may be 10 other teams of 6 to 10 memebers that you have to worry about. Long term grinding gets you nothing in these tournaments. Save that for the betting windows. In these tournaments you have to get near the top and from there it is handicapping and execution and of course luck.

My guess is the guys that won this tournament, had a bunch of bullets and talisman sp? was the last one. when he won, it put them near the top and the strong play on the Gun Runner exacta put them over the top. But the point is that Talisman was one of many bullets. It wasn't one guy pinning his hopes on one horse and getting lucky, despite the winners attempt to sell it.

Sounds like you nailed it here...5 guys with double entries equals 10 large bullets or 20 half size bullets to bet longshots with...drain the partners one by one, conserving the rest until you hit the one that puts you in range...then adjust the strategy as needed to go over the top....if you have bullets left in the last race in different accounts then bet them all in the same pool, dutching....one partners loss is another ones gain, assuming one of the dutches wins...

[AndyC]

........My guess is the guys that won this tournament, had a bunch of bullets and talisman sp? was the last one. when he won, it put them near the top and the strong play on the Gun Runner exacta put them over the top. But the point is that Talisman was one of many bullets. It wasn't one guy pinning his hopes on one horse and getting lucky, despite the winners attempt to sell it.

Assuming 10 entries at $10,000 a pop it would mean that the team put up $100,000 to win $427,000 a 4.27-1 proposition. To do that the winning entry had to hit a 16-1 shot to succeed. Seems like a lot of risk to get just over 4-1 on your investment.

[classhandicapper]

You are missing the point Unless you have the day of your lifetime, your $7500 is not going to become $100,000 or $150,000. Your long term strategy is fine for flat betting, but will leave you as an also ran in the tournaments time and time again.

Keep in mind I don't know the tournament circuit.

When I bet trifectas combining horses I think are good value, that strategy leaves me tearing up tickets time and time again. Yet eventually, it all seems to work out when I'm finally right.

IMO, if you participate in similar tournaments with similar rules and prizes on a regular basis, you should expect to be an also ran time and time again. So you will need a healthy bankroll and a lot of confidence to sustain all the losing. But if you are a very good handicapper that isolates live horses at good prices that will probably slip by other contestants you will eventually net profits.

[classhandicapper]

Assuming 10 entries at $10,000 a pop it would mean that the team put up $100,000 to win $427,000 a 4.27-1 proposition. To do that the winning entry had to hit a 16-1 shot to succeed. Seems like a lot of risk to get just over 4-1 on your investment.

I agree. I'm not a tournament guy. So maybe there are several things I am missing. But it still seems to me like everyone is overly concerned with the probability of winning and not the ROI on the much bigger upfront investment to get all those extra entries.

The only edge I can possibly see would come from having enough entries to cover combinations of horses that virtually no one has (kind of like Pick 6 syndicates). But that would require a lot of tickets.

[Poindexter]

Assuming 10 entries at $10,000 a pop it would mean that the team put up $100,000 to win $427,000 a 4.27-1 proposition. To do that the winning entry had to hit a 16-1 shot to succeed. Seems like a lot of risk to get just over 4-1 on your investment.

Not quite, that is why I bring up syndicate. If you are sharp you can bet $7500 to win on a series of longshots and hold your own(probably -10% max and more likely closer to break even if not profitable). It is just a matter of having the bankroll to afford $7500 win bets on a series of longshots. To the average person taking a shot in one of these tournaments they will not have that kind of bankroll. To the betting group it is just chips. The gravy for them is in the prize money of finishing high up in the tournament standings or winning them, while probably close to 1/2 the field doesn't have a prayer. Then you add in these bonuses for winning multiple tournaments and it is even more gravy. The risk is actually the $2500 entry fee per entry and whatever they lose on their bets which with 10 entries per tournament would be max about $7500(so at most they are only risking $32,500 not $100,000. Also, they can come 2nd, 3rd 4th, or even come 1st and 2nd as Helmers just did as you reported. I am sure they are making plenty. In fact they would have to be awful players to not make plenty.

It is basically free money for syndicates.

[VigorsTheGrey]

One of the complaints from the players that I read about was that the data on the BCBC Leaderboard was confusing. This no doubt was due to the fact that bankroll amount and penalty points were joined for a single score. One of the effects was that the scores could be interpreted as having a lower bankroll amount if and when any penalties for skipping races were applied. For example, if a player skipped all races on Friday, a penalty of 5000 points (1000 for each race skipped) would be applied and the score would be listed as $2500 ($7500-5000 points) when in fact the player had $7500 remaining. But since one cannot tell how many races any given player has skipped, it was impossible to accurately understand just how much bankroll any of the players actually had at any given time. How woefully poor is that...! There administrators simply must have known the terrible confusion this would cause, one would think....huh?

It would have been much better to show and break out the penalty points accruing for each player from their current bankroll amount, since the final scores really only matter in the final tally.

As it is, even in the final report, it is impossible to know which and how many races were skipped by players and how many penalty points were deducted from their final bankroll. A player that shows a $0.00 as a score may really have $2000 remaining in their bankroll because they skipped 2 races on Friday but bet the required amount minimum for the rest of the contest and dwindled their wagering down to $2000. So this whole approach really conceals and confuses more than anything else...

[classhandicapper]

Then you add in these bonuses for winning multiple tournaments and it is even more gravy.

I was unaware of that. Something like that adds value to the ROI for winning more often.

[AndyC]

Not quite, that is why I bring up syndicate. If you are sharp you can bet $7500 to win on a series of longshots and hold your own(probably -10% max and more likely closer to break even if not profitable). It is just a matter of having the bankroll to afford $7500 win bets on a series of longshots. To the average person taking a shot in one of these tournaments they will not have that kind of bankroll. To the betting group it is just chips. The gravy for them is in the prize money of finishing high up in the tournament standings or winning them, while probably close to 1/2 the field doesn't have a prayer. Then you add in these bonuses for winning multiple tournaments and it is even more gravy. The risk is actually the $2500 entry fee per entry and whatever they lose on their bets which with 10 entries per tournament would be max about $7500(so at most they are only risking $32,500 not $100,000. Also, they can come 2nd, 3rd 4th, or even come 1st and 2nd as Helmers just did as you reported. I am sure they are making plenty. In fact they would have to be awful players to not make plenty.

It is basically free money for syndicates.

You vastly overestimate the ability to hit longshots. You also are assuming that players in the syndicate are betting conservatively and will have bankroll leftover. Presumably anybody with bankroll at the end would be playing for the win. The probability of Nisan hitting the 2 bets he hit was roughly 1 in 135. Not exactly a slam dunk and not exactly a probable outcome even with 10 entries.

Take the track of your choice and play 10 entries this weekend and show me how easily this strategy is to do.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Regarding dual entries: cumulative part-dual entries/ cumulative entries
Starting with 1st place
4/10
7/20
10/30
12/40
13/50
16/60
18/70
19/80
20/90
21/100
22/110
24/120
26/130
26/140
27/150
29/160
29/170
30/180
32/190
34/200 $0.00 bankroll
39/210
43/220
46/230
47/240
50/250
55/260
57/270
63/280
65/290
67/300
69/310
72/320
76/340
77/350
78/360
81/370
82/380
88/390
93/400
96/410
103/420
107/430
114/440
117/444

Total
126/444

There were at least 63 dual entries not including husband/ wife teams and other hidden teams. Frequency was higher at each far end. Single entries were dominant ranking 50-200.

[Poindexter]

You vastly overestimate the ability to hit longshots. You also are assuming that players in the syndicate are betting conservatively and will have bankroll leftover. Presumably anybody with bankroll at the end would be playing for the win. The probability of Nisan hitting the 2 bets he hit was roughly 1 in 135. Not exactly a slam dunk and not exactly a probable outcome even with 10 entries.

Take the track of your choice and play 10 entries this weekend and show me how easily this strategy is to do.


Longshots is a strategy I mentioned to give you some math on the edge the groups have. I gave you actual math (binomial distribution) showing a 10% strike rate (which I think is reasonable for a professional level player on breeders cup day playing horses in the 10 to 20-1 range). They don't have to be 14-1 shots. They can be cold deck exactas or boxes or keys, trifecta keys, daily doubles, or they can even focus their energies on plays in the 6-1 to 8-1 range with more volume.........the approaches are limitless. The point is your typical sucker is going to be playing $500 a race trying to build a bankroll and never climbing anywhere near the top while these groups are going all in on live value plays and will inevitably hit some of them. If one group misses all of theirs another group will hit some of theirs. The problem is that with a real money tournament, an individual cannot risk $10,000 on one play to take a shot at winning the tournament(unless he is very wealthy), but a well funded group can easily take 10 shots.

Regarding Nisan, as I previously stated, my opinion is that Talisman was one of many bullets for his group. From there it did not take Einstein to take a stand against Arrogate (though I did not go that route, I certainly could see it). A blind squirrel could find the winning exacta after that.

[AndyC]

Longshots is a strategy I mentioned to give you some math on the edge the groups have. I gave you actual math (binomial distribution) showing a 10% strike rate (which I think is reasonable for a professional level player on breeders cup day playing horses in the 10 to 20-1 range). They don't have to be 14-1 shots. They can be cold deck exactas or boxes or keys, trifecta keys, daily doubles, or they can even focus their energies on plays in the 6-1 to 8-1 range with more volume.........the approaches are limitless. The point is your typical sucker is going to be playing $500 a race trying to build a bankroll and never climbing anywhere near the top while these groups are going all in on live value plays and will inevitably hit some of them. If one group misses all of theirs another group will hit some of theirs. The problem is that with a real money tournament, an individual cannot risk $10,000 on one play to take a shot at winning the tournament(unless he is very wealthy), but a well funded group can easily take 10 shots.

Regarding Nisan, as I previously stated, my opinion is that Talisman was one of many bullets for his group. From there it did not take Einstein to take a stand against Arrogate (though I did not go that route, I certainly could see it). A blind squirrel could find the winning exacta after that.

Nobody will hit at a 10% strike rate in the 10 to 20-1 range.

Please demonstrate how easy it is to implement the above strategy. Pick any track that suits your fancy.

The cold deck exactas and trifecta plays are much easier seen after the race.

[davew]

the second place finisher had an interesting strategy (I am guessing anyway) -> find 2 wide open races back to back and link the outside contenders in DD for your wad

[VigorsTheGrey]

the second place finisher had an interesting strategy (I am guessing anyway) -> find 2 wide open races back to back and link the outside contenders in DD for your wad

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?date=2017-11-04&track=DMR&country=USA&race=6&type=inc&print=on

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?date=2017-11-04&track=DMR&country=USA&race=5&type=inc&print=on

A lot of good handicappers had both those horses but all eyes were on Lady Aurelia instead of Stormy Liberal, then on Unique Bella instead of Bar of Gold...

Like you, I imagine he was betting multiple $100 Daily Doubles linking longshots...Not too bad of a strategy to build the ol bankrole...only takes a few good hits like that to put you closer to the top but that was sharp handicapping for sure...

[Poindexter]

Nobody will hit at a 10% strike rate in the 10 to 20-1 range.

Please demonstrate how easy it is to implement the above strategy. Pick any track that suits your fancy.

The cold deck exactas and trifecta plays are much easier seen after the race.

Andy, just for you I will set up a thread in both the harness and the selections forums. I will post 100 value plays(that are going off in the 10 to 20 to one range) I will begin Thursday. Dont knock down my odds too much.
At the end of the trials we will see if I am king of the world. But either way it really doesn't change the fact that these groups have a huge edge

[dilanesp]

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?date=2017-11-04&track=DMR&country=USA&race=6&type=inc&print=on

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?date=2017-11-04&track=DMR&country=USA&race=5&type=inc&print=on

A lot of good handicappers had both those horses but all eyes were on Lady Aurelia instead of Stormy Liberal, then on Unique Bella instead of Bar of Gold...

Like you, I imagine he was betting multiple $100 Daily Doubles linking longshots...Not too bad of a strategy to build the ol bankrole...only takes a few good hits like that to put you closer to the top but that was sharp handicapping for sure...

I'm really out of my depth here, but I'm more than a little skeptical that this is anything more than hindsight bias.

On many cards, including BC cards, you never get two races linked together won by big longshots. So how is this strategy anything other than lucking out?

[biggestal99]

This one is an easy one.

The rules of the BCBC need to be tightened to reward handicapping and not stabbing.

1. Must bet at least 10% of your bankroll in each BC race. (Lets see how long the stabbers stay alive under that format)

2.one entry per person.

3. accurate bankroll for each player in the top 100 after each race is official posted for all to see (level playing field).

Allan

[AndyC]

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?date=2017-11-04&track=DMR&country=USA&race=6&type=inc&print=on

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?date=2017-11-04&track=DMR&country=USA&race=5&type=inc&print=on

A lot of good handicappers had both those horses but all eyes were on Lady Aurelia instead of Stormy Liberal, then on Unique Bella instead of Bar of Gold...

Like you, I imagine he was betting multiple $100 Daily Doubles linking longshots...Not too bad of a strategy to build the ol bankrole...only takes a few good hits like that to put you closer to the top but that was sharp handicapping for sure...

It's a great strategy provided they win. Using this strategy doesn't change the probabilities of hitting the bet. If it did it is a strategy that should work everyday at every track.

[AndyC]

Andy, just for you I will set up a thread in both the harness and the selections forums. I will post 100 value plays(that are going off in the 10 to 20 to one range) I will begin Thursday. Dont knock down my odds too much.
At the end of the trials we will see if I am king of the world. But either way it really doesn't change the fact that these groups have a huge edge

I was hoping you could simulate how a group would actually bet. Because you may find that 1 ticket out of 10 may hit the first bet but it would then require a second hit (in most cases) to make it a winner. Have 10 tickets and state how much of the BR is being bet on each selection by each ticket.

In my view the tournament is much like a golf tournament. Get to the back nine on Sunday in a position to contend. Groups colluding can get a ticket to the back nine but then they are on equal footing with all others who have made it that far. An edge for sure but not as huge as you think.

[AndyC]

This one is an easy one.

The rules of the BCBC need to be tightened to reward handicapping and not stabbing.

1. Must bet at least 10% of your bankroll in each BC race. (Lets see how long the stabbers stay alive under that format)

2.one entry per person.

3. accurate bankroll for each player in the top 100 after each race is official posted for all to see (level playing field).

Allan


To me, the format is great provided that groups can somehow be stopped.

I want to see the best player identified. To do that there is analyzing a race, betting a race, and most importantly managing a bankroll. Knowing when to bet and more importantly when not to bet is what really separates the good players from the players who just might be good analyzers.

Perhaps a minimum number of bets should be required but a forced bet each race doesn't prove anything.

[thaskalos]

To me, the format is great provided that groups can somehow be stopped.

I want to see the best player identified. To do that there is analyzing a race, betting a race, and most importantly managing a bankroll. Knowing when to bet and more importantly when not to bet is what really separates the good players from the players who just might be good analyzers.

Perhaps a minimum number of bets should be required but a forced bet each race doesn't prove anything.

If the point of these tournaments is to "identify the best player"...then the competing horseplayers should NOT be made privy to each other's bankroll-totals during the tournament's run, IMO. Let the players make their bets in any way that they like...but don't let them know how the rest of the group is doing. The players who are far behind should not be made known of that fact...causing them to stab wildly on extreme longshots in the last race(s), hoping to "get lucky". Each player should endeavor to do the best he can...WITHOUT knowing how his opposition is doing.

"Race analysis", "race betting", and most importantly "bankroll management" can all go on quite nicely even when the race-to-race totals are kept secret during the tournament. Indeed...keeping the leader-board a secret until the end is the only way that I can see by which the player's "skill level" takes precedence over the "entertainment value" that today's tournament formats seem to value most.

[Mc990]

It seems that the game theory behind the collusion strategy is what some ppl are missing...

1) a group of 10 players (10 entries, $75,000) work together and then split the prize money and remaining bankroll 10 ways

2) a single player (1 entry, $7500) keeps all prize and bankroll money for himself

IMO, since the prize money is so disproportionately weighted towards the very top of the leaderboard, option 1 will have a much higher roi since 75,000 gives you a lot more leverage than 7500

In other words, you're much better off leveraging a high bankroll and then cutting it up amongst the team after the tourney than you are working by yourself with less leverage and keeping all profits

I apologize if someone has laid this out already or more eloquently... just wanted to chime in with some thoughts

[Poindexter]

It seems that the game theory behind the collusion strategy is what some ppl are missing...

1) a group of 10 players (10 entries, $75,000) work together and then split the prize money and remaining bankroll 10 ways

2) a single player (1 entry, $7500) keeps all prize and bankroll money for himself

IMO, since the prize money is so disproportionately weighted towards the very top of the leaderboard, option 1 will have a much higher roi since 75,000 gives you a lot more leverage than 7500

In other words, you're much better off leveraging a high bankroll and then cutting it up amongst the team after the tourney than you are working by yourself with less leverage and keeping all profits

I apologize if someone has laid this out already or more eloquently... just wanted to chime in with some thoughts

Think you are right about this. A good solution is to even out the payouts so the motivation to collude is wiped away. I think part of the prize for the individual playing is just the prestige of winning it. For the syndicates it is all about the money. So if the prize payouts were something like this for 1 million dollars:

1 $150,000.00
2 $120,000.00
3 $100,000.00
4 $80,000.00
5 $75,000.00
6 $70,000.00
7 $65,000.00
8 $60,000.00
9 $55,000.00
10 $50,000.00
11 $45,000.00
12 $40,000.00
13 $35,000.00
14 $30,000.00
15 $25,000.00


rather than the current



1st Place = $300,000 6th Place = $50,000 11th Place = $20,000
2nd Place = $200,000 7th Place = $40,000 12th Place = $17,500
3rd Place = $110,000 8th Place = $35,000 13th Place = $15,000
4th Place = $75,000 9th Place = $30,000 14th Place = $12,500
5th Place = $60,000 10th Place = $25,000 15th Place = $10,000


It would certainly take away a lot of the motivation to collude especially if they eliminate this bonus bs. It is hard police away groups, so you may as well take away their motivation and give everyone a legitimate shot. Moreover even iif some collusion continues, the guy playing himself will get a lot beter payday for coming in say 13th. The only ones that would get hurt long run by such a change are the players that are taking advantage of colluding.

[dilanesp]

If the point of these tournaments is to "identify the best player"...then the competing horseplayers should NOT be made privy to each other's bankroll-totals during the tournament's run, IMO. Let the players make their bets in any way that they like...but don't let them know how the rest of the group is doing. The players who are far behind should not be made known of that fact...causing them to stab wildly on extreme longshots in the last race(s), hoping to "get lucky". Each player should endeavor to do the best he can...WITHOUT knowing how his opposition is doing.

"Race analysis", "race betting", and most importantly "bankroll management" can all go on quite nicely even when the race-to-race totals are kept secret during the tournament. Indeed...keeping the leader-board a secret until the end is the only way that I can see by which the player's "skill level" takes precedence over the "entertainment value" that today's tournament formats seem to value most.

No tournament identifies the best contestant at anything. The way you do that is with a long regular season.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Think you are right about this. A good solution is to even out the payouts so the motivation to collude is wiped away. I think part of the prize for the individual playing is just the prestige of winning it. For the syndicates it is all about the money. So if the prize payouts were something like this for 1 million dollars:

1 $150,000.00
2 $120,000.00
3 $100,000.00
4 $80,000.00
5 $75,000.00
6 $70,000.00
7 $65,000.00
8 $60,000.00
9 $55,000.00
10 $50,000.00
11 $45,000.00
12 $40,000.00
13 $35,000.00
14 $30,000.00
15 $25,000.00


rather than the current



1st Place = $300,000 6th Place = $50,000 11th Place = $20,000
2nd Place = $200,000 7th Place = $40,000 12th Place = $17,500
3rd Place = $110,000 8th Place = $35,000 13th Place = $15,000
4th Place = $75,000 9th Place = $30,000 14th Place = $12,500
5th Place = $60,000 10th Place = $25,000 15th Place = $10,000


It would certainly take away a lot of the motivation to collude especially if they eliminate this bonus bs. It is hard police away groups, so you may as well take away their motivation and give everyone a legitimate shot. Moreover even iif some collusion continues, the guy playing himself will get a lot beter payday for coming in say 13th. The only ones that would get hurt long run by such a change are the players that are taking advantage of colluding.
Excellent idea here....and maybe they should pay down even further giving many more players a chance to recoup some of their bankroll...wasn't the stated goals of the administrator to swell the pools and create churn...? Rewarding more players allows more players to bet into future pools....as someone pointed out earlier, the original risk is the $2500 entry fee, so if you give a lot of players a chance to at least get THAT back...I think participation would soar and remove most of the enticement for collusive behavior...

[AndyC]

If the point of these tournaments is to "identify the best player"...then the competing horseplayers should NOT be made privy to each other's bankroll-totals during the tournament's run, IMO. Let the players make their bets in any way that they like...but don't let them know how the rest of the group is doing. The players who are far behind should not be made known of that fact...causing them to stab wildly on extreme longshots in the last race(s), hoping to "get lucky". Each player should endeavor to do the best he can...WITHOUT knowing how his opposition is doing.

"Race analysis", "race betting", and most importantly "bankroll management" can all go on quite nicely even when the race-to-race totals are kept secret during the tournament. Indeed...keeping the leader-board a secret until the end is the only way that I can see by which the player's "skill level" takes precedence over the "entertainment value" that today's tournament formats seem to value most.

There entertainment value is certainly important but it doesn't have to be sacrificed in order to keep skill level as a major factor in the outcome.

Handicappers need to be seen like the poker stars are seen. I can name at least 10 poker players who are considered stars but I couldn't tell you 10 horseplayers.

[AndyC]

No tournament identifies the best contestant at anything. The way you do that is with a long regular season.

No 1 of anything determines the best. However, when a person wins several contests or places highly in several contests the skill becomes apparent.

[AndyC]

Excellent idea here....and maybe they should pay down even further giving many more players a chance to recoup some of their bankroll...wasn't the stated goals of the administrator to swell the pools and create churn...? Rewarding more players allows more players to bet into future pools....as someone pointed out earlier, the original risk is the $2500 entry fee, so if you give a lot of players a chance to at least get THAT back...I think participation would soar and remove most of the enticement for collusive behavior...

Everyone gets a trophy? Nobody wants to put up $10,000 to play for a much reduced top prize. People at that level of betting aren't really at the chance to get back their $2,500. Your mindset is one of a $5 bettor, which certainly is not a bad thing, but I think it doesn't allow you to understand what motivates the big players.

[Robert Fischer]

:D

You guys are doing a great job of proving how difficult it is to design a contest like this without either exploitable loopholes, or a need for 'serious' policing/security...


Not any easy task.

[Robert Fischer]

There is obviously a huge edge to having multiple tickets in terms of being able to win a tournament because you can cover many more horses/combinations. However, someone is going to have to demonstrate to me how it enhances your long term ROI over what it would be other than simply asserting it.

And to be clear, I know there are game theory strategies the best players use to enhance their ability to win. But if they are skilled, they could use those strategies as individuals. Being skilled is an advantage that's independent from team play.

I want to see how the team play itself enhances the ROI you can get on your already existing skill other than enabling you to win more tournaments (and reduce volatility) on a percentage basis because you are covering more combinations.

Think of prize money as reduced takeout and/or increased odds

[VigorsTheGrey]

Everyone gets a trophy? Nobody wants to put up $10,000 to play for a much reduced top prize. People at that level of betting aren't really at the chance to get back their $2,500. Your mindset is one of a $5 bettor, which certainly is not a bad thing, but I think it doesn't allow you to understand what motivates the big players.

You are right, and that is because I am a $5 bettor, and guess what, so are 95% of the customers buying the general racing product...it eventually becomes a turn- off for most of us little guys to be excluded from event after event because track administrators cater to Mr. Moneybags and Mr Shark and Whale and Mr. Syndicate all the time...and leave us feeling left out...and a bit envious of a group of players exchanging prizes with one another on an obviously unlevel playing field...can you understand that feeling...?

[davew]

Excellent idea here....and maybe they should pay down even further giving many more players a chance to recoup some of their bankroll...wasn't the stated goals of the administrator to swell the pools and create churn...? Rewarding more players allows more players to bet into future pools....as someone pointed out earlier, the original risk is the $2500 entry fee, so if you give a lot of players a chance to at least get THAT back...I think participation would soar and remove most of the enticement for collusive behavior...


maybe top 50, or to everyone that ended with a positive ROI (calculate prizes after final)

a positive ROI would help reduce the BINGO bets at the end

[classhandicapper]

It seems that the game theory behind the collusion strategy is what some ppl are missing...

1) a group of 10 players (10 entries, $75,000) work together and then split the prize money and remaining bankroll 10 ways

2) a single player (1 entry, $7500) keeps all prize and bankroll money for himself

IMO, since the prize money is so disproportionately weighted towards the very top of the leaderboard, option 1 will have a much higher roi since 75,000 gives you a lot more leverage than 7500

In other words, you're much better off leveraging a high bankroll and then cutting it up amongst the team after the tourney than you are working by yourself with less leverage and keeping all profits

I apologize if someone has laid this out already or more eloquently... just wanted to chime in with some thoughts

This is not necessarily directed towards you, but since you presented the issue well, I responded to you.

I know there are game theory strategies the best players use to enhance their ability to win. But if they are skilled, they can and do use those strategies as individuals already. Being skilled at game theory is an advantage that's independent from team play.

I want to see how the team play itself enhances the game theory strategies and ROI you can get other than people simply asserting it.

Let's say I am one of the best tournament player in the world and my best friend is just as good. We both play tournaments independently and average a net profit of 25K each.

If we team up and invest the same exact amount of money each, show me how we can win more than 25K each.

If there is more than 1 possible smart play in a race, we can certainly cover both plays instead of us both covering the same play, but in some of those cases splitting up our bets is going to be a negative and deprive us of having 2 live tickets going forward.

[AndyC]

You are right, and that is because I am a $5 bettor, and guess what, so are 95% of the customers buying the general racing product...it eventually becomes a turn- off for most of us little guys to be excluded from event after event because track administrators cater to Mr. Moneybags and Mr Shark and Whale and Mr. Syndicate all the time...and leave us feeling left out...and a bit envious of a group of players exchanging prizes with one another on an obviously unlevel playing field...can you understand that feeling...?

No, I don't understand that feeling. The overwhelming majority of contests are designed for everybody. The track is not a charity, they are trying to run a business where catering to their biggest and best customers makes sense.

[AndyC]

maybe top 50, or to everyone that ended with a positive ROI (calculate prizes after final)

a positive ROI would help reduce the BINGO bets at the end

Bingo would be random and hopefully racing would be an educated attempt. Live money has a way of reducing the BINGO bets because you are losing real money. A one fee entry is lost money the minute you enter, there is no deterrent to chasing rainbows when it doesn't cost you anything.

[VigorsTheGrey]

No, I don't understand that feeling. The overwhelming majority of contests are designed for everybody. The track is not a charity, they are trying to run a business where catering to their biggest and best customers makes sense.

You are making my point here...the biggest and best, by sheer numbers, and it IS numbers of individuals that ultimately drive the racing product, and without which we would not even have a game, are vast numbers of little guys, where else do you think the denizens of racing derive most of their profits....?

[Robert Fischer]

This is not necessarily directed towards you, but since you presented the issue well, I responded to you.

I know there are game theory strategies the best players use to enhance their ability to win. But if they are skilled, they can and do use those strategies as individuals already. Being skilled at game theory is an advantage that's independent from team play.

I want to see how the team play itself enhances the game theory strategies and ROI you can get other than people simply asserting it.

Let's say I am one of the best tournament player in the world and my best friend is just as good. We both play tournaments independently and average a net profit of 25K each.

If we team up and invest the same exact amount of money each, show me how we can win more than 25K each.

If there is more than 1 possible smart play in a race, we can certainly cover both plays instead of us both covering the same play, but in some of those cases splitting up our bets is going to be a negative and deprive us of having 2 live tickets going forward.


There are two things going on; A)The increased chance of winning one of the top purse distributions of a top prize, and also B)the increased amount(and expected value) that you can optimally wager through Kelly.

Ideally, you and your bf are naturally high rollers who planned on betting the BC anyway. Now you are playing with a decent chance at getting a big rebate. (Keep in mind that if you were high rollers with an eye on value, you wouldn't be limited to your contest bets. That is, if you couldn't collude with enough bearded entrants, you could make additional non-contest wagers through your highly rebated ADW which would also benefit from the contest participation when viewed as a whole).

It wouldn't work very well if you were limited to a 'Win' wager in each race. But with a live betting format(especially one with insignificant penalties for passing a race), you could intelligently dutch/hedge with multiple positive expected value wagers.

Yes, if you made bad choices, or didn't intelligently coordinate your colluded wagers, you could fail to gain an advantage, or even be at a disadvantage to your individual play.

[Denny]

"If the point of these tournaments is to "identify the best player"...then the competing horseplayers should NOT be made privy to each other's bankroll-totals during the tournament's run, IMO. Let the players make their bets in any way that they like...but don't let them know how the rest of the group is doing. The players who are far behind should not be made known of that fact...causing them to stab wildly on extreme longshots in the last race(s), hoping to "get lucky". Each player should endeavor to do the best he can...WITHOUT knowing how his opposition is doing."

""Race analysis", "race betting", and most importantly "bankroll management" can all go on quite nicely even when the race-to-race totals are kept secret during the tournament. Indeed...keeping the leader-board a secret until the end is the only way that I can see by which the player's "skill level" takes precedence over the "entertainment value" that today's tournament formats seem to value most.""

THIS POST MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME THAN ANY OTHER.

Additionally, they could post standings without dollar amounts for the audience.

[Mc990]

This is not necessarily directed towards you, but since you presented the issue well, I responded to you.

I know there are game theory strategies the best players use to enhance their ability to win. But if they are skilled, they can and do use those strategies as individuals already. Being skilled at game theory is an advantage that's independent from team play.

I want to see how the team play itself enhances the game theory strategies and ROI you can get other than people simply asserting it.

Let's say I am one of the best tournament player in the world and my best friend is just as good. We both play tournaments independently and average a net profit of 25K each.

If we team up and invest the same exact amount of money each, show me how we can win more than 25K each.

If there is more than 1 possible smart play in a race, we can certainly cover both plays instead of us both covering the same play, but in some of those cases splitting up our bets is going to be a negative and deprive us of having 2 live tickets going forward.

Yes, I agree that there are strategies for handicapping and strategies for tournament play. No denying that. The issue I bring up is completely separate from that and in my mind brings certain players an even greater advantage than they may already have...

I can't show you the math behind it but I like to think that I'm a fairly logical thinker and the mitigating factor seems to be the "top heavy" payouts... without them your point would be correct and there would be no real advantage if prize money were doled out in correct proportions.

At least in my mind it stands to reason that the optimal strategy would be to leverage up before making bets, then split the profits among the partners... instead of the opposite (which is essentially what single entry players are doing).

[AndyC]

You are making my point here...the biggest and best, by sheer numbers, and it IS numbers of individuals that ultimately drive the racing product, and without which we would not even have a game, are vast numbers of little guys, where else do you think the denizens of racing derive most of their profits....?

I am not making your point. Every contest shouldn't be about including the so-called little guy. You don't enter because you are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to play. Just the same as I am not good enough to play in the U S Open Golf Tournament.

I won't say racing derives profits but I will say that racing derives most of their revenues from the big players.

[classhandicapper]

There are two things going on; A)The increased chance of winning one of the top purse distributions of a top prize, and also B)the increased amount(and expected value) that you can optimally wager through Kelly.


The increased chance of winning is offset by the increased cost of entry (unless someone can demonstrate the strategy that changes your ROI).

The lower volatility is something to be considered if you have bankroll issues. Then it makes perfect sense to partner. But that's not enhancing your ROI.

Partnering is something you could also do with someone outside a tournament.

If 2 guys are winning cash players with similar returns but they sometimes play different horses in the same race, they could wager more by partnering because they'd win more often. That's why I sometimes bet 2 horses in the same race if I think both are good value. It reduces the volatility and makes me comfortable betting more. But it does not change my ROI. If anything it probably lowers it a little because I am adding my second best value.

Maybe I should just read some of the tournament strategy books and see if I can understand it better. I'm new to this and just trying to understand it.

[AndyC]

........I can't show you the math behind it but I like to think that I'm a fairly logical thinker and the mitigating factor seems to be the "top heavy" payouts... without them your point would be correct and there would be no real advantage if prize money were doled out in correct proportions.....

Without "top heavy" payouts there would be no tournaments. So the correct proportions would be the amount that draws the biggest field.

[Robert Fischer]

CH I agree with the exceptions and conditions that you are concerned about.

I happen to feel pretty strongly about the value of making multiple positive expectation wagers(when they actually exist), as well as the value of increasing hit% when attempting to take down a top-heavy prize purse distribution.

I feel that syndicates have demonstrated most of this already if we view whale-rebates as synonymous with prize money.

I could post a photo of a multi +value kelly dutch/hedge, or try to write out the math, but I'm not motivated at the moment to concentrate on such heavy thinking, and I'm not sure it would do much for persuasion. Like I said, I agree with your concerns and counterpoints.

[Mc990]

Without "top heavy" payouts there would be no tournaments. So the correct proportions would be the amount that draws the biggest field.

Agreed. I should have said "relative" proportions.

[VigorsTheGrey]

They are not going for roi per se in the contests, it is the top heavy prizes that is the incentive.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The data of the BCBC Leaderboard suggests there were at least 183 entries that incurred penalty. This seems so because those entries show a minus score. There probably are many more entries that were in the 0.0 range or positive score that may also have incurred a penalty (skipped a race), but it is not possible to know for sure.

A total of 5000 penalty points were possible on Day 1 (1000 per race) and a total of 10,000 for Day 2 (2000 per race).

74 w/ a score of 0.0 or real close to it
20 w/ minus 2000
2 w/ minus 3000
30 w minus 4000
20 w/minus 6000
12 w/ minus 8000
2 w/ minus 9000
31 w/ minus 10,000
6 w/ minus 11,000
6 w/ minus 12,000
4 w/ minus 13,000

Zero and minus combined, 207, of which about 90 were part of a dual entry.

The average ranking of the single entry was 205.9
While the average ranking of the dual entries was 250, but both were essentially at the 0.0 score marker with the single entry average at the top of the zero scores.

[AskinHaskin]

You are right, and that is because I am a $5 bettor, and guess what, so are 95% of the customers buying the general racing product...it eventually becomes a turn- off for most of us little guys to be excluded from event after event because track administrators cater to Mr. Moneybags and Mr Shark and Whale and Mr. Syndicate all the time...and leave us feeling left out...and a bit envious of a group of players exchanging prizes with one another on an obviously unlevel playing field...can you understand that feeling...?



ROFL - Truer words were never spoken.


This entire interaction is a microcosm of the industry which is slowly dying all around it.

Most horseplayers have never, and will never even consider entering one or more of those supposed handicapping tournaments.

They are collectively run very poorly, and most horseplayers can be collectively run aground on the rocky shores (of the pools) during an average outing to any track in North America. They don't need to enter some special tournament to repeat that experience.

No, I don't understand that feeling. The overwhelming majority of contests are designed for everybody. The track is not a charity, they are trying to run a business where catering to their biggest and best customers makes sense.


The contests are NOT designed for everybody. Why the heck should some lady visiting the races for her company outing once a year be confronted with a prerequisite that she join the tour in order to play a simple contest?

People play various office pools and/or fantasy football/baseball without it being demanded of them that they join some secret boys club in order to play.

One need only sort the names from most any handicapping contest in the land, along gender lines, to see data which clearly underscores that the contests are NOT designed for everybody.

When contests are comprised in overwhelming majority of the minority members of the surrounding population base then it becomes clear very quickly that said contests are NOT "designed for everybody".


You are making my point here...the biggest and best, by sheer numbers, and it IS numbers of individuals that ultimately drive the racing product, and without which we would not even have a game, are vast numbers of little guys, where else do you think the denizens of racing derive most of their profits....?


The bettors who drive the 2017 racing product aren't even relevant to the conversation. For they are merely what's left after decades and decades of poor management decisions which have eroded the brightest among racegoers (who were inspired to find other forms of entertainment which are more fair to them).

What remains is akin to viewing the NYC sewer system and being somehow impressed by what are the largest rats who remain.

In order for the whole of horse racing to rebound and become more representative of the total population which surrounds it, those running racing will have to reverse decades of complete stupidity which has involved catering only to the large rats.

It has been that precise rat hole, and the selective choreography which has 2017 racing management and the largest rats deep within it and boring even deeper, which has come to represent what horse racing is, in the present. (the smarter folks among the fan base have walked away)

VigorsTheGrey is right...


He represents some of the vast majority, who have been ignored and threatened with extinction as racing management instead courts the large rats who have dragged the industry to new lows year after year after year.

(now that might make some sense in a case where the only way out wasn't via the vast majority which have been rendered almost extinct at tracks around the land.)

But for management there is zero long-term upside to courting the rats at management's ultimate expense and that of everybody else.

My god, even the federal government has figured out:

"You Will Never Be Ignored Again"

(so now only modern day horse racing languishes as an entity which virtually ignores 98% of its base)


I am not making your point. Every contest
shouldn't be about including the so-called little guy. You don't enter because you are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to play. Just the same as I am not good enough to play in the U S Open Golf Tournament.

I won't say racing derives profits but I will say that racing derives most of their revenues from the big players.



Racing only "derives most of their (2017) revenues" from relatively big players because its mindless policies and priorities have chased everyone else out of the fanbase.

The only way that North American horse racing can recover from its own stupidity exercised over three decades now, is to direct its attention toward everybody else beyond the rats to whom it has exclusively catered over that time period.

That's IT... it is that simple.


How difficult can it be to go to work each day and do something for all of the customers who walk into your business each day?


Why is that so easy to understand when you're running Kroger, but so impossible to figure out when you're running Delta Downs or the like??

[AndyC]

....The contests are NOT designed for everybody. Why the heck should some lady visiting the races for her company outing once a year be confronted with a prerequisite that she join the tour in order to play a simple contest?....

Tracks have contests all the time without any prerequisite that you join a tour. If you want to play in the big contests you might need to sign up. Seeing how some lady visiting the track once a year is highly unlikely to a) want to play in a handicapping contest and b) make herself eligible for the NHC it would be ridiculous to cater contests to such a fan. However, the lady
is not burdened with either high entry fees nor tour sign ups.


......VigorsTheGrey is right...

He represents some of the vast majority, who have been ignored and threatened with extinction as racing management instead courts the large rats who have dragged the industry to new lows year after year after year.

(now that might make some sense in a case where the only way out wasn't via the vast majority which have been rendered almost extinct at tracks around the land.)

But for management there is zero long-term upside to courting the rats at management's ultimate expense and that of everybody else.

I am not aware of any contests held that VTG has tried to enter at his local track. You don't go to Las Vegas and play Blackjack at the $100 table without ever having learned how to play. VTG needs to play at the $2 table for awhile before requesting that he get a seat at the $100 table with special lower limits only for him

.......How difficult can it be to go to work each day and do something for all of the customers who walk into your business each day?

Why is that so easy to understand when you're running Kroger, but so impossible to figure out when you're running Delta Downs or the like??

A racetrack is in the entertainment business. It doesn't sell food like Kroger. You seem to expect that everybody should get a backstage pass just by paying general admission. That doesn't happen in any business.

[dilanesp]

No 1 of anything determines the best. However, when a person wins several contests or places highly in several contests the skill becomes apparent.

True enough, but there is still so much varisnce in the tournament format.

[dilanesp]

"If the point of these tournaments is to "identify the best player"...then the competing horseplayers should NOT be made privy to each other's bankroll-totals during the tournament's run, IMO. Let the players make their bets in any way that they like...but don't let them know how the rest of the group is doing. The players who are far behind should not be made known of that fact...causing them to stab wildly on extreme longshots in the last race(s), hoping to "get lucky". Each player should endeavor to do the best he can...WITHOUT knowing how his opposition is doing."

""Race analysis", "race betting", and most importantly "bankroll management" can all go on quite nicely even when the race-to-race totals are kept secret during the tournament. Indeed...keeping the leader-board a secret until the end is the only way that I can see by which the player's "skill level" takes precedence over the "entertainment value" that today's tournament formats seem to value most.""

THIS POST MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME THAN ANY OTHER.

Additionally, they could post standings without dollar amounts for the audience.

I am remembering college debate. They never told us the standings or whether we won the debate rounds until the end. That prevented any strategizing based on position.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I am not making your point. Every contest shouldn't be about including the so-called little guy. You don't enter because you are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to play. Just the same as I am not good enough to play in the U S Open Golf Tournament.

I won't say racing derives profits but I will say that racing derives most of their revenues from the big players.

It is not so much that I am not good enough to play. There were many players in the BCBC that are considered top players that lost it all. In fact, after reviewing the results the average single entry and the average double entry went bust.

We know that at least 183 players went bust because they ended with a negative score. There were about 74 additional players whose score was ZERO but they may have have some bankroll left over as you cannot tell because the Leaderboard presented the score as bankroll joined with penalty. It would be great if the BCBC changed this to break out the penalty from the bankroll.

I wasn't in the contest because this is my first looksee into them to begin with, having no experience whatsoever with them. But regardless, this bankroll level is way, way past my limits...you see I normally use $300 per day per bankroll any given day, but IF there was a contest that one could enter for say $100 and the bankroll was $200, I give it a try. Yeah, I'm a small fry, but it is essentially how I have limited my losses to something I can afford and still have some fun with.

[Ian Meyers]

ROFL - Truer words were never spoken.

This entire interaction is a microcosm of the industry which is slowly dying all around it.


The only way that North American horse racing can recover from its own stupidity exercised over three decades now, is to direct its attention toward everybody else beyond the rats to whom it has exclusively catered over that time period.

That's IT... it is that simple.


Why is that so easy to understand when you're running Kroger, but so impossible to figure out when you're running Delta Downs or the like??


As some know, at one point I was in the middle of trying to change things for the better. For those that don't my ex-partners and I formed the first independent ADW that catered to the masses, Premier Turf Club. There were many others afterwards but we were first. The industry ran me out of Dodge.

I'm proud of what we accomplished there and pleased PTC continues to thrive. The industry didn't get it then and doesn't get it now. I'm not sure they ever will. As for me I have given up on being an agent of change and now work with a very small number of very large clients. Much better for my sanity.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The data of the BCBC Leaderboard suggests there were at least 183 entries that incurred penalty. This seems so because those entries show a minus score. There probably are many more entries that were in the 0.0 range or positive score that may also have incurred a penalty (skipped a race), but it is not possible to know for sure.

A total of 5000 penalty points were possible on Day 1 (1000 per race) and a total of 10,000 for Day 2 (2000 per race).

74 w/ a score of 0.0 or real close to it
20 w/ minus 2000
2 w/ minus 3000
30 w minus 4000
20 w/minus 6000
12 w/ minus 8000
2 w/ minus 9000
31 w/ minus 10,000
6 w/ minus 11,000
6 w/ minus 12,000
4 w/ minus 13,000

Zero and minus combined, 207, of which about 90 were part of a dual entry.

The average ranking of the single entry was 205.9
While the average ranking of the dual entries was 250, but both were essentially at the 0.0 score marker with the single entry average at the top of the zero scores.
I would like to spend some time with this post as I am intuiting that there are some important insights interpreting the above figures. One poster already has said that there's not much to learn from the bottom of the Leaderboard list. But it still intrigues me so I will struggle on. Maybe some of PA's group that also does contests and tourneys can chime in here as well....:)

Let's work from the bottom up. First, I 'd like to say that I think it is not coincidence that some of the country's top handicappers are listed here at the bottom. It is quite obvious to me that being here is the result of a carefully executed strategy attempting like others, to be in the top 15 and take a cash prize. The question is what sort of strategies might be in play to get you to minus 13000.....minus 12000....minus 10000, etc....?

I'm doing this because I think it might also reveal methods that work not just for contests, but also for just having a GREAT day at the races.

One thing that is striking is the widespread skipping of races by a very large percentage of top handicappers and it appears that more than half of all entries skipped at least 1 of the 10 required races, if not many more.

In the worst case, a score of minus 13000 meant that all race on Day 1 were skipped and also 4 of 5 on Day 2. So it appears that these 4 players were "all in" on one of the required races on Day 2. Now what kind of wagers would these player make to set themselves up for a score...Why did so many players end with scores of minus 2000, 4000, 6000 and 10000 in particular...What do these tell us about how players attempt to win these contests...?

[AndyC]

It is not so much that I am not good enough to play. There were many players in the BCBC that are considered top players that lost it all. In fact, after reviewing the results the average single entry and the average double entry went bust.

We know that at least 183 players went bust because they ended with a negative score. There were about 74 additional players whose score was ZERO but they may have have some bankroll left over as you cannot tell because the Leaderboard presented the score as bankroll joined with penalty. It would be great if the BCBC changed this to break out the penalty from the bankroll.

I wasn't in the contest because this is my first looksee into them to begin with, having no experience whatsoever with them. But regardless, this bankroll level is way, way past my limits...you see I normally use $300 per day per bankroll any given day, but IF there was a contest that one could enter for say $100 and the bankroll was $200, I give it a try. Yeah, I'm a small fry, but it is essentially how I have limited my losses to something I can afford and still have some fun with.

Good enough to play encompasses more than handicapping. It includes the ability to make large bets as though you were betting $10. Most bettors have a choke point where above a certain amount they have trouble pulling the trigger.

Once again, good players try to win the tournament, they are not trying to break even or get their entry fee back. Accordingly they bet many low probability high odds type bets and have a great chance of losing it all. That's why you see many top players at the bottom.

[Poindexter]

Andy C, you seem sold on the idea that paying out the same amount of money, less top heavy would kill participation in these tournaments. Do you have any proof to back this up? Has less top heavy proportions been tried in the past with poor results and only when they went to the top heavy payouts did these tournaments get popular? The Expected return for the typical player remains the same(actually much better because they will be playing on a much more level playing field-and will get a more substantial prize for the minors). What is wrong with putting up $10,000 and getting a $60,000 minor prize? May not be a big deal when you have a syndicate of a million bucks of Silicon Valley money behind you and are partnering with 7 others, but for the every day player, I believe it would be a huge thrill.

Also why isn't their another tournament for smaller players, Maybe $1000 buck buy in (basically 10% of the Breeders Cup Challenge). At that level you can have participation in the thousands, no? It can all be done online. . Over time the real good players at that level will grow to higher levels.

Despite it's 20 year dive in handle, racing is all about feeding the sea creatures in everything it does. One of these years, somebody just might figure out that it doesn't work. Hopefully in my lifetime.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Good enough to play encompasses more than handicapping. It includes the ability to make large bets as though you were betting $10. Most bettors have a choke point where above a certain amount they have trouble pulling the trigger.

Once again, good players try to win the tournament, they are not trying to break even or get their entry fee back. Accordingly they bet many low probability high odds type bets and have a great chance of losing it all. That's why you see many top players at the bottom.

Then in that case, you are right I am NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

But I tend to agree with Poindexter's explanation here about the potential for collusion here among well funded partners that somehow have more bullets in their holster than the average cowboy...I think that there was a "wait and see" approach which was admitted when they shifted to the exacta to get them up and over...And I agree with Poindexter that the Gun Runner/ Collected exacta was an easy one (even I had the tri cold) Talismanic was another story, a sleeper just under the radar but still I think 5th choice, still many decent handicappers had this selected...

But basically your position sounds like no changes are needed, just let the Team Play go on as it is...look the other way...cave in to the status quo, admit that it is impossible to prevent, that it doesn't give them much of an advantage, stuff like that...which I disagree with....

There are reasons why they don't allow more than dual entries, still the dual entry has everything in microcosm to set the precedent for collusion...there is leverage coordinating two entries that is not there for the single entrant...It's the way the players went bust that had scores of minus 10000...minus 12000....minus 13000...like someone said, there's 2 different games being played here...

...the one where the player attempts to build the bankroll over many races (the spirit of the contest)...and the other games of singularly over- whelming capital bets by the well funded "teams"...
If not, then what exactly are the administrators investigating.....?

There is obviously something here that needs to be addressed....or do you think it will all just resolve itself and nothing will change....the people that wrote the letter are not happy with how things are...how do you think their concerns might be addressed in a reasonable manner...?

[AltonKelsey]

Watching this with some interest and amusement.

I'm not 100% clear on the game theory of all this manipulating, but I'm a bit confused.

What happened to the notion of just picking them well on the day. An PARLAYING the winners in a big win?

I doubt any sniping strategy, as seems to have been employed by many could possibly beat that.

Does no one even attempt it? You'd think with so many players at least 1 or 2 would have a big , legitimately earned day, not depending on a single 1 or two race score.

Don't know, just asking.

[Robert Fischer]

more academic/ if anyone's interested rather than trying to prove a point...

I think that I recall noticing that I made an error in these(perhaps edge calculation), but I can't remember, and I'm not in the mood to proofread


anyway, kelly w/ multiple positive expectation (2/1 win , 9/1 ex)

http://oi68.tinypic.com/1zbrn21.jpg


vs. single 2/1 win

http://oi66.tinypic.com/2wegth4.jpg


even with the bankroll staying the same (whereas a syndicate/partnership would effectively double the bankroll) the optimum wager size increases with the multiple overlays vs the single overlay.

[Poindexter]

Watching this with some interest and amusement.

I'm not 100% clear on the game theory of all this manipulating, but I'm a bit confused.

What happened to the notion of just picking them well on the day. An PARLAYING the winners in a big win?

I doubt any sniping strategy, as seems to have been employed by many could possibly beat that.

Does no one even attempt it? You'd think with so many players at least 1 or 2 would have a big , legitimately earned day, not depending on a single 1 or two race score.

Don't know, just asking.

Once again, I don't really care what strategies are used. Parlays, lonshots, exactas, trifectas, doubles that is not where the edge is.(a live 15-1 shot can be any of these). The edge is that a group of 10 entries has 10 bullets to fire. Chances are one or more hits. By going all in on there bullets with one of their entries, they are near the top of the board and they play it out from there. The individiual, if he uses 10 bullets, he has to bring them down to $750 each. Even if he hits a 20-1 bullet, he only has a balance of $15,000 to show for it. Probably as an individual, your best off going all in on 1 bullet or 2 if you have a dual entry, but what percentage of the population can afford to put $7500 on a strong exacta, or 15-1 shot, or 3 horse trifecta key? Plus there is about a 80% chance you just coughed up $20,000(a serious amount of money to most players). A well funded group doesn't have that concern. So at the end of the day, your well funded group in most tourneys will have at least 1 entry near the top. Not saying they will win every tournament, they don't need to. They are going to be very close to the top often. It has nothing to do with choke points or great handicapping (not saying they aren't good handicappers) or being able to pull the trigger. It has to do with working as a team giving your self a large number of bullets and being very well funded. It is really that simple.

Just to restate, the risk is the $2500 per entry($25,000 on a 10 entry team) plus the expected roi on the bets. So assuming we are dealing with top level players and I certainly think we are, they are probably long run going to be at worse -5 % roi. So if they are making $100,000 worth of bets for the tournament($75,000 on the bullets and $25,000 on other bets), likely over the long run (tournament after tournament) the expected loss is no worse than $5000. Now is it not worth $30,000 in expected cost to have a good chance of:

ESTIMATED PRIZES
Of the $10,000 buy-in, $2,500 will be placed in the prize pool. If 400 players enter the Tournament, the cash prize pool paid will be $1,000,000.

1st Place - $300,000 6th Place - $50,000 11th Place - $20,000
2nd Place - $200,000 7th Place - $40,000 12th Place - $17,500
3rd Place - $110,000 8th Place - $35,000 13th Place - $15,000
4th Place - $75,000 9th Place - $30,000 14th Place - $12,500
5th Place - $60,000 10th Place - $25,000 15th Place - $10,000
BCBC/NHC BONUS
A $3 million National Horseplayers Championship (NHC) Tour bonus – the largest prize ever offered in the handicapping contest world – will be awarded to any horseplayer who wins the Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge (BCBC) and the NTRA National Horseplayers Championship, presented by Racetrack Television Network, Stats Race Lens and Treasure Island Las Vegas.



By the way not that the team has won leg 1, what is to stop them from having a team of 20 or 30 or even 50 entries for the NHC. They are looking at 3 million bucks bonus if they win.

[Poindexter]

By the way not that the team has won leg 1, what is to stop them from having a team of 20 or 30 or even 50 entries for the NHC. They are looking at 3 million bucks bonus if they win.

Disregard this late night stupidity by me.

[kyle r]

The first change that needs to be made is to strike the word "collusion." The problem is it can be taken to mean nothing or everything. Any behavior/action to be proscribed has to be spelled out clearly and in exact detail. To me, prohibition is not the path. Better to incentivize the kind of play you want and create a structure that levels the playing field as much as possible. To that end:
New Rule #1: Introduction of Leader Awards. At the end of Play Friday and after the first eight BC races on Saturday the points leader shall be awarded a bonus that accrues immediately to bankroll. For example: $100k in total bonuses could be paid out $5k,5k,7.5k,7.5k,10k,12.5k,12.5k,15k,25k.
*A rule such as this will stimulate more aggressive early play, increase churn, and organically disadvantage sitting on bankroll. It will also spread prize money around and create a nice analogies to racing i.e. "does the field allow a loose leader to lope on the lead."
New Rule #2: Minimums. Two possibilities. A simple requirement that players bet at least $7500 on the races before The Classic or also require a minimum to be bet Friday as well, such as $2000.
*This simplifies the rules, provides great freedom of action, and by tying the requirement to the penultimate race creates a furious two stage finish while again increasing churn.
New Rule #2a: Penalties. Again two ways to go. Either disqualification for failing to meet minimum handle requirements or a deduction from final point total in the amount of 10 times the handle shortfall. If there is a two part minimum requirement the penalty would apply to both.
*A note about late scratches: Any refunded money would have to be re-bet to satisfy the minimums unless the scratch happened in the last race either day. As that money could not be re-bet, the refunded bet would count toward the requirement.
New Rule #2b: The leaderboard would not only include point totals but handle totals as well, at least up until the requirement(s) are met.

[cj]

Best idea I've seen here is not showing scores.

[Poindexter]

Best idea I've seen here is not showing scores.

Don't see this at all. Knowing the scores of your competitiors is a big part of the strategy in the late races in any tournament I would assume. This does nothing to take away the edge of a team. If anything it would probably enhance it. Once the team hit a bullet or two or three and has worked itself up near the top of the leaderboard it will have to worry less someone close getting lucky in the last last couple of races. All the advantages of team play remain. As a team your strategy would likely be to work yourself up to a number you estimate should get the job done. Remember as a team this tournament is just one of many. So if you don't get the top prize you get 2nd, 3rd or 4th and you are back at it for the next tourney. As an individual you may not have this shot again for many years. If if you are sitting at $75,000 going into the last race or two, what do you do? Are you 1st? are you 5th? Are you 10th? Do you get aggessive late anc possibly cost yourself many positions and a lot of money needlessly or do you play it conservative trying to preserve which unbeknownst to you is only a 5th place finish.

[cj]

Don't see this at all. Knowing the scores of your competitiors is a big part of the strategy in the late races in any tournament I would assume. This does nothing to take away the edge of a team. If anything it would probably enhance it. Once the team hit a bullet or two or three and has worked itself up near the top of the leaderboard it will have to worry less someone close getting lucky in the last last couple of races. All the advantages of team play remain. As a team your strategy would likely be to work yourself up to a number you estimate should get the job done. Remember as a team this tournament is just one of many. So if you don't get the top prize you get 2nd, 3rd or 4th and you are back at it for the next tourney. As an individual you may not have this shot again for many years. If if you are sitting at $75,000 going into the last race or two, what do you do? Are you 1st? are you 5th? Are you 10th? Do you get aggessive late anc possibly cost yourself many positions and a lot of money needlessly or do you play it conservative trying to preserve which unbeknownst to you is only a 5th place finish.

It takes away stabbing and just getting lucky. It would create all new, different strategies that are much more dependent on skill.

[Poindexter]

It takes away stabbing and just getting lucky. It would create all new, different strategies that are much more dependent on skill.

This to me is not the problem with tourney play. Also if the payouts were leveled(not so top heavy) out as was suggested earlier, then what is the difference if you you only come 3rd instread of 1st or 7th instead of 5th because someone(s) got lucky in the last race. Not that much.

To me the real test is given all that has been discussed in this discussion, would you be willing to put up $10,000 in next years Breeders Cup Challenge (assuming that was a comfortable amount of money for you to put up-maybe you hit a $50,000 pick 5 the previous month) if the only rule change was that the scores were kept a secret until the tourney was over. To me the answer is not a chance in the world.

[AndyC]

Then in that case, you are right I am NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

My comment wasn't meant to degrade you but to merely point out that at this stage in your handicapping/betting career you aren't ready to compete in the big tournaments. But there are many small tournaments that you should enter.

But I tend to agree with Poindexter's explanation here about the potential for collusion here among well funded partners that somehow have more bullets in their holster than the average cowboy...I think that there was a "wait and see" approach which was admitted when they shifted to the exacta to get them up and over...And I agree with Poindexter that the Gun Runner/ Collected exacta was an easy one (even I had the tri cold) Talismanic was another story, a sleeper just under the radar but still I think 5th choice, still many decent handicappers had this selected...

I never said there wasn't potential for collusion among partners. Having a "wait and see" approach was available to every participant not just colluding partners. I am glad you thought the Gun Runner/Collected exacta was easy. Sometimes in handicapping everything works out exactly how you envision it and after the fact you think that it was easy. Sometimes before the fact you think a race is easy and then your horses run last and next to last and you leave scratching your head.

But basically your position sounds like no changes are needed, just let the Team Play go on as it is...look the other way...cave in to the status quo, admit that it is impossible to prevent, that it doesn't give them much of an advantage, stuff like that...which I disagree with....

Team play has been going on since tournaments started. It would be nice to shut it down but realistically you can't. So I simply say embrace any and all collusion. Team up with whomever you please. It still takes lots of skill and strategy to win while colluding. I challenged Poindexter to show how he would go about colluding by posting selections and strategies at the track of his choice. You may think it is easy so I challenge you as well. It's one thing to believe something it is another to test it and prove your point.

There are reasons why they don't allow more than dual entries, still the dual entry has everything in microcosm to set the precedent for collusion...there is leverage coordinating two entries that is not there for the single entrant...It's the way the players went bust that had scores of minus 10000...minus 12000....minus 13000...like someone said, there's 2 different games being played here...

...the one where the player attempts to build the bankroll over many races (the spirit of the contest)...and the other games of singularly over- whelming capital bets by the well funded "teams"...

The spirit of the contest is to see who can have the biggest bankroll at the end of the contest. It is the same spirit that every horseplayer has when they bet each day. You bet to win the most amount of money you can.

[cj]

This to me is not the problem with tourney play. Also if the payouts were leveled(not so top heavy) out as was suggested earlier, then what is the difference if you you only come 3rd instread of 1st or 7th instead of 5th because someone(s) got lucky in the last race. Not that much.

To me the real test is given all that has been discussed in this discussion, would you be willing to put up $10,000 in next years Breeders Cup Challenge (assuming that was a comfortable amount of money for you to put up-maybe you hit a $50,000 pick 5 the previous month) if the only rule change was that the scores were kept a secret until the tourney was over. To me the answer is not a chance in the world.

I think leveling the payouts would take away the biggest incentive to playing, the lure of the big score.

[AndyC]

It takes away stabbing and just getting lucky. It would create all new, different strategies that are much more dependent on skill.

One stab doesn't usually win a tournament. And a so-called stab isn't necessarily unskilled.

[VigorsTheGrey]

So basically I pony up $2500 that gets me into the contest...then attempt to link long shots into low hit percentage winning combinations while overcoming 25% rake, and typical racing luck that gets me in range...now I have to risk my entire bankroll and go up against multiple teams of colluding well- funded sharpies to put me over the top...SIGN ME UP....!

[Poindexter]

I think leveling the payouts would take away the biggest incentive to playing, the lure of the big score.

You may very well be right but you have to pick your poison. The status quo, despite Andy C's contention otherwise, is extremely unfair to the limited capital average player and I know there is virtually no way to police this. I still am trying to figure out why a $100,00 2nd prize or $50,000 minor prize is considered chump change. They also can do something like pulling $100,000 out of the prize pool and havinng the top 10 finishers compete in a follow up fake money tournament (them only and completely free), and distribute that $100,000 to the winner maybe winner take all.

I don't have a horse in this race. I never gave these touraments a thought. i just have alwasy known that the chances of me turning $7500 inito $60,000 on any given day is basically nil(barring hitting a big pick 4 or pick 5 or pick 6). I just assumed I wasnt good enough, even though I am pretty good at this game.

Didn't think about having 9 other guys enter with me, dutching a race and having one of us at between $60,000 to $65,000 and going from there or using a stragtegy as I have outlined in prior posts.

[AndyC]

So basically I pony up $2500 that gets me into the contest...then attempt to link long shots into low hit percentage winning combinations while overcoming 25% rake, and typical racing luck that gets me in range...now I have to risk my entire bankroll and go up against multiple teams of colluding well- funded sharpies to put me over the top...SIGN ME UP....!

Perhaps you should enter twice and find a few friends. Otherwise stick to the local lower level tourneys.

[AndyC]

You may very well be right but you have to pick your poison. The status quo, despite Andy C's contention otherwise, is extremely unfair to the limited capital average player and I know there is virtually no way to police this....

The tournament is not designed for the limited capital average player.

And yes there is virtually no way to police it.

Instead of cutting up the carrot that draws the players, the big lopsided purses, let the marketplace work its wonders. Players will vote with their entries. If I thought I had no chance to win due to either the rules or because of collusion I simply wouldn't enter. Doesn't mean some rules shouldn't be amended or added but I don't think major surgery is required.

[Poindexter]

The tournament is not designed for the limited capital average player.

And yes there is virtually no way to police it.

Instead of cutting up the carrot that draws the players, the big lopsided purses, let the marketplace work its wonders. Players will vote with their entries. If I thought I had no chance to win due to either the rules or because of collusion I simply wouldn't enter. Doesn't mean some rules shouldn't be amended or added but I don't think major surgery is required.

So in your opinion, racing has no responsibility. They hype these tournaments to everyday players who are not financially capable of competing and are thus shark food, , feeding the groups that are colluding, and your response is to let the market decide. You are all heart. The market decides every year when this sport rolls further down the toilet.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The dialogue between Andy C and Poindexter is lively, interesting, and enlightening...I do not consider their position to be antithetical to one another. I am reminded of the parable of the blindfolded men feeling around different parts of an elephant and then describing the animal based on their partial perspectives... Kudos to both of you, I am learning much here, thank you...

Now the surprising item that is surfacing in this discussion is the almost total agreement by all parties that cooperation among entries has been a more or less permanent feature of tournament play. A feature that, apparently, cannot be fully removed. There also seems to be a feeling or tacit agreement that cooperation between parties tends to place the single player in some inequitable position...this I think is the main thrust of the letter sent to the BCBC administrators by a group of players, apparently seeking some sort of redress.

What will be the response from BCBC....?

An internal investigation is being conducted looking into the activities of the winner, Nisan Gabbay and his partner McFarland... And apparently also into the activities of Moomey and Ball.

Now there are left at least 2 parts
1. The findings of the investigation, and
2. The response

With regard to the findings: selected hypothetical scenarios...
A. Gabbay and McFarland colluded, against known rules
B. Mooney and Ball colluded, against known rules
C. One party or neither party colluded

With regard to the response:
A. Do nothing
B. Disqualify one or both parties from purse, awards.
C. Adopt new rules, and/ or change old ones to allow cooperation between entrants...

Which path do you think BCBC will take...? And which path OUGHT they take, and why...?

[cj]

One stab doesn't usually win a tournament. And a so-called stab isn't necessarily unskilled.

It depends on the stab. Sometimes there is only one horse that can make a difference so it is a must bet, no handicapping required.


What is the downside to not knowing how others are doing?

[AndyC]

It depends on the stab. Sometimes there is only one horse that can make a difference so it is a must bet, no handicapping required.


What is the downside to not knowing how others are doing?

The downside is your objective. In a tournament you are trying to beat everybody not just trying to beat the track take and make a profit. playing daily you only need to know how you are doing everyone else is irrelevant. It definitely affects your style of play just as tournament poker does. I really can't think of too many games where score doesn't dictate strategy.

The objective of racing is to make stars or celebrities out of the winners. That attracts players. A good story of how winner succeeded (leaving out the collusion part) goes a long way to meeting the objective.

[AltonKelsey]

...
I don't have a horse in this race. I never gave these touraments a thought. i just have alwasy known that the chances of me turning $7500 inito $60,000 on any given day is basically nil(barring hitting a big pick 4 or pick 5 or pick 6). I just assumed I wasnt good enough, even though I am pretty good at this game.

...


That's only 7-1. I think you underestimate yourself and others. Maybe the 60k looms large to the eye but 7500 is a substantial nut. Just a few hundred talented players, without cheating, I'd think it was quite likely that would be attained and better.

I always ask how much did he bet, when regaled with tales of scores.

[cj]

The downside is your objective. In a tournament you are trying to beat everybody not just trying to beat the track take and make a profit. playing daily you only need to know how you are doing everyone else is irrelevant. It definitely affects your style of play just as tournament poker does. I really can't think of too many games where score doesn't dictate strategy.

The objective of racing is to make stars or celebrities out of the winners. That attracts players. A good story of how winner succeeded (leaving out the collusion part) goes a long way to meeting the objective.

It just seems to me like it makes hitting something early a bit of a disadvantage. I don't know, I'm probably wrong, never was attracted to tournaments. I like the day to day grind.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The dialogue between Andy C and Poindexter is lively, interesting, and enlightening...I do not consider their position to be antithetical to one another. I am reminded of the parable of the blindfolded men feeling around different parts of an elephant and then describing the animal based on their partial perspectives... Kudos to both of you, I am learning much here, thank you...

Now the surprising item that is surfacing in this discussion is the almost total agreement by all parties that cooperation among entries has been a more or less permanent feature of tournament play. A feature that, apparently, cannot be fully removed. There also seems to be a feeling or tacit agreement that cooperation between parties tends to place the single player in some inequitable position...this I think is the main thrust of the letter sent to the BCBC administrators by a group of players, apparently seeking some sort of redress.

What will be the response from BCBC....?

An internal investigation is being conducted looking into the activities of the winner, Nisan Gabbay and his partner McFarland... And apparently also into the activities of Moomey and Ball.

Now there are left at least 2 parts
1. The findings of the investigation, and
2. The response

With regard to the findings: selected hypothetical scenarios...
A. Gabbay and McFarland colluded, against known rules
B. Mooney and Ball colluded, against known rules
C. One party or neither party colluded

With regard to the response:
A. Do nothing
B. Disqualify one or both parties from purse, awards.
C. Adopt new rules, and/ or change old ones to allow cooperation between entrants...

Which path do you think BCBC will take...? And which path OUGHT they take, and why...?

If cooperation on entries in tournaments is as widespread as reported then, even it Gabbay and Moomey cooperated with others (which has yet to be established) in this contest, in all probability there were many more entries that were doing similar things.

If this is true, then it places the BCBC administrators in a tough position, because it might appear that they were singling out certain parties, while ignoring others.

My opinion is that no findings will be presented, at least not to the public, and the prizes will be awarded per the original order.

It doesn't appear to be in their interests for the BCBC to deny the victors their prizes and possibly face litigation as a result. There probably will not be much of a response to the letter either.

It will be interesting to see what actually transpires.

Perhaps time will ease the interest in the current topic while there could be a "shift" to dialogue regarding possible rules alterations for next year, in the interest of making the product "better" with a focus on continually improving the contest for everyone with few specifics addressed.

Overtime, a slightly altered guideline may be issued increasing the penalty point amounts for skipping races, and for under-betting required amounts.

The Leaderboard will probably be updated to breakout penalty amounts from bankroll so as to be more accurate throughout the contest.

The issue goes away in a whimper "for the good of the image of racing"....

[Poindexter]

Anyone can turn $7500 into $60,000, if they bet very aggressively. The problem is that if $7500 represents a significant amount of money to the player it is irrational to bet that aggressively, because there is a very good chance you end up going broke. To the contrary, a tournament at 10% of the breeders Cup challenge, would enable many players to attack at the proper aggression and if they can couple that with 10 times the entrants (say 4000 rather than their projected 400, then colluding would become a non issue (though I do think they should discourage it-and limit entries to 2 per family). If they do that, they can even keep the the payouts top heavy as they are.

If it was my decision, that is the direction I would go. Make it affordabe for many, encourage online play (not sure why someone has to be there to play in a tournament) and have thousands of entries. So bottom line is rather than have 400 people putting in $10,000 an entry to try to win a $300,000 top prize I would shoot for 4000 people, putting in $1000($750 live play) an entry for a top prize of $300,000. I know this goes against the original mission of encouraging on track betting but I think this would solve the problem.

[ubercapper]

This one is an easy one.

The rules of the BCBC need to be tightened to reward handicapping and not stabbing.

1. Must bet at least 10% of your bankroll in each BC race. (Lets see how long the stabbers stay alive under that format)

2.one entry per person.

3. accurate bankroll for each player in the top 100 after each race is official posted for all to see (level playing field).

Allan

The two BCBC/NHC Qualifying contests at Keeneland, with a $2,000 starting bankroll, have similar rules:

1. Must bet $400 on 5 of the 9 races not including the 8th or 9th race, in which you must bet 50% of your bankroll.

2.If your bankroll goes below $400 you must go all in on one of the five mandatory races and if you get to the 8th or 9th and have less than $400 you must go all in.

3. If you don't make the six mandatory plays at those thresholds you are disqualified.

4. The leaderboard is based on total winnings, not points, so anyone can determine at any time what another player has to wager with, with the exception of daily doubles (added this year) players are live to.

I feel there are very few, if any, loopholes in these rules that could be exploited. Particularly there doesn't appear to be any way to sit on a bankroll and take a penalty because if you don't make the minimum bets required you are disqualified.

[AndyC]

Anyone can turn $7500 into $60,000, if they bet very aggressively. The problem is that if $7500 represents a significant amount of money to the player it is irrational to bet that aggressively, because there is a very good chance you end up going broke......

This is a bad thing? People complain about stabbing and hitting longshots. No better deterrent than a significant monetary loss.

If it was my decision, that is the direction I would go. Make it affordabe for many, encourage online play (not sure why someone has to be there to play in a tournament) and have thousands of entries. So bottom line is rather than have 400 people putting in $10,000 an entry to try to win a $300,000 top prize I would shoot for 4000 people, putting in $1000($750 live play) an entry for a top prize of $300,000. I know this goes against the original mission of encouraging on track betting but I think this would solve the problem.

Your idea would probably work fine and should probably be pursued for another tournament. While part of the goal of the tournament is to increase churn another part is to showcase the biggest and best handicappers. To do that you don't want to make them comfortable you need to make them sweat every bet they make. Most players can pull the trigger on a $100 bet on a longshot but can they bet $2000 on the same horse. The BCBC is the stage and it has done a pretty good job so far. Tweak the rules to smooth out the problems with the race skipping and penalties and police the teaming, if possible.

[NTamm1215]

The two BCBC/NHC Qualifying contests at Keeneland, with a $2,000 starting bankroll, have similar rules:

1. Must bet $400 on 5 of the 9 races not including the 8th or 9th race, in which you must bet 50% of your bankroll.

2.If your bankroll goes below $400 you must go all in on one of the five mandatory races and if you get to the 8th or 9th and have less than $400 you must go all in.

3. If you don't make the six mandatory plays at those thresholds you are disqualified.

4. The leaderboard is based on total winnings, not points, so anyone can determine at any time what another player has to wager with, with the exception of daily doubles (added this year) players are live to.

I feel there are very few, if any, loopholes in these rules that could be exploited. Particularly there doesn't appear to be any way to sit on a bankroll and take a penalty because if you don't make the minimum bets required you are disqualified.

Best format for a tournament by far. And Jim Goodman, who runs the tournament, is the best organizer out there.

When Jim relaxed the rules and made it so that you could bet 5 races plus the half bankroll (you used to have to bet 8 of 9 races) he made it so that you were DQ'd if you failed to make the minimum bets. That is the system that every event needs to adopt. It is the only way to ensure people keep betting and the contests are, after all, about betting.

[AndyC]

Best format for a tournament by far. And Jim Goodman, who runs the tournament, is the best organizer out there.

When Jim relaxed the rules and made it so that you could bet 5 races plus the half bankroll (you used to have to bet 8 of 9 races) he made it so that you were DQ'd if you failed to make the minimum bets. That is the system that every event needs to adopt. It is the only way to ensure people keep betting and the contests are, after all, about betting.

It sounds like Jim Goodman should be running the BCBC.

[Poindexter]

This is a bad thing? People complain about stabbing and hitting longshots. No better deterrent than a significant monetary loss.



Your idea would probably work fine and should probably be pursued for another tournament. While part of the goal of the tournament is to increase churn another part is to showcase the biggest and best handicappers. To do that you don't want to make them comfortable you need to make them sweat every bet they make. Most players can pull the trigger on a $100 bet on a longshot but can they bet $2000 on the same horse. The BCBC is the stage and it has done a pretty good job so far. Tweak the rules to smooth out the problems with the race skipping and penalties and police the teaming, if possible.

Not a bad thing, it just tilts the edge in favor of those with deep pockets willing to play with proper aggression to win the tournament and taking advantage of the fact they can use dutching or other techniques to catapult one of their entries to near the top of the leaderboard.


Regarding the rest.

Actually agree with you on this. :jump: Thought about it after posting last night. They should have two tourneys. Fix the current one best they can, and have an online one similar to the one I proposed at roughly 10% of the stakes (in fact if they grow it enough they can have multiple on line tourneys at various buy ins). It also enables them to keep that extra on track betting that they want so much. The players that excel at these lower stakes tournaments will graduate to the big leagues. It seems a little crazy that the World Series of Poker had over 7000 entries in its main event and the Breeders Cup Betting Challenge was estimating 400 (don't know what the final count was). As with everything else it does, racing is failing to get the job done.



I am going to drop out of this discussion because I have said all I have to say (too many times:lol:) and don't feel a need to go any further in the discussion. I hope they come up with some good ideas and make the playing field a lot more equitable for everyone. If executed properly tourneys should be a tool to help grow the sport not feed well funded sharks playing in teams at the expense of players that don't know what is going on.

[classhandicapper]

I don't know, I'm probably wrong, never was attracted to tournaments. I like the day to day grind.

Yeah, I agree.

They are popular so I hope they generate greater interest in the sport and more players on the cash side. But to me, they are a laughably bad way to measure handicapping knowledge and ability. Playing for cash is the best way to measure that.

The only tournament format I think would come close to measuring handicapping and betting ability would be one where everyone started with the same amount of money (their own cash), you had to make some minimum number of bets over the course of a week, month or even longer, and then at the end of it whoever had the biggest bankroll won (no leader board to know where you stand that might cause you to alter strategy).

That's a handicapping and betting contest. To each his own, but this other stuff is more of a game. It's not really handicapping even though there's an element of handicapping to it.

[PaceAdvantage]

You are right, and that is because I am a $5 bettor, and guess what, so are 95% of the customers buying the general racing product...it eventually becomes a turn- off for most of us little guys to be excluded from event after event because track administrators cater to Mr. Moneybags and Mr Shark and Whale and Mr. Syndicate all the time...and leave us feeling left out...and a bit envious of a group of players exchanging prizes with one another on an obviously unlevel playing field...can you understand that feeling...?Boo hoo...:(

[PaceAdvantage]

I won't say racing derives profits but I will say that racing derives most of their revenues from the big players.This. Most definitely THIS.

[AltonKelsey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/buttons/green/viewpost.gif (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2241676#post2241676)
I won't say racing derives profits but I will say that racing derives most of their revenues from the big players.


And the big players derive their profits from the small players.

So who , in the end, is the man?

[thaskalos]

And the big players derive their profits from the small players.

So who , in the end, is the man?

The "man" is the guy who pockets a profit in this game...regardless of whether he bets big or small.