NHC Rules Issues

[OTM Al]

As I said in my travelogue thread, after the NHC awards banquet I met Steve Crist and chatted with him for a bit about the rules of the contest and how the incentives created by the rules basically rule out solid handicapping on the second day if you aren't near the lead. The second day pretty much turns into picking whatever you can find at 20-1 to try to get lucky and catch up. It turns into playing lotto at the end. Steve agreed with me that it wasn't a great situation and said if I could come up with any suggestions he'd be glad to listen. So that's what I'm going to do. There's some pretty smart people around here and I would like to hear some of your opinions. There's also a couple Economics professsors here at NYU I still talk to so I think I may take the problem to them as well and see what we can come up with. Might be kinda fun and who knows, maybe Steve really will listen and we'll find something that makes it an even more solid contest to find out who is the best handicapper rather than who was the luckiest.

The current rules are basically as follows: Each contestant places a mythical $2 win and place wager on one horse in 15 races each day. 8 races are pre-selected each day and 7 are chosen by the contestant from all the other races of the day at the eligible tracks. The finish order is determined by who has accumulated the most winnings over the 30 races. The top 20 places received prizes as well as the top 4 of each individual day. Current standings are posted about every hour during the contest, so players are always pretty aware of where they stand. Winning returns are capped at $42 for win and $22 for place. And that is basically it.

The incentive problem here is that you really aren't rewarded for handicapping. Picking the winner doesn't matter, only picking a winner that has long odds. Consider a horse going off at 5/2. Nothing wrong with 5/2, especially if you think the horse is even better than that in reality. All your handicapping tells you that that is the horse that will win the race. But because you are behind in the contest, you have 0 incentive to take him because he's not going to make up any ground for you. You can pass the race, though you can't if its a manditory or if you are running out of races to choose from or you can pick a different horse and just pray. Last time I checked, handicappers do pray a bit, but praying isn't handicapping. Under the current rules a 5/2 will earn you about $10 whereas a 20/1 or better will give you $64. In other words a lucky guess is worth 6 1/2 solid winning picks that go off at 5/2. (I picked 5/2 as an example perhaps from spite as this very situation happened to me saturday. See Belly Rub at Aqu. 15/1 ML, off 5/2. If I was of a mind to be betting real money that day I would have emptied the wallet on that one). Seems a little skewed to me.

One solution we came up with during the contest itself was that perhaps part of the picks should have to be made before the track opens. That way you are simply picking based on handicapping skills alone. Steve thought that was interesting though he felt that tote watching was such an ingrained tool that such a restriction really wasn't fair. He's not wrong about that, but then again, public handicappers have to make blind picks every day and everyone judges their value as a handicapper by those picks, so maybe there is something to it.

Something else I've come up with as I've mulled it around is a point system that rewards players for both picking winners and for bankroll. Consider the following rules. A win is worth 3 points. A place is worth 1 point. Each $5 returned is worth 1 point. Compare this to the case above. A 5/2 winner gets 3 points for the win and wins about $10, so about 2 more points (fractional points would be allowed on bankroll) for the bankroll for a total of about 5 points. The bomb pays 3 points for the win and 12.8 points for the bankroll for 15.8 points. With this system the bomb is only worth about 3 times the 5/2 winner. This would get rid of some of the incentive to just go bombs away and stick to solid handicapping. Yes, it would collapse near the end again for the same reasons, but reward for guessing is far less than before and reward for real handicapping skill is much better.

So I'd love to hear what anyone out there thinks, whether they've played the contest or not. The first question that needs to be answered is what is good handicapping? If its only final bankroll no matter how you got there, then no reason to change anything. But if you think there is a little more to it then that, then the next question is how can a game be designed so that the incentives created by the rules are compatible with that definition of good handicapping. I look forward to your thoughts.

[TravisVOX]

Something else I've come up with as I've mulled it around is a point system that rewards players for both picking winners and for bankroll. Consider the following rules. A win is worth 3 points. A place is worth 1 point. Each $5 returned is worth 1 point. Compare this to the case above. A 5/2 winner gets 3 points for the win and wins about $10, so about 2 more points (fractional points would be allowed on bankroll) for the bankroll for a total of about 5 points. The bomb pays 3 points for the win and 12.8 points for the bankroll for 15.8 points. With this system the bomb is only worth about 3 times the 5/2 winner. This would get rid of some of the incentive to just go bombs away and stick to solid handicapping. Yes, it would collapse near the end again for the same reasons, but reward for guessing is far less than before and reward for real handicapping skill is much better.

I think this has the most legs, in fact, I really like it. The question is, who out handicaps whom?

If I pick a steady diet of 3-1 or 4-1 horses, and one guy gets a 60-1 on top to beat me, did he really out-handicap me?

This concept at its core still satisfies the need for longshots but also rewards the win pick system. Great start.

[toetoe]

Al,

I've always advocated for making all bets before the first post. The points/mutuel blend is another good idea, but the points shouldn't overwhelmingly favor the winner. The absurd example would be a chalkfest with a winner whose picks actually LOST money.

As to swinging for the fences on day two, people are nuts if they're not swinging from Day 1, Race 1.

Good thread. :ThmbUp:

[TurfRuler]

Remove the cap on bets. Make the mystical bets larger. $200 to win. All bets are allowed, exacta, trifecta , superfectas, pick threes, pick fours, pick 6. The winner is the player who amasses the most money after the three day contest. There can still be mandatory races and selected races. In poker the term is "know when to hold, no when to fold." Why limit the player from winning a fortune in the contest. If you lose you lose, if you win then your handicapping is the key. If luck befalls you then so be it.

[njcurveball]

Make the mystical bets larger.

You cannot get any larger than mystical! :lol:

[njcurveball]

There is a very simple solution to this.

EVERYONE must put their bets in BEFORE the first event. Many on-line contests are run this way.

I am sure the other side is not enough time to handicap, late scratches, track changes, etc. They are all valid reasons, but take away the strategy of putting the wagers in before the first event.

I was shocked looking at the NHC standings seeing how many people lost money. There were even a few who went 0 for 30.

I am always amazed when they suggest "live money" tournaments as a solution. Those tourneys are more about betting the whole bankroll and getting lucky than flat bet tourneys.

Jim

[rrbauer]

The contests should work just like a day at the track. You go to the track with a bankroll. You bets your money and takes your chances. End of the day, player with the biggest bankroll is the leader. Ditto, day 2. If you want to cap the bet amount per race to keep someone from plunging (and hitting) on a 20-1 with their entire bankroll that would have merit. I can understand limiting some of the bet types in order to facilitate scoring. But, on balance, it needs to reflect the realities of playing the horses with real money.

Basically, I quit playing these contests because of the rules forcing me to play win/place for the same amount every bet. Hell, I would rather take the $600 or the dime (or whatever the entry fee is these days) and go play using that bankroll for 2 or 3 days....play my tracks, my horses, my way.

I won a contest in LV years ago when I leapfrogged (from 6th place) the field in the last race with a $50 horse....pissed everyone off that had been in the top 5....called me lucky and moon shooter....guess what....that hoss was my best bet of the day and I took over $7K out of the race in real money! (I admit I was pretty loud when the race ended.) My point is that it's possible to get big-price hosses from handicapping and you never know when they might pop up.

[njcurveball]

Ahhhh!!!!

So first you tell us you dont like them because someone can hit a 20-1 and jump over all the leaders!

Then you tell us how YOU did it!

Dirty pool old man! I like it! :ThmbUp:

But seriously about 75% of these contests are "live money". Many of them simply give you a betting card and tell you to go to town! There has to be one like that in your neighborhood.

Now let me ask you this, if you are playing Tiger Woods for money, would you rather play every hole for the same amount or be able to bet your whole bankroll on one hole?

Jim

[Niko]

I was thinking about this a couple months ago. A blended point total based on number of wins/places and pay-out seems like the best solution IF you're looking to reward good value handicapping AND you're going to have a running point total.

They capped the odds on pay-outs because of that one horse that payed
99-1 or whatever in the stakes race. Maybe now they add a win total due to players chasing and hitting on the 2nd day. How many people had McAnn's Mojave as a prime play or secondary play before the day started??

The 2nd day like you mentioned has the people lagging swinging for the fences and the leaders making regular bets. If there was a consistency factor that would level the playing field.

The problem with picks before the races go off is;

How do you handle late scratches..in the mandatory races it's easy because you can do an alternate pick, but what if it comes off the grass late?

You may like a horse at 6-1 and bet against it at 3-1, making your bets early negates a big handicapping judgement factor and would upset a great many people.

So figure a balance that rewards consistency and value--gives people in the hunt on the second day a chance and protects the leaders from people taking calculated stabs they may not have taken.

[JustRalph]

eliminate 75 percent of the field after day one...............send them home.

[Niko]

Not a bad idea if you maybe start on Friday and make it 3 days. Eliminate bottom 25% day one, the remaining 50% or so on day two and then turn it into a final table of sorts like Poker, makes for better TV.

I wouldn't eliminate too many people for having 1 bad day....that can happen all too easily.

[Toss_DeLoser]

Have all mandatory races and either (a) count only the number of winners or (b) take the number of winners times the amount won.

[bigmack]

As to swinging for the fences on day two, people are nuts if they're not swinging from Day 1, Race 1.
And that's the name of that tune. It's mind boggling to me the number of players that never take a swing at a 20-1+ shot. In a tournament, you'd better be looking for those or simply don't show up for the event.

Most players can become better players by playing each day like they're involved in a tournament to jar their recollection of their involvement in the game - profits, profits, profits. Handicapping a race and betting the one you think should win the race irrespective of odds is insane.

[njcurveball]

Have all mandatory races and either (a) count only the number of winners or (b) take the number of winners times the amount won.

I think you qualify for a tournament director!

a.) So how many people would you like playing the favorite? How bout EVERYONE?

b.) So I have 10 winners, they each paid $4, Do I now have $400? What is my incentive to handicap rather than play all the favorites?

Now how do you separate a field of 350 people when everyone is playing the favorite to win?


Everyone has some good ideas, but there is really not one BEST idea. They all have flaws and that is why the NHC has tried to get the best compromise.

The World Series also has people flat betting win and place.

[Tom]

Give everyone one bankroll to start - all bets come from that, and if you tap out, you are out. Make the bankroll insufficient to get you more than halfway through - if that far.

[njcurveball]

You may like a horse at 6-1 and bet against it at 3-1, making your bets early negates a big handicapping judgement factor and would upset a great many people.

.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The thread was about people "chasing" assuming they do not handicap. Yet, when your horse you like at 6-1 wins and pays $42, they say you are chasing as well.

There are flaws in every design. That is why they have kept the same format every year.

Would you say the person leaving the track with the most winnings at the end of the day is the best handicapper there?

[Pace Cap'n]

How about an inverse sliding scale on the payout caps? The deeper into the tourney, the lower the caps--turn that $40 horse into a $10 horse by the end of the tourney.

Sort of like blinds in poker, only in reverse.

[PIC6SIX]

I enter quite a few NTRA contests. Last July 17th I traveled to Calder to play their contest. The one aspect I liked about it was the "Multiplier" format that was in place. Every winner you had no matter if it was 4:5 or 99:1 increased your "Multiplier Total" by one. Your total mutuals accumulated by the end of the contest was then multiplied by your "Multiplier Total". Someone who had 5-6 winners in the 5:1 range could possibly have a better final total than someone with one Cap horse who normally wins a contest with one lucky horse when chasing in desperation. Maybe something along this format could be massaged to make an even playing field that rewards picking winners at nice prices as opposed to picking one or two bombs. As you stated a point system based on win odds could also be incorporated along with the number of winners picked.

[JustRalph]

I enter quite a few NTRA contests. Last July 17th I traveled to Calder to play their contest. The one aspect I liked about it was the "Multiplier" format that was in place. Every winner you had no matter if it was 4:5 or 99:1 increased your "Multiplier Total" by one. Your total mutuals accumulated by the end of the contest was then multiplied by your "Multiplier Total". Someone who had 5-6 winners in the 5:1 range could possibly have a better final total than someone with one Cap horse who normally wins a contest with one lucky horse when chasing in desperation. Maybe something along this format could be massaged to make an even playing field that rewards picking winners at nice prices as opposed to picking one or two bombs. As you stated a point system based on win odds could also be incorporated along with the number of winners picked.

now that sounds interesting

[betchatoo]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The thread was about people "chasing" assuming they do not handicap. Yet, when your horse you like at 6-1 wins and pays $42, they say you are chasing as well.

Would you say the person leaving the track with the most winnings at the end of the day is the best handicapper there?
I firmly believe that good handicapping is about making money, not picking winners. I would suggest something in the order of the following:
You would start the tournament with a bankroll of $1,000. Each day there would be mandatory bets of $500. The other $500 would be invested as the handicapper chooses. I would not put a cap on payoffs. Why should a player be penalized for seeing a good bet at 40-1? Wherever you finished at the end of day one would be your bankroll for day two.

Day two, if you don't have the $500 to make your mandatory bets you are eliminated. You may bet all your profits above that, up to $1000 on races of your choice.

Day 3 again you must have $500 to play. You may bet up to $2000 of your profit on your own races. All other moneys stay in your account. Capper with the most money wins.

[JimG]

Given that my best friend just won the NTRA tournament :jump: (with a small assist from yours truly), I do not think any changes are needed at this time.

Jim

[melman]

Way to go JimG good to see nice people getting the cash. I hear it's party time down in Virginia. :jump: Good way to start the new year and wish you and your friend many more tournament hits. BTW can I get a loan?? A low interest> :lol: :lol:

[Zaf]

Jim,

Congrats to your buddy. Seems like a class act. He spoke very nicely of you in Dave Tuley's article !

http://drf.com/news/article/82212.html

Z :)


Given that my best friend just won the NTRA tournament :jump: (with a small assist from yours truly), I do not think any changes are needed at this time.

Jim

[Steve 'StatMan']

Great news! Congrats to you Jim, and esp. to Stanley Bavlish, the new champ!

[JustRalph]

Well that makes two of us that jim has helped win some big money! Nice Job Jim!

[JimG]

Jim,

Congrats to your buddy. Seems like a class act. He spoke very nicely of you in Dave Tuley's article !

http://drf.com/news/article/82212.html

Z :)

Stanley is a class act. As is Ken Massa, who finished a close second. I gave Stanley the 15 plays I would have made that Saturday, which added up to winnings of about $178.00 for that day alone which was more than enough to win it. The funny thing is Stan played only a few of the horses I liked, and still won it. He is a great handicapper in his own right (better than me for sure) and has been a consistent winner in the 10 years I have known him. It is much easier for a guy like me to pick them in the quiet of my office at home than it was for him to do it in the heat of battle.

He is so deserving, as is Ken Massa. They both made quite a charge on the second day. One thing is for sure, Stan and I are no syndicate...just 2 guys who years ago dreamed of qualifying for the NTRA tourney while chatting and playing races at the local otb. For him to realize that dream is just fantastic. For me to be able to help in some small way is just icing on the cake.

Jim

[Zaf]

Jim,

No doubt you are a great handicapper ! I recall you winning the HTR tournament this past summer, not an easy feat playing against a group of tournament pros. Including myself :rolleyes: :lol:

Good Luck to both of you on the tournament trail in 2007 !

Z

[rrbauer]

Ahhhh!!!!

So first you tell us you dont like them because someone can hit a 20-1 and jump over all the leaders!


Not what I said. I said that I didn't like them because I had to bet the same amount, win/place on every bet.


Now let me ask you this, if you are playing Tiger Woods for money, would you rather play every hole for the same amount or be able to bet your whole bankroll on one hole?

Jim

Let me tell you this: If I'm good enough to play Tiger Woods for money then I'll let Tiger make that call because I respond to challenge. In the meantime I would be happy taking down my share of the money bonanza that is on the golf tour these days if I'm that good. Being 2nd or even 10th to Tiger pays pretty good these days.

[TimesTheyRAChangin]

The 'swinging for the fences' seems to be a direct result of punters knowing exactly where they are relative to ongoing daily updates.

1)Eliminate the updated/daily standings until the tournament is over.

or

2)Until the final day of play,eliminate ANYONE that hasn't at least had one winner from the tournaments' manadatory races AND 2 winners from their own selected races.On an 'end-of-day' basis show the entrants names ONLY(NO $$ totals)that are still eligible for the next day's play.

[njcurveball]

If I'm good enough to play Tiger Woods for money then I'll let Tiger make that call because I respond to challenge.


Well I wish you well with that. But the point I was trying to write is that ANYONE on this board, yes ANYONE could beat Tiger Woods on a single hole.

This is how people win "live money" tournaments. They sit with the whole bankroll and then take a shot on ONE horse. Read some of the recaps and you will see this happening more and more.

It is very similar to Poker now, where the Pros are crying about the "crazies" who go ALL IN on hands they have no business playing.

If I am having a handicapping contest with someone who is a novice, I would much prefer twenty flat bets to letting them bet their whole bankroll on one race and then bet the minimum for the rest when they hit.

Jim

[njcurveball]

The 'swinging for the fences' seems to be a direct result of punters knowing exactly where they are relative to ongoing daily updates.

1)Eliminate the updated/daily standings until the tournament is over.



How will this stop people who are not hitting anything from swinging for $100 horses?

[TimesTheyRAChangin]

How will this stop people who are not hitting anything from swinging for $100 horses?

Actually after posting I realized that my second suggestion was a better one,as anyone just hoping for longshots isn't likely hit 3 in 30 races.If they can,then they probably are a better handicapper!

[rrbauer]

Well I wish you well with that. But the point I was trying to write is that ANYONE on this board, yes ANYONE could beat Tiger Woods on a single hole.

C'mon Jim. ANYONE? And which hole do they pick?


This is how people win "live money" tournaments. They sit with the whole bankroll and then take a shot on ONE horse. Read some of the recaps and you will see this happening more and more.

Jim

I don't know about any of this. Could you direct me to some results? Most of the live money tournaments that I'm familar with require you to make a minimum number of bets. That precludes launching one big mega bet for the tournament. But, like I said, point me to the learning tree.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'd pick a short/medium par 3, with a flat green for easy putting. A hole in one, or a birdie, and one mistake by Tiger/any pro, and I got it. Don't have to be good all the time. Just good once.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I think every handicapping contest rewards a combination of skill and luck, and most every tournament could just as easily be won by a number of the entrants. The amount that luck and desperation can overcome prior skill is a matter of the rules and how the luck runs.

I'm not convinced that there is any one format or style that would work over a short series of events, such as one day or a single weekend. The ones were bet sizes can increase, and or/where there are no caps, are the most frustrating, because all the prior efforts can sometimes be tossed out based on the results of the final race or two.

On the other hand, if there is prize money to be won, esp. in a value added tournament, I'm usually glad to get in most touraments, no matter what the format. I'm just grateful that the tracks/otbs/sponsoring companies are giving us an opportunity, esp. value added opportunities.

I'm usually glad for the winners if they've demonstrated talent and haven't done anything to disgrace themselves behavior-wise during the tournament.

But despite having only limited weekend successes, I don't feel bad about my overall approach to the game. I may not be as well suited for some tournaments as others, or the format and/or betting styles may be too far from my overall selection game, but we all the same available races to choose from, and I and any of the contestants could, theoretically, have made the exact same horse selections and bet sizes, even though we might have different reasons for choosing that selection.

Once the tournament starts, the format affects the choices. But I'm speculating that, at the beginning, maybe 50%-75% of most contestants have roughly the same probability of winning going in, with the others varying higher or lower, based on skill within the contest format, or overall experince. There could be tournaments and formats that provide a few exceptions.

I guess one thing we've learned so far, is 8 years, and 8 different NHC winners. Not easy for the same person to repeat, nor even to crack the top money spots.

[boomman]

No knock on last year's winner Ron Rippey, who is a public handicapper and I'm sure a solid one, but his last play in the tournament was a 1st time starter of Jeff Mullins at 17x1 to win the tourney. Now since clockers in Southern Cal had no huge works on this horse whatsoever and Mullins isn't big on winning with 1st time starters (or with any starters at the moment), how would a guy from New Jersey have this horse handicapped to win? The answer is very simple: It was the only horse he could win the tournament with, so he simply took a flyer like what happens in a lot of tournaments with a horse that he no more handicapped to win than the man in the moon. That in itself is why handicapping tournaments have to use some sort of system (and I've seen some great suggestions on this forum) to award handicapping, and eliminate shot taking! Boom

[turfeyejoe]

I participated in many of the World Series of Handicapping tournaments at Penn National, back in the day when that was THE premier contest in the country. Penn instituted a 10 percent rule to prevent someone from winning by connecting with a late bomb. The contest was 3 days, 30 races. For the first 27 races, a player could bet his entire bankroll on one race if he so chose ... after the 27th race, totals were recorded and players were restricted to 10 percent of that total for the remaining 3 races.
It was a very fair contest ... everybody played the same 30 races and started with the same bankroll. I don't like contests where people are playing different sets of races of their own choosing.
If you put all your money on one race ... and believe me it happened a lot ... and lost, you were out of the contest. So it was necessary to employ money management AND looking for value in order to win.
Generally, you had to find some way to turn your original $1,000 stake into $10,000 to have a shot at winning. How you got to that number was up to you.

[njcurveball]

C'mon Jim. ANYONE? And which hole do they pick?



I don't know about any of this. Could you direct me to some results? Most of the live money tournaments that I'm familar with require you to make a minimum number of bets. That precludes launching one big mega bet for the tournament. But, like I said, point me to the learning tree.

I knew the Tiger Woods stuff would raise some eyebrows. I would hope if people on this board spent as much time on golf as they did on handicapping they would be able to find a way to go two over par for a single hole of golf.

Tiger Woods has had holes where he was 3 over par. It doesn't mean EVERYONE here will beat him EVERY time.


As for launching ONE bet, come sit in on these tourneys. With 10 races done, half the field still has their ENTIRE bankroll. It is not against the rules to bet the whole amount on the first bet and many do this.

I have watched and sat next to these people. It is quickly going the way of poker where novices enter just to go ALL IN on their first hand or two. Many people bring their wives and girlfriends to get the extra entries to do this as well.

There are some threads about "beards" and I would bet this is a way some "partners" qualify. And many good handicappers qualify this way as well. In the Meadowlands contest, the winner had $50 win and place on a longshot in the 2nd or 3rd race of the day. That was with a starting $100 bankroll.

Many others win live money tourneys like this. There is certainly skill in hitting an 18-1 with your whole bankroll. No doubt about it! But does an ALL IN from the start format mean the best handicapper wins?

Jim

[njcurveball]

That in itself is why handicapping tournaments have to use some sort of system (and I've seen some great suggestions on this forum) to award handicapping, and eliminate shot taking! Boom

Maybe you can tackle Football next? Tell the NFL no passes over 20 yards in the last 2 minutes?

Would you have felt more comfortable if Mr. Rippey told you he knew someone who fed the horse some "super carrots"?

In the Penn National example, since people could not bet the whole bankroll in the last 3 races, many took shots in the race or two before that betting the whole thing.

Would you prefer that winners early in the contest be worth twice as much as those late? If Mr. Rippey had the Mullins horse with his first bet of the day would that have been better handicapping?

I have seen many horses win who made no sense to me, yet other handicappers had them. That is why every horse does not pay $2.10!

Jim

[maxwell]

I think it's a joke to make 53% of the races mandatory plays. The whole point of handicapping is for YOU to find the hidden gems. It's NOT darts. Some people like to play only sprints, others turf races, etc. The moronic powers-to-be have turned handicapping democracy into a police state. :ThmbDown:

[boomman]

Maybe you can tackle Football next? Tell the NFL no passes over 20 yards in the last 2 minutes?

Would you have felt more comfortable if Mr. Rippey told you he knew someone who fed the horse some "super carrots"?

In the Penn National example, since people could not bet the whole bankroll in the last 3 races, many took shots in the race or two before that betting the whole thing.

Would you prefer that winners early in the contest be worth twice as much as those late? If Mr. Rippey had the Mullins horse with his first bet of the day would that have been better handicapping?

I have seen many horses win who made no sense to me, yet other handicappers had them. That is why every horse does not pay $2.10!

Jim

Jim: Perhaps I struck a nerve here and this guy is a friend of yours or you're just defending him because he's from Jersey? Don't know and don't care, because you're missing the point...And as for the NFL, trust me, I would like to instill many rule changes, including stopping the clock on 1st downs to move the chains in the last 2 minutes of each half and doing away with the stupidest overtime rules in history which blatantly favor a team winning a coin toss after the two teams have left their guts on the field to make the game go to overtime in the 1st place, but that's another forum. My point is this: when the tournament comes down to the end, and the only way you can win the thing is because the rules are set in such a way as you have to take a shot, (like he did with the 17x1 1st timer) handicapping has gone out the window and it's supposed to be a "handicapping tournament"!! As for your 2.10 analogy huh? What's a tournament "shot" got to do with everyone handicapping different horses? Oh here's the answer: Absolutely Nothing!!! LOL:D Boom

[rrpic6]

My point is this: when the tournament comes down to the end, and the only way you can win the thing is because the rules are set in such a way as you have to take a shot, (like he did with the 17x1 1st timer) handicapping has gone out the window and it's supposed to be a "handicapping tournament"!! As for your 2.10 analogy huh? What's a tournament "shot" got to do with everyone handicapping different horses? Oh here's the answer: Absolutely Nothing!!! LOL:D Boom

My example: 1 Race left in a Tourney at The Meadows, 2005. Sunshine Millions. 2 horses are 70-1. Musique Toujours wins at 70-1. 2 guys in last place both use him, they end up 1st and 2nd. I end up in 4th.

[boomman]

rr: A PERFECT example!!!

Boom

[alysheba88]

Almost every "Solution" I read here is far far worse than the "problem".

I think a cap on win odds at 15-1 and no other changes would be fine.

If they want to create a small side prize (as some do) for # of winners thats fine. But top prize should be those who arent afraid to bet something other than the chalk. Someone who cant bet 12-1 horses and think its all "luck" shouldnt be in any contest.

Anyone who follows the contest circuit knows there is definitely much skill involved. There are players who consistently do well. I would bet they do far better with "real" money then the chalk bettor

[alysheba88]

I participated in many of the World Series of Handicapping tournaments at Penn National, back in the day when that was THE premier contest in the country. Penn instituted a 10 percent rule to prevent someone from winning by connecting with a late bomb. The contest was 3 days, 30 races. For the first 27 races, a player could bet his entire bankroll on one race if he so chose ... after the 27th race, totals were recorded and players were restricted to 10 percent of that total for the remaining 3 races.
It was a very fair contest ... everybody played the same 30 races and started with the same bankroll. I don't like contests where people are playing different sets of races of their own choosing.
If you put all your money on one race ... and believe me it happened a lot ... and lost, you were out of the contest. So it was necessary to employ money management AND looking for value in order to win.
Generally, you had to find some way to turn your original $1,000 stake into $10,000 to have a shot at winning. How you got to that number was up to you.

This to me is THE solution. I went to this contest all the time and by far it was the best. Would make for great TV as well (the all in aspect).

[JustRalph]

doing away with the stupidest overtime rules in history which blatantly favor a team winning a coin toss after the two teams have left their guts on the field to make the game go to overtime in the 1st place,

I heard the NFL Commish on with Bob Costas (XM Radio show) the other night and he said this is going to be addressed in the off season. There are several options. The most interesting I heard was eliminating the kickoff and giving the ball back to the team who had it last (end of regulation) at their own 20 yard line. Then if they score, the other team gets one shot from their own 20 yard line. He said another option was to eliminate the kickers all together in the o/t. I like that Idea.

[boomman]

Ralph: Apparently I'm not the only one incensed by the current O/t Rules?Thanks for the update! Boom

[Suff]

Almost every "Solution" I read here is far far worse than the "problem".

I think a cap on win odds at 15-1 and no other changes would be fine.

If they want to create a small side prize (as some do) for # of winners thats fine. But top prize should be those who arent afraid to bet something other than the chalk. Someone who cant bet 12-1 horses and think its all "luck" shouldnt be in any contest.

Anyone who follows the contest circuit knows there is definitely much skill involved. There are players who consistently do well. I would bet they do far better with "real" money then the chalk bettor

I think I'm correct when I say there are Caps now? no? $42 and $22.00

When Bavlish and Massa caught Mcann's Mojave they left $27.00 on the table...., no?

Plus they got there hitting horses. Massa had one $25.00 horse that I read about....other I don't know?

The winning Total was $187. The lowest in the 8 years its been run. I would think a $7.00 player knows he has to get to $200 no matter what anyone else does.

Whats handicapping? If I buy the dow jones Index and make 17% am I as a good a market player as a guy buying penny stocks also making 17%?

Handicaping is a personal thing, and it has many forms and just as many opinions.

What I can tell from the winner....he's a horse player. He owns 3 Subway franchises and could probably be sitting on a beach somewhere in Florida....

Instead he's sitting at a OTB dreaming about winning the NHC! Good for him. Don't know him, but I like the sounds of him.

Betting horses is a funny racket. I've been doing it 30 years with limited success. I've seen guys go on vacation over it, and go to prison over it.

Here's the thing... A LARGE PERCENTAGE of Players (profitable) have mastered the art of distinguising a Phony $7.00 horse and a real $7.00 horse.

Maybe they make a living, maybe they pick alot of winners... But if they can't spot, and they can't money manage, they are defenseless in these contests.... Because imho.... They can't handicap.

If you gave them a racing form, and told them to CAP a $50.00 winner, they'd die of starvation before they cashed.

iow's they could'nt handicap if thier life depended on it.


Figured I'd make some friends tonight.:D

[SPIKE]

WHAT A BUNCH OF CRY BABIES. JEEZ WAS THE WINNER OF THE NHC THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO BET MM ?



AS FOR ALL THE CHALK EATING WEASELS. YOU TOO COULD HAVE WON BECAUSE THE WINNING BANKROLL WAS 190 MORE OR LESS DIVIDE THAT BY 30 AND YOU GET A AVERAGE WP PAYOFF OF 6 DOLLARS

HAVE YOUR Economics professsors at NYU DO THE MATH FOR YOU . $ 4.00 WIN AND $ 2.OO PLACE . THAT IS EVEN MONEY ODDS.

I PERSONALLY HAD MM IN ALL THE 5 CONTEST I PLAYED THE PAST WEEKEND.

ONE OF THEM WAS THE PUBLICHANDICAPPER.COM WHERE YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR SELECTION 1 HOUR PRIOR TO POST.


YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELF IF YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE A BETTER HANDICAPPER IF EVERYONE HAS TO MAKE HIS OR HER SELECTION BEFORE THE POST PARADE ETC.

IS IT REALLY HANDICAPPING IF YOU PICK HORSE "A" HOURS BEFORE THE RACE AND

A. IT RAINS AND THE TRACK IS SLY OR THE RACE IS TAKEN OFF TURF.

B. IF YOUR HORSE FLIPS IN THE PADDOCK

C. OR RUNS OFF IN THE POST PARADE

OR THROWS A SHOE .

I COULD GO ON AND ON.


WHAT IF THE HORSE YOU SELECTED WAS TO BE RIDEN BY PRADO OR SOLIS OR ANY OTHER TOP RIDER AND HEAVEN FORBID THE TOP JOCK GOT HURT IN THE RACE BEFORE AND THE ONLY JOCKEY AVAILABLE HAS A 3% WIN PERCENTAGE ? WOULD YOU STILL BET OR SELECT YOUR FIRST CHOICE OR WOULD YOU DO YOUR HANDICAPPING AND DO THE SMART THING.


ALSO ANY HORSE CAN WIN ANY RACE FOR INSTANCE BREEDERS CUP CLASSIC 1993 ARCANQUES PAID $ 270

WHAT HANDICAPPER WORTH THEIR SALT WOULD NOT BET JERRY BAILEY ON A 135-1 HORSE.

IS THAT PART OF HANDICAPPING. AT THE TIME BAILEY WAS THE BEST AND COULD PICK AND CHOOSE HIS MOUNTS.


I COULD LECTURE THE KINDERGARDEN HANDICAPPERS ALL DAY LONG. BUT I HAVE TO GO AND LOOK FOR SOMEMORE HORSE LIKE MM. OR SMOKEY STOVER WHO I LIKED BUT WHEN THE RAIN STARTED TO FALL AT SANTA ANITA I LOVED AT THE ODDS. SURE THE TRACK WAS NOT LISTED AS OFF.


YOU CRY BABIES NEED TO SPEND MORE TIME LOOKING AT PP'S ETC.

AND STOP CRYING BECAUSE A BETTER HANDICAPPER PICKED A 30-1 SHOT AND WON $400K AND IS THE HANDICAPPER OF THE YEAR

BE FOR REAL AND GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.


ALSO, THE CONTEST HAD MANDATORY RACES AND OTHERS THAT IF YOU DID YOUR HOMEWORK MAYBE YOU COULD PICK A WINNER THAT PAID MORE THAN EVEN MONEY.


IF YOUR SPOUSE SENT YOU TO THE LOCAL RACE TRACK WITH THEIR GROCERY MONEY AND YOU LOST ALL BUT
$ 10 AND IT WAS THE LAST RACE WOULD YOU BET THE CHALK AND GO HOME WITH LESS THAN 10% OF YOUR BANKROLL AND TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU LOST 90 % OF YOUR BANKROLL THAT YOU WERE STILL A BECAUSE YOU BET YOUR LAST $ 10 ON A EVEN MONEY HORSE.

I WOULD RATHER TRY AND LOOK FOR VALUE AND RECOUP MY BANKROLL THAN BE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE AND BET THE FAVORITE.

90 % OF THE BETTORS AT ANY TRACK ARE LOSERS AND THE OTHER 10 % GO HOME WITH THE LOSERS MONEY.

DO YOU REALLY THINK STEVEN CRIST IS GOING TO SUGGEST AT THE NEXT NHC CONTEST MEETING THAT THERE SHOULD BE A NEW FORMAT THAT YOU CAN ONLY BET CHALK. PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[PaceAdvantage]

Thanks for typing that all in caps. It sure is easier on the eyes....

[Kelso]

A LARGE PERCENTAGE of Players (profitable) have mastered the art of distinguising a Phony $7.00 horse and a real $7.00 horse.

<snip>

If you gave them a racing form, and told them to CAP a $50.00 winner, they'd die of starvation before they cashed.

iow's they could'nt handicap if thier life depended on it.




Uhh, would you be so kind as to direct me to where/how a rank novice might best and most quickly learn this art? It would, I am certain, make for a most satisfying and well-fed retirement ... despite never cashing a $50 ticket of any sort.

(Am quite willing to be called "lucky bastard" as opposed to "master capper." Please advise.)

Thank you.

[SPIKE]

JUST ONE QUESTION WERE THE PLAYERS THAT BEAT YOU AND CAME IN 1ST AND 2ND THE ONLY PLAYERS ALLOWED TO PICK THE HORSE THAT WON ?

WHAT A SORE LOSERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

YOU LIKE ANY OTHER PLAYER HAVE THE OPTION TO PICK ANY HORSE IN THE RACE THAT YOU FEEL BASED ON YOUR HANDICAPPING SKILLS HAS A CHANCE TO WIN.



I AM GOING TO THE STORE AND GET YOU LOSERS SOME PUFFS WITH LOTION AND A CASE OF BEER SO YOU CAN CRY AND DISRESPECT THE PLAYERS THAT BEAT YOU ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

I TAKE IT IF THEY WON 1ST AND 2ND AND YOU ENDED UP IN 4TH THAT YOU

A. DID NOT PICK A HORSE THAT WON OR PLACED IN THE LAST RACE OF THE CONTEST.

SO YOU BLAME YOUR LACK OF HANDICAPPING SKILLS ON THE FORMAT OR THE BETTER PLAYERS THAT UNLIKE YOU HAD THE WINNER OF THE LAST RACE OF THE CONTEST.


MM WAS NOT THE LONGEST PRICE IN THE RACE 3 OTHER HORSES WERE LONGER ODDS AND ONE OF THEM SUMMER BOOK WHO HAPPENS TO BE A VERY GOOD HORSE. WAS SELECTED BY MIKE BATTS ON NBC DURING THE SUNSHINE MILLIONS BROADCAST HE STATED THAT HE LOVED SUMMER BOOK.
THE QUICK SHEETS FROM THE RACING FORM PICKED THE 3-5-2 THE 3 HORSE WAS SUMMER BOOK. I KNOW THEY DID NOT PICK THE WINNER BUT SUMMER BOOK PAID $ 36.20 TO PLACE

IF YOU READ THE RACING FORM OR USE FORM 4 JIM KACHULIS HAD SUMMER BOOK AS HIS BEST BET OF THE DAY



MAYBE INSTEAD OF BEING A SORE LOSER YOU SHOULD GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DO AND ASK THE PLAYERS THAT BEAT YOU AND ARE BETTER HANDICAPPERS WHAT ANGLE OR WHAT BIT IF INFORMATION SWAYED THEM IN THEIR PICKS.

THIS WAS A 12 HORSE FIELD WITH ONLY 4 HORSES THAT HAD ODDS OF 9-1 OR LESS

THAT LEAVES 2/3 OF THE FIELD THAT HAD ODDS OF 9-1 OR MORE

HAVE THE NYU ECONOMIST DO THE MATH THE HORSE WHO WAS THE FIFTH CHOICE IN THE FIELD AT ODDS OF 12-1 HAD WON WOULD HAVE PAID $26 TO WIN AND PROBALY $ 12 TO PLACE.

NEWS FLASH IT IS CALLED HANDICAPPING

1 YOU HANDICAP THE RACE AND ITS RUNNERS. AND YOU DECIDE AT WHAT ODDS YOU AS A HANICAPPER FEEL YOUR SELECTION WILL INCREASE YOUR BANKROLL.


MAYBE SOME OF YOU CRY BABIES SHOULD GO ON OPRAH , DR. PHIL OR THE VIEW AND PISS AND MOAN ABOUT HOW YOU GOT BEAT ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

OR MAYBE DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND DO WHAT IT TAKES TO BE SUCCESFUL

YOUR WHINING TO STEVE CRIST IS IMMATURE AND UNPROFESSIONAL.



I AM GOING TO DO THE MATURE AND RIGHT THING AND GIVE CREDIT TO THE HANDICAPPER OF THE YEAR HIS JUST DUE.

HOW DARE YOU CRY BABIES RAIN ON HIS PARADE BECAUSE HE DID SOMETHING YOU PROBALY ONLY DO IN YOUR DREAMS AND THAT IS WINNING

[SPIKE]

my apologies to the admin.


BUT THE CAPS WHERE NEEDED TO GET THE POINT ACROSS.

INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON THE NEGATIVE (CAPS) . MAYBE YOU CAN PUT YOUR 2 CENTS IN ON THE MATTER.

IS THIS REALLY A FORUM FOR HANDICAPPERS OR A SITE WHERE LOSERS CAN PISS AND MOAN AND DISRESPECT THE SYSTEM AND THE WINNERS ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????

[SPIKE]

take a look at your post


damn right it is hard to win if you are not near the lead on the last day ?

whos fault is that ?


as for your discussions about changing the format of the contest

Let me get this right your losing in the contest and instead of handicapping you are pissing and moaning about how you got beat by a better handicapper who picked a WINNER THAT PAID .


DURING THE CONTEST YOUR FOCUS SHOULD BE ON WINNING THE CONTEST.

BETTER LUCK NEXT YEAR

[rrpic6]

JUST ONE QUESTION WERE THE PLAYERS THAT BEAT YOU AND CAME IN 1ST AND 2ND THE ONLY PLAYERS ALLOWED TO PICK THE HORSE THAT WON ?

WHAT A SORE LOSERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

YOU LIKE ANY OTHER PLAYER HAVE THE OPTION TO PICK ANY HORSE IN THE RACE THAT YOU FEEL BASED ON YOUR HANDICAPPING SKILLS HAS A CHANCE TO WIN.



I AM GOING TO THE STORE AND GET YOU LOSERS SOME PUFFS WITH LOTION AND A CASE OF BEER SO YOU CAN CRY AND DISRESPECT THE PLAYERS THAT BEAT YOU ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

I TAKE IT IF THEY WON 1ST AND 2ND AND YOU ENDED UP IN 4TH THAT YOU

A. DID NOT PICK A HORSE THAT WON OR PLACED IN THE LAST RACE OF THE CONTEST.

SO YOU BLAME YOUR LACK OF HANDICAPPING SKILLS ON THE FORMAT OR THE BETTER PLAYERS THAT UNLIKE YOU HAD THE WINNER OF THE LAST RACE OF THE CONTEST.



I assume that question is directed to myself? Try using a person's quote when you are making references to earlier posts.

In the last race of the 2005 Sunshine Millions, Musique Tujors was 70-1 because he had not won a race in about a year, and that was a $50,000 Claimer. Not one of my angles to wager on. My selection was a 12-1 shot,ridden by P. Val that was checked in the strectch while driving down rail. He looked like a winner at the quarter pole. The name of the horse escapes me, but he had been a solid Stakes horse at Aqueduct. My lack of Handicapping skills caused P' Val to not be able to weave in and out of traffic to win for me and him. While your at the store buying me Puffs, I'll take a case of Labatt's.

[Murph]

I assume that question is directed to myself? Try using a person's quote when you are making references to earlier posts.

In the last race of the 2005 Sunshine Millions, Musique Tujors was 70-1 because he had not won a race in about a year, and that was a $50,000 Claimer. Not one of my angles to wager on. My selection was a 12-1 shot,ridden by P. Val that was checked in the strectch while driving down rail. He looked like a winner at the quarter pole. The name of the horse escapes me, but he had been a solid Stakes horse at Aqueduct. My lack of Handicapping skills caused P' Val to not be able to weave in and out of traffic to win for me and him. While your at the store buying me Puffs, I'll take a case of Labatt's.The 2005 Sunshine Millions Classic, P Val rode Classic Endeavor to a third place finish that paid 7.40 to show. Lave Man finished off the board in his first start as a 4yo.

Murph

[PriceAnProbability]

As I said in my travelogue thread, after the NHC awards banquet I met Steve Crist and chatted with him for a bit about the rules of the contest and how the incentives created by the rules basically rule out solid handicapping on the second day if you aren't near the lead. The second day pretty much turns into picking whatever you can find at 20-1 to try to get lucky and catch up. It turns into playing lotto at the end. Steve agreed with me that it wasn't a great situation and said if I could come up with any suggestions he'd be glad to listen. So that's what I'm going to do. There's some pretty smart people around here and I would like to hear some of your opinions. There's also a couple Economics professsors here at NYU I still talk to so I think I may take the problem to them as well and see what we can come up with. Might be kinda fun and who knows, maybe Steve really will listen and we'll find something that makes it an even more solid contest to find out who is the best handicapper rather than who was the luckiest.

The current rules are basically as follows: Each contestant places a mythical $2 win and place wager on one horse in 15 races each day. 8 races are pre-selected each day and 7 are chosen by the contestant from all the other races of the day at the eligible tracks. The finish order is determined by who has accumulated the most winnings over the 30 races. The top 20 places received prizes as well as the top 4 of each individual day. Current standings are posted about every hour during the contest, so players are always pretty aware of where they stand. Winning returns are capped at $42 for win and $22 for place. And that is basically it.

The incentive problem here is that you really aren't rewarded for handicapping. Picking the winner doesn't matter, only picking a winner that has long odds. Consider a horse going off at 5/2. Nothing wrong with 5/2, especially if you think the horse is even better than that in reality. All your handicapping tells you that that is the horse that will win the race. But because you are behind in the contest, you have 0 incentive to take him because he's not going to make up any ground for you. You can pass the race, though you can't if its a manditory or if you are running out of races to choose from or you can pick a different horse and just pray. Last time I checked, handicappers do pray a bit, but praying isn't handicapping. Under the current rules a 5/2 will earn you about $10 whereas a 20/1 or better will give you $64. In other words a lucky guess is worth 6 1/2 solid winning picks that go off at 5/2. (I picked 5/2 as an example perhaps from spite as this very situation happened to me saturday. See Belly Rub at Aqu. 15/1 ML, off 5/2. If I was of a mind to be betting real money that day I would have emptied the wallet on that one). Seems a little skewed to me.

One solution we came up with during the contest itself was that perhaps part of the picks should have to be made before the track opens. That way you are simply picking based on handicapping skills alone. Steve thought that was interesting though he felt that tote watching was such an ingrained tool that such a restriction really wasn't fair. He's not wrong about that, but then again, public handicappers have to make blind picks every day and everyone judges their value as a handicapper by those picks, so maybe there is something to it.

Something else I've come up with as I've mulled it around is a point system that rewards players for both picking winners and for bankroll. Consider the following rules. A win is worth 3 points. A place is worth 1 point. Each $5 returned is worth 1 point. Compare this to the case above. A 5/2 winner gets 3 points for the win and wins about $10, so about 2 more points (fractional points would be allowed on bankroll) for the bankroll for a total of about 5 points. The bomb pays 3 points for the win and 12.8 points for the bankroll for 15.8 points. With this system the bomb is only worth about 3 times the 5/2 winner. This would get rid of some of the incentive to just go bombs away and stick to solid handicapping. Yes, it would collapse near the end again for the same reasons, but reward for guessing is far less than before and reward for real handicapping skill is much better.

So I'd love to hear what anyone out there thinks, whether they've played the contest or not. The first question that needs to be answered is what is good handicapping? If its only final bankroll no matter how you got there, then no reason to change anything. But if you think there is a little more to it then that, then the next question is how can a game be designed so that the incentives created by the rules are compatible with that definition of good handicapping. I look forward to your thoughts.

The problem is that people are too conservative on day one, leaving the mad scramble on day two when the leaders separate.

[PriceAnProbability]

Last time I checked, handicappers do pray a bit, but praying isn't handicapping.

Oh no?

[PriceAnProbability]

I heard the NFL Commish on with Bob Costas (XM Radio show) the other night and he said this is going to be addressed in the off season. There are several options. The most interesting I heard was eliminating the kickoff and giving the ball back to the team who had it last (end of regulation) at their own 20 yard line. Then if they score, the other team gets one shot from their own 20 yard line. He said another option was to eliminate the kickers all together in the o/t. I like that Idea.

I don't like the concept of EXTRA INNINGS to settle a football game.

How about they just continue play from the end of regulation and let the next score win the game?

[JimG]

When Bavlish and Massa caught Mcann's Mojave they left $27.00 on the table...., no?


What I can tell from the winner....he's a horse player. He owns 3 Subway franchises and could probably be sitting on a beach somewhere in Florida....

Instead he's sitting at a OTB dreaming about winning the NHC! Good for him. Don't know him, but I like the sounds of him.


Hi Suff,

Stanley is a longtime personal friend of mine. He is horseplayer through and through. For years we played together at the local otb on fri-sun. He is the best handicapper I have ever known and is responsible for helping me lift my own game. He's a very confident player, with a great sense of humor. My only regret is I was not at the otb on Ky Derby day a few years ago when he took down about 90,000 in pick3's and trifectas when Giacamo won. I think he cashed all but one pick 3 on the Churchill card that day.

I actually got him into contests. I knew he was gifted, fearless, and would do well. I was surprised he won the first year he played, but believe me he has all the tools and it was no fluke.

As far as McCann's Mojave goes, he loved the horse all day. I did not. I liked Silver Wagon (Stan hit the $7000 tri in the race using my horse and his horse with the all) He thought he would be controlling speed. Both of us hated SNS from the outside post. I'm glad he hit MM because I had given him a $50 horse earlier in the day he did not like or play. Most of the winners he hit in the contest were in the $10-$25 range. Certainly doable when you pick fit horses and things go your way.

Jim

[alysheba88]

I think I'm correct when I say there are Caps now? no? $42 and $22.00

When Bavlish and Massa caught Mcann's Mojave they left $27.00 on the table...., no?

Plus they got there hitting horses. Massa had one $25.00 horse that I read about....other I don't know?

The winning Total was $187. The lowest in the 8 years its been run. I would think a $7.00 player knows he has to get to $200 no matter what anyone else does.

Whats handicapping? If I buy the dow jones Index and make 17% am I as a good a market player as a guy buying penny stocks also making 17%?

Handicaping is a personal thing, and it has many forms and just as many opinions.

What I can tell from the winner....he's a horse player. He owns 3 Subway franchises and could probably be sitting on a beach somewhere in Florida....

Instead he's sitting at a OTB dreaming about winning the NHC! Good for him. Don't know him, but I like the sounds of him.

Betting horses is a funny racket. I've been doing it 30 years with limited success. I've seen guys go on vacation over it, and go to prison over it.

Here's the thing... A LARGE PERCENTAGE of Players (profitable) have mastered the art of distinguising a Phony $7.00 horse and a real $7.00 horse.

Maybe they make a living, maybe they pick alot of winners... But if they can't spot, and they can't money manage, they are defenseless in these contests.... Because imho.... They can't handicap.

If you gave them a racing form, and told them to CAP a $50.00 winner, they'd die of starvation before they cashed.

iow's they could'nt handicap if thier life depended on it.


Figured I'd make some friends tonight.:D


You are preaching to the choir. I said I didnt like the proposed "solutions" on the board- except the Penn National. Yes there were caps. I am fine with 20-1 but think 15-1 is good also

[The Hawk]

What do you guys think about the contests with real-money bankrolls? They have a couple in Jersey, and it does seem to prevent those guys who are way back in the standings from "wasting" real cash on horses just because they're 50-1.

I agree with those complaints about these contests becoming "dart-throwing" contests on the last day. I've been in several and they're all slanted to place way too much emphasis on the results of the late races in California on the last day.

[PriceAnProbability]

You are preaching to the choir. I said I didnt like the proposed "solutions" on the board- except the Penn National. Yes there were caps. I am fine with 20-1 but think 15-1 is good also

The best moderation these contests could have is a simple: a buy-in where everyone starts the day with the same bankroll, bets real money, and whoever has the most at the end of the day wins. If tracks ran these with no entry fee more often, they could act as a form of rebate even.

If someone is betting real money in a contest, they are less likely to take a stab on that 20-1 shot with their entire day's winnings if they know that even if they lose the tournament, they'll still be way ahead.

Paying to 20th place isn't a bad idea either.

[boomman]

After ignoring Spike's incoherent ranting and raving in CAPS, this idea has a lot of merit:

The best moderation these contests could have is a simple: a buy-in where everyone starts the day with the same bankroll, bets real money, and whoever has the most at the end of the day wins. If tracks ran these with no entry fee more often, they could act as a form of rebate even.

If someone is betting real money in a contest, they are less likely to take a stab on that 20-1 shot with their entire day's winnings if they know that even if they lose the tournament, they'll still be way ahead.

Paying to 20th place isn't a bad idea either.

I hold my qualifier for the HWS at Yavapai as a live bankroll tournament, and strongly agree that live bankroll play encourages players to make "real" plays instead of going "bomb hunting" @ the end of tournaments...Also, the number 1 consistent complaint at The Horseplayer World Series is the number of spots they pay. Only paying 30 spots out of 800 entries is way too low, and the tournament is way too top heavy so that they can advertise the "big prize". If they paid $250,000 for first and paid 60-100 spots, IMHO entries would increase instead of staying at the same 800 or so number every year. Boom

[alysheba88]

What do you guys think about the contests with real-money bankrolls? They have a couple in Jersey, and it does seem to prevent those guys who are way back in the standings from "wasting" real cash on horses just because they're 50-1.

I agree with those complaints about these contests becoming "dart-throwing" contests on the last day. I've been in several and they're all slanted to place way too much emphasis on the results of the late races in California on the last day.

I hate real money contests. If I want to play with real money I can do that any day of the week

[alysheba88]

The best moderation these contests could have is a simple: a buy-in where everyone starts the day with the same bankroll, bets real money, and whoever has the most at the end of the day wins. If tracks ran these with no entry fee more often, they could act as a form of rebate even.

If someone is betting real money in a contest, they are less likely to take a stab on that 20-1 shot with their entire day's winnings if they know that even if they lose the tournament, they'll still be way ahead.

Paying to 20th place isn't a bad idea either.

Why have a contest then? The real money contests are a joke. Just a way for the tracks to get more handle.

I cant understand why people think betting on a 15-1 or 20-1 shot is a sign of desperation or "pure luck". Where betting 5-2 shots is somehow morally superior to betting a double digit odds horse

[rrpic6]

What do you guys think about the contests with real-money bankrolls? They have a couple in Jersey, and it does seem to prevent those guys who are way back in the standings from "wasting" real cash on horses just because they're 50-1.

I agree with those complaints about these contests becoming "dart-throwing" contests on the last day. I've been in several and they're all slanted to place way too much emphasis on the results of the late races in California on the last day.

Since the Musique Tujours miracle, I've only played in a few contests, but they were all money ones. Its the most legitimate concept in my eyes. Northfield Park has them a couple times a year, with the top 5 going to the Coast Casinos NHC. the last one I entered was non-stop excitement from start to finish. You use $200 of your own money and can bet on any track Northfield is showing from 12:30 to 5:30. A guy bets $20 to win on a 50-1 at Turfway's 1st race and hits to have a $1000 lead on the field. Updates are posted often, with him leading for most of the day.

A lot of contestants paniced and got tapped out chasing the leader. I tried to use the clock and slowly increase my bankroll to make a run at him at the end. I went ALL IN with a $120 win on an even money in a QH race. A couple $20 to wins on 8-1's helped get me to $500. By 5:00 the guy in the lead was coming back to the pack like a cheap front speedballer at GLD. With one race to go, a turf race at Hawthorne I like 2 horses at 12-1. I bet $250 on one of them, the other wins...NATURALLY. The early leader gets passed by as quite a few bet various amounts of REAL money on that last race winner.
PS. I later found out I could have bet more than one horse in that race..or any race. Good idea to read the rules for each different contest you enter.

[boomman]

Alysheba wrote:I cant understand why people think betting on a 15-1 or 20-1 shot is a sign of desperation or "pure luck". Where betting 5-2 shots is somehow morally superior to betting a double digit odds horse

Aly: I'm not saying that at all, in fact I'd much rather bet a 15x1 shot than a 5/2 shot anyday! What I am saying and what rr was saying that when 2 guys played a 70x1 shot in the last race of the tournament and went from last to first, that had nothing to do with handicapping skill! Live bankroll tournaments not only require more skill, but if you're a solid handicapper, you make more $$ too, as you not only keep the money you accumulate, you get prize money to go with it! Someone on this post likened it to rebates, that must be why I'm in so much in favor of it!:) Boom

[rrpic6]

After ignoring Spike's incoherent ranting and raving in CAPS,

Good thing Spike does not go to my Mom's Doctor, she likes to increase the Meds when my mom has "Senior Moments".:confused:

[njcurveball]

Well if there is anything this board can agree on, or perhaps there isn't.

It is that the NHC has been won by people who we would classify as valid winners.

This year the guy in first and the guy in 2nd were good horse people. And it seems year in and year out the format which is so widely criticized, manages to get people who deserve to win the cash.

I find the posts here a bit ludicrous. As if to say every race should be a 5 furlong sprint and horses who come from behind should be penalized by some mystical percentage.

A cap horse is worth the same amount whether it is the first race of the tourney or the last. And despite all the critics here, people do hit these horses in the first race of the tourney, the second, the third, etc.

This year was strange since it started with a day where there was only one cap horse from what I have read. The people who had that horse went to the top of the standings.

It boggles my mind why everyone wants to make rules to keep them there now. Great finishes define great events. The people in front are also allowed to play these horses.

A live money tournament is much different. A guy bets his whole bankroll the first race and hits a $40 horse. He now has $2,000 and you have $100. Try to catch him. Guess what you will have to do? And it won't be done by betting $10 win on $7 horses.

One of the defining things at the track bettors can relate to is "getting out on the last race". Many times the person in a group of 4 who goes home winning the most money hits the last race.

The only thing live money tourneys accomplish is to get people to bet large amounts on horses. This helps the track handle, not the tournament players.

[njcurveball]

What I am saying and what rr was saying that when 2 guys played a 70x1 shot in the last race of the tournament and went from last to first, that had nothing to do with handicapping skill!

Maybe you can review every winner and give credit to the Handicapper for the work they did to come up with these horses. People do handicap horses 20-1 and up that win every day. When Mieques Approval won last year many people had the horse, yet it still paid something like $98.

I love when people simply take the odds and "handicap" the person was just taking a shot. Yet when they hit something good it was "all their brain"!

Give the people credit for winning by doing something others did not do. Whether it is guts, brains, luck, divine intervention, or whatever.

You write like all of your winners are gold and the rest of the world picks $hit!

[jma]

I heard the NFL Commish on with Bob Costas (XM Radio show) the other night and he said this is going to be addressed in the off season. There are several options. The most interesting I heard was eliminating the kickoff and giving the ball back to the team who had it last (end of regulation) at their own 20 yard line. Then if they score, the other team gets one shot from their own 20 yard line. He said another option was to eliminate the kickers all together in the o/t. I like that Idea.

Not to let facts get in the way, but the team that gets the ball first in overtime only wins 53% of the time, so it's not as if the current rules really give that team much of an advantage. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than most of the alternatives suggested.

[rrpic6]

NJCurveball:

We all have valid points in this thread, even Spike. I'm sure a lot of Contest players have heard the story of the Autotote contest in Connecticut about 10 years ago. It was there that 10 people haplessly out of contention all bet a 99-1 horse in the last race of the day. It won, they all went to the Top 10. It was after that fiasco that caps in mutuals came about.

This game still has a lot of luck involved. I remember Miesque's Approval winnin at 45-1. It was luck that i hit the tri, keying Jerry Bailey's last ride in the 2nd slot with 5 horses 1st and 3rd. It sure is a lot more satisfying to brag about being right on longshots vs. chalk. On Breeders Cup Day, my best bets were Dreaming of Anna, Thor's Echo, and Invasor. I mention TE and Inv. ten times more than Anna.

[njcurveball]

I'm sure a lot of Contest players have heard the story of the Autotote contest in Connecticut about 10 years ago. It was there that 10 people haplessly out of contention all bet a 99-1 horse in the last race of the day. It won, they all went to the Top 10. It was after that fiasco that caps in mutuals came about.



And yet, some people to this day some of them say they handicapped the horse on breeding. Perhaps a discussion with noted handicapper Ed Fountaine would clear this up.

And even more insane is that now they have changed the tournament to "live money", so the same thing can happen again.

My point is not that the strategy of the "hail mary" is not successful on occasion, just that there are times when handicappers do the necessary work to select these horses.

The HTR Program had Miesques Approval highly rated and also flagged as a $$ (potent longshot) play. There are also $$ horses that wind up paying $6. It is just incongruous for someone to say the $6 horse was handicapped and the $100 horse was not.

Frankly, if I have live money on a horse that wins and pays $100, everyone can point their fingers and yell "dumb luck" all they want. I will just smile and walk to the window and collect.

Jim

[OTM Al]

There have been some good suggestions here, but I think we're wandering off point here so I want to try to focus the discussion a little. Before doing that though I just want to reemphasise that in no way do I want this discussion to be a knock on past winners of this or any other contest. They followed the rules of the contest, they won, and they deserve all the cash and accolades they can get. If all you want to do is bash on them, or bash on someone trying to make a point here, start your own thread so I can put it on ignore.

I'm talking about something a little more theoretic here and that is the issue of incentive compatibility. That means the incentives generated by the situation cause those involved to behave in a way consistant with the goal of the design of the contest, ie the title of Handicapper of the Year. Therefore, my contention about this contest is that its rules do not give the incentive to handicap, but rather tend to give the incentive to chose horses at 20/1 or better just because they are 20/1 or better, especially the later one goes in the contest. The only criteria is total bankroll, not what you did to accumulate it or anything else for that matter.

Therefore, let us try to turn the conversation back on point. As I said, before we can design a game that is incentive compatible, we have to know what kind of behavior we want to occur. We need a definition of what is good handicapping. This is not easy. As I pm'ed to one of the members here, if there were 10 handicappers in a room, you'd get 13 different opinions and the guy that gave you 4 would say the winning opinion was his 5th choice. So lets take a step there and list the factors that make a good handicapper. I'll start with the ones that are obvious to me

1. Final Bankroll/ROI
2. Winners/horses in the money
3. Knowing when not to play (this is where I think it is important to keep optional races)

[njcurveball]

The only criteria is total bankroll, not what you did to accumulate it or anything else for that matter.



You have just explained racing in one sentence!

[OTM Al]

Okay, there's nothing wrong with this answer. So you vote that Bankroll is the only determining factor and thus you would say that the contest, as it stands now, is incentive compatible in that the mark of the best handicapper is he who has the most dollars at the end. It is a completely valid point.

[Suff]

[QUOTE]Uhh, would you be so kind as to direct me to where/how a rank novice might best and most quickly learn this art? It would, I am certain, make for a most satisfying and well-fed retirement ... despite never cashing a $50 ticket of any sort.


There are any number of tools out there that commingle race analysis , with live tote analysis and Money Management Strategies.
Although, tools like this do on occasion provide long shot opportunities. By and large they select the best horse, at the best price, with money management strategies.

More tools, and things to discuss in another thread.


(Am quite willing to be called "lucky bastard" as opposed to "master capper." Please advise.)


True enough.... and what I am responding to is the underbelly of peoples "Congratulations to the Winner"... but he's a Lucky bastard who took the only shot he had, and I am a master capper who got screwed out of my rightful Handicapping Crown.


To address OTM's point.

I tried one of your idea's the first year I ran the RIDERS UP. I had a knock down drag out Brawl with Kielan over it... Or someone?

I awarded the pik4 winners the pik4 payout....and....and...AND on your main ticket....and main ticket only... I awarded the WIN price of any horse you used... I think...except when you used an ALL?:lol: Man...wtf was I thinking? And Bubbles thinks adding 35 players single scores is work? It took me a week to do it, and another week to correct it... F'n mess.


Here is... what I see. Guys who pick lots of low paying winners want a contest...and they want it to be the NHC in Vegas

Guys who pick enough winners to be in the lead at the wire...want a rule that no one can pass them using a method they themselves will not , did not or could not.

Bottom line. Sell it anyway you want... that's what it is.

[alysheba88]

QUOTE=Suff]


There are any number of tools out there that commingle race analysis , with live tote analysis and Money Management Strategies.
Although, tools like this do on occasion provide long shot opportunities. By and large they select the best horse, at the best price, with money management strategies.

More tools, and things to discuss in another thread.



True enough.... and what I am responding to is the underbelly of peoples "Congratulations to the Winner"... but he's a Lucky bastard who took the only shot he had, and I am a master capper who got screwed out of my rightful Handicapping Crown.


To address OTM's point.

I tried one of your idea's the first year I ran the RIDERS UP. I had a knock down drag out Brawl with Kielan over it... Or someone?

I awarded the pik4 winners the pik4 payout....and....and...AND on your main ticket....and main ticket only... I awarded the WIN price of any horse you used... I think...except when you used an ALL?:lol: Man...wtf was I thinking? And Bubbles thinks adding 35 players single scores is work? It took me a week to do it, and another week to correct it... F'n mess.


Here is... what I see. Guys who pick lots of low paying winners want a contest...and they want it to be the NHC in Vegas

Guys who pick enough winners to be in the lead at the wire...want a rule that no one can pass them using a method they themselves will not , did not or could not.

Bottom line. Sell it anyway you want... that's what it is.


Agreed

[BIG RED]

OTM, this may sound stupid. I would have two different catagories for the contest.

1] Handicapper Champion - Highest win % (most winners)

2] Best Professional Horseplayer - Best final bankroll.

(I just heard in the background typing this, hit a 15-1 at tam, lol)

[The Hawk]

Why have a contest then? The real money contests are a joke. Just a way for the tracks to get more handle.

I cant understand why people think betting on a 15-1 or 20-1 shot is a sign of desperation or "pure luck". Where betting 5-2 shots is somehow morally superior to betting a double digit odds horse

I'll try to explain: Betting on 15-1 or 20-1 shots is not a sign of desperation, or luck, when it's done as a result of handicapping a race intelligently. When it's done because you were awful for 2 days, and the only way you can win the contest is by betting on longshots, regardless of their merit, on the last few races of the last day, it undermines the credibility of the contest, which is purportedly to determine the person with the most handicapping skill. The person, or person(s), in this example, are hardly the best handicappers in the contest. Yes, they deserve credit for winning the tournament, but don't confuse that winner with being a good handicapper. That's the gist of the argument.

All of this said, it seems like both winners of these 2 big Vegas contests were NOT dart-throwers who got lucky on mindless, last-ditch hurls, but 2 guys who did some very good handicapping for 3 days, and that's how it should be. But the system is indeed flawed.

[SPIKE]

to all you cry baby player hating losers. I challenge any and all to put up or shut up.


Also this is a question for Boomer, maybe you should give the cry babies a free book or consultation.

If you are worth half of what you claim on your website, than
put up or shut up.

I will post my picks for all the stake races at Gulfstream on Sat. 2/3

Also I learned my incoherant , ranting and raving after I read your book.

You can IM me or post if you accept the challenge or you can once again put your tail between your legs .

If any of you wanta be handicappers want to put your 2 cents in than bring it.

[PaceAdvantage]

IS THIS REALLY A FORUM FOR HANDICAPPERS OR A SITE WHERE LOSERS CAN PISS AND MOAN AND DISRESPECT THE SYSTEM AND THE WINNERS ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????

Oh, it's definitely the latter....

And since you obviously don't consider yourself a loser, then you won't mind when you are "disappeared"

[SPIKE]

I TAKE IT FROM YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU WOULD RATHER I DISAPPEAR THAN TAKE MY CHALLENGE. NOT A PROBLEM

I PROMISE I WILL NOT POST ANY MORE COMMENTS TO YOUR LOSERS.COM WEBSITE

[SPIKE]

I GUESS FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT EXIST ON PACEADVANTAGE.COM

THE TRUTH HURTS

[PaceAdvantage]

People who write in all caps are morons.

[BIG RED]

He acts like a school kid in a tirade over nothing. Loooo - seeer

[alysheba88]

I'll try to explain: Betting on 15-1 or 20-1 shots is not a sign of desperation, or luck, when it's done as a result of handicapping a race intelligently. When it's done because you were awful for 2 days, and the only way you can win the contest is by betting on longshots, regardless of their merit, on the last few races of the last day, it undermines the credibility of the contest, which is purportedly to determine the person with the most handicapping skill. The person, or person(s), in this example, are hardly the best handicappers in the contest. Yes, they deserve credit for winning the tournament, but don't confuse that winner with being a good handicapper. That's the gist of the argument.

All of this said, it seems like both winners of these 2 big Vegas contests were NOT dart-throwers who got lucky on mindless, last-ditch hurls, but 2 guys who did some very good handicapping for 3 days, and that's how it should be. But the system is indeed flawed.


I dont know where to go with this one. First of all very few contests I have gone to have been decided late by a bomber. Secondly, its not like there is only one double digit odds horse per race. Even the "desperate" player has to decide which bomber to play.

Second, I have found that most people never give themselves a chance to win. So deserve to lose. They dont understand what it takes to win. If you (and I dont mean you literally) know going in that you are going to need 8-1 and up winners and play short odds horses you deserve to lose. People have a very hard time getting out of their comfort zone. They are not comfortable playing mid to long priced horses. So instead of just passing the contests they want to change the rules or claim its all luck or whatever.

The best players are the ones who can adapt.

You see many of the same names up there consistently in these contests. People who think its all luck are losing players.

[rrpic6]

Dear Mr. Spike...or is it SPIKE?

I hear Gulfstream is a really nice track with really good horses. I'm so excited that you will be posting your picks there on Saturday. I looked at the early program and there are some cute names I just might bet on. Keyed Entry, No Biz Like Shobiz, Invasor, are just a few. Do you think I'll win?

RR

[MikeDee]

OTM AI I can't agree with any of your positions on trying to define what is good handicapping and trying to incent contestants to pick horses in accordance a preconceived notion of what good handicapping is.

My handicapping consists of looking for races that have long shot potential, looking for beatable favorites in those races and looking horses that have a chance that are going off at 8-1 or better.

I contend that my handicapping is every bit as valid as the guy who stays up all night sweating over the racing form so he can find that 3-1 shot that everybody else found.

I do not believe that my winners should be capped because my way of handicapping does not fit someone else's definition of good handicapping.

Face the facts, horses do not run all that consistently with the past performance data. If they did then favorites would win way more then the 30% or so that they win, and and horses that are 8-1 or better would not win in the 17-22% range of all races that they currently do. So I hope that all of the "by definition good handicappers" keep playing those all low odds horses that they uncover with their "expertise" but I'll continue to cast my lot with long shots.

[boomman]

Dear Mr. Spike...or is it SPIKE?

I hear Gulfstream is a really nice track with really good horses. I'm so excited that you will be posting your picks there on Saturday. I looked at the early program and there are some cute names I just might bet on. Keyed Entry, No Biz Like Shobiz, Invasor, are just a few. Do you think I'll win?:)

RR

"Mr" Spike challenged me to a handicapping contest, WOW lucky me! LOL-fortunately, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of CAPS and "Mr" Spike has gone to the great CAP in the sky courtesy of "Mr" Pace Advantage!:D Boom

[OTM Al]

Hey MikeDee. I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree at all. Let me take a further step back and explain why I asked that question about what is good handicapping. When designing any game/contest, the designer has a certain outcome in mind. The outcome desired is to show who was the best handicapper over the 2 day event in this case. Therefore the rules must be created in such a way that it is in each participant's best interest to handicap and not to just take anything they can find at 20+/1. This is what incentive compatibility means. This does not mean that you won't take long odds horses. I took a couple very early because I really liked their chances. Didn't work out, but that's the way it goes and I have no regrets.

This idea I believe came to the attention of economists when studying insurance markets. It can be shown that very basic insurance contracts, such as complete coverage for a percentage fee based on liklihood of accident in the population are not incentive compatible if people can change their behavior once they have insurance (this is what is often called the Moral Hazard problem).

Therefore, the key to a good contest design would be one that only gives players incentive to handicap. The problem with this though, as your message shows, is defining what good handicapping is. Without this, it is impossible to design a contest that will meet specifications

There is a truth telling element here as well, which is also often a concern when designing a game situation. This would mean that the picks made in the contest are also the picks the person would have really made with their own cash on the line, This is why I think there is such an appeal by some to the live money contests.

Just from a personal standpoint, I believe this contest should be hard. It should force participants out of their comfort zones in some parts, while in others allowing individual's to pick their spots. In this way, the winner wiould need to show that he was not only very good at a certain type of race or races, but that he/she is also versitile. While it did not happen this year, it does disappoint me that there was possibilty that someone could have only picked 20+/1 horses blindly, hit 3 out of 30, and won the whole thing. Now you might say for one person to get 10% at 20+/1 is tough, and you'd be right, but the more people doing it, the much greater the likelihood statistically of it happening and it doesn't take that many to get it up to a 50/50 proposition.

[alysheba88]

"The outcome desired is to show who was the best handicapper over the 2 day event in this case".

Says who?

[alysheba88]

The other point is "handicapping" is completely overrated as far as determining success in this game. Give me someone who knows how to bet.

When people say handicap it inevitably turns out to mean "picking winners" which is utterly irrelevant.

[OTM Al]

Says who? Says the trophy the hand out at the end and the Eclipse award the winner gets the following year (which to me is the coolest thing the winner gets)

[alysheba88]

Says who? Says the trophy the hand out at the end and the Eclipse award the winner gets the following year (which to me is the coolest thing the winner gets)


You really think the purpose of a contest is to determine the best "handicapper"?

[trigger]

[QUOTE=boomman] the stupidest overtime rules in history which blatantly favor a team winning a coin toss after the two teams have left their guts on the field to make the game go to overtime in the 1st place, but that's another forum. Boom {quote)

On the NFL OT rules, I agree they are dumb....how about just making a rule that the winner has to win by 4 points or more in OT...all other rules stay the same as now.

On the Handicapping contests, the rules should be easy to understand and try to capture the interest of the media (i.e. TV) to increase the popularity of racing as was done with Poker .Handicapping contests based on "pure" handicapping are probably going to be boring on TV. (A lot of the "pure" poker players were initially against the revealing of their down cards and the profusion of big money all-in tournaments when TV first started covering poker tournaments.)
IMHO, the general public thinks handicapping is picking winners so contests should emphasive winning races. Something like a 10, 5, 3 point system for win,place,show with a 2$ bet max per race with each point equal to one dollar may work. Each correct bet would add the points to the $2 mutuel price with (say) a $15 to $20 max credit on the mutuel price. This type of system may create a balance between betting lower odds horses(not only favs but also 4 or 5 to1 shots) versus allways going for longshots. Whattaya think?
Trigger

PS : back on football, they should attach a hockey-like net to the goal posts and only footballs landing in the net would count (maybe widen the posts a little). This way the fans will be able to instantly see if a field goal attempt is good and would make the teams less likely to kick field goals(boring!) and go for touchdowns instead.

[The Hawk]

I dont know where to go with this one. First of all very few contests I have gone to have been decided late by a bomber. Secondly, its not like there is only one double digit odds horse per race. Even the "desperate" player has to decide which bomber to play.

I've been in contests going back as far as 1990 and I've seen a good 20% of them won by the late-afternoon Hail Mary, including several of the Sports Haven (CT) contests for the first few years they had them.

Second: No, there is not only one double-digit odds horse per race, but when there are upwards of 800 people in the contest every high-priced horse is covered by someone, regardless of their merit or the person's opinion of said horse.


Second, I have found that most people never give themselves a chance to win. So deserve to lose. They dont understand what it takes to win. If you (and I dont mean you literally) know going in that you are going to need 8-1 and up winners and play short odds horses you deserve to lose. People have a very hard time getting out of their comfort zone. They are not comfortable playing mid to long priced horses. So instead of just passing the contests they want to change the rules or claim its all luck or whatever. The best players are the ones who can adapt.


Completely agree with this. In fact, this is the point. To use your words, even those people who "know going in that you are going to need 8-1 and up" and actually play "mid to long priced horses"? They're SCREWED when the guy who goes 0-fer the first day mindlessly plays 40-1 shots on the last day, and catches one. YES, we understand the point that just because a horse is 20-1 doesn't mean it shouldn't or can't win. The guys who LIKE these horses when they win SHOULD win the contest. But that's not the point. The point is there are guys playing these horses that do so by looking at the board, and say "we'll, I'm so far behind, I need a 40-1 shot," and play him. They needn't even look at the form. So out of the 400 guys "throwing darts", maybe 3 come up with that horse, and it's sheer chance. Is that within the rules? Of course. Is it a kick in the balls to the guy who came up with 2 solid 20-1 shots by handicapping? Of course.

If you think that's fine, that's where we disagree. I think they should tinker with the rules to try to prevent it, but I don't know how. The cap is a good start but something else needs to be done to make it a true measure of skill.

[alysheba88]

I've been in contests going back as far as 1990 and I've seen a good 20% of them won by the late-afternoon Hail Mary, including several of the Sports Haven (CT) contests for the first few years they had them.

Second: No, there is not only one double-digit odds horse per race, but when there are upwards of 800 people in the contest every high-priced horse is covered by someone, regardless of their merit or the person's opinion of said horse.



Completely agree with this. In fact, this is the point. To use your words, even those people who "know going in that you are going to need 8-1 and up" and actually play "mid to long priced horses"? They're SCREWED when the guy who goes 0-fer the first day mindlessly plays 40-1 shots on the last day, and catches one. YES, we understand the point that just because a horse is 20-1 doesn't mean it shouldn't or can't win. The guys who LIKE these horses when they win SHOULD win the contest. But that's not the point. The point is there are guys playing these horses that do so by looking at the board, and say "we'll, I'm so far behind, I need a 40-1 shot," and play him. They needn't even look at the form. So out of the 400 guys "throwing darts", maybe 3 come up with that horse, and it's sheer chance. Is that within the rules? Of course. Is it a kick in the balls to the guy who came up with 2 solid 20-1 shots by handicapping? Of course.

If you think that's fine, that's where we disagree. I think they should tinker with the rules to try to prevent it, but I don't know how. The cap is a good start but something else needs to be done to make it a true measure of skill.


If you play contests you know most of the top ones have caps. So the 40-1 horse is not an issue at all. With the cap it is virtually impossible for someone to win a contest with only one winner. NYRA runs a good contest, cap is 15-1. Seen many other good ones with caps. Without caps I would not play for many of the reasons you cite. The Frisk me Now factor

[The Hawk]

Agreed. That's why I said caps are a good start. But at 15-1 a cap penalizes those players you were earlier making an argument for, the good players who actually like a 25-1 winner.

The Orleans format is $20 win and place per bet, and pays track price for the first $2 win and place, then caps the rest. That's a reasonable compromise, I think, but it still falls short of its goal.

[trigger]

Some other views on handicapping tournaments:
http://www.horseplayerdaily.com/cat/Interviews+With+The+Experts+January.html

[Spendabuck85]

Many good comments throughout this thread.
Just reviewed the results of todays AmericaTab weekly contest which I did not participate in.
Contest was based on 7 races from Gulfstream, selections can be made up to Post Time. based on $2 win/place with cap of $52 on win and $26 place.
Top ten finishers all had one thing in common, the winner of the final contest race at $218.80 in GP 10th.
Six or seven of the them had no winners in the first 6 races and the contest winner hit the prior three races with win prices of $3.40, $4.20 and $2.80.
So what do you think great handicapping or pick a bomb, and how many of them do you think bet the horse with their own money.

[The Hawk]

Another perfect example, Spend A Buck, thanks for pointing it out.

[karlskorner]

Appears he didn't even need a computer.

http://www.racing.saratoga.ny.us/posts/81009.html

[JimG]

Many good comments throughout this thread.
Just reviewed the results of todays AmericaTab weekly contest which I did not participate in.
Contest was based on 7 races from Gulfstream, selections can be made up to Post Time. based on $2 win/place with cap of $52 on win and $26 place.
Top ten finishers all had one thing in common, the winner of the final contest race at $218.80 in GP 10th.
Six or seven of the them had no winners in the first 6 races and the contest winner hit the prior three races with win prices of $3.40, $4.20 and $2.80.
So what do you think great handicapping or pick a bomb, and how many of them do you think bet the horse with their own money.

Yeah, I was in 4th place prior to the last race. 12 people hit the bomb and it moved me to 16th place. That's the way it goes sometime. Obviously a 99-1 shot winning a contest race is an exception, not the rule.

Jim

PS I never play a horse to win that I play in a contest. I would hate to lose a contest by $.20