DRF/NTRA people are you listening?

[Capper Al]

I watched the World Handicapping Contest last year and was frustrated. They covered the contest poorly. If it weren't for my commitment to the sport of racing, I would of been bored and turned it off. In a day and age when golf can have a TV following, one would think that they could make horse racing handicapping appear interesting. They need a new TV coverage plan that gets into handicapping and the risk the players are taking. Gambling and racing if not profitable is at least exciting. I'd like a shot at the coverage if I could. I couldn't do worse.

[TEJAS KIDD]

This will be my 6th year in it and I'm even bored playing in it let alone watching it on tv.
$2WP format isnt interesting.
At least, make it $2000wp, its all the same, but it sounds better when someone has $200,000 tournament dollars.
I think a live bankroll tournament would be better for television.

[Capper Al]

Of course, a more exciting TV coverage would be good for the racing fan. But if it isn't exciting to us regular fans then the show would fail to attract new fans into the game. After all, television coverage is an opportunity for the industry to present itself to the public at large. Racing needs all the new fans it can get. To not put a winning TV package together, the DRF/NTRA lets us all down.

[Sherry]

I'd like a shot at the coverage if I could. I couldn't do worse.

How would you make it more interesting? Horse racing and gambling is exciting, but how can you make handicapping appear entertaining?

I would much rather watch a show about a professional player who gambles for a living. Somebody who enjoys gambling might actually become interested in horse racing.

Hitting a super got me hooked. Not watching people with their noses buried in the DRF.

[Bobzilla]

This year will be the first year I'll be participating in the NTRA/DRF. I qualified in one of the several live money contest put on by Autotote/CTOTB every year. It starts a month from today and I cannot wait to get out there to Red Rock.

I would agree with the suggestion that a live money format for the national championship would create more potential for an entertaining spectator event. The current format is too structured, offers little flexability for strategy, and over only two days it pretty much amounts to a luck contest. A live money format would lead to greater oppotunity and flexability to exercise various different strategies, including varying outlay percentages based on strategy as well as conviction.

Though a live money event may resemble more closely the televised poker contests which have gained popularity in recent years, I'm not so sure if we could ever expect handicapping/horseplating tournaments, whatever the format, to have the same interpersonal nature associated with poker contests which in large part has led to their popularity. Speaking for myself, I do my best thinking when I'm deep in my own private Idaho, and not when I'm trying to stare a competitor down from behind cool looking shades. I can't think of anything that would be more boring than televising me with my face looking straight down into the pages of a Daily Racing Form, which is exactly what I'll be doing for 99% of my time in the NHC next month. I guess there could be some moments which would be worth televising, but probably not many. I guess the big question is how could this event be made more entertaining to spectators, and could that help draw more fans to the sport. The ESPN coverage of two years ago was virtually ignored. Don't think the networks, never mind the NTRA and DRF know the answer to this.

[Capper Al]

It is said that baseball would of never succeeded without stats as a spectator sport. The numbers flashing on the screen or stated by the commentator put life in for the baseball spectator. I believe that they can do this with the NHC also. Interviewing after the tournament with the leaders asking them their thoughts and having an analysis reflect on their comments. It's about the handicapping not the Vegas or the horses. Teach handicapping and explain the risks that a player is taking when he picks a certain horse. Does he go on early pace? Is he gambling on back class? It's a head game. They should go there or they miss the event.

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

Don't see how one can possibly make the science of handicapping out to be exciting; as far as the poker craze, they caught lightning in a bottle and the fad looks like it's fading fast.

[thespaah]

How would you make it more interesting? Horse racing and gambling is exciting, but how can you make handicapping appear entertaining?

I would much rather watch a show about a professional player who gambles for a living. Somebody who enjoys gambling might actually become interested in horse racing.

Hitting a super got me hooked. Not watching people with their noses buried in the DRF.
Obviously the coverage cannot be "live". Watching people ponder their picks and scratching notes on paper does not make for interesting tv.
What I would do is shoot the whole thing, use the footage of the players making their bets and compare those to what other have made. Updates of the tote odds could be used. All this displayed in graphics on screen. The races then are shown and the results posted. An update of each players status after each race would then be displayed for the viewers.
Views of the players could be used as each race is contested and then post race each player in contention could be interviewed for their reactions.
Personalities could be developed and story lines devolped from there. This could be edited down to a 30 or 60 minute show.

[TEJAS KIDD]

Obviously the coverage cannot be "live". Watching people ponder their picks and scratching notes on paper does not make for interesting tv.
What I would do is shoot the whole thing, use the footage of the players making their bets and compare those to what other have made. Updates of the tote odds could be used. All this displayed in graphics on screen. The races then are shown and the results posted. An update of each players status after each race would then be displayed for the viewers.
Views of the players could be used as each race is contested and then post race each player in contention could be interviewed for their reactions.
Personalities could be developed and story lines devolped from there. This could be edited down to a 30 or 60 minute show.

The problem is that most of us are really too busy to be interviewed between races. There are as many as 7 tracks running with post times right on top of eachother during the tournament and there's not really much time to talk to the camera crew. If the tournament were a live bankroll tournament, then they could cut the tourney tracks down to 2 or 3, and players would have more time between races for the coverage. Plus with live bankroll, the leaderboard would see dramatic changes from race to race.

[Indulto]

Obviously the coverage cannot be "live". Watching people ponder their picks and scratching notes on paper does not make for interesting tv.
What I would do is shoot the whole thing, use the footage of the players making their bets and compare those to what other have made. Updates of the tote odds could be used. All this displayed in graphics on screen. The races then are shown and the results posted. An update of each players status after each race would then be displayed for the viewers.
Views of the players could be used as each race is contested and then post race each player in contention could be interviewed for their reactions.
Personalities could be developed and story lines devolped from there. This could be edited down to a 30 or 60 minute show.TS,
I couldn't agree more.

Having never been to a contest, though, I don't know whether there is any discussion of handicapping and/or value analysis of tote board odds among contestants, or even among partners (if contestant teams are ever involved). It seems to me that being a fly on the wall to such deliberations would still be interesting to view after-the-fact.

[Premier Turf Club]

TS,
I couldn't agree more.

Having never been to a contest, though, I don't know whether there is any discussion of handicapping and/or value analysis of tote board odds among contestants, or even among partners (if contestant teams are ever involved). It seems to me that being a fly on the wall to such deliberations would still be interesting to view after-the-fact.

I was part of a team that finished 3rd two years ago. The live drama was terrific, but I admit to being thoroughly bored watching it after the fact on ESPN. It didn't help that the show was really hard to follow and we didn't get a mention literally until the final 60 seconds of the broadcast despite being in the top 20 most of day 2.

[Pace Cap'n]

Plus with live bankroll, the leaderboard would see dramatic changes from race to race.

Maybe even having actual cash changing hands.

[TEJAS KIDD]

TS,
I couldn't agree more.

Having never been to a contest, though, I don't know whether there is any discussion of handicapping and/or value analysis of tote board odds among contestants, or even among partners (if contestant teams are ever involved). It seems to me that being a fly on the wall to such deliberations would still be interesting to view after-the-fact.

In the standard 2WP format tournaments, there is no analyzing value. Value is irrelevant. You look for the longest shots that have a remote chance and take it. I would only consider putting real money on my tournament selections about 10% of the time. There have been times that I've gone into a tournament with 2 or 3 solid plays but had to change to other horses because longshots were winning all day and I was too far behind to take 4-1, so I had to play something else and let the 4-1 shot win going away( of course I'd put real money on it). That's why I hate playing in those type of tournaments, if you get behind you cant catch up on horses you are confident in. There is no strategy,you find a longshot and play it. You need longshots to win these types of tournaments. For every CAP HORSE (20-1 or better) that wins, there is at least one contestant who has it. So for someone to take 5-1, you'd need that 4 times to catch the guy that had the 20-1. In a tournament where you only have 30 plays, it's not possible to win taking lower odds prices. You have to catch bombs and the one with the most bombs wins.
To win the NHC, one would need about $240. It's been less a few times, but rule of thumb for structured win place tournament is doubling the bankroll.
15 plays for 2 days= 30 x $4= $120 Bankroll x 2= $240

If someone played strictly lower odds horses, average 5-1
Mutuels $12- and $6-
240/18= A little more than 13 winners out of 30 plays 43% winners (ouch)

Avg play 10-1 shot
22+10=32
240/32=7.5 winner= 25% winners

Avg play 20-1 shot
42+18=60
240/60=4 winners 13% winners

Last year my partner and I caught 2 cap winners and 1 place horse. We only ended up about 48 dollars off the winner after blanking on the 1st day. I think we placed in the mid 20's on his ticket.

[Indulto]

I was part of a team that finished 3rd two years ago. The live drama was terrific, but I admit to being thoroughly bored watching it after the fact on ESPN. It didn't help that the show was really hard to follow and we didn't get a mention literally until the final 60 seconds of the broadcast despite being in the top 20 most of day 2.Happy holidays, PTC.

Obviously there was no suspense for you, but would you have found any parts of what was shown interesting if you hadn't been a participant?

What aspects of the live action that you found exciting could be shared with viewers after the fact?

Did your live deliberations sound anything like the pre-BC radio show? ;)

[Indulto]

In the standard 2WP format tournaments, there is no analyzing value. Value is irrelevant. You look for the longest shots that have a remote chance and take it. I would only consider putting real money on my tournament selections about 10% of the time. There have been times that I've gone into a tournament with 2 or 3 solid plays but had to change to other horses because longshots were winning all day and I was too far behind to take 4-1, so I had to play something else and let the 4-1 shot win going away( of course I'd put real money on it). That's why I hate playing in those type of tournaments, if you get behind you cant catch up on horses you are confident in. There is no strategy,you find a longshot and play it. You need longshots to win these types of tournaments. For every CAP HORSE (20-1 or better) that wins, there is at least one contestant who has it. So for someone to take 5-1, you'd need that 4 times to catch the guy that had the 20-1. In a tournament where you only have 30 plays, it's not possible to win taking lower odds prices. You have to catch bombs and the one with the most bombs wins.
To win the NHC, one would need about $240. It's been less a few times, but rule of thumb for structured win place tournament is doubling the bankroll.
15 plays for 2 days= 30 x $4= $120 Bankroll x 2= $240

If someone played strictly lower odds horses, average 5-1
Mutuels $12- and $6-
240/18= A little more than 13 winners out of 30 plays 43% winners (ouch)

Avg play 10-1 shot
22+10=32
240/32=7.5 winner= 25% winners

Avg play 20-1 shot
42+18=60
240/60=4 winners 13% winners

Last year my partner and I caught 2 cap winners and 1 place horse. We only ended up about 48 dollars off the winner after blanking on the 1st day. I think we placed in the mid 20's on his ticket.TK,
Do you think your deliberations were sufficiently entertaining and instructive to be worth taping in the event you won to then sell to a reality show maker?

[Scav]

Happy holidays, PTC.

Obviously there was no suspense for you, but would you have found any parts of what was shown interesting if you hadn't been a participant?

What aspects of the live action that you found exciting could be shared with viewers after the fact?

Did your live deliberations sound anything like the pre-BC radio show? ;)

If they produced it like they produce a show like "The Real World" which is a show on MTV that is a semi-reality show (I doubt many on here know what it is). They tape all this live stuff and then go through and cut it up, and have certain people analyze what they just did or said, interview after everything is done, but ask them to state what they were thinking or their opinion, yadda yadda.

Me personally, I have been in three tourneys, all at Arlington Park. My first one, I tried to do both the contest and live wagering, no can do because it is too much to worry about. The 2nd one I was too indecesive and I wasn't trusting myself and missed out on a couple 9/1's. In the 3rd one, I got real lucky to finish in the top 15, and probably cost myself a top 5 finish with my impatience. I was 0-6 with 4 mandatories and 2 non-mandatories left, and I go and place all my wagers and go sit with my dad in another area of Arlington. I proceed to hit the next THREE races at Arlington and get all the way up to 5th place. I would have had all three horses in the contest and still had 1 mandatory and 2 non-mandatories left, and possible eeked into the top three, but instead I placed all the wagers at one time and I was locked in(Can't cancel contest wagers), hit a non-mandotory but it wasn't enough because i was in like 10th and probably would have had the last race at Arlington horse that was like 20/1 and people in the 10 through 20 range all played the horse because he was somewhat live.....You learn through experience.

[sammy the sage]

They should do it during the breeder's cup as well...now that would be interesting!

[Indulto]

If they produced it like they produce a show like "The Real World" which is a show on MTV that is a semi-reality show (I doubt many on here know what it is). They tape all this live stuff and then go through and cut it up, and have certain people analyze what they just did or said, interview after everything is done, but ask them to state what they were thinking or their opinion, yadda yadda.

Me personally, I have been in three tourneys, all at Arlington Park. My first one, I tried to do both the contest and live wagering, no can do because it is too much to worry about. The 2nd one I was too indecesive and I wasn't trusting myself and missed out on a couple 9/1's. In the 3rd one, I got real lucky to finish in the top 15, and probably cost myself a top 5 finish with my impatience. I was 0-6 with 4 mandatories and 2 non-mandatories left, and I go and place all my wagers and go sit with my dad in another area of Arlington. I proceed to hit the next THREE races at Arlington and get all the way up to 5th place. I would have had all three horses in the contest and still had 1 mandatory and 2 non-mandatories left, and possible eeked into the top three, but instead I placed all the wagers at one time and I was locked in(Can't cancel contest wagers), hit a non-mandotory but it wasn't enough because i was in like 10th and probably would have had the last race at Arlington horse that was like 20/1 and people in the 10 through 20 range all played the horse because he was somewhat live.....You learn through experience.Happy Holidays, Scav.

Sounds like contests aren't for the faint-hearted. Does anybody really deliberate at these things, or just react? ;)

[Premier Turf Club]

Happy holidays, PTC.

Obviously there was no suspense for you, but would you have found any parts of what was shown interesting if you hadn't been a participant?

What aspects of the live action that you found exciting could be shared with viewers after the fact?

Did your live deliberations sound anything like the pre-BC radio show? ;)

Happy Holidays to you and everyone on the PA Board as well.

The strategy, particularly during the 2nd half of day two was pretty interesting. Do we swing for the fences and select a 20-1 shot you make 8-1 in the final mandatory race when you think the favorite can be beaten, or do you pick the 5-2 2nd choice that you make even money? Do I play the two longshots I love in this turf race with my last 2 optional plays or do I choose between them and save one bullet?

The deliberations were exactly like the pre-BC radio show. We clinched 3rd with a dead on the board Mullins firster that paid like $36 that we went back and forth on for like 20 minutes.

Last year we were pretty much out of it one day one and it got pretty tedious...

[thespaah]

The problem is that most of us are really too busy to be interviewed between races. There are as many as 7 tracks running with post times right on top of eachother during the tournament and there's not really much time to talk to the camera crew. If the tournament were a live bankroll tournament, then they could cut the tourney tracks down to 2 or 3, and players would have more time between races for the coverage. Plus with live bankroll, the leaderboard would see dramatic changes from race to race.
ok,,,just looking for suggestions. This CAN work..None of us are professionals but we watch tv. We know what we would like to see. Getting people in the tv business to listen to us is the trick.

[TEJAS KIDD]

TK,
Do you think your deliberations were sufficiently entertaining and instructive to be worth taping in the event you won to then sell to a reality show maker?

If I had won that tournament, NO. There really isnt much thought to it. Go for a longshot and hope it wins. THe 2 horses we caught that day, were a 60-1 shot CRUSADER RABBIT (I did be a little bit of real money on, actually liked him) and MCCANN'S MAJOVE (didnt bet a cent on him, just gambling on a price, I was too far behind and it was getting late in the day, I think it was a mandatory race too)

However, the tournament I won at Hollywood Park in July would have been great. Going into the last race of the tournament my live bankroll was around $20,000, the leaders was in the low 50's. I had tried to catch him all day long with various big exacta and trifecta wagers. I really liked the favorite in the last race name GEORGIE BOY but I figured he would be too short and I would have to play too much money to catch the leader, my 2nd choice was DIXIE CHATTER and I believe he was 3rd choice at around 9-2. I was looking to make a $1000 trifecta that would pay in the vicinity of $40 for 1. I figured if I used DIXIE CHATTER on top, I could achieve the necessary payoff. So I played DIXIE CHATTER- GEORGIE BOY- (cant remember the name) for $1000
and another DC-GB- to another horse for $550
DIXIE got up in the final strides to beat GB and GB won the place photo to complete my tri. I sweated out the $38.40 payoff, and then I had to worry about whether or not the leader cashed (which he did, but not for enough), think I won by $700 or so. Had the payoff been 37.60, I would've lost the tournament by less than 100.
I think that wouldve been great for reality TV.

[Scav]

Happy Holidays, Scav.

Sounds like contests aren't for the faint-hearted. Does anybody really deliberate at these things, or just react? ;)

You can drive yourself even more nuts then regular betting. In a contest you have a fixed amount of races to make your bankroll right, when betting regular races, you can go all the way to Los Al or Cal-Expo until your bankroll gets right.

[Premier Turf Club]

If I had won that tournament, NO. There really isnt much thought to it. Go for a longshot and hope it wins. THe 2 horses we caught that day, were a 60-1 shot CRUSADER RABBIT (I did be a little bit of real money on, actually liked him) and MCCANN'S MAJOVE (didnt bet a cent on him, just gambling on a price, I was too far behind and it was getting late in the day, I think it was a mandatory race too)

However, the tournament I won at Hollywood Park in July would have been great. Going into the last race of the tournament my live bankroll was around $20,000, the leaders was in the low 50's. I had tried to catch him all day long with various big exacta and trifecta wagers. I really liked the favorite in the last race name GEORGIE BOY but I figured he would be too short and I would have to play too much money to catch the leader, my 2nd choice was DIXIE CHATTER and I believe he was 3rd choice at around 9-2. I was looking to make a $1000 trifecta that would pay in the vicinity of $40 for 1. I figured if I used DIXIE CHATTER on top, I could achieve the necessary payoff. So I played DIXIE CHATTER- GEORGIE BOY- (cant remember the name) for $1000
and another DC-GB- to another horse for $550
DIXIE got up in the final strides to beat GB and GB won the place photo to complete my tri. I sweated out the $38.40 payoff, and then I had to worry about whether or not the leader cashed (which he did, but not for enough), think I won by $700 or so. Had the payoff been 37.60, I would've lost the tournament by less than 100.
I think that wouldve been great for reality TV.

Almost unarguably the best/ballsiest bet in tournament history. Would have been great TV.

Happy Holidays TK.

[Indulto]

Almost unarguably the best/ballsiest bet in tournament history. Would have been great TV.

Happy Holidays TK.Hell, it was great posting. I think you tournament players could set a forum record for number of views here with a few more stories like THAT one. :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

If they produced it like they produce a show like "The Real World" which is a show on MTV that is a semi-reality show (I doubt many on here know what it is). They tape all this live stuff and then go through and cut it up, and have certain people analyze what they just did or said, interview after everything is done, but ask them to state what they were thinking or their opinion, yadda yadda.



That would be the format to do what I have been getting at. They need to show the head game involved with racing without that they miss the event. It's like not being there. This is why it has been boring even to racing fans.

[Capper Al]

They should do it during the breeder's cup as well...now that would be interesting!

I agree. They should also include the Triple Crown. But with these events verse the NHC they can survive without getting into the head game because all of the pageantry and other things going on. These races don't come off as boring as the NHC contest does.

[Capper Al]

I had hoped that this thread would serve as a complaint thread about the coming TV coverage of the National Handicapping Contest. Maybe with the high volume at PaceAdvantage, some one at the DRF or NTRA would hear us. If not, we are in for another boring TV show that won't be satisfying for veteran racing fans and won't attract new racing fans into the game which can't help the racing industry.

[TEJAS KIDD]

I had hoped that this thread would serve as a complaint thread about the coming TV coverage of the National Handicapping Contest. Maybe with the high volume at PaceAdvantage, some one at the DRF or NTRA would hear us. If not, we are in for another boring TV show that won't be satisfying for veteran racing fans and won't attract new racing fans into the game which can't help the racing industry.

Are they even producing a show this year?

[Capper Al]

Are they even producing a show this year?

Good question. I don't know. With the poor job they did, they could cancel it. The right thing to do for the fans would be to come up with a new format, like we are trying to suggest here, and give it another try.

[citygoat]

I'd like to be able to wager on who would win day one ,day two and the winner.

Make the coverage interactive so the viewers care who the handicapper is picking.

[Capper Al]

I'd like to be able to wager on who would win day one ,day two and the winner.

Make the coverage interactive so the viewers care who the handicapper is picking.

Could this be done so that none of the competitors would know each other's picks to keep it a fair contest?

[LurkingBettor]

Are they even producing a show this year?

Hey, Tejas,

I was questioning if they even taped at the 2007 one, but do remember that they came by and filmed and talked to Massa late in the second day. Did that one ever get televised?

Sorry. Late to the thread. And if it did get televised, if anyone has a tape or DVD of the 2007 NHC they'd like to sell, please pm me.

LB