broadcasting from belmont 06-27-2010

[formula_2002]

after day 1 I'm 75 in a field of 221 players.

only two playable races for me at belmont, but there are 3 rraces where the favorite should lose. All I need do is catch the dropping dagger by the handel :)
things may improve with scratches.

[woodtoo]

git er done :ThmbUp:
good luck

[formula_2002]

the author of this book has been in 1st place all day, and was the best of yesterday..
http://www.amazon.com/Handicapping-Contest-Handbook-Revised-Updated/dp/1932910018/ref=sr_1_44?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277661876&sr=8-44

[formula_2002]

after day 1 I'm 75 in a field of 221 players.

only two playable races for me at belmont, but there are 3 rraces where the favorite should lose. All I need do is catch the dropping dagger by the handel :)
things may improve with scratches.
final standings at;
http://www.nyra.com/belmont/stories/Bel_2010_Final.pdf
only contest winner of the day was one of the two playbale races.
after scratches, i was able to find 8 races where the favorite was a bad play.
indeed the favorite won but one of them, I none.
the one LTCP of the day won some real money for me, but I never used it in the contest.
so for the two days it seems i won 6 of 12 playable races (unfortunately, you had to bet 20 races :) ) and was two for two for the LTCP bets, fininshing tied for 116 with $276..
Michaels, the guy who wrote the book i referenced previously, finished 2nd.
John Conte, last years overall winner took prize money for 6th place.
The young fellow I sat with just missed prize money, finishing 22nd, missing an 11-1 horse by "HALF A NOSE".

[markgoldie]

Can't get real excited about these contests. We talk of a data base with several hundred examples as being woefully small. So what does picking a handful of races prove? Who's luckiest is all I can see.

[the little guy]

Can't get real excited about these contests. We talk of a data base with several hundred examples as being woefully small. So what does picking a handful of races prove? Who's luckiest is all I can see.


I don't know, don't you think considering the winner of this contest's past success, this result isn't particularly random or lucky?

By your argument, any time any one of us wins on a particular day it is only luck. And, sometimes it is. But time proves a lot....and the winner of this contest has proven it over time.

[markgoldie]

Point is that even the greatest handicapper of all time would tell you that yes, in order to win multiple times against competent competition you MUST be lucky- both times.

That being said, there are no doubt ways to "game" such competitions, such as playing to the leader board and adjusting selections accordingly- that is, knowing when you must attack and when you can be conservative. And if that is a significant skill in these things, I think we can safely say they have little to do with horse handicapping.

[formula_2002]

Can't get real excited about these contests. We talk of a data base with several hundred examples as being woefully small. So what does picking a handful of races prove? Who's luckiest is all I can see.
I think you are right about "luckiest", but I do think some of the people that are often in the top 10% or so are "luckier" than others.
there are a few names that pop out like Wolfson, Conte,Nilsen, Gutfreund,McSweeney, and perhaps a few others..many of them use more than one entry..

this year the winner had a final bankroll of $1096. I can recall some years where it took $1200 or more.
Starting BR is $440.

For Me to get some kind of understanding of what tripling the initial BR to $1320 in 22 $20 bets,(actually, the contest requires 18 $20 bets and 2 $40 bets) means;

100% winners = 22 $6.00 win mutual, or 2-1 odds
50% winners = 11 $12,00 win mutual, or 5-1 odds
27% winners = 6 $22.00 win mutual, or 10-1 odds
14% winners = 3 $44 win mutual (maximum allowed win mutual is $32) or 21-1 odds

Belmont take is 15% (min 10 bets)
CD is 16% take (say 5 bets)
MTH is 17% take (say 5 bets)
Average take for 20 bets = say 17% with breakage

2-1 track odds = ,33% probability, .33 x (1-.17)= .27% actual probability
5-1 track odds = .16% probability, .16 x (1-.17)= 13% actual probability
10-1 track odds = .091% probability, .091 x (1-.17)= .076% actual probability
21-1 track odds = .045% probability, .038 x (1-.17)= .032% actual probability

Finding the z score for each odds group.
22 winners/ (sqrt(22 x .27 x (1-.27))) = 10
11 winners/ (sqrt(22 x .13 x (1-.13))) = 7
7 winners/ (sqrt(22 x .076 x (1-.076))) = 6
3 winners/ (sqrt(22 x .032 x (1-.032))) = 4

using the following web site to calculate the z score probabilities
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/analysis/zCalc.html

it’s a wonder anyone wins. :) :)
Obviously I’m not a statistician, so anyone who wants to post their mathematical analysis is welcome.

[Jeff P]

F2002, You posted the following:
For Me to get some kind of understanding of what tripling the initial BR to $1320 in 22 $20 bets,(actually, the contest requires 18 $20 bets and 2 $40 bets) means;

100% winners = 22 $6.00 win mutual, or 2-1 odds
50% winners = 11 $12,00 win mutual, or 5-1 odds
27% winners = 6 $22.00 win mutual, or 10-1 odds
14% winners = 3 $44 win mutual (maximum allowed win mutual is $32) or 21-1 oddsFor the most part, I believe winners of most contests bearing a similar format to the one you were just in win them by (mostly) hitting horses that would fall into the bottom 2 categories posted above.

About a month ago I attended a special meeting held at at Los Al to discuss things like handle and takeout with Los Al management and members of the CHRB. Rather than make the drive myself, I instead took a train up from San Diego that day. As luck would have it, Barry Meadow also attended that same meeting - and offered me a ride from Los Al back to the Santa Ana train station after the meeting was over.

During the ride to the train station I asked Barry if he played in contests. He said no and then explained why. During this conversation he said something to me about contests that I found rather profound.

I'm paraphrasing, but as I recall what he said went something like this:

"Contest play requires a completely different mind set than playing for a profit does. When you are playing for a profit you need to bet overlays - always. In contests the best play to make might be not be an overlay. In fact, the best play in a contest is frequently an underlay. I don't play contests because I don't want to handicap for underlays."

Having read the book you linked to, and knowing the history of most contests (even though they aren't my cup of tea) I took Barry's words to mean that in a contest, in order to give yourself the best chance to win, you need to hit horses in the 6-1 to 20-1 range whether they are overlays or not.

Just something to think about.



-jp

.

[formula_2002]

Jeff, that's the range I was coming up with "the 6-1 to 20-1 range ..."

My play limits me to too few plays for a 20 play contest, plus my plays are generally 1st or 2nd betting choices.
In two days I had but 2 plays, what I call my LTCP's. "Lucky" for me they both won.

I do enjoy Belmont and try to get there (30 minuet drive ) a few times a year.

I can relate to the "mind set" comment of Barry Meadow's..
It really bothered me when I made a play outside of the two models I used for the contest, none of which would ever win a contest, unless the contest required a few thousand plays :)

[whobet]

This is exactly why I don't enter these contests,

I entered one at LAUREL,

I was going to play favorites,

but my computer said it was longshot day,

the betting rules would not let me bet like I bet on LONGSHOT day,

I have never entered another contest.

[Jeff P]

F2002, One other aspect about this (and similar) contests that might be worth knowing: A glance at the leader board shows many of the same last names multiple times.

Not saying there's anything wrong (it's in the rules) with that... other than the guy with just 1 entry might not be aware he's up against guys with multiple entries.


-jp

.

[formula_2002]

F2002, One other aspect about this (and similar) contests that might be worth knowing: A glance at the leader board shows many of the same last names multiple times.

Not saying there's anything wrong (it's in the rules) with that... other than the guy with just 1 entry might not be aware he's up against guys with multiple entries.


-jp

.
In last weekend's contest 25 guys had 2,3 or 4 entries.
8 of them won prize money (top 21 finishers)

79 of the 221 entries were held by players with more than 1 entry

79/221 =37%
8/21= 38%
38% of the prizes were won by multile entries (37%)

(221-79)/(221)=64%
(21-8)/21 = 62%
62% of the prizes were won by single entries(64%)

sounds to me like the multiple entry guys are spending more money (entry fees) to win the same amount of money single entry guys win.
single entry guys are betting into an overlay!!! :)

[Bobzilla]

I can't speak for this year, but I'm pretty certain that the NYRA tournaments have historically limited the number of entries per contestant at two. Without knowing the first names it's hard to know for sure as often times couples or siblings who share the same last name compete in the same contests. I've been active over the last ten years participating in tournements. I can say that my own impression in regard to the degree of collusion between relatives varies from total to next to none, so in fairness to the latter group I try not to jump to too many conclusions in regard to team efforts as I've known instances where more than one member of the same family possesses a high degree of tournament savy/handicapping skill (e.g. Gallo, Matties, Wagner).

From looking at the top eleven finishers I see two NHC champions (Conte, Rippey), a HPWS champion (Hopkins), a Keeneland winner (Michaels) and two who have won a NYRA event in the past (Gianquitti, Gutfreund). I recognize their consistency, it's not as easy as some suggest.

Every year there are well more than 100,000 attempts to earn a berth in the NHC. Most years there is a good representation of past qualifiers at the NHC. I believe this last year it was somewhere between a third to a half of the field. I understand that some players have more time and resources than others which would obviously improve their chances to return. But when one considers the number of attempts every year to earn one of 275-300 spots, and that there are some who get in most years and many who have been at least a few times before, I have to think that skill plays a huge part.

I don't disagree with anything that's been written so far in this thread. As I think Mark might have suggested, many who have been successful in these contests will probably admit that luck always has to be present in order to have a good weekend. I do think the best players are the ones who, over time, can consistently demonstrate the high level of handicapping skill needed to be in position to be lucky more than once. I think it's worth noting that many of the more consistent tournament performers over the years (e.g. Ross Gallo, Duke Matties, Dennis Tiernan) are known as much for their day-to-day play (agreeably a different game altogether) as they are for their tournament play.

[formula_2002]

Just a note: if you were to limit your handicapping to 6-1 though 15-1 odds, then in the two day tournament, there were 11 such winners out of 142.
8%..
It seems the key to winning is to keep trying..and hope to get lucky before you crack up :) .