Controversy at the BCBC.
 

Interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

Could someone break it down in more simple terms?

Thanks in advance.

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

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

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...107-story.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great post!

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

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

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

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

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

100%.

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

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

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

or game theory, for that matter