How to create a better live bankroll tournament.
 

The major live bankroll tournaments have a common flaw. They all boil down to the final race, It would be better if you could write the rules to promote more balanced play. You would make the tournaments better tests, more exciting, and increase handle.
Here's how you do it: you take some of the prize money and redirect it to "Leader Awards" that accrue immediately to bankroll. The major tourneys are all pretty much two day affairs, so; you would award the day one leader a bonus and then on day two you would pay out bonuses at certain intervals throughout the day. Just by doing this you would incentivise players to get involved in bigger ways earlier in the contest. It's not just that there is prize money to be won along the way, but a loose leader can accumulate bankroll that can make him much harder to catch. If you instituted leader awards you could also do away with most of the mandatory wagering rules. I would replace those rules with one that only required players to bet their entire starting bankroll by the penultimate race. It would simply the rules and create a double flourish at the end. Do these things and you would create a more satisfying paradigm while seeing handle and excitement zoom..

I agree somewhat with your assessment. Handicapping contests with no limits on wager type/amount are as much about bankroll management and throwing a lot of money at the final race, as they are about actually handicapping and finding winners.

3 types of tournaments I've participated in include 1) the above tournament format, 2) a win wager only tournament with no restriction on amount of wager or number of races, and 3) a tournament with a dozen or so selected races from various tracks where you are required to place a mythical W/P wager on a single horse in each race.

From a pure handicapping standpoint option 3 finds the best pure capper imo but doesn't reward those adept at exotics and those who understand bankroll management.

The second option is a good balance of both.

Your idea of paying out a percentage of the pot to the leader after "X" race(s) is a good idea, but I'm not sure it will prevent a lot of players from waiting for that final race to blow the remainder on their bankroll. I think it's human nature "FOMO" to not want to throw a lot of money on a race that isn't the final race for fear of not lasting until the last race of the day.

In the end, everyone has their personal preferences. If I had it my way tournaments would be limited to WPS, ex/tri/sup. with a wager limit of $20 in any one race.

Limits limits limits.

Nothing boils down to the last race if the leader is so far ahead it's hopeless.

Did I ever tell you I won the Bally Bowl twice?

What's the Bally Bowl? It was a football contest run in Atlantic City.

IMO...tournaments should be conducted exactly as live play is currently carried out. The participants should not be told beforehand what races or wager types to make; they should just be given a starting bankroll and turned loose to bet whatever race and whatever wager they like. And the final bankroll becomes the criteria for the tournament payoffs. Race selection and money management are crucial aspects of the horseplaying process...and they should be decisions that are left to the discretion of the player, and not to the whim of the tournament coordinators. And, most importantly, the tournament participants should be kept in the dark about the tournament standings while there are still bets to be made in the tourney. The deciding factor for the wagers should be the skill and experience of the participating players...not the desperation that they feel when they see that they are trailing badly in the tournament standings.

When I went in to collect my first 7 grand I said I'll be back.

They said, "how do you know that?"

Needless to say I did.

That's an interesting point thaskalos.

One of the things I would say to the trailing players is ok, how do you plan to overtake me when I already know what you're going to do?

Originally posted by Immortal6
"I'm not sure it will prevent a lot of players from waiting for that final race to blow the remainder on their bankroll. I think it's human nature "FOMO" to not want to throw a lot of money on a race that isn't the final race for fear of not lasting until the last race of the day."


The way it would prevent that would be making that strategy ineffective and too costly. If players continued to win employing the current strategy then I would be wrong.

Originally posted by Buckeye
Limits limits limits.

No host wants to impose limits.

Basically in a contest, and I mean any contest, it pays to be right early and late.

Sour grapes otherwise in my opinion.

No leaderboard until the final race is concluded.

Allan

Not much of a torny guy, so I don't know how it works, but I would think your starting bankroll should NOT be enough to make are the mandatory bets.
You should have to earn the right to finish.

In no other game, contest, or sport do you not know the score. So even though I get what your getting at I don"t think that's a viable option. You have to keep a couple things in mind. First, tracks run these contests for the increased handle. Anything that inhibits handle is a non-starter. In fact, the model we want to promote is one in which there are no entry fees, just a bankroll buy-in, and the track puts up all the prize money...ala The Pegasus world Cup Betting Challenge. The other thing to keep in mind is that tournaments need to be exciting, so not knowing the score kind of kills that as well. So, the current state of affairs is not bad. The tracks are getting a good handle boost from live money tourneys; they are exciting, although the drama is too condensed; and while the formats aren't unfair, per se, it would be better from all important standpoints, that is those aforementioned, that the final race become less crucial. So, that's what my plan aims to do. If you disagree with anything I've written I'd welcome a specific critique. Thanks.

I'll admit that at the NHC my initial strategy was flawed. I was betting for winners (and did fine picking them), but soon realized I was getting my ass kicked by someone with a max winner. One max winner ($64) is better than 5 winners at 3-1. I guarantee there were quite a few handicappers who did what they always did - look for solid horses, while the contest leaders were shrewdly catching higher paying horses. Late in the tournament I adopted a strategy of betting the best horse over 10-1. I finished a nostril hair away from getting a nice check when a 37-1 longshot was short an inch or two. Anyway, it's an interesting strategy, but I think it would take a lot of practice to get it right.

Got an idea I'll share, just as soon as I find it in my notes...:cool: