Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Asaro
That is something the leaders have to deal with as part of their strategy. It looks like the top two or three were trying to eek out a win with shorter priced horses. They guy in second had to try to pick a horse that the leader didn't have if he was gonna win. It seems like it was a lucky stab but every player at the final table was trying to do the same thing.
|
Sure, these guys know it's part of the strategy, they take it into account, but, does it have to be that way? Wouldn't it be better if it was just about handicapping?
It seems like the leader gets put in a very disadvantageous situation. Of course sometimes the chalk wins and the leader holds on, I get that. But crucially, everyone behind the leader at the end has far more information than the leader had at any juncture. They know what they need to overtake him and bet accordingly. The tournament situation dictates their bets, they're not purely handicapping any more.
Is it not the case that if a longshot wins at the end of one of these, it's likely that the incumbent leader was surpassed? Because everyone in striking distance was correctly playing the bombers? I feel like the result of that race is actually too influential in the final outcome, because again, the bettors have so much information.
I stand by the idea that, not for the whole thing, but, for the final 'stretch run' of these tournaments, the results should not be publicized until the races are over, unless someone can tell me why that's a bad idea. And I'm happy to be told I'm wrong, I'm curious to learn more. I would like to take part in an event like this someday.
