Controversy at the BCBC.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

I think this is where I land.

A rules change is needed.

You are right. The rule change should be an elimination of the rule. You can apply all the Game Theory that you desire and it will have a minuscule affect on the outcome.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid

LemonDrop,

If what Menifee said above is true (it seems you don't deny it) how did they not break any rules?

The basic question for this is that it's a "handicapping" contest. Not a partnering contest. If you, LDH, went up against me in such a contest, and I found you were involving another person (even forgetting here they had extra handle!) how on earth could you claim that you were a better 'capper if you won?

I think this exposes your legalistic take on such a story. It's pretty poor.

How did the winner come up with the right bets if not by handicapping? Typically partnering involves covering horses in the same race where you feel longshots are likely.

It wasn't a picking winners contest it was a winning money contest. How an alleged partner succeeded or didn't succeed doesn't make the probability of the other partner's bets more likely to hit.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by AndyC

You are right. The rule change should be an elimination of the rule. You can apply all the Game Theory that you desire and it will have a minuscule affect on the outcome.

Make a rule change but....

YouTube

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Assuming they played as a team, I still don't see where their advantage was. Can someone explain it to me?

They can't.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by AndyC

They can't.

Agree.

Not really sure there was one. Especially with how they played it to be honest.

But....., it does bring in the reality of a likely needed rule change. I know if I get there, I don't want to be going head-to-head with a number of those guys. I need help. A lot of help.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by AndyC

They can't.

I disagree.

You're an accountant.

If you had to calculate the net present value of the second entry at the point in time when they began making plays for it in the tournament:

Is the value of an unused entry in the hands of a skilled player at that point in time worth more than other entries that have already been depleted in terms of both bankroll and bullets?

Assuming nearly equal skill among the players involved:

Is the likelihood of entries near the top of the leaderboard being caught from behind by an unused entry greater than that of being caught from behind by an already depleted entry?

In my opinion the answers to the above questions is yes.

However, all of that said:

I do agree that a rules change is needed.


-jp

.

[cj]

I don't know how anyone could play this going forward unless part of a team himself. I've avoided contests because I figured I'd be the sucker at the table. I think to this point I've made the right call.

[RunForTheRoses]

I think that one desired rule change would be that you HAVE to make 5 $600 bets on day one or you are disqualified. Probably, legally you can't just take the money out because it is on a voucher like swap card. So a dq would really be the only remedy that I could see.

[RunForTheRoses]

They did play awesomely and could *probably* have made it through day one by show betting or exact boxes, etc although that does take some skill level.

[Jeff P]

Reading the rules as currently written - it appears that points not bankroll are deducted from unused entries.

I think the logical rules change would be to allow players to save an unused entry up to a clearly defined point in the tournament - but then once that point is reached - start deducting both points AND bankroll.

In other words force players to start using those alternate entries at a clearly defined point in the tournament.

And yes - they did make some awesome plays.


-jp

.

[RunForTheRoses]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Reading the rules as currently written - it appears that points not bankroll are deducted from unused entries.

I think the logical rules change would be to allow players to save an unused entry up to a clearly defined point in the tournament - but then once that point is reached - start deducting both points AND bankroll.

In other words force players to start using those alternate entries after a clearly defined point in the tournament.


-jp

.

Logistically it might not be easy to debit money from the players card. Also, my solution could be a little cruel to someone who misses day one due to a missed flight or family emergency but...

[Track Phantom]

I don't see the issue with the winner.

He did not break the rules by waiting to make his bets. At the time he started to make his bets, he was nowhere near in an advantageous spot and had to be very good to win, which he was.

Whether or not he was "waiting out" his friend/partner entry to see where he landed was a moot point. You can't prove that was what he was doing and he did not end up with an advantage at the point he started to make his bets. This part of the complaint is extraordinarily weak, in my opinion.

If someone is partnering with other entries to cover a race or multiple races, that is different and would give them a distinct advantage, even if for a race or two.

When I've played in tournaments, there are a handful of races that I'm torn between two longshots. Having multiple entries to cover in these cases would be huge.

[AltonKelsey]

Who among you didn't assume stuff like this would and WAS going on?

[Jeff P]

That's the thing.

OF COURSE it's going on.



-jp

.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't know how anyone could play this going forward unless part of a team himself. I've avoided contests because I figured I'd be the sucker at the table. I think to this point I've made the right call.

clearly, you didn't just get off the boat.