Controversy at the BCBC.

[cj]

Twitter

[Si2see]

Originally Posted by burnsy

that's the part that I find really shaky. the article infers that they had some third name that was neither one of them. "His" two entries went belly up. but if these guys have built up a bankroll through this LLC they just bought 3 names which equals 6 chances between two guys. they say the other guy was their friend (Roger Ball). Was this guy even there? Am I reading this right? To me, it seems like besides betting the way they did. that may be perfectly legal. are they coming up with multiple names to get more entries? From "friends" that are not even around?

for that kind of money its gotta be regulated. people will just ruin it given the chance.

I agree. I have first physical proof of someone being in two live contests on the same weekend that were held in two different states. There are only three ways this could be possible

1. To have been in Las Vegas in person to sign up for the first tournament, however handing someone else your card to play the tournament under your name for the remainder of the tournament.

2. To have never been in Las Vegas during that tournament and not needing to show your identification to play, however the rules clearly prohibit this.

3. To have been in Las Vegas, not been in contention, and instead of participating further, deciding to participate in the California contest on the final day.

* However in the situation I am posting about this wasn't the case, but I have known players to do this in the past, some of which still "played" their picks for the remainder of original tournament

Here are the exact rules.

" 11. Winners of qualifying tournaments
are non-transferable.
12. Partners, Corporations, LTD’s, INC’s and LLC’s are not
allowed. Contestants are signed up and entered into
the contest/tournament as an individual person and
must provide proper identification and social security
number/TIN number for required payouts "

Although obviously I am no means a lawyer or any kind, common sense tells me that the person would at least be required to show identification during sign up as stated by the statement "must provide proper identification ", and furthermore, you would need to swipe your own card and play the entry as yourself because of these statements " Partners, Corporations, LTD’s, INC’s and LLC’s are not
allowed. Contestants are signed up and entered into
the contest/tournament as an individual person "

Here are the rules for the second contest at least one player was entered in

"5. CHECK-IN ON CONTEST DAY
Participants must check-in for each contest at the Eddie Logan Suite, located on
the eastern side of the Club House at Santa Anita Park. For assistance finding
the Eddie Logan Suite, please call (626) 574-6384."

The first line clearly sums up you must be present to check in for this tournament as well.

So let me ask you this.... How could you possibly play in both tournaments ?

For the record I have nothing against this contest player who I will not name, or any contest player. I truly believe I can beat any player on any given day ( it just has to be my day ).

I do have a problem with investing my hard earned money, investing time, traveling expenses, etc. when some people don't have to play by the same rules that I have to play by.

Jason

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by burnsy

Lets see? We will hammer this one the first day, take the penalty with this one the first day, play these two straight up and hammer the last two races with the one we held back...........sounds really fair to me.......

I call it the shotgun strategy....for 60,000 you and your friends can take home multiple prizes, depending on the final scores!

Meanwhile, the guy playing for himself...hes got one or two shots.....

I am missing your point. How do the first 3 entries have any affect on the last entry? Couldn't anybody take the penalty and hammer the last two races?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by zawaaa

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

or game theory, for that matter

Never fear zawaaa has it all figured out.

I give you the floor zawaaa:

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am missing your point. How do the first 3 entries have any affect on the last entry? Couldn't anybody take the penalty and hammer the last two races?

Listen to Jonathan, he's spelling it out just like I'm saying. Cj's podcast post. Hes exactly saying what I just posted.

Exactly what I'm saying.....nicer of course...lol

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

Never fear zawaaa has it all figured out.

I give you the floor zawaaa:

I do always love the term Game Theory.

You mean i should strategize towards a point in which I can or will win?

Holy snowflake what a concept. Never thought of that shit before, I figured I'd take a few races off so my competitors can keep up.

I need more Game Theory in my selections goddamit.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by menifee

If collusion is allowed then why wouldn’t I team with 9 partners and buy 10 entries for 100k. Then I would take that 75k and play some even money favorites. If we double up twice (not too difficult in most years) we win most BC tourneys. Starting with a higher bankroll you are more likely to generate a higher ROI in a limited race pool than with a lower bankroll.

OK. Let's see where that puts you. All 10 entries bet an even money horse and for the sake of the argument 5 of them win. I am assuming they are all betting $7,500 to win. So then the 5 winners each have $15,000 of bankroll which they then bet on a second even money horse. If any of the 5 win they would only have $30,000, hardly a winning amount for the tournament. I wouldn't ask for my entry fee back if I knew 10 people were going to apply this strategy against me.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

The tournament allows WPS wagers along with Ex and Tri wagers.

So it isn't just straight winners. It is bang for buck in each race, along with races you have to bet.

I thought everybody knew this?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

The tournament allows WPS wagers along with Ex and Tri wagers.

So it isn't just straight winners. It is bang for buck in each race, along with races you have to bet.

I thought everybody knew this?

I remember the year when I pounded Fort Larned, and the contest winner rolled home a straight Fort Larned/Mucho Macho Man EX to roll it home. STRAIGHT

[menifee]

Originally Posted by AndyC

OK. Let's see where that puts you. All 10 entries bet an even money horse and for the sake of the argument 5 of them win. I am assuming they are all betting $7,500 to win. So then the 5 winners each have $15,000 of bankroll which they then bet on a second even money horse. If any of the 5 win they would only have $30,000, hardly a winning amount for the tournament. I wouldn't ask for my entry fee back if I knew 10 people were going to apply this strategy against me.

You really don't understand the downside of collusion? You don't understand the concept of dutching? After the first race, you could utilize that collective pool to get a lead right out of the gate without risk.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by menifee

You really don't understand the downside of collusion? You don't understand the concept of dutching? After the first race, you could utilize that collective pool to get a lead right out of the gate without risk.

I do, and that's exactly what I think happened. They didn't dutch one race but they dutched their entries. Taking the penalty lets you save entries to hammer later.......meanwhile they are still playing with other entries.

the DRF Players podcast is great he spells it out but I guess many don't understand it. he says most on Twitter don't get it either. They will probably get paid, the rules seem to fit what they pulled off. Sharp guys.

The more entries the same ":brain" controls....that's an advantage.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by burnsy

I do, and that's exactly what I think happened. They didn't dutch one race but they dutched their entries. Taking the penalty lets you save entries to hammer later.......meanwhile they are still playing with other entries.

the DRF Players podcast is great he spells it out but I guess many don't understand it. he says most on Twitter don't get it either. They will probably get paid, the rules seem to fit what they pulled off. Sharp guys.

The more entries the same ":brain" controls....that's an advantage.

95% of the people in this thread "get it" burnsy.

The real question is, do YOU get it?

[Robert Fischer]

It's tough. You have some smart guys whose career/hobby/love is dealing with a market(horseplaying) that's structured to F' them, and you have decent money and props on the line with a contest that happens to be structured in such a way to have loopholes and dependency on the 'honor system'.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

I do always love the term Game Theory.

You mean i should strategize towards a point in which I can or will win?

Holy snowflake what a concept. Never thought of that shit before, I figured I'd take a few races off so my competitors can keep up.

I need more Game Theory in my selections goddamit.

Well it's overstated, overused, and misused, but "game theory" is actually supposed to be a branch of mathematics that deals with developing non-exploitable or optimal strategies for competitive zero-sum situations.

It's really, really, really important in poker. Indeed, you basically can't be an elite poker player without learning a fair amount of it, because poker is a pure zero-sum competition among players wagering on knowable mathematical probabilities as represented by the cards, and because good poker players seek to get their hands heads-up where avoiding being exploited by the other player (if she is also a good player) is almost always the most profitable strategy.

Not sure it's nearly as important in horse racing, for several reasons:

1. The probabilities in horse racing are not fixed mathematical truths, but rather estimates of the unknowable based on inductive reasoning from prior statistics / past performances.

2. While you certainly compete with the other gamblers in a pari-mutuel pool, you are never playing heads up and are basically unconcerned with being "exploited" by the other players by playing a strategy they can take advantage of. Rather, your goal is to simply seek out +EV bets based on the prices offered by the pool which represents the collective judgment of all your competitors.

3. The notion of a pari-mutuel pool introduces numerous mathematical distortions into the game that should require exploitative adjustments. Most obviously, the minus pool rule sets a minimum price on payoffs, while the pool size sets a maximum price. Both those things should make some otherwise non-optimal plays correct and should make some otherwise optimal plays incorrect.

There's a ton of math that is important to horse racing. Odds lines, various handicapping statistics, formulations of bets, etc. But none of that is game theory.

EDIT:

While you can argue that against-the-rules collusion is a form of game theory, it's only in the same sense that Kirk reprogramming the simulator in Star Trek was. But I wanted to include this caveat in case someone objected.

And come to think about it, ICM, which is important in poker tournaments, is also likely to be useful in handicapping contests. But ICM isn't, strictly speaking, game theory.

[cj]

http://www.drf.com/news/bcbc-rule-ch...nning-strategy

So, looks like the winner was DQed in 2015 because he got shut out. Then, he and friends lobbied to get the rule changed because he was dumb enough to get shut out---and succeeded.

Or maybe it was a long play and he is really a genius.