Controversy at the BCBC.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Assuming 10 entries at $10,000 a pop it would mean that the team put up $100,000 to win $427,000 a 4.27-1 proposition. To do that the winning entry had to hit a 16-1 shot to succeed. Seems like a lot of risk to get just over 4-1 on your investment.

Not quite, that is why I bring up syndicate. If you are sharp you can bet $7500 to win on a series of longshots and hold your own(probably -10% max and more likely closer to break even if not profitable). It is just a matter of having the bankroll to afford $7500 win bets on a series of longshots. To the average person taking a shot in one of these tournaments they will not have that kind of bankroll. To the betting group it is just chips. The gravy for them is in the prize money of finishing high up in the tournament standings or winning them, while probably close to 1/2 the field doesn't have a prayer. Then you add in these bonuses for winning multiple tournaments and it is even more gravy. The risk is actually the $2500 entry fee per entry and whatever they lose on their bets which with 10 entries per tournament would be max about $7500(so at most they are only risking $32,500 not $100,000. Also, they can come 2nd, 3rd 4th, or even come 1st and 2nd as Helmers just did as you reported. I am sure they are making plenty. In fact they would have to be awful players to not make plenty.

It is basically free money for syndicates.

[VigorsTheGrey]

One of the complaints from the players that I read about was that the data on the BCBC Leaderboard was confusing. This no doubt was due to the fact that bankroll amount and penalty points were joined for a single score. One of the effects was that the scores could be interpreted as having a lower bankroll amount if and when any penalties for skipping races were applied. For example, if a player skipped all races on Friday, a penalty of 5000 points (1000 for each race skipped) would be applied and the score would be listed as $2500 ($7500-5000 points) when in fact the player had $7500 remaining. But since one cannot tell how many races any given player has skipped, it was impossible to accurately understand just how much bankroll any of the players actually had at any given time. How woefully poor is that...! There administrators simply must have known the terrible confusion this would cause, one would think....huh?

It would have been much better to show and break out the penalty points accruing for each player from their current bankroll amount, since the final scores really only matter in the final tally.

As it is, even in the final report, it is impossible to know which and how many races were skipped by players and how many penalty points were deducted from their final bankroll. A player that shows a $0.00 as a score may really have $2000 remaining in their bankroll because they skipped 2 races on Friday but bet the required amount minimum for the rest of the contest and dwindled their wagering down to $2000. So this whole approach really conceals and confuses more than anything else...

[classhandicapper]

Then you add in these bonuses for winning multiple tournaments and it is even more gravy.

I was unaware of that. Something like that adds value to the ROI for winning more often.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Not quite, that is why I bring up syndicate. If you are sharp you can bet $7500 to win on a series of longshots and hold your own(probably -10% max and more likely closer to break even if not profitable). It is just a matter of having the bankroll to afford $7500 win bets on a series of longshots. To the average person taking a shot in one of these tournaments they will not have that kind of bankroll. To the betting group it is just chips. The gravy for them is in the prize money of finishing high up in the tournament standings or winning them, while probably close to 1/2 the field doesn't have a prayer. Then you add in these bonuses for winning multiple tournaments and it is even more gravy. The risk is actually the $2500 entry fee per entry and whatever they lose on their bets which with 10 entries per tournament would be max about $7500(so at most they are only risking $32,500 not $100,000. Also, they can come 2nd, 3rd 4th, or even come 1st and 2nd as Helmers just did as you reported. I am sure they are making plenty. In fact they would have to be awful players to not make plenty.

It is basically free money for syndicates.

You vastly overestimate the ability to hit longshots. You also are assuming that players in the syndicate are betting conservatively and will have bankroll leftover. Presumably anybody with bankroll at the end would be playing for the win. The probability of Nisan hitting the 2 bets he hit was roughly 1 in 135. Not exactly a slam dunk and not exactly a probable outcome even with 10 entries.

Take the track of your choice and play 10 entries this weekend and show me how easily this strategy is to do.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Regarding dual entries: cumulative part-dual entries/ cumulative entries
Starting with 1st place
4/10
7/20
10/30
12/40
13/50
16/60
18/70
19/80
20/90
21/100
22/110
24/120
26/130
26/140
27/150
29/160
29/170
30/180
32/190
34/200 $0.00 bankroll
39/210
43/220
46/230
47/240
50/250
55/260
57/270
63/280
65/290
67/300
69/310
72/320
76/340
77/350
78/360
81/370
82/380
88/390
93/400
96/410
103/420
107/430
114/440
117/444

Total
126/444

There were at least 63 dual entries not including husband/ wife teams and other hidden teams. Frequency was higher at each far end. Single entries were dominant ranking 50-200.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by AndyC

You vastly overestimate the ability to hit longshots. You also are assuming that players in the syndicate are betting conservatively and will have bankroll leftover. Presumably anybody with bankroll at the end would be playing for the win. The probability of Nisan hitting the 2 bets he hit was roughly 1 in 135. Not exactly a slam dunk and not exactly a probable outcome even with 10 entries.

Take the track of your choice and play 10 entries this weekend and show me how easily this strategy is to do.

Longshots is a strategy I mentioned to give you some math on the edge the groups have. I gave you actual math (binomial distribution) showing a 10% strike rate (which I think is reasonable for a professional level player on breeders cup day playing horses in the 10 to 20-1 range). They don't have to be 14-1 shots. They can be cold deck exactas or boxes or keys, trifecta keys, daily doubles, or they can even focus their energies on plays in the 6-1 to 8-1 range with more volume.........the approaches are limitless. The point is your typical sucker is going to be playing $500 a race trying to build a bankroll and never climbing anywhere near the top while these groups are going all in on live value plays and will inevitably hit some of them. If one group misses all of theirs another group will hit some of theirs. The problem is that with a real money tournament, an individual cannot risk $10,000 on one play to take a shot at winning the tournament(unless he is very wealthy), but a well funded group can easily take 10 shots.

Regarding Nisan, as I previously stated, my opinion is that Talisman was one of many bullets for his group. From there it did not take Einstein to take a stand against Arrogate (though I did not go that route, I certainly could see it). A blind squirrel could find the winning exacta after that.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Longshots is a strategy I mentioned to give you some math on the edge the groups have. I gave you actual math (binomial distribution) showing a 10% strike rate (which I think is reasonable for a professional level player on breeders cup day playing horses in the 10 to 20-1 range). They don't have to be 14-1 shots. They can be cold deck exactas or boxes or keys, trifecta keys, daily doubles, or they can even focus their energies on plays in the 6-1 to 8-1 range with more volume.........the approaches are limitless. The point is your typical sucker is going to be playing $500 a race trying to build a bankroll and never climbing anywhere near the top while these groups are going all in on live value plays and will inevitably hit some of them. If one group misses all of theirs another group will hit some of theirs. The problem is that with a real money tournament, an individual cannot risk $10,000 on one play to take a shot at winning the tournament(unless he is very wealthy), but a well funded group can easily take 10 shots.

Regarding Nisan, as I previously stated, my opinion is that Talisman was one of many bullets for his group. From there it did not take Einstein to take a stand against Arrogate (though I did not go that route, I certainly could see it). A blind squirrel could find the winning exacta after that.

Nobody will hit at a 10% strike rate in the 10 to 20-1 range.

Please demonstrate how easy it is to implement the above strategy. Pick any track that suits your fancy.

The cold deck exactas and trifecta plays are much easier seen after the race.

[davew]

the second place finisher had an interesting strategy (I am guessing anyway) -> find 2 wide open races back to back and link the outside contenders in DD for your wad

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by davew

the second place finisher had an interesting strategy (I am guessing anyway) -> find 2 wide open races back to back and link the outside contenders in DD for your wad

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/insta...e=inc&print=on

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/insta...e=inc&print=on

A lot of good handicappers had both those horses but all eyes were on Lady Aurelia instead of Stormy Liberal, then on Unique Bella instead of Bar of Gold...

Like you, I imagine he was betting multiple $100 Daily Doubles linking longshots...Not too bad of a strategy to build the ol bankrole...only takes a few good hits like that to put you closer to the top but that was sharp handicapping for sure...

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Nobody will hit at a 10% strike rate in the 10 to 20-1 range.

Please demonstrate how easy it is to implement the above strategy. Pick any track that suits your fancy.

The cold deck exactas and trifecta plays are much easier seen after the race.

Andy, just for you I will set up a thread in both the harness and the selections forums. I will post 100 value plays(that are going off in the 10 to 20 to one range) I will begin Thursday. Dont knock down my odds too much.
At the end of the trials we will see if I am king of the world. But either way it really doesn't change the fact that these groups have a huge edge

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/insta...e=inc&print=on

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/insta...e=inc&print=on

A lot of good handicappers had both those horses but all eyes were on Lady Aurelia instead of Stormy Liberal, then on Unique Bella instead of Bar of Gold...

Like you, I imagine he was betting multiple $100 Daily Doubles linking longshots...Not too bad of a strategy to build the ol bankrole...only takes a few good hits like that to put you closer to the top but that was sharp handicapping for sure...

I'm really out of my depth here, but I'm more than a little skeptical that this is anything more than hindsight bias.

On many cards, including BC cards, you never get two races linked together won by big longshots. So how is this strategy anything other than lucking out?

[biggestal99]

This one is an easy one.

The rules of the BCBC need to be tightened to reward handicapping and not stabbing.

1. Must bet at least 10% of your bankroll in each BC race. (Lets see how long the stabbers stay alive under that format)

2.one entry per person.

3. accurate bankroll for each player in the top 100 after each race is official posted for all to see (level playing field).

Allan

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/insta...e=inc&print=on

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/insta...e=inc&print=on

A lot of good handicappers had both those horses but all eyes were on Lady Aurelia instead of Stormy Liberal, then on Unique Bella instead of Bar of Gold...

Like you, I imagine he was betting multiple $100 Daily Doubles linking longshots...Not too bad of a strategy to build the ol bankrole...only takes a few good hits like that to put you closer to the top but that was sharp handicapping for sure...

It's a great strategy provided they win. Using this strategy doesn't change the probabilities of hitting the bet. If it did it is a strategy that should work everyday at every track.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Andy, just for you I will set up a thread in both the harness and the selections forums. I will post 100 value plays(that are going off in the 10 to 20 to one range) I will begin Thursday. Dont knock down my odds too much.
At the end of the trials we will see if I am king of the world. But either way it really doesn't change the fact that these groups have a huge edge

I was hoping you could simulate how a group would actually bet. Because you may find that 1 ticket out of 10 may hit the first bet but it would then require a second hit (in most cases) to make it a winner. Have 10 tickets and state how much of the BR is being bet on each selection by each ticket.

In my view the tournament is much like a golf tournament. Get to the back nine on Sunday in a position to contend. Groups colluding can get a ticket to the back nine but then they are on equal footing with all others who have made it that far. An edge for sure but not as huge as you think.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

This one is an easy one.

The rules of the BCBC need to be tightened to reward handicapping and not stabbing.

1. Must bet at least 10% of your bankroll in each BC race. (Lets see how long the stabbers stay alive under that format)

2.one entry per person.

3. accurate bankroll for each player in the top 100 after each race is official posted for all to see (level playing field).

Allan

To me, the format is great provided that groups can somehow be stopped.

I want to see the best player identified. To do that there is analyzing a race, betting a race, and most importantly managing a bankroll. Knowing when to bet and more importantly when not to bet is what really separates the good players from the players who just might be good analyzers.

Perhaps a minimum number of bets should be required but a forced bet each race doesn't prove anything.