Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMan
... Bottom line to me is that the punishment needs to be much harsher - stealing is criminal no matter how the NTRA, The Players Committee and Contest Sites try to spin it.
|
I agree with this - two years isn't enough. Sort of like the way the "trainers on the needle" get away with drugs - the risk/reward ratio is still favorable. Part of the problem is a conflict of interest. The NHC/NTRA doesn't want to be too overbearing with enforcing the rules, as it potentially cuts into their number of entrants. But, like with rebates to the CAW group, there comes a point of diminishing returns, where players will stay away and not support what appears to be a crooked tourney.
Listened to the podcast, and it was quite interesting. There is a problem determining what is "camaraderie" and what is collusion, and the gradations in between. I don't have so much of a problem with a husband-wife "team", or getting input from one or two other handicappers. It's just as easy to get bad advice as good, and with a total of only 53 picks through the final table, my chances as a lone wolf are still pretty good.
Obviously the advantages become more numerous with the better handicappers controlling more sets of selections. The point at which it would really become out of control is when a "team" works together on factors outside of what a computer can do. There's no way a single player can keep up with monitoring gimmick pools, post parades, weather changes, late scratches, track biases, etc. for all the tournament tracks. Having others help with that, especially with on-track observations, would be a huge edge. But since only the top few places would be worth financing such an effort, I'm not too worried.
I don't want to be locked in a room with no cell phone either.
@
