Controversy at the BCBC.

[ubercapper]

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

The two BCBC/NHC Qualifying contests at Keeneland, with a $2,000 starting bankroll, have similar rules:

1. Must bet $400 on 5 of the 9 races not including the 8th or 9th race, in which you must bet 50% of your bankroll.

2.If your bankroll goes below $400 you must go all in on one of the five mandatory races and if you get to the 8th or 9th and have less than $400 you must go all in.

3. If you don't make the six mandatory plays at those thresholds you are disqualified.

4. The leaderboard is based on total winnings, not points, so anyone can determine at any time what another player has to wager with, with the exception of daily doubles (added this year) players are live to.

I feel there are very few, if any, loopholes in these rules that could be exploited. Particularly there doesn't appear to be any way to sit on a bankroll and take a penalty because if you don't make the minimum bets required you are disqualified.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Anyone can turn $7500 into $60,000, if they bet very aggressively. The problem is that if $7500 represents a significant amount of money to the player it is irrational to bet that aggressively, because there is a very good chance you end up going broke......

This is a bad thing? People complain about stabbing and hitting longshots. No better deterrent than a significant monetary loss.

Originally Posted by Poindexter

If it was my decision, that is the direction I would go. Make it affordabe for many, encourage online play (not sure why someone has to be there to play in a tournament) and have thousands of entries. So bottom line is rather than have 400 people putting in $10,000 an entry to try to win a $300,000 top prize I would shoot for 4000 people, putting in $1000($750 live play) an entry for a top prize of $300,000. I know this goes against the original mission of encouraging on track betting but I think this would solve the problem.

Your idea would probably work fine and should probably be pursued for another tournament. While part of the goal of the tournament is to increase churn another part is to showcase the biggest and best handicappers. To do that you don't want to make them comfortable you need to make them sweat every bet they make. Most players can pull the trigger on a $100 bet on a longshot but can they bet $2000 on the same horse. The BCBC is the stage and it has done a pretty good job so far. Tweak the rules to smooth out the problems with the race skipping and penalties and police the teaming, if possible.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

The two BCBC/NHC Qualifying contests at Keeneland, with a $2,000 starting bankroll, have similar rules:

1. Must bet $400 on 5 of the 9 races not including the 8th or 9th race, in which you must bet 50% of your bankroll.

2.If your bankroll goes below $400 you must go all in on one of the five mandatory races and if you get to the 8th or 9th and have less than $400 you must go all in.

3. If you don't make the six mandatory plays at those thresholds you are disqualified.

4. The leaderboard is based on total winnings, not points, so anyone can determine at any time what another player has to wager with, with the exception of daily doubles (added this year) players are live to.

I feel there are very few, if any, loopholes in these rules that could be exploited. Particularly there doesn't appear to be any way to sit on a bankroll and take a penalty because if you don't make the minimum bets required you are disqualified.

Best format for a tournament by far. And Jim Goodman, who runs the tournament, is the best organizer out there.

When Jim relaxed the rules and made it so that you could bet 5 races plus the half bankroll (you used to have to bet 8 of 9 races) he made it so that you were DQ'd if you failed to make the minimum bets. That is the system that every event needs to adopt. It is the only way to ensure people keep betting and the contests are, after all, about betting.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Best format for a tournament by far. And Jim Goodman, who runs the tournament, is the best organizer out there.

When Jim relaxed the rules and made it so that you could bet 5 races plus the half bankroll (you used to have to bet 8 of 9 races) he made it so that you were DQ'd if you failed to make the minimum bets. That is the system that every event needs to adopt. It is the only way to ensure people keep betting and the contests are, after all, about betting.

It sounds like Jim Goodman should be running the BCBC.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by AndyC

This is a bad thing? People complain about stabbing and hitting longshots. No better deterrent than a significant monetary loss.



Your idea would probably work fine and should probably be pursued for another tournament. While part of the goal of the tournament is to increase churn another part is to showcase the biggest and best handicappers. To do that you don't want to make them comfortable you need to make them sweat every bet they make. Most players can pull the trigger on a $100 bet on a longshot but can they bet $2000 on the same horse. The BCBC is the stage and it has done a pretty good job so far. Tweak the rules to smooth out the problems with the race skipping and penalties and police the teaming, if possible.

Not a bad thing, it just tilts the edge in favor of those with deep pockets willing to play with proper aggression to win the tournament and taking advantage of the fact they can use dutching or other techniques to catapult one of their entries to near the top of the leaderboard.


Regarding the rest.

Actually agree with you on this. Thought about it after posting last night. They should have two tourneys. Fix the current one best they can, and have an online one similar to the one I proposed at roughly 10% of the stakes (in fact if they grow it enough they can have multiple on line tourneys at various buy ins). It also enables them to keep that extra on track betting that they want so much. The players that excel at these lower stakes tournaments will graduate to the big leagues. It seems a little crazy that the World Series of Poker had over 7000 entries in its main event and the Breeders Cup Betting Challenge was estimating 400 (don't know what the final count was). As with everything else it does, racing is failing to get the job done.



I am going to drop out of this discussion because I have said all I have to say (too many times) and don't feel a need to go any further in the discussion. I hope they come up with some good ideas and make the playing field a lot more equitable for everyone. If executed properly tourneys should be a tool to help grow the sport not feed well funded sharks playing in teams at the expense of players that don't know what is going on.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't know, I'm probably wrong, never was attracted to tournaments. I like the day to day grind.

Yeah, I agree.

They are popular so I hope they generate greater interest in the sport and more players on the cash side. But to me, they are a laughably bad way to measure handicapping knowledge and ability. Playing for cash is the best way to measure that.

The only tournament format I think would come close to measuring handicapping and betting ability would be one where everyone started with the same amount of money (their own cash), you had to make some minimum number of bets over the course of a week, month or even longer, and then at the end of it whoever had the biggest bankroll won (no leader board to know where you stand that might cause you to alter strategy).

That's a handicapping and betting contest. To each his own, but this other stuff is more of a game. It's not really handicapping even though there's an element of handicapping to it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

You are right, and that is because I am a $5 bettor, and guess what, so are 95% of the customers buying the general racing product...it eventually becomes a turn- off for most of us little guys to be excluded from event after event because track administrators cater to Mr. Moneybags and Mr Shark and Whale and Mr. Syndicate all the time...and leave us feeling left out...and a bit envious of a group of players exchanging prizes with one another on an obviously unlevel playing field...can you understand that feeling...?

Boo hoo...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I won't say racing derives profits but I will say that racing derives most of their revenues from the big players.

This. Most definitely THIS.

[AltonKelsey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
I won't say racing derives profits but I will say that racing derives most of their revenues from the big players.


And the big players derive their profits from the small players.

So who , in the end, is the man?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

And the big players derive their profits from the small players.

So who , in the end, is the man?

The "man" is the guy who pockets a profit in this game...regardless of whether he bets big or small.

[MutuelClerk]

Have tournaments brought younger people into horse racing? It seems to me younger people like playing as a team. Us old farts like taking on the world.

Apologies if this has been asked and answered already.

[thaskalos]

I can't understand why the major ADWs aren't taking part in the tournament version of this game. They probably think that this would hurt their overall handle...but the opposite could just as easily be the case. When a player meticulously handicaps the entire card for tournament play...he is more prone to bet the individual races as the tournament unfolds. It's ridiculous that Horsetourneys and DerbyWars handle all the online tournament action...while TVG and Twinspires are idly standing by.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I can't understand why the major ADWs aren't taking part in the tournament version of this game. They probably think that this would hurt their overall handle...but the opposite could just as easily be the case. When a player meticulously handicaps the entire card for tournament play...he is more prone to bet the individual races as the tournament unfolds. It's ridiculous that Horsetourneys and DerbyWars handle all the online tournament action...while TVG and Twinspires are idly standing by.

Thask, BetAmerica offered daily tournaments until this past spring, when the company was bought by Churchill Downs, Inc. As it happened, I had just opened a tournament account with BA (as a Texas resident that's all I was allowed to do). My account was closed as soon as the buyout occurred. BetAmerica no longer offers tournaments.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Mulerider

Thask, BetAmerica offered daily tournaments until this past spring, when the company was bought by Churchill Downs, Inc. As it happened, I had just opened a tournament account with BA (as a Texas resident that's all I was allowed to do). My account was closed as soon as the buyout occurred. BetAmerica no longer offers tournaments.

That's what I am saying...why isn't Twinspires involved in the daily tournament action? Should a Twinspires customer have to open a Horsetourneys account if he also wants to play the daily tournaments? And if he opens a Horsetourneys account so he could play tournaments...is he supposed to keep switching back-and-forth between the two sites if he also wants to bet on the live action? How does this make any business sense?

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How does this make any business sense?

I agree. It doesn't. The BA guy was very apologetic when I emailed my complaint. I believe he was caught by surprise by CDI's move as well.