Controversy at the BCBC.

[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

You're the obvious expert.

Enlighten me.

[SandyW]

Impossible to stop, impossible to police, there are partners and collusion in all these tournaments including partners that may be thousands of miles away, but are in continuing contact with the partner that is on site.
There are beards playing tickets for the actual player that should be putting the plays in at all these tournaments.
What about the husband and wife that each has two entries and the husband or the wife are controlling all four entries? Collusion or strategy, you tell me.
That is why I stopped playing in all these tournaments.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by SandyW

Impossible to stop, impossible to police, there are partners and collusion in all these tournaments including partners that may be thousands of miles away, but are in continuing contact with the partner that is on site.
There are beards playing tickets for the actual player that should be putting the plays in at all these tournaments.
What about the husband and wife that each has two entries and the husband or the wife are controlling all four entries? Collusion or strategy, you tell me.
That is why I stopped playing in all these tournaments.

Seems like Pick and Pray would eliminate most of these issues.

[NTamm1215]

Winning these tournaments is extremely difficult, both because of the pressure of the handicapping and betting and the quality of your competitors. There is no doubt that guys like Kevin McFarland, Nisan and anyone else they associate with are VERY good players and I have tremendous respect for their accomplishments.

When approached about joining the effort to ensure that no rules were broken, I wanted one specific item to be investigated closely. If a player did not play the required number of races and took a penalty that cost them points rather than dollars, then bet late in the contest with a full bankroll, then my feeling is that rule needs to be changed. For example, the contest requires you to play 5 races each day at a certain dollar amount. If you fail to do so on either day, you receive a 1,000 point deduction for each race you fail to bet. Thus, Nisan's total after Day 1 was 2,500 (the original $7,500-5000 point penalty). However, he still maintained a full $7,500 bankroll from which he could bet.

If what is believed to be true is, and it is clearly admitted in the story that his first bet was the Juvenile, then I'd like to see the BC change that rule. Nisan took advantage of it and I cannot fault him for doing so. But there has to be attention drawn to it so it can be changed.

That was my only concern in signing a letter that, from my perspective, was as much about getting the rules straightened out than punishing those who may have used them to their advantage this year.

[menifee]

1. More than two entries are not permitted.
2. Collusion is not permitted.
One individual did not make a selection until his partner was eliminated in the tournament.
3. They set up an LLC to share tournament proceeds with each other and admitted to sharing proceeds in past tournaments.
4. The evidence is pretty clear they colluded and intentionally violated a rule.

This is very simple -they forfeit the prize and are banned from participating in tournaments going forward. You cannot have this. Tournaments would fail as the whale teams would destroy the smaller player. Alternatively, they could allow for collusion and player teams, but at least,the individual player would know what he was dealing with in terms of his odds.

[dilanesp]

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

I don't know how handicapping contests eork.

But no story involving gambling collusion will ever surprise me.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by menifee

1. More than two entries are not permitted.
2. Collusion is not permitted.
One individual did not make a selection until his partner was eliminated in the tournament.
3. They set up an LLC to share tournament proceeds with each other and admitted to sharing proceeds in past tournaments.
4. The evidence is pretty clear they colluded and intentionally violated a rule.

This is very simple -they forfeit the prize and are banned from participating in tournaments going forward. You cannot have this. Tournaments would fail as the whale teams would destroy the smaller player. Alternatively, they could allow for collusion and player teams, but at least,the individual player would know what he was dealing with in terms of his odds.

I don't think they broke any rules Menifee.

I also don't think they tried to take advantage of the system per say.

I do think they played the system at hand, and when faced with a Full House, they nutted 4th and 5th street for the win.

NTamm1215 broke it down quite well. He, and I'm sure all contest players, want a legit and fair tournament played by all entries. Put in your wagers. Play the required plays. And let the cards fall as they may.

I don't think there is anybody "wrong" in all this, but I do think we'll see a rule change in the future. Maybe we'll call it the horse players "tuck" rule.

[LemonSoupKid]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

I don't think they broke any rules Menifee.

I also don't think they tried to take advantage of the system per say.

I do think they played the system at hand, and when faced with a Full House, they nutted 4th and 5th street for the win.

NTamm1215 broke it down quite well. He, and I'm sure all contest players, want a legit and fair tournament played by all entries. Put in your wagers. Play the required plays. And let the cards fall as they may.

I don't think there is anybody "wrong" in all this, but I do think we'll see a rule change in the future. Maybe we'll call it the horse players "tuck" rule.

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.

[Si2see]

None of this surprises me at all, but I can tell you if they were to make a disqualification here then all live tourneys are in trouble.

I don't know that I have ever played in a live tournament where there weren't "partner entries" being played. The difference is some tournaments allow more than 2 entries, so you don't have to use several names in these tournaments.

I can also tell you that for a FACT there are players in some of the less popular Vegas contests in particular, where there could be someone playing an entry, and that person doesn't even step foot in the state of Nevada to do so. This is more of a problem to me than teaming up with a lifelong friend or wagering partner.

Jason

[Track Phantom]

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

[Jeff P]

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?

It's game theory.

Imo, Lemon Drop Husker nailed it with post #9 of this thread:

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

In a nutshell, you had 2 players (in theory) colluding to play against the rest of the field in which they were wagering together on a single entry till that entry was gone, and then started firing their selections on the next one, and ended up winning.

The 1st entry had a $1 Million bonus if he won.

They are also known "business" partners who share their winnings in horse wagering tournaments.

In short, it was a $7,500 tourney, and they started with $15,000 and twice as many bullets as everybody else.

They had multiple entries.

Assuming they colluded:

The first entry had a $1M bonus if they were able to get that entry to win. So they started there.

By focusing 100% of their play on the first entry (and 0% of their play on the second entry) until it became apparent the first entry was dead:

At the point in time when they began making plays for the second entry:

The second entry had 100% of remaining bankroll and 100% of remaining bullets.

They still needed to make winning plays for the second entry.

But assuming you are able to do so: imo, the 100% of remaining bullets part gives the second entry an edge over the other entries in the tournament with less than 100% of remaining bullets.

Game theory.

However, if you assume they colluded, you also have to assume others in the tournament did the same thing.

I suspect they were not the only ones in the tournament who colluded or used game theory.

They just outperformed everybody else.



-jp

.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

It's game theory.

Imo, Lemon Drop Husker nailed it with post #9 of this thread:



They had multiple entries.

Assuming they colluded:

The first entry had a $1M bonus if they were able to get that entry to win. So they started there.

By focusing 100% of their play on the first entry (and 0% of their play on the second entry) until it became apparent the first entry was dead:

At the point in time when they began making plays for the second entry:

The second entry had 100% of remaining bankroll and 100% of remaining bullets.

They still needed to make winning plays for the second entry.

But assuming you are able to do so: imo, the 100% of remaining bullets part gives the second entry an edge over the other entries in the tournament with less than 100% of remaining bullets.

Game theory.

However, if you assume they colluded, you also have to assume others in the tournament did the same thing.

I suspect they were not the only ones in the tournament who colluded or used game theory.

They just outperformed everybody else.



-jp

.

If that is the sum total of the advantage obtained by colluding then perhaps the rules should encourage collusion.

[cj]

Twitter

[lamboguy]

it sounds like the structure of the tournament is wrong. from what i gather the players were allowed to bet as much or as little as they wanted to on any particular race. in turn the structure led the way to collusion. they should make the bets the same size right straight through the whole tournament and rely on ability to pick winners rather than a high tech money management scheme.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by cj

https://twitter.com/Charli125/status/929015124190404608

I think this is where I land.

A rules change is needed.