BC Handicapping tournament

[Valuist]

The "geniuses" behind the Breeders Cup have decided they'd try to outdo their foolish decision to add more races. They've succeeded; they've devised a handicapping tournament that would be limited to 100 players......all who put up $10,000. The grand prize? $150,000. Second money? $50,000. Just imagine putting up $10k, beating 99 out of 100 contestants and getting rewarded with a measly 4-1 (assuming the $50K includes the $10K entry fee). Who would be foolish enough to play those lousy odds on the same day there's so much dumb once a year/twice a year types playing that day in the regular pools? The ignorance of those in power in racing never ceases to amaze.

[chickenhead]

You actually only "put up" $2,500 towards the prize pool -- the rest is your live bankroll, which you keep regardless.

[point given]

I think the promo said the top 6 go to the DRF tourney as well.

[Valuist]

The top 6 go......that doesn't exactly give one a lot of incentive to make that $10K investment. We'll see how it goes over in a brutal recession.

Why not have a smaller entry fee and have the BC kick in some prize money? Would it kill them?

[chickenhead]

obviously it is for people who are going to be betting large anyway. 100% of the prize money is being returned, + at least $25,000 that they are kicking in, at pretty normal payout breakdowns -- there really is nothing abnormal about it other than it has an extra zero on the end of the amounts.

You can argue it's too exclusive, but that's about it. Aren't live bankroll tourneys usually kept small -- to keep them manageable?

[Donnie]

most live money tournaments show a return of the bankroll of close to 5 - 6 X the starting bankroll (on the $2 15-horse variety, a goal to shoot for to win is normally $110-$120 final bankroll). So with a $7500 live bankroll X 6, the winner should be approaching $50K.....considering the dumb money in all the pools, this will probably be higher. Plus $150,000 first prize, and they also state they are also looking for extra prize money possibly coming from corporate sponsorship. Could this be a $250K return for your initial $10K....very possible......


...and qualifying for the Championship is the only way to get a shot for the $500K first prize there.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by Donnie

most live money tournaments show a return of the bankroll of close to 5 - 6 X the starting bankroll (on the $2 15-horse variety, a goal to shoot for to win is normally $110-$120 final bankroll). So with a $7500 live bankroll X 6, the winner should be approaching $50K.....considering the dumb money in all the pools, this will probably be higher. Plus $150,000 first prize, and they also state they are also looking for extra prize money possibly coming from corporate sponsorship. Could this be a $250K return for your initial $10K....very possible......


...and qualifying for the Championship is the only way to get a shot for the $500K first prize there.

I have no problem with what they are doing.I think that if they wanted to generate more interest in the sport and the breeders cup in particular,that some sort of online contest with a much much smaller entrance fee would be in order.Something to involve the masses of handicappers and $2 bettors.

[Robert Fischer]

high end, live bankroll tournaments have all the potential.

The key IMO, is structuring them so that the best man in the room, should he not alter his strategy for the tournament, and simply play to the best of his ability while turning a profit, has a very high probability of earning at least his buy-in portion, if not more, in addition to his profits.

[CBedo]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

high end, live bankroll tournaments have all the potential.

The key IMO, is structuring them so that the best man in the room, should he not alter his strategy for the tournament, and simply play to the best of his ability while turning a profit, has a very high probability of earning at least his buy-in portion, if not more, in addition to his profits.

It's hard to structure a tournament where strategy doesn't change from normal play. If you think about it, it's like a poker tournament. You don't win by being normal. You win by embracing volatility and trying to live in the tails of the distribution. Mathematically, you are lowering you overall expected return, but trying to increase your skew and kurtosis (longer tails). That's my opinion (and I don't have much handicapping tourney experience).

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by fmolf

I.Something to involve the masses of handicappers and $2 bettors.

A $20 buy-in ???....I'm in...for two....

best,

[Donnie]

We'll see how it goes over in a brutal recession.

The recession does not seem to be slowing down the tournament train whatsoever....in fact, being already qualified for the upcoming Championship, I travelled to Omaha's Sportman's Park in June to see if I could take a whack at picking up some extra NTRA points. They were expecting maybe 45-50 paid entrants. They ended up with close to 100 paid entrants ( as best as I could tell) as well as almost 45 who qualified in mini tourneys held the weeks leading up to the Finals.

You're hard pressed to find a tournament that doesn't hit it's cap for entrants.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Valuist

The "geniuses" behind the Breeders Cup have decided they'd try to outdo their foolish decision to add more races. They've succeeded; they've devised a handicapping tournament that would be limited to 100 players......all who put up $10,000. The grand prize? $150,000. Second money? $50,000. Just imagine putting up $10k, beating 99 out of 100 contestants and getting rewarded with a measly 4-1 (assuming the $50K includes the $10K entry fee). Who would be foolish enough to play those lousy odds on the same day there's so much dumb once a year/twice a year types playing that day in the regular pools? The ignorance of those in power in racing never ceases to amaze.

Yeah, those $50,000 buy-ins have really killed the World Series of Poker. Only 6500 people in it this year.

[ryesteve]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Yeah, those $50,000 buy-ins have really killed the World Series of Poker. Only 6500 people in it this year.

That would've been a good argument if he'd been criticizing the size of the buy-in rather than the ROI the cashers will get.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by CBedo

It's hard to structure a tournament where strategy doesn't change from normal play. If you think about it, it's like a poker tournament. You don't win by being normal. You win by embracing volatility and trying to live in the tails of the distribution. Mathematically, you are lowering you overall expected return, but trying to increase your skew and kurtosis (longer tails). That's my opinion (and I don't have much handicapping tourney experience).

I agree.
To state it another way I have a preference for tournaments which balance realistic live play, with a structure that favors skill over luck.
Sure the very top scores (the players playing for the GRAND PRIZE and top prizes) will have utilized some tournament strategy. Nothing wrong with that, and it actually makes the tournament better and more interesting.
I'm just stressing that the structure itself should resemble live play.

[Robert Fischer]

I havent seen all the details for this BC Tourny, but from the looks of it I really like what I see.

One very important issue that wasn't mentioned in the DRF would be any maximum amount set on each wager or each race. i.e. whether or not you can bet your whole bankroll ALL IN

Another important factor Wager Menu
The wager menu for the BC TOURNY (win, place, show, exacta, and trifecta) is a pretty good balance between freedom of choice and excluding lottery type multi race wagers. I like it. If this in fact was the idea, I think that doubles and even pick3's could have been added without fear of turning this into the lottery.


------
some far-out ideas

Some would argue that ALL wagertypes ought to be eligible. I'm not sure I would, but their argument might be interesting. Would the tournament turn into a pick4/pick6 contest if this happened?...

WAIVE BANKROLL AFTER BUY-IN? What if after the 2.5K buy-in was paid any bankroll under 7.5K is acceptable (less some cost for the BC tickets) We might see a few buy in for 2.5K and only have $1000 bank - adding to the ROI of the capitalized. - And naturally those $1000 players would prefer for ALL wagertypes