Controversy at the BCBC.

[VigorsTheGrey]

https://blog.horsetourneys.com/

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Look at the bottom of the list and go up from there and you will find names listed multiple times...I guess these are doubles (persons that have entered more than once)....some have two, some three.

As for beards, no one really knows...someone can get a friend to enter on their tab or a relative or partner....the point is to cover as many outcomes in as few races as are warranted with as large a bet as possible with all your doubles and beards covering the bets....

In this contest, the winner took the top prize with a $176k balance....If a $1 exacta is hit for $50, 7500 times, that equals $375,000...! Only top race pools can support these wagers without diluting the payout too much...I think this is part of the strategy.
A few large bets in giant pools...the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't beat the races" only in reverse..."You can't beat the races, BUT YOU CAN BEAT ONE RACE...!

If you have the balls to bet $7,500 on a 49-1 shot then you deserve everything that you get. If you had 9 partners betting $7,500 on 49-1 chances you would most likely go bust 80% or more of the time.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by AndyC

If you have the balls to bet $7,500 on a 49-1 shot then you deserve everything that you get. If you had 9 partners betting $7,500 on 49-1 chances you would most likely go bust 80% or more of the time.

Gabbay bet $10k on the 5-11 exacta Gunrunner/ Collected to win the competition...It paid about 15-1. Not saying you have to bet that much at any one time...
https://blog.horsetourneys.com/2017/...ing-challenge/

There is obviously something up with this story regarding collusion ("multiple irregularities") otherwise the organizers wouldn't be holding out the payoffs..

This "all or nothing" strategy does seem to work as demonstrated in the past. How the organizers digest the closeness of the relations between Gabbay, Moomey, MacFarland and Hellmar as suggested by press articles remains to be seen...by the way, what agency is doing the "investigation"...?

“We thought we were going to put the money on Gun Runner, but we saw that putting the money to win wouldn’t guarantee victory,” said Gabay. “So we shifted strategy, took a little more risk in order to go for the win, and the horse we really didn’t like in the race was Arrogate….so we bet big exactas with Collected in second, West Coast in second and Gunnevara in second. Luckily Gun Runner dug in, and he held off Collected at the end.”

"Gabbay, who said he is saving his winnings to buy a house in Solana Beach, is no stranger to the handicapping leader board. He and his Del Mar horseplayer buddies, Kevin McFarland and Christian Hellmers, have long been known as the “Pick Six Boys.” They earned that nickname when all three chose five of six winning horses on a “Pick Six” bet on a live TV broadcast."

"In addition, executives with experience in running tournaments said that it is widely known that many players coordinate with other players or run the picks for other entries that are not in their name, and that singling out one or a handful of players for collusive behavior would open up a hornet’s nest of accusations among regular tournament participants, some of whom have contentious relationships with other competitors." DRF

Just passing along media bites...I know nothing, nor claim to...

[davew]

from the blog about second place finisher ->

Ron Ferrise finished the day in second place with a bankroll of $142,697.50. Ferrise built his bankroll on the strength of a $150 Daily Double wager combining back–to-back longshots Stormy Liberal ($65.40 to win in the Breeders’ Cup Turf Sprint) and Bar of Gold ($135.40 to win in the Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Sprint). The double paid $2,546.40—which, after withholding, left him with a total of $147,122.50. Ferrise played conservatively from there, but he held on to second place, which meant a prize pool bonus of $225,000.


-> he won a good chunk of the dd pool for that race

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by davew

from the blog about second place finisher ->

Ron Ferrise finished the day in second place with a bankroll of $142,697.50. Ferrise built his bankroll on the strength of a $150 Daily Double wager combining back–to-back longshots Stormy Liberal ($65.40 to win in the Breeders’ Cup Turf Sprint) and Bar of Gold ($135.40 to win in the Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Sprint). The double paid $2,546.40—which, after withholding, left him with a total of $147,122.50. Ferrise played conservatively from there, but he held on to second place, which meant a prize pool bonus of $225,000.


-> he won a good chunk of the dd pool for that race

Why is withhoding deducted from the payoff? I assume it is in the rules which I have not read, but why? No logic whatsoever (that I can see) in excluding income tax withheld from the collection amount in scoring the tournament. All winnings are subject to income tax, so a wager that has income tax withhled gets penalized, but a wager that doesn't have income tax withhled is not penalized even though the player has tax liability on both.

edit, now I am confused because rules state that withholding is not deducted from the tournament score. Rule 7

If winnings less the wager exceed $5,000 and if the winnings are at least 300 times the amount of the wager, IRS withholding will automatically be deducted from the player's card. Whereas, for Tournament scoring purposes, the gross amount of the winning wager will be recorded in the player's score. Please note for purposes of wagering in the Tournament, only the net amount (the amount received after the IRS withholding) will be available to the player. CA state taxes will be withheld from any prize money won by a player who resides in a state other than CA.


so I have no idea what happened. Did he lose an amount similar to the withholding after that or was he scored wrong? (double came back over $189,000 before withholding)

[Parkview_Pirate]

At one end of the spectrum, we can have a live bankroll tournament, with multiple entries and exotic bets, and no restrictions on wagering amounts or minimums per race - save it all for the last race. This is the deep end of the pool.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can have the classic $2WP "pick and pray" or "all in" format, limited to a single entry. This is the kiddie pool. This is where I like to wade.

Even in the kiddie pool, there's opportunities for collusion. Increase the purses/jackpots and you tempt fate. I worry less about beards, multiple entries and even team handicapping. I worry more about collusion involving information flow and reducing the chaos of making wagers on multiple tracks during "live" formats. Having a teammate or two can provide a huge, huge edge in that respect - helping with monitoring of exotic pools, weather, changes, horses' appearance, track bias, etc.

Like the racing game itself, no tournament can be perfect (unless of course, you win it.... )

[tholl]

I played in a lot of tournaments in the early 2000s. Qualified 6 times for the NHC Finals and finished third overall in 2002. For my 3rd place finish the prize was $10K and the winner (Steve Wolfson Jr) earned $100K. The money was nice of course but just finishing third was a bigger thrill.

Back then tournaments were fun. Many tracks had live tournaments. I would go drive to tournaments as far as New Haven, Chicago even South Dakota as well as local tournaments at Turfway, Ellis, Keeneland etc. The entry fees for these contests was usually about $100 with a max of three entries and all were restricted to a Win/Place format. These live contests actually at the tracks were fun and affordable and offered Prize money as well as entry to the Vegas finals. I met many other players that became, and still are good friends at these contests.

Now, everything has changed because we supposedly have to have a $1 Million prize in Vegas. While there still are some tracks with live tournaments, most contests now are online and most are $350-$400 an entry for the chance to qualify and no prize money on the individual tournament. To qualify for the NHC one must expect to play in may be ten tournaments. To me it is not affordable to pay $4K without a guaranteed spot in Vegas.

With so much money on the line more serious players with big bankrolls are sure to be attracted and "collusion" is bound to happen. Not sure if it has ever happened or will, but sure is possible that outcomes of particular races could be affected with this much money at stake.

Sorry for the long post, but my point is that these tournaments have basically got out of hand, just because we think we need such big prize money. $1 Million is life-changing for one individual but it sacrifices what the NHC set out to be. It was meant to be a way to give the small guy a chance at going to Vegas to play for a bit of money and fun time, some glory and ego-boost. It was meant to be a way to try to get new players into the game. These tournaments have basically become Professional whereas the should be basically catering to the Amateur player.

[keeneland jim]

The wager was a $100 double; there was no withholding due to the new IRS rules using the total amount of the wager rather the base amount when calculating the 300-1 ratio.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by keeneland jim

The wager was a $100 double; there was no withholding due to the new IRS rules using the total amount of the wager rather the base amount when calculating the 300-1 ratio.

That makes sense.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Gabbay bet $10k on the 5-11 exacta Gunrunner/ Collected to win the competition...It paid about 15-1. Not saying you have to bet that much at any one time...
https://blog.horsetourneys.com/2017/...ing-challenge/

There is obviously something up with this story regarding collusion ("multiple irregularities") otherwise the organizers wouldn't be holding out the payoffs..

This "all or nothing" strategy does seem to work as demonstrated in the past. How the organizers digest the closeness of the relations between Gabbay, Moomey, MacFarland and Hellmar as suggested by press articles remains to be seen...by the way, what agency is doing the "investigation"...?

“We thought we were going to put the money on Gun Runner, but we saw that putting the money to win wouldn’t guarantee victory,” said Gabay. “So we shifted strategy, took a little more risk in order to go for the win, and the horse we really didn’t like in the race was Arrogate….so we bet big exactas with Collected in second, West Coast in second and Gunnevara in second. Luckily Gun Runner dug in, and he held off Collected at the end.”

"Gabbay, who said he is saving his winnings to buy a house in Solana Beach, is no stranger to the handicapping leader board. He and his Del Mar horseplayer buddies, Kevin McFarland and Christian Hellmers, have long been known as the “Pick Six Boys.” They earned that nickname when all three chose five of six winning horses on a “Pick Six” bet on a live TV broadcast."

"In addition, executives with experience in running tournaments said that it is widely known that many players coordinate with other players or run the picks for other entries that are not in their name, and that singling out one or a handful of players for collusive behavior would open up a hornet’s nest of accusations among regular tournament participants, some of whom have contentious relationships with other competitors." DRF

Just passing along media bites...I know nothing, nor claim to...

I read the blog. Nothing in there that is a smoking gun. What it doesn't say is that Gabbay had made a big bet on a longshot that won before making the exacta play. Smart player with the gonads to make the big play. You will often see alot of good players with a zero balance because they made the big play and lost. They realize that those plays must be tried in order to win.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I read the blog. Nothing in there that is a smoking gun. What it doesn't say is that Gabbay had made a big bet on a longshot that won before making the exacta play. Smart player with the gonads to make the big play. You will often see alot of good players with a zero balance because they made the big play and lost. They realize that those plays must be tried in order to win.

I have never been in a contest and know nothing about what goes on in them, so please take everything I say with a large grain of salt. I can only offer some observations that are no doubt already well known and a surprise to virtually no one: They are just new to me because of my sudden interest in these contests and the controversy around this one in particular.

Now regarding the statement above (in bold): It is not so much the players whose ending balance is zero that interests me so much, as many players no doubt arrive there by dwindling down wagering on many wagers on all of the (required) races. What interest me are the players whose ending balance was minus 13,000 or minus 10,000.

Now (correct me if I am wrong) how they arrive at these extreme minus balances is by avoiding the required bets on Day 1 and Day 2 in some combination (likely avoiding all bets on Day 1) and thus incurring the stated penalties after also going bust in their wagering.

377 Chris Savage ($8,000.00) 377 McKay Smith ($8,000.00) 377 John Allunario ($8,000.00) 377 Michael Doheny ($8,000.00) 377 John Manni ($8,000.00) 377 Duke Matties (NHC) ($8,000.00) 377 Eric Israel (NHC) ($8,000.00) 377 Frank Story ($8,000.00) 377 David Wilkenfeld ($8,000.00) 377 Garett Skiba (NHC) ($8,000.00) 387 John DeMartino ($8,198.60) 388 Richard Meister ($8,541.00) 389 Joe Applebaum ($9,000.00) 389 Jonathon Kinchen ($9,000.00) 391 Nick Cosato ($9,825.00) 392 Evan Trommer ($9,970.00) 393 Jeremy Dresch ($9,991.75) 394 Bruce Soulsby ($9,999.40) 395 Stephen Thompson (Bonus) ($9,999.60) 396 Sam Aguiar ($9,999.70) 397 George Chute ($9,999.75) 398 Chris Savage ($9,999.90) 398 Jim Atwell ($9,999.90) 400 David Weaver ($10,000.00) 400 Tim Darnell ($10,000.00) 400 Louis Constan ($10,000.00) 400 Tom Maloof ($10,000.00) 400 James House ($10,000.00) 400 James Henry (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Christian Hellmers (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Christian Hellmers (Bonus/NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Anthony Robb ($10,000.00) 400 Faron McCubbins (Bonus) ($10,000.00) 400 Matthew Miller ($10,000.00) 400 Ed Spaunhurst ($10,000.00) 400 Robert Traynor ($10,000.00) 400 Tony Zhou (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Jonathan Zukowski ($10,000.00) 400 Tony Trezza ($10,000.00) 400 Son Nguyen ($10,000.00) 400 Dan Real ($10,000.00) 400 David Frohardtlane ($10,000.00) 400 Nick Yerton ($10,000.00) 400 Rich Averill ($10,000.00) 400 Paul Scott ($10,000.00) 422 Rick Shanley ($10,187.50) 423 Billy Koch ($10,988.00) 424 Bobby Flay ($11,000.00) 424 Thomas Coleman ($11,000.00) 424 Marshall Gramm ($11,000.00) 424 David Ingordo ($11,000.00) 424 Steven Wells ($11,000.00) 429 Roger Ball ($12,000.00) 429 James Tunick (NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 James Tunick (NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 Eric Moomey (Bonus/NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 Thomas Coleman ($12,000.00) 429 Roger Ball ($12,000.00) 435 Joe Applebaum ($13,000.00) 435 Nick Mariani ($13,000.00) 435 Tommy Massis ($13,000.00) 435 George Chute ($13,000.00)

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I read the blog. Nothing in there that is a smoking gun. What it doesn't say is that Gabbay had made a big bet on a longshot that won before making the exacta play. Smart player with the gonads to make the big play. You will often see alot of good players with a zero balance because they made the big play and lost. They realize that those plays must be tried in order to win.

Andy here is the problem with betting in these tournaments against teams. Let's say me and 2 buddies all have 2 entries each. So in total we have 6 entries. Our Strategy is to each play our entire bankroll on 2 live longshots(horses in the 10 to 20 to one range that we feel has about-will call it a 10% chance of winning).


Binomial distribution tables tell us that the chances of hitting

0 of 6 is 53.1% in which case we go belly up and wait for next year.
1 of 6 is 35.4% in which case we are near the top of the leaderboard
2 of 6 is 9.8% in which case we have 2 entires near the top of the leaderboard
3 of 6 is 1.5% in which case we have 3 entries near the top of the leaserboard.

There is a 46.9 5 chance that we will crush the typical challenger who is trying to grow his $7500. Now you can argue about penalties, but seriously, it is not that hard to play your account tight and tread water until it is time to pounce.

Now what happen if instead of 3 guys with 2 entries it is now 5 guys with 2 entries playing the same strategy.

Now you have

0 of 10 is 34.9%
1 of 10 is 38.7%
2 of 10 is 19.4%
3 of 10 is 5.7 %
4 of 10 is 1.1%.

Now this is one strategy. I am sure these teams many strategies that they comingle. Bottom line is it is the sucker bet of the ages for the lone wolf. The whole idea is stupid and has little to do with the ability to handicap. It is a betting platform that awards syndicates more than any other in this game.

[stringmail]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I have never been in a contest and know nothing about what goes on in them, so please take everything I say with a large grain of salt. I can only offer some observations that are no doubt already well known and a surprise to virtually no one: They are just new to me because of my sudden interest in these contests and the controversy around this one in particular.

Now regarding the statement above (in bold): It is not so much the players whose ending balance is zero that interests me so much, as many players no doubt arrive there by dwindling down wagering on many wagers on all of the (required) races. What interest me are the players whose ending balance was minus 13,000 or minus 10,000.

Now (correct me if I am wrong) how they arrive at these extreme minus balances is by avoiding the required bets on Day 1 and Day 2 in some combination (likely avoiding all bets on Day 1) and thus incurring the stated penalties after also going bust in their wagering.

377 Chris Savage ($8,000.00) 377 McKay Smith ($8,000.00) 377 John Allunario ($8,000.00) 377 Michael Doheny ($8,000.00) 377 John Manni ($8,000.00) 377 Duke Matties (NHC) ($8,000.00) 377 Eric Israel (NHC) ($8,000.00) 377 Frank Story ($8,000.00) 377 David Wilkenfeld ($8,000.00) 377 Garett Skiba (NHC) ($8,000.00) 387 John DeMartino ($8,198.60) 388 Richard Meister ($8,541.00) 389 Joe Applebaum ($9,000.00) 389 Jonathon Kinchen ($9,000.00) 391 Nick Cosato ($9,825.00) 392 Evan Trommer ($9,970.00) 393 Jeremy Dresch ($9,991.75) 394 Bruce Soulsby ($9,999.40) 395 Stephen Thompson (Bonus) ($9,999.60) 396 Sam Aguiar ($9,999.70) 397 George Chute ($9,999.75) 398 Chris Savage ($9,999.90) 398 Jim Atwell ($9,999.90) 400 David Weaver ($10,000.00) 400 Tim Darnell ($10,000.00) 400 Louis Constan ($10,000.00) 400 Tom Maloof ($10,000.00) 400 James House ($10,000.00) 400 James Henry (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Christian Hellmers (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Christian Hellmers (Bonus/NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Anthony Robb ($10,000.00) 400 Faron McCubbins (Bonus) ($10,000.00) 400 Matthew Miller ($10,000.00) 400 Ed Spaunhurst ($10,000.00) 400 Robert Traynor ($10,000.00) 400 Tony Zhou (NHC) ($10,000.00) 400 Jonathan Zukowski ($10,000.00) 400 Tony Trezza ($10,000.00) 400 Son Nguyen ($10,000.00) 400 Dan Real ($10,000.00) 400 David Frohardtlane ($10,000.00) 400 Nick Yerton ($10,000.00) 400 Rich Averill ($10,000.00) 400 Paul Scott ($10,000.00) 422 Rick Shanley ($10,187.50) 423 Billy Koch ($10,988.00) 424 Bobby Flay ($11,000.00) 424 Thomas Coleman ($11,000.00) 424 Marshall Gramm ($11,000.00) 424 David Ingordo ($11,000.00) 424 Steven Wells ($11,000.00) 429 Roger Ball ($12,000.00) 429 James Tunick (NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 James Tunick (NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 Eric Moomey (Bonus/NHC) ($12,000.00) 429 Thomas Coleman ($12,000.00) 429 Roger Ball ($12,000.00) 435 Joe Applebaum ($13,000.00) 435 Nick Mariani ($13,000.00) 435 Tommy Massis ($13,000.00) 435 George Chute ($13,000.00)

My assumption is that they went "all in" on the last bet trying to accomplish what Gabbay was able to do. I have a feeling the leaderboard simply wasn't updated to show $0 for them as opposed to those that had zeroed out prior to the last race. Several folks on that list co-signed the letter so I am sure they made the necessary bets to not incur a penalty.

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

If they are out there reading this I'd like to hear PA posters C Davis and Nick Tamm's take on this.

Sorry, just found this thread and most of the questions been answered already.

The first issue I'll address is the skill of the winner, and Moomey. Skill is not in question. The winner and the entire Pick Six Boys group are all very good handicappers and contest players. They've proven this over and over. The betting on the last two races of the contest was excellent. Moomey in choosing the race to dutch or partially dutch, also showed his skill. A high priced favorite is the best kind of race to play that way.

My biggest issue at present is that the issue with the winner has overshadowed the most obvious case of collusion in the tournament. Moomey and Ball went all in on the same race, and I'd bet they were on different horses in a partial dutch, which had only 2 possible outcomes if they bet only 4 different horses. Outcome 1: They go bust. Outcome 2: 3 entries go bust and the other hits a big score and is now well placed to win the tournament. Anyone who plays/played contests knows that they work together, and Ball doesn't even try to hide it. This was the most glaring issue and what caused us to write the letter in the first place.

After taking a closer look to see what Gabbay hit to go from <2K to 50K, the other issue became apparent. Simply that what was shown on the leaderboard wasn't correct and he actually went from <7K to 50K. Still impressive but much easier to do than with a <2K bankroll. Also that there had been a rule change that most of us weren't aware of where instead of being dq'd you just have points taken off your final total for not betting the minimum amounts/races. This wasn't anything against the winner at all it was just that they needed to either change the rules or notify everyone of the rule change, and that they needed to change how they show the leaderboard. That would've been the end of it if not for their reaction.

Their response to the letter was really bad and I don't think the winner would be under much scrutiny without it. The first interview that jumped out was when Gabbay said that he had some bad luck on Friday but was happy to hit big on Saturday. Since he hadn't made any plays on Friday, that caused some red flags. When I learned that they actually have a formal partnership, including an LLC, to manage their combined tournament play, I was shocked. I didn't know LLC's were allowed to enter tournaments. Knowing that they do have a formal partnership they would be idiots(and they're not) not to coordinate entries to result in the best overall return. Otherwise, why have a partnership?

So where do I stand currently? I'm mostly done with tournaments. I've been done with mythical tournaments for a while and it looks like cash is heading that way too. I do just fine without tournaments though they have been a great supplement and I'll be sad to see them go.

I'd like to play in the Pegasus since it's positive expectation but if I'm playing against a team(s), I'm at a massive disadvantage. Good thing about the Pegasus is that there's no entry fee. If I see anything questionable happen or any entries that I don't trust, I'll just forget about the contest. At that point I'd rather just take my 12K and bet it like I normally would with no regard for being DQ'd for not making minimum bets.

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by stringmail

My assumption is that they went "all in" on the last bet trying to accomplish what Gabbay was able to do. I have a feeling the leaderboard simply wasn't updated to show $0 for them as opposed to those that had zeroed out prior to the last race. Several folks on that list co-signed the letter so I am sure they made the necessary bets to not incur a penalty.

They could also go all-in earlier in the tournament. If you bust early by default you'll get penalties and I know that happened to a lot of the names on that list including Bobby Flay for example. I went bust on both entries prior to the last 2 races.

If you went bust on the 1st race of day 2 your score would be 0-8K in penalty points. If you didn't play a race the whole tournament your score would be 7,500-5K for day 1-10K for day 2.

In short, it's hard to look at the negative scores at the end of the tournament to determine anything.