new contest formats ?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Don't tell me...let me guess. You are another one of those highly skilled handicappers, who hates the luck-factor in the game...because it allows some of those "lucky" players out there to walk away with profits that would otherwise be yours. Am I right?

LOL - Not to answer for Robes, but in my case, a contest is just a contest, but it should somehow measure something of value. Personally, I like a balanced ratio of price to hit rate, in win betting anyway, but one must hit enough winners to make profit. Sure, I could sit around every day waiting for a big winner, but there is something to be said for "playing the game" instead of letting the game play you. I believe in "value", but in win betting value can be heavy on the hit rate side, or heavy on the price side. Why not offer a contest that measures the hit rate side, for a change. After all, handicapping starts with determining the most likely winner, for most of us, and then trying to find the balance between likelihood of winning versus degree of price for the less likely winners. The current contests only look at the end result of that, with heavy emphasis on being lucky enough to hit the horse who shouldn't win, at a big price.

In a contest of this type, weighted on hit rate, one still has to get some of the higher odds horses that win, in order to beat the low odds bettors. There will, be lots of 33-35% hit rates, but that won't be good enough in this kind of contest, in my opinion. You'll need closer to 40% in order to come out on top, because your higher odds winners will only count as much as the lower odds winners everybody else has.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

LOL - Not to answer for Robes, but in my case, a contest is just a contest, but it should somehow measure something of value. Personally, I like a balanced ratio of price to hit rate, in win betting anyway, but one must hit enough winners to make profit. Sure, I could sit around every day waiting for a big winner, but there is something to be said for "playing the game" instead of letting the game play you. I believe in "value", but in win betting value can be heavy on the hit rate side, or heavy on the price side. Why not offer a contest that measures the hit rate side, for a change. After all, handicapping starts with determining the most likely winner, for most of us, and then trying to find the balance between likelihood of winning versus degree of price for the less likely winners. The current contests only look at the end result of that, with heavy emphasis on being lucky enough to hit the horse who shouldn't win, at a big price.

In a contest of this type, weighted on hit rate, one still has to get some of the higher odds horses that win, in order to beat the low odds bettors. There will, be lots of 33-35% hit rates, but that won't be good enough in this kind of contest, in my opinion. You'll need closer to 40% in order to come out on top, because your higher odds winners will only count as much as the lower odds winners everybody else has.

No matter how you slice it, the brief duration of these tournaments will always guarantee that luck will be the overriding factor when it comes to winning them. Speaking for myself...I can't argue with having the guy with the biggest bankroll win the tournament...simply because winning money is the point of the game. Making the most money MUST take precedence over betting on the most winners, IMO. It seems terribly unfair to me to count a $4 winner the same as a $20 winner.

What displeases me about the way the tournaments are run today is that the contestants have access to the tournament standings...and they structure their latter bets NOT according to the horses that they like...but according to the prices that they need to hit in order to finish atop the leaderboard. I remember the tournament at Penn National that Andy Beyer was leading going into the final race...when three desperate contestants wagered on the longest shot in the race simply because that was their only chance for a major placing...and the longshot won...placing those three guys fist, second and third in the final standings.

You have to be LUCKY to win a tournament...and that isn't likely to change, no mater WHAT modifications to the rules are implemented.

[raybo]

Of course, we all know that luck plays a decent sized portion of the game. But, you must agree that, since the players in such a contest know that the high odds winners carry no more weight than the lower odds horses, the vast majority of players would concentrate their bets on lower priced horses, the horses that look best on paper. But, the good handicapper, in his normal process of handicapping races, will, more often than lesser handicappers, come up with higher odds horses who, in his estimation, have very good chances of winning, and look, to him/her, like more likely winners than the lower priced ones. IMO, that's the difference between a good handicapper and a lesser handicapper.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

Of course, we all know that luck plays a decent sized portion of the game. But, you must agree that, since the players in such a contest know that the high odds winners carry no more weight than the lower odds horses, the vast majority of players would concentrate their bets on lower priced horses, the horses that look best on paper. But, the good handicapper, in his normal process of handicapping races, will, more often than lesser handicappers, come up with higher odds horses who, in his estimation, have very good chances of winning, and look, to him/her, like more likely winners than the lower priced ones. IMO, that's the difference between a good handicapper and a lesser handicapper.

If your suggestion was to place equal weight on hit rate and mutuel payoff...then I could see your point. But you are suggesting a contest where the hit rate is the ultimate deciding factor, with the mutuel return being relegated to just a tie-breaking role...and I can't agree with that. To me...the hit rate plays a minor role, regardless of whether we are talking long-term or short-term. As far as I am concerned...the better horseplayer is always the one who ends up with the most money.

Now...if a rating could be calculated which would rate players, taking into account both hit rate and mutuel price in equal measure...similarly to the way the Quarterback Rating seeks to compare quarterbacks...then I might agree with you.

[Robes]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Don't tell me...let me guess. You are another one of those highly skilled handicappers, who hates the luck-factor in the game...because it allows some of those "lucky" players out there to walk away with profits that would otherwise be yours. Am I right?

Not at all, my comments were meant to reflect that these contests for handiccaper of the year and etc,are nothing more than a lottery,and those who run these contests know it,and that they if they wanted could make them a contest of skill.

[djm1959]

cap2win site -- need 12 bets a month to qualify -- win only and ROI determines winner,,,, won it a few times actually

and yes i hit a bomber on my 12th pick like 60-1

theres a cap of 35$ for anywinner ,, wasnt when i won lol like 2013

[AlBundy33]

Wouldn't mind seeing a format like this.

Five $2 win wagers
Three $5 win wagers
Two $10 win wagers

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by AlBundy33

Wouldn't mind seeing a format like this.

Five $2 win wagers
Three $5 win wagers
Two $10 win wagers

Over a 2 day period, playing any TB race anywhere in NA with a purse of $20K or higher.

[djm1959]

how bout 10 races

2 -$ 2 win bets, $4 win bets,, $6 win bets,$ 8 win bets and 2 10$ win bets

60 bucks - save the 10$ win bets for the best bets

or something similar ?

[TurfRuler]

Ten races per day, $6000 mystical bankroll daily. Wager 200 to win on three picks each race. Bankroll only decreases if no winners selected. Carryover winning to next day of contest. Continue the wagering method till the end of the contest. Highest bankroll at end of contest wins.