Controversy at the BCBC.

[Track Phantom]

This is interesting. I've read a lot on this and listened to the podcasts. It looks like those in charge did not think through all the possible scenarios and address them with rules and oversight.

I've run pretty large sports pools (Masters, March Madness, College Bowl, etc) and the two things I make sure to do is create 100% transparency to the players and consider the "gotcha" situations and then make sure the rules are clearly documented to take any subjectivity out of the equation.

From what I can tell, the rules and oversight was somewhat of an afterthought.

[Jeff P]

From the DRF article:
http://www.drf.com/news/bcbc-rule-ch...nning-strategy

Kirchner said that since the tournament’s inception different groups of players had lobbied for different rule changes – the addition of horizontal bets, for example. A small group of players, including McFarland and Christian Hellmers, had been lobbying for a removal of minimum bets as far back as 2012. He added that the more stringent rules were in place despite the knowledge “that there was already a body of evidence out there that the winning strategy might be to sit on a bankroll to make big plays at the end.”

The new rules allowed players such as Gabbay and Hellmers and approximately 10 others to sit on their bankrolls on Day 1 for an insignificant penalty of 1,000 points per race to be deducted from their final score. On Day 2, players missing minimums were deducted just 2,000 points per race from their final scores. Many tournament players assumed that the money also was deducted from their active bankrolls, but it was not. As the current rule is written, to not play on Day 1 is an advantage (note that second-place finisher Ron Ferrise also didn’t wager on Day 1). And with so few in the field understanding the new rule, the advantage was outsized.

The bolded parts (above) express the point I've trying to make in this thread.


-jp

.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by burnsy

Listen to Jonathan, he's spelling it out just like I'm saying. Cj's podcast post. Hes exactly saying what I just posted.

Exactly what I'm saying.....nicer of course...lol

I listened to all 59 minutes and didn't really hear anything about the winner colluding. He took advantage of a rule that others were not aware of to set himself up to make one big splash at the end. After hearing their complaints I agree that the rule should be changed.

They did talk extensively about team play and how collusion happens and it fit my understanding of what is done.

[Ian Meyers]

I finished 18th, not far from a cash spot. I don't give a shit about the prize money but it's pretty ironic that by following the rules I hurt myself. Only the thoroughbred industry come up with something like that.

I don't play these very often, 3X in the last year. I thought about playing Pegasus, I'm not sure I will now. I thought these things were all about the friendly competition. I guess some of these guys are such scumbags and so desperate for the cash they'll take every edge, legit or not.

Then again that just makes them like almost every licensed thoroughbred trainer doesn't it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

At the end of day 1 11 had 7500, and 288 out of 413 had less than 7500

Assuming your info is factual, does this mean that there were at least 11 persons who made no bets on day one?

This would seem to be quite an advantage if on (day 2) 11 players had more to wager with than 3 out of 4 players...now what if those 11 were somehow able to collude all together..?

[AltonKelsey]

I recall some controversy a few years ago when Christian Hellmers approached another player asking to 'make a deal' . That player wasn't amused.

I don't recall the specific contest.

Aside: This is what gamblers do. It's in their blood. Years ago, I saw daytraders partner up so one could get 'short' a stock when normally you couldn't do it. You can't wave money in front of these folks and not expect them to get dirty.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

I recall some controversy a few years ago when Christian Hellmers approached another player asking to 'make a deal' . That player wasn't amused.

I don't recall the specific contest.

Aside: This is what gamblers do. It's in their blood. Years ago, I saw daytraders partner up so one could get 'short' a stock when normally you couldn't do it. You can't wave money in front of these folks and not expect them to get dirty.

Agree with your aside.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I do not understand how the points play into this...if they pass a bet, they lose 1000 points but at the end all that matters is the cash total, I guess, so what is the point of the points deductions...?

They should just show how much has been wagered out of the $7500 and what the totals currently amount to...

[RunForTheRoses]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

From the DRF article:
http://www.drf.com/news/bcbc-rule-ch...nning-strategy



The bolded parts (above) express the point I've trying to make in this thread.


-jp

.

To me that's the thing about this. I had played the previous two years and studiously followed the rules to a T making sure I made 5 $600 and ...the Spirit of the contest (which I think Ian Meyers alludes to below this post) was to play it that way. I think BCBC should make sure all do so.

[RunForTheRoses]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Assuming your info is factual, does this mean that there were at least 11 persons who made no bets on day one?

This would seem to be quite an advantage if on (day 2) 11 players had more to wager with than 3 out of 4 players...now what if those 11 were somehow able to collude all together..?

I can post it, it will be rather long. There is a slight chance that some with $7500 after day one did bet and wound up exactly where they started, unlikely but possible.

[098poi]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I do not understand how the points play into this...if they pass a bet, they lose 1000 points but at the end all that matters is the cash total, I guess, so what is the point of the points deductions...?

They should just show how much has been wagered out of the $7500 and what the totals currently amount to...

This confused me too so I tried to read the rules a little more closely.

It appears you put in 10k, 7.5k is used to wager. You keep all your money at the end so the wagers are real.

The person with the highest total wins 1st prize which is 300k (based on 400 players in the contest) 2nd prize is 200k and so on.

What they don't make clear is the "point deductions" if you fail to play a minimum required race. I am assuming that comes off your total to see who leads in the contest but does not affect your wagering bankroll. From the DRF article it seems like that last part was not clear to everyone.

Someone may correct me but that's the best I can do. Good thing I didn't enter my brain is tired just trying to figure out the rules.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

I can post it, it will be rather long. There is a slight chance that some with $7500 after day one did bet and wound up exactly where they started, unlikely but possible.

That is what I was thinking also...so there could be more than one or two parties who did not bet on Day 1 in order to conserve resources for Day 2, and who, presumably have knowledge of the potential benefits of this strategy...

...a sort of inner group of methodologists, colluding together or not, to increase their chances of winning the challenge...

Does there exist the avenue for more than two entries to somehow cover multiple long shots late in the challenge...?

Might the potential for collusion involve more people...?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

To me that's the thing about this. I had played the previous two years and studiously followed the rules to a T making sure I made 5 $600 and ...the Spirit of the contest (which I think Ian Meyers alludes to below this post) was to play it that way. I think BCBC should make sure all do so.

The rules were followed. Perhaps some of the players who complained should have read the rules and voiced objections beforehand and/or figured out how to best use the rules to benefit their own tournament strategy. The "Spirit of the contest" means what? If rules are violated players should be DQed. if rules produce unintended consequences they should be changed.

[backinzona]

So the Breeders Cup had a focus group provide input to modify a rule vaguely and open to assumptions, and the focus group members won the contest. So what is the problem? I wonder how many of those Breeders Cup employees are part of the LLC that won.

[linrom1]

Originally Posted by backinzona

So the Breeders Cup had a focus group provide input to modify a rule vaguely and open to assumptions, and the focus group members won the contest. So what is the problem? I wonder how many of those Breeders Cup employees are part of the LLC that won.

I don't believe that the rule change was just an oversight due to lack of foresight. The rule change worked exactly as it was intended.