Interview with contest player Vic Stauffer

[GMB@BP]

Interesting ideas. Cant argue with the results. Trying to break into these big tournaments I love listening to the ideas. Sheer Flattery cost me a contest but it obviously meant a lot more to you. I assume you came up with that horse more being against the Baffert horse and the field was just trash, that horse had burned a lot of money of the past year.

YouTube

[Poindexter]

Good interview. I have a couple of comments.

1) Vic considers collusion to be taking 4 entries and basically dutching a race to give yourself 1 entry with with nearly 4x the capital because once you do that you have a huge edge over your competition. I agree completely that that is collusion.

2) He considers it collaboration(perfectly okay per vic) when he and his betting friend play the same horse(s). However, Let's say that you were playing as a team. There was one odds on horse you think is a cinch(sort of like a pick six single). Then there is another race where you are fairly certain that one of 2 horses will win (say 2-1 and 3-1 sort of like a pick six double). So I enter into one of these contests with my friend, we each have 2 entries say $7500 each. So lets say these 2 races happen to be the first 2 races of the day(could be the last 2 but the idea is the same). Well we both put our entire br's on the single who wins at 3/5. So now we both have $12,000 in our 2 individual accounts. Now the next race is the "double" I bet $12,000 on the 2-1 on both of my accounts. My friend bets $12,000 on the 3-1 on both of his accounts. After the 2nd race, if the 2-1 wins I am sitting with 2 accounts of $36,000, if the 3-1 wins my friend is sitting with 2 accounts of $48,000. Chances of this strategy being successful, about 25%(assume both races have about a 50% chance of hitting). So we have about a 50% chance of having an exponential edge (using Vic's words) against the competition after 2 races. So what Vic considers to be collaboration, team members can use as a collusion strategy to give them a good chance of leapfrogging to to the top of the leaderboard. Now my team may only have a 1 in 4 chance of hitting, but if there are 10 teams using different yet similar type scenarios to try to achieve the same type of leapfrogging, generally a couple of the teams will succeed. Puts the players playing by himself at a huge disadvantage.

[GMB@BP]

I think you touch on the primary issue with the contest plays when you have friends, husband and wife teams, etc. While it may be nothing more than as Vic states, like minds, it can also used in ways not true to the contest. I also dont think someone in the contest should have pieces of other players in the contest. If your playing your playing, not stake horsing.

Not sure a thing can be done about it.

[098poi]

Thanks for posting. Interesting video. I like when Vic said when you like a horse at big odds you should unload because although you won't hit all the time when you do you want to be rewarded.


I also like his shirt. Looks like a finish line photo!!

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by 098poi

Thanks for posting. Interesting video. I like when Vic said when you like a horse at big odds you should unload because although you won't hit all the time when you do you want to be rewarded.


I also like his shirt. Looks like a finish line photo!!

Easy to say, hard to do.



Try unloading 10x in a row and ripping.


Might be over weeks or longer too, so it becomes part of your morning routine as you shave. "Hey, there's the guy that unloaded 10X and didn't cash once"

[Robert Fischer]

Good stuff.

Seemed like a candid interview from what I caught.

Agree with Vic about collusion vs collaborating.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

"Hey, there's the guy that unloaded 10X and didn't cash once"

If only the number of times in row that can happen were limited to 10.



-jp

.

[AltonKelsey]

Touche. I didn't want to scare the women and children.

[Franco Santiago]

Originally Posted by 098poi

I also like his shirt. Looks like a finish line photo!!

Good one!! You are so right!!! I does look like a photo....great observation! Thanks for the laugh!

[stuball]

Looks like the test pattern on the old old tv's I mean old

[classhandicapper]

Let's say there are 10 other very sharp players playing alone with Vic and his partner.

We have to assume all 10 are smart enough to see that odds on favorite cinch and put everything on him. So they are in the same position after race 1 .

In the next race, just like Vic and his partner they are split between the 2 horses. Let's say half of them go all in one horse and half go all in on the other horse. That means 50% of the guys will be in the same position as Vic and his partner and 50% of will be bust. 50% of Vic and his partner's tickets are also bust.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Let's say there are 10 other very sharp players playing alone with Vic and his partner.

We have to assume all 10 are smart enough to see that odds on favorite cinch and put everything on him. So they are in the same position after race 1 .

In the next race, just like Vic and his partner they are split between the 2 horses. Let's say half of them go all in one horse and half go all in on the other horse. That means 50% of the guys will be in the same position as Vic and his partner and 50% of will be bust. 50% of Vic and his partner's tickets are also bust.

CH,not really looking to bring up the whole debate on this again(not averse to it, I just don't see the point). I am just trying to illustrate to Vic and others the "Collusion" and "Collaboration" can look very similar. I also agree with GMB that there probably isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. So in trying to police collusion it is reasonable that contest officials can be looking very closely at Vic's "collaboration" and I am only explaining to Vic why, since he feels he is being treated unfairly. I am not accusing Vic of any wrongdoing. It is pretty evident that Vic is the real deal when it comes to playing tournaments.


In these contests I doubt very many are going all in on 3/5 shots (one person's cinch may be another player's over bet favorite) and frankly I don't think a lot of players think going all in on 3/5 shots is the best approach to winning these tournaments (although it is often a necessary evil in pick 6 play). But I could be wrong. I don't enter nor pay attention to what is done by those that do enter these tournaments. I also think a big part of the edge that Vic and others have had is that they realize that they have to be very aggressive if they want to win these things. It is not the same as taking your $7500 bankroll and betting the day's or weekend's races as if you were trying to grind out an income doing this. 3% of your br on race 1 and 2% of your br on race 2... a strategy that essentially gives you no chance of winning.

Thus it is not whether one can afford to buy a $7500 entry fee or 2 into a real money tournament. it is whether they can afford to do so and have the financial power to go all in on each entry on reasonable shot plays without it playing financial havoc on their life should both "shots" go down.

Just like not a whole lot of pick 6 players are not financially capable of chucking down a $15,000 pick 6 ticket on a million dollar pick six carryover, they also aren't financially able to compete in these tournaments. Those that are financially able and attack these tournaments with proper aggression have a huge edge when a certain percentage of the players they are playing against either do not have the financial means or do not know how to properly play these tournaments even if they do, not unlike the pick six syndicate having a huge edge over the competition when attacking a pick six carryover on a $2.00 minimum pick six.

All this does not mean that the players that consistently reach near the top of the leaderboard are not very strong players, of course they are. But their edge would not be nearly as pronounced if all players in the tournament were amply capitalized and at least knew the basic gamesmanship needed to win these tournaments

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Interesting ideas. Cant argue with the results. Trying to break into these big tournaments I love listening to the ideas. Sheer Flattery cost me a contest but it obviously meant a lot more to you. I assume you came up with that horse more being against the Baffert horse and the field was just trash, that horse had burned a lot of money of the past year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8h_gy1S5C0

The entire play was based on betting against a HORRIBLE 3/5 favorite.

Worked out nicely that time.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

The entire play was based on betting against a HORRIBLE 3/5 favorite.

Worked out nicely that time.

Is there such a thing in a contest as a
3/5 shot that isn't horrible?

Seems like the benefits of playing against
always outweigh selecting one.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Is there such a thing in a contest as a
3/5 shot that isn't horrible?

Seems like the benefits of playing against
always outweigh selecting one.

Sure. One that wins.