Interview with contest player Vic Stauffer

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Sure. One that wins.

Well.......duhh.

Guess I'd rather leave that $5.40 alone and
try to get that and more on the place horse.
Assuming, of course, that horse could win.

Each to their own

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Well.......duhh.

Guess I'd rather leave that $5.40 alone and
try to get that and more on the place horse.
Assuming, of course, that horse could win.

Each to their own

I believe this was a cash contest so its a little different in terms of the play and how to make the plays to win such event.

I would have likely bet multiple horses in that race against the baffert horse to another horse in a double or triple in the surrounding races. I could never have faith to single sheer flattery who has proven pretty gutless in many races.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I believe this was a cash contest so its a little different in terms of the play and how to make the plays to win such event.

I would have likely bet multiple horses in that race against the baffert horse to another horse in a double or triple in the surrounding races. I could never have faith to single sheer flattery who has proven pretty gutless in many races.

No picks 3's in tourneys. But yes you're right. I used 5 in the race with the 3/5 Baffert I hated and 2 in the 2nd half of the double. Had it for $20 and it paid $596.00 for $2.00.

That got me going.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Well.......duhh.

Guess I'd rather leave that $5.40 alone and
try to get that and more on the place horse.
Assuming, of course, that horse could win.

Each to their own

I think every thread should have the word "duhh" used in it at least twice.

[ultracapper]

Sharing handicapping ideas and thoughts is collaboration. Coordinating betting strategy is collusion.

In the simplest terms.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Sharing handicapping ideas and thoughts is collaboration. Coordinating betting strategy is collusion.

In the simplest terms.

What if after sharing handicapping ideas and thoughts, and having no financial interest in the other persons entry, you both end up betting on the same horses?

[Immanuel Kant]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

What if after sharing handicapping ideas and thoughts, and having no financial interest in the other persons entry, you both end up betting on the same horses?

then...as ultracapper said......there is collaboration. You have removed collusion from your example by inserting, "no financial interest"

Collusion has a negative connotation and denotation when it comes to matters financial

[Suff]

I did watch the interview. I say: That when letters are coming from Holland, and emails from Switzerland, you've arrived.


I could care about the tournament baby-mama-drama. You make money picking horses. Contests or not, you are Damn Good!

I give you a Standing O! You're living the dream. No hate in my game, Good on you Vic.

[dansan]

Like the comment when Vic says bet 5x more on your long shots most people do the opposite bet less on long shots

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dansan

Like the comment when Vic says bet 5x more on your long shots most people do the opposite bet less on long shots

I think Vic was exaggerating...for added emphasis. Wagering 5X our normal betting unit leads to overbetting our bankroll...which is never a good thing.

[dansan]

Yeah but you still bet to put more on you long shots thats a given learned that from the late Danny Holmes

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

What if after sharing handicapping ideas and thoughts, and having no financial interest in the other persons entry, you both end up betting on the same horses?

Even sharing betting strategy isn't collusion. It's the coordination of multiple party's accounts for the benefit of all involved is where it really starts getting dicey.

"you, do this, and I'll do that, and whichever way it works out, we both gain from it."