NTRA Suspends Three Players from the NTRA National Horseplayers Championship

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Not sure of the setup of how selections are made, but isn't it possible that the top dog is calling all the shots & the others for all intents & purposes are "beards"?

On the other hand, if all the colluding participants are top contenders then you've also eliminated the factor of worrying about the competition & what choices they are making because you have a stake in their action.

Great points and you're one of the reasons I tread lightly Fun stuff!

As someone very familiar with collusion law, I'm having a hard time seeing how it's somehow a good or even neutral thing to have players colluding in these tournaments when the rules state otherwise.

[ClockersCorner]

Can someone provide a (relatively) brief description of how a collusion gives the team an advantage? Is it merely having more entries or a late game strategy advantage?

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The more entries you have the more money you are putting up.

It's also likely the quality of your selections will decline with each entry because you aren't including just your very best ideas on some entries. It's kind of like betting multiple horses to win. Sure, you'll win that race, but you may not make money long term.

Scanning the contest rules you are betting a mythical $144 with each entry & competing for a total prize pool of over $3 million. There is no entry fee as far as I can tell, but obviously have to have previously won a qualifier to be eligible to enter (& have won a second qualifier if you are to have 2 entries).

Where I think it helps is with blocking.

Imagine I share a solid lead with several of my entries that all had the same picks.

I'm in a great spot.

If I bet every longshot in the next race (one with each of my entries) no matter who wins and what the people beneath me selected, I'll have at least one entry with that winner and stay above them. A few of my others entries may also stay in contention because some people near me will also lose.

First, you have to get yourself in that position to begin with.

Second, you can't keep blocking like that race after race. Eventually it's going to catch up with you.

In the Championship each person is not obligated to bet all the same races. Less than half the available races are mandatory for all contestants and the rest are "optional" races. So contestants aren't necessarily betting the same races (apparently the fact that the colluding players were betting the same races had a hand in their discovery).

[wiretowire68]

For ***(*()_&7 sakes it is a tournament of the upmost prestige, People take it very seriously and if you have ever tried to get in, it is extremely difficult, I have been trying for 10 years, the closest is I have finished 2nd on 1 entry giveaways about 4 times and third and 4th and two entry qualifiers 3-4 times, it is expensive to say the least particularly when you are cdn swapping to u.s. dollars. I can play both ways pen and paper or software, I find it incredible that people get their multiple times and I do consider myself a half decent handicapper at times and they all have bad days just like everyone else. Tournament play is about having a hot day and catching long shots when least expected..like catching the lightbulb angle with a bunch of 40 Oc claimers, cost me a seat once with BCBC entry and another time BCBC entry fts from Del Mar at Long Odds. Also, NHC seat 4 years ago..live last race sitting a few buck from seat 1 and 2 and you pick the wrong asian jockey at Woodbine, take Kimura instead of Fukamoto, and put Fukamoto as alternate, Fukamoto wins I finish 3rd..it is tough.


So if they were caught colluding..throw them out, the analytics can prove it...Show some god-damn integrity. Second of all, as far as the two seat approach..totally agree, should not be allowed.. I am not sure why they started to allow for this.. there are over 1200 hundred players trying to make it to sunday... and you let people get two seats...hogwash...one seat only, otherwise, set up another style of tournament whereby teams are entered.

I wish they would start holding more of these, it is exciting, the Pandemic caused the World Series of Horse Racing to cancel, Woodbine has not had an on track tournament since the pandemic. Like Horsetourneys etc.. certain monopolies have taken place, like the NHC and Expressbet...NHC..should have banned them for life and as far as that goes...trainers should not be allowed to participate them period...guys like Broberg, Englehard...and I see family members of others participating as well. Integrity...in a game where it is impossible and these guys like Baffert, Servis and the others who cheat are what is destroying the most beautiful sport.....

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

In the Championship each person is not obligated to bet all the same races. Less than half the available races are mandatory for all contestants and the rest are "optional" races. So contestants aren't necessarily betting the same races (apparently the fact that the colluding players were betting the same races had a hand in their discovery).

I assume the qualifiers have entry frees? So playing enough to get 2 entries adds up?

IMO, optional races reduce any potential advantage from collusion. It's much harder to block unless the last race is a mandatory.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Scanning the contest rules you are betting a mythical $144 with each entry & competing for a total prize pool of over $3 million. There is no entry fee as far as I can tell, but obviously have to have previously won a qualifier to be eligible to enter (& have won a second qualifier if you are to have 2 entries).

I have to ask one more question. If there's no entry fee, where does the purse money come from? Is it from all the qualifiers?

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I assume the qualifiers have entry frees? So playing enough to get 2 entries adds up?

Presumably, but those qualifiers also have prize money that is distributed to the top scoring contestants, in addition to establishing entries for this championship tournament.

The point is that this is not like betting multiple horses in the same race & hoping the longer price wins so one can scrape by.

The grand prize is around $800k & they pay down through the top 10% from a field of a few hundred qualifiers. If you hit near the top I doubt you'll be kicking yourself because of some entry fees you accrued along the way.

IMO, optional races reduce any potential advantage from collusion. It's much harder to block unless the last race is a mandatory.

I guess that might be true if your only strategy is to "block" other contestants.

But there's all sorts of games you can play with multiple entries.

If one of the mandatory races has 2 horses you can't separate, you can use different entries to play different horses (which is against the rules...in any one race, you have to bet only a single horse win-place).

If you have multiple optional races that you think you have covered but can only play a certain number of those races, then you can use different entries to play other optional races that you have a strong opinion in but aren't able to use because of the limit. Also, having more than one person at the helm allows you to analyze all those optional races which perhaps an individual player would not have the time for.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Isn't it an advantage if you turn in multiple entries of different horses when you enter a tournament, while all the other players are forced to turn in only a single tournament entry? It's the same edge when a group of players "collude" with each other and construct complementary tickets with the intention of splitting any prize money that might be won.

You're spot on, as usual, thaskalos

Tournament play is similar to finding a rich plus count on a 6-deck shoe.
The more hands you are allowed to play, the higher your edge.

[classhandicapper]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something (or quite a few things).

I am assuming the tournament circuit prize money comes almost entirely from entry fees and there is also a rake to fund running it.

If true, the EV for tournaments overall is negative.

To gain value you have to out handicap the other participants at picking winners, especially prices that few others covered. Having multiple entries as an individual or as a team improves your probability because you are covering more possibilities, but I don't think it necessarily improves your long term tournament edge and ROI by as much as people think. I'm sure there is some sweet spot where you can maximize your advantage, but more entries equals more entry fees. More team members equals dividing the winnings by more people. Spreading further may actually lower the quality of your selections in terms of finding winners others don't have. I don't think it's as easy as it sounds to gain an edge that way.

[1st time lasix]

I qualified once from a local contest at a quality track. Flew to Vegas and did my very best. Finished a heart breaking ten lousy cents from making the cut into the final third day. . I assumed guys were colluding and doing anything possible to finish in the money. Much like racing these day with algorithms… batch betting and rebates- the little guy has a only a long shot chance. I have never attempted to qualify again

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[elhelmete]

I would love it if someone stated exactly what rules these three violated.

As a non-tournament player it still feels vague because from time to time I read about tourneys and check the standings (I have friends that play a lot) and I see people with more than one entry all the time. Is there an express rule someone can link to about non-collusion? More than two entries?

[tholl]

Originally Posted by ClockersCorner

Can someone provide a (relatively) brief description of how a collusion gives the team an advantage? Is it merely having more entries or a late game strategy advantage?

)

The rule is that you can have a maximum of 2 entries in the finals in Vegas.

If you have 2 (or more unallowed entries to play) the strategy is to play the same horses on all tickets early in the contest. If one does no good in early part of contest then one would start spreading the selections hoping to find a longshot and be back in contention with at least one ticket.

If one does well in the early part of contest and all tickets are in contention then one can spread on later races.

It is a huge advantage to have multiple tickets.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by tholl

)

The rule is that you can have a maximum of 2 entries in the finals in Vegas.

If you have 2 (or more unallowed entries to play) the strategy is to play the same horses on all tickets early in the contest. If one does no good in early part of contest then one would start spreading the selections hoping to find a longshot and be back in contention with at least one ticket.

If one does well in the early part of contest and all tickets are in contention then one can spread on later races.

It is a huge advantage to have multiple tickets.

Understood, but in this particular case with 3 humans controlling 5 entries that means only one human could have more than two entries. So then was the transgression the depth of the collusion between the 3 guys? I have to assume it is.