Controversy at the BCBC.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by AndyC

No, I don't understand that feeling. The overwhelming majority of contests are designed for everybody. The track is not a charity, they are trying to run a business where catering to their biggest and best customers makes sense.

You are making my point here...the biggest and best, by sheer numbers, and it IS numbers of individuals that ultimately drive the racing product, and without which we would not even have a game, are vast numbers of little guys, where else do you think the denizens of racing derive most of their profits....?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This is not necessarily directed towards you, but since you presented the issue well, I responded to you.

I know there are game theory strategies the best players use to enhance their ability to win. But if they are skilled, they can and do use those strategies as individuals already. Being skilled at game theory is an advantage that's independent from team play.

I want to see how the team play itself enhances the game theory strategies and ROI you can get other than people simply asserting it.

Let's say I am one of the best tournament player in the world and my best friend is just as good. We both play tournaments independently and average a net profit of 25K each.

If we team up and invest the same exact amount of money each, show me how we can win more than 25K each.

If there is more than 1 possible smart play in a race, we can certainly cover both plays instead of us both covering the same play, but in some of those cases splitting up our bets is going to be a negative and deprive us of having 2 live tickets going forward.

There are two things going on; A)The increased chance of winning one of the top purse distributions of a top prize, and also B)the increased amount(and expected value) that you can optimally wager through Kelly.

Ideally, you and your bf are naturally high rollers who planned on betting the BC anyway. Now you are playing with a decent chance at getting a big rebate. (Keep in mind that if you were high rollers with an eye on value, you wouldn't be limited to your contest bets. That is, if you couldn't collude with enough bearded entrants, you could make additional non-contest wagers through your highly rebated ADW which would also benefit from the contest participation when viewed as a whole).

It wouldn't work very well if you were limited to a 'Win' wager in each race. But with a live betting format(especially one with insignificant penalties for passing a race), you could intelligently dutch/hedge with multiple positive expected value wagers.

Yes, if you made bad choices, or didn't intelligently coordinate your colluded wagers, you could fail to gain an advantage, or even be at a disadvantage to your individual play.

[Denny]

"If the point of these tournaments is to "identify the best player"...then the competing horseplayers should NOT be made privy to each other's bankroll-totals during the tournament's run, IMO. Let the players make their bets in any way that they like...but don't let them know how the rest of the group is doing. The players who are far behind should not be made known of that fact...causing them to stab wildly on extreme longshots in the last race(s), hoping to "get lucky". Each player should endeavor to do the best he can...WITHOUT knowing how his opposition is doing."

""Race analysis", "race betting", and most importantly "bankroll management" can all go on quite nicely even when the race-to-race totals are kept secret during the tournament. Indeed...keeping the leader-board a secret until the end is the only way that I can see by which the player's "skill level" takes precedence over the "entertainment value" that today's tournament formats seem to value most.""

THIS POST MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME THAN ANY OTHER.

Additionally, they could post standings without dollar amounts for the audience.

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This is not necessarily directed towards you, but since you presented the issue well, I responded to you.

I know there are game theory strategies the best players use to enhance their ability to win. But if they are skilled, they can and do use those strategies as individuals already. Being skilled at game theory is an advantage that's independent from team play.

I want to see how the team play itself enhances the game theory strategies and ROI you can get other than people simply asserting it.

Let's say I am one of the best tournament player in the world and my best friend is just as good. We both play tournaments independently and average a net profit of 25K each.

If we team up and invest the same exact amount of money each, show me how we can win more than 25K each.

If there is more than 1 possible smart play in a race, we can certainly cover both plays instead of us both covering the same play, but in some of those cases splitting up our bets is going to be a negative and deprive us of having 2 live tickets going forward.

Yes, I agree that there are strategies for handicapping and strategies for tournament play. No denying that. The issue I bring up is completely separate from that and in my mind brings certain players an even greater advantage than they may already have...

I can't show you the math behind it but I like to think that I'm a fairly logical thinker and the mitigating factor seems to be the "top heavy" payouts... without them your point would be correct and there would be no real advantage if prize money were doled out in correct proportions.

At least in my mind it stands to reason that the optimal strategy would be to leverage up before making bets, then split the profits among the partners... instead of the opposite (which is essentially what single entry players are doing).

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

You are making my point here...the biggest and best, by sheer numbers, and it IS numbers of individuals that ultimately drive the racing product, and without which we would not even have a game, are vast numbers of little guys, where else do you think the denizens of racing derive most of their profits....?

I am not making your point. Every contest shouldn't be about including the so-called little guy. You don't enter because you are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to play. Just the same as I am not good enough to play in the U S Open Golf Tournament.

I won't say racing derives profits but I will say that racing derives most of their revenues from the big players.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

There are two things going on; A)The increased chance of winning one of the top purse distributions of a top prize, and also B)the increased amount(and expected value) that you can optimally wager through Kelly.

The increased chance of winning is offset by the increased cost of entry (unless someone can demonstrate the strategy that changes your ROI).

The lower volatility is something to be considered if you have bankroll issues. Then it makes perfect sense to partner. But that's not enhancing your ROI.

Partnering is something you could also do with someone outside a tournament.

If 2 guys are winning cash players with similar returns but they sometimes play different horses in the same race, they could wager more by partnering because they'd win more often. That's why I sometimes bet 2 horses in the same race if I think both are good value. It reduces the volatility and makes me comfortable betting more. But it does not change my ROI. If anything it probably lowers it a little because I am adding my second best value.

Maybe I should just read some of the tournament strategy books and see if I can understand it better. I'm new to this and just trying to understand it.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Mc990

........I can't show you the math behind it but I like to think that I'm a fairly logical thinker and the mitigating factor seems to be the "top heavy" payouts... without them your point would be correct and there would be no real advantage if prize money were doled out in correct proportions.....

Without "top heavy" payouts there would be no tournaments. So the correct proportions would be the amount that draws the biggest field.

[Robert Fischer]

CH I agree with the exceptions and conditions that you are concerned about.

I happen to feel pretty strongly about the value of making multiple positive expectation wagers(when they actually exist), as well as the value of increasing hit% when attempting to take down a top-heavy prize purse distribution.

I feel that syndicates have demonstrated most of this already if we view whale-rebates as synonymous with prize money.

I could post a photo of a multi +value kelly dutch/hedge, or try to write out the math, but I'm not motivated at the moment to concentrate on such heavy thinking, and I'm not sure it would do much for persuasion. Like I said, I agree with your concerns and counterpoints.

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Without "top heavy" payouts there would be no tournaments. So the correct proportions would be the amount that draws the biggest field.

Agreed. I should have said "relative" proportions.

[VigorsTheGrey]

They are not going for roi per se in the contests, it is the top heavy prizes that is the incentive.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The data of the BCBC Leaderboard suggests there were at least 183 entries that incurred penalty. This seems so because those entries show a minus score. There probably are many more entries that were in the 0.0 range or positive score that may also have incurred a penalty (skipped a race), but it is not possible to know for sure.

A total of 5000 penalty points were possible on Day 1 (1000 per race) and a total of 10,000 for Day 2 (2000 per race).

74 w/ a score of 0.0 or real close to it
20 w/ minus 2000
2 w/ minus 3000
30 w minus 4000
20 w/minus 6000
12 w/ minus 8000
2 w/ minus 9000
31 w/ minus 10,000
6 w/ minus 11,000
6 w/ minus 12,000
4 w/ minus 13,000

Zero and minus combined, 207, of which about 90 were part of a dual entry.

The average ranking of the single entry was 205.9
While the average ranking of the dual entries was 250, but both were essentially at the 0.0 score marker with the single entry average at the top of the zero scores.

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

You are right, and that is because I am a $5 bettor, and guess what, so are 95% of the customers buying the general racing product...it eventually becomes a turn- off for most of us little guys to be excluded from event after event because track administrators cater to Mr. Moneybags and Mr Shark and Whale and Mr. Syndicate all the time...and leave us feeling left out...and a bit envious of a group of players exchanging prizes with one another on an obviously unlevel playing field...can you understand that feeling...?

ROFL - Truer words were never spoken.


This entire interaction is a microcosm of the industry which is slowly dying all around it.

Most horseplayers have never, and will never even consider entering one or more of those supposed handicapping tournaments.

They are collectively run very poorly, and most horseplayers can be collectively run aground on the rocky shores (of the pools) during an average outing to any track in North America. They don't need to enter some special tournament to repeat that experience.

Originally Posted by AndyC

No, I don't understand that feeling. The overwhelming majority of contests are designed for everybody. The track is not a charity, they are trying to run a business where catering to their biggest and best customers makes sense.

The contests are NOT designed for everybody. Why the heck should some lady visiting the races for her company outing once a year be confronted with a prerequisite that she join the tour in order to play a simple contest?

People play various office pools and/or fantasy football/baseball without it being demanded of them that they join some secret boys club in order to play.

One need only sort the names from most any handicapping contest in the land, along gender lines, to see data which clearly underscores that the contests are NOT designed for everybody.

When contests are comprised in overwhelming majority of the minority members of the surrounding population base then it becomes clear very quickly that said contests are NOT "designed for everybody".

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

You are making my point here...the biggest and best, by sheer numbers, and it IS numbers of individuals that ultimately drive the racing product, and without which we would not even have a game, are vast numbers of little guys, where else do you think the denizens of racing derive most of their profits....?

The bettors who drive the 2017 racing product aren't even relevant to the conversation. For they are merely what's left after decades and decades of poor management decisions which have eroded the brightest among racegoers (who were inspired to find other forms of entertainment which are more fair to them).

What remains is akin to viewing the NYC sewer system and being somehow impressed by what are the largest rats who remain.

In order for the whole of horse racing to rebound and become more representative of the total population which surrounds it, those running racing will have to reverse decades of complete stupidity which has involved catering only to the large rats.

It has been that precise rat hole, and the selective choreography which has 2017 racing management and the largest rats deep within it and boring even deeper, which has come to represent what horse racing is, in the present. (the smarter folks among the fan base have walked away)

VigorsTheGrey is right...


He represents some of the vast majority, who have been ignored and threatened with extinction as racing management instead courts the large rats who have dragged the industry to new lows year after year after year.

(now that might make some sense in a case where the only way out wasn't via the vast majority which have been rendered almost extinct at tracks around the land.)

But for management there is zero long-term upside to courting the rats at management's ultimate expense and that of everybody else.

My god, even the federal government has figured out:

"You Will Never Be Ignored Again"

(so now only modern day horse racing languishes as an entity which virtually ignores 98% of its base)

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am not making your point. Every contest
shouldn't be about including the so-called little guy. You don't enter because you are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to play. Just the same as I am not good enough to play in the U S Open Golf Tournament.

I won't say racing derives profits but I will say that racing derives most of their revenues from the big players.

Racing only "derives most of their (2017) revenues" from relatively big players because its mindless policies and priorities have chased everyone else out of the fanbase.

The only way that North American horse racing can recover from its own stupidity exercised over three decades now, is to direct its attention toward everybody else beyond the rats to whom it has exclusively catered over that time period.

That's IT... it is that simple.


How difficult can it be to go to work each day and do something for all of the customers who walk into your business each day?


Why is that so easy to understand when you're running Kroger, but so impossible to figure out when you're running Delta Downs or the like??

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

....The contests are NOT designed for everybody. Why the heck should some lady visiting the races for her company outing once a year be confronted with a prerequisite that she join the tour in order to play a simple contest?....

Tracks have contests all the time without any prerequisite that you join a tour. If you want to play in the big contests you might need to sign up. Seeing how some lady visiting the track once a year is highly unlikely to a) want to play in a handicapping contest and b) make herself eligible for the NHC it would be ridiculous to cater contests to such a fan. However, the lady
is not burdened with either high entry fees nor tour sign ups.

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

......VigorsTheGrey is right...

He represents some of the vast majority, who have been ignored and threatened with extinction as racing management instead courts the large rats who have dragged the industry to new lows year after year after year.

(now that might make some sense in a case where the only way out wasn't via the vast majority which have been rendered almost extinct at tracks around the land.)

But for management there is zero long-term upside to courting the rats at management's ultimate expense and that of everybody else.

I am not aware of any contests held that VTG has tried to enter at his local track. You don't go to Las Vegas and play Blackjack at the $100 table without ever having learned how to play. VTG needs to play at the $2 table for awhile before requesting that he get a seat at the $100 table with special lower limits only for him

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

.......How difficult can it be to go to work each day and do something for all of the customers who walk into your business each day?

Why is that so easy to understand when you're running Kroger, but so impossible to figure out when you're running Delta Downs or the like??

A racetrack is in the entertainment business. It doesn't sell food like Kroger. You seem to expect that everybody should get a backstage pass just by paying general admission. That doesn't happen in any business.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

No 1 of anything determines the best. However, when a person wins several contests or places highly in several contests the skill becomes apparent.

True enough, but there is still so much varisnce in the tournament format.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Denny

"If the point of these tournaments is to "identify the best player"...then the competing horseplayers should NOT be made privy to each other's bankroll-totals during the tournament's run, IMO. Let the players make their bets in any way that they like...but don't let them know how the rest of the group is doing. The players who are far behind should not be made known of that fact...causing them to stab wildly on extreme longshots in the last race(s), hoping to "get lucky". Each player should endeavor to do the best he can...WITHOUT knowing how his opposition is doing."

""Race analysis", "race betting", and most importantly "bankroll management" can all go on quite nicely even when the race-to-race totals are kept secret during the tournament. Indeed...keeping the leader-board a secret until the end is the only way that I can see by which the player's "skill level" takes precedence over the "entertainment value" that today's tournament formats seem to value most.""

THIS POST MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME THAN ANY OTHER.

Additionally, they could post standings without dollar amounts for the audience.

I am remembering college debate. They never told us the standings or whether we won the debate rounds until the end. That prevented any strategizing based on position.