Controversy at the BCBC.

[VigorsTheGrey]

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.

It is not so much that I am not good enough to play. There were many players in the BCBC that are considered top players that lost it all. In fact, after reviewing the results the average single entry and the average double entry went bust.

We know that at least 183 players went bust because they ended with a negative score. There were about 74 additional players whose score was ZERO but they may have have some bankroll left over as you cannot tell because the Leaderboard presented the score as bankroll joined with penalty. It would be great if the BCBC changed this to break out the penalty from the bankroll.

I wasn't in the contest because this is my first looksee into them to begin with, having no experience whatsoever with them. But regardless, this bankroll level is way, way past my limits...you see I normally use $300 per day per bankroll any given day, but IF there was a contest that one could enter for say $100 and the bankroll was $200, I give it a try. Yeah, I'm a small fry, but it is essentially how I have limited my losses to something I can afford and still have some fun with.

[Ian Meyers]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

ROFL - Truer words were never spoken.

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


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.


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??

As some know, at one point I was in the middle of trying to change things for the better. For those that don't my ex-partners and I formed the first independent ADW that catered to the masses, Premier Turf Club. There were many others afterwards but we were first. The industry ran me out of Dodge.

I'm proud of what we accomplished there and pleased PTC continues to thrive. The industry didn't get it then and doesn't get it now. I'm not sure they ever will. As for me I have given up on being an agent of change and now work with a very small number of very large clients. Much better for my sanity.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would like to spend some time with this post as I am intuiting that there are some important insights interpreting the above figures. One poster already has said that there's not much to learn from the bottom of the Leaderboard list. But it still intrigues me so I will struggle on. Maybe some of PA's group that also does contests and tourneys can chime in here as well....

Let's work from the bottom up. First, I 'd like to say that I think it is not coincidence that some of the country's top handicappers are listed here at the bottom. It is quite obvious to me that being here is the result of a carefully executed strategy attempting like others, to be in the top 15 and take a cash prize. The question is what sort of strategies might be in play to get you to minus 13000.....minus 12000....minus 10000, etc....?

I'm doing this because I think it might also reveal methods that work not just for contests, but also for just having a GREAT day at the races.

One thing that is striking is the widespread skipping of races by a very large percentage of top handicappers and it appears that more than half of all entries skipped at least 1 of the 10 required races, if not many more.

In the worst case, a score of minus 13000 meant that all race on Day 1 were skipped and also 4 of 5 on Day 2. So it appears that these 4 players were "all in" on one of the required races on Day 2. Now what kind of wagers would these player make to set themselves up for a score...Why did so many players end with scores of minus 2000, 4000, 6000 and 10000 in particular...What do these tell us about how players attempt to win these contests...?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

It is not so much that I am not good enough to play. There were many players in the BCBC that are considered top players that lost it all. In fact, after reviewing the results the average single entry and the average double entry went bust.

We know that at least 183 players went bust because they ended with a negative score. There were about 74 additional players whose score was ZERO but they may have have some bankroll left over as you cannot tell because the Leaderboard presented the score as bankroll joined with penalty. It would be great if the BCBC changed this to break out the penalty from the bankroll.

I wasn't in the contest because this is my first looksee into them to begin with, having no experience whatsoever with them. But regardless, this bankroll level is way, way past my limits...you see I normally use $300 per day per bankroll any given day, but IF there was a contest that one could enter for say $100 and the bankroll was $200, I give it a try. Yeah, I'm a small fry, but it is essentially how I have limited my losses to something I can afford and still have some fun with.

Good enough to play encompasses more than handicapping. It includes the ability to make large bets as though you were betting $10. Most bettors have a choke point where above a certain amount they have trouble pulling the trigger.

Once again, good players try to win the tournament, they are not trying to break even or get their entry fee back. Accordingly they bet many low probability high odds type bets and have a great chance of losing it all. That's why you see many top players at the bottom.

[Poindexter]

Andy C, you seem sold on the idea that paying out the same amount of money, less top heavy would kill participation in these tournaments. Do you have any proof to back this up? Has less top heavy proportions been tried in the past with poor results and only when they went to the top heavy payouts did these tournaments get popular? The Expected return for the typical player remains the same(actually much better because they will be playing on a much more level playing field-and will get a more substantial prize for the minors). What is wrong with putting up $10,000 and getting a $60,000 minor prize? May not be a big deal when you have a syndicate of a million bucks of Silicon Valley money behind you and are partnering with 7 others, but for the every day player, I believe it would be a huge thrill.

Also why isn't their another tournament for smaller players, Maybe $1000 buck buy in (basically 10% of the Breeders Cup Challenge). At that level you can have participation in the thousands, no? It can all be done online. . Over time the real good players at that level will grow to higher levels.

Despite it's 20 year dive in handle, racing is all about feeding the sea creatures in everything it does. One of these years, somebody just might figure out that it doesn't work. Hopefully in my lifetime.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Good enough to play encompasses more than handicapping. It includes the ability to make large bets as though you were betting $10. Most bettors have a choke point where above a certain amount they have trouble pulling the trigger.

Once again, good players try to win the tournament, they are not trying to break even or get their entry fee back. Accordingly they bet many low probability high odds type bets and have a great chance of losing it all. That's why you see many top players at the bottom.

Then in that case, you are right I am NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

But I tend to agree with Poindexter's explanation here about the potential for collusion here among well funded partners that somehow have more bullets in their holster than the average cowboy...I think that there was a "wait and see" approach which was admitted when they shifted to the exacta to get them up and over...And I agree with Poindexter that the Gun Runner/ Collected exacta was an easy one (even I had the tri cold) Talismanic was another story, a sleeper just under the radar but still I think 5th choice, still many decent handicappers had this selected...

But basically your position sounds like no changes are needed, just let the Team Play go on as it is...look the other way...cave in to the status quo, admit that it is impossible to prevent, that it doesn't give them much of an advantage, stuff like that...which I disagree with....

There are reasons why they don't allow more than dual entries, still the dual entry has everything in microcosm to set the precedent for collusion...there is leverage coordinating two entries that is not there for the single entrant...It's the way the players went bust that had scores of minus 10000...minus 12000....minus 13000...like someone said, there's 2 different games being played here...

...the one where the player attempts to build the bankroll over many races (the spirit of the contest)...and the other games of singularly over- whelming capital bets by the well funded "teams"...
If not, then what exactly are the administrators investigating.....?

There is obviously something here that needs to be addressed....or do you think it will all just resolve itself and nothing will change....the people that wrote the letter are not happy with how things are...how do you think their concerns might be addressed in a reasonable manner...?

[AltonKelsey]

Watching this with some interest and amusement.

I'm not 100% clear on the game theory of all this manipulating, but I'm a bit confused.

What happened to the notion of just picking them well on the day. An PARLAYING the winners in a big win?

I doubt any sniping strategy, as seems to have been employed by many could possibly beat that.

Does no one even attempt it? You'd think with so many players at least 1 or 2 would have a big , legitimately earned day, not depending on a single 1 or two race score.

Don't know, just asking.

[Robert Fischer]

more academic/ if anyone's interested rather than trying to prove a point...

I think that I recall noticing that I made an error in these(perhaps edge calculation), but I can't remember, and I'm not in the mood to proofread


anyway, kelly w/ multiple positive expectation (2/1 win , 9/1 ex)




vs. single 2/1 win




even with the bankroll staying the same (whereas a syndicate/partnership would effectively double the bankroll) the optimum wager size increases with the multiple overlays vs the single overlay.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Watching this with some interest and amusement.

I'm not 100% clear on the game theory of all this manipulating, but I'm a bit confused.

What happened to the notion of just picking them well on the day. An PARLAYING the winners in a big win?

I doubt any sniping strategy, as seems to have been employed by many could possibly beat that.

Does no one even attempt it? You'd think with so many players at least 1 or 2 would have a big , legitimately earned day, not depending on a single 1 or two race score.

Don't know, just asking.

Once again, I don't really care what strategies are used. Parlays, lonshots, exactas, trifectas, doubles that is not where the edge is.(a live 15-1 shot can be any of these). The edge is that a group of 10 entries has 10 bullets to fire. Chances are one or more hits. By going all in on there bullets with one of their entries, they are near the top of the board and they play it out from there. The individiual, if he uses 10 bullets, he has to bring them down to $750 each. Even if he hits a 20-1 bullet, he only has a balance of $15,000 to show for it. Probably as an individual, your best off going all in on 1 bullet or 2 if you have a dual entry, but what percentage of the population can afford to put $7500 on a strong exacta, or 15-1 shot, or 3 horse trifecta key? Plus there is about a 80% chance you just coughed up $20,000(a serious amount of money to most players). A well funded group doesn't have that concern. So at the end of the day, your well funded group in most tourneys will have at least 1 entry near the top. Not saying they will win every tournament, they don't need to. They are going to be very close to the top often. It has nothing to do with choke points or great handicapping (not saying they aren't good handicappers) or being able to pull the trigger. It has to do with working as a team giving your self a large number of bullets and being very well funded. It is really that simple.

Just to restate, the risk is the $2500 per entry($25,000 on a 10 entry team) plus the expected roi on the bets. So assuming we are dealing with top level players and I certainly think we are, they are probably long run going to be at worse -5 % roi. So if they are making $100,000 worth of bets for the tournament($75,000 on the bullets and $25,000 on other bets), likely over the long run (tournament after tournament) the expected loss is no worse than $5000. Now is it not worth $30,000 in expected cost to have a good chance of:

ESTIMATED PRIZES
Of the $10,000 buy-in, $2,500 will be placed in the prize pool. If 400 players enter the Tournament, the cash prize pool paid will be $1,000,000.

1st Place - $300,000 6th Place - $50,000 11th Place - $20,000
2nd Place - $200,000 7th Place - $40,000 12th Place - $17,500
3rd Place - $110,000 8th Place - $35,000 13th Place - $15,000
4th Place - $75,000 9th Place - $30,000 14th Place - $12,500
5th Place - $60,000 10th Place - $25,000 15th Place - $10,000
BCBC/NHC BONUS
A $3 million National Horseplayers Championship (NHC) Tour bonus – the largest prize ever offered in the handicapping contest world – will be awarded to any horseplayer who wins the Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge (BCBC) and the NTRA National Horseplayers Championship, presented by Racetrack Television Network, Stats Race Lens and Treasure Island Las Vegas.



By the way not that the team has won leg 1, what is to stop them from having a team of 20 or 30 or even 50 entries for the NHC. They are looking at 3 million bucks bonus if they win.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

By the way not that the team has won leg 1, what is to stop them from having a team of 20 or 30 or even 50 entries for the NHC. They are looking at 3 million bucks bonus if they win.

Disregard this late night stupidity by me.

[kyle r]

The first change that needs to be made is to strike the word "collusion." The problem is it can be taken to mean nothing or everything. Any behavior/action to be proscribed has to be spelled out clearly and in exact detail. To me, prohibition is not the path. Better to incentivize the kind of play you want and create a structure that levels the playing field as much as possible. To that end:
New Rule #1: Introduction of Leader Awards. At the end of Play Friday and after the first eight BC races on Saturday the points leader shall be awarded a bonus that accrues immediately to bankroll. For example: $100k in total bonuses could be paid out $5k,5k,7.5k,7.5k,10k,12.5k,12.5k,15k,25k.
*A rule such as this will stimulate more aggressive early play, increase churn, and organically disadvantage sitting on bankroll. It will also spread prize money around and create a nice analogies to racing i.e. "does the field allow a loose leader to lope on the lead."
New Rule #2: Minimums. Two possibilities. A simple requirement that players bet at least $7500 on the races before The Classic or also require a minimum to be bet Friday as well, such as $2000.
*This simplifies the rules, provides great freedom of action, and by tying the requirement to the penultimate race creates a furious two stage finish while again increasing churn.
New Rule #2a: Penalties. Again two ways to go. Either disqualification for failing to meet minimum handle requirements or a deduction from final point total in the amount of 10 times the handle shortfall. If there is a two part minimum requirement the penalty would apply to both.
*A note about late scratches: Any refunded money would have to be re-bet to satisfy the minimums unless the scratch happened in the last race either day. As that money could not be re-bet, the refunded bet would count toward the requirement.
New Rule #2b: The leaderboard would not only include point totals but handle totals as well, at least up until the requirement(s) are met.

[cj]

Best idea I've seen here is not showing scores.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by cj

Best idea I've seen here is not showing scores.

Don't see this at all. Knowing the scores of your competitiors is a big part of the strategy in the late races in any tournament I would assume. This does nothing to take away the edge of a team. If anything it would probably enhance it. Once the team hit a bullet or two or three and has worked itself up near the top of the leaderboard it will have to worry less someone close getting lucky in the last last couple of races. All the advantages of team play remain. As a team your strategy would likely be to work yourself up to a number you estimate should get the job done. Remember as a team this tournament is just one of many. So if you don't get the top prize you get 2nd, 3rd or 4th and you are back at it for the next tourney. As an individual you may not have this shot again for many years. If if you are sitting at $75,000 going into the last race or two, what do you do? Are you 1st? are you 5th? Are you 10th? Do you get aggessive late anc possibly cost yourself many positions and a lot of money needlessly or do you play it conservative trying to preserve which unbeknownst to you is only a 5th place finish.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Don't see this at all. Knowing the scores of your competitiors is a big part of the strategy in the late races in any tournament I would assume. This does nothing to take away the edge of a team. If anything it would probably enhance it. Once the team hit a bullet or two or three and has worked itself up near the top of the leaderboard it will have to worry less someone close getting lucky in the last last couple of races. All the advantages of team play remain. As a team your strategy would likely be to work yourself up to a number you estimate should get the job done. Remember as a team this tournament is just one of many. So if you don't get the top prize you get 2nd, 3rd or 4th and you are back at it for the next tourney. As an individual you may not have this shot again for many years. If if you are sitting at $75,000 going into the last race or two, what do you do? Are you 1st? are you 5th? Are you 10th? Do you get aggessive late anc possibly cost yourself many positions and a lot of money needlessly or do you play it conservative trying to preserve which unbeknownst to you is only a 5th place finish.

It takes away stabbing and just getting lucky. It would create all new, different strategies that are much more dependent on skill.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by cj

It takes away stabbing and just getting lucky. It would create all new, different strategies that are much more dependent on skill.

This to me is not the problem with tourney play. Also if the payouts were leveled(not so top heavy) out as was suggested earlier, then what is the difference if you you only come 3rd instread of 1st or 7th instead of 5th because someone(s) got lucky in the last race. Not that much.

To me the real test is given all that has been discussed in this discussion, would you be willing to put up $10,000 in next years Breeders Cup Challenge (assuming that was a comfortable amount of money for you to put up-maybe you hit a $50,000 pick 5 the previous month) if the only rule change was that the scores were kept a secret until the tourney was over. To me the answer is not a chance in the world.