Controversy at the BCBC.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

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

My comment wasn't meant to degrade you but to merely point out that at this stage in your handicapping/betting career you aren't ready to compete in the big tournaments. But there are many small tournaments that you should enter.

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

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...

I never said there wasn't potential for collusion among partners. Having a "wait and see" approach was available to every participant not just colluding partners. I am glad you thought the Gun Runner/Collected exacta was easy. Sometimes in handicapping everything works out exactly how you envision it and after the fact you think that it was easy. Sometimes before the fact you think a race is easy and then your horses run last and next to last and you leave scratching your head.

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

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....

Team play has been going on since tournaments started. It would be nice to shut it down but realistically you can't. So I simply say embrace any and all collusion. Team up with whomever you please. It still takes lots of skill and strategy to win while colluding. I challenged Poindexter to show how he would go about colluding by posting selections and strategies at the track of his choice. You may think it is easy so I challenge you as well. It's one thing to believe something it is another to test it and prove your point.

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

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"...

The spirit of the contest is to see who can have the biggest bankroll at the end of the contest. It is the same spirit that every horseplayer has when they bet each day. You bet to win the most amount of money you can.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

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.

I think leveling the payouts would take away the biggest incentive to playing, the lure of the big score.

[AndyC]

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.

One stab doesn't usually win a tournament. And a so-called stab isn't necessarily unskilled.

[VigorsTheGrey]

So basically I pony up $2500 that gets me into the contest...then attempt to link long shots into low hit percentage winning combinations while overcoming 25% rake, and typical racing luck that gets me in range...now I have to risk my entire bankroll and go up against multiple teams of colluding well- funded sharpies to put me over the top...SIGN ME UP....!

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by cj

I think leveling the payouts would take away the biggest incentive to playing, the lure of the big score.

You may very well be right but you have to pick your poison. The status quo, despite Andy C's contention otherwise, is extremely unfair to the limited capital average player and I know there is virtually no way to police this. I still am trying to figure out why a $100,00 2nd prize or $50,000 minor prize is considered chump change. They also can do something like pulling $100,000 out of the prize pool and havinng the top 10 finishers compete in a follow up fake money tournament (them only and completely free), and distribute that $100,000 to the winner maybe winner take all.

I don't have a horse in this race. I never gave these touraments a thought. i just have alwasy known that the chances of me turning $7500 inito $60,000 on any given day is basically nil(barring hitting a big pick 4 or pick 5 or pick 6). I just assumed I wasnt good enough, even though I am pretty good at this game.

Didn't think about having 9 other guys enter with me, dutching a race and having one of us at between $60,000 to $65,000 and going from there or using a stragtegy as I have outlined in prior posts.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

So basically I pony up $2500 that gets me into the contest...then attempt to link long shots into low hit percentage winning combinations while overcoming 25% rake, and typical racing luck that gets me in range...now I have to risk my entire bankroll and go up against multiple teams of colluding well- funded sharpies to put me over the top...SIGN ME UP....!

Perhaps you should enter twice and find a few friends. Otherwise stick to the local lower level tourneys.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

You may very well be right but you have to pick your poison. The status quo, despite Andy C's contention otherwise, is extremely unfair to the limited capital average player and I know there is virtually no way to police this....

The tournament is not designed for the limited capital average player.

And yes there is virtually no way to police it.

Instead of cutting up the carrot that draws the players, the big lopsided purses, let the marketplace work its wonders. Players will vote with their entries. If I thought I had no chance to win due to either the rules or because of collusion I simply wouldn't enter. Doesn't mean some rules shouldn't be amended or added but I don't think major surgery is required.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The tournament is not designed for the limited capital average player.

And yes there is virtually no way to police it.

Instead of cutting up the carrot that draws the players, the big lopsided purses, let the marketplace work its wonders. Players will vote with their entries. If I thought I had no chance to win due to either the rules or because of collusion I simply wouldn't enter. Doesn't mean some rules shouldn't be amended or added but I don't think major surgery is required.

So in your opinion, racing has no responsibility. They hype these tournaments to everyday players who are not financially capable of competing and are thus shark food, , feeding the groups that are colluding, and your response is to let the market decide. You are all heart. The market decides every year when this sport rolls further down the toilet.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The dialogue between Andy C and Poindexter is lively, interesting, and enlightening...I do not consider their position to be antithetical to one another. I am reminded of the parable of the blindfolded men feeling around different parts of an elephant and then describing the animal based on their partial perspectives... Kudos to both of you, I am learning much here, thank you...

Now the surprising item that is surfacing in this discussion is the almost total agreement by all parties that cooperation among entries has been a more or less permanent feature of tournament play. A feature that, apparently, cannot be fully removed. There also seems to be a feeling or tacit agreement that cooperation between parties tends to place the single player in some inequitable position...this I think is the main thrust of the letter sent to the BCBC administrators by a group of players, apparently seeking some sort of redress.

What will be the response from BCBC....?

An internal investigation is being conducted looking into the activities of the winner, Nisan Gabbay and his partner McFarland... And apparently also into the activities of Moomey and Ball.

Now there are left at least 2 parts
1. The findings of the investigation, and
2. The response

With regard to the findings: selected hypothetical scenarios...
A. Gabbay and McFarland colluded, against known rules
B. Mooney and Ball colluded, against known rules
C. One party or neither party colluded

With regard to the response:
A. Do nothing
B. Disqualify one or both parties from purse, awards.
C. Adopt new rules, and/ or change old ones to allow cooperation between entrants...

Which path do you think BCBC will take...? And which path OUGHT they take, and why...?

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

One stab doesn't usually win a tournament. And a so-called stab isn't necessarily unskilled.

It depends on the stab. Sometimes there is only one horse that can make a difference so it is a must bet, no handicapping required.


What is the downside to not knowing how others are doing?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

It depends on the stab. Sometimes there is only one horse that can make a difference so it is a must bet, no handicapping required.


What is the downside to not knowing how others are doing?

The downside is your objective. In a tournament you are trying to beat everybody not just trying to beat the track take and make a profit. playing daily you only need to know how you are doing everyone else is irrelevant. It definitely affects your style of play just as tournament poker does. I really can't think of too many games where score doesn't dictate strategy.

The objective of racing is to make stars or celebrities out of the winners. That attracts players. A good story of how winner succeeded (leaving out the collusion part) goes a long way to meeting the objective.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

...
I don't have a horse in this race. I never gave these touraments a thought. i just have alwasy known that the chances of me turning $7500 inito $60,000 on any given day is basically nil(barring hitting a big pick 4 or pick 5 or pick 6). I just assumed I wasnt good enough, even though I am pretty good at this game.

...

That's only 7-1. I think you underestimate yourself and others. Maybe the 60k looms large to the eye but 7500 is a substantial nut. Just a few hundred talented players, without cheating, I'd think it was quite likely that would be attained and better.

I always ask how much did he bet, when regaled with tales of scores.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The downside is your objective. In a tournament you are trying to beat everybody not just trying to beat the track take and make a profit. playing daily you only need to know how you are doing everyone else is irrelevant. It definitely affects your style of play just as tournament poker does. I really can't think of too many games where score doesn't dictate strategy.

The objective of racing is to make stars or celebrities out of the winners. That attracts players. A good story of how winner succeeded (leaving out the collusion part) goes a long way to meeting the objective.

It just seems to me like it makes hitting something early a bit of a disadvantage. I don't know, I'm probably wrong, never was attracted to tournaments. I like the day to day grind.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

The dialogue between Andy C and Poindexter is lively, interesting, and enlightening...I do not consider their position to be antithetical to one another. I am reminded of the parable of the blindfolded men feeling around different parts of an elephant and then describing the animal based on their partial perspectives... Kudos to both of you, I am learning much here, thank you...

Now the surprising item that is surfacing in this discussion is the almost total agreement by all parties that cooperation among entries has been a more or less permanent feature of tournament play. A feature that, apparently, cannot be fully removed. There also seems to be a feeling or tacit agreement that cooperation between parties tends to place the single player in some inequitable position...this I think is the main thrust of the letter sent to the BCBC administrators by a group of players, apparently seeking some sort of redress.

What will be the response from BCBC....?

An internal investigation is being conducted looking into the activities of the winner, Nisan Gabbay and his partner McFarland... And apparently also into the activities of Moomey and Ball.

Now there are left at least 2 parts
1. The findings of the investigation, and
2. The response

With regard to the findings: selected hypothetical scenarios...
A. Gabbay and McFarland colluded, against known rules
B. Mooney and Ball colluded, against known rules
C. One party or neither party colluded

With regard to the response:
A. Do nothing
B. Disqualify one or both parties from purse, awards.
C. Adopt new rules, and/ or change old ones to allow cooperation between entrants...

Which path do you think BCBC will take...? And which path OUGHT they take, and why...?

If cooperation on entries in tournaments is as widespread as reported then, even it Gabbay and Moomey cooperated with others (which has yet to be established) in this contest, in all probability there were many more entries that were doing similar things.

If this is true, then it places the BCBC administrators in a tough position, because it might appear that they were singling out certain parties, while ignoring others.

My opinion is that no findings will be presented, at least not to the public, and the prizes will be awarded per the original order.

It doesn't appear to be in their interests for the BCBC to deny the victors their prizes and possibly face litigation as a result. There probably will not be much of a response to the letter either.

It will be interesting to see what actually transpires.

Perhaps time will ease the interest in the current topic while there could be a "shift" to dialogue regarding possible rules alterations for next year, in the interest of making the product "better" with a focus on continually improving the contest for everyone with few specifics addressed.

Overtime, a slightly altered guideline may be issued increasing the penalty point amounts for skipping races, and for under-betting required amounts.

The Leaderboard will probably be updated to breakout penalty amounts from bankroll so as to be more accurate throughout the contest.

The issue goes away in a whimper "for the good of the image of racing"....

[Poindexter]

Anyone can turn $7500 into $60,000, if they bet very aggressively. The problem is that if $7500 represents a significant amount of money to the player it is irrational to bet that aggressively, because there is a very good chance you end up going broke. To the contrary, a tournament at 10% of the breeders Cup challenge, would enable many players to attack at the proper aggression and if they can couple that with 10 times the entrants (say 4000 rather than their projected 400, then colluding would become a non issue (though I do think they should discourage it-and limit entries to 2 per family). If they do that, they can even keep the the payouts top heavy as they are.

If it was my decision, that is the direction I would go. Make it affordabe for many, encourage online play (not sure why someone has to be there to play in a tournament) and have thousands of entries. So bottom line is rather than have 400 people putting in $10,000 an entry to try to win a $300,000 top prize I would shoot for 4000 people, putting in $1000($750 live play) an entry for a top prize of $300,000. I know this goes against the original mission of encouraging on track betting but I think this would solve the problem.