Controversy at the BCBC.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I understand the less variance part of it totally. Even when I play for cash, I sometimes bet two horses to win or win/place in part to reduce the volatility. But long term, I don't win any extra money. I just win more bets.

Yeah, but the tournament is NOT long term. Its a defined term. They can dutch certain entries and hold back on one or two, take the penalty and hammer something late. Looks like they hammered a few times because some entries went belly up. If you are playing for yourself you can't afford to take all these differing money management opportunities. You basically buy one or two shots. When people get together and manage multiple entries in unison. I have not done the math but they are getting a way higher probability rate then the average Joe in this tournament. They can say whatever they want, its a form of collusion but they also went by the rules as they are now it seems. Yes, they could lose but if they just come in the money with 1 entry its a coup.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

If "there really was no penalty" then why go through the motions of posting presumed lowered bankroll amounts that 98% of the players thought were actualized on players who skipped bets early on...? Except as a smokescreen...? As someone said earlier...this whole thing reeks of unfairness with as many as 11 entries skipping Day 1 entirely and nearly all the rest of the players not in the know...

Any entry that skipped days or even races is certainly a 'flag'. Could be simple strategy, or could be a part of collusion.

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

...but now the contest organizers are on the horns of a dilemma: What they should do is make it right for all the players by returning their original fees...change the rules back to the status quo ante or to something fair and restore their credibility...but they would no doubt face lawsuits from the top performers if they cancelled their winning proceeds...

I'm not being paid to figure this shit out for them, so I haven't thought about it deeply once. However, it is clear that the contest itself has been compromised. Again, without expending energy beyond a passing message board comment, a rules change of some sort seems to be needed to preserve player confidence.

[davew]

The biggest issue I see is this ->Wager types permitted are Win, Place, Show, Exacta, Trifecta and Daily Double only.


By allowing the exotics, it allows those with multiple entries to hammer more longshot combinations in a race or 2 for their entire bankroll - and be out or win.

[VigorsTheGrey]

It would be interesting to know how many players pursue a "win or bust" strategy...Is this strategy sort of rare...? Wouldn't most players try to be more conservative and not lose all of their $7500. I don't picture most players going for the "all or nothing strategy and risk losing 10K (including their entry fee)..how many players could really afford to pursue this risky angle...?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

It would be interesting to know how many players pursue a "win or bust" strategy...Is this strategy sort of rare...? Wouldn't most players try to be more conservative and not lose all of their $7500. I don't picture most players going for the "all or nothing strategy and risk losing 10K (including their entry fee)..how many players could really afford to pursue this risky angle...?

You can't win most tournaments playing conservatively, especially where exotics are involved. As for the money, if you are worried about how much you stand to lose you will never win.

[davew]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

It would be interesting to know how many players pursue a "win or bust" strategy...Is this strategy sort of rare...? Wouldn't most players try to be more conservative and not lose all of their $7500. I don't picture most players going for the "all or nothing strategy and risk losing 10K (including their entry fee)..how many players could really afford to pursue this risky angle...?

How could you win playing conservatively? The players needed to get in top 15 to get part of 'purse'. If you are not playing for that why go? you could stay home and save the $2500 going to purse and bet only races you like. 15th place turned their $7500 into $44,580.

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/leaderboard

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by davew

How could you win playing conservatively? The players needed to get in top 15 to get part of 'purse'. If you are not playing for that why go? you could stay home and save the $2500 going to purse and bet only races you like. 15th place turned their $7500 into $44,580.

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/leaderboard

Thanks for posting the rules link. It was the first time I actually read them. I am not a tournament player and know very little about them, so this has been an education for me...The rules seem fairly straightforward to me now.

I guess that if one plays in the game one ought to be well versed in the various nuances of betting/ passing races, impact of penalties on final score and standings...

...I just wonder out of the total of 400 plus contestants, how many of them consciously considered whether passing races, and in some cases, an entire day, was a deeper plus or a negative.

The way I understand it (correct me if I am wrong), the points penalties were never actual dollar deductions and only mattered for scoring purposes. As it turned out, the worst case penalty for both days would be 14,000...if someone bet in only one race.

Now the cash rewards are only for the top 15 entries, and these points penalties may matter in the rewards final rankings.

Still, in this case, 14,000 points, penalty or other, did not alter the standing outcome of the top 3 rewards rankings.

SO, players should have considered how much penalty points are acceptable within their overall strategy...it just seems, at least, counter-intuitive to accept a 1000 point deduct in lieu of a $600 wager(s)...and I wondering how many of the the players were aware of the distinct advantage that might accrue as a result of such initial conservation.

After I scanned the Leaderboard Page, down at the bottom of the list, there are players that show a figure of (13,000).
I guess meaning their balance was minus 13,000 points. Now how can this be...?

I reasoned that these players must have lost their entire initial $7500 bankroll after betting and losing on just 2 races on Friday, which is one strategy, and the one diametrically opposed to betting the entire backroll on just 2 races Saturday and accepting the same amount of penalty points....two strategies for two different days...

[VigorsTheGrey]

And as I unravel the strategies, I notice that many of the top players have their doubles and beards listed at the bottom of the list, along with the most penalty deductions, hmmm...

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/leaderboard

[davew]

Friday 5 races or 1000 pts/race penalty
Saturday 5 races or 2000 pts/race penalty

the 4 (13,000) entries could have bet it all on the Classic or any other 1 race on Saturday


It has been a few years since I have entered any tournaments so maybe someone who was in this can correct any bad assumptions I have made.

I would still find it fascinating to see ALL the bets of the top finishers.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

And as I unravel the strategies, I notice that many of the top players have their doubles and beards listed at the bottom of the list, along with the most penalty deductions, hmmm...

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/leaderboard

How would you know the doubles and beards?

[davew]

Originally Posted by AndyC

How would you know the doubles and beards?

The doubles are easy, just look at the participants and many are listed twice. The beards would be another story...

http://www.breederscup.com/bcbc/2017-participants

[Ian Meyers]

If I were in charge of this, I would make the winner litigate to get his money. Yes, eventually he'd probably win but I'd drag his dick through the dirt and string him out years before he saw a penny of this.

Litigation can be costly and very time consuming. I'm guessing BC has an attorney on retainer. Contest winner would have to retain counsel in Cali and fight it out on someone else's turf. If nothing else I think it helps dissuade people from trying the old 'razzle-dazzle' in future tournaments.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by AndyC

How would you know the doubles and beards?

Look at the bottom of the list and go up from there and you will find names listed multiple times...I guess these are doubles (persons that have entered more than once)....some have two, some three.

As for beards, no one really knows...someone can get a friend to enter on their tab or a relative or partner....the point is to cover as many outcomes in as few races as are warranted with as large a bet as possible with all your doubles and beards covering the bets....

In this contest, the winner took the top prize with a $176k balance....If a $1 exacta is hit for $50, 7500 times, that equals $375,000...! Only top race pools can support these wagers without diluting the payout too much...I think this is part of the strategy.
A few large bets in giant pools...the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't beat the races" only in reverse..."You can't beat the races, BUT YOU CAN BEAT ONE RACE...!

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Look at the bottom of the list and go up from there and you will find names listed multiple times...I guess these are doubles (persons that have entered more than once)....some have two, some three.

As for beards, no one really knows...someone can get a friend to enter on their tab or a relative or partner....the point is to cover as many outcomes in as few races as are warranted with as large a bet as possible with all your doubles and beards covering the bets....

In this contest, the winner took the top prize with a $176k balance....If a $1 exacta is hit for $50, 7500 times, that equals $375,000...! Only top race pools can support these wagers without diluting the payout too much...I think this is part of the strategy.
A few large bets in giant pools...the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't beat the races" only in reverse..."You can't beat the races, BUT YOU CAN BEAT ONE RACE...!

CORRECTION: I noticed double entrants, but not triple or more same person entries.

[VigorsTheGrey]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...107-story.html