|
|
11-10-2017, 01:18 PM
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,745
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I don't know how anyone could play this going forward unless part of a team himself. I've avoided contests because I figured I'd be the sucker at the table. I think to this point I've made the right call.
|
Right. Rule changes are needed to prevent this happening in the future.
Regardless, the rules did prohibit collusion and these guys formed a LLC for the specific purpose of splitting profits in which they colluded. I am not aware of any tournament that does not restrict collusion. They should be banned from tournaments going forward.
This is simply a form of soft-play, which has been banned in poker tournaments for years.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 01:45 PM
|
#47
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I don't know how anyone could play this going forward unless part of a team himself. I've avoided contests because I figured I'd be the sucker at the table. I think to this point I've made the right call.
|
I only have played the small tourneys and only lockdowns/pick or prey, online.
Obviously at small ends this type of thing is not such a big deal but my main concern is that I dont see what is happening with when picks are being made and if I see all the picks before the contest starts I know its a lot more fair. I would not trust that past posting can happen, too much dishonesty when there is money involved. Life has turned me into a cynic.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 01:54 PM
|
#48
|
self medicated
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: toga
Posts: 3,077
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy
it sounds like the structure of the tournament is wrong. from what i gather the players were allowed to bet as much or as little as they wanted to on any particular race. in turn the structure led the way to collusion. they should make the bets the same size right straight through the whole tournament and rely on ability to pick winners rather than a high tech money management scheme.
|
That's just part of it. There are several questions here. First off, I never liked the fact that you can buy two entries in these things. Even the $100 ones I have been in have that rule. With two entries it gives you "wiggle-room" for funny business. People are posting that they started with 15,000, no, they had 30,000 if its like the ones I've been in, most let you buy in twice. I don't know why the organizers even allow that....its just common sense. Correct me if this isn't the case with this one.
The other thing is if I read this right. They had a third name that was neither one of them(Roger Ball had two entries) that Moomey played. I don't know if I got the whole story just reading this article but I can see why they are taking a long look. But if the format is two entries each and bets like this......you are just asking for people to "game" the game.
Last edited by burnsy; 11-10-2017 at 02:02 PM.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 02:00 PM
|
#49
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
I disagree.
You're an accountant.
If you had to calculate the net present value of the second entry at the point in time when they began making plays for it in the tournament:
Is the value of an unused entry in the hands of a skilled player at that point in time worth more than other entries that have already been depleted in terms of both bankroll and bullets?
Assuming nearly equal skill among the players involved:
Is the likelihood of entries near the top of the leaderboard being caught from behind by an unused entry greater than that of being caught from behind by an already depleted entry?
In my opinion the answers to the above questions is yes.
However, all of that said:
I do agree that a rules change is needed.
-jp
.
|
First off, anybody could have held back and bet against depleted bankrolls. No collusion necessary. I don't see the nexus as to why a partner betting first allowed him to wait. Again, waiting was a choice for everybody.
I am unsure of the exact rules but weren't the contestants allowed to bet their winnings from prior races? Or was it restricted to $600 bets on Friday and $900 bets on Saturday. If a player could use their entire bankroll to bet it seems to me that the advantage would be with any player who is in the black at the time Nisan started his betting.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 02:45 PM
|
#50
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,149
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
First off, anybody could have held back and bet against depleted bankrolls. No collusion necessary. I don't see the nexus as to why a partner betting first allowed him to wait. Again, waiting was a choice for everybody.
I am unsure of the exact rules but weren't the contestants allowed to bet their winnings from prior races? Or was it restricted to $600 bets on Friday and $900 bets on Saturday. If a player could use their entire bankroll to bet it seems to me that the advantage would be with any player who is in the black at the time Nisan started his betting.
|
At any point you can bet all your bankroll. I have the standings after each race via email and by day 2 the majority of folkshad less than $7500.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 02:52 PM
|
#51
|
self medicated
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: toga
Posts: 3,077
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si2see
None of this surprises me at all, but I can tell you if they were to make a disqualification here then all live tourneys are in trouble.
I don't know that I have ever played in a live tournament where there weren't "partner entries" being played. The difference is some tournaments allow more than 2 entries, so you don't have to use several names in these tournaments.
I can also tell you that for a FACT there are players in some of the less popular Vegas contests in particular, where there could be someone playing an entry, and that person doesn't even step foot in the state of Nevada to do so. This is more of a problem to me than teaming up with a lifelong friend or wagering partner.
Jason
|
that's the part that I find really shaky. the article infers that they had some third name that was neither one of them. "His" two entries went belly up. but if these guys have built up a bankroll through this LLC they just bought 3 names which equals 6 chances between two guys. they say the other guy was their friend (Roger Ball). Was this guy even there? Am I reading this right? To me, it seems like besides betting the way they did. that may be perfectly legal. are they coming up with multiple names to get more entries? From "friends" that are not even around?
for that kind of money its gotta be regulated. people will just ruin it given the chance.
Last edited by burnsy; 11-10-2017 at 02:54 PM.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 03:03 PM
|
#52
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,149
|
At the end of day 1 11 had 7500, and 288 out of 413 had less than 7500
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 03:11 PM
|
#53
|
self medicated
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: toga
Posts: 3,077
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses
At the end of day 1 11 had 7500, and 288 out of 413 had less than 7500
|
That means nothing! if people can say they are playing for their "friend", buy more entries, and the so called friend is no where to be found. with a company like this that bank rolled some money, they can just contact "friends" or more like partners, that are not even in the state like one poster said. doing that you can have a couple guys that control many entries, combined with the format of this tournament...........its a good way to use multiple strategies to gain an unfair advantage.
Vs. a deal like this, the guy playing one or two entries for himself is getting screwed. they could still win but these clowns have a way better chance. and they admit the money is pooled........not good.
for every name theres gotta be an ass in the seat and a positive ID. no, I'm picking for my "friend" if this is what the article says.
Last edited by burnsy; 11-10-2017 at 03:15 PM.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 03:20 PM
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
I disagree.
You're an accountant.
If you had to calculate the net present value of the second entry at the point in time when they began making plays for it in the tournament:
Is the value of an unused entry in the hands of a skilled player at that point in time worth more than other entries that have already been depleted in terms of both bankroll and bullets?
Assuming nearly equal skill among the players involved:
Is the likelihood of entries near the top of the leaderboard being caught from behind by an unused entry greater than that of being caught from behind by an already depleted entry?
In my opinion the answers to the above questions is yes.
However, all of that said:
I do agree that a rules change is needed.
-jp
.
|
I think I understand what you are saying, but what about this?
Let's say I am on my own and have only one entry. Let's say I make absolutely no plays for awhile while everyone else is making plays. Some have depleted their entry to zero along the way and others are on the leader board. I then decide to make my move after some are already out and I can look at the leader board and see what I need to do to win. Do I need a huge bomb, some mid prices horses etc..
What have I done wrong or differently?
I believe if you can act last without penalty you have an advantage because you get to see what you need to beat, but I'm not sure there's much difference between what I described for myself and what those guys did with 2 entries. With one entry they waited until later just like I described. Everyone can do that.
There has to be a legitimate penalty for waiting or smart people will wait to gain an advantage, but it's not really colluding to do it with 2 entries. They were simply partners.
(hope I am understanding the rules correctly)
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
Last edited by classhandicapper; 11-10-2017 at 03:27 PM.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 03:24 PM
|
#55
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,258
|
I am not saying you've done anything wrong.
I am saying you've used game theory to improve your chances - provided you haven't passed up prime plays while sitting on the sidelines... Or alternately, provided you know there are prime plays in front of you once you decide to come off the sidelines.
-jp
.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Last edited by Jeff P; 11-10-2017 at 03:35 PM.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 03:28 PM
|
#56
|
self medicated
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: toga
Posts: 3,077
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I think I understand what you are saying, but what about this?
Let's say I am not colluding and have only one entry. Let's say I make absolutely no plays for awhile while everyone else is making plays. Some have depleted their entry to zero along the way and others are on the leader board. I then decide to make my move after some are already out and I can look at the leader board and see what I need to do to win.
What have I done wrong or differently?
I believe if you can act last without penalty you have an advantage because you get to see what you need to beat, but I'm not sure there's much difference between what I described for myself and what those guys did with 2 entries.
|
Yeah, they pretty much controlled 6 entries. There's a huge flaw in these things if "teams" are allowed. You would have to do this just to have a fair chance against it. This whole story points out the problem with this tournament. People have multiple names, entries, and then they can basically increase their chances of winning. Of course the money gets split up, not that legit.
Nothing you guys are saying has much to do with it.....they are "buying" more lives than every one else can. With that format its a no brainer. You hammer some early, hold back some then hammer late. Hell, you have double or triple the "lives".
Last edited by burnsy; 11-10-2017 at 03:30 PM.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 03:35 PM
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
|
If I buy 6 entries I have a way better chance of cashing, but I am also making 6 times as big an investment. On the days I don't catch any I'm going to get killed.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 03:40 PM
|
#58
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
I am not saying you've done anything wrong.
I am saying you've used game theory to improve your chances - provided you haven't passed up prime plays while having that entry sitting on the sidelines.
-jp
.
|
How can you quantify the so-called advantage from Game Theory? Have your chances improved against opponents who have built their bankroll? It would seem that any advantage gained would be measured in something far less than 1%.
I understand teamwork in tournaments, especially in the tournaments that don't let you choose the type of bet or alter the size of the bet. A team can just about guarantee that they will have someone in contention on the last day. Just cover races ripe for longshots and at some point a teammate will hit a big number.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 04:01 PM
|
#59
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,745
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
How can you quantify the so-called advantage from Game Theory? Have your chances improved against opponents who have built their bankroll? It would seem that any advantage gained would be measured in something far less than 1%.
I understand teamwork in tournaments, especially in the tournaments that don't let you choose the type of bet or alter the size of the bet. A team can just about guarantee that they will have someone in contention on the last day. Just cover races ripe for longshots and at some point a teammate will hit a big number.
|
If collusion is allowed then why wouldn’t I team with 9 partners and buy 10 entries for 100k. Then I would take that 75k and play some even money favorites. If we double up twice (not too difficult in most years) we win most BC tourneys. Starting with a higher bankroll you are more likely to generate a higher ROI in a limited race pool than with a lower bankroll.
|
|
|
11-10-2017, 04:02 PM
|
#60
|
self medicated
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: toga
Posts: 3,077
|
Lets see? We will hammer this one the first day, take the penalty with this one the first day, play these two straight up and hammer the last two races with the one we held back...........sounds really fair to me.......
I call it the shotgun strategy....for 60,000 you and your friends can take home multiple prizes, depending on the final scores!
Meanwhile, the guy playing for himself...hes got one or two shots.....
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|