|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
11-10-2017, 09:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Agree for the most part Paul. Moomey has gone on record saying this technique works for him 83% of the time. While individuals like yourself and many other astute players can "compete", the deck is stacked against on the "win" end. The playing field is not level. This is especially pertinent in the ever popular "live money" tournaments. They just need to try and consolidate to win, not even profit to win. Whereas guys that are individuals often need 10x starting bankroll or more. If his 83% number is accurate, then 83% of the time we are up against it. And when there are several groups playing with a similar structure there is almost a certainty that one or more will move forward with it within a given tournament making the 83% seem more like 99%. Good luck to us.
__________________
Good Luck......and may a Derby Trailer lead the way to the window! Ed 
|
|
#2
11-10-2017, 11:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you look at the number of entries he plays in his own name and the number of wins he has, this is quite clearly not true. Paul
|
|
#3
11-10-2017, 12:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I understand that he doesn't win his bet 83% of the time. His gambit of finding a race that is wide open, playing 4 different horses, if he is manipulating 4 entries say, means he plays 7500 per, all in an effort to get 30000 on to one ticket, not 7500x4. Or even 8 horses at 3750, or some variant depending on the odds more likely.
One entry with 30000 on it is more powerful than 4 with 7500 each. His gambit of consolidating works at a high percentage. He needn't be very clever...I mean a 3-1 would get it consolidated. If there are several guys or groups employing this tactic, say 10...even if they fail at a 50% clip, its still stands to reason that half will be successful in the consolidation process. Making those entries tough to beat. Yes, some will zero out to our benefit. I still believe that it is easier to beat 4 entries that have 7500 than one that has 30000. The consolidating is a great strategy. Just not when you are employing tickets NOT yours to get this accomplished. That's what makes it awful.
__________________
Good Luck......and may a Derby Trailer lead the way to the window! Ed
|
|
#4
11-10-2017, 06:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I agree with this. Paul
|
|
#5
11-11-2017, 06:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
FORNATALE ~ RACE PASSING DISCUSSION: http://www.drf.com/news/bcbc-rule-ch...nning-strategy
At the heart of the controversy surrounding the Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge, which has held up the distribution of purses pending an investigation, is a rule change. But first, you need to understand something about the BCBC and why it was invented. Ken Kirchner, who was the founder of the BCBC and a wagering consultant for the event from 2009-15, explained, “The purpose of the tournament is to have players bet. The whole point of the BCBC was not just to reward horseplayers with the biggest live-money tournament in racing … it was also to drive parimutuel handle.” He also pointed out that asking players to bet $7,500 over the weekend isn’t exactly a hardship. “You’ve got 13 Breeders’ Cup races plus full fields on the undercards,” he said. “It’s not a burden to ask players to bet on 10 of those 22 races when you’re betting on the best of the best.” Back in 2015, rules regarding minimum wagers were strict. A player missing a minimum bet on Friday ($600 on five races) would receive a 5,000-point penalty off of his or her final score. If one missed a Saturday minimum ($900 on five races), that would be cause for disqualification. This rule cost Nisan Gabbay – this year’s unofficial winner – back in 2015. Gabbay failed to get a bet in for the Juvenile on Saturday, in a year when he said he planned to make a significant final bet on an exacta in the Classic with American Pharoah on top of Effinex, an exacta that would eventually pay $76.40. “I would have won the tournament,” Gabbay said. “Instead, I got shut out in the line. That’s where that largely came from. We didn’t think you should be DQ’ed just because of bad luck.” Gabbay also said that he and his partner Kevin McFarland believed that players should be freed up to pass races so that they could make sizable bets late in the tournament without risking their bankrolls with spot plays at the minimum earlier on the card. “You should be able to bet the entire amount [of your bankroll] on the last few races,” he said. Kirchner said that since the tournament’s inception different groups of players had lobbied for different rule changes – the addition of horizontal bets, for example. A small group of players, including McFarland and Christian Hellmers, had been lobbying for a removal of minimum bets as far back as 2012. He added that the more stringent rules were in place despite the knowledge “that there was already a body of evidence out there that the winning strategy might be to sit on a bankroll to make big plays at the end.” The new rules allowed players such as Gabbay and Hellmers and approximately 10 others to sit on their bankrolls on Day 1 for an insignificant penalty of 1,000 points per race to be deducted from their final score. On Day 2, players missing minimums were deducted just 2,000 points per race from their final scores. Many tournament players assumed that the money also was deducted from their active bankrolls, but it was not. As the current rule is written, to not play on Day 1 is an advantage (note that second-place finisher Ron Ferrise also didn’t wager on Day 1). And with so few in the field understanding the new rule, the advantage was outsized. Breeders’ Cup officials did not return calls Friday seeking comment on how the rule changes impacted the tournament. National Horseplayers Championship Hall of Famer Paul Shurman, one of the most respected tournament players in the game, emphasized that the new rule’s meaning wasn’t clear, in part because it was so antithetical to the entire raison d’etre of live-bank tournament play. “The entire premise of BCBC is that you have to bet $600 on at least five races on Day 1 and at least $900 on at least five races on Day 2,” Shurman said. “That’s what players understood the requirements were and that’s how players handicapped and played the contest.” He estimated that 98 percent of the players in the BCBC played the contest as it was initially intended. “Many played races they didn’t like just to try to get the requirements out of the way. How many players lost $600 or $900 playing that amount of money on odds-on favorite to show and lost it because the horse ran out of the money?” The presumption that players had to make those wagers was reinforced by the fact that “after penalty” scores posted on the BCBC leaderboard at the beginning of Day 2 showed players who made no bets with $2,500. “Why would anyone assume, and how would anyone know, that those players actually had $7,500 to bet with, not just $2,500?,” Shurman said. That presumption was of course also reinforced by the fact that the new rule runs directly contrary to the interests of the BCBC. “It doesn’t make sense that the BCBC would institute a rule that would decrease the amount of money a player had to wager,” Shurman continued. “Theoretically, nobody had to make a wager on Day 1 or until the end of Day 2. There is really no penalty.” In the end, a small group of advantage players lobbied for a rule change that they then exploited to win more than $500,000 at the world’s richest live-bankroll tournament. That attitude seems to be the prevailing one, with more players questioning the way the contest was run as opposed to the validity of Gabbay’s win. Professional horseplayer Sean Boarman was playing in just his second live-bankroll tournament. “I’m done with these things unless something big changes,” he said. “It’s a million-dollar tournament, and they run it like a neighborhood poker game.” – additional reporting by Matt Hegarty
__________________
All ambitions are lawful except those which climb upward on the miseries or credulities of mankind. ~ Joseph Conrad A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. ~ Thomas Paine Don't let anyone tell you that your dreams can't come true. They are only afraid that theirs won't and yours will. ~ Robert Evans The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. ~ George Orwell, 1984.
|
|
#6
12-08-2017, 04:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://www.drf.com/news/two-players-...collusion-bcbc
|
|
#7
12-08-2017, 05:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The guy on the bubble is probably one of the happy ones, Jim....
__________________
"Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools talk because they have to say something" - Plato
|
|
#8
12-08-2017, 05:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
12-08-2017, 08:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools talk because they have to say something" - Plato
|
|
#10
12-09-2017, 09:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
So if Moomey and Ball each had 1 entry and employed their same tactics that it would have been fine? Because it seems that is what they are implying. At least this should eliminate the majority of the group play and start to level the playing field off a bit. I don't know....on to the next one I guess.
__________________
Good Luck......and may a Derby Trailer lead the way to the window! Ed
|
|
#11
12-10-2017, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This explanation is an ill-conceived legal argument add in they have played under an LLC for the propose of competing jointly and you have further hurdles to overcome. Let's get on with it give them their bounty and make some more cogent rules that aren't contradictory.
|
|
#12
12-11-2017, 06:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
And publish the details so we can see if others involved. Are players competing against a “Relay team” in these big money events? Sure seems like you see some well know players often bust out really early. Why would that be? It is all a game of math. If I hit a certain bet 10% of the time and have 2 entries and recruit 4 friends who also hit at that clip and they have 2 entries each and we each go ALL IN on that bet. How often does our team put themselves in position for a major score? All the more profitable if you are able to get some entries on the cheap via qualifiers or are backed by investors. Do I know this is happening NO but I would be the least suprised person in the room if it comes to light that it is. I didn't spend a dime this year trying to qualify for other reasons and looks like I was lucky I didnt.
|
Hybrid Mode
