Collusion at the BCBC?

[Kasept]

Reported Wednesday by Pete Fornetale on ATR in Hour 1 and then discussed with Paul Matties in Hour 3: http://stevebyk.com/broadcast/hour-3-paul-matties-2/ (Last 10 minutes or so).

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Reported Wednesday by Pete Fornetale on ATR in Hour 1 and then discussed with Paul Matties in Hour 3: http://stevebyk.com/broadcast/hour-3-paul-matties-2/ (Last 10 minutes or so).

I will listen now.

[fantini33]

In Pete's book (The Winning Contest Player), on pages 148-149, Moomey discusses a bit of his live bankroll theory about consolidating entries. His own entries. It seems as though, since publication, he may have expanded his theory to include playing entries under other peoples names. Clearly against tournament rules. It is worth noting because it is exactly what the article said happened with his and Roger Balls entries.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by fantini33

In Pete's book (The Winning Contest Player), on pages 148-149, Moomey discusses a bit of his live bankroll theory about consolidating entries. His own entries. It seems as though, since publication, he may have expanded his theory to include playing entries under other peoples names. Clearly against tournament rules. It is worth noting because it is exactly what the article said happened with his and Roger Balls entries.

I wonder if it would make sense to approach those who are not professionals and won some kind of feeder to the tourney to purchase their entry so that you can accumulate a greater number of entries. I dont even know what the prize pool is so that might sound silly.

[pweizer]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I wonder if it would make sense to approach those who are not professionals and won some kind of feeder to the tourney to purchase their entry so that you can accumulate a greater number of entries. I dont even know what the prize pool is so that might sound silly.

Again, that only makes sense if your opinions are good. Believe me, it is just as easy to go broke on several entries as it is on one. At the end of the day, you still have to be right.

Paul

[mnmark]

multiple entries in and of itself was a mistake on many levels. It was only a matter of time before something like this supposedly happened

The fact that the so called biggest handicapping tournaments allow more than one entry is just plain wrong and unfair to those that have only one entry

Allowing multiple entries was a flaw from day one and all the players and tournament organizers allow it or succumbed to players requesting it for one simple reason. money ! Money trumps the integrity of these tournaments

[fantini33]

Originally Posted by mnmark

multiple entries in and of itself was a mistake on many levels. It was only a matter of time before something like this supposedly happened

The fact that the so called biggest handicapping tournaments allow more than one entry is just plain wrong and unfair to those that have only one entry

Allowing multiple entries was a flaw from day one and all the players and tournament organizers allow it or succumbed to players requesting it for one simple reason. money ! Money trumps the integrity of these tournaments

To be fair, the BCBC is a "Betting Challenge" unlike the NHC which is a "Handicapping Championship". The differences between the tournaments is right there in the name. The BCBC, in its original idea, was to crown a more complete player....a handicapper, wagerer, money manager, etc. while the NHC wants to crown a complete handicapper. This is why the NHC uses a wide array of race types and tracks in its mandatories. And why the BCBC uses 2 days worth of top end races, on a top end wagering weekend.

[fantini33]

Originally Posted by mnmark

multiple entries in and of itself was a mistake on many levels. It was only a matter of time before something like this supposedly happened

The fact that the so called biggest handicapping tournaments allow more than one entry is just plain wrong and unfair to those that have only one entry

Allowing multiple entries was a flaw from day one and all the players and tournament organizers allow it or succumbed to players requesting it for one simple reason. money ! Money trumps the integrity of these tournaments

I do agree though that an equal playing field for all would be a truer test, despite what would be an obvious reduction in field size.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Again, that only makes sense if your opinions are good. Believe me, it is just as easy to go broke on several entries as it is on one. At the end of the day, you still have to be right.

Paul

And if you think any judge isnt going to recognize this simple axiom you are nuts. IMO they should pay the guys or try to settle.

How do you feel of about allowing unlimited entries?

[jms62]

BCBC was trying to be nice by changing the rules regarding missing mandatory races and it was exploited. You get control of enough entries each plunging all in and you are going to eventually score. They need to go back to DQ if you don't get your mandatory bets in. It is not like they are even telling you which races to bet. You have to bet any 5 of 10 on Friday and 5 of 12 on Saturday. If anyone cannot get those in it is clearly on them. Still won't completely close the hole of players colluding though but it will make it a bit harder forcing them to bet earlier and erode their bankroll.