Collusion at the BCBC?

[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.

[pweizer]

I have mixed feelings on this. I never believed that multiple entries is a huge advantage. And since each entry adds to the prize pool where 100% of this money is paid back to the players, more entries is better.

Where it becomes problematic is when multiple entries collude to combine into one. Take an example used in the article. If someone has two entries and brings another person to control two more while working as a team, this is an issue.

Then take a race with a big field and a 9-2 favorite. This allows them to bet all in on four different horses. On Friday, they were right and turned four $7,500 entries into one with over $50,000.

On the other hand, I have seen them employ the same strategy and be wrong, lose everything, and be out of the contest.

Bottom line-in the end, you have to have a good opinion. Multiple entries with bad handicapping opinions only mean bigger losses.

I played one entry and feel like I absolutely can complete. My track record in this contest over the years demonstrates that fact. But people will always look for loopholes and to exploit them. It is up to contest officials to look out for the player and make the field as level as possible for all.

Paul

[fantini33]

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.

[pweizer]

Originally Posted by fantini33

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.

Eric, like all players, lose far more often than they win. No player wins any bet 83% of the time. Not defending him or his "strategy". Just pointing out the obvious.

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

[fantini33]

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.

[pweizer]

Originally Posted by fantini33

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.

I agree with this.

Paul

[jms62]

Originally Posted by fantini33

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.

Sorry Bud... There will be many people not happy with this outcome.

http://www.drf.com/news/two-players-...collusion-bcbc