Collusion at the BCBC?

[10 pnt move up]

On Twitter Sunday there was a number of tweets from a few people I follow that I really did not understand what was meant, but now with this article it seems to be the source.

I always thought it odd that when I looked at this big tourneys the same people participating. In game with a lot of variance I wondered how this was but if there is as much collusion as inferred going on maybe that explains it. I really dont know but would be fascinated to hear what is really happening.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

On Twitter Sunday there was a number of tweets from a few people I follow that I really did not understand what was meant, but now with this article it seems to be the source.

I always thought it odd that when I looked at this big tourneys the same people participating. In game with a lot of variance I wondered how this was but if there is as much collusion as inferred going on maybe that explains it. I really dont know but would be fascinated to hear what is really happening.

Smart guys found a loophole. Smart guys formed llc. to insulate themselves and effectively announce their intentions. Total dicks but clever. You think the Algo/Rebate guys are the only sharpies?

You dont have to bet you have to deal with the penalty for not betting its not like you lose money for not betting the required amount of races. That's a dumb rule, you are playing for money BUT the penalty is points which hurt your total but not your real money.

Then you have a dude allegedly playing 4 entries as one, BTW you are allowed 2 so he had 2 to 4 times the flexibility the rest had.

Good luck teaching a judge with no clue how they cheated

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Smart guys found a loophole. Smart guys formed llc. to insulate themselves and effectively announce their intentions. Total dicks but clever. You think the Algo/Rebate guys are the only sharpies?

You dont have to bet you have to deal with the penalty for not betting its not like you lose money for not betting the required amount of races. That's a dumb rule, you are playing for money BUT the penalty is points which hurt your total but not your real money.

Then you have a dude allegedly playing 4 entries as one, BTW you are allowed 2 so he had 2 to 4 times the flexibility the rest had.

Good luck teaching a judge with no clue how they cheated

So in a room full of 80 people (just a number) there really is like is something like 10-15 teams and then anyone not teamed is basically a sucker with no shot?

[pweizer]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

So in a room full of 80 people (just a number) there really is like is something like 10-15 teams and then anyone not teamed is basically a sucker with no shot?

This is clearly not the case. I have lots to say but will wait for all the facts to come out first. But, I can say this for sure. Those “teams” still have to be right with their bets. More often than not, they are wrong and simply contribute to the prize pool for the rest us.

Paul

[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

[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?