Collusion at the BCBC?

[ateamstupid]

http://www.drf.com/news/breeders-cup...hallenge-purse

Would love to hear precisely what is being alleged to have happened here.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

http://www.drf.com/news/breeders-cup...hallenge-purse

Would love to hear precisely what is being alleged to have happened here.

The article seems to imply that some of the tournament players feel that there was not a level playing field based on multiple entries being directed from individual players. The complaint letter was indeed signed by Nick Tammaro who might have some interesting insights at some point here on the board.

[fantini33]

This is a tough one and I am sure more will come out in the following days, detailing certain events. If nothing here, there will be rule changes moving forward, with stiffer penalties for "skirting" the rules. Tournament play is the most innovative idea to gain new interest in our beloved sport, they cannot let stuff like this continue to dissuade our future players. I do know that I have a MAJOR stake in this as the INQUIRY sign is still flashing so my opinion is probably biased.

[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

[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 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?

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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