Looks like 73 of our guys made it into the NHC, people are still trickling in.
And one of \"our guys\" made the NHC HALL OF FAME.. Congrats to Roger Cettina. Well deserved.
Is there a particular way to access the files? I don’t believe I can get them without hitting the pay wall. Thanks!
Call the office tomorrow and ask for Al or Tim.
...I was misinformed. Total head count stands at 71.
Looks like 2 in the top 10, and Deicke finished 20th.
Interesting article on NHC strategy by a seasoned, computer-oriented contest player:
https://inthemoneypodcast.com/2020/02/11/how-to-beat-the-best-in-the-world-at-the-nhc-with-minimal-work/
Spoiler: Stabbing is recommended
First time player here, and I missed the cut my a momentous case of dyslexia (and beers, perhaps). But to me it was clear as day that finding 3 or 4 cap horses presented the best route to day 3 versus playing 4 or 5 to 1 all day. Is this news to the people who have actually played before this year? Find the best horse above X price. People are going to rail on anyone who had that GG 9 horse once the plays come out, but as Steve Byk said on his show “that was a thorograph horse!†... indeed it was.
The article brought back memories of Miff\'s opinions regarding the contest when he used to post here. See, e.g., https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,90542,90634#msg-90634
The contest scene is too rich for my blood, but I do enjoy thinking about the strategies involved. Bluechip, I don\'t think it is a particular revelation that price horses are critical, although I do recall a post-contest narrative last year regarding someone who had reached the final table (maybe the winner?) by betting more short-priced horses than average. In terms of betting the best horse above X to 1, my takeaway from the article is that X may be a bigger number than most people have in mind.
I think that the math is irrefutable and the contest format should change but it won’t. It’s frustrating to a guy like tony zhou because he is the best handicapper in the country and never gets the award for it. The eclipse award should be given to the players who consistently cash in big tournaments with different formats not someone who mined 20-1 shots. I really respect tony for speaking up way too much griping at the nhc and way too little problem solving.
I’m sure Tony is a fantastic person and an even better horseplayer. I’m also sure he gets rewarded through his handicapping at the windows 2000x than what I do. However that is not how this particular game is to be played (NHC). Maybe this year is an outlier, and someone grinding away short prices will win. But I don’t see it the way they choose races with large / even fields. To be fair to your point, I always thought it was funny that the winner of this contest got the eclipse award vs one with a more established track record. Hell, if I had gotten lucky enough, I damn sure would’ve known I should not be giving that speech. Part of the prize I suppose? I just really hate these sour grapes from all these horseplayers coming out saying “the takeout sucks and all the people that did well blindly played bombs.†That simply cannot be further away from the truth. A lot who finished in the top 10 are going to take so much unjust heat, and for what? They gamed the system? ... to that I say, give me a break. You’re a horseplayer and should’ve figured that out years ago (rhetorically speaking, of course.)
bluechip21 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’m sure Tony is a fantastic person and an even
> better horseplayer. I’m also sure he gets
> rewarded through his handicapping at the windows
> 2000x than what I do. However that is not how this
> particular game is to be played (NHC). Maybe this
> year is an outlier, and someone grinding away
> short prices will win. But I don’t see it the
> way they choose races with large / even fields. To
> be fair to your point, I always thought it was
> funny that the winner of this contest got the
> eclipse award vs one with a more established track
> record. Hell, if I had gotten lucky enough, I damn
> sure would’ve known I should not be giving that
> speech. Part of the prize I suppose? I just really
> hate these sour grapes from all these horseplayers
> coming out saying “the takeout sucks and all the
> people that did well blindly played bombs.†That
> simply cannot be further away from the truth. A
> lot who finished in the top 10 are going to take
> so much unjust heat, and for what? They gamed the
> system? ... to that I say, give me a break.
> You’re a horseplayer and should’ve figured
> that out years ago (rhetorically speaking, of
> course.)
Last I checked the way you keep score at the track is by how much you take home.
I would rather hit one 40-1 shot, than six 5-1 shots. Why is the guy that hit more short priced winners \"better\" than the guy who hit the 40-1 shot??......and why is it just assumed that hitting long shots is just blind luck??
Bluechip you are right no one has gamed the system and many people strictly play 20-1 shots in every race because it is an effective strategy given the rules of the tournament. I think tony is a little upset with himself that it took him 5 years of losing to figure that out. My point is that they should not give the eclipse to the winner of this tournament as it does fairly represent who the best handicapper is day in and day out over the course of the year but that like the rules of the tournament are not going to change as the nhc actually gets some press coverage that is positive and the sport needs that badly.
\"It’s frustrating to a guy like tony zhou because he is the best handicapper in the country and never gets the award for it.\"
The single best thing about this sport...indeed, one of the precious few remaining great things about this sport, is that it doesn\'t matter what anybody thinks. You do your handicapping. You make your bets. You get your results. Fuc# what anybody thinks. Awards? Who gives a shi#? Send an Indian up there to pick the damn thing up, like Brando. Or blow the damn ceremony off and play your clarinet, like Woody Allen.
Indian?
Are you one of those people who tried to screw Bernie Sanders over the Joe Rogan \"endorsement\"?
Upon reflection, I apologize. I went with what I thought would be best for the rhythm of the sentence instead of going with what I knew was right. That was cheap on my part. Please fix it for me.
Nah, I wouldn’t even have commented except it was you. Who is Joe Rogan? The guy Joan Baez sang about at Woodstock?
Amy price starting to drop.
Rogan has a wildly popular podcast. His audience is massive and young. And he grants himself the comedian\'s license to be politically incorrect and over the top.
Bernie appeared on the podcast because Rogan\'s audience is a dream audience for him. Rogan liked him and later more or less endorsed him.
The issue is whether Bernie\'s touting of Rogan\'s endorsement implied Bernie\'s approval of the politically incorrect stuff.
Of course Bernie\'s enemies then jumped on this, almost all of them in bad faith, in my opinion.
I am not a big Amy fan, and she now has to play on less hospitable turf, but I will give her this: She is one cool customer under fire. She has earned her way into contention.
pretty obvious to me , that the larger the field of players, the more \'random\' the winner will be .
impossible to win with only short priced or even medium priced horses ,as others will by luck, catch whatever bombs happen to hit .
the only way chalky play wins , is if it\'s an all chalk result. not likely .
I\'m not the world\'s biggest Nate Silver fan but in today\'s performances ratings he has Bernie going to the convention with an average figure of two or so, while Amy would enter with something like a TWENTY-two.
Personally, I think she can work down to a ten or twelve - maybe even an eight - as a lightly raced, improving filly against older competitors with their accompanying health issues.
Still a long way from a two, though. Plus she\'ll have to close from way back and weave her way through lots of traffic without checking.
Tab for show.
Bernie has a ceiling of 40% of the D vote, which is what he and Warren have been cutting up. He wins only as long as the moderates are split. If they go to a brokered convention it\'s hard to see them giving the nod to someone who represents a minority of the party, is not even a member of that party, and takes the general from a referendum on Trump to a referendum on Socialism.
What\'s happening with Amy has been too sudden for the polls to catch, as it was in N.H.-- they use a rolling time period, not real time. Next couple of states will tell the tale as to whether she has a real shot. She is by far the best public speaker in the race, and has the least baggage (so far), and people are starting to pay attention.
600 pound gorilla is clearly Bloomberg.
If the Democrats plan on showing up at a contested convention and nominating someone like Klobuchar while Bernie has a significant lead in delegates, well, did you see French Connection 2? They might want to \"bring some water.\"
Under the new rules the superdelegates don\'t get to vote in the first round, but do in the second, and I think all delegates are released. Sanders would have to be damn close to 50% in the first round to have any shot under those circumstances. He\'s nowhere near that now, with the moderates split, playing in his own backyard. Whoever is the leading moderate would get it, and it would get sticky if two of them are close. And yes, there would be some screaming going on.
Best guess is Biden and Warren drop out before super Tuesday, when Bloomberg comes in. By that time either Amy or Pete should have established a clear lead over the other, and it will come down the that one, Bloomberg, and Sanders.
Looks like the NHC Strategy string has angled out to the 5 path and now includes political \'capping....and that\'s ok. Warren\'s only chance for an award is to be the \"Native American\" on the ticket as VP....Bernie beat Pete in NH by 2 points but they both received the same number of delegates (9 each)....don\'t see that mentioned in the media too much....there is one soon to be player that started in the auxillary gate, took back, will drop to the rail and close fast in the last sixteenth...HRC!
\"Bernie beat Pete in NH by 2 points but they both received the same number of delegates (9 each)....don\'t see that mentioned in the media too much\"
Given the Iowa farce, that\'s like asking Mrs Lincoln to critique the OTHER play that night.
It is pretty funny, after all the Democratic bellyaching about the electoral college superseding the popular vote, to see the early leader in the popular vote in the Democratic primary not having the most delegates.
The problem for the Democratic candidate in the general election, if it ain\'t Bernie, is: Where do all those Bernie supporters go if Bernie enters the first round at the convention with a plurality but is ultimately denied the nomination?
The Democratic party NEEDS those votes in the general election and there will be a lot of them it does NOT get.
I think you are employing way too much ideological \"lane theory\" and not nearly enough demographic/class \"lane theory.\"
But that, as they say, is why they run around the racetrack. We will know soon enough.
I also think a lot of people are doing way too much early, fine-line weighing of things like delegates and percentages. They are weighing with a cocaine scale that is soon going to be stepped on by an elephant, or a donkey, whatever, one of those big things.
I have always told people that BitPlayer was the most underrated poster on this board, but you have been making it increasingly likely that this, too, will be decided at a contested convention.
I leave for a day and it resolves to this?
Who is Joe Rogan? Must be a TGJB troll.
The fact that this has degenerated back to politics really shows how the NHC chatter has deteriorated. Fine with me. Perhaps Richie Curtis made a typo and meant to say “Native American†... regardless. The Dems aren’t going to let Bern Dogg win. Amy K has the personality of a door knob. Mayor Pete, while I love the guy, isn’t gonna happen. Here’s to four more years of President Business. Plus side? At least congress won’t tie them selves up with horses coming up lame after a Santa Anita work report.
All that aside, NYRA XC p5 looks pretty legit this weekend.
You, sir, are clearly a man of considerable wisdom and exceedingly fine judgment.
Ummm… how do you know who is underrated?
I can tell by comparing the number of views their posts get to the number of views their posts deserve to get.
And in the case of BitPlayer, there is something else: Several years back, he praised a book by Daniel Kahneman. That was really all I needed. If BitPlayer is not on Mount Rushmore, BitPlayer is underrated.
Not sure if this was overlooked or someone else commented. If so, my apologies.
So many reasons to prefer hitting six 5-1\'s than one 40-1.
a) More plays.
b) More money (yes, more money!) Just letting your winnings ride on a 3 horse parlay would get you 125-1. Six in a row: 15625 - 1!!! Better than 40-1.
c) If you bet big on a 40-1 shot, you would cut down the odds far more than on a 5-1 shot
d) If you can winning 5-1\'s consistently, you would be the better handicapper because . . .
e) There are fewer opportunities for winning 40-1 shots.
Sure there are more, but if I had a choice between going to the track with the guy who made only 6 bets last year, all winners at 5-1, or the guy who made only one bet and won at 40-1, I\'d want to go with Mr. 5-1 and would seek his advice. Then, after the races, would ask Mr. 40-1 to get a beer and explain his luck (sorry, his thinking!)
skitimber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure if this was overlooked or someone else
> commented. If so, my apologies.
>
> So many reasons to prefer hitting six 5-1\'s than
> one 40-1.
>
> a) More plays.
> b) More money (yes, more money!) Just letting your
> winnings ride on a 3 horse parlay would get you
> 125-1. Six in a row: 15625 - 1!!! Better than
> 40-1.
> c) If you bet big on a 40-1 shot, you would cut
> down the odds far more than on a 5-1 shot
> d) If you can winning 5-1\'s consistently, you
> would be the better handicapper because . . .
> e) There are fewer opportunities for winning 40-1
> shots.
>
> Sure there are more, but if I had a choice between
> going to the track with the guy who made only 6
> bets last year, all winners at 5-1, or the guy who
> made only one bet and won at 40-1, I\'d want to go
> with Mr. 5-1 and would seek his advice. Then,
> after the races, would ask Mr. 40-1 to get a beer
> and explain his luck (sorry, his thinking!)
You missed my point.
The original comment was that 40-1 and other longshots were luck. Quite an assertion.
You\'re also making an assumption that the guy who can hit 40-1 shots can\'t hit a 5-1 shot. Those get hit also.
You\'re also making a huge assertion that the 5-1 horses can be strung along for winning parlays. They can, but you really think these guys are stringing together 3-6 race parlays???
Betting big depends on the size of the pool. Large bets into smaller pools knock down those prices also.
Hitting more 5-1 shots make you a better handicapper than a guy hitting fewer at 40-1....how so?? Because you pick more winners??
I guess Lemons Forever, Storm The Court, Volponi, etc...those were \"luck\"?? Not if you used this product. Guys that hit 5-1 shots are all brilliant handicappers??
I think finding longshots at 40-1 takes more skill than hitting 5-1 shots. Just my opinion.
BC day was very good to me, getting \"lucky\" with that 45-1 shot. I think I\'m pretty good. Not the best, but better than a lot of guys who hit 5-1 horses and can\'t pull the trigger on a long shot. I sat next to a couple pretty good handicappers on BC Friday, they thought I was nuts playing STC.
You can hang out with your 5-1 guys, I\'ll hang out with the guy that takes home more cash and ask him how he did it. It aint always luck.
Not trying to offend and I wasn\'t comparing a single 40 - 1 shot to a single 5 - 1.
I was comparing a single 40 - 1 vs. SIX 5-1\'s.
We\'re assuming that the one guy gave you a single selection and the other gave you six selections, and all seven horses hit.
Just looking at the odds against both: one is 40-1 while the other is 15625 to 1.
That\'s not even close.
If you\'re making different assumptions, different odds.
You guys are mixing in “real life†with NHC tournament play. The point of the original post and article is that the 2wp format favors those taking stabs at bombs in every race and hoping to get lucky, and is not a true reflection of handicapping ability. Sure, we all hit some long shots based on handicapping, but the format lends itself to random results, where luck plays a much larger role than it should. I think most would agree that the live money format tends to be more reflective of skill.
skitimber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not trying to offend and I wasn\'t comparing a
> single 40 - 1 shot to a single 5 - 1.
>
> I was comparing a single 40 - 1 vs. SIX 5-1\'s.
>
> We\'re assuming that the one guy gave you a single
> selection and the other gave you six selections,
> and all seven horses hit.
>
> Just looking at the odds against both: one is 40-1
> while the other is 15625 to 1.
> That\'s not even close.
>
> If you\'re making different assumptions, different
> odds.
Nobody disputes that a 6 horse parlay at 5/1 each wins more than a single 40-1 shot.
How likely is it that someone is going to feed you six consecutive winning 5/1 shots?? I was never making that assumption. I don\'t know of many people that would receive picks, and decide to run them all together in a parlay.
My point, and I\'ll leave it alone after this, is that hitting 40-1 shots isn\'t always \"luck\"......and that hitting 5/1 shots isn\'t a better show of skill.