TGJB keep us up to date on how the guys and gals are doing in the contest.
Good Luck to everybody.
I know its early but that is a good start for Roger!!
# Name Total
.
1 Verina Puga $117.6
.
2 Gary Johnson $115.80
.
3 Jerry Bannister $110.70
.
4 Roger Neubauer $107.30
.
5 Brian Troop $92.60
http://www.drf.com/nhc/2009/standings.html
Regarding the tournament, I wonder if anybody looked this distribution and wanted to use this data to continue the discussion of betting for a positive return. If each player had $120 to bet (15 x $2 x 2(win+place) x 2days), the data show that only about the top fifth of the handicappers made money and the average final total was about $85, about a 29% loss ($25,700 total winnings/302 entrants). The mean was about $80. This is more than the takeout percentage.
That said, it figures with the experience we all share and that is that only the best can make money at it consistently. Maybe the tournament winners can consistently show a profit...
And whether the conditions reflect a more motivated and prepared group than those who are playing with real money is a question that would have to be addressed.
I only thought that the tournament--as empirical data made for an interesting extension to the discussion about handicapping that was started by Dr. Kent.
Leamas
The format or design of the final tournament gets you into reaching for many stretch long shots of 10-1 or greater to catch up once you find yourself behind.
You find yourself betting on runners who you think have a less that 5% chance of winning, hopefully, things you would never do if you were betting with real cash. Also depends on your personality.
NCT
Tony,
I am in agreement with you - the current format does not reflect everyday handicapping. Live money tourney that doesn\'t exclude exotic wagers (i.e. vertical/horizontal) would really adds excitement and weed out the stabbers since money management would also come into play.
Any preconceived notion that the above suggestions would complicated the tourney is absolute nonsense. For starters - An ADW service provider could easily serve as the gatekeeper for the wagers/leader-board.
\"The format or design of the final tournament gets you into reaching for many stretch long shots of 10-1 or greater to catch up once you find yourself behind.
You find yourself betting on runners who you think have a less that 5% chance of winning, hopefully, things you would never do if you were betting with real cash. Also depends on your personality\"
Hi Tony,
Completely get your drift, call it what it is,a clueless blind stabfest, not a handicapping contest! Two fellow Staten Islanders made it to Vegas and after day one found themselves selecting contest horses they would never consider with real money(as you suggest)
Interesting,if you go to the TG redboard room and the check the contest winners\' selections on Friday you will see at least 2 bomb selections that won which were hopeless going in on TG/Rags/Beyer.Stab away, get lucky, you have a shot! The guy who won may be the best handicapper on the planet,there is no real way to tell.
The full contest results tell the best story with many players amassing very little winnings after 30 w/p bets.That tells you they were stabbing and many are probably excellent handicappers but trapped by contest rules.
Your idea re the finals being a two day HEAD TO HEAD (all races mandatory with say a 12-1 cap) at the BC is way too logical for those running it to even consider. A brilliant idea that would allow handicappers to make real selections instead of stabbing and maybe even produce a winner by skill not luck.
Mike
I also thought the results of the NHC were interesting, in showing how many top handicappers were losers overall. You may complain that the conditions were artificial- requiring players to go for long shots, which may be different than how someone may play on a daily basis. However- the results do speak for themselves- there was a wide distribution- some folks with extraordinary gains, but also several players who had *zero* wins in those two days.
I don\'t discount the ability of some handicappers to be better at chosing winners- there is clearly a skill component to this game. The fact that some players at the NHC have played in several previous tournaments shows there is a differing skill level. However- there is a clear random luck component as well. That\'s why I enjoy playing the game!
What I argue is that the game is essentially unbeatable due to the effects of takeout. My initial argument was in reference to the idea of being a professional player-making one\'s entire living by being a horseplayer. When I called that possibility into question it seemed to ignite quite a firestorm!
Andy Beyer had an article recently, also talking about the level of takeout. He noted that in South America, there are fewer serious horseplayers, since the takeout is around 30% for all wagers. He says that somwhere between the current takeout levels of 15-20% and that 30% level the game becomes not worth playing- it really is unfair.
DOC
I have never been a good tournament player. Last one I played was in the 2008 Claiming Crown. $1000 to enter, had to play at least 6 of 8 races and had to bet at least 1/2 your bankroll each time you played a race. I think I was in 5th place after 3 races, then took a shot on two bombers and missed, missed again and wound up busting out after that. Had no choice at that point because I had to play to win.
Thing to remember is that when you are playing a tourney and you have such a creature as MANDATORY plays, or MANDATORY bet sizes, or limits as to how much or which tracks or horses you can play, you really can\'t fault anyone who gets busted out. You pay your money to enter, play by the rules, take your best shots and see what happens.
I think it would be a big mistake to assume anything about a player or a group of players who show a loss under any type of contest format. It\'s an even bigger mistake to then generalize those types of results as being meaningful in any way for the cash player. Seems to me that talking about such things as the \"range of distribution\" and \"empirical data\" under these types of contrived situations is a clear fallacy.
Also, for what it is worth, I don\'t think much of Andy Beyer as a handicapper. His figures are decent but widely available to anyone who buys a racing form. Tough to get an edge when you write books and share your data in bulk with the masses.
Do we know if Thorograph equipped players did better at the NHC? I wouldn\'t assume anything in horseracing- there are so many anecdotal \"truths\" in this game. Sort of like golf and fishing- but I like those too...
Excellent and timely idea indeed imo to hold the finals during the BC and it would probably expand competition in the contest and interest in racing expotentially - it \'s past due .. .
Hi Marcus.
Over the last 11 years the NHC has grown exponentially, and as I indicated in my post on the Tour, participation and interest in contests is continuing to grow. As you might imagine, the individuals responsible for the success of the NHC have carefully considered, and continue to weigh the pros and cons, of just about any proposal that might improve or grow the event, including changing its format and location. Below are just a small sample of some of the cost, logistical, and other problems which would have to be solved before a wholesale change like the one you're recommending could be made.
This a ballpark estimate, but my best guess is that hosting the NHC requires something in the vicinity of 325 rooms. One big advantage of holding the NHC in a casino is they have the capacity and are willing to accommodate everyone in the same place the event is taking place at a discounted rate.
In contrast, assuming my recent experience at Santa Anita is not atypical, even if you make the questionable assumption that you'll be able to find that many additional rooms near the track, room rates would be something in the vicinity of three times what they are now. It's not clear where the additional funds to pay the difference would come from, as I'm all but certain there are very few, if any, players who would be in favor of reducing the purse in order to make the move.
The white knuckle driving necessary to negotiate the LA freeway system is a challenge for anyone, and when you consider our demographic from the survey, along with the geographical diversity of the competitors, at a minimum I'd have to set a double digit over/under for the number of players who would experience significant transportation issues for a two day event. Besides, the event is supposed to be fun, and California driving is anything but.
There is no additional seating cost at a casino, while accommodating contestants at a BC venue at a reasonable cost is a major issue. Santa Anita holds a major NHC qualifying event, and is obviously a magnificent facility. However, the BC was probably their biggest day of the year, and the rooms which are large enough to accommodate the NHC were all filled to capacity with people who were willing to pay hundreds of dollars for their seats. My experience leads me to believe that BC venues would not necessarily be interested in selling one of those rooms for a handicapping contest, and would be even less interested in adding to their teller and other logistical issues associated with the BC. Even if you assume I'm wrong on both counts, coming up with a source of additional funds for seating is another important issue that would have to be addressed.
I could go on, and on, but I'm sure you get the point.
Although Thorograph players have had a great deal of well deserved and documented success at both the NHC and in qualifying contests, for some reason it seems that posts appear here shortly after every NHC claiming the format is not a "true" test of handicapping skill. As an aside, there are a wide variety of formats at qualifying contests throughout the year, and a number include exotics, such as the West Coast competitions where JB pocketed $50k last year, and Roger earned $50k this year.
NHC competitors come from every part of the country and include many different kinds of handicappers, so one way of leveling the playing field a little is to include tracks with a wide variety of different types of races from as many different parts of the country as possible. As much as I love the BC races myself, to cite just one example, I'm not sure how fair it would be to the guy or gal who specializes in dirt sprint claiming races if, instead of six tracks and approximately 120 races, the NHC contest consisted of one track and about 20 races which are very different from any other races which take place during the year. If the goal is to make the event more representative, the likely result of limiting the competition to just BC races would be just the opposite.
Rather than outline yet again why I personally believe that the current format is the best approach, and why changing something which has worked reasonably well for more than a decade would be a mistake, we know from the survey results that this is an issue where we don't have to guess what format a sizeable majority of players want for what is after all their championship. This, I believe, is one situation where we should respect their wishes.
Thanks Mall - Congratulations on another great
year and tournament for the NHC - my best
wishes to the Winner and All in the finals .
I appreciate the contributions
the NHC has made to racing and plan to apply
for membership very soon - and I would
also encourage others to do so .
Point well taken on the logistical issues and
dilemma\'s involved when piggy-backing the BC
and NHC Finals . Undoubtedly , Both will
continue to serve racing well in the future
as separate stand alone events - and I wouldn\'t
wish the LA Freeway on my worst enemy . ..
I missed that \' not\' true test format post but
wouldn\'t agree with that position .Personally ,
I believe the Wide Variety of Formats in
the NHC Qualifying Contests and Finals is an
asset .
For instance imo - The current Finals Win / Place
format should be respected and is very fair to
players like myself who are of perhaps lesser
Handicapping acumen than say a JB , RN or
Yourself and the many other top TG players as
well who are also some of the most talented
money management and creative exotic wagering
strategies people .
I\'m certainly not going to second guess this
years results and feel it\'s good outcome for
the Contest . Congratulations to the Winner
Mr Troop - the race cards imo came up tough
and this guy took advantage - seemed he had
it going his way .
Best Wishes and Best Racing Luck Always ,
Marcus
Mall
I respectfully disagree with most everything you presented (and probably always will) with the exception of the LA Traffic.
How did it go this year with multiple tracks bowing out of the NTRA, or stop handling contests altogether. On contest weekend this year, you also lost three tracks on the final day limiting the pool of races for optional plays. Choosing the BC as an example is just that an example. The time of year and quality of racing used for the contest, horse racing is clearly not at it\'s best, and you are playing an inferior product. (please don\'t tell me the sunshine millions is quality racing). Also, if you use BC weekend, almost every track has stakes and the weather (except Monmouth) usually is not combined with ice or snow storm closures. No one said you had to include just the BC races. It could be used as your mandatory races, and the other tracks chosen could be your optional\'s. We all know that January racing is not the best racing has to offer. Your comment sidetracked this discussion or diversion to just being the BC, a good debating tactic. You assumed, and you know what happens when you assume.
You can still change the time of year the final is being held (even if it must be held in Vegas). Tents can be set up at a track as an example,to house the extra players. (See Saratoga Air conditioned tents (IE with Internet, betting windows, tellers, food, etc etc). I am sure the cost of setting up one of these couldn\'t possibly compare to renting out the Sports Book. I am sure it\'s not gifted to the NTRA. Hell the NTRA did that @ monmouth for the after party so i can\'t imagine the cost as being prohibitive.
The vast majority of players really do not like the format. The open pole only provided you a subset of information. While the poling attempt is most admirable, only those who wanted to respond, responded. Many did not. So if you got 3000 responders, how does that describe the feeling of all horse players and contests?
Lastly as you know so well, there are many ways to make money at the track (and lose it). Picking winners is not valued in this contest format as much as picking the right winners at the right time with the right combination. If you are behind like most players were after this years day 1 total, the winner hung on just collecting $32(est) on day 2. Combined that with the loss of 3 tracks or approx 24 optional races, made the task for those behind to catch up and the probability and randomness that typically occurs that much harder to do. A broader wagering format keeps everyone with a chance at any time, so what\'s wrong with that? I have also seen where it\'s been proposed to place more weight on picking winners by an increasing factor associated with each winner. Another way to broaden the challenge and increase the potential winners and not those with the mathematical probability pick. The current format can be fun and challenging. Sure legacy formats tied to the past is always appreciated by many. Race tracks clearly are beholden to history. But lets see, people bring laptops and iphones to the track now and don\'t\' use paper to handicap,synthetic surfaces, $.10 superfecta\'s. You get the idea? I am not surprised that the demographic which responded to the survey don\'t want to change, it\'s probably because the responders were older white American Males like yourself, for the most part. You needed newer young bloods, and women responders. You should want to attract a newer demographic, and not the same old same old. Everything has changed, they use replays to get things right (even old tradition mired baseball has changed, modernized).This contest format is akin to betting at the $20 window only and getting punched tickets for ever $20 denomination.
To make a long story short, you guys are mired in old traditional mindsets, wanting to protect your turf and fiefdoms. The dog and pony show using the survey, as any pollster can tell you can be rigged to get the answers you want, but only asking the questions you want to hear answered. Clearly your committee is comprised of traditionalists in every sense of the word, and do not want to bring the game into 21\"st century. Race Books? Yeah that\'s horse racing.
If you really are concerned about money the environment etc, the contests could be held on line with all the same rules and everybody save the money, quit bitching about the seating arrangements etc etc. (I do get that it\'s more fun having the folks together etc).
Finally what racing really needs to bring people back to the tracks and holding the finals at a live racing venue is just one way the NTRA can do this. I think that is well within their charter. I cant imagine the boon-doggle trip to LV is one of their goals. Let the tracks reap the benefits of holding the contest and not some LV casino. Even our current president speaks so negatively of LV, Perhaps we should all heed his message and stay the hell away from LV.
You guys need to get outside of your BOX!!
For every reason you say you can\'t do something, i can give you options as to how you can get things done.
NC Tony
The opinion\'s expressed in the post are mine and only mine< and not that of TG or any representative of TG.
PS Hotels usually have cheaper rates over the weekends anyway, unless it\'s held in LAS Vegas where weekend rates go up!
Kent-- guys who used our data won this contest 3 years in a row with some other very high end finishes, one by Mall, who posted on this string, and is head of the NTRA players committee. We\'ve won our share of other big contests, as well, one real big one by Belanski, who has an account of that win on this site somewhere, and three in real-money ones between me and Roger Neubauer, who I partner up with for these contests. Also, there\'s the amazing feat of Bryan and Judy Wagner (see \"Unbelievable Exacta\" post, below).
I\'ve been out of the office for a few days and may post more on this in a day or two, but some of you might have noticed we didn\'t have our usual DRF ad mentioning that we had 25 TG players qualify,three past winners, etc. We gave them the ad, but the DRF, under new management, told us that since we are competitors of theirs (!!!) they wouldn\'t run it.
I think the best finish we had this year was Judy in 17th. Roger ended up 25th after getting as high as second late on day one. Regarding where this string began, we\'ve played three of these Nationals now and finished in the black twice.
JB - how in fact do you know which of us are users are in the contest? Do we e-mail you, or do you just know from the on-line orders? Should we notify you in advace?
We match our list of customers with the list of qualifiers, and send out two emails-- one to people on the list, the other saying if you qualified and we didn\'t send you the first one, contact us. I think we\'ve had 199 qualifiers, don\'t remember over how many years.
gracias
I meant to mention in my previous post that I enjoyed seeing and talking to both Roger and Bill.
In addition to Bryan Wagner having the best contest year anyone's ever had, I doubt anyone will disagree with my assessment that one of your other good customers, who never seems to get mentioned in these discussions, has the best overall contest record over the last 11 years. In addition to qualifying nine times and finishing third last year, Committee member Paul Shurman qualified twice on the same day, which to my way of thinking is akin to hitting for the cycle where the final hit is a walk off grand slam. And, as you know, Paul also has an excellent cash game.
You had no way of knowing this, but while I'm still on the Committee, I stepped down as Chairman in early December. Coincidentally, it was right after our discussion with Brian and Judy at the BC that I asked Mike Mayo if he would be willing to take over, since after many years of doing almost all of my volunteer work in this industry I reached the conclusion that perhaps whatever meager talents I do have might be put to use by an organization trying to help the less fortunate.
So far so good, as I'm very excited about and can't wait to start the new gig I landed yesterday reading newspaper and magazine articles on a radio station for blind people, even though the operator seemed somewhat vague and non-committal when I suggested the possibility of spicing things up a bit by adding racing news and publications to the broadcast.
Mel-- not to put too fine a point on it, but if you wanted to work with blind people you should have stayed in racing. And unlike the ones that you will be working with, ours are the none-are-so-blind-as-those-that-will-not-see kind.
Hey, Mall...that is pretty cool. I applaud you and wish you the best...I am certain that a great horse racing call from Durkin or other great ones would spur the imagination of those who cannot see. Even I prefer baseball on the radio.
Did you ever stand in OTB and hear Marshall Cassidy??
Good Deed Mall.