Sekrah mentioned that in the twinspires contest yesterday, he would have used the 8 if he was further down in the standings. This points out what I think is a major flaw in the design of these handicapping contests. In a contest using 10 races, I don\'t think players should be allowed to change their selections after the fifth race. Otherwise, all they do is pick random longshots-in sekrah\'s case, the 8 was a big price, and he would have used that if he needed to make up more ground. I don\'t believe it was a matter of handicapping rather than price. I was way down after the fifth contest race yesterday and just started throwing in bombers without regard for form-just needed a longshot. I don\'t think it is fair to those who have handicapped properly to lose to some blind stabbers.
Lots of contest pros on this board-King Rick B.? Would love to hear others thoughts.
that\'s why i\'ve stopped entering them too
\"to lose to some blind stabbers\".
Guys/Gals,
The format promotes clueless blind stabbing.It\'s possible to win some of these contests without picking a single winner. Attend a contest where \"figure\" horses are mainly winning,it\'s like a funeral parlor. A Vegas contest winner told me that he was behind by like $400 going to the last race. Looked at whatever horses were 20-1 or higher,stabbed the winner,won the contest, BRILLIANT handicapping.
When this was brought to the attention of the NTRA by a group of players, got a duhhh reply.NTRA contests are a waste of time since many of the perennial qualifiers use multiple unauthorized entries with \'beards\' and also partner with other regulars to split the big prize, if they win it.
Keeping partnering groups out of the qualifying contest is difficult, if not impossible.The format could be much better,lending itself more to skill rather than just someone having a lucky day stabbing.Also find it ridiculous that if you join the NTRA tour, you get more shots than someone who cannot afford to join.One person can get to the Vegas finals for free,while another has to risk money, somtimes big money. One person has a certain # of shots to qualify,others many more.
Typical of racing,the contest is poorly put together,run by amateurs.
Mike
drbillym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lots of contest pros on this board-King Rick B.?
> Would love to hear others thoughts.
King for a day, Bill. I\'ve been donating since.
Mixed feelings here.
The very first contest I entered was Pick The Ponies at the LV Hilton, years ago. I was in 3rd place going into the last contest race, the dreaded maiden claimer finale at Hollywood, on a Friday night. I was out of bullets, but no big deal -- the race looked like chalk. I started mentally fingering the $20K prize for 3rd place.
That is, until some piece of shit 85-1 shot won -- the longest shot on the board, straight from 1-900-Dial-a-Pig.
People all over the race book were screaming. Come on, I said to myself -- all of these people had this horse? How? Why?
Because they were behind and needed a bomb, that\'s why.
And that\'s what you are supposed to do in contests like that, if you are behind.
I accept this now, but believe me, I was quite bitter about it back then -- reportedly, 15 contestants had the slob horse; 4 of them shot past me, knocking me from 3rd to 7th...and from $20K down to just $3K. I suppose I was lucky to win $3K in my first contest, but in my mind, I had just lost $17K.
Contests don\'t reflect the reality of day in, day out horseplaying -- hell, the Turfway qualifier in two weeks is f__king insanity -- start with a $48 voucher, then keep betting and betting, as long as you are cashing and don\'t tap (winning $$ can be re-bet) -- and the winner is determined by the dollar value of the winners they amass, NOT how much net profit they make. So you just bet your ass off, every race if you can swing it without tapping. (Come to think of it, this IS closer to reality for some guys.)
Long story short: don\'t waste any brain power trying to rationalize how these contests are structured, whether they are an honest test of a horseplayer\'s ability (who knows?), and what it all means -- you\'ll just give yourself a headache.
My buddy Oliver has a pretty simple standard for measuring success at the track, whether conventional horse betting or contests are involved: \"Do you MAKE money doing it, or do you LOSE money\". Can\'t argue with that.
Rick, no disagreement on anything you said, but do you have an idea for what the ideal format would be for these contests?
jma11473 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick, no disagreement on anything you said, but do
> you have an idea for what the ideal format would
> be for these contests?
I have preferences that are based on how my recent play has been going.
If I\'m \"on\", live bankroll contests are the best.
If I\'ve been slumping, sometimes the \"funny money\" contests help break the slump and get me back on track.
\"Ideal\" format? If by this, you mean the fairest, truest test of horseplayer ability, I\'d have to side with the live bankroll contest: need that slobbola 85-1 shot to win the contest? Let us hear the audible \"pop\" of a sphincter tightening up when a guy has to bet $300 of HIS OWN MONEY on such a horse. Most can\'t pull the trigger, even if they are well ahead of where they started.
I agree, a live money contest is the only way to go, the difference is HUGE, You\'d be suprised on how most can\'t put 100 down on a 30-1 shot.
Either live money or all selections locked before the first race of the contest....this stabbing for prices at the end is lottery stuff.