Weekend Warrior conquers tough field at Canterbury.

[Mall]

Hats off to the Weekend Warrior for qualifying for the NHC yet again at Cby\'s always tough Breeder\'s Cup Ultimate Handicapping Invitational, a cash betting contest where players are required to bet at least half of their bankroll, which starts at $1k, on a minimum of 6 of the 8 BC races. Way to go Jamie!!!


P.S. The name of the fellow who won last year\'s NHC is Stanley Bavlish, not Babish, and based on what I saw & heard when we were at the just completed Kee meet together, the poster who knocked his handicapping ability could not possibly be more wrong. Very disciplined & fearless player who is not afraid to push it through the windows & who relies exclusively on his own odds line in making plays. In other words, the kind of approach one pretty much has to take when you\'re in action, like Stanley, six days a week.

[miff]

Mall,

I know a pro (bet millions annually) who was Kee the entire meet.He knows the guy well and calls him a clueless \"stabber\"who is NOT a big bettor.

If the day comes when you have to put up serious money to buy into an extended contest, with the right cap like 10-1,I doubt a Stanley Bavlish will win.


Mike

[Mall]

And now you know someone who was also at Kee the entire meet, except for the Mth overlap days, & based on personal experience, believes just the opposite of what you heard from someone else. For what it's worth, my opinion is that as a matter of fundamental fairness, one who does not have first hand knowledge should not repeat a statement of this nature, especially in a public forum in which the individual does not participate.

While I don't disagree with your idea that an extended competition might turn out to be a better test of handicapping acumen than the typical one & two day contests we have now, designing something which is fair to everyone is quite a bit more complicated than you might imagine.  Nonetheless, I have every reason to believe that there is a better than 50-50 chance that a season long competition will be part of the NHC beginning next year, so you, your friend, and anyone else who's interested may very well get the opportunity to enter a year long competition against Stanley in the not too distant future.  

My experience leads me to believe that your idea of reducing the existing caps would be a mistake, particularly in a season long contest. The reason most often cited for adopting the existing 20-1/10-1 caps in the first place was because of the players who had the 105-1 winner of the last race at the Sports Haven contest in 1997.  However, if the sample size is large enough, 105-1 shots are only going to win one out of every hundred and five races, so there isn't any statistically valid reason to fear the possibility of a "stabber" being crowned champion in a season long contest.

More importantly, the present caps have operated in strict accordance with the law of unintended consequences, by placing a much bigger premium on horses which win at odds of 25-1 or higher than would be the case if there weren't any caps at all. The reason is that in contests with a 20-1 win cap, many if not most players avoid horses which go off at odds of 25-1 or higher, the theory being that in the vast majority of cases, those who make such plays are getting the worst of it, which makes sense given that the win percentage of bombs is roughly equivalent to their off odds. As a result, under the current system a 35-1 cap winner is exponentially more important than a 20-1 cap winner because of the strong likelihood that few, if any, other players will also have had the winner.

The same principles would apply if the win cap was reduced to 10-1, except that 15-1 and 20-1 winners would become the new "separation plays."  Since such horses are statistically more likely than the longer bombs, there's a very good chance the net result of what you're suggesting would be precisely the opposite of what you're hoping to achieve. In my view, the longer the contest, the less need for caps of any kind, so the kinds of changes I think would make more sense for a season long contest would be to raise both the win/place caps, or use a total cap which applies to the horse rather than its combined win/place payoffs, or eliminate caps altogether.

[miff]

Mall,

I don\'t just happen to know someone who attended the KEE meet, I speak to them every day!!

I could not agree less if the contest was to the find best handicapper for the period of time involved.Any contest of skill must eliminate:

1.Stabbers who ONLY bet odds and have no serious clue, but yet have an equal chance as many who have far superior knowledge but maybe not their LUCK.

2.A little old lady who never saw a horse but can still win by LUCK.

The only way to accomplish that, in my opinion, is to make the entry fee meaningful and to cap betting at 10-1 win only, no place.If people want to enter an ROI contest without caps, great then thats for stabbers.I do not play in contest but many who do(in NY) tell me that if you love a horse and he\'s say 2-1 you can\'t waste a play unless you are in some kind of commanding lead.What kind of skill contest is that? It\'s more an odds contest.


I would also like to bet that a meaninful entry fee would chase most pure stabbers.It\'s one thing to stab with no real monetary consequence, it\'s another when you have to put up serious money.


Lastly, Mr.Bavlish put his name out there endorsing the bris product and was advertised as added to their P6 team(which blew $60k).That makes him \"public\" and if little Henry says he\'s clueless, that\'s what I\'m betting.


Mike

[Mall]

What your friends are telling you about contests may or may not be true, depending on the format. There are a fair number of contests which are designed to favor those skill is the ability to pick winners, including short price winners.

We\'re going to have to agree to disagree on caps, and not just because the statistics are on my side. To my way of thinking, it doesn\'t make sense to continue to call someone \"lucky\" after he or she has demonstrated the ability to come up with a sufficient number of longshots over the course of an entire year to post a higher total than someone who has a large number of low price winners. The more appropriate description, in my view, is \"better handicapper.\"

Until I actually started playing in contests, I used to think that a sizeable entry fee would have the same effect as you believe. Now I know better, as the results of the $6k entry fee contests at SA, Hol, & Dmr demonstrate. The way things actually work is pretty exactly the opposite of the way I assumed they\'d work, and I am now firmly of the view that \"stabbers\" have less of a chance in the standard $2 win/place contest than they do in the events with the largest entry fees.

[miff]

Don\'t follow like you Mall, but the big California buy ins are the exception, not the rule as I hear it, but I do not know. I understand there are many on line contest and some at tracks where the buy ins are modest and where most final qualifiers come from. I am also aware that there are \"pro like\" contest players who better understand \"how\" to win a contest even though they may not have the same handicapping acumen as others.Some travel all over the place to get qualified.

I agree that a long term contest with someone consistently picking winning bombs is not luck and they may be better than someone who picks lots of short priced winners. The 1 or 2 day contests are pure luck, IMO.Some old lady or stabber gets real lucky and the best handicapper in the world loses, that\'s no skill contest.

The other obvious flaw in all of these contests is that all selected races are not mandatory, not forcing head to head skill matching in EVERY contest race.In other words, every player should be pitted against each other in every race selected, no wiggle room for the little old lady or the stabber. This would only work in a long term contest though, like 40 weekends with 10 mandatory races, highest 200 qualify for the big dance.


Mike

[ltg]

I know a pro (bet millions annually) who was Kee the entire meet.He knows the guy well and calls him a clueless \"stabber\"who is NOT a big bettor.

I know him well, and the above is an understatement,very small bettor plays like the game is a lottery.

[weekend warrior]

Mall,
Thank you for the kind words. As always I must thank Thorograph for providing figures and insight that led to some key selections (collections) on Breeders\' Cup day. I\'m proud to be part of the troop competing again at the NHC next January. I\'m also proud to say that you\'ll never find me posting negative comments about a fellow handicapper. As a colleague said to me, \"the Internet never forgets!\"

Best regards,
 Jamie

[TGJB]

If you win it again that quote might actually be worth something.