|
TOURNAMENT TOPIC QUESTION OF THE MONTH - AUGUST '06
Each month, Noel Michaels will ask his blue-ribbon panel of tournament experts to respond to a timely Tournament Topic that is likely to be on the minds of tournament players everywhere. Check back every month for a new Tournament Topic.
QUESTION: What, if anything, could or should tournament hosts do to prevent players from entering contests multiple times and competing under other people's names? Do you object to a player using a "beard" so he or she can try to qualify for the NHC multiple times in the same year?
ANSWERS:
Ed De’Ath:
“Multiple hidden, “group”, or “bearded” contest entries, meaning those that exceed the stated rules, have been a part of tournament life since their inception. Racing is controlled by humans, so don’t expect the playing field to be different than any other day-to-day activity. It is common knowledge that since the beginnings of capitalism - and more probably recorded history - the individuals or groups with the most “capital” attempt to control those with less “capital”. It is not unique to racing. It is the nature of life as we know it.
Personally, I don’t believe there is a right or wrong answer to the question of the righteousness of “bearded” entries into Handicapping Contests. It simply boils down to one’s ability to fund multiple entries. Finding the agent(s) who will front for them is the easy part. Those who are successful usually “up their entry total” by having friends, relatives, and racing buddies front their entries. To be fair, not all “group tickets” fall into the “bearded” category which are controlled by one or two individuals. Some represent equal sharing of any number of individuals. In fact many single entries represent an investment group.
Group tickets are much more likely to be found in the “plunger” or “bomber” type contests. These contests reward the ability to pick high priced winners. This contest format has no downside from losing bets (as in real life). In fact, the individual selections are commonly referred to as “bullets”. Some perceive this disassociative process to better represent plunging than handicapping. As an example, lets say a group controls 12 entries. This guarantees that they can cover all 12 horse fields in races that are deemed to be volatile races. (Fact: Volatile races yield the highest priced winners.) This task is not too daunting when you consider that these contest formats allow 10-15 selections from a choice of 6 to 9 tracks. Multiple tickets allow the controller (the “Beard Master”) to focus on the winning tickets from the fully covered races, especially those that return boxcar prices. It boils down to more of an asset management philosophy than handicapping expertise. A value handicapper with 1 or 2 entries has to be extremely lucky to compete successfully in this format, with or without group tickets.
“Real Money” or “Live Money” contests require a different skill set. These formats significantly lessen the “group ticket” players ability to control the outcome. A skilled handicapper who understands value, and has the ability to manage a bankroll can decide on 2 or 3 solid selections. The ability to focus in and build on 2 or 3 bets allows the bankroll to grow exponentially. A plunger/bomber handicapper with 1 or 2 or group entries has to be extremely lucky to compete in this format. These formats better represent the daily play of the successful handicapper.
The Gulfstream “TurfVivor” contest pretty much eliminates any multiple entry advantage. This is accomplished with a field limitation of 125 and one entry per person. Even with these constraints there are still a few group tickets in evidence. The final day of heads-up play using an elimination format totally eliminates any multiple ticket control. It always comes down to One-on-One.
My observation is that you will find more people attracted to the “plunger/bomber” format. I suspect it is representative of horse playing/wagering habits throughout the ages. This pretty much falls in line with the historical facts about horse wagering. The accepted truth is that about 3% of horse players win consistently. That means that 97% are losers.”
Rich Eng:
“To answer this question, I think you need to go back to the first question in this series, which was "Should the field for the National Handicapping Championship be expanded?" Ninety percent of the panel answered no, that the field of 225 should remain exclusive. If that's the case, then they have answered this question too.
If there are only about 225 spots available for the year end NHC, then expect tournament players to travel to try and qualify because there is value there. If horseplayers are flying from coast to coast, spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for travel and expenses, can you then turn around and limit them to only one entry in a tournament? I don't think so. The player will buy as many entries as he can budget for and I don't blame him.
If the NHC is kept exclusive, then I don't think you can also make the qualifiers exclusive too, meaning only one entry per person. Plus the more entries there are, the bigger the prize pool will be.
As for beards, I'm not sure how you can police that. There are deceptive things that tournament players can do that don't break any rules. It can be argued that it may not be good sportsmanship, but when you're playing for big money, who gets the last laugh? It's bending the rules.
The deception, for example, may be as innocent as a man and his wife, or his girlfriend, who like playing the horses together. If the man qualifies early in the year, in future tournaments they should enter under the wife or girl's name. That's just common sense. I think you risk alienating a lot of people in trying to "do the right thing".”
Ross Gallo:
“I have no objection whatsoever to a player partnering with his/her spouse, brother, sister, uncle, friend etc. As long as the rules of each tournament are followed, what's the problem? Last I checked this is America. How would you stop anyone from bringing a playing partner(s), participatory or "beard" (your word)? "I'm sorry, we know you're not coming up with your horses without John Doe's help, you can't play." Absurd, and will never happen. We all know how difficult it is to qualify, this is the eighth NHC coming up and we have what, 30 players who have qualified at least 4 times? I don't know the exact figure but it can't be much higher than that. Literally a handful out of many, many thousands have made it 50% of the time. Every year, scores of great handicappers and tournament players don't make it. If you can qualify and be the architect of multiple qualifiers in a single year, you should be applauded not persecuted. When big money is on the line, some people will do whatever it takes to improve their chances of acquiring it. If you have the time, the resources and the skill, and you play within the rules, I say "go for it.”
Dave Gutfreund:
“It is a difficult thing to enforce, a player entering on behalf of someone else. I wish it would/could be stopped, but it really can't. To me, it is just tournament reality.”
Tim Holland:
“I certainly dislike the idea of players trying to earn more than one berth in the NHC finals by competing in other people's names. It takes away from the spirit of the event, but I feel that this is near to impossible to prevent. However, I would actually be in favor of allowing people to qualify for the finals more than once in their own names. Indeed, if you win two tournaments in a year why should you not have the advantage of two spots in Vegas? In a way this would be like earning a favorable pole position in a NASCAR race or seeding in the NCAA. It would encourage people to play in as many qualifiers as possible and would give many less reason to use ‘ringers’.”
Eric Isaacson:
“I’ve always been told that unless you have a solution don’t come with a complaint. I don’t know that there is anything hosts can do to stop individuals from competing under other people’s names other than throwing each player into sequester. That’s hardly possible, so I have nothing. As I am every month, I’m definitely interested to hear what others think about the subject.
Overall, I don’t really care if it happens. Just don’t present your resume as if you’ve qualified x-number of times or won x-number of tournaments unless you’ve done it under your name. I’ve done well with one, two, or three entries per contest (playing as myself) and I’m sure if I had 10 or 15 I could boast about better “credentials” too.”
Mike Labriola:
“Does anyone believe that tournament administrators truly have any interest in limiting the amount of entries a person chooses to play? If they do, it's to encourage, not discourage, the purchase of as many entries as possible by everyone in the contest. Is this fair? Well, it depends on your perspective.
In a perfect world everybody would be permitted just one whack at the glory. In this world we'd have a way quantify who the best handicapper really was. In the real world we have to sift through the data to determine who truly are best pure handicappers rather than the expert managers of multiple entries.
Tournament hosts are in a tough spot. Even if they chose to strictly enforce their own rules, they'd be on thin legal ice when trying to prevent a suspected front-man from entering an event. In reality however, their best interest is often served by looking the other way even when the business bottom line rather than justice is being served.”
Jeff Sotman:
“I've always believed that since it's going to go on anyway, it might as well be out in the open. If someone is good enough to qualify more than once then they deserve more than one entry.
The only downfall is that for the people that don't know this goes on "ignorance is bliss." Allowing multiple entries may persuade some people to not play at all. I won't play in some of the larger tourneys because I know there are partnerships playing like 60 entries together, and I can't compete against that in many formats.
But as the tourney director of the NHC, I could not get this change made, and could not figure any way to really enforce the current rule either. To me, it seems we were just wasting airfares and rooms.
But as everyone knows, I'm much more in favor of common sense, not much for political correctness or how things look.”
Dennis Sudul:
“Nothing can ever be done to prevent a player from using a “beard”, as long as he adheres to the tournament rules. I myself have done it. There are guys that play as teams. Others share info and buy into one another’s entries, taking a percentage of any winnings. None of this is against the rules, and I find no objection to it. BUT…………
My father always told me that ‘anything done in excess, is not good’. And there is something inherently distasteful when players use the “beard loophole” excessively (numerous entries in one tourney….I know of one on-line tourney that was played with eight entries by the same person, using different friends).
As a New Yorker, I’ve always disdained the Yankees for ‘buying’ the World Series year in and year out. If you buy the best players, or in our world, the most entries, it doesn’t take a genius to win a tourney, or qualify for the Finals.
Sour grapes??? Hardly, as many of you know I can well afford to ‘buy’ a dozen or more entries into any tourney I desire. As mom and dad use to say, ‘let your conscience be your guide’.”
Steve Wolfson Sr.
“I absolutely feel that tournament players should NOT be allowed to use ANY subterfuge in tournament participation.
In order to avoid this, I suggest the following:
(1) Stipulate the no more than two entries may be purchased by any person, or entity in which he/she may have an interest.
(2) Require a full disclosure statement to be signed prior to play (such as those with racing licenses have to do by declaring any conflicts of interest). Breaking this rule will result in forfeiture of any monies won and could possibly bar the miscreant from future participation [at least for some specific period of time] in NTRA sanctioned tournaments.”
TOURNAMENT TOPIC QUESTION OF THE MONTH - JULY 2006
Each month, Noel Michaels will ask his blue-ribbon panel of tournament experts to respond to a timely Tournament Topic that is likely to be on the minds of tournament players everywhere. Check back every month for a new Tournament Topic.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the current format of the National Handicapping Championship finals tournament in Las Vegas, or would you like to see some changes made to the rules? If yes, what changes would you make if it were up to you? If no, discuss what you like about the current format.
ANSWERS:
Ed De’Ath:
“I am not completely dissatisfied with the current format of the National Handicapping Championship finals tournament in Las Vegas, although I have a thought on how it could be improved. This improvement would certainly make the contest more competitive, exciting, and improve the marketability of our Championship.
I would make all 15 races mandatory. Everyone handicaps the same 15 races. I would further create a guideline for the race selection committee that would ensure that all race types and distances would be included. The Bombers and Plungers are going to stomp their feet and say “No Way!” The well rounded day-to-day value players will applaud and say “thanks for leveling the playing field.” There will be others who are somewhere in the middle and have no strong opinion either way. As it stands now, the format favors those who are skilled or lucky enough to pick the most horses who return greater than 15-1. If you find this hard to believe, go the NTRA website and view the results for each year’s winner. To put this into a clear perspective, consider that to win this contest you would have to have the winner of every one of the 30 races, and the win/place total would have to return between $9-$10. A rather daunting task don’t you think?
There is no right or wrong. There are differences of opinion. There is success and there is failure. For every action there is a reaction. In the end, we do have the right to choose to play, or not to play. Personally, I participate only where there is a positive expectancy.”
Rich Eng:
“Since the NHC is held in Las Vegas every year, I’ve had the pleasure of covering every one of them. I’ve spoken to many tournament players and have yet to hear a hue and cry for rules changes.
I like the mandatory races because I believe it creates the truest form of handicapping. You must make decisions based upon risk versus reward. It brings out the “Phil Mickelson” in a lot of tournament players. You recall that Mickelson needed to make par at 18 to win this year’s U.S. Open. He knew this, yet he still took out his driver, sprayed it into the hospitality tent, and took double bogey to lose. Horseplayers do a similar thing in a mandatory. The belief is you must catch a bomb in a mandatory race, when often the smarter play is accept the $10-$12 price that can put you in the winner’s circle.
One idea I have to spice up the tournament is allow each player one race per day that they can double up on. It cannot be a mandatory race. The player declares their double up when they put that contest bet in. It would create a brand new strategy. To greatly increase your chances of winning the tournament, you probably need to win your two double up plays. Doubling up would combine your best handicapping with your best money management, so to speak. It also would create a brand new tier of bad beat stories as in losing a double up play by a nose at 15-1 odds.”
Ross Gallo:
“I have no problem with the current format of the NHC. It's a format that is familiar to most of us, and the mix of mandatory races and optionals chosen from any of seven or more different tracks, makes it a decent test of handicapping skill and not just a longshot picking contest. You still don't want to play chalk, but in the mandatories, sometimes you have to take what they give you.
Another question that needs to be asked is; is the NTRA happy with the format?
I think the format is fine and fair, but if the goal is to grow through television, the format would have to be changed. It is too vast and frankly, too boring for television. Hypothetical $2 WP is not going to get anyone's blood pumping. And with all the tracks available, too much of the tournament is spent with most of the players playing different races. A condensing of the amount of races and perhaps a real-money format would be much more conducive for television. A leaderboard that could be updated and current to the minute would be another plus for TV viewing. I don't think it's broken, but if the future plan is television, it will need to be fixed.”
Dave Gutfreund:
“The current format of the NHC is simply outstanding. It’s as true of a test that is possible in a short period of time. With all due respect to the commish, it is very important that the mandatory races are selected in as good of a way as possible for all concerned, because the mandatory races are a very key element of the event, and getting them right is vital.
Having said that and being a part of last year's ESPN broadcast, a slightly different format may be needed to make the event more TV-friendly, if that is considered to be something that will make a major difference in the NHC's future growth. A 'final table' with a handful of players in some shape or form has been widely discussed but implementing that is much more difficult than it sounds.
Tim Holland:
“Overall I like the format of the finals in Vegas. The win/place format is good since it keeps it as a "handicapping" tournament rather than a gambling contest that the live bankroll or "all in" contests can become. While I agree that fourteen or fifteen races a day is about the right number of races to use I do think they should be fairer on the tracks that are used. Either they need to stick to the major tracks – which would be Gulfstream, Fair Grounds, Aqueduct and Santa Anita – or allow all tracks running that day to be used. For example, how come Turf Paradise is always an option, yet Turfway is not?”
Eric Isaacson:
“I would like to make some changes to the current format of the NHC. Most importantly, the contest needs to move to all mandatory races. I’d go with 15-20 per day. This would actually allow every player an opportunity to handicap every race available in the contest. As it is now it is impossible to think one individual can handicap 50 or 100 races in a day. If the NTRA truly wants to grow these contests and make them more television friendly everybody in the building needs to be playing the same race(s). They did start to move in the right direction last year by minimizing the number of tracks available for optional races. I personally would love to go heads-up with the best players in the country every time I “suit up” and having all mandatory races gives me (us) the opportunity to do so.
The argument of luck is not valid. Let’s not get it twisted… luck is involved regardless and you have to be good enough to put yourself in a position to get lucky. Everyone in the room knows the rules and we’re all playing by the same. So, whatever situation you put and/or find yourself in may call for a different strategy. You may have to go bombs away and you may get lucky. Congratulations for doing what you were supposed to do. Regardless of rules or format there are always going to be times where we choose a horse that we would never put a stranger’s money on let alone our own. It’s all part of the game and we all know it going in.
Other than that, I think multiple entries should be allowed. If you’re good enough to earn multiple spots you should be rewarded. I’m not sure what the actually reason is for not allowing this. I’m assuming the powers that be want to have as many unique players in the tournament as possible but again if you earn it you should be rewarded. You can only qualify once in a particular tournament and maybe you cap it at two or three overall?
That’s pretty much where I’d leave it, but you could also talk me in to tweaking some other rules such as creating a third day with a “final table” situation, with, of course, all mandatory races, or having $10 to spread any way you want on each race ($10 Win or $8 Win/$2 Place or $5 Win/$5 Place, etc.) instead of the traditional $2 Win/Place.”
Mike Labriola:
“If variety is the spice of life, then the NTRA Championship has been bland so far! The truth is that it actually hasn't been boring at all, which is a tribute to event itself, but not the creativity of the administrators.
There is no reason why the format should remain stagnant year in & year out. What is so wonderful about 8 mandatory and 7 optional bets that it never changes? Why does a $2 WP bet measure good handicapping more accurately than a straight win bet or an across the board wager? How does a low capped payoff ensure a balanced outcome?
I'm not proposing that any of these rules are bad for the contest or inherently flawed. I am suggesting that they're played out for the present and need to be rotated into a dormant stage while some other parameters are tested. Doing this on an annual basis would lend mystery and anticipation to an already charged happening. Imagine qualifying and then waiting to hear what the particulars of this years' championship will be. Will it favor your strengths, or will you need to overcome an unfavorable terrain in order to triumph? I'd be on edge while waiting for the release of official rules, as would the most of the players and the growing viewing public.
If you need precedent for my proposed changes just look to The PGA Tour. Are the PGA’s major championships played on the same course year after year? Only the Masters is, and even they vary the pin placements and regularly tweak the greens and fairways each year. We could do worse than emulating their recipe for success.”
Jeff Sotman:
Mr. Sotman was busy at the WSOP this month. His opinions will return next month.
Dennis Sudul:
“I would love to see the NTRA develop some modifications to their current format. There are probably a good many opinions/suggestions, but I will give you only three that jump out.
(1) First and foremost, reduce the number of mandatory races! I agree that a good horseplayer should be able to handicap any race thrown at him, but a good handicapper would stay away from many – if not most – of the mandatory races that were provided in past years. Simply put, there were races with little to any form, obvious favorites, or just races with only 2 to 3 contenders with very low odds. Six mandatory races rather than eight are more than enough.
(2) I’d like to see them incorporate a ‘win’ bonus point system, added to ‘mutual dollars’, that was devised by race book guru John Avello, when he ran Bally’s, and is still in existence in their tournaments today. For example, two guys go to the track and bet 10 races. One guy has one winner for $28. The second guy has four winners for $10, $8, $7, and $3. Both collected the same amount, but who do you think was the better handicapper that day?
(3) There is absolutely no reason in the world that a ‘live’ scoreboard should not be displayed. WHAT SPORT IN THE WORLD DOES NOT SHOW THE RUNNING SCORE TO THE PLAYERS/FANS??? There is more excitement, more tactical maneuvering, and simply more pizzazz to a tourney that keeps a live scoreboard. Try watching a four-hour baseball game without knowing the score or who’s winning!”
TOURNAMENT TOPIC QUESTION OF THE MONTH - JUNE 2006
Each month, Noel Michaels will ask the HorsePlayer blue-ribbon panel of tournament experts to respond to a timely Tournament Topic that is likely to be on the minds of tournament players everywhere. Check back every month for a new Tournament Topic.
TOPIC FOR JUNE:
Do you prefer tournaments that top-load their prize money to substantially reward the first-place finisher (such as Gulfstream's Turf-Vivor which pays $100k for first and $10K for second, or the recent South Coast tourney that paid a massive $75K for first and $16K for second), or would you rather play in contests where the prize money is more evenly distributed among the top finishers?
BLUE-RIBBON PANEL RESPONSES:
Ed De’Ath: “There is a huge difference in tournament formats. Each format requires a different skill set. Many contest formats overlap. Some of the current Contest formats are ‘Bomber - most high prices wins,’ or ‘Money-Management,’ or ‘In-the-Money,’ or ‘Select Races,’ or ‘Select Track,’ or ‘Common Tracks/Select Races,’ plus various single- and multiple-day Internet offerings. It is my firm belief that the winner of ANY handicapping contest should get at least 60% of the pool. I never enter a contest with the intention of finishing anywhere but first. My last statement notwithstanding, I will adjust my philosophy if I am NOT in a logical position to win but in position to take down a sizeable second or third place prize. The Turf-Vivor contest format is totally unique and can best be described as a contest that will suit the complete handicapper. It is a ‘Last Contestant Standing’ format, therefore it is only fitting that the winner gets the lion’s share. Second and third get $10k and $5k respectively and the sweet sixteen get $500 and a cruise. The other 109 get nothing. Works for me, and I’ve been in the 109 group more often than the final sixteen. The Coast Casino Contests reward a different type of handicapping skill. The winner is almost always the individual who picks the most “BOMBS”. If there is a format that might best lend itself to rewarding more money to more players, it is this Format. The reality, using the winning totals for the last 20 Coast Contests as a guide, is that you must select an average 3-1 winner on EVERY contest bet you make, to have a chance to win this type of contest. Coast Casino’s do an absolutely great job of hosting these events, but it appears that interest in this contest format peaked 2 years ago. Entries have dropped somewhat in recent Contests. If this is in fact a trend, it may be that the peripheral players are beginning to recognize that more than luck is required to win in this format. Having said that, how much further can we dilute the top prizes to keep the number of entries up? So, whether it’s luck, skill, or a combination of both . . . GIVE THE WINNER THE BIG BUCKS!”
Rich Eng: “For this month's question, I think the purse structures should be more spread out. Any tournament that pays 50 percent or more of its total prize pool to one person is too top heavy. In fact, I'd rather see big tournaments modeled more like the PGA where the prize money is shared among more players. I believe in the long run we're doing a disservice to tournament handicappers when 95 percent of the participants go home with a golf shirt, a few free lunches and some bad beat stories. At some point in the future, a lot of handicappers may figure this out and stop playing. Nowadays, depending on the size of the field, you can finish in 5th or 10th place and barely win back your entry fee, if you get paid at all. If the prize money is not going to be shared among more players, then I'd rather see more live bankroll tournaments where good handicapping and betting is rewarded via the players keeping their profits plus any prize money to boot.”
Ross Gallo: “If I'm going to win the tournament, I like it top heavy, if not . . . But seriously though, this is a great question and happens to be a subject I've tried to address with the powers that be (to no avail) over the years. While I understand the reasoning behind disproportionate winners’ checks (those big numbers certainly help with advertising), they lead to truly unfair payouts for the rest of the top finishers. The recent Coast tournament paid $75,000 for first and $16,000 for second, and Turf-Vivor paid $100,000 for first and 10,000 for second – these payouts are absurd, and it gets even worse as you get further down the list. At last year’s Horseplayer World Series, 1st place was $367,500, 2nd was $73,500 and if you finished a more-than-respectable 11th you got only $3,675! You finish ten places from winning, you beat 724 players, and you get 1% of what the winner receives?! How can you make a case for that? My solution, (and lets stick with this recent HWS as an example), is to make the top prize $200,000, 2nd place $100,000, and then spread out the remaining $140,000 between the 6th- thru 20th-place finishers. They won't lose one player because they lowered the top prize, and they may even pick up a few extra players who realize they will be rewarded for finishing in the top 20, which is a great accomplishment that should be recognized as one. One other thought would be to eliminate payouts for the 50th- thru 80th-place finishers in some of the giant events. Do any of us play with the thought, ‘it sure would be nice to grab $400 for that 75th place finish?’ Why not apply that money to the top 20 or 30 finishers? Why wouldn't you want 20 players per tournament walking away with fat pockets instead of five? It makes perfect sense to me. Maybe that's the problem?”
Dave Gutfreund: “I am somewhere in the middle regarding this month's tournament question. My feeling generally is that contests should handsomely reward those who finish at or near the top, and not pay the insignificant amounts down to the 60 finishers as they do at the Orleans. Turf-Vivor and the Suncoast should have a better balance between first prize and the other awards paid to the 2nd-, 3rd-, 4th- and 5th-place finishers.”
Tim Holland: “I think the answer depends on one's style of play. If you're a longshot player with an all or nothing attitude, then the top-heavy prize money scale would be preferable. Personally, I play more conservatively than many, so while my actual win rate may be lower, I am more likely to finish somewhere in the money more often. Consequently I am better suited for tournaments where the prize money is more evenly distributed among the top finishers.”
Eric Isaacson: “The way prize money is distributed isn’t high on the list of things I would like to change. I would first like to look at takeout, format and qualifying berths, but to answer the question I’m okay with both. If I have to choose one I would prefer to substantially reward the winner. I think when it comes to all of the items listed above diversity is a good thing though I would like to see some boundaries set.”
Mike Labriola: “Tournament payout schedules tend to be too heavy on the very top and too strung-out on the bottom. It's a shame to finish 11th or 12th in an 800 player event and walk away barely making a profit. I'd cap the top prize at 50% of total money pool, ensure at least 20% to the runner-up, and never pay fewer than the top 5% of the total player population (i.e. 20th in a 400 player contest). Does a guy who finished 79th really deserve a check? Cutting from the too-rich top prize and eliminating the bloated bottom would leave decent payouts for the really deserving higher finishers. Contest operators need to think less about marketing and more about what's truly fair.”
Jeff Sotman: “I have mixed feelings about the "top heaviness" of tournaments. Obviously if you win an event you love it, but a more equitable split allows more players to stay in action longer by helping to defray expenses and entry costs. A great player can literally not win an event for years, but playing well and being in the hunt consistently should be rewarded. A tournament like Turf-Vivor, where I have done really well throughout its history, can almost be deflating if you do well but don’t win. I’ve won $100k+ at that contest, but I feel more like I’ve lost $300k in the last four years due to my in-the-money finishes. My personal preference would usually be something along the lines of the win amount being double the second place prize, which would be double the third place prize.”
Dennis Sudul: “Let an investor give you his point of view. After winning the 1984 World Cup and collecting $70K (2nd place got $20K), I went to tournament president, Mike Levine, and told him that in the future, he should take $10K from the top prize and distribute it to an additional 20 payouts. That is exactly what he did the next tournament and everyone loved it. I’ve spoken with dozens of guys over the last 20 years, and they all agree. Winning a major championship has very little to do with the amount of the top prize itself. It’s all about prestige, honor, bragging rights, and all the perks one derives from attaining that great feat. Sure, the money is great, but let’s face it, if the current Horseplayer World Series ‘only’ paid a QUARTER OF A MILLION to the person who won, would you stay away? The answer is, of course not. If they took $100K off the top prize (the last 2 winners won over $350K), and paid down to 100th-place, would you mind? The answer is, of course not. As a matter of fact, if they paid $1,000 down to 100th-place, I’ll bet they would get 50-100 more entries. I for one, would have a companion to play a second entry, with the assumption that I should at least place in the top 100 with one of the two entries. Anyone who has been to the last 2 Horseplayer World Series tourneys with 800+ entries (they only pay down to 30th place), knows that at the end of day one, 90% of all the entries have no shot to win real money – their tournament is over. If they paid to 100th-place, every player would have at least a shot to get a nice check. Turf-Vivor is a terrible tournament for an investor like me. Entry fee and expenses are already $2,000. I’d need to finish third, just to make a SMALL profit. Is the winner truly ten times more deserving than the second-place finisher? IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. That tournament is truly an ego getter. It’s for gamblers, not investors.”
| 
