Players argue formats at contest panel

Equestricon reminded me of a handicapping contest. Just like a major contest, Equestricon brought together a broad coalition of horseplayers and racing industry types in a space where ideas were exchanged and fun was had. Here’s the difference though: At a contest, differences of opinion play out on the racetrack, not with words. At Equestricon, there were plenty of spirited arguments.

I had the pleasure of hosting the tournament panel Tuesday, and strong opinions were flying all over the place. None were stronger than those of Christian Hellmers, who took several opportunities to espouse his view that live-bankroll contests are superior to mythical money – he calls them “fake money” – events.

It is Hellmers’s view that in addition to contributing to handle in a more direct way live-bank play provides an opportunity to prove who the best horseplayers really are. On its face, I understand this assertion. Any contest format that removes or simplifies the wagering part of the horseplaying equation seemingly isn’t as complex as one that contains it.

On the other hand, very often live-bank play becomes a onerace contest where a player wins by pushing all-in at one race at the end. Hellmers, of all people, understands this. He was twice nailed on the line by Patrick McGoey in just this manner in the Breeders’ Cup contest. One could argue that a three-day mythical contest with cut lines (only a certain portion of the field advances to the latter stages) is a much better test of one’s handicapping ability than an event where you can show-bet your way through and plunge at the end.

Every horseplayer has characteristics that will make him or her prefer a different contest format. Let’s look at three examples from the panel, which can be viewed via pinned tweet at https://twitter.com/loomsboldly

For a player like Jonathon Kinchen, who loves to pick winners regardless of price, the all-in online format with favorable player ratios is ideal. In those, he just has to finish in the top 10 percent of the field and no one’s picks can be changed along the way to chase a score. He can choose his horses accordingly, simply playing whom he likes, and he doesn’t have to shy away from the low end of the odds spectrum.

Michael Beychok, the contest world’s Million Dollar Man, works in politics and his busy season ends in November. He’s not a pro horseplayer, just a well-informed enthusiast. When he has the time, he loves to dig in and study the form at many circuits. It’s no wonder that he’s had the most success at multirace contests in January, a quiet month for work.

To return to Hellmers, he has had plenty of success in mythical-money events, but if you look at his playing style, it’s easy to understand his affection for livebank play. He’s very good at finding a couple of spots on a given race card where he’ll have positive expected value. He takes a lot of time when he handicaps a race (at the panel he said an hour per race would be ideal). This makes him more likely to do well in a single-track, live-bank event, which is what most of them are, as opposed to a Vegas contest with scores of races. Lastly, the man is fearless. He’s happy to go all-in at any time on his strongest opinion, giving him an advantage over those players scared to be aggressive. That latter group is bringing a knife to a gun fight when they play live-bank against Hellmers.

Which format is superior? The answer is in the eye of the beholder. No matter what type of player you are, there is a contest format that’s right for you. Part of being a successful contest player isn’t just the ability to handicap races. You’ve got to be able to handicap yourself.