01/19/2016 10:20AM

Fornatale: Have mandatories outlived their usefulness?

Email

The National Handicapping Championship is an ever-evolving beast. As the world’s most prestigious handicapping contest continues to grow, more and more changes have been made – such as the advent of the Final Table in 2014 – that have made the event more exciting and helped its popularity to grow.

In a recent article in American Turf Monthly, two respected contest players have taken a look at the tournament from the outside in and proposed a radical change – the elimination of mandatory races on the contest’s first two days.

In the piece, Mike Labriola and Noel Michaels point out the difference between the handicapping contest world of the late 90s – when it was a small, clubby scene that played out entirely in live venues – and today’s sprawling landscape that, of course, takes place largely online. At first, the typical contest formats were made up of all optional races. But then a change occurred. According to Labriola and Michaels, “Race tracks and race books in that era that began adding mandatory plays. . . When the first rules and format of the NHC were being formulated in 1999, the trend at the time toward using mandatory races was recognized by being given a major role in the new NHC.”

They also point out that part of the enthusiasm for mandatories was tied in to the idea that they’d be a key part in how the tournament could be televised, with the idea of growing its popularity. It’s certainly true that the Final Table is a much better made-for-TV vehicle for the 21st century. Labriola and Michaels praise the Final Table concept and believe that it is the place where mandatory races should be used at the NHC.

They write: “Mandatory races now are part of the drama of the final of the Final. Why do they still need to be a part of the action earlier in the tournament?”

They acknowledge that mandatories are helpful to contest administrators – and those providing contest coverage – by limiting the subset of races. They say mandatories also are meant to “serve as a handicapping ‘obstacle course,’ that makes you move from handicapping maiden claimers to stakes horses, and all levels in-between. You must do well at many tracks, and in many different types of races.”

But to Michaels and Labriola, that’s not enough of a benefit to justify limiting a bettor’s options. “What horseplayer can pick winners in every race they are ordered to play?” they ask. “If selectivity is applauded and rewarded with profits in real-world handicapping and betting, why then do we penalize selectivity in the all-important venue of the NHC by limiting players’ selectivity with an ungodly 53% mandatory races, or with any mandatory races at all, on the first two days of the three-day championship?”

The strongest point that they make is to acknowledge that mandatories provide a significant advantage for players with multiple entries – those who have earned them as individuals or play as part of handicapping “teams.”

“How fair is it when those players with five or six swings in a mandated race play against your one swing?" they ask.  "Making the one change of eliminating mandatory races . . . would at least make it much less likely that your hard-earned boxcar winner, who you handicapped, will not be scored by 32 other players in the field.”

Chris Larmey, head of the NTRA Players’ Committee, points out that the trend in NHC rules is moving in the Labriola and Michaels's desired direction. “This year we’ve expanded the number of optional plays on the first two days of the contest from seven to 10 each day,” he said. “This change provides the players with more action and means that the optional plays will now outnumber the mandatory plays over the two days [20 optional versus 16 mandatory]. We think this change will be well received by players for many of the reasons mentioned in the article but the NTRA will solicit their feedback after this year’s NHC and the number of optional and/or mandatory races could possibly be revised further.”

That said, Larmey isn’t convinced that mandatories should go away. “We are not sure what the optimal mix is but elimination of all mandatory races is probably a bit extreme at this time,” he said. “The primary purpose of mandatory races is to force players out of their comfort zones. We don’t want a player to win the NHC by just playing races at Golden Gate, or just playing first-time starters, or just playing turf races, etc. This indeed may be their normal mode of playing but the NHC is a contest and not intended to mimic exactly their normal mode of playing. Instead, we want it to be a robust test of handicapping skills rather than a way to determine the best specialist.”

One thing is certain: over the years the NHC has shown a tremendous willingness to listen to players and respond in kind. So let your voice be heard on this issue. If you’re playing in the NHC, it’s easy. Just fill out your questionnaire. If you’re a player with an opinion who is not at the NHC this year, feel free to use the comments section in the online version of this article to voice your thoughts.

 

Tony Brice More than 1 year ago
As the tournament scene continues to grow, it's only a matter of time before we see highly specialized major tournaments. A National Turf Handicapping Championship vs. Sprint Championship, Route Championship, etc. I hope the NHC never goes away but there are people who specialize and I'd support national specialty tourneys.
William More than 1 year ago
Why not split the difference in a way and mandate X number of plays per track? If, for instance, the concern is about a player betting all 12 Gulfstream races of the 18 plays each day, then make everyone play at least 2 races per 6 tracks. You don't need to specify the race; just the # of races one must play per track. Personally I have no problem w/the mandatory races and don't think it's that big a deal, considering last year there was a duo with 4 entries combined that still couldn't make it to the Top 50, so I don't think the volume approach necessarily means automatic victory.
Equinometry More than 1 year ago
If the NHC wants to be a true championship it should go away from mythical win/place and move to the BCBC format. I used to play every weekend on various sites but I have grown tired of the mythical format which is more about handicapping the oddsboard rather than the merits of each horse. I'm also completely against allowing multiple entries in the NHC or any other handicapping contest. For me the BCBC has the best format on the best betting races and going forward that will be my primary target as a handicapping contest player.
Steven Simonovic More than 1 year ago
Great article. I agree with Chris Larmey. I love playing mainly grass racing, or just 3 tracks or so. Mandatories will make me cap a race on the Inner at Aqu, or a race at Turfway.
jtim11 More than 1 year ago
Format,structure,quantity of field, Heck, I don't care if it's playground rules. I pay no mind to the noise. Roll out the ball and let's compete...
Rhonda Graziano More than 1 year ago
how about no mandatory races and a lockdown to boot for the first two days. cap races @ 42 win 22 place and 12 show. then the best players will shine!!!!
Starks43 More than 1 year ago
Have to say I greatly prefer the Horse Player World Series all optional format. That being said the mandatories do privde a higher level of excitement in that every player is involved and focusing on.
Tommy Massis More than 1 year ago
mandatory races are a joke as is the whole format that is geared to children and not a true indication of the skill it takes to win in this game. with few decisions for the player to make it makes it a contest that a quick pick entrant can win
David G. More than 1 year ago
While we're on the topic of fairness, how about reverting back to the one entry per NHC member allowed at the final tournament? A large chunk of the 3,000 + members that attempt to qualify to the NHC are 'weekend warriors' and do not possess the time nor the luxury to study the races in depth on a full time basis when compared to the the usual members who fall on the top ten final list every year and no doubt, each of them have two entries (and a huge edge) heading into the big dance.
rberto64 More than 1 year ago
It comes down to people with a lot of money getting two entry for them there wife there girlfriend there mother and anybody else . A lot of players can't do this it cost to much so people with a lot money have an edge like every thing else because you can't buy in that's why the Orleans have the best tourament you could buy in without trying to qualify and spend crazy amounts of money
Dahorsecapper More than 1 year ago
Have to disagree. Make time to do it or not. If you want to win and think having 2 entries is an advantage then do it and qualify twice. If your good enough and lucky enough in any particular year you will get those 2 entries. If not and you have 1 you can still win. Why penalize the guys who earned the 2 entries. Poker championship plenty of 'weekend warriors' beat the pros or guys who do poker nonstop. Same thing happens or can happen in the horse racing tourneys , daily and yearly.
David G. More than 1 year ago
I value your comment Dahorsecapper, but shouldn't all participants who qualified start the three day event on equal ground? It's like a trotter about to start a harness race in the second tier; no matter how good the horse is, he's already at a serious disadvantage right of the gate. And speaking of poker; regardless of the tournament, don't all the players have one and only one entry for the title (unless of course, a second buy in is permitted)
Dahorsecapper More than 1 year ago
David G . i understand your opinion as well. Either way lets be happy they have them and hope the tourneys continue to grow and horse racing grows. Its great fun !
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Here's the bottom line on this issue -- multiple entries have been one of the primary engines of growth for the whole NHC. If they were to go away -- which they never will -- the purse would be gutted and the growth would go away in one (bad) decision. So while I understand the argument against them intellectually, I don't particularly agree with it. And it's a moot point because it ain't gonna happen anyway. As I've written ad nauseum, multi-entries provide a more obvious issue in live-bank contests where they can provide an unfair advantage if used correctly, as opposed to the "fair advantage" they provide in mythical money contests. IE, an edge that is bought-and-paid for and available to everyone. In other words, it's been proven that in a full field, a person with two entries doesn't doesn't impede the chance of an individual with one entry any more than two separate entries in the same contest does. I get the optics problem of multi-entries, but their effect isn't nearly as much in the real world as some would have you believe. Thanks to everyone for taking the time to comment. Happy to discuss further -- after the NHC lol. PTF
rberto64 More than 1 year ago
I think I been saying get rid of mandatory since we first started that why my son Chris and his buddy are coming up with a new online site coming up this year called battletothewire.com there going to try havevery few mandatory races in there contest whenever they can they got tired of hearing me but I can't play on site but it be good for real tourament players.
Chuck Berger More than 1 year ago
Although I haven't played tournaments in a number of years, I've never liked the mandatory race concept. One reason being exactly what both Mike & Noel mentioned. Those that have multiple entries have an advantage over single qualifiers. The other big problem is when mandatory races are at a track that has a rain storm whereby races come off the turf and more importantly there are numerous scratches which creates small fields and usually short prices. It becomes an impossible task if you are in the middle of the pack to make up ground when you are handicapping a 5 or 6 horse field.
Randy More than 1 year ago
My personal preference is to have the contest races all mandatory. Apparently that is a minority view. Optional races/selections should be (or can be) restricted to a set number of tracks. That could be a minority viewpoint also. I've never been a fan of the dartboard approach. I've qualified twice and finished 3rd and 22nd in the championship events and did have optional race success but did most of my 'damage' via the mandatory races that were used.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
If we are looking for a true "all around" champion perhaps we should eliminate multiple entries and add more mandatory races. Do pro golfers get to use Mulligans? And doesn't the pin placement at the Masters get changed every round? Do baseball players get to tell the opposing pitchers which pitch [curves, fastballs, sliders] to throw? Do Brady and Manning get to tell the opposing defenses which formation to use? I think not.