03/13/2014 2:07PM

Know the etiquette of partnering in a contest

Email

There’s been a lot of talk about the “Saratoga Spoiler” episode of the “Horseplayers” television show. In the episode, Christian Hellmers, in the middle of last year’s Saratoga Betting Challenge, attempts to cut multiple deals with other players as the contest is progressing. Peter Rotondo Jr. accepts Christian’s offer. Former National Handicapping Championship winner Michael Beychok declines and becomes annoyed as Christian is persistent in asking him about making a deal after he has declined.

This situation offers valuable lessons we can learn about going partners in contests. The first point to make is that there is nothing against the rules about making deals like this at any point in the tournament. Some folks have questioned Hellmers’s actions on that level, but they don’t have a toe to stand on.

So, Hellmers definitely was okay ethically. But, of course, ethics and etiquette are not the same thing. Maybe it’s possible to gingerly approach another player you know pretty well the way Christian approached Peter and have it be cool. What would not be cool at all would be to re-approach an uninterested opponent about going partners.

Contests, particularly in-person contests, are tense affairs, and nobody really wants to be chatted up extraneously midstream. That’s a serious breach of etiquette even worse than tipping without solicitation. The second he met an iota of resistance from Beychok, Hellmers should have slowed his roll and gotten back to the business of picking winners.

:: Click here to purchase a copy of “The Winning Contest Player” by Peter Thomas Fornatale

The specifics of the deal presented appeared to be rather insulting as well. Christian was offering a deal where the player whose ticket actually won would get 60 percent, the other two 20 percent each. At the same time, it seemed he wanted to exert some control over what the other guys played. This is a mishmash of the two accepted ways of playing partners.

A deal like this might make sense at the start of a contest where the players involved just play their own tickets and have “pieces” of each other. But if players are truly playing together from the outset, coordinating picks, the split should be equal: one-third each.

And what really makes this case odd is that it happened close to the end of the contest. At this point, the three tickets have different values. Beychok, because of his higher score, should have received the lion’s share of any split there. And again, this type of layered negotiation really isn’t appropriate in the heat of battle – it’s very distracting, and that’s why Beychok was appropriately upset during the show.

If you want to go partners, that’s fine. As has been written before, it’s actually a great idea for a lot of players, depending on your individual playing style. But almost all of the time, you really want to have any deals in place before the contest starts.

One possible exception is if you know the other folks involved really, really well – brothers Bill and Paul Shurman, for example, made a little deal on the fly during the running of the last race of that very Saratoga contest that you can read about in “The Winning Contest Player.”
Some have complained that partnerships give the players in those partnerships an unfair advantage. This isn’t really true. Whatever extra edge playing partners gives is bought and paid for by the extra time and money the partners spend, particularly in fixed-bankroll contests. It’s simply not possible to “buy” a fixed-bankroll contest, even with an extensive partnership. The variables are too many. And people trying to do so will still lose way more often than they win. If they want to try, let them.

The same is true with players using “beards” – winning extra entries to contests in other people’s names and having them play what you tell them to. Same deal: If someone wants to spend the extra time and money, whatever. Nothing is guaranteed but extra agita when it doesn’t work out. With live-bankroll contests, this becomes a thornier issue, but let’s save that – and a fuller discussion of beards – for future columns.

This weekend

Here are the BC Qualify races for Saturday – this is a Round 1 contest with an entry fee of $110. Players may advance two entries into Round 2, where up to eight full $10,000 Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge spots will be awarded, plus a $500 travel allowance (six full $10,000 BCBC spots are guaranteed).

3:55 p.m. Fair Grounds 4
4:14    Oaklawn 5
4:34    Gulfstream 8
4:45     Oaklawn 6
4:55     Fair Grounds 6
5:05    Gulfstream 9
5:30    Santa Anita 5
5:36    Gulfstream 10
5:52    Oaklawn 8
6:00    Santa Anita 6
6:25    Fair Grounds 9
6:30    Santa Anita 7

To sign up and get more information, go to www.BCQualify.com.

Also note that there is a contest at www.NHCQualify.com on Sunday, and up to five NHC seats will be given away.

Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
Before my new post goes up and this conversation ends (for now anyway) just wanted to thank everybody who took the time to comment in this thread. I've gone back and forth on how good an idea I think it is to have blog comments at all on the web -- seems like such a breeding ground for negativity. But this back and forth shows that blog comments can also lead to meaningful discourse as well and that can only be a good thing.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
" The Winning Contest Player" Special Weekend, for I took the time your Book deserved, and read it cover to cover, which I recommend, for that way you enjoy the flavor of Tournament Play, the camaraderie, (the overriding theme I believe, friendships you make for years to come). As well as enjoying the history of how Contest play has evolved. Just as handicapping has evolved from just using the form, the "Winning Contest Player" shows how we have come full circle in Tournament play as well---the edge may be the Psychology of knowing the others in your Contest, (and the betting public), coupled with your cup of tea, may it be the Form, Sheets, HTR, Mazur, or data of your own---the Psychology of handicapping and Contest maybe the most underrated of all---------Like you mentioned in your epilogue ---"You're never as good as you feel when you're winning, or as bad as you feel when you're losing"---so true, all of us handicappers know that, but it helps to be reminded when a photo may not go our way----thoroughly enjoyed the weekend thanks to your Book---well done---Thank You---Hank Seaman
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
Thanks, Hank! I really enjoyed your contribution -- and regular readers know I love the plug :)
Bob More than 1 year ago
A simple way to resolve this problem is to not allow any partnering after the contest starts. It's only fair to the contestants that aren't partnering with other players and it would put an end to the annoying behavior a guy like this Hellmers clown!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Great topic. Love all the responses.
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
thanks, anonymous :)
SR Vegas More than 1 year ago
Peter ...Always interesting topics and points of view here. I've enjoyed catching up on several of your threads. You are a nice addition to the DRF forums. Good stuff. I too am enjoying the "Horseplayers" series as it continues to unfold. SR Vegas
Lightning Strikes More than 1 year ago
In response to Hellmers' solicitation, "I'd love to get feedback on what other players do in a variety of circumstances", I've got a deal for you. Give me the type of handicapping products you use in contests and I'll tell you the correct math needed to pursue deal making at various stages in tournament play. I don't expect explanations of HOW you use these products, just tell me how you arrived at using them...
Wabstat More than 1 year ago
Hellmers rules that group. "Maybe he's Jesus". LOL moment.
Chuck Berger More than 1 year ago
As a reply to a few people who have asked me why I haven't been playing in tournaments in recent years, there are a few reasons. At age seventy five plus, it's a real grind. Just like an athlete, you are not as sharp as you once were. Also, my best successes came when the contest was optional races. There are so many younger and really sharp players out there, that I stick to where I feel I have an edge. I may not make "the score," but the smaller profits do accumulate into a nice tidy sum.
Chuck Berger More than 1 year ago
Have not seen the episode in question, but in past years I have gone it alone, and partnered. Also, I've "saved" with others during the middle of a contest. Truthfully, I rather go it alone. Even when you agree before hand as to who has the final say, it somehow never works out ( not for me anyway). Having multiple entries always gives one an advantage, providing of course you know how to play multiple tickets. Having played in many tournaments with Joe Hinson was a challenge in itself. He was a superb tournament player, and when I would finish in front of him, that was a victory in itself.Wherever possible, he played multiple tickets and won numerous contests. Good luck to everyone in future tournaments. It's 6:30a.m. and need to go back to handicapping another track and try to grind out some bucks.
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
I'd love to speak with you about your contest experience -- Joe Hinson in particular is a fascinating figure.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
small side Note sort of... Since this is a handicapping contest of sorts. Peter, do you know when the mandatory payout of the Rainbow pick six Gulstream is? If this carries over forever and then some there has to be a day when it comes to an end. Thanks
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
I don't rightly know but I would guess that there is a mandatory payout on the last day of the Gulfstream meet. You could call them to inquire/double check, it's a good question. . .
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
thanks Peter as always, I figured it might be on the last day (June 29?) but then I saw some other info that it might be March 23. I get confused easily...lol that being said I have taken a different approach to winning ALL of this pool. This would make for an amazing BLOG to follow in DRF and you would be the man to start it... Please. makes for amazing reading when the average Joe can get involved in a contest that they normally do not have the funds to do so. Afterall, it just takes 20 cents...
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
what I meant what would make an amazing blog would be the following of the Rainbow 6... I didn't mean to imply my approach would be amazing...lol
Frank Fountain More than 1 year ago
I just heard the 29'th of this month
Frank Fountain More than 1 year ago
oh and nice article Peter
tim blake More than 1 year ago
I didn't watch the show but I am glad you wrote the article. I have a couple friends who have started playing tournaments and betting less and I was just starting to get interested myself. My brother is a regular at the World Series of Poker so I thought tournaments might be the way to go. You probably saved me a lot of time and maybe money because now I have no desire to enter the tournament world. The idea behind a tournament should be that everyone starts out equally and 'may the best man win'. That's why I thought tournaments might be preferable to regular betting now that the tracks have sold out to the high volume ADWs and stacked everything against the individuals and on-track fans. But from what it sounds like in your article and the comments, the tournaments are no better. If people can partner up and work as teams, tournaments are more about politics and being an insider than handicapping. Yet another example of how horse racing is out of touch and determined to eliminate almost all casual fans or part-time handicappers. If anyone wonders why poker is growing in popularity and they can't build casinos fast enough while horse racing is dying a fairly rapid death, this is why. Any type of collusion or partnering like this in a poker tournament would be cheating....because it isn't fair...period. To have an advantage because you know more people in the room or want to spend more money on the tournament completely ruins the idea for me...and would for all other serious gamblers who want a level playing field. The fact that this isn't against the rules and that people are ok with it just shows that the industry is out of touch and the insiders and people in charge will sacrifice "the little guy" every chance they get. I honestly am surprised that none of this is against the rules even though I assumed many of the players would do it behind the scenes anyway. Quite a bummer but I am glad I learned now and can avoid it all. I literally just started signing up for tournaments this week so I am truly grateful for the timing of the show and your article.
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
If you don't think partnerships are common in poker, I have a bridge to sell you. Paypal is fine.
Penguin ymous More than 1 year ago
I think the types of partnerships that you (Peter) are talking about in poker are different than the partnerships that tim blake mentions. In poker, many players "own" pieces of each other, which is a type of partnership, but they do not play together to gain an advantage over another player which I am certain is against the rules in poker. As Chuck Berger said: "Having multiple entries always gives one an advantage". I do understand that having partnerships in the handicapping contests is within the rules. However, my guess is that the original concept of these tournaments was "One man, One vote" or one contest pick. Like a boxing match. Me against you. Not tag team against me. Yes, partnerships do add another element to the intrigue, mystique, complications of a tournament, but the ethicist in me says every one for themselves. If I am a top notch handicapper but I am an introvert, keep to myself, stutter and don't converse well with others because I have a hearing impediment also, I just don't see where politics and the ability to make deals has anything to do with picking the winner of the feature. Unfortunately, for my point of view, partnerships are here to stay. They can even be managed for online tournaments and no amount of rule changes would end them as there would be no way to police them. Ron Zuercher
Roger More than 1 year ago
Too Funny Peter
tim blake More than 1 year ago
I know cheating is common in poker. But at least in poker collusion is against the rules and there is an attempt at integrity. People may cheat and get away with it as you say but the reason it is against the rules in the first place is because it is unfair. Poker would not be nearly as popular if colluding with other players was legal and everyone watched it going on openly. should we also make it legal for players to pay jockeys to lose certain races to guarantee a longshot winner that they picked? people do it all the time but I don't think that means it's fair. I don't mind that tournaments allow people to team up. If people like that format, then more power to them. I just wouldn't want to play under those rules and I think in the long run, you will find that most people will not want to invest in something that is unfair. And when winning tournaments is as much about who you know and can partner up with as it is about handicapping, most people will find that to be unfair (except those people that all know each other and can easily form partnerships to overtake lone players, of course).
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
So it's ok as it long as they hide it? uhhhhhhhhh. . .we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Partnerships are just one way of many to get an edge, they are far from the end all be all and not a problem to be solved.
Jack Lee More than 1 year ago
I have know idea why Beychok was upset, my friends and I do what Christian did all the time. My last comment was deleted
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
Wasn't deleted, just took me awhile to get to it. Key word there is "friends." Christian's error was approaching a guy mid-contest he didn't know well and then doing it again. Extraneous chatter w people you don't know well mid-contest is likely to result in trouble, as it did here.
Jack Lee More than 1 year ago
Christian says he knows Beychok well. Which is It?
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
I guess it all depends on your definition. And Christian contradicts himself on this issue. In his initial post he said "I can take this as a valuable lesson to never do any last minute partnerships in the moment, without prior discussion, especially with people you don't know really well and can fully trust." Then later he said, "I know him well." But to me, c'mon, if they REALLY knew each other well this wouldn't be an issue so there's your answer right there. . .
Jack Lee More than 1 year ago
Not really, I think it's possible Beychok just doesn't like partnering(unseemly?)and took offense. Also,Hellmers and Beychok have spent a lot of time together doing the show and should have known each other pretty well, don't you think?
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
again, it's a all a question of your definition. And there's a difference between knowing someone "well" and being friends I guess. I'd have felt the same way Michael did, to be honest. And if it was someone I knew well / was friends with, I'd still have said something along the lines of, "Talk to me next time before the contest starts. For now, take a long walk off a short pier."
Roger More than 1 year ago
The reality is he asked once and Michael wasn't interested….That should have ended it. The distractions are annoying to say the least I wouldn't have been as pleasant as Mr Beychok was friend or not...
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
I completely agree.
Jack Lee More than 1 year ago
I couldn't understand what Beychok was upset about my friends and I do what Christian did all the time.
Walfred More than 1 year ago
I think the segment was great for television and hopefully it helped create new horse racing fans. My fiancé likes to hate Christian; it's great!
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
very entertaining stuff!
Ed DeRosa More than 1 year ago
People complaining that Reality shows aren't real reminds me of celebrities claiming they were misquoted in their autobiography.
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
I actually was working at Simon and Schuster when Barkley said that! Mortifying to say the least. . .
Kevin Cox More than 1 year ago
Great article Peter and it's RIGHT ON THE MONEY.
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
Tx for chiming in, Cowboy. For an episode in S2, you and Christian should have a match bet. If you win, he has to wear a cowboy hat, if he wins, you wear a tail. . .
Christian Hellmers More than 1 year ago
The things that happen on reality shows don't always happen in that exact sequence as seen. The truth is easily shifted around in the editing room- let's keep this point in mind as we "analyze" the actions on the show. Beychok can attest to this in previous episodes. I'm in Austin at SxSw so I'm not going to write a full response, but let me say this about this episode- my goal was to give our team of "Horseplayers" the greatest chance to win, particularly for the show's audience. Beychok didn't see that as a viable strategy in the moment which is fine. I can see how it came across a bit much to ask him twice, but he didn't say no at first around 330pm with 7 or so races left. Had he said no I would have left it alone. Notice how he never says no to me on camera until I nudged him before a good betting race. My impression of his position was that he was open until that moment. I recall asking him to come up with splits as I wasn't attached to 60-20-20 either and we talked at greater length about alternative strategies on camera that never aired. I seriously doubt with greater splits he would have entertained the idea anyhow. But I could have been more passive and let him come to me if he was truly interested. Fair enough. Duly noted. I never suggested I would select his horse either, but I insisted he choose a longshot different from mine or Peter's, if we were sharing in the prize money. His modest lead on me is a great point of discussion. A far more interesting question to me is how to structure appropriate splits based on position. Beychok was far behind the leader. In my humble opinion, it's the differential from the leader that's relevant, equally as important as the differential from the potential partner's position. I'd love to get feedback on what other players do in a variety of circumstances... Do also keep in mind that Peter and I didn't have the slightest clue that Beychok was even agitated one iota as he never indicated his frustration to us in any fashion other than when I asked him one final time. I was shocked that he would make fun of the idea of an alliance too given the probability one of us wins a live tournament on a tv show with less than 10 opportunities over the course of the season. I will never approach him to partner again based on this and I can take this as a valuable lesson to never do any last minute partnerships in the moment, without prior discussion, especially with people you don't know really well and can fully trust. Thankfully the cameras were on us, thus any deal would have been recorded, but imagine a partnership going sideways due to one person's greed, indecision, or lack of integrity. Lastly, when I think of etiquette, I speak my truth directly to those who allow feelings of discomfort to flow through me, rather than discuss my frustrations without the person present. The last thing you'll see me do is talk behind someone's back without talking to them directly first...
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
Christian, thanks so much for your thoughtful response and I envy you being at South by Southwest, great event. You're right that the show doesn't make everything clear and several of the things you say here are news to me and interesting. And it seems like in hindsight you agree with my premise that chatting extraneously -- about deals or other nonessential matters -- mid-contest with folks you don't know really well is not the best idea. I'll tell you this though -- it makes for fun television and a healthy debate afterwards. I do think you're being a bit harsh on MB with what you're implying in your last graph -- it is a reality show after all. And in part, he was maybe just a bit miffed by the distraction (as I would have been) and venting for the camera. I wouldn't take it personally. Again, thanks for commenting and I hope you continue to participate in the blog. You're a welcome addition.
mikey More than 1 year ago
Pete i love the show ,but this is not the way contest players are treated.How many contest players can go into the jocks room and talk to J.V.They go in the paddock in suites and so on.I have played contests since they started and had to get there early for a good seat.This is nice for old time players not to get new ones in.
Christian Hellmers More than 1 year ago
Just to be clear that when I say in the last paragraph "people I don't know really well", I'm not referring to Beychok. I know him well. I didn't mean to imply that he wasn't trustworthy!
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
I must admit I missed that. I most definitely thought that was a dig at MB for talking to the camera. What were you referring to if you don't mind my asking? At some point we'll have to do a proper interview in this space . . .
Christian Hellmers More than 1 year ago
When I say "... and I can take this as a valuable lesson..." that's me starting a train of thought speaking generally as referenced by "...one person's (not Beychok's) greed...". My 'dig' was that Beychok didn't come to me about his frustrations as I indicated in the end. Regardless, the damage had been done in his eyes which is a valid point as I took responsibility in my post. I get Beychok's point on how distractions suck big time- they do! I hardly ever partner due to the nature of the distraction beast. And to respond to Beychok's tweet, I could certainly use a couple shots of wheatgrass and algae during sxsw next year to help my brain recover, as my engineering logic doesn't always flow properly into precise words with these beautiful musical distractions taking over my consciousness. Feel free to contact me too before writing an article this specific, to get extra insight.
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
thanks for the offer, I definitely will!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Christian, I saw nothing wrong with your strategy. You add a lot to the show. If anything MB came off bad on that episode.
Dennis More than 1 year ago
And can I borrow your tail?
Richard Sharp More than 1 year ago
I'm not crazy about the partnering idea myself. But Peter Fornatale may want to re-watch the episode to clarify his post. Michael Beychokk told Christian Hellmers "he would think about it" in regards to the offer to join Rotundo and Hellmers "team". Hellmers did approach Beychok a 2nd time, but it was only because of the "I'll think about it" comment from Beychok. Michael should have just told him NO from the get go and there would have been no issue.
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
A fair point, but to me, it's such an odd thing to do in the first place that reading between the lines in that context, I believe when a nice guy like MB says "I'll think about it," it really meant something closer to "Go away." It's just not really appropriate behavior in the middle of a contest. Granted, I don't mean to suggest Christian is in anyway a bad guy -- he's not -- he's a great player and has never been anything but nice to me personally. But I think there might just be a little bit of a disconnect there when it comes to contest etiquette. That was my point.
mikey More than 1 year ago
Matt is a nice guy who has no friends in the show.Why would these big timers not put up the entry for him.He has to call his mom,grandma and so on.Until he can pay his own way he can stay away or go into hock.My friends and i have entered a friend because he was a good handicapper and a friend.
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
I don't think the guys know each all that well . . .
DavidM9999 More than 1 year ago
I do not like the partnering concept. Just me ok, to each his own. Explain/rationalize it however you like I don't embrace it. This happens apparently in other sports too NASCAR and the WSOP for example. Still don't like, want no part of it. If I am in a contest I am playing MY money and making MY picks not Hellmer. These pros are wonderful handicappers far beyond what I will ever be. They should let their rare abilities settle it not their negotiation skills. I give Beychok points. It did not feel right on several levels so he went it Lone Ranger.He simply had no interest in splittling with Tonto. I think Beychok rode into SAR by himself on Silver and was on the right horse at the end of the day.
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
That's a totally valid view shared by a couple of the sharp players I interviewed in the book, including Joe Scanio and Ricky Zimmer. For me, for a variety of reasons I discuss in there, I like it. Totally a case of to each his or her own. . .
Starks43 More than 1 year ago
I agree completely. This along with beards issue really starting to put a damper on things in regard to contests.
Art DeToro More than 1 year ago
While partnerships and beards are not against the rules, I respectfully disagree with you that they do not have an advantage over a player with only 1 entry. You are being irresponsible defending this position. The initial goal of the multiple entries is to hit a capper early and take control of the leader board. Compare this to a roulette wheel. If team A, B, C each play a different number. Are not their odds of hitting a number 3-1 over the single player? If in their first wagers, A, B, and C bet cappers (in the same or different races) and A hits a capper first. Now did they not have a 3-1 advantage to hit a capper over the first capper wager by the single player? Player A would be on top or near the top of the leader board. He could now stop swinging for the fences and play more logical selections to increase his score. Meanwhile, B and C can keep selecting cappers. Again, a 2-1 advantage over the single player trying to hit a capper. Should B hit a capper, the team now has player A and B near the top of the leader board. They now have a 2-1 advantage to select another logical winner to increase their total over the single player with 1 selection. Now there is no guarantee that the team has the ability to select cappers or find logical horses to increase their score. And, they may not be successful in a particular contest. But, to say they do not have an advantage over the single player is wrong. As you said, they are expending more money and time...to get an advantage. Good luck to them. But, I'll be rooting for the guy who can do it on his own. Art
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
You got this wrong. I never said they didn't have an advantage, I said they didn't have an "unfair advantage," that is, whatever advantage there was was bought and paid for and didn't guarantee anything, very much like what you are saying.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Peter, what was the final results of that aforementioned handicap contest. Karma would have Michael Beychok win outright after being harrassed... Just curious Great read btw,,,
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
A third party partnership won. Michael ended up in the low money, 15th maybe? Christian and Peter Jr. ran out but were drawing live for a high money finish in the last who looked home and hosed before getting a bit late. . .a true gubbing to be sure. Incidentally, the show made it look like they would have won but that's not necessarily the case as I know at least one other player who used a double bet on the same horse. Check out the rerun of the HORSEPLAYERS episode to see for yourself.. .
Starks43 More than 1 year ago
Agreed. And if it's an advantage others dont have because of good old fashioned ethics I don't see how this isn't a disadvantage. Reminds me in a perverse way of steroids in baseball. Where if you didn't take the playing field wasn't level. The ethical player could still succeed but playing field was not level. And people came out defending those who did take by saying others could do the same,
Peter Fornatale More than 1 year ago
Bad analogy. Steroids were illegal, then against the rules. Partnerships are allowed. If you're so worried about it, create a partnership of your own. Or, do what many do and just do your own thing, A third option is not to play. But whinging about these issues is not part of a winning player's mindset.
Easy call More than 1 year ago
This is similar to hedging bets when you are alive in a multirace bet. Do you cover other possible horses you left off the ticket? For me it depends on the size of the payoff. If my last race selections are solid I may even bet more on the A choice to increase my winnings. That's why we call it gambling. Of course in contests it is also the means to an end - qualifying for a seat and the bigger prizes at the NHC.
Burton Shapiro More than 1 year ago
It seems to me a partnership would be beneficial in the end. If I would have gotten partners in the NHC in the final mandatory race at Oaklawn won by a 30-1 shot my chances would have been far better than only being able to take one horse. One great point is said by Chrisitan in the episode which is to stay aggressive. I was up to 11th Saturday with a few races to go and started to take 3-5 to one shots when Saturday afternoon had a few big priced winners that dropped me down to 38th entering Sunday.