Competitions for 2020

[Ron]

Not wishing to sway anyone's thinking, I will just explain my reasons for my preference

In terms of the overall champion for the year, with the current format regular entries and successes are rewarded by basing the points on returns rather than profits. It doesn't seem right that someone can pop in for one month, or even one week and win because they made a profit. The profit is shown in any case. The system is up and running and a piece of cake to administer

If there is a demand for a profit based system then it should be based on selective betting with a weekly allocation. By that I mean entrants should be able to select fewer horses and vary their stakes. However, to ensure that regular entrants are rewarded, failure to bet the weekly allocation will be forfeited. In terms of administration, the system would need an initial minor tweak (due to varying stakes) and processing each entry will take slightly longer but this may be offset by there (probably) being fewer selections

The only restriction I have to impose is that this is a Saturday competition. I can't commit to processing bets every day

If you choose option 3 please state your preference for change

Feel free to comment on any suggestions posted

Cheers all
Ron

 

[redcgull]

To be honest Ron, I like the way it's done now, simply as we all bet the same amount on a single horse, six picks at a time. Can't speak for everyone else but it is just for a bit of fun, there isn't a trophy given out, not that I'll ever be in contention if there is, and the fact LordG made a huge profit from one weeks picks is just that...

You could devise a way to show who gets the best out of his bets over an average if you really want, I just know that come the flat season I hardly hit a winner at all, my returns are very poor, and they pick up a bit in the jumps season as that's where I do better. (thing is I've had a shocker in this comp over the past month but come my mid week selections I seem to hit al sorts of winners, betting on them or not...!! ) Dosnt bother me even though i'm crap at it...

It's all down to how much extra work you have to put in it for me Ron. Your the one who collates the runners and checks the results and final prices...

 

[Ron]

For info, the lowest number of selections over all 51 Saturdays was 71 and 72, both in July. The highest number selected was 108 and 109 both in November (102 also in November). The weekly average was 86 (or 14-15 entrants). There were 13 entrants on the final week

 

[Reebok]

The current format suits me down to the ground. Just like Red, I do better with NH than flat - I led for the first (I think) three months, then flat kicks in and I start to flounder, then from October onwards I start to recover! I love this comp, and if it is easy to administer in this format - and you said it is - then happy days

 

[NDS]

Agree with all said above Ron, yes I'm a lazy fecker but it does fit in well with time restraints on some Saturdays.

Stick with what you have if it works for you.

 

[smokethedeadbadger]

You could do it based on profit for the overall winner. To get round the problem of those of us who don't do the full year just deduct the weekly stake from them. For example we have £14 (including double for nap) to stake so if its a 52 week competition and someone only plays 7 weeks for example just deduct 45×£14 from their total returns. They might have 7 decent weeks in the ones they play but the 45 losing weeks should balance it out. Hope that makes sense

 

[Ron]

You could do it based on profit for the overall winner. To get round the problem of those of us who don't do the full year just deduct the weekly stake from them. For example we have £14 (including double for nap) to stake so if its a 52 week competition and someone only plays 7 weeks for example just deduct 45×£14 from their total returns. They might have 7 decent weeks in the ones they play but the 45 losing weeks should balance it out. Hope that makes sense

I think that is effectively what I said smokey, except your version is simpler because it maintains the fixed stake aspect. However, the profit based version doesn't cope too well with those joining late (ie it could give them a distinct advantage if they join in the last month (say). For new forum members It would be a bit stiff to knock off £14 for all the weeks they haven't been with us

For those who are only interested in profit/loss and prefer to have the occasional splash when the fancy something, they would be better off playing with the Virtual Betting Shop.

 

[Chaninbar]

Surely the old maxim re turnover and profit comes into play here. The former is vanity the latter is sanity. No great credit in my view to enter every week and achieve an overall loss. The guy with most profit has to be the winner IMO. You could just set a minimum number of entries for someone to qualify for the overall - say 50%?

 

[Reebok]

It is essentially a weekly competition, where there is a winner every week. The cumulative tables really only come into it if you play regularly. No one joining in halfway through could reasonably expect to climb those tables rapidly enough to be in contention by the end of the year (unless everyone else was spectacularly bad!)

If you are going to tinker with the format to reflect profit - which is what the weekly comp actually does anyway - then everyone starts with a lump sum of £728 (52 x 14) which is increased or decreased according to their results. Late starters start with £728 less the number of weeks "late" - e.g. starting 6 months in would mean a starting figure of £364

Overall, I'm in favour of not creating extra work for Ron

 

[mallafets123]

I enjoy the comps as they are and always have a pop when i can, only times i miss is when in Africa.
Cheers Ron.

 

[Ron]

It is essentially a weekly competition, where there is a winner every week. The cumulative tables really only come into it if you play regularly. No one joining in halfway through could reasonably expect to climb those tables rapidly enough to be in contention by the end of the year (unless everyone else was spectacularly bad!)

If you are going to tinker with the format to reflect profit - which is what the weekly comp actually does anyway - then everyone starts with a lump sum of £728 (52 x 14) which is increased or decreased according to their results. Late starters start with £728 less the number of weeks "late" - e.g. starting 6 months in would mean a starting figure of £364

Overall, I'm in favour of not creating extra work for Ron

That's an interesting one Reebs but I think that's effectively how it is now with (also) missed weeks being treated as opting out and re-entering

 

[Ron]

Surely the old maxim re turnover and profit comes into play here. The former is vanity the latter is sanity. No great credit in my view to enter every week and achieve an overall loss. The guy with most profit has to be the winner IMO. You could just set a minimum number of entries for someone to qualify for the overall - say 50%?

You can clearly see the profit Chan and regard the one with the most profit as the winner if you want. As you will have noticed Lord G would have won with a profit of £32.25 and jambawamba the only other profit maker with a profit of £6.82. It is interesting that the top 4 (excluding jamba) all made only small losses which is quite an achievement given the format of the competition