Champion Punter - Only for the elite(td)

If the concept was to promote and market the sport ?
It must be regarded as a very poor call but I am sure anyone reading this thread would have figured that out long before the "games begun".

But the concept is not totally unsound. A much smaller buy in with better thought out rules (such as minimum four bets with 25% of balance on each..... whatever) could attract more people and it should just be winner scoops 65% of pool, second 20% and 15% for admin and overheads.... it should be possible to get 500 - 1000 punters if the buy in was ..say R500 ???And then advertise advertise advertise.

Magi's idea is a far better one ............not because the concept is ideal but "risking" R500, even on an unsound strategy,can be fun,and if it gathers momentum could introduce newbies to gambling on horses................the problem is that it needs to be managed properly..........something generally lacking unfortunately!

Rob you do realise you will have to use your tote account ....<

I believe the winner was Paul Atieh who was part of a team with Lance Michael and a couple of others. I may be wrong but I think he did finish with a positive balance although not sure how much .

reality check they continue to show the middle finger to the punters,because the punters cannot unite to show them our power.would be interesting to know how many of them were sponsored in the competition and by who

bloodshot Wrote:

---

> I believe the winner was Paul Atieh who was part
> of a team with Lance Michael and a couple of
> others. I may be wrong but I think he did finish
> with a positive balance although not sure how much
> .


The "winners" lost R6000+ and the second placed lost R7000+.

Bloodshot,

He did finish with a positive balance of 13k.The problem is he started with 20k.

It's not the punters fault though.The structure of the tournament is incorrect.It is the 1st of supposedly many,and no doubt the rules will change,but 'Champion Punter' was hardly a fitting title.

Magi's tournie sounds like a better format.

The problem I have with all of this is how these guys seem to get it wrong so often.It doesn't take rocket science to figure out the structure was wrong even before the tournament took place.Luck is obviously going to play a large role in these sorts of things,but one would hope that just like in poker the cream would rise to the top over time.In order for that to happen the format of the tournie is obviously of paramount importance.

Who conceived it?Clearly not anyone that punts too often themselves.Therein lies the problem.

Anyway,the concept itself is ok,it just needs lots of refinement.