Posts Tagged ‘horse-racing’

June 28, 2008

Last-Minute Change to POY Points?

I use the phrase “last minute” loosely, because it’s possible this changed occurred back in 2007 and I just missed it … but Change100 points out there’s been a change in how the WSOP calculates its Player of the Year. It used to be that HORSE and the main event didn’t count — the intent being to create a “triple crown” for anyone who might manage to win all three in their lifetime … main event, POY, and $50k HORSE.

But now, according to the official WSOP website, POY points come from all open events (meaning seniors, ladies, and casino employees don’t count) except the main event. I suppose it’s not a bad change — maybe it is, who knows, will reserve judgment for now — but I know I heard some complaints about the old system before from Greg Raymer and others … the beef being that making the final table in HORSE hurts you a lot in the Player of the Year race because you missed out on so many other POY events in that five days.

Again, click here to see where the 2008 HORSE-friendly race stands, and thanks to Change100 for pointing out what I’ve been missing.

UPDATE: Change informs me that the change was made last week.

OPINION OF THE MOMENT: OK, I like it … why shouldn’t this big event count towards Player of the Year? Fuck, it probably should count double. And it doesn’t take away from the Triple Crown concept … in fact, facilitates it greatly, as winning the HORSE Championship and any other bracelet in the same year would take one a long way towards knocking out two of the three triple-crown prongs in one WSOP swoop. I wonder how much, if at all, the added excitement Harrah’s must’ve seen around the June 7 Belmont Stakes factored into a decision that makes a WSOP Triple Crown a slightly more realistic possibility.

Limiting POY points to only open events also seems right, so all contenders theoretically have the same chance.

Posted by DanM at 7:55 pm

September 20, 2007

Feds Say: Internet Horse Betting Illegal?

Here’s an interesting story on MSNBC — about concerns within the horse racing community about the legality of their favorite pastime. What-the? Here we are in the poker world wishing we could be like the competitive equestrian industry — with a stated exemption from the UIGEA … but apparently the Department of Justice is contending that betting on horses on the internet is still illegal:

The online horse betting industry says the IHA, in effect, amended the Wire Act – the main federal anti-gambling statute – but the justice department has stated publicly that it believes the Wire Act remains paramount and that interstate horse betting online remains illegal. [...]

“My gut feeling is that they haven’t tried to prosecute somebody because they don’t want to lose, because then you have case law that says they’re wrong [...] And I think they would lose,” says Steven Barham, associate co-ordinator of the race track industry programme at the University of Arizona.

While most industries might be alarmed by a pronouncement by justice officials that it is operating illegally, the leading industry body takes the department’s latest opinion with little more than a shrug. The willingness of established companies to defy the department highlights the industry’s confidence that it has the upper hand in its analysis of the law.

Wow, sounds so much like poker in the “old days.” It also reminds me of 1) the impacts of badly crafted laws, which continue to need to be rewritten; and 2) how important the courts can be in determining who’s interpretation of a bad law matters most.

Posted by DanM at 11:50 am