There's a good reason I don't play in no-limit poker tournaments. In most Texas Hold'em games, there's comes a point where whoever has the most chips is able to bully the other players into submission by making huge bets or going all-in. And if you aren't that guy, you're screwed.
In horse contests and tournaments, we have a similar phenomenon - multiple entries. Contests that allow players to buy two and sometimes three entries per game give those players a big advantage by letting them pay extra to reduce their odds. Effectively, these rules are favoring people with more money who can afford to buy the extra entries. As evidence, the National Handicapping Championship recently changed its rules to allow two entries per player in the main tournament.
As well-known "Horseplayers" personality Kevin Cox pointed out in Peter Thomas Fornatale's book 'The Winning Contest Player', taking a second entry reduces your odds of winning the NHC crown from 460-1 to 230-1.
No serious horseplayer with the resources to back him/her up would not do this. But why do contest organizers play along? Presumably, they want the big bucks these people bring to the table. Folks who buy two or three entries per tournament are obviously a more reliable source of revenue than the little guy trying to parlay a single qualifying entry, the thinking likely runs. And they also have a greater chance of winning. Wall Street and Washington, D.C. function on similar mentalities.
I recently played a single entry in an 8-bullet, $2 win/place qualifying tournament and made just over $101 - my second-best ROI result ever. I got beat out by a guy playing for a second seat in the tournament who made $110. Neither of his tickets in the big tournament wound up hitting the money. Not saying one of mine would have, but it would have been nice to go up against the guy in the main tournament just to see.
The fact is, allowing players to purchase multiple entries or occupy multiple seats at tournaments is seriously unfair to the thousands of horseplayers who have flocked to contests over the past few years looking for a better return than the pari-mutuel tote. Getting knocked out of a qualifier by a player who has already booked a seat in the tournament is counter-productive - demand is so high for big-money games on contest sites like Derby Wars that there's actually plenty of players ready to snatch up somebody else's vacated second seat. Derby Wars' big-money tournament qualifiers, for example, are routinely over-booked week after week.
Making a blanket single-entry rule across all platforms for all tournaments would truly level the playing field. It would force all players in the contest to make the same tough decisions without the option of "laying off" on a second choice. And it would give every player and equal chance going into the tournament no matter the size of their bankroll. Wealthier players still have the option of entering numerically more contests than those of more modest means. Plus it would add a greater diversity and number of players to the tournament pools - always a positive development in an expanding sector.
Looks like the ship has already sailed at the NHC. So let's make the call to Derby Wars and other contest sites like HorseTourneys and HorsePlayersQualify. Make your contests truly egalitarian and meritocratic by restricting contest entries to one per tournament and give everybody, wealthy or not, an equal chance of hitting the money. Surely that's the American way.
