Richie--

1-- I agree with Steve about the telecast, which had to deal with a) a very large number of players, b) after the fact, c) a format (wp) that bunched them up, d) in a small amount of time. What I set out to do was to come up with a format that would develop story lines centering around a smaller number of players that would become even smaller as some separated themselves from the pack, over a longer period of time, LIVE-- so viewers could have a rooting interest.

2-- What I suggested (and as far as I know they're going to do it) is that everyone has to get bets in by 5 minutes to post, which should not be a problem with the big BC pools, where odds don't change much late. After bets are in contestants can be asked who they liked, why, and how they played them-- crucial to developing horseplayers is understanding the logic. Think ROTW, from a bunch of different angles.

3-- Yes, it would be better if the contest took place over a long period of time-- hence my "Survivor" idea. But this is a start.

4-- The cash format and big buy-in is to keep the numbers down, and the overall level of handicappers up. Is there perfect correlation between bankroll and skill? Of course not. But there is some. I think in the long run you might see satellite contests that give smaller players a chance to win their way in this one, too-- just like the NTRA contest.

5-- The big buy-in doesn't keep people from watching the WS of poker. And as there, someone will walk away from this with a lot of money, live, and the public will see someone beat the races. I can't stress too much how important this is in a world where "you can't beat the horses".

6-- I have challenged Friedman to handicapping contests so many times I have lost count, and way back when the DRF website was starting up, they were willing to host one. What can I tell you. Although I have to say, given how Friedman's picks run in the races he handicaps publicly, I understand his reluctance. Again, he's a good handicapper, the data is the propblem.