PDA

View Full Version : 2010 HANA Track Ratings


DeanT
03-28-2010, 10:02 PM
Sunday, March 28, 2010

2010 Horseplayers Association of North America’s Proprietary Track Ratings (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/03/2010-horseplayers-association-of-north.html)

2010 Horseplayers Association of North America’s Proprietary Track Ratings to be Released This Week. Top Five Tracks to Be Announced Exclusively on the Paulick Report

HANA: “Signal distribution & handle size added to this year’s ratings, based on horseplayer feedback.”


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


(March 28, 2010 Charlottesville, Virginia) – The Horseplayers Association of North America is proud to announce its second annual Track Ratings List will be released beginning this week. The top five rated North American racetracks will be announced exclusively on the Paulick Report.

“After several months of tabulation and discussion, we are very happy to be able to release this year’s track ratings,” said HANA President Jeff Platt. “We are especially proud to have the ratings evolve by adding new metrics based on horseplayer feedback. We would also like to thank the folks at the Paulick Report for releasing them on their website.”

“The Paulick Report is excited about the opportunity to publish HANA’s exclusive ratings, which I believe provide a very important service to the industry,” said Ray Paulick. “Among the variety of things they do to give a voice to the horseplayer, HANA’s annual ranking of tracks is probably the most valuable. It gives racetracks a chance to evaluate their business models from the customer’s perspective, a very important tool as we all strive to make this industry the best it can be.”

Last year we released our top 65 tracks in North America based on the player-friendly measurable metrics of field size, takeout level, and wager variety. This year, we will again be using the same metrics for our base rating system, however, in response to horseplayer and media feedback, we will also be adding a signal distribution grade and handle size, and incorporating those two items into the final scores.

The fees tracks charge for their signal have been in the news the past year or more, because several tracks have raised, or are looking to raise their fees, as a way to increase revenues. As well, some tracks are not as accommodating as others in offering their signal out to all ADW’s. A high fee hurts the at home player, because less can be offered to them in terms of soft innovations, and player rewards. A signal with limited distribution also causes hardship, because players have to get more than one ADW account to play the tracks they want to play. With Internet wagering being racings only growth segment in 2009, HANA and horseplayers believe tracks who maximize this medium by being player friendly and trying to grow our sport, should get a higher score than those who do not.

In addition, handle per race was deemed important because most horseplayers do not like betting very small pools, and in many cases one receives a de-facto takeout hike by playing exotics into them. We think this metric addresses some of the feedback from members and non-members about adding a quantitative field quality component, as well.

We look forward to releasing this year’s list and hope horseplayers everywhere follow the Paulick Report, and give both the tracks themselves and HANA their feedback on their likes and dislikes about our rated tracks.

At the conclusion of the list, we will again be adding our full 2010 numbers for all 69 rated tracks as a player resource on our website.

To look at our methodology and algorithm for the ratings system, as well as a look at last years track ratings and statistics, please access the player resource section of our website here (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/playerresources.html):

To contact us at HANA, please email us at info @ hanaweb.org.

The Horseplayers Association of North America is a grassroots group of horseplayers, not affiliated with any organization, who are not pleased with the direction the game has taken. HANA believes that both tracks and horseman groups have become bogged down with industry infighting and have completely forgotten something: The importance of the customer. HANA hopes, through proactive change on several key issues (including but not limited to), open signal access, lower effective takeouts, wagering integrity, affordable data and customer appreciation, the industry’s handle losses can be reversed. HANA is currently made up of over 1500 horseplayers (both harness and thoroughbred) from almost all states and Canadian provinces. It currently represents over $70,000,000 of yearly racing handle.

Our web address is http://www.horseplayersassociation.org and interested horseplayers can sign up there for free (http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=1). We are horseplayers, just like you and we are trying to make a difference. We need, appreciate, and ask humbly for your support.

InsideThePylons-MW
03-29-2010, 12:37 AM
I really hope that all Tracknet tracks get an automatic F grade on signal distribution. It should be a slam dunk. I can't understand why this category is only weighted 1x. High host fees and the act of restricting signals from bettors unless the higher host fee demands are accepted is just poison for all horseplayers.

I also can't believe that any takeout which is 26% or higher is not an automatic F. A 26% takeout rate on tris and supers is graded a C???? That is a slap in the face to all horseplayers giving those criminals a C. I would think it's a joke if I didn't read it myself.

I know that it's tough to be perfect on these things....but a horseplayer's group giving a C to 26% takeout has me shaking my head in disgust. :bang:

DeanT
03-29-2010, 12:55 AM
ITP,

As Bill mentions in the methodology paper, letter grades are simply one tracks rate in relation to other tracks. The core letter really does not mean a lot if looked at outside that context.

Any take above optimal, imo, if he was grading like a school teacher, would get F's Im sure.

This year we are hoping to open horseplayer eyes to the signal fee issue and to do that we have started to add them to tracks ratings with a letter grade. I think we'd like to weight them even more as this issue moves forward, in the overall ratings. We all agree that they might be the most serious issue in horse racing, especially as Internet wagering grows, relative to bricks and mortar wagering. We will be noting the signal score, even on tracks who score high on the list with decent takeouts and other measures, on each tracks write up on feature stories. The lowest rating a track can get on signal fee is a zero or "E".

D

InsideThePylons-MW
03-29-2010, 03:17 AM
ITP,

As Bill mentions in the methodology paper, letter grades are simply one tracks rate in relation to other tracks. The core letter really does not mean a lot if looked at outside that context.

Any take above optimal, imo, if he was grading like a school teacher, would get F's Im sure.

C grade means acceptable/average to almost anybody that would define it.

26% is not acceptable.....it is completely unacceptable, way worse than average, larcenous, a player killer and horse racing killer.

Just because there are a few tracks that charge 27%-31% shouldn't make 26% a C.

Giving it a C on a 10 weight category (out of 21 weight total) is ludicrous.

How can anybody approach takeout seriously when a horseplayer's group is rating 26% as acceptable/average?

It's so wrong that I'm in shock.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-29-2010, 11:53 AM
5th Rated Track:

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/hana-track-ratings-5-oaklawn-park/

W2G
03-30-2010, 10:47 AM
Re: methodology, how is the weighting scheme derived?

Dahoss9698
03-30-2010, 11:48 AM
I realize ranking Gulfstream 4th was based on the criteria HANA set forth (takeout, field size, etc). But, considering their (Florida's) policy on surface changes involving multi race exotics, it seems a bit high in my opinion.

DeanT
03-30-2010, 12:13 PM
Re: methodology, how is the weighting scheme derived?

Hi W2,

The factors used are what are tailored to handle and growing the sport, by being most customer friendly (in a nutshell).

Handle grows inversely proportional to takeout. We know anecdotally this is true, but we also know from study and empirically. In the last published study a reduction of takeout results in the highest increase of handle (elasticity of demand=-2.3). So tracks that have a lower takeout compared to one another is the largest factor, because the tracks with lower takeout are better for the player, increase the bet, and help grow customer satisfaction, which should help racing.

Field size is next. It has an elasticity of -.60. A field size which has one more horse per race grows handle by about 5%, allows bettors to bet more money, receive more value and is better for the game.

Wager variety is next. We do not have a hard study on this, however players do want options, because there are a lot of sharks swimming in the pools. Most players want wagering options, so it is there, altho a smaller part of the ratings. the e here is probably between 0.2 and 0.6.

Handle was in response to horseplayer feedback last year. Small pools cause some problems. A track could have 10% takeout, but be a tough place to play, if for example a pick 3 pool has $400. If you hit three ten to one shots you are getting paid nowhere near fair odds and it acts like a takeout increase. This also addresses purse size, without giving points to slot tracks. The e on quality is a low 0.06, but it is probably a bit higher when wagering is considered.

Last was signal distribution. This is a new item, and it is hard to measure, however it could be one of the most important items in racing today in terms of its future from a player perspective and otherwise. When the signal was messed up at FG this year, handle was off 31%. When the signal fee is high it squeezes wagering dollars out of peoples pockets as a takeout hike. We have received feedback that this should be weighted higher next year, so we will do some digging and try to find what the handle and player inconvenience this is over the coming months.

Bill crunches all those items, compares them track to track and the ratings are calculated. We have no idea who will rank where until he hits the button.

Hope that helps?

Dean

Horseplayersbet.com
03-30-2010, 01:16 PM
Number four is up at Paulick: http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/hana-track-ratings-4-gulfstream-park/

W2G
03-30-2010, 04:58 PM
Dean,

Thanks for the detailed reply. If I follow, the weights are a combination of documented research and best judgment. It's interesting that handle is included as a factor since it would ideally serve as the dependent variable if this was an attempt at an explanatory model. But its role in producing your ratings is clear.

DeanT
03-30-2010, 05:21 PM
W2,

You're welcome. We are going to have some blog pieces up next week doing some sorting and talking about the ratings a little bit - top takeout tracks, top smaller tracks and so on. If you have any feedback at all, please let us know there.

As an aside: The ratings were borne from gathering all these numbers. Their original goal is as a player resource (suggested by original member Rook and a couple of others). As you know, getting accurate takeout numbers is like pulling teeth, but we thought we would try. Racing is one of the only businesses in the world where you can not find a price for what they are selling, and we thought there should be a place for players to go to get accurate numbers. As well, handle numbers are sometimes buried, so we have those. Types of wagers are sometimes hard to find. Signal distribution, ditto. We hope Bill's hard work at least supplies players with accurate data they can access to make better wagering decisions.

In addition to that the ratings do some other good, we feel. It allows players to comment on what they like and dislike about each track, because when a track is highlighted like they are on the Paulick report it gives them a chance to be heard (I can guarantee tracks are reading any comments). "Giving horseplayers a voice" is on the HANA mission statement.

Last and maybe most importantly, we hope it sheds light on the main revenue drivers in terms of handle and customer satisfaction, and what tracks need to do to get up the rankings. We have heard from some this past year about improving, and a couple even did, so we are happy with that.

Anyhow, long-winded answer on what goes into them, why they are here, and that we are looking for feedback at all times from everyone who enjoys reading them.

Dean

DeanT
03-31-2010, 10:59 AM
Write-up on #3 is up at Paulick:

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/hana-track-ratings-3-tampa-bay-downs/

It's a good illustration of lowering take and moving up, and gaining some business.

Robert Goren
03-31-2010, 11:33 AM
How sad is it that a track that takes out 17.5% on WPS wagers is rated third?

turfnsport
03-31-2010, 12:06 PM
A track with nearly a 26% takeout ranked a "B"

Is HANA grading on a "curve" like my fourth grade math teacher did?

What would be wrong with HANA's #1 track being a C- or a D+??

Embarrassing.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-31-2010, 12:18 PM
A track with nearly a 26% takeout ranked a "B"

Is HANA grading on a "curve" like my fourth grade math teacher did?

What would be wrong with HANA's #1 track being a C- or a D+??

Embarrassing.
Generally about one third of handle goes towards WPS, one third to ex's and dd's, and one third to other exotics (though this in not the exact formula used).
Tampa Bay has a 17.5% takeout for WPS
An average takeout of around 19-19.5 for Ex's and DD's
And an estimated average takeout of around 22-23% for all other bets.
Tampa Bay has an average takeout rate of slightly below 20%.

HANA has already pointed out that if takeout rates were graded relative to optimum takeout rates, every track would get an F, but these ratings are relative to industry takeout rates.

turfnsport
03-31-2010, 12:24 PM
Generally one third of handle goes towards WPS, one third to ex's and dd's, and one third to other exotics (though this in not the exact formula used).
Tampa Bay has a 17.5% takeout for WPS
An average takeout of around 19-19.5 for Ex's and DD's
And an estimated average takeout of around 22-23% for all other bets.
Tampa Bay has an average takeout rate of slightly below 20%.

HANA has already pointed out that if takeout rates were graded relative to optimum takeout rates, every track would get an F, but these ratings are relative to industry takeout rates.

Make excuses all you want, the bottom line is
HANA is telling every track exec its OK to have a 26% takeout.

turfnsport
03-31-2010, 12:29 PM
An average takeout of around 19-19.5 for Ex's and DD's
And an estimated average takeout of around 22-23% for all other bets.


and this deserves a track getting a "B" grade?

Are you serious?

All the bitching you do about takeout, I can't believe you actually agree with this nonsense.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-31-2010, 01:02 PM
and this deserves a track getting a "B" grade?

Are you serious?

All the bitching you do about takeout, I can't believe you actually agree with this nonsense.
Here is last years HANA's ratings. Try to find how many tracks have an average takeout of less than 20%
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbytrackname.html

Yes, two of Tampa Bays bets have slightly higher than average takeouts (supers and tris), but at least 5 out of the other 7 rates are below average, some well below average.

turfnsport
03-31-2010, 01:13 PM
Here is last years HANA's ratings. Try to find how many tracks have an average takeout of less than 20%
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbytrackname.html

Yes, two of Tampa Bays bets have slightly higher than average takeouts (supers and tris), but at least 5 out of the other 7 rates are below average, some well below average.

Last year's rankings are irrelevant.

My point is how can you justify or defend Tampa Bay being rated a "B" with a 25.9 takeout?

How can HANA basically tell the industry having a 26% takeout is "okay with us"?

Of all people, I would think YOU would be outraged more than anyone.

The fact you are not, and trying to defend this list is mystifying to me.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-31-2010, 01:18 PM
Last year's rankings are irrelevant.

My point is how can you justify or defend Tampa Bay being rated a "B" with a 25.9 takeout?

How can HANA basically tell the industry having a 26% takeout is "okay with us"?

Of all people, I would think YOU would be outraged more than anyone.

The fact you are not, and trying to defend this list is mystifying to me.
First off the ratings are a player resource. People can go there and see all takeout rates and make their own decisions if any.
Secondly, the ratings don't condone a 26% takeout, all they are saying to me is Tampa Bay's average takeout is better than industry average...That is it.

turfnsport
03-31-2010, 01:23 PM
Secondly, the ratings don't condone a 26% takeout, all they are saying to me is Tampa Bay's average takeout is better than industry average...That is it.

And what giving Tampa a "B" with a 25.9 takeout will say to tracks is a 26% takeout is okay.

HANA sending that message is idiotic.

DeanT
03-31-2010, 01:37 PM
Hi Turf,

It's dichotomous on the letter grades. What you might find funny is that a couple tracks last year complained they "only got a C+" in our HANA mail. Some horseplayers complain that no track should get above a C+.

It might not surprise you to know I agree more with the latter :)

We talked about not even using letter grades, or only using letter grades and possibly tweaking that. A couple of you (ITP is another one and one or two more via email) who thinks we should change it for next year. As I mentioned the letter grade is simply how tracks compare, not a real grade. But we can do better I think.

I think we probably will have a change for you guys next time. if you have any more feedback on grading or whatever that you think might make things better, or to get horseplayers' points across in a better fashion, shoot us a mail at info @ hanaweb.org.

Thanks for the feedback and I appreciate the comments.

Dean

PS: We are asking TAM to look at lowering the high end takes next year. They have been receptive in the past, so we hope that they do. A comment or two from horseplayers asking for that on the Paulick article might not be a bad thing at all. Mgmt is reading that article and your comments.

turfnsport
03-31-2010, 01:51 PM
As I mentioned the letter grade is simply how tracks compare, not a real grade. But we can do better I think.


Okay, so you are saying it's not "real grade"

Is that how you think everyone is going to look at these ratings?

I think 99.99999% of people have a basic understanding of what A-B-C-D-E-F mean.

But HANA doesn't?

I completely understand what HANA is "trying" to do, but the execution is horrendous.

InsideThePylons-MW
03-31-2010, 03:56 PM
As I mentioned the letter grade is simply how tracks compare, not a real grade.

On the old list, http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbytritakeout.html

7 out of 71 tracks had a tri takeout higher than 26%. The 26% takeout tracks ranked 60-64th worst on the list out of 71. So basically all of them are in the bottom 20% of tracks rated.

I'm sure this years list will be similar.

On your ratings guidelines it states.....

Each wager category was rated from “A” through “F” with each letter grade representing an approximate 20 percent range of the total population of all North American tracks. An “A” rating, for instance represents a standing in the upper quintile range of all NA tracks while an “F” rating represents the lowest.

After looking at all this....My question to HANA is.....

How can tracks who are obviously and unarguably in the bottom 20% of all tracks in trifecta takeout receive a letter grade of C based on what you guys are saying coupled with the guidelines of your rating system?

chickenhead
03-31-2010, 04:02 PM
How can HANA basically tell the industry having a 26% takeout is "okay with us"?

Each pool is graded separately. I believe Tampa got either a "D" or an "F" for their tri and super. Their overall score is a B, because overall, their other bets are making up for it.

Kind of like a kid who gets a F in chemistry, yet still gets a B average. Is the school saying a F in chemistry is ok? Is it saying a F is the same as a B? No, not at all. He got a F in chemistry, and a B overall, because he did well in his other classes.

I cut HANA plenty of slack, because it's not an easy thing to do. I absolutely agree it should be harder to get an A or a B than it is, currently. I don't think there are objectively any A tracks. But, I also think a lot of the criticism isn't terribly valid either, because it often misconstrues what grades HANA did give actual bets.

HANA did not give a "B" to a 26% takeout.

InsideThePylons-MW
03-31-2010, 04:06 PM
Each pool is graded separately. I believe Tampa got either a "D" or an "F" for their tri and super.

They got a C for their 25.9% takeout rate on tris and supers.

chickenhead
03-31-2010, 04:16 PM
yeah nevermind -- looking at it again I was wrong. Valid criticism, those thresholds for grades should get moved by quite a bit.

InsideThePylons-MW
03-31-2010, 04:24 PM
those thresholds for grades should get moved by quite a bit.

You are correct.

Tampa is clearly in the bottom 20% of tri takeout and got a C.

Charlie D
03-31-2010, 06:16 PM
How sad is it that a track that takes out 17.5% on WPS wagers is rated third?


Agree Robert, it is depressing for the US bettor.

Charlie D
03-31-2010, 07:31 PM
PS: We are asking TAM to look at lowering the high end takes next year. They have been receptive in the past, so we hope that they do. A comment or two from horseplayers asking for that on the Paulick article might not be a bad thing at all. Mgmt is reading that article and your comments.



Sounds like Tampa Mgmt knows that to stay in business you need to listen to your customers.

Charlie D
03-31-2010, 07:43 PM
Yes - vote with your bets.
Support low take outs and avoid high take outs.
Send a message.

Go Tioga!




If US bettors did as Tom suggests above, they may sit up and take notice. Then again, maybe not as the slots are saving most of thier asses

Robert Goren
03-31-2010, 09:37 PM
About the only thing I agreed with Bush on was the use standardized test in schools. It improved our educational system. I think that maybe a standard test might be appropriate here too. Although I also think that most track managers could care less about HANA or the betters think. JMO

InsideThePylons-MW
04-01-2010, 12:42 AM
Let me try this again.......

How can tracks who are obviously and unarguably in the bottom 20% of all tracks in trifecta takeout receive a letter grade of C based on what you guys are saying coupled with the guidelines of HANA's rating system?

mike_123_ca
04-01-2010, 11:47 AM
http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/hana-track-ratings-2-churchill-downs/

Charli125
04-01-2010, 12:27 PM
Let me try this again.......

How can tracks who are obviously and unarguably in the bottom 20% of all tracks in trifecta takeout receive a letter grade of C based on what you guys are saying coupled with the guidelines of HANA's rating system?

This is taken from the ratings explanation that is posted here (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html). I bolded the relevant portion. Agree or Disagree, you should be able to find answers to your questions in this document.


Takeout Composite

The takeout composite grade was computed by averaging and rounding the equivalent numeric value of the letter grade in each category.

46zilzal
04-01-2010, 02:27 PM
About the only thing I agreed with Bush on was the use standardized test in schools. It improved our educational system. I think that maybe a standard test might be appropriate here too. Although I also think that most track managers could care less about HANA or the betters think. JMO
Ever talk with teachers about this: "we no longer teach,| we just prepare them for the NARROW narrow aspects for them to past the tests so we get our funding....It is no longer about education, only teaching for a test.

johnhannibalsmith
04-01-2010, 03:48 PM
Ever talk with teachers about this: "we no longer teach,| we just prepare them for the NARROW narrow aspects for them to past the tests so we get our funding....It is no longer about education, only teaching for a test.

I don't speak for HANA when I say this, but I'm sure this will be valuable insight for the future when ranking racetracks.

DeanT
04-01-2010, 10:54 PM
#1 Track at paulick here

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/hana-track-ratings-1-keeneland/

PR and all 69 tracks to come in a bit.

Charlie D
04-02-2010, 01:34 PM
Brisnet.com at a glances


Keeneland

Avg. Winning Odds: 6.52 - 1

Favorite Win%: 30%, Favorite Itm%: 64%



Combine. competitive, decent quality racing with lowish take across board and your on to a winner in my humble opinion.

DeanT
04-02-2010, 02:31 PM
CharlieD,

What is the fave win percentage on some of those UK tracks with 16 horses?

Just wondering.

OTM Al
04-02-2010, 03:57 PM
Hey Dean, Charlie might have the exact numbers, but the favorite hit rate over there is better than you would think. My guess is at least 25%. Bettors do a pretty good job identifying real favorites even with those big fields, though they aren't always huge fields. Nothing like watching nearly 30 go on a 5f straight spring though. Class holds much better, or shall we say it is better established over there than here and it usually isn't hard to eliminate what doesn't have it.

DeanT
04-02-2010, 04:32 PM
Thanks Al, that is good to know.

I know when I flip over sometimes I see an 8-1 chalk, so I thought it might be lower than 25%, but they do have a lot of shorter fields than 16 or 18.

It is very hard to get statistics I find across the pond, so I never knew.

OTM Al
04-02-2010, 04:37 PM
Thanks Al, that is good to know.

I know when I flip over sometimes I see an 8-1 chalk, so I thought it might be lower than 25%, but they do have a lot of shorter fields than 16 or 18.

It is very hard to get statistics I find across the pond, so I never knew.

I'm going to concentrate on it this summer and have also started keeping stats as they ran at Doncaster last weekend on the flat for the first time for the year. You can download the race footage from ATR as well, which is very helpful. I actually find the lack of info refreshing. Keeps your focus tighter. Remind me later in the summer and I'll let you know how it's shaking out

DeanT
04-02-2010, 05:19 PM
Al, have you read Davie Nevison's book?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Easy-Money-Gamblers-Diary/dp/1905156480

An excellent illustration of takeout and playing chaotic UK fields. Not a lot of instruction, but a very good read to get into the right mindset, imo.

OTM Al
04-02-2010, 05:50 PM
Thanks. Got to say though in 20 horse fields the effects of the takeout level are not felt so much and I think the US pools are at a much lower rate than in the UK.

Charlie D
04-03-2010, 07:36 PM
Dean , OTM Al

http://www.adrianmassey.com/index.php keeps all info and you can create your own queries in Custom Report section.

rwwupl
04-05-2010, 01:24 PM
Bill Weaver and crew at HANA....

Outstanding work on the Ratings and Charts. All the CHRB members wanted a copy, also I sent a copy to Ron Charles,CEO Santa Anita, Craig Fravel,President of Del Mar,Craig Dado,VP Marketing,Del Mar... It has been well received by all in California.


Vic Zast (writer for Horseraceinsider) has a story(A reading of the Ratings)http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/Zasts-TrackWords/2010-04-05a-reading-of-the-ratings/
on the Paulick Report which puts a different slant on things saying we do not include fans opinions, but does not mention that the fans opinions are expected to be in future editions... if we can get them to respond in a meaningful way.

You know that you are being noticed when people write about your work...Keep it up.

Roger Way,(rwwupl) roger@hanaweb.org

banacek
04-06-2010, 11:29 AM
Thanks HANA for all you work on this. There is a misprint on the Hastings mutuel pool per race..it is listed at $2403..last... perhaps the decimal is in the wrong place? $24000 would seem closer.

BillW
04-06-2010, 12:23 PM
Thanks HANA for all you work on this. There is a misprint on the Hastings mutuel pool per race..it is listed at $2403..last... perhaps the decimal is in the wrong place? $24000 would seem closer.

Thanks for the report, Banacek. My database is in a moving van somewhere between here and Ky. I'll check it as soon as I can - it may be a few weeks.