Does the Simulcast Screen Matter?

[On Spec]

I was reading this recent piece by Beyer making the case that Tampa Bay needs to fix some problems in order to be a legitimate top-rank track:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021004582.html

What was interesting was that he said they need to solve some problems with their video presentation that, ultimately, is all that someone making a wager via simulcast or ADW sees. It got me thinking that there are definitely some track simulcast video screens that I like better than others. There are some that I find easy to use and visually appealing (on Aqueduct or Belmont I can find the current odds on the particular horses I like quickly and easily) and some that I don't bet at all because I dislike their video "interface" (I think whoever designed the video screen for Turf Paradise actually wants the track to go under).

So my questions:

1) Do tracks actually know that some of these screens may gather more handle than others, based upon ease of use? Since I'm just getting back into racing, I wouldn't know if these screens change every season -- do they change at all?

2) Does anyone else have any favorites like this? what do you like, dislike?

3) Am I the only one thinking about this stuff (wouldn't be the first time this has happened)? Does this question matter?

. . . and, yes, as a matter of fact, I do have some thick skin, so let me know what you think.

[parlay]

Off the top of my head,
The track logo in the top left of the screen, this
obscures the view of the leaders while in split screen mode.
I've always wondered if the people that run those establishments
EVER WATCH THEIR OWN MONITORS :bang: :bang:

[The_Knight_Sky]

2) Does anyone else have any favorites like this? what do you like, dislike?




Good: Golden Gate Fields - The Meadowlands :ThmbUp:
Bright cheery colors and large fonts against a dark background.

Poor: Santa Anita - Keeneland - Calder :ThmbDown:
teeny tiny fonts - white color against a light background.

[Southieboy]

You want bad simo feeds look at Hollywood (race feed) and Del Mar (overall). Enough said. ;)

[The_Knight_Sky]

Generally speaking the Magna tracks design is superior to the CDI tracks.

Pimlico - Golden Gate - and a few years back Lone Star - had that big thick fonts. The layout remained the same - only the track colors changed. That I found appealing.

I think the among the elderly crowd there are too many people squinting
at the monitors to see the odds and exacta will-pays. They won't bet if they can't see.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... (I think whoever designed the video screen for Turf Paradise actually wants the track to go under).

....

I struggle to find the right words... the right phrasing... but, suffice it to say, if you draw that conclusion from watching a TV... we may need you to preside over the AHBPA.





:ThmbUp:

[Cardus]

This is a very clever way of "backdooring" a closed thread.

Well played, On Spec.

[Cardus]

I struggle to find the right words... the right phrasing... but, suffice it to say, if you draw that conclusion from watching a TV... we may need you to preside over the AHBPA.





:ThmbUp:

Of course, you do.

[jelly]

I like tracks that show a HEAD-ON video at the start of the race.

[Coleman]

Another plus for Golden Gate is the 2 minute to post countdown clock, which is generally pretty accurate, so you actually have a decent idea how long you have to the horses are in the gate.

[point given]

Havenot viewed Turfway in a while but they used to have a green background with swirling around design that moved and got me dizzy and i would never play the track because of it.

[craigbraddick]

I really think a simple but stylish graphic layout works best.

I like the CDI Tracks and the new one at Turfway.

Wish I could read the one at Santa Anita more clearly!

NYRA do a good job with theirs and although I am not a fan of the green and white color scheme, LAD is really easy to read and deserves kudos.

Craig

[cj]

Much like web pages, simple is best.

[Spiderman]

Scratches and changes info lingers too long on each.

[The_Knight_Sky]

I like tracks that show a HEAD-ON video at the start of the race.



Me too.
And those that do show it, cut away before the first bend arrives
in a two turn race. :ThmbDown:

Right now Santa Anita shows the replays but not the entire run down
the backside. In that case why show the replay at all?

The middle stanzas can often be the most crucial part of the race.

[affirmedny]

Mountaineer - White letters on a tan background are absolutely impossible to see at times. Other than the graphics their presentation is topnotch

Del Mar - For a major track their presentation is HORRIBLE. The camera is so far from the horses when they're showing a race they look like ants. No slo-mo replay of the finish immediately after the race. It's very obvious the TV crew has never bet on a race in their lives. My favorite is when they have John Lies interview the "fan of the day" (or something like that) and show neither John or the fan on camera while you hear them talking.

As mentioned in another thread Don Stevens from Delta Downs does a terrific job with their simulcast show. My only beef with him is that if one of his picks is scratched he refuses to pick another horse as if that would be unethical or something. Hey Don, we're all horseplayers and realize scratches are part of the game. It's ok to pick another horse in place of a scratched horse!

[therussmeister]

The one thing that really irritates me is the tracks that don't show both 1 & 1A when displaying the odds, which makes it much harder to know if both are running. Particularly when there is a late scratch.

[toussaud]

wow, I guess I am in the big minority but I love all of socals track feeds. They don't show a post parade and then spend 7 minutes showing you the tote which you can see on your ADW anyway. I could give a flying crap about the head on you can see it on replay at most places anyway. No problem with any of their track feeds, at all, no cal either. Love emerald downs.

Tracks that are just unplayable to me are Turf Paradise (they make ants look big), Turfway, the Maryland Tracks (some of the angles they have I think they just try to piss people off). For the most part I can make just about every other track word but I do prefer socal, Remington Park, Woodbine, keeneland, charles town, tampa bay downs and oaklawn

[Southieboy]

Del Mar - For a major track their presentation is HORRIBLE. The camera is so far from the horses when they're showing a race they look like ants. No slo-mo replay of the finish immediately after the race. It's very obvious the TV crew has never bet on a race in their lives. My favorite is when they have John Lies interview the "fan of the day" (or something like that) and show neither John or the fan on camera while you hear them talking.


Del Mar is a rare exception in which you are probably better off watch the race on TVG.

[Kevroc]

+1 to the :1: :1a: thing.. this is must-have information!!

I watch multiple video feeds on my pc, while listening to music on Pandora or playing poker.. so I crank up the volume to hear the call to post or the post parades, and i can switch windows to the forefront.

Delta kills me because they pump music in the background.. ugh, shut that off!!!

[Coleman]

In general, any track that does the close-up at the finish line thing, because it's not like anyone bets exactas or trifectas or anything.

And it's even worse at tracks with bad announcers...

Wrong Lead and Overbet together...Money Drain up the inside...Please Getme A Real Jockey gaining on the outside...and WTF wins!! (guess which track).

[Kelso]

And it's even worse at tracks with bad announcers...

Wrong Lead and Overbet together...Money Drain up the inside...Please Getme A Real Jockey gaining on the outside...and WTF wins!! (guess which track).

Although the thread is about Tampa, your call seemed to com straight from Oaklawn.