Death by 1000 paper cuts

[Jeff P]

#175. Figuring out ways to not show the horses continued --

In this post I'll focus on Mountaineer.

The screenshot below was taken on Mon 05-13-2019 a few seconds before the horses began making their way to the gate for R6.

After seeing this shot, and after seeing similar shots of the other horses, these are my thoughts:

• Here, the cameraman is giving the player an unobstructed side view of each horse. (He's actually making an effort to zoom in on horses that aren't blocked by an outrider's pony.)
  
  
• Note that the graphics are located along the top and bottom edges of the screen.
  
  
• Even though both the odds and an exacta matrix are being displayed, there is plenty of available screen real estate in the center area of the frame.
  
  
• Having plenty of available screen real estate in the center area of the frame means that the cameraman (or camerawoman) can zoom in on the horses a little.
  
  
• This results in giving your players a much better view of the horses vs. what otherwise would have been possible had the graphics been taking up a larger percentage of screen real estate.
  
  
• If the graphics take up too much screen real estate, the cameraman has to zoom out in order to fit the horses into a smaller center frame area.

Imo, this is the effect tracks should be shooting for.

Kudos to Mountaineer for getting it right.


Signed,

Someone who actually bets.


-jp

.

[wisconsin]

The camera guys at Fairmount Park and at Monticello (not that I play these tracks) are infatuated with the running time on the tote board in lieu of a quick replay.

Sam Houston wants you to see the pole with the fancy gold lettering that says "FINISH", in case you missed it the first time. Then, they finally get around to showing you the winner being ridden out, and only after awhile, they show a replay of the finish. But not in slow-mo, especially when there was a photo for a placing. Real speed.

On a side note, TVG is also guilty on a replay of failing to show the entire finish in close photos for 3rd, for example.

We KNOW who the winner is, and there is nothing garnered from showing THAT horse galloping out.

Gulfstream and Laurel, we DO NOT CARE how much money was bet into the pools. Show the replay, already!

[rubicon55]

Originally Posted by wisconsin

The camera guys at Fairmount Park and at Monticello (not that I play these tracks) are infatuated with the running time on the tote board in lieu of a quick replay.

Sam Houston wants you to see the pole with the fancy gold lettering that says "FINISH", in case you missed it the first time. Then, they finally get around to showing you the winner being ridden out, and only after awhile, they show a replay of the finish. But not in slow-mo, especially when there was a photo for a placing. Real speed.

On a side note, TVG is also guilty on a replay of failing to show the entire finish in close photos for 3rd, for example.

We KNOW who the winner is, and there is nothing garnered from showing THAT horse galloping out.

Gulfstream and Laurel, we DO NOT CARE how much money was bet into the pools. Show the replay, already!

Agreed, a few tracks post the final odds right after the finish over the horses run out and in close photos you cannot see winner faded in the background on the zoom in, very frustrating till that image goes away.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by wisconsin

The camera guys at Fairmount Park and at Monticello (not that I play these tracks) are infatuated with the running time on the tote board in lieu of a quick replay.

Sam Houston wants you to see the pole with the fancy gold lettering that says "FINISH", in case you missed it the first time. Then, they finally get around to showing you the winner being ridden out, and only after awhile, they show a replay of the finish. But not in slow-mo, especially when there was a photo for a placing. Real speed.

On a side note, TVG is also guilty on a replay of failing to show the entire finish in close photos for 3rd, for example.

We KNOW who the winner is, and there is nothing garnered from showing THAT horse galloping out.

Gulfstream and Laurel, we DO NOT CARE how much money was bet into the pools. Show the replay, already!

I very much care how much money was bet into the pools. I hate that I can't find that information online shortly after the race.

[Tom]

What use do you find for that information?
Right away and ever, actually?

[Jeff P]

Doesn't (pretty much) every ADW interface have a screen that displays pool sizes?


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

If you live in a state where you can't have an ADW account, you can get pool sizes from the PDF Charts at Equibase.com.

The chart for each race is (generally) available within 20-30 minutes after being declared official.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Imo, the idea that we still have states where residents are not allowed to have an ADW account is just further proof that this industry has a lack of vision problem.


-jp

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by Tom

What use do you find for that information?
Right away and ever, actually?

I use it to know if I am betting too much or too little for the pool. I want to bet a maximum of X% of the pool to avoid doing too much damage to the price. Right now it only matters when playing the smallest tracks, but I am reinvesting heavily in my bankroll and should not be that long before I need to be careful betting the mid-size tracks.

I like to see trifecta and superfecta pools as the other pools of interest are easy enough to find.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Imo, the idea that we still have states where residents are not allowed to have an ADW account is just further proof that this industry has a lack of vision problem.


-jp

Most in the industry cannot see anything unless they yawn wide.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Imo, the idea that we still have states where residents are not allowed to have an ADW account is just further proof that this industry has a lack of vision problem.

-jp

I think it's unfair to blame the industry, or even the tracks themselves, for states which don't allow residents to have ADW accounts. I believe this is because the tracks/industry know trying to change the law is a lost cause.

In Texas, there's a moral opposition to gambling and I believe no amount of lobbying is going to change that.

We have the same issue in Kentucky in spite of all the racing related gross domestic product. The moral opposition to gambling came up this year when it was discovered last year's tax code changes removed the deductibility of losses against gross winnings. The code was changed back to what is was in 2017, BUT it was tough to get passed because many legislators in the state are so morally opposed to gambling that if they had their way, they would end all forms of gambling, even bingo.

As for Arizona, someone can correct me if I'm wrong but that's a political decision based on the many Native American casinos having so much clout with local and state politicians. Again, I can't imagine any amount of lobbying is going to make one bit of difference.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

...

As for Arizona, someone can correct me if I'm wrong but that's a political decision based on the many Native American casinos having so much clout with local and state politicians. Again, I can't imagine any amount of lobbying is going to make one bit of difference.

Arizona now has ADW wagering, albeit crappy phone wagering that only serves to limit their handle compared to ordinary computer style wagering. Especially when you have a rainbow pick 6 and structuring a series of tickets is enough work without then having to poke phone buttons or try to call 12,000 combination.

But, to clarify, the ADW law that effectively banned ADW wagering and was in effect for much of the last couple of decades came directly from Turf Paradise with the support of my fellow dopey horsemen.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Arizona now has ADW wagering, albeit crappy phone wagering that only serves to limit their handle compared to ordinary computer style wagering. Especially when you have a rainbow pick 6 and structuring a series of tickets is enough work without then having to poke phone buttons or try to call 12,000 combination.

But, to clarify, the ADW law that effectively banned ADW wagering and was in effect for much of the last couple of decades came directly from Turf Paradise with the support of my fellow dopey horsemen.

Mandated by law?

[Jeff P]

Arizona, 2009 --

Arizona's industry stakeholders successfully lobbied the AZ Legislature and Governor's Office for a new state law making it a FELONY to bet on horse races through an ADW.

When contacted by (angry) players afterward, the first words out of (most of) their mouths?

"It's state law. There's nothing we can do."

This is what actually happened in AZ in 2009.

Fast forward to 2019. The old state law making it a FELONY to bet on horse races through an ADW has since been repealed.

There's a new state law on the books that does allow phone wagering - but not internet wagering. The new state law also gives track management the right to set a source market fee on both in state and out of state races.

So yes, I blame Arizona's industry stakeholders for AZ's ADW restrictions.



Texas, 2016 --

During their 2016 meet, I tried several times (both email and phone without success) to contact upper management at Sam Houston Race Park to have a conversation about the possibility of getting Texas tracks to support an ADW bill.

Each time I identified myself by name and very clearly explained the reason I was calling (or emailing.)

Management at Sam Houston Race Park refused to take my calls or answer my emails. They would not even speak with me.

Maybe I wasn't persistent enough. But after a while it became clear to me that upper management at Sam Houston Race Park was not interested in even having a conversation about ADW for Texas residents.

So yes, I blame Texas industry stakeholders for their ADW restrictions.



I could go on and type out similar events/circumstances in other states that have enacted ADW restrictions... CA, VA, PA, etc.

Imo, industry stakeholders DO bear responsibility for ADW restrictions in their states because they were very much involved in the lobbying effort behind the scenes that directly lead to ADW restrictions becoming state law in their states.



-jp

.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Mandated by law?

From 5.112 Section O of the rulebook:

O. The owner of the advance deposit wagering account may make an advance deposit pari-mutuel wager only by telephone.