HANA Track Ratings w/ a Bell Curve

[machine]

Ever since the HANA ratings came out they really made no sense to me, there is just far too much subjectivity in them, thanks to the new resources tab I put all the numbers on a bell curve and they make a lot more sense now.

the link is here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tMwjoVIyNPhGd9AEKn3nT6w&output=html

For tracks that don't have a takeout on a bet because they don't offer the bet I put the max in. I summed up the bell scores for TO, higher the worse and then subtracted from 1, and added the other bell scores (the rest are all good things, offering a .10 super etc etc) If a track offered it I scored it a 1, if not a 0.

I think this top 10 jives a lot more than seeing Remington #3 =
1 Keeneland, 2 Del Mar, 3 SA, 4 Churchill, 5 Gulfstream, 6 Oaklawn, 7 Hollywood, 8 Hoosier, 9 Tampa, 10 Saratoga


The only thing I think that should be added is purse size.

[rrbauer]

Originally Posted by machine

I think this top 10 jives a lot more than seeing Remington #3 =
1 Keeneland, 2 Del Mar, 3 SA, 4 Churchill, 5 Gulfstream, 6 Oaklawn, 7 Hollywood, 8 Hoosier, 9 Tampa, 10 Saratoga


The only thing I think that should be added is purse size.

Remington was never #3. That was a mistake and it wasn't convenient (or whatever) for HANA leadership to correct it even though they knew about it within a day of its announcement.

[Jeff P]

The only thing subjective about the ratings was a decision to rate tracks on takeout, field size, and wager variety. And that decision was made long before we ever had data in our hands - and we certainly had no idea which tracks would end up rated where. To imply that the rating system system was "subjective" is simply ridiculous.

And Richard is absolutely right about Remington. My understanding is that we realized the mistake shortly after the "final" list had already been given to The Blood Horse. It was a group decision (in which I said ok) to make the correction known afterwards when the final list was published on our site.

But Remington still ended up at #6:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.o...rallscore.html

Which means they were player friendly when it comes to takeout, field size, and wager variety.


-jp

.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by machine

The only thing I think that should be added is purse size.

I don't know about you, but I've never bet on a race because of it's purse was a certain size. Does it matter whether the KY Derby has a $2 million purse and not a $5 million purse?

I've bet more on races with low purses at Mountaineer than I have at any other track in the country.

Higher is not necessarily better, in my opinion.

You might like races with higher purses. If you do and I don't then "purse size" would be a subjective rating, in my opinion. I might feel that tracks with lower purses are more desirable than tracks with higher purses, all else being equal. You may feel just the opposite. If that is the case then how what is the proper way to rate a track on purse size?

[DeanT]

I agree, purse size is totally subjective and linked to slots and racedates.

Each metric used is one that a track can improve: Offer new wagers which are player friendly. Lower takeout which is player friendly or increase field size by writing races and working hard to fill them. All achievable things that shoudl be rewarded.

Increasing purse size? Two ways: Get slots or cut your dates. I think it would be crazy if KEE or SAR cut their meet to two weeks to get purse size up and get rewarded for it in the HANA ratings.

To think Woodbines $77k maiden special weight races and 27% exotic takes would get rewarded is not something I would be comfortable with.

[chickenhead]

I think it's good to talk about how things are weighted....saying they're subjective is not terribly useful, it's misleading in the sense most people use it. You can't design something like this without being subjective (because you designed it), your design is no less subjective than the first HANA model. I think arbitrary is a better word, the weightings are somewhat arbitrary.

I think/hope there are some plans in place to decide the weightings by more generally transparent method for next years model.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

I think it's good to talk about how things are weighted....saying they're subjective is not terribly useful, it's misleading in the sense most people use it. You can't design something like this without being subjective (because you designed it), your design is no less subjective than the first HANA model. I think arbitrary is a better word, the weightings are somewhat arbitrary.

I think/hope there are some plans in place to decide the weightings by more generally transparent method for next years model.

True, no matter what we do it is subjective, no matter if it is purely based on objective data, as long as we use at least more than one factor to make the rankings.

[rokitman]

Originally Posted by machine

Ever since the HANA ratings came out they really made no sense to me, there is just far too much subjectivity in them, thanks to the new resources tab I put all the numbers on a bell curve and they make a lot more sense now.

the link is here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tMwjoVIyNPhGd9AEKn3nT6w&output=html

For tracks that don't have a takeout on a bet because they don't offer the bet I put the max in. I summed up the bell scores for TO, higher the worse and then subtracted from 1, and added the other bell scores (the rest are all good things, offering a .10 super etc etc) If a track offered it I scored it a 1, if not a 0.

I think this top 10 jives a lot more than seeing Remington #3 =
1 Keeneland, 2 Del Mar, 3 SA, 4 Churchill, 5 Gulfstream, 6 Oaklawn, 7 Hollywood, 8 Hoosier, 9 Tampa, 10 Saratoga


The only thing I think that should be added is purse size.

There is some smart people involved with HANA , and I'm sure the ranking system will be better the next time than the last because that's what smart people do. Fortunately, they already showed their smartness by leaving purse size out of it, and not rewarding the parasitic slots tracks with inflated purses who, having sucked the life out of horseplayers, have left them for dead and moved onto new hosts.

[CBedo]

I think that something that might be helpful (not in rankings but for information purposes) in the track info would be the track layout. Length of stretch, Bullring, one versus two turn mile, etc.

[miesque]

Personally, I would like to see a version of the ranking that included customer service/valuing their customers because based on my experiences there is quite a discrepancy and it does make a difference. I know that is a very qualitative/subjective measure, so maybe there should be two versions each year, one that is as quantitative based as it can be (aka a tweaking of the version we did last year) and then a second one with the qualitative factors like customer service, ambience, aestherics, cleanliness, attention to detail, or whatever).

[CBedo]

Originally Posted by miesque

Personally, I would like to see a version of the ranking that included customer service/valuing their customers because based on my experiences there is quite a discrepancy and it does make a difference. I know that is a very qualitative/subjective measure, so maybe there should be two versions each year, one that is as quantitative based as it can be (aka a tweaking of the version we did last year) and then a second one with the qualitative factors like customer service, ambience, aestherics, cleanliness, attention to detail, or whatever).

I like the two version idea, one quantitative, and maybe one where all the HANA members pick their top ten or something similar, then total the points. I guess the issue with this is separating the on track versus living room player.

[miesque]

Originally Posted by CBedo

I like the two version idea, one quantitative, and maybe one where all the HANA members pick their top ten or something similar, then total the points. I guess the issue with this is separating the on track versus living room player.

While on a day to day basis the customer service element is perhaps a bit more important for on track clientele, I do believe that a track's commitment customer (or lackthereof) is evident throughout the organization and hence does in some facet end up affecting those playing via simulcast/ADW. For a current example, just reference "No NYRA Video on 4NJBets" thread, now while that specifically does not affect me, I will state that I will be at Belmont in two weeks and part of me is dreading that instead of looking forward to it based on some of my past experiences.

[BillW]

I envision a member rating system as Miesque describes (seperate from our present track rating system) here once we get our Website together. We need to set up our own site and have member login capability just to start. I equate what I have in mind to the something similar to what they have on Amazon.com or other web commerce sites only with maybe 5 or 10 different categories and the ability to write a commentary. This has been my vision for awhile now but, unfortunately most my ideas seem to be work intensive . We will get there.

[CBedo]

Originally Posted by BillW

I envision a member rating system as Miesque describes (seperate from our present track rating system) here once we get our Website together. We need to set up our own site and have member login capability just to start. I equate what I have in mind to the something similar to what they have on Amazon.com or other web commerce sites only with maybe 5 or 10 different categories and the ability to write a commentary. This has been my vision for awhile now but, unfortunately most my ideas seem to be work intensive . We will get there.

Another way would be to have the objective HANA numbers/rankings, and then let a user input a his on weighting scheme to arrive at an overall ranking.

[andymays]

Synthetic Surfaces

Two recent polls say so!