2010 HANA Track Ratings

[DeanT]

Sunday, March 28, 2010

2010 Horseplayers Association of North America’s Proprietary Track Ratings

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:

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. 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]

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.

[DeanT]

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]

Originally Posted by DeanT

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]

5th Rated Track:

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/ha...-oaklawn-park/

[W2G]

Re: methodology, how is the weighting scheme derived?

[Dahoss9698]

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]

Originally Posted by W2G

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]

Number four is up at Paulick: http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/ha...lfstream-park/

[W2G]

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]

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]

Write-up on #3 is up at Paulick:

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/ha...mpa-bay-downs/

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

[Robert Goren]

How sad is it that a track that takes out 17.5% on WPS wagers is rated third?

[turfnsport]

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]

Originally Posted by turfnsport

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.