Campbell: What’s In A Name? Study Finds Bettors Unduly Influenced By Horses’ Names

This commentary originally appeared on HorseRacing.net on June 21 and is reprinted here with permission.

The handicappers of America are in a highly speculative business. It is not quite the lumber market of late, but … For some, it ranges somewhere between wildcatting out in West Texas, and base jumping off the KL Tower in Malaysia, figuratively speaking.

When it comes to “horseplayers,” they combine a strange concoction of superstition with past precedent. One would like to think that they are scientists more so than tarot card readers. Some are on the phone, pacing slowly; either doling out tips, or intently listening to a supposed qualified source. When the anonymous deliver, they are instantly known by all, a soothsayer of renown. Think town crier. When it doesn't — think the stocks in the square.

Racetrack culture is full of genuine and original “wildcatters,” who are just waiting for you to ask them the “Question.” That question being, “Who do you like?”

Betting methods are endlessly fascinating. Participants devour the Form in all sorts of ways. Some wait right up until the race goes off to look at it, while others prepare days in advance, hoping to unearth some numeral or meaningful sign that their selections can lead to cashing tickets. Everyone who participates in making a wager receives a permanent record, either on paper or digitally, of an opinion that at one point they thought might be correct.

At different points in the year, casual horseplayers arrive on the scene like tourists. Wearing their shiny white tennis shoes, cameras around the neck at the ready, and holding up their trifold maps like in one of those string of Chevy Chase Vacation films. They are hoping to “stump the chumps.” If they win, exuberance is a tidal wave, but if they lose, they might not return — at least until next year. More professional track-goers know better, and they can temper wins and losses.

Over the course of my own experience in different betting milieus, I have often wondered about how much the names of horses can influence the wide spectrum of those that place bets. Are they really as good as they think they are, those novices to the veterans, when it comes to dealing with this issue? Could they be unduly influenced by such an arbitrary thing as this appears to be?

A recent article in the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics entitled, “Sonic Thunder vs. Brian the Snail: Are people affected by uninformative racehorse names?” probed some of these questions. In other words, turning to those that examine behavioral economics might provide some intriguing answers.

In this particular study, a triad of scholars from the Department of Business Administration at the University of Zurich (Oliver Merz, Raphael Flepp, and Egon Franck) wanted to take a deep dive into the world of “effects.” That being how decision-making and market efficiency play in the world of horse racing. Our sport, they tell us, is particularly interesting because data is readily available to measure things like investment, choice, and result.

What they uncovered was some fascinating material about the habits of mind when it comes to choosing horses. Betting decisions they say are affected by uninformative racehorse names. They looked at over 400,000 contests between the ten-year span of 2008 to 2018, developing a long list of words from the Oxford Dictionary to cover anything that related to the word “fast.”

What they mined from countries across the globe (including the U.S.), is that when a “fast-sounding” horse was entered in any given race, the probability of them winning was “overstated.” To put it another way, the returns, the ability to cash a ticket, were actually lower compared to bets on others.

Wait, what, you say? A horse with the name “speed” was overly bet when compared to one with “slow” in it?

Correct. With all the collective knowledge available in the sport of horse racing, and with all the professional supposed “opinions” that are out there, something as trivial as this could have a major impact on the betting market. I find that both disturbing and captivating.

Of course, betting on a horse always has elements present where bettors do not have all of the knowledge at their disposal they could to make could be called an “informed wager.” But choosing a horse based on its name only, I would say is universally scoffed at by those that consider themselves “in the know.” Ask any of the National Horseplayers Championship (NHC) players in Las Vegas when they attend the tournament there, if they make their selections based on names, and you would probably get some wry smiles along with legions of shaking heads. It is simply not done, they will say.

However, we are talking about the depths of the human mind here, aren't we? It has twists and turns, fissures like a maze. As Freud and Jung began to tell us in German over a 100 years ago, the subconscious is a tricky business.

That is why we need departments in colleges and universities that examine topics such as behavioral economics. It can follow lines of inquiry, cross-pollenate, and uncover truths we might not have thought existed. By the end of the piece, the authors make some rather sweeping suggestions about society at large, and whether this kind of “effect” plays out on a larger scale. They are on to something. Has horse racing once again provided the world with a window into actions of a much broader audience? Perhaps.

What we do know is that track culture has a niche of behavior that is intimately tied to one's own pocketbook. Just like buying on Amazon during “Prime Day,” or purchasing a stock on Robinhood, those decisions about why we do what we do, reflect greatly on who we are as both individuals, and as a collective, “people.” We might not want to admit it, but sometimes those choices turn out to be pretty uninformed.

The next time you are out at the racetrack, surveying the PPs for a race at say, Belmont, watch out for those “speed” horses. As for those names, your mind might be leading you down the wrong path. That goes double for you, wildcatters. Knowledge in this case, is not as apparent as it might seem.

J.N. Campbell is a turfwriter based in Houston.

The post Campbell: What’s In A Name? Study Finds Bettors Unduly Influenced By Horses’ Names appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

View From The Eighth Pole: Keeping HISA Out Of Racing’s Alphabet Soup

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HiSA) got off to a solid start last month when Maryland attorney Charles Scheeler was elected by fellow directors to chair the nine-person board that will act as an independent oversight body on medication and safety issues for Thoroughbred racing in the United States.

The board includes some names that should be familiar to horse racing people (i.e., former Breeders' Cup and National Thoroughbred Racing Association executive D.G. Van Clief Jr., retired Keeneland president Bill Thomason, former New York Racing Association chief financial officer and president Ellen McClain, and Joseph De Francis, whose family previously owned Maryland tracks Laurel and Pimlico).

But there are others who bring major league sports experience to the Authority. Adolpho Birch spent 23 years at the National Football League's headquarters focusing on enforcement of integrity and drug issues, while Leonard Coleman served as president of Major League Baseball's National League (and is a former member of the Churchill Downs Inc. board of directors).

From the world of politics comes board member Steve Beshear, who served as Kentucky's attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor (his son Andy is Kentucky's current governor). Dr. Susan Stover from the University of California at Davis has blazed a trail of ground-breaking research on equine injuries and prevention. Scheeler played a significant role in Major League Baseball's Mitchell Report, which investigated the use of performance-enhancing drugs in that sport.

It is an outstanding group with a variety of skill sets that should work well together as the industry moves into uncharted waters with the development of national rules on medication and safety issues that will require the approval of the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C.

The Authority's second step from the gate was a stumble – temporarily it is hoped – with the appointment of industry organization veteran Hank Zeitlin as interim executive director. Zeitlin is like that retread football coach with a mediocre record who keeps finding new teams to give him a chance. He's gone from management positions at The Jockey Club, to Equibase, to the Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America in an undistinguished manner.

I'm going to take Scheeler's word for it that Zeitlin is being hired on an interim basis only – that Zeitlin's institutional knowledge will be somewhat useful as Scheeler and other board members get up to speed. He is not the person for the job long-term if the Authority is looking for a dynamic executive as its leader.

I'd almost forgotten that there still is a Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America and that Zeitlin was collecting an industry paycheck from them. The TRA is not to be confused with the NTRA – the National Thoroughbred Racing Association. They are two distinct groups in racing's alphabet soup of organizations.

I'm not even sure what the TRA does any more, except to count and pass through the money its racetrack members earn for their ownership share of Equibase, the industry's official database that the TRA tracks co-own with The Jockey Club (TJC). Long ago, including during Zeitlin's tenure there as president, the Equibase board decided the company's primary role was to be profitable rather than to serve as a marketing and growth tool for Thoroughbred racing as almost all other sports use their historical data.

Does the industry still need the TRA? Does it really need the NTRA? Can it get by without the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, or the Association of Racing Commissioners International?

This might be a good time for a downsized industry to look at consolidating some of these organizations and their responsibilities. TRA could probably outsource Zeitlin's current job as its executive vice president to an accountant. The Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau, a subsidiary of TRA that once served as an important integrity and security division for horse racing, may fulfill some role in connection with the Authority, particularly when it comes to wagering security, the primary area in which the TRPB is now involved.

The NTRA is a ghost of what it was originally designed to be when it was established nearly 25 years ago. Having long ago given up on being a “league office” for horse racing, the NTRA in recent years has focused on lobbying in Washington, D.C., running a profitable handicapping tournament, and presenting the Eclipse Awards. With NTRA president Alex Waldrop announcing that he will retire at year's end, this might be an opportune time to divvy up those responsibilities to existing groups like The Jockey Club or Equibase and save some money on salaries.

Same goes for the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association (TOBA), whose only real purpose is the grading of North American stakes. Since The Jockey Club prepares the statistical data at TOBA's behest for the annual grading process, that responsibility could easily be transferred. TOBA has been operating in the red in recent years, with its chief executive taking home roughly 30% of the organization's annual revenue.

And what about the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI)? Its primary function seems to be the development of model rules for a variety of activities in racing, including medication and safety policies. With those two categories falling under the Authority's umbrella, there will be a lot less meat on the bone for ARCI president Ed Martin to chew on.

Nothing will change, of course. Some of these organizations with uninspired leadership have evolved into nothing more than jobs programs, and they're not going away. Racing cannot afford to let the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) be steered toward mediocrity and become just another ingredient in racing's bland alphabet soup. Its success is too important.

That's my view from the eighth pole.

The post View From The Eighth Pole: Keeping HISA Out Of Racing’s Alphabet Soup appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

The Friday Show Presented By Monmouth Park: A Publisher’s Retrospective

Publisher Ray Paulick has interviewed all sorts on The Friday Show, but this time around, the spotlight is on him.

On this week's episode, bloodstock editor Joe Nevills asks Ray about his beginnings, both in horse racing and covering the sport, which horses inspired him along the way, and what about the sport compelled him to make it a career.

Ray and Joe also discuss how the Thoroughbred industry, and reporting on it, has changed in the three-plus decades since Ray moved to Kentucky.

We then unveil a new and improved Star of the Week segment, in which the hosts look at a notable winner from the previous week at Woodbine.

Watch this week's show, presented by Monmouth Park, below:

The post The Friday Show Presented By Monmouth Park: A Publisher’s Retrospective appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Letter To The Editor: Move By The Jockeys’ Guild At Monmouth Dangerous, Unfair To Riders

The Jockeys' Guild decision to cancel insurance for jockeys who ride in races at Monmouth Park is vindictive and dangerous.

To proclaim Monmouth's new whip policy “extremely dangerous and is creating an even greater risk to both the equine and human athletes, including the potential for injury and/or loss of life to the jockeys and the horses” is in my opinion an extreme over-dramatization. But to characterize the jockeys' situation as “extremely dangerous” and at the same time refuse to insure them is a new level of histrionics and reveals the Jockeys' Guild to be an organization of bad faith.

As a long-time fan of Thoroughbred racing, I frankly fail to see how not being allowed to whip a horse to make it perform is “dangerous.” The rule does not prohibit the use of the whip if needed to avoid a dangerous situation within a race.

It comes down to an unwillingness on the part of the Jockeys' Guild to adapt to the new realities of public perception of animal welfare. Their punitive and backward approach will cause harm to the very group whose interests they claim to represent.

Holly Brunner, Thoroughbred owner and fan

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, please write to info at paulickreport.com and include contact information where you may be reached if editorial staff have any questions.

The post Letter To The Editor: Move By The Jockeys’ Guild At Monmouth Dangerous, Unfair To Riders appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights