Although some of the races were tradeable, with strong favorites, the volume of players seemed to be very weak. I was quite disappointed with the liquidity, because liquidity is a staple of the exchange, and, in my view, this should've been taken into account, with the use of many market makers.
When I wrote a white paper back in 2008 about betting exchanges for harness racing in North America (in this case, Canada), I typed the following as a main plank of their success or failure:
III - "A Market" -- Market makers must be employed, or core traders must be offered a low (or no) takeout on the condition of making a tradeable market. If a stock is bid 10 cents and ask 50 cents, no shares will trade. It's the same with horses.It's really not that difficult to achieve the above. Other exchanges use this tactic with foresight, along with a little bit of math.
Other than the above, there seemed to be no in-running trading (that I saw) for the races, which was curious, because not that long ago there was chatter that only in-running would be offered for harness.
On the flip side, even with low volume there were bets that sharp bettors could've taken advantage of.
In the fifth, Blue Muse - a quality trotter - was dipping in class and had a big driver change to one of the greatest handlers of square gaiters in the history of the sport. The mare held firm on the exchange at 5-1 for a period, even when it was pretty clear she'd take a beating at the windows. For those sharp players, a $6.60 mutuel was $12 (minus commission). There were some other examples.
Overall, the exchange debut for harness racing was inauspicious. I guess that's better than the alternative, which was forwarded for years from many detractors -- there were still people betting into the pools, there were no drivers falling off the bikes mid-race, and there was no evidence Al Quada was funneling money to trade Always B Miki.