Internal Horse Racing Data & Industry Metrics .... Pffft

There was a neat article today on Marketing Dive, talking about big companies and their new approach to consumer data in a rapidly changing consumer landscape.

"Speakers admitted that solving these problems will not be a quick-hit fix, but instead done over time and through deeper collaboration, both internally and across the industry. For a category that's notoriously competitive and protective of its first-party data, that could take some serious adjustments." Rather than be protective, give everyone in the organization all the data," she <Mars Wrigley's VP> said. "It's all content without context — which is what we provide. Connecting the dots is the power."

In effect, across many mediums and products, the industry (and specific companies) themselves must be nimble with consumer insights data. One way Pepsi is going about this, is by empowering its employees, as well as academics and others, to be able to access data.

"In a few weeks, PepsiCo will roll out a new insights and content communication suite. "Historically, we try to solve problems ourselves and we think our problems are unique," Warner said, echoing Gansle. Pepsi has spent time talking to thought leaders, including CPG marketers, academics, experts, people from start-ups and technology solutions, pooling resources in an open source way. "We're all trying to solve same thing," Warner said. "Being totally secretive is not going to work."

This interests me in a racing context, because the industry is "totally secretive". When I want global racing data in North America, I often email o_crunk. And sadly, when the industry wants global data, they do that too. Sometimes he even has enough data to answer their questions, somehow.

I don't expect Churchill or Magna to share betting behavior data, even if it meant a stronger more prosperous industry; they are who they are. But in an industry that so often copies each other - jackpot bets anyone - it might be a good idea.

Have a nice Tuesday everyone.

Horse Racing's Action Bias Is Not Healthy

Action bias is a powerful thing, especially in an outrage biased world. When something happens, it's still very much preferred to be doing something, rather than calmly examining the facts at hand, and, formulating a plan; a plan that could easily involve doing nothing at all.

In behavioral economics I thought this was best explained through soccer goalkeepers. It's been proven that the action that gives goalies the best chance to stop a penalty shot is by standing directly in the middle and doing, well, nothing. This doesn't happen, and if it did, the goalie would likely be looking for a new job after his or her first loss. "I can't believe he just stood there, he has to go!" So much for following math.

In horse racing this is so very prevalent.

When people call for lasix to be banned, it, in my view, has plenty of action bias. When's the last time in the response to a crisis have you heard, "let's have a look at this and come up with a smart phase-out plan for lasix over five or ten years, and reexamine the results for efficacy and business interests." That doesn't make cable news.

In 1920, 1940, 1965, 1970, 1990 and 2010 when horse racing had takeout hikes to make more immediate money (and in some cases appease money-hungry governments), it represented the ultimate action bias. Have you ever heard anyone put a multi-year, multi-jurisdictional pricing plan together to examine efficacy? The flip side is even worse when it comes to using numbers and data and patience - just ask Canterbury Park.

Even synthetic tracks, which science has been very kind to in terms of their reduction of fatal breakdowns, was a mess. Dead horses in California made for "immediate action" of ripping out every track and replacing it with poly or pro-ride. Then, after complaints, many of which had more action bias than a political speech from a total wacko, they ripped 'em up again. Nice use of science, folks. Gold stars.

The very odd time racing looks at things long-term, there tends to be some good done more often than not. Take for example NTRA accreditation and the EID database. Your average, every day action bias guy or gal doesn't think much of them, but the data they've allowed for, and the PR (at times) is pretty darn effective. If your track is not a part of it, why the hell not?

One of horse racing's biggest issues is that they're married to the status quo, and this doesn't bring about change. This is valid. However, an often overlooked criticism is that when they actually do do something it's filled with action bias. I think this might be as important as the former.

Have a nice Monday folks.

Questions Abound (Well, for me Anyway) for Santa Anita and TSG

During this whole troubling spectacle - summarized and updated, story by story here by Jessica Chapel - I've had a devil of a time figuring out a lot of things. Leaving aside jokes about my lack of brain power please, here are some basic kind of questions that you may or may not be able to answer.

I've heard over and over again from people in power that "The Track is Safe!". This has been trumpeted a lot the past while, and it may well be true.

The experts like Mick Peterson are in charge, and they tell us its "safe". What I'd like to ask them is, what do you mean by safe? Is it that there are no glaring problems; no holes, base issues, slabs or otherwise bad material causing noticeable issues; is that the meaning of safe?

What I'd like to know, for instance, is if the just noticeable difference is wide as a chasm or pinpoint. Meaning, if Santa Anita dirt is a historical 2.51 deaths per thousand, would the experts, and their instruments know if it's now a 4.22 per 1000 or a 5.02 per thousand (doubly less safe) racetrack? No one has asked, that I have seen.

Speaking of fewer people asking questions, I'd like to know what happened to Jeremy Balan. It's none of my business what private businesses do with private employees, and this is not a reality show, but the now-apparently-unemployed recent Eclipse winner is gone. I can't help but wonder why, and if the reason is something that all of us who like the sport should find troubling, or not.

Sunday is my last day at BloodHorse. If you know anyone who might be able to use an award-winning turf writer, sports writer, or news reporter, please let me know.

— Jeremy Balan (@jeremybalan) March 15, 2019

I'd like to know how in Heaven's name PETA quotes made it into a press release from a huge racetrack. I sure hope it wasn't, "I'll put your name in it and you'll never bug us again right?" I find this confusing, and am pretty perplexed.

I'd like to know why the horse racing media haven't asked why these big spikes in dirt breakdowns never seem to happen on artificial surfaces.

I'd like know if there's a causal relationship between breakdowns and lasix use. If not, this new policy kind of feels like asking your plumber to perform your appendectomy.

If the track is safe as reported, and all's well with the new protocols (like the ones NYRA initiated years ago that seemed to work well), why wouldn't Santa Anita and TSG just wait this out? The randomness should die down, and hopefully all would be well.

Anyhow, those are my dumb questions. If you want to keep following the story, Jessica's micro-site is a pretty good resource.

Have a nice weekend everyone.