Changing Betting Behavior is Tough. In North America, Maybe Even Impossible

The Premier of my province came on the tee vee the other day asking the Feds to suspend their carbon tax increases which have driven up the price of home heating and gasoline to super-high levels. For a province as poor as this (Maritime provinces are poorer than the poorest US state), it does have some appeal. 

The most interesting part of the speech for me, was when he talked microeconomics. He noted, correctly, that this province being very rural can not change its behavior. People can't bike to work, take the subway, install solar panels or buy electric cars. It's the land of trucks for winter, hauling in summer; chainsaws and driving; tractors for snow removal. This place just ain't built for it. 

Over in wagering land, Crunk has spoken a little about the new exchanges trying to break into sports betting (and before them, racing) land. They simply can't get any volume. This despite, just like the carbon taxes, there's an incentive (on price) to play them. How can this be?

In my view, there are some obvious explanations. 

Regular consumers are not as price sensitive as they think, and companies take full advantage of it. I can get cable, cell phone coverage and internet for $200 per month, but the person across the street - even if he or she knows they can get this value - gets swayed by "bundles" from the big guys, and pays $350. This, in subscription models, is known as stickiness. 

I see bettors "cashing out" a bet at their sportsbook at incredibly bad prices. They know they shouldn't, and an exchange could yield them hundreds or even thousands more at the end of the year, but they go on doing it. It's just too much trouble, and the stickiness is too favorable. We see similar with rebated ADW's versus the big dogs. 

I think it's immutable truth at this point - lots and lots of casual bettors don't care a whole about price. 

I see there's a difference, however, between my province moving hell and earth to change chainsaw behavior and your average bettor who can change by line, website or ADW shopping : The infrastructure to enable those who may want to change is not mainstream or available enough. 

The rebated ADW doesn't have Churchill (they know all too well what they're doing when they withhold signals... they're like a big telco); the exchange is tied up in red tape in state after state. You or I can not click a button to cash out at $180 proceeds instead of $155 with any ease whatsoever. 

To be clear, there are people who do this regularly - the high volume, professional or semi-professional player. ITP does this. Many others do, including people in Australia who have many accounts for horse racing, and shop for best prices on exchanges and bookmakers. These mediums have grown from a paltry amount of volume to many billions. This fact is exacerbated, likely, because of the love of win betting downunder, compared to here. 

I believe the infrastructure will not change appreciably, certainly for horse racing, but likely for sports betting, too. And with that, I doubt the casual fan changes either. For the future of betting games in North America I think that portends less innovation, and in the end less overall growth, if any. 

Unlike my snow removal tractor and chainsaw neighbors, casual bettors can pivot on price and medium if they really wanted to, but they haven't and likely won't very much at all. And this industry, whether it be sports betting or racing, isn't going to do anything that gives them a push. 

Have a really nice Wednesday everyone. 

If There's a Track that Could Use Insideharness.com, it's Mohawk

I texted a friend who is a very seasoned player last week and asked a simple question I've asked a million times. 

"Anything to look into at Mohawk?"

The response - "It's so hard to know who is trying."

Mohawk, like we've seen at several harness tracks in the new age of harness racing, has been one of the "wait until next week" tracks. Bad post, not an ideal scenario, we might be able to drop and be 1-5, we should just wait until next week.

This has happened a lot in the sport, even in the olden days (i.e. 10 or 15 years ago), when it comes to half mile track racing. Punishing a horse from the 8 who could win just wasn't done a whole lot, because in seven days the horse could get a good post and try for the win. But nowadays it has, in my view (and the view of many, like my friend above) changed to include even mile or 7/8's ovals. 

Earlier this summer the Meadowlands, in their quest to combat this phenomenon, partnered with Insideharness.com, and track owner Jeff Gural asked participants to sign up, and share insight. There, 60 to 80 comments a night by trainers and/or drivers, give some details into the horse's intent. Even simple words like "bad post", or "missed time" tend to help guide customers through the murky morass we've seen in the sport. They can be helpful. 

Over at Mohawk, which is on insideharness.com, there's been no such push. Trainers like Chantal Mitchell post in studious fashion, and a few others have from time to time, but it's pretty much a ghost town. 

With the head scratching betdowns to 2-5, form reversals, and my friend who doesn't seem to have a clue who "might be trying tonight", Mohawk has been at times completely bizarre to wager the last year or so (I have stopped completely). If there's a track built for insideharness, it's probably the Campbellville oval. It'd be nice to see a Gurallian push there, as we've seen at the Meadowlands. 

Notes - 

Parx has always been a bit odd, in my view. The slots-infused purse track was reticent to reduce usurious takeout in the past, and today announced a change to their menu. They don't have one jackpot pick 5 but two! It seems like a track that takes one step forward and two steps back. Or maybe even three. 

We complain about races taken off the turf late, but in the NFL this happens, too. Nathan Peterman was supposed to start for the Bears on Sunday because the listed starter hurt his ribs in warm ups. The line moved a full 2 points, and I expect thousands of DFS teams were subbing. But out trotted Trevor Simean instead. What a miraculous healer. The big difference of course is that the NFL doesn't depend on gambling to survive like racing does. But I did find it a bit comical. 

Rich Strike lost this weekend. I just thought you'd want to know. Poor Rich Strike. 

Charles Simon is back on twitter again. I wondered if Elon Musk banned him for his view that Flightline was smart to retire from racing. Then I realized Elon is for free speech, even if it's for opinions as wrong and horrible as that was. So it must have been something else. Welcome back though Chuck!

Enjoy your Monday everyone. 

There's All Kinds of Handicapping Biases

As seasoned bettors, arguably nothing befalls our selection process more than biases. They are truly a pox on our house. 

I woke up this morning to see headlines blaring, "Kirk Cousins Shuts Down Prime Time Stigma" as he went 30 for 37 for 299 yards in a win over the New England Patriots last night. 

There's a whole lot of bias going on with most headlines nowadays, and I guess this is just one of many. But, let's break it down. 

Selection Bias

This deadly bias is where we see what we want to see, or alternatively, repeat what others are seeing (because we don't do the work). 

We see a "prime time" 11-18 record or watched a few games and saw a bad performance or two from Cousin Kirk, and we heard it on talk radio. He sucks under the lights! It has to be true, right? 

Here are a couple of Cousin's Prime Time game stats. 

36 for 49 for 422 yards, 3TD's 0 INT 

41 for 53 for 449 yards, 3TD's 0 INT 

His teams lost both those games. 

Overall, Cousins in early games throws for 260 yards per game with a QBR of 100.3 with a record of 46-31. In Prime Time he throws for 272 yards per game with a QBR of 95.9; which makes sense because national games (or playoffs) the team is likely facing a tougher opponent/defense which results in a lower QBR (and does for every QB). 

Since 2014, he ranks 9th in QBR in Prime Time, just ahead of  another QB who captained 7-9 type teams for most of his career, Matt Stafford. 

Over in horse racing land, we can see this bias a lot with rider or driver changes. We select the time the rider change worked to remember, but forget the times it didn't. It can cause us to come to some really bad conclusions. 

This, as we notice in horse racing, is the "I see what I see with my own eyes, so don't tell me anything else" bias. The problem is, our eyes remember things selectively. We should not do that. 

Recency Bias

This is one I think we do much better with in horse racing than sports radio narratives do. We often discount the performance of a horse's last race, where they don't. 

Cousins played earlier this year in Prime Time and was ineffective, probably due to a 55% pressure rate, where few signal callers do well. But it was there. It was the last game in people's minds, so last night's performance becomes an outlier, probably due to our next bias. 

Results Bias

This is an ugly one. If New England didn't have a TD called back, Cousin's performance last night might be a loss, adding to the negative record. It's another game in the "he stinks" column. Mike Florio over at Pro Football Talk will have written a story about it already. 

Results bias is at play with everything we do in horse racing. I have a friend who has been doing woeful at Mohawk, however, he hit a couple tickets lately. Those results don't mean much, other than the random, and nothing can be concluded from them. He should, and will, tread lightly, despite the result. 

We've heard it before - it's the process, not the result. We can hit something without a good process, but we can't be fooled by it, because the process matters infinitely more. 

Last up - Confirmation Bias

This too is another dandy. And it causes many of us a lot of trouble. 

I don't know how many angles I thought were right, that over time were not, but I stuck with them far too long. 

"Look at that, see I told you!" We tend to believe what we want to believe. 

I see Kirk Cousins with happy feet (I might too, as he's seen over 20% pressures in his career playing behind some bad lines), behind in game trying to make something happen as lots of 8-8 team QB's do, and throwing some woeful passes. It confirms to me that he's no damn good. But by doing that I miss some very, very good passes and performances. 

I see a horse who is 0 for 15 who lost a few photos where I bet that is a no trying nag. When in effect we should be unbiased enough to know the horse was just being beat by faster horses. 

If we look for a confirmation of our bias we will find it. We will absolutely find something that confirms our belief. But it doesn't mean we're right. 

In sports land we can hear a lot of noise, because talk radio and talk twitter needs to fill time. I'm old enough to remember when Peyton Manning was a choker because of his early playoff record; LeBron, is he a "winner"; is Eli better than Peyton because he has more "rings" (how laughable was that one). Ovechkin can't win a Cup.

Like with most things, the extremes never tell a story. The horse we bet, is what the horse is; from his races and past performance lines. There's little mystery surrounding him or her. 

There's not much mystery in Cousin Kirk. He's no Dan Marino or Aaron Rodgers, but if it's dark outside, he's no Nathan Peterman either. 

Have a great weekend everyone.