Are people inherently lazy?
There’s a long-standing tradition in psychology characterizing humans as “cognitive misers.” Misers, in the sense that all things being equal, humans will tend to avoid tasks that require elevated cognitive effort. In other words, zillions of differentiating factors aside, we all tend to try and avoid tasks that require complex, arduous brain thinking for other tasks that might not be so intellectually demanding.
Humans also value their effort. All day and everyday, our brains are masterfully calculating the “cost” of spending that brainpower vis-a-vis the reward that we might stand to obtain as a result. The greater the reward, the harder our brains are willing to work.
All of this sounds obvious, right? What in the world are you getting at, Smith?
Of course, I wouldn’t dare label anyone that plays with us as lazy. Quite the contrary; as I’ve always argued to those that may have a different idea of who tournaments appeal to, contest players are, in the aggregate, some of the most highly involved horseplayers. They work extremely hard and put in extraordinary amounts of time in their contest endeavors.
But what might this simple concept tell us about tournament participation in general? And how is this instructive for us as tournament operators?
At HorseTourneys, we’ve come to realize that there are a number of what we internally refer to as “immutable laws” of tournament play. Like Newton’s law of gravitation or the concept of supply and demand, no matter what, these concepts hold true. We’ve got a pretty long list of them, but there’s two relevant to this discussion:
Immutable Law #1: The more complicated a contest format, the less participation there will be
Players email us suggestions on formats often (sidenote: I should mention that for several reasons we cannot engage in exchange of intellectual property; but of course, we can’t stop players from emailing us.). Often, those suggestions are multi-layered with complex scoring. Formats that might take me 20 minutes to explain to you.
The performance of the EXACTA BOX tournaments at HorseTourneys is a good example of the above at work. The Exacta pools at racetracks are typically either the most popular or second most-popular pool in pari-mutuel wagering, alongside the Win/Place/Show pools. The popularity of Exactas should translate to tournaments, right?
At HorseTourneys, the Exacta Box format has failed to gain much traction, despite being continuously included in schedules for all major tracks and in our Sunday Featured schedule for several years. The Sunday featured Exacta Box game rarely draws more than $3,000-$4,000 net.
The Exacta Box format requires players to select three horses instead of the usual one per race, as well as designation of alternates for each horse selection, assuming one wants to avoid issues with scratches. Over 8-12 races, playing an Exacta game simply requires far more brainpower and effort than a traditional Win/Place game, and notably, far more effort required to input selections. Because of this, it’s not entirely surprising to us that it has failed to appeal to the masses.
But why are Exactas, Trifectas and other exotic wagers so popular in the pari-mutuel pools? That’s where the reward piece comes into play. The potential payoffs with those bets are dramatically higher. In tournaments, by their nature, those playing Exacta games are playing for the same types of prizes as they would in a $2 WP event. Therefore, the reward factor doesn’t justify the work.
Immutable Law #2: The more time a contest format requires, the less participation there will be
Performance of the ALL-OPTIONAL format is a perfect illustration of this.
Many players continue to ask us to more prominently feature the All-Optional format on a day-to-day and weekend basis. Those players—justifiably—feel that this is a truer handicapping test, that the requirement to choose races among a larger group is a critical component of tournament play.
We don’t disagree that the All-Optional format should be regularly used. We spent a great deal of time in development making sure that we covered all of our bases to make it a reliable format to offer. Since it was brought back in mid-2019, we’ve done what we promised we would do, and have featured it in roughly 20 percent of weekend featured schedules, or once every five weeks or so. Why do we think this is the right level?
The All-Optional format is featured on a daily basis on Wednesdays through Sundays, including all races among at least two major tracks. The participation on those daily schedules is, to put it mildly, non-existent. We’re lucky to get 10 entries in a $9 or $12 game, and maybe a Head-to-Head matchup or two. Outside of that, no one is playing it.
And on the weekend Featured schedules when we’ve used it, the performance of the All-Optional events trails that of standard all-mandatory events by at least 20 percent. It’s been in place long enough to show consistent results in this regard.
It’s pretty clear why this has held true: playing in All-Optional tourneys requires far more time—and cognitive brainpower—to play vs. the standard format. Far more prep, far more decision making, and of course, far more time playing the tournament itself. All-Optional tourneys can easily extend to five hours if 25 races are included. That means, at minimum, 20-25 percent more time than a standard 12-race mandatory schedule, which is usually over in three hours.
The human brain simply figures out all of this calculus and behaves accordingly. Players are more willing to invest this time when the reward is greater, which is why ALL-OPTIONAL events perform far better on major weekend events than they do on a daily basis in smaller tourneys.
Our message is–we will never make decisions regarding what to feature solely based on what we think will generate the most business. We are committed to offering a variety of products that appeal to a broad swath of tournament players. We could be justified in never running the ALL-OPTIONAL format at all, for instance, but we would never take that kind of step backwards.
What this means, though, is that we have to continually evaluate both our existing product mix and potential new products with a critical eye toward whether, based on its fundamentals, a new product has a chance to catch on with a reasonable percentage of the player base. Development on the internet is time-consuming and really expensive, and our to-do list is long.
Our new POINTS-BASED scoring system will be an interesting test of some of our assumptions regarding format appeal, and perhaps some of our immutable laws. We look forward to providing you an update on our evaluation soon.
McKay Smith is the President of HorseTourneys.
Spot on, McKay
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should give the all-optional pick & pray format a long look.
Ken–scratches (it’s possible scratches on the west coast won’t even be in when an all-optional P&P would close), non-starters, no contests and race cancellations are all factors that make an all-optional P&P a very difficult, if not impossible proposition. You have the very real possibility of players losing picks because of circumstances. I am of the overall belief that those logistical issues pretty much nullify the possibility of using P&P in an all-optional setup. I doubt the players would be willing to live with the realities of potentially losing picks, particulary in major events, and there are no reasonable ways around those logistics. You might be OK 48 out of 50 times, but there are bound to be major issues at some point.
I’m probably slower than most but handicapping just nine races takes me a long time. The Featured tourneys with twelve races can wipe me out physically and mentally. I look at the parameters of the ALL-OPTIONAL format and there’s just not enough hours in the day for me to handicap that many races. Not thoroughly enough that I would have confidence in my picks anyway. My hats off to those with the energy to excel at that format but that ship sailed for me some time ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for this comment, Wallace. I think your points echo almost perfectly the essence of what McKay was conveying above.
Thoughtful analysis of these issues. Bravo.
The people I interact with feel this is the prime reason all-optional contests have less participation:. Those with multiple entries lose some of their advantage.
I’d like to see a deduction for picking a horse wrong, so -$4, just like in actual betting. This can help against multiple entries just reaching until something good happens
ALL-OPTIONAL contests are a great idea in theory. But until tracks can get us the race day scratches much, much earlier in the day, than they currently do I just couldn’t see myself get overly serious about them. The way the current system is for race day scratches, I prefer to play a 10 race pick & pray format.
For the biggest and most lucrative contests, I believe that a modified ALL-OPTIONAL live $ tourney would produce the most deserving winner. (10 required races for a WP bet, and then 10 bets of nearly any type(leaving out maybe only pk 4, 5, & 6’s and super high 5’s) over a 3 race card with say a $500 maximum total.
I am a huge fan of the All-Optional format, but I fully agree with the post. It requires a longer preparation/time commitment. Offering it on both Saturday and Sunday might be overkill. I usually try and buy-in to these tournaments to show support, but work go in the way this week. Glad to hear HT wont give up on them and will still offer All-Optional format going forward. Maybe you can try a large money All-Optional tournament?
Keep up the good work and I enjoy the site!
I’d also like to suggest fewer main events on Sunday. For those of us with families, it’s nearly impossible to participate in a Sunday qualifier. I’m sure Saturdays see much higher participation. Also, be aware of the Easter weekend in April. I remember last year seeing events on that day/weekend. Thanks for listening.