Prisoners' dilemma

In Catch 22, Yossarian, as WWII is drawing to a close, explains to Major Danby how he does not want to be among the last to die, since it won't matter in the overall course of the war. Major Danby asks what would happen if everyone felt the same way, to which Yossarian replies, "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"

When the rewards of defecting, or reneging, appear to favor the individual over the group, there is little incentive to stay with the pack. However, if everyone has this same thought, which they invariably do, the mass defection leaves the group, as well as the individuals, far worse off than if everyone had cooperated from the start.

In an experiment at Texas A&M, Professor Raymond Battalio had a class of 27 students play a game (taken from The Art of Strategy, Dixit and Nalebuff). Each student owned a hypothetical business and had to write on a paper, simultaneously and independently, whether to produce (1) item or (2). The (1) kept supply low but prices high, so higher profits could be achieved all around; (2) meant each individual could break away and produce more than the others and profit at their expense. The payoffs to students electing to produce (1) were maxed out at $1.08 if all 27 students wrote (1) and decreased $0.04 for each defection.

The reward to the first student who wrote (2) started at $1.54 and decreased $0.04 for each additional defector. If all students defect and write (2), then they each get $0.50. If they had cooperated, the individual payout would have been $1.08.

The exegeses, after several mock runs and explanatory sessions, shows the number of cooperating students who wrote (1), was 4. The total payout was $15.82, $13.34 less than would have been paid with unanimous cooperation.

I just read the TDN Prescription for Racing, released last summer (I understand I am a little behind the power curve here but I make up for it with my cunning and guile.) A more tragic comedy of errors I am hard pressed to recall.

There seems to be a consensus there as to what ails this game. The panel appears to be skirting the same issue. If the parties that be are in agreement, what the hell is the problem?

• Detection-Cheating the system would be easy to determine but difficult to punish.
• Nature-No negative incentive exists for transgressors. Unless the punishment for breaking away is severe and enforceable, it has no credibility.
• Certainty-Members must believe that transgressors will receive punishment.
• Clarity-I know of (and this is not saying much) no guideline as to what the structure would be. If nobody is presented with a blueprint and cannot see the destination, it becomes much easier to object.
• Proportion-Punishment must be proportional to the degree of offense.
• Periodicity-Is the nature of the relationship repeatable? Is there an expectancy of commitment? What are the expectations for growth over time? If everyone believes the ship is sinking, then everyone is only going to look out for their own best interest. If the train is going somewhere then parties will be less inclined to jump off (Three guesses as to what the parties think is happening to the game).
• Stability-What are the barriers to entry? If membership is fluid and casual then there are fewer incentives to adhere to the agreements. New members with no stake in the game are less likely to abide by its covenants. When the participating parties have more flesh in the game, the incentives to cooperate, all else being equal, increase.

The hardest part is starting. The expectation that what is created must be perfect, is as illogical as it is impractical. There is no silver bullet. This is not about threading the needle. When your house is on fire, you don't haggle with your neighbor about the price of his hose and you don't sue his ass when he breaks your arm after tackling you out from under a falling beam.

Somewhere in the paper, Alex Waldrop says something along the lines of politics being the art of the possible. I will do him one better. Max Weber said, 'Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.'

Alex Waldrop limits himself by the scope of his premise. The tragedy lies not in his commitment to the effort but in his abeyant ideology of what that effort is.

On humble snorters and all that

The IPL (Indian Premier League)has partnered with Google to broadcast all 60 regular season games on Youtube. Read the story here or here.

The most significant aspect of the deal is the amount of control it gives the viewers, who will be able to customise their viewing experience by choosing between different camera angles. Additionally they will be able to freeze, fast-forward and rewind the feed, as well as watch replays at any time during the day, a choice that is unavailable to television viewers who are bound by broadcast schedules.

Now I am an educated man but I have no idea what the hell is going on with that game; I know they drink tea. I would, however, think this exposure could do nothing but help grow the sport and get me excited the next time someone takes ten wickets in one inning. If Google is in, it can't be all bad.

Sharing revenues from sponsorship to advertising.

MADNESS!!!!

Disconnect

Perhaps I am looking at this all wrong but I don't understand the resistance to trying new things.

There seems to be some dissatisfaction with the state of racing but I don't see anybody actually doing anything about it. There are good ideas but where is the implementation?

Most agree takeout is too high but when presented with the idea of systematically affecting handle, all I hear are crickets. If a product is unsatisfactory and one keeps using it, what signal does that send to the provider? Does anyone imagine that Original Coke would have made it back if the consumer said, 'This New Coke sucks my ass but what the hell, I'll buy it because it's all there is'?

Open source is an amazing thing and cooperation, on a grand scale, is possible in this day. What is the downside to trying it out?

I'm asking.

Theory is nice and all but it doesn't really get anything done. Any endeavour is, at its core, a series of tasks. Deploying resources in the most effective manner, i.e. where they will do the most good. 'Getting there firstest with the mostest' if you will.

Implementing a wagering blackout might not be the best idea.

But it is actionable.

Wasting away

Paulick Report has a story of NYRA's dumping manure and waste into Jamaica Bay. A more fitting tribute to the state of the industry I cannot imagine.

Racing has at its disposal a plentiful supply of renewable energy. It is a by product of their primary revenue source. With proven technology, readily available in the state, management could turn that resource into a solid revenue stream.

With the proper leadership and implementation, they could generate a...wait for it....profit.

Now I understand if racing officials don't know the meaning of the word; I am happy to wait while they go look it up.

This is just one example. How many other things, easily implemented, could provide similar cash infusions?

It requires effective leadership.

So I guess I'm just pissing into the wind.

Naming names

Bloodstock in the Bluegrass fires a shot across racing's bow in his latest post, unfortunately those on deck are too puerile to know it.

While I don't disagree with his apriorism, I don't think it is the most effective method of resolving the nasty little issue we have in this game. Congress is as ineffective and corrupt an amalgamation of bastards as exists on this watery rock.

I favor choking off funding, i.e. handle, in order to make a case for reform. A concerted effort to reduce betting on big racing days, industry wide, in order to institute reform. When those in control see the determination of the betting public, they might be more inclined to listen and enact meaningful changes. Get their attention and get them to the table.

This is not some socialist cry for revolution complete with brandished pitchforks, burning torches and rampart storming. I am not indifferent to the genuine hardship this will cause to real people but for the game to recover and have a chance to thrive, some creative destruction is needed. There is too much inferior product and too much opportunity to showcase it. Those who thought to make a quick buck "flipping" horses are probably crying foul the loudest. The conscientious breeder, among others, understands the swings of fortune and probably planned for the downtime.

The game needs leadership not an empty shirt and a hairdo. Marketing is not the answer. Neither is price gouging and obfuscation. The barriers to entry for consumers are too high; they should be zero. Steve Zorn has a wish list and it is attainable.

Change does not happen. It is an abstract. Tasks are concrete. They are done by people within specific time parameters. Anything else is just somebody blowing sunshine up your ass and stalling because they are incompetent.

Charles Ogburn, a member of Merrill's Marauders wrote, 'I was to learn later in life that, perhaps because we are so good at organizing, we tend as a nation to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.'

Making things happen requires clarity of vision, commitment and execution.

I don't think betting blackouts are the only way to signal how desperately this game needs to change tack. I welcome options.

I just can't think of anything more effective or immediate.

Quantifiable Measures or...Stop Sucking

When you dig yourself into a hole, stop digging. If you're a jackass, stop being one. In order to reverse course, you need to stop going in the wrong direction.

Once you stop the bleeding, or at least figure out where the hell it's coming from, you can work on treating the injury. Running around, yelling, crying and wringing your hands is not going to accomplish anything except delay the initiation of corrective action.

A hallmark of effective management requires any goal worth a dam to be measurable and time based. Effective organizations use KPI (Key Performance Indicator) to evaluate progress. If there is no quantifiable goal, there can be no measure of progress. You can't tell if you will get to where you want to go if you don't know where the hell you're going and if you can make it there with the gas you have left.

Describe the objective in quantifiable terms deliverable by a specified date (MT states a date must include a number between 0 and 32 with one of the twelve calendar months next to it), e.g., all sources handle of $15Billion by December 31^st.

Organizations measure the stuff they care about. The things that are measured are the things that get done. If there is no target, nobody can tell if you're actually doing anything. If there is no deadline, there is nothing for which to hold you accountable. If there is no accountability then they might as well put a monkey in your office; as Seinfeld would say, 'Anyone can take a reservation.'

Of course, if that is in in fact the goal, then racing and its 'Zoolanderlike' stewards are dead nuts on.

A momentary flash of genius

I checked my daily Monster.com notification e-mail today and had a surge of excitement. A flash that finally, somebody somewhere at the NTRA or wherever gets it. That all is right with the world and I have found my calling.

I read BOOKIES Wanted.

Upon further scrutiny, it actually read Rookies Wanted.

The enemy of the good

Reinventing yourself is not easy.

That's why Wile E. Coyote never does manage to catch Roadrunner. He is locked in to doing things the way he has always done them. Even when he has a brilliant idea; backed by the laws of physics; with sound engineering and design; his ass always ends up under the ACME anvil.

The hardest part is starting out. As Goethe said:

“Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it.
 Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it!”

Innovation and entrepreneurship need not be uncertain endeavours. They are based on economics; market structure; demographics and, as Peter Drucker referred to it, Weltanschauung, perceptions and moods.

According to Drucker, managers need to learn to practice systematic innovation. It consists in the purposeful and organized search for changes, and in the systematic analysis of the opportunities such changes might offer for economic or social innovation.

Racing does not suffer for a dearth of opportunity. It suffers from a lack of effective management. The current circle jerk is either blind or apathetic to the problems that plague racing and unwilling to abrogate the status quo.

Managers are paid to exercise their best judgement as it pertains to the welfare of the organization. They are not expected to be infallible. They are, however, paid to realize and admit when they are wrong. A behavior more common in omission than practice.

The ideas exist. Pick one.

Implement it and see what happens. Run experiments vs control studies. Pick a meet, or several, and play with takeout. See what happens to handle. If handle goes up as takeout goes down, you might have something there. Try to control for confounders.

Gather the major entities and form a federation of sorts with a commissioner, or supreme leader, or high priest or whatever the hell you want to call it. Draft a two or three or five year charter, during which time the game is run as if it were under control of a single organization. Get serious people involved and work out a blanket structure. After the charter period expires, if nothing improved, go back to taking each other out at the knees.

Create a league or two or three. Graded races and then everyone else. Standardize distances. Establish some progression.

Do something. Pick one thing and do it.

I'll do it for you. I have the time.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Mass at the point of decision

Where the hell do I start?

The problem, as I see it, is the lack of a unifying theory that governs horse racing. The individual fiefdoms and the petty lords that govern them do not lend themselves to cooperation and success.

The government holds the literal purse strings of our game and that federal adjudication induces the heterodox and sclerotic tendencies of the sport's superintendents.

That singularity separates our game from everything else. From that provenance, all decisions spurt. Small fields; large takeout; obscene breeding practices, prices and schedules; early retirement; restricted and expensive data; myriad jurisdictions and regulations; saddle cloth colors...all of it.

Jefferson's opinions regarding revolution notwithstanding, I am not advocating the violent overthrow of our government-although wiping the slate clean does have its allure.

I think the largest impediment to this game is the lack of central authority, in whatever form that has to take. I am not suggesting giving control to the federal or state government-they couldn't orchestrate a happy meal-my thought is for racing to appoint itself a central governing body and to adhere to its proposals and regulations across the board.

Without clearly defining the problem, then developing a philosophical algorithm if you will, we are all just taking up space. Once identified, we address the conditions the resolutions must adhere to in order to be effective.

This is of course my opinion and I am happy for the debate. I want ideas. What is the single thing that has to change in order for everything we all blather about to have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of succeeding?

Without vision there can be no goal and without goals there can be no plan. Without a plan there can be no action and without action there can be no success. This is management 2.0.

Resolutions

"Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
-Ferris Bueller

The world, somehow, continues its rotation. Much like Don Birnam and his misplaced weekend, I seem to have lost 2009. What sort of year was it?

I've had better.

But the arbitrary nature of modern, ordinal event tracking, allows one to file events in the catholic recycle bin and hit the virtual delete button.

A good scotch performs this same function.

I missed out on most of last year, as it pertains to...well, everything and racing in particular. I was aware of racing, much the same way someone is aware of their own breathing; you know it is a function simply because you are not dead. The autonomic system is brilliant. Someone should patent it.

Racing, unfortunately, does not have the luxury of operating on autopilot, although I would argue that in most instances it is mindless. Real things need to happen. Real changes are needed and all the bemoaning and carping is not going to make a damn bit of difference when the butcher's bill comes due.

I am going to take this blog in a different direction and I need help in doing it. I am no longer satisfied to take potshots at mediocrity and then laud my own wit.

I intend to outline and initiate simple tasks that can be achieved in order to provide some resolution to the intransigence and incompetence that pervades this game. I want a seat at the proverbial and literal table (I imagine they must sit at a table sometime). I intend to engage in meaningful and actionable steps that can provide genuine solutions. I want to help.

I'm not deluded enough to think anyone will actually listen and I am fine with that.

It will afford me the opportunity to then take potshots at mediocrity and laud my own wit.

Debate is good but at the end of the day, debate does not solve problems. As Peter Drucker wrote, 'In fact no decision has been made unless carrying it out in specific steps has become someone's work assignment and responsibility. Until then, there are only good intentions.'

I have no idea what I am doing. I don't know where to start or where the hell I want to go with this but I know I can't do this alone. I do know a few things-If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you.

I am looking for anyone and everyone interested in actually doing something, no matter how insignificant it might seem, to help me.

In the coming weeks and months I hope to make this forum a nexus for meaningful and lasting change. There are no projects, only tasks. The focus of this blog will be to determine what if anything can be done and then to actually, you know, do it.

I want the debate. I want to hear all sides of the issue but at the end of the day I am going to filter all that noise out and determine, with help, what, if anything, can actually get done.

Bloviating is for empty shirts and I no longer choose to be in that cadre.

Resolutions without action are wishes. As my old man used to say, 'You can want in one hand and shit in the other. Tell me which one fills up faster.'