Remember all those years when tracks were adding slot machines and some casino executive or track executive would speculate about the potential for crossover? During those days I remember thinking, “I doubt it.”
One reason for such doubts could be summed up as, “horseplayers are too smart for slot machines.” OK, maybe I shouldn’t disparage all slot players, but I find that horseplayers want to dive into the pursuit of finding a winner, solving a puzzle. To me, it seems a slot player wants very much the opposite experience driven by escape from much of any thought—it’s Candy Crush with the potential to win money.
Well, a recent study published by the University of Eastern Finland and the University of Liverpool (United Kingdom) is the latest to back up some of my thoughts on these topics. The study, which examined male bettors, found that those with a higher IQ were more likely to choose to bet on horse racing and more likely to spend more on those wagers than those with lower IQs.
The research article, “Does IQ predict engagement with skill-based gaming? Large-scale evidence from horse race betting,” examined how measured intelligence (IQ) predicts a consumer’s decisions on whether to participate in online horse wagering, how much to spend on those bets, and which horse betting wager to consume.
To determine these findings, the study relied on wagers made through a state-sanctioned monopoly operator of online race wagering in Finland, Finnish Defense Forces IQ test scores from 1962-1990, and administrative registry data on socioeconomic status, income, and education for the men studied.
“Examining a potential link between intelligence and gambling is relevant because current research demonstrates that measured intelligence correlates with consumer decision making in various real-life choices,” the study notes in its introduction.
The study’s numbers indicate that horseplayers prefer complex betting products. The most popular category, defined in this study as “hard,” includes Pick 4, Pick 5, and Pick 6 wagers. This indicates that horseplayers want to take on tough handicapping puzzles.
“This paper demonstrates that a person’s IQ predicts his engagement with horse betting,” the paper concludes. “Our results show that IQ, and especially its numerical ability subcomponent, is positively correlated with participation in and expenditure on horse betting and a relative preference for complex betting formats. These findings are consistent with skill-based gambling, or at least horse betting, being consumption of entertainment, which intelligent individuals enjoy.
“Thus, it is plausible that intelligent persons and those with numerical ability gain satisfaction from absorbing themselves in tasks involving ‘crunching numbers’, such as horse racing.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Beyond horseplayers now being able to tell everyone how smart we are, there’s a message here for those who oversee pari-mutuel wagering and those who regulate it. Horseplayers do not view betting on races as randomly selecting numbers. I saw some of this mindset from California regulators last year when Modern Games was allowed to run as a non-betting interest in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Turf (G1T). (He would have been the favorite, and he finished first.) This decision turned millions of dollars worth of winning wagers into losers and would-be losers into winners, but some of the mindset from regulators seemed to end at the fact that some players won and some lost.
Those regulators clearly viewed betting horses as the equivalent of gambling on random numbers. Since they saw it only as “some players won and some lost,” they didn’t understand the frustration caused by both their rules in place, the interpretation of those rules, and the failure of the stewards working that race to notice that Modern Games had not reared up in the gate or broken through it—a failure that saw the horse scratched from the wagering pools under a false assumption relayed to them by a vet. Despite this failure, no stewards were sanctioned.
This mindset also seems to exist with track executives and regulators who continue to embrace computer-robotic wagering. There’s a mindset of “It’s all fair, as some players win and some lose.” That mindset doesn’t consider that high-IQ players who do not view racing as randomly selecting numbers desire fairness in the game they play, as opposed to one group of players routinely receiving every advantage through the best rebates, the ability through access and computer algorithms to fully understand the value in every pool, the ability to be last into those pools, and the ability to express those advantages through hundreds of nearly instant wagers into the pools.
This mindset doesn’t account for the fact that high-IQ players may not appreciate these disadvantages of competing with computers and over time may become frustrated by the disadvantages and leave the game.
Also, I hope that those who market betting on horses also take notice.
For instance, to differentiate itself from lesser gaming pursuits, I’ve always thought racing could do well with a marketing campaign in which it pokes fun at the stupidity of pressing the button of a slot machine or scratching off a lottery ticket. The campaign could then show the thrill of attacking past performances or watching race replays to discover an edge and ultimately be rewarded. For sharp players, the latter certainly is more attractive. The juxtaposition of the two pursuits could make for some humorous comparisons.
Of course, since many tracks are now owned by casino companies that wouldn’t want to disparage their top money maker (slot machines) and no one wants to politically anger the states that operate lotteries, I doubt we’ll see those campaigns anytime soon.