It might be a Problem

And obviously costs are a factor…

1 Like

somewhere between Pandemic and epidemic the plot got lost…


from Dr whatever his name is article

USEF hoped to generate revenue from the fees collected when the show runs, plus an increase in memberships, livestream sponsorships and commercials.

he might want to check that to make sure as Devon owns the livestream rights

Clanter, best wipe your old boy glasses and observe Dr Klemm is a woman. The author fails to acknowledge the bigger authority, that of state , county and city. All the blah blah blah about USEF v Devon feels like desperate publish or perish


wow, what a pompous article. The author certainly thinks very highly of her own intellect.

Maybe she’s smart, I don’t know, but trying to explain the USEF vs Devon battle in terms of game theory is just enjoying the sound of your own voice.


I feel like she turned a pretty easy to understand decision into an unnecessary diatribe. But I can’t stand the plaid horse or Piper in general, so theres that.


I’m not sure it is necessary or useful to bring game theory into this.
There are two issues;
Given there are two entities, USDF and Devon, will running the show create sufficient economic and non economic benefits to compensate both parties for their costs, and possibly also generate a surplus beyond total costs to be shared? Yes/No
A. If the answer to this question is yes, both parties are better off if the show happens.
B. If the answer to this question is no, the show should not happen. While the show usually covers costs and generates some surplus in normal years, it could be that the necessity of limiting spectators caused the answer to be “no” for this year.

If the answer to the first question is yes, and enough benefits are generated to cover both parties’ costs with some surplus, then the two parties need to bargain over the division of the surplus. The author seems to suggest that because the two parties could not agree on the division of the surplus, the show was canceled even though it would have covered all costs. That suggests that one or both parties are not acting rationally, which violates the assumptions of game theory and economics in general.

The simplest explanation is that, given the anticipated restrictions on spectators, the show was not expected to generate enough revenue to cover both parties’ costs, so that canceling it was the rational economic decision. You can’t use game theory to explain why one or both parties would “leave money on the table” by declining to cooperate to run a profitable show, because game theory assumes rational behavior.


She says right up front she doesn’t know any of the facts, then posits a theory based on facts she doesn’t know (some of which I suspect she’s wrong about). I dunno what to say about that, lol!


A quick Google shows that Dr. Klemm has her PhD in chemistry, and is setting herself up to offer “college level courses” in equestrian topics via her (unacredited) Plaid Horse Platform.

She has no formal training in theoretical economics, which is where game theory as a concept for analyzing the actions of businesses originates.

Many, many academics adhere to the standards and protocols of their own disciplines, but go wildly off base when they start pontificating on fields that they aren’t actually trained in or that become particular hobby horses. Beware the academic making large controversial claims outside their area of training. It does happen a lot. It’s also really tempting. In your own field you know exactly what you can and can’t say and be credible. Jump sideways to another field where maybe you took freshman introduction course 20 years ago, and it’s so much more freeing to be able to write letters to the editor and discourse online using your title of Dr and your sheen of academic credibility when what you are saying is just either (a) out of date or (b) all wrong by the standards of the actual field you are jumping into.

I agree, Dr. Klemm is not an economist trained in game theory analysis, and like most things on this particular magazine web page, it’s kind of puff between the ads, I think.


Game theory is part of economics, although John Nash, who was an important early contributor, was a mathematician. Game theory can usefully be applied to lots of problems other than the decisions of businesses.


Yes, it comes from math, but Dr Klemm here is playing economist. She doesn’t have formal creditation in either.


I’m puzzled because regardless of the field of science, isn’t it well known that you have to have reliable facts and data to result in conclusions worth anything? That seems… fundamental… Garbage in, garbage out-- right?


That’s why it’s so freeing to write about a field you have no expertise in. You aren’t held to any standard of evidence, proof, or logic. You are just spouting off like any other uneducated person on the internet, but using your title as credibility.

I agree, starting off admitting you have no data completely invalidates the pretense you are writing from a math or economics perspective.


She comes up with some useful stuff, but IMHO, doesn’t always check facts, or maybe just barges ahead with her narrative.

For example, she talks about a spectator allowance in the article (*). Does such a thing exist? I will confess to reading the USEF Covid guidelines on my phone, so I could have missed it. I thought that they were waiting to see if USEF was going to update their Covid guidelines in time for Devon to plan a show.

(*) Quote - But running the show without spectators would not improve Devon’s outcome. For them, it would mean running the show at a loss—a worse outcome than cancelling in 2020. Their logical move was to request a spectator allowance. Requesting this allowance in advance gave time to implement rules and physical construction on the grounds. USEF was given a date by which action was needed on their part.

Have no idea what’s going on with not using the PhD degree from a top chemistry school, but I suppose that’s her choice.

I interpreted the “spectator allowance” to be a payment from USEF to Devon to replace revenues lost if spectators were not permitted. The show grounds would have lost money without spectators or the compensation from USDF. USDF didn’t want to provide the allowance or compensation, so they couldn’t reach a deal to go forward. That’s my best guess on a “spectator allowance”, but I found the term confusing.

1 Like

I understood it to be an “allowance” to allow some number of spectators, which would contravene the states guidelines from USEF which is “no spectators.”


Because I am an agressive person ( was called so, and obviously it’s ok now on this board) I would like to add this article the points 6 and 7 I agree with. The others I have no information about so I simply don’t know……

You’re free to stop participating in the board if you don’t enjoy how others engage with your inflammatory posts.


She is referring to spectator capacity (which she described as allowance). USEF emailed an update to all members with an email subject of “ USEF Announces Spectator Protocols for USEF-Licensed Competitions” on April 20th. You can find the details on page 12:


They weren’t trying to host Devon at WEC. They were attempting to host a “Devon” concept show - an alternative to Devon for riders who had qualified. As they were also looking into the NSBA sanctioning the event, they probably should have clarified that this was most likely to be an offering only for hunter/jumpers.

I do believe WEC overreacted when they didn’t get what they wanted (again), and I do believe USEF also dragged their feet.

As for those who believe WEC is so affordable, I took my horse to both a hunter show and a dressage one at Ocala. In dressage land we paid for stalls. In hunter land we didn’t. When the hunters have to actually pay for stalls they will see the reality of showing at WEC. It adds up.

I do like the venue, though! I don’t see that it’s affordable as everyone seems to think it is. Some divisions are actually more expensive. And some don’t do a California split as USEF would. Funny this topic is in the Dressage section.