Belmont 5/14 Race 8
 

Ted, Anyone,

I was going through the Match Up 5 step document posted up in the Match Up section. I saw some discrepancy in the time of the 6 horse Retribution in the 8th race going 4 lines back. I went to Val3 to check the Original Paceline times for this race. When that didn't agree with the PP I went to Spec. Borh programs produced different numbers than the PP I was working with.

1STC 2NDC FINC
VAL3 47.0 110.6 147.9
SPEC 46.5 110.5 135.4

Both programs use the same trackmaster data file. Why should the original paceline be different for same horse same race? I thought original paceline would be unadjusted.

Charlie

Charlie,

To me, the data looks consistent - it may be a matter of rounding from the original data. Perhaps different data suppliers round differently, but look at the fractions in hundreds from the result chart below, then compare to Spec and Post Time Daily's form. Looks to me like they're accurate enough. Not sure where you got your Spec numbers from - mine look the same as your Val3 times.

Don't forget, Spec/Val is in 10ths, DRF is in 5ths, Result Chart is in 5ths and 100ths.

Ted

P.S. I was unable to post an attachment showing what I had assembled, so here's a link instead (for the time being):

www.ArtofPace.com/races/BEL0514-8_fractions.gif

Ted,

I downloaded the trackmaster data file for Belmont 5-14. It went to the trckmast directory as always. I open the file with Val, then I open it with Spec.
What I am looking at is what should be the original paceline which I would think should be the actual times produced by the horse. There should be no adjustment here and I don't think there should be a difference in the times.

First Call shows a half second difference. When a horse is moving at 50+ FPS that's 2 1/2 lengths and to me significant. 2ND Call is only 1/10th of a second difference but Final Call shows a serious difference going from 147.9 in Val to 135.4 in Spec. I would have thought that these original pacelines wouldn't have been subject to the programs interpretation since it's same horse, same track, same race and the actual numbers would be read in directly from the data file. I can post up screen shots for each if it would help you.

Charlie

Ted, please understand here that I am not criticizing. I originally started with Spec. After a lot of comparisons with Spec and Val I found Val3 to be better at predicting the outcome of a race. At least for me. Then the trackmaster changes were radical and changed results. I wasn't hitting the races I was able to hit before. Definitely not at the same rate. Now I am trying to decide where to go for the future. I've seen your new program but that's still months off.

Charlie,

I think there must be something wrong with your Spec installation. My Val3c and my Spec150 both show the same Original call times from TrackMaster:

#6 Retribution, line 4, 224 days ago, 2Oct05 10BEL:

47.0 110.6 147.9 (in tenths)

which is the same as the DRF (in fifths) and the same as the original Result Chart, per my link above (sorry I still can't attach and display it here).

Perhaps someone else gets the same difference you see, but mine seems to be functioning normally, with the correct raw data from TrackMaster. If you'd care to email me the 3 data files your Spec is using for this card (BEL0514R.DBF, BEL0514H.DBF, BEL0514P.DBF), I'll try to take a look at them and see what I can see.

I agree - they should be the same as Val, and as the DRF.

Ted

Ted,

I just emailed the three files over to you. I took them right out of the SPec directory. Thanks for taking your time out to take a look at this.
I appreciate the help,

Charlie

Ted, and anyone else who's time I tied up here,

I guess I was working on these files too late last night. And believe it or not I did double check it before posting so I made the same exact error twice.
The original times in Spec and Val3 are the exact same as they should be.

What I managed to do was use the line four back for Retribution for Val, and then use the line four back from Foreverness for the Spec numbers.

How I managed to do this TWO TIMES amazes me. It might be a marijuana flashback from the early 70's. I didn't think that stuff lasted that long.

My apologies for throwing everyone off here and for needlessly tying up your time Ted. Thanks for the help.

Charlie

Charlie,

No worries. That stuff does eventually wear off.

yours,

Ted