Re TrackMaster Data Problems

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by reckless

Since Tim brought this up. And please understand I am speaking only 'half' in jest but last night at Indiana Downs, there were some horses that simply didn't run anywhere near like I thought they might.

Now I have been playing this game since Flipper was a guppy, so I know first hand that horses often don't run like we think they should.

But, horses that looked like they'd be into the early pace were too many lengths off; horses that looked like they'd run down the lane, never lifted a hoof.

The adjusted Hoosier Park and Turfway lines I used seemed to be useless; those horses didn't run well with adjusted figures that might have at first blush suggested simply a better effort.

Even my lone winner last nite was a 10-1 longshot shot in the second. He raced at Hawthorne. I repeat, the adjusted Kentucky and Hoosier numbers seemed too high.

Honestly, if this didn't happen today I would never have mentioned it. I would have just chalked it up to poor handicapping (and maybe, in the final analysis, that's all it really is). But as noted, we do expect horses to run to form and while we can expect losses and even a bad analysis, sometimes things just seem out of sync, like last nite.

Thanks Ted.

Some of the inter-track adjustments do seem to be way off. Tim and I have posted many times to beware of Philadelphia Park lines when doping out Aqueduct, main or inner. One Philly invader did score at Belmont the other day, but his EPR figs were so superior to all else in the field that it probably compensated for what appears to be statistical error.

I usually end up passing a race or picking another contender when Philly lines come out on top.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by clore1030

Some of the inter-track adjustments do seem to be way off. Tim and I have posted many times to beware of Philadelphia Park lines when doping out Aqueduct, main or inner. One Philly invader did score at Belmont the other day, but his EPR figs were so superior to all else in the field that it probably compensated for what appears to be statistical error.

I usually end up passing a race or picking another contender when Philly lines come out on top.

Hi Clores:

I rarely play Phila Park because I feel those numbers are simply silly. I know that track better than my wife's first name since I moved my tack there 17 years ago and there are multiple reasons why I feel the numbers are a joke. The recent numbers are just an extension of a multi-year debacle.

I used Phase 3 and TPR numbers this past winter while I was nudging toward RDSS two months ago, and I sensed a 'problem' at the Big A inner track this past season as well, and I am not even considering the short fields, a separate problem. It was very inconsistent IMO as well, Clore.

[Tim Y]

WHEN is this likely to be corrected?

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

WHEN is this likely to be corrected?

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Jim V at TrackMaster just told me they're still working on it and expect to have it fixed (including testing) before the end of the day.

Ted

No change to above info.

Ted

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

No change to above info.

Ted

thanks

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by reckless

Hi Clores:

I rarely play Phila Park because I feel those numbers are simply silly. I know that track better than my wife's first name since I moved my tack there 17 years ago and there are multiple reasons why I feel the numbers are a joke. The recent numbers are just an extension of a multi-year debacle.

I used Phase 3 and TPR numbers this past winter while I was nudging toward RDSS two months ago, and I sensed a 'problem' at the Big A inner track this past season as well, and I am not even considering the short fields, a separate problem. It was very inconsistent IMO as well, Clore.

I started off on the Inner Dirt track doing very well, Christmas came early for me.

Then they went on a break for 10 days or so and it was not the same for me afterward. There were a few days here and there where my rankings worked, but even with extensive track modeling, I ended up pretty much sitting out the last month.

That I blame on the new track crew rather than the numbers, but it was too much of an abhorrence from the days when the EPR figs would predict the outcome with almost pinpoint accuracy.

The short fields may have played into that also, making it easier for the Silky Sullivan types to navigate traffic. I've been playing that course since the day it opened, and even recall that the first winner on the surface was a horse named Rare Joel. I've never seen such a 180 in all of my racing days.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by reckless

hi again Ted:

Your data for Indiana Downs tonite may be OK Ted, but mine isn't.

Please check again the 3rd race at Indiana Downs for tonight. The '3' horse tonite raced this fall at Churchill. When you use the adjustment tab, the fractions are like Arabian horse fractions--52 for the half, 1:29 for six furlongs and 2 minute final times in 9 furlong races. There are also similar corrupt adjustments in the other races for the nite.

Sorry I can't prove this with a screen capture but I dont use snagit type software.

Thanks Ted.

PS--While I am at it. Do you think TM wil credit me for the card I d-loaded today? I am not looking to schnorr anything but I am on the 20-race/month program.

Ralph,

Here's what my IND 5/19 horse #3 raw and adjusted looks like. Perhaps that file was correct - many of the Oct - Jan lines actually do have TrackMaster SR values (though a few do not). I downloaded it this morning. If your version does not look like this, just try downloading and converting it again (don't forget to remove the check from Don't Duplicate Tasks, in the RDSS Data Centre so the re-download and re-convert actually happen).

I agree, the 9 Nov line looks pretty slow (raw and adjusted) but that's what the Result Chart says! (Though not as slow as what you report above).



Sure TrackMaster will give you a refund! Just write to their email address given in Post #1 of this thread.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by reckless

Since Tim brought this up. And please understand I am speaking only 'half' in jest but last night at Indiana Downs, there were some horses that simply didn't run anywhere near like I thought they might.

Now I have been playing this game since Flipper was a guppy, so I know first hand that horses often don't run like we think they should.

But, horses that looked like they'd be into the early pace were too many lengths off; horses that looked like they'd run down the lane, never lifted a hoof.

The adjusted Hoosier Park and Turfway lines I used seemed to be useless; those horses didn't run well with adjusted figures that might have at first blush suggested simply a better effort.

Even my lone winner last nite was a 10-1 longshot shot in the second. He raced at Hawthorne. I repeat, the adjusted Kentucky and Hoosier numbers seemed too high.

Honestly, if this didn't happen today I would never have mentioned it. I would have just chalked it up to poor handicapping (and maybe, in the final analysis, that's all it really is). But as noted, we do expect horses to run to form and while we can expect losses and even a bad analysis, sometimes things just seem out of sync, like last nite.

Thanks Ted.

In that IND 5/18 card (yesterday) I noticed many 0 TrackMaster SRs (re-downloaded/converted just now). That's your clue that the adjusted data was bogus for those PP lines. If there was a valid TrackMaster SR value (non 0), I expect those lines were correctly adjusted (or as correctly as they would ever be, as the case may be).

FWIW, I am making an adjustment to the RDSS next version code such that if the TrackMaster SR is 0 for any reason, the adjusted data is just shown as blank (like Speculator does).



Ted

[MIKE]

--I think the "Racing gods are trying to tell us something !!!!

[Ted Craven]

I think they are definitely trying to say something to Equibase and TrackMaster...

Ted