Chart mistakes

[banacek]

Everyone makes mistakes, but this chart from yesterday's 2nd at Hastings is a doozy. Check the comments (which are basically correct) and the running lines.


http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/HST100414CAN2.pdf

Hopefully they'll get corrected.

[GameTheory]

They fix things when they're alerted that they are wrong, send rather than "hope" send a message to Equibase about errors...

[cj]

They fix things when they're alerted that they are wrong, send rather than "hope" send a message to Equibase about errors...

I used to do that all the time. I'm not sure why. Now I just make notes for myself and hold onto the info. It rarely gets fixed.

[GameTheory]

I used to do that all the time. I'm not sure why. Now I just make notes for myself and hold onto the info. It rarely gets fixed.
Rarely now when you don't tell them about it, or even before when you did?

[Pensacola Pete]

I don't send in corrections. Everything I know that most others don't know is to my advantage.

Errors are rare in thoroughbreds, and they'll usually correct them if they're pointed out.

Huge errors are common in greyhounds. There must be four or five glaring errors for every race card. The winner's time can off by as much as half a second (that's 7 lengths for dogs) and I've seen beaten lengths off by over 10 and dogs listed in the wrong finish positions. Even if the errors are reported, they aren't usually fixed. There's a lot of profit in knowing these errors---and in keeping them to oneself.

[GameTheory]

The way I use numbers (for horses) there would have to be some really gross errors all the time for it to matter much to me, although if a good performance is made to look bad due to a chart error and is not corrected by the time it makes into the PPs for next time that will certainly help your price on a such a horse. I'm more concerned about the names of the connections being right, records of claims, etc -- for the record they do make corrections/changes to the charts all the time, even charts that are years old, most often to human names and to things like colt-> gelding. Some of them probably shouldn't be made (things propagating back in the database that affect old charts that shouldn't), haven't done a thorough study of it. Very rarely do they actually change time or beaten lengths data, at least after the first 24 hours. Sometimes they make a quick correction to something obviously wrong.

[cj]

Rarely now when you don't tell them about it, or even before when you did?


They always fix them when pointed out, but honestly, I got tired of being an unpaid Quality Control guy. Especially true when you consider you can get paid better by NOT reporting them.

That said, now that I work for TimeformUS, I still don't report the issues to Equibase, but I do build the corrections into my numbers.

[GameTheory]

They always fix them when pointed out, but honestly, I got tired of being an unpaid Quality Control guy. Especially true when you consider you can get paid better by NOT reporting them.

That said, now that I work for TimeformUS, I still don't report the issues to Equibase, but I do build the corrections into my numbers.
Understood.

[cj]

Check out the final time of the 5th at Calder...err...Gulfstream Park West on October 8th. It is sad that the system in place by Equibase can't catch a seven second error.

[Longshot6977]

Check out the final time of the 5th at Calder...err...Gulfstream Park West on October 8th. It is sad that the system in place by Equibase can't catch a seven second error.

Someone must've thought it was a slow one mile race, :eek:.

[Cratos]

Someone must've thought it was a slow one mile race, :eek:.

Where is the 7 second error and why do you infer that it was a “mile” race? I did not see the entries, but the charts list it as a 1-1/16m race.

Also the DRF charts has the same "error."

[GameTheory]

Where is the 7 second error and why do you infer that it was a “mile” race? I did not see the entries, but the charts list it as a 1-1/16m race.

Also the DRF charts has the same "error."
Yes, if there was an error the time appears correct now (1:47 for 1-1/16m). And error or not, DRF will have the same data because the only source is Equibase -- DRF hasn't had independent chart makers for many years now...

[cj]

Where is the 7 second error and why do you infer that it was a “mile” race? I did not see the entries, but the charts list it as a 1-1/16m race.

Also the DRF charts has the same "error."

They fixed it because I told them...this time. They originally had the mile fraction the final time.

[Cratos]

Yes, if there was an error the time appears correct now (1:47 for 1-1/16m). And error or not, DRF will have the same data because the only source is Equibase -- DRF hasn't had independent chart makers for many years now...

I understand that Equibase is the data source, but what I find odd is that DRF is accepting the data apparently without any in-house review for errors.

The chart is probably just a template that is automated with fill-ins which is good, but there should be better error detection if the situation occurred as posted.

Given this type of shoddiness they would never certify under Six Sigma scrutiny.

[GameTheory]

I understand that Equibase is the data source, but what I find odd is that DRF is accepting the data apparently without any in-house review for errors.That's right! Your mistake is finding it odd...

[Longshot6977]

They fixed it because I told them...this time. They originally had the mile fraction the final time.

Actually, it's not fixed in this Equibase chart. It still says final time is 1.40.31

http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbPDFChartPlus.cfm?RACE=5&BorP=P&TID=GPW&CTRY=USA&DT=10/08/2014&DAY=D&STYLE=EQB

The DRF chart is correct though, go figure.

[cj]

...if the situation occurred as posted.

If? Sure, I have nothing better to do but make things up and post them.

[GameTheory]

Actually, it's not fixed in this Equibase chart. It still says final time is 1.40.31

http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbPDFChartPlus.cfm?RACE=5&BorP=P&TID=GPW&CTRY=USA&DT=10/08/2014&DAY=D&STYLE=EQB

The DRF chart is correct though, go figure.
The Equibase chart I see is fine (and was yesterday) -- you might be looking at a cached version. (Or you're looking at the last fractional time.)

[Cratos]

If? Sure, I have nothing better to do but make things up and post them.
I hope you understand that I made a conditional reply directed toward the data providers; you were not included, but if you took it personal I apologize.

[Cratos]

That's right! Your mistake is finding it odd...
Sometimes things that are so simple, baffles me

[PaceAdvantage]

Sometimes things that are so simple, baffles meSo you're saying (along with at least one other in this thread) that there should be a very large team of people pouring over every single bit of data that arrives from Equibase every single day for every single track? I'm sure you realize what a huge undertaking that would be, and also I would assume a bit redundant given that Equibase and the tracks themselves are primarily responsible for data integrity.

And why would DRF need to quality for Six Sigma certification? Do you know of any similar businesses (say something like stock market data providers) who have earned that certification? I thought Six Sigma was primarily an industrial sector sort of thing.

Looking forward to your reply.

[Cratos]

So you're saying (along with at least one other in this thread) that there should be a very large team of people pouring over every single bit of data that arrives from Equibase every single day for every single track? I'm sure you realize what a huge undertaking that would be, and also I would assume a bit redundant given that Equibase and the tracks themselves are primarily responsible for data integrity.

And why would DRF need to quality for Six Sigma certification? Do you know of any similar businesses (say something like stock market data providers) who have earned that certification? I thought Six Sigma was primarily an industrial sector sort of thing.

Looking forward to your reply.
First of all I did infer an automated process; I come from a background where I was tasked with REDUCING LABOR UNITS to produce output and increase efficiency.

Six Sigma is used in many industries including banking, medical, aerospace, automotive, etc.

It really doesn't have much to do with the industry because it is just a statistical process for increasing quality and quality should be the cornerstone of any company's output regardless of their product or industry.

[GameTheory]

As CJ was getting at, some automated process at Equibase should be flagging times that are outside normal bounds for the race distance so that they can be verified. (As I'm sure CJ does and probably the people at HDW, etc that this data streams out to -- but not DRF apparently.) This would add a few minutes of work per day (maybe) for someone, not some whole team of people. On the other hand, maybe they DO have that but just don't necessarily stop a suspect chart from being released and then it is corrected a little while later. (But sounds like that is not true.)

For myself, I always wait at least 24 hours after a chart is posted to download it so that any blatant errors (that anyone notices and reports) can be dealt with. (Although I also get corrected charts later on too.) I was told by Equibase once that most corrections come from the people involved in the race themselves -- the owners wanting to see their name right, etc.

[PaceAdvantage]

Six Sigma is used in many industries including banking, medical, aerospace, automotive, etc.As well they should. But I wouldn't think such certification would ever be necessary to put out a newspaper full of horse racing past performances...that was my point...I was pretty surprised you even mentioned it...

[classhandicapper]

As well they should. But I wouldn't think such certification would ever be necessary to put out a newspaper full of horse racing past performances...that was my point...I was pretty surprised you even mentioned it...

The whole idea is pretty funny if you think about it.

If you look at 10 different sets of speed figures you'll get 10 different answers (sometime dramatically different), but that doesn't stop anyone from swearing by their favorite set of figures and forming very strong opinions based on them.

I'm all for better accuracy, but when I see 10 lengths differences between figure makers on races that were reported accurately I'm not so worried about the handful that were inaccurate. I'd estimate that 50% of the time it's making them better. ;)

[Tom]

As well they should. But I wouldn't think such certification would ever be necessary to put out a newspaper full of horse racing past performances...that was my point...I was pretty surprised you even mentioned it...

Don't look t it that way.
Try this - they are selling DATA the us to use make investments.
What is the stock market info was treated so slather-assed?

There is no excuse for less than 6-sigma in any business when it comes to what the customer expects. And we expect accuracy. Race times to within 1/100th of a second, not oh, within 7 seconds! :eek: Beyer of what, 73 or.....657?????


Equibase, track timing.....insults to their customers.

[Cratos]

As well they should. But I wouldn't think such certification would ever be necessary to put out a newspaper full of horse racing past performances...that was my point...I was pretty surprised you even mentioned it...
It is not the "news paper"; it is the data to their customers which is used by their customers to make financial (wagering) decisions and that shouldn't be hard to understand,

If the data is not correct, then this entire industry is in trouble.

By the way I would think that the Six Sigma methodology would be ideal for the data providers of horseracing because of the redundancy in collecting and distributing the data.

[PaceAdvantage]

How can they ever earn Six Sigma status when lengths behind (other than the finish line) is nothing more than an educated guess by the chart caller? Trackus notwithstanding.

[GameTheory]

If the data is not correct, then this entire industry is in trouble.
Well, the industry is in trouble, but that's not why. Consider that:

A) The data has *never* been correct. We know nothing will ever be perfect, but the systems for collecting horse racing chart data have always been highly flawed at best. If horse racing was a new invention and someone suggested the way it has been done for the last many decades, they'd be called a madman. But once upon a time, no one much cared about all these numbers and decimal places. The industry has always been years (and years) behind the times, and I'm sure it will remain so until it fizzles out entirely. (A day possibly not very far away.)

B) Flawed as it is, it is probably more correct nowadays than it ever has been.

Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with demanding more accuracy.

But we must remember that we are all in the same boat, competing against one another. Those who best use the data available to them will rise to the top. Some will fight on the front of using/acquiring data that is "superior accuracy-wise" and some of us will find other ways. For instance, I recently invented some speed figures that don't use times. Problem solved!

[classhandicapper]

For instance, I recently invented some speed figures that don't use times. Problem solved!

Sounds like my Class figures. :-)

[Tom]

How can they ever earn Six Sigma status when lengths behind (other than the finish line) is nothing more than an educated guess by the chart caller? Trackus notwithstanding.

You base it off what your existing capability to measure is. We know lengths behind at the half mile is not going to be precise, but it can be expected to be repeatable. Maybe existing technology allows us to be accurate within +/- 1/2 length (guessing here), so we see a value of 6 reported. We should be able to say within some defined margin of error that that horse was not beaten 8 and was not as close as 4 lengths.

We know that timers can malfunction, and the obvious corrective actin to that is to buy good equipment and keep it calibrated and do your preventive maintenance on it so that it stays working. and you audit it's output as often as is needed to insure it works.

But when you get a time that is 7 seconds off and your print it.......

There is really no rocket science here. People with far less resources do far more technical things with far more riding on it than collecting race data.

And they only have to really deal with a sample no larger than the number races on any given day. Once the date is examined and verified, it goes into the DB and should not have to be dealt with again.

Ron Tiller does an excellent job of Quality Control on the date he buys and resells to his customers. I believe he does it all with not much more than a pot of hot coffee at his side! ;)

[Cratos]

How can they ever earn Six Sigma status when lengths behind (other than the finish line) is nothing more than an educated guess by the chart caller? Trackus notwithstanding.
The certification would be based on what is submitted.

Therefore if the data providers submitted internal fractions, final times, and mutuel payoffs of the races as being six sigma certified that is all that would be recognized; beaten lengths wouldn't be considered.

[Cratos]

You base it off what your existing capability to measure is. We know lengths behind at the half mile is not going to be precise, but it can be expected to be repeatable. Maybe existing technology allows us to be accurate within +/- 1/2 length (guessing here), so we see a value of 6 reported. We should be able to say within some defined margin of error that that horse was not beaten 8 and was not as close as 4 lengths.

We know that timers can malfunction, and the obvious corrective actin to that is to buy good equipment and keep it calibrated and do your preventive maintenance on it so that it stays working. and you audit it's output as often as is needed to insure it works.

But when you get a time that is 7 seconds off and your print it.......

There is really no rocket science here. People with far less resources do far more technical things with far more riding on it than collecting race data.

And they only have to really deal with a sample no larger than the number races on any given day. Once the date is examined and verified, it goes into the DB and should not have to be dealt with again.

Ron Tiller does an excellent job of Quality Control on the date he buys and resells to his customers. I believe he does it all with not much more than a pot of hot coffee at his side! ;)

A good post

[classhandicapper]

My guess.

I think the issue is the bottom line. The industry is shrinking. So each dollar of free cash flow is precious. Investing in equipment, technology, and/or the personnel to do all this stuff is expensive. Correcting the 1% of fractions/final times that are wrong now (or whatever it is) is probably not going to grow the industry, but it will cost plenty. So those dollars are used where there might be positive return instead.

If the industry is ever rolling in dough or the cost of improving quality has a very positive return, it will probably be done.

[Cratos]

Well, the industry is in trouble, but that's not why. Consider that:

A) The data has *never* been correct. We know nothing will ever be perfect, but the systems for collecting horse racing chart data have always been highly flawed at best. If horse racing was a new invention and someone suggested the way it has been done for the last many decades, they'd be called a madman. But once upon a time, no one much cared about all these numbers and decimal places. The industry has always been years (and years) behind the times, and I'm sure it will remain so until it fizzles out entirely. (A day possibly not very far away.)

B) Flawed as it is, it is probably more correct nowadays than it ever has been.

Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with demanding more accuracy.

But we must remember that we are all in the same boat, competing against one another. Those who best use the data available to them will rise to the top. Some will fight on the front of using/acquiring data that is "superior accuracy-wise" and some of us will find other ways. For instance, I recently invented some speed figures that don't use times. Problem solved!

At one time automobiles were built on the Alfred P. Sloan philosophy of design obsolescence which inherently led to years of poor quality, but along came the foreign carmakers with better quality (Six Sigma) and American carmakers changed their quality standards.

What I am inferring is that the horseracing industry might presently be stuck with inferior data due to legacy, but that is not a reason for the data providers not to move to a higher quality of providing more qualitative data to their customers.

[PaceAdvantage]

What I am inferring is that the horseracing industry might presently be stuck with inferior data due to legacy, but that is not a reason for the data providers not to move to a higher quality of providing more qualitative data to their customers.Where's the incentive? Where is the competition going to come from? Where are racing's foreign car imports?

Unless competition appears in the form of more accurate data, and this accurate data moves people away from the powers that currently be, then there is no incentive to throw capital at projects to improve the quality of data.

[classhandicapper]

Where's the incentive? Where is the competition going to come from? Where are racing's foreign car imports?

Unless competition appears in the form of more accurate data, and this accurate data moves people away from the powers that currently be, then there is no incentive to throw capital at projects to improve the quality of data.

Exactly, especially when there is no excess capital.

[Cratos]

Where's the incentive? Where is the competition going to come from? Where are racing's foreign car imports?

Unless competition appears in the form of more accurate data, and this accurate data moves people away from the powers that currently be, then there is no incentive to throw capital at projects to improve the quality of data.
The competition is here in the form of the lottery, casinos, and sports team betting.

I getting from you is that there is no incentive fo change because the potential customer base is not there.

I am happy that Microsoft, Apple , and others didn't take that position because if they had the alphabet companies (AT&T and IBM) would still be in charge of computer and telecommunication equipment; and cellphones and PCs might still be in their infancy.

[classhandicapper]

I getting from you is that there is no incentive fo change because the potential customer base is not there.



You own a business. You buy some new equipment, develop some new software, and hire new people because you want to increase quality. Then you look at your bottom line and you don't have a single extra customer.

That's a good way to go OUT of business.

It's not that the desire is not there. It's that in this environment there is no return on the investment. No one is going to switch from gambling on sports, lotteries, etc... because you got 1 extra fraction per 100 right. So you try to improve quality within the same budget and invest that cash into something that WILL improve the bottom line instead.

If there's no return, there's no investment.

[Cratos]

You own a business. You buy some new equipment, develop some new software, and hire new people because you want to increase quality. Then you look at your bottom line and you don't have a single extra customer.

That's a good way to go OUT of business.

It's not that the desire is not there. It's that in this environment there is no return on the investment. No one is going to switch from gambling on sports, lotteries, etc... because you got 1 extra fraction per 100 right. So you try to improve quality within the same budget and invest that cash into something that WILL improve the bottom line instead.

If there's no return, there's no investment.

Thoroughbred racing in NA is an inefficient government control oligopoly and I believe until government divest its control nothing or very little will change.

[cj]

I'm nothing but a hack novice programmer, but I could write an automated program in a few days that could error check each day of racing data and catch 99% of the blatant errors in seconds. In fact, I already do it using programs designed for other purposes.

[classhandicapper]

Thoroughbred racing in NA is an inefficient government control oligopoly and I believe until government divest its control nothing or very little will change.

I would tend to agree with that.

[classhandicapper]

I'm nothing but a hack novice programmer, but I could write an automated program in a few days that could error check each day of racing data and catch 99% of the blatant errors in seconds. In fact, I already do it using programs designed for other purposes.

You're an experienced and knowledgeable horse player with a database of fractions and pace related information available. You can easily identify sequences that don't make any sense based on what's normal for that distance, at that track, on that surface because you've seen it a thousand times and can use your data. You're an expert on that topic.

Having someone like you in house that can write good specs and then getting the project approved, coded, tested, and implemented when there are 99 other higher priorities is a bigger deal than you think.

I'm not making excuses because the average QA guy should catch the real extremes like your example, but many are still going to get by because the guys doing the job don't really know what you know.

Someone pointed one out to me at Arlington this week that no one noticed. The 1st quarter didn't make much sense based on the 1/2 mile time. So I he and I watched the replay. The fraction was recorded correctly off the replay. Since it was Arlington's turf course where the rails can be all over the place, it took someone with race watching knowledge and horse racing knowledge to be certain it was wrong. It was reported. No way some average guy catches it even if he's paid to do it.

[Tom]

You're an experienced and knowledgeable horse player with a database of fractions and pace related information available. You can easily identify sequences that don't make any sense based on what's normal for that distance, at that track, on that surface because you've seen it a thousand times and can use your data. You're an expert on that topic.

Then what are Equibase and DRF?
Who has a bigger racing DB than them?
What they lack is anyone with innovation.
You don't wait for markets to come along, you develop them.
Or you drive them away.

There are no excuses.

[classhandicapper]

Then what are Equibase and DRF?
Who has a bigger racing DB than them?
What they lack is anyone with innovation.
You don't wait for markets to come along, you develop them.
Or you drive them away.

There are no excuses.

I assume Equibase does not consider itself in the business of ensuring that all track teletimers are functioning properly or that the fractions reported to it off the tote boards and television monitors at various tracks are accurate. It's just the repository for the data. I think it's more on the tracks to report accurate data and then for Equibase to record that data accurately.

There's a bit of an issue with the PP providers reporting errors.

Let's assume some PP provider put together a great software package that found every issue and reported them all to Equibase. Every other PP provider would benefit from the investment made by that one company because they all use Equibase as the source.

I know that when that bad fraction at Arlington was found, it was reported to Equibase. I assume it was corrected. Everyone benefited. I guess it's assumed that everyone is out there trying to make the data better and we all benefit. So no one feels bad about helping competitors also. But the solution may be getting the tracks to do a better job because I don't see anyone else making this investment.

[PaceAdvantage]

Thoroughbred racing in NA is an inefficient government control oligopoly and I believe until government divest its control nothing or very little will change.The data providers are not government controlled.

[cj]

You're an experienced and knowledgeable horse player with a database of fractions and pace related information available. You can easily identify sequences that don't make any sense based on what's normal for that distance, at that track, on that surface because you've seen it a thousand times and can use your data. You're an expert on that topic.

Having someone like you in house that can write good specs and then getting the project approved, coded, tested, and implemented when there are 99 other higher priorities is a bigger deal than you think.

I'm not making excuses because the average QA guy should catch the real extremes like your example, but many are still going to get by because the guys doing the job don't really know what you know.

Someone pointed one out to me at Arlington this week that no one noticed. The 1st quarter didn't make much sense based on the 1/2 mile time. So I he and I watched the replay. The fraction was recorded correctly off the replay. Since it was Arlington's turf course where the rails can be all over the place, it took someone with race watching knowledge and horse racing knowledge to be certain it was wrong. It was reported. No way some average guy catches it even if he's paid to do it.

Call me crazy, but it amazes me that people working at Equibase aren't experts on thoroughbred racing.

For the record, the only real check they have is a table of "acceptable times." For example, a 1/4 mile fractions might be anywhere from 20.50 to 27. A mile and a sixteenth final time might be 1:38 to 1:55. It is so bad it isn't really funny.

[cj]

I assume Equibase does not consider itself in the business of ensuring that all track teletimers are functioning properly or that the fractions reported to it off the tote boards and television monitors at various tracks are accurate. It's just the repository for the data. I think it's more on the tracks to report accurate data and then for Equibase to record that data accurately.

There's a bit of an issue with the PP providers reporting errors.

Let's assume some PP provider put together a great software package that found every issue and reported them all to Equibase. Every other PP provider would benefit from the investment made by that one company because they all use Equibase as the source.

I know that when that bad fraction at Arlington was found, it was reported to Equibase. I assume it was corrected. Everyone benefited. I guess it's assumed that everyone is out there trying to make the data better and we all benefit. So no one feels bad about helping competitors also. But the solution may be getting the tracks to do a better job because I don't see anyone else making this investment.

This all sounds good, but all bad times aren't timer errors. The times are still transcribed manually (yes, sad) and most of the errors are simple typos by Equibase employees. At the least, you'd think they would have checks in to catch those. Most Equibase errors come from Equibase, not tracks.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think the bottom line is this: if the industry wanted to catch the vast majority of gross errors before they get to the end-user, they could do this...easily...as cj points out.

[Cratos]

The data providers are not government controlled.

I never said, nor did I imply or infer that the data providers to thoroughbred racing were “government-controlled.”

What I wrote in my post was that “Thoroughbred racing in NA is an inefficient government control oligopoly” and I stand by that statement which can somewhat be evidenced with problems that NYRA had (and maybe still is) with New York State, the racing dates debacle in South Florida, and the ordering of all track surfaces in the state at one time by California to be artificial.

There are probably more examples with Suffolk Downs closing and New Jersey tracks echoing the control or least the interference of their state.

Government does not have to have direct control to micro-managed a private industry; they can put in laws and regulations that make it difficult for “for-profit businesses” to grow and expand.

If we are honest with ourselves we understand that horseracing is generally frowned upon in this country because it is a “gambling industry” and therefore a necessary “evil” to operate because it brings in tax revenues to the authorizing state jurisdictions.

Horserace tracks in my opinion should have “zero” state involvement. They should operate in a competitive environment against each other and in the long term the market will determine through efficiency and profitability “the last racetracks standing.”

[Cratos]

You own a business. You buy some new equipment, develop some new software, and hire new people because you want to increase quality. Then you look at your bottom line and you don't have a single extra customer.

That's a good way to go OUT of business.

It's not that the desire is not there. It's that in this environment there is no return on the investment. No one is going to switch from gambling on sports, lotteries, etc... because you got 1 extra fraction per 100 right. So you try to improve quality within the same budget and invest that cash into something that WILL improve the bottom line instead.

If there's no return, there's no investment.

In my experience, I have found quality of output in most companies to be determined by competition; not by some internal team. Either your product is equal to or better than your competition if the price is equal; if the price is lower you might get away with reducing quality.

[Cratos]

You're an experienced and knowledgeable horse player with a database of fractions and pace related information available. You can easily identify sequences that don't make any sense based on what's normal for that distance, at that track, on that surface because you've seen it a thousand times and can use your data. You're an expert on that topic.

Having someone like you in house that can write good specs and then getting the project approved, coded, tested, and implemented when there are 99 other higher priorities is a bigger deal than you think.

I'm not making excuses because the average QA guy should catch the real extremes like your example, but many are still going to get by because the guys doing the job don't really know what you know.

Someone pointed one out to me at Arlington this week that no one noticed. The 1st quarter didn't make much sense based on the 1/2 mile time. So I he and I watched the replay. The fraction was recorded correctly off the replay. Since it was Arlington's turf course where the rails can be all over the place, it took someone with race watching knowledge and horse racing knowledge to be certain it was wrong. It was reported. No way some average guy catches it even if he's paid to do it.

This shouldn’t be about just designing a “software program” for data collection; it should be about designing a “system” that can efficiently and accurately collect data that can be exported expeditiously to bettors in a timely and cost-efficient manner.

Yes, software will be a part, but the interaction of the electro-mechanical components will be the bedrock of this the system. The best software ever design will not compensate for faulty electro-mechanical components.

[classhandicapper]

Call me crazy, but it amazes me that people working at Equibase aren't experts on thoroughbred racing.

For the record, the only real check they have is a table of "acceptable times." For example, a 1/4 mile fractions might be anywhere from 20.50 to 27. A mile and a sixteenth final time might be 1:38 to 1:55. It is so bad it isn't really funny.


This all sounds good, but all bad times aren't timer errors. The times are still transcribed manually (yes, sad) and most of the errors are simple typos by Equibase employees. At the least, you'd think they would have checks in to catch those. Most Equibase errors come from Equibase, not tracks.


This is what I was talking about earlier.

To build a system that tells you which fractions are acceptable WITH EACH OTHER at every track, at every distance, on every surfaces, with every rail setting, and perhaps even with varying run ups is not a cost free project.

You've done it and are mentally aware of the obvious relationships because you are a pace handicapper, NEED the data for your product, and because you've been working with fractions for decades. I could probably catch most of them manually too. But it's a significant undertaking to catch 1 extra bad fraction per 100 or whatever the error rate is now.

I'm not making excuses for Equibase or anyone else. Some of the errors are bad and should be caught. But I can sort of understand why it is this way.

If someone came to me with this project and gave me a cost estimate and probable return, it would immediately go behind a dozen other projects that would actually make me money. I'd tell them to address the quality issues another way for now.

[Tom]

You've done it and are mentally aware of the obvious relationships because you are a pace handicapper, NEED the data for your product,

So, EB and DRF don't need that data for their products? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[cj]

This is what I was talking about earlier.

To build a system that tells you which fractions are acceptable WITH EACH OTHER at every track, at every distance, on every surfaces, with every rail setting, and perhaps even with varying run ups is not a cost free project.

You've done it and are mentally aware of the obvious relationships because you are a pace handicapper, NEED the data for your product, and because you've been working with fractions for decades. I could probably catch most of them manually too. But it's a significant undertaking to catch 1 extra bad fraction per 100 or whatever the error rate is now.

I'm not making excuses for Equibase or anyone else. Some of the errors are bad and should be caught. But I can sort of understand why it is this way.

If someone came to me with this project and gave me a cost estimate and probable return, it would immediately go behind a dozen other projects that would actually make me money. I'd tell them to address the quality issues another way for now.

No, it really isn't. They could contract me and have something in place within a week. I'm sure plenty others could do it too. Sorry, but cost is a weak excuse here, it wouldn't cost that much. Review it once a year. Done.

The only reason it is accepted is because the industry is so weak there is no competition. There should be no excuse for shoddy work, and that is exactly what this is, typos that aren't proofread.

And, most importantly, THEY HAVE ALL THE DATA. How can they not know how to figure out a way to check it?

[classhandicapper]

No, it really isn't. They could contract me and have something in place within a week. I'm sure plenty others could do it too. Sorry, but cost is a weak excuse here, it wouldn't cost that much. Review it once a year. Done.

The only reason it is accepted is because the industry is so weak there is no competition. There should be no excuse for shoddy work, and that is exactly what this is, typos that aren't proofread.

And, most importantly, THEY HAVE ALL THE DATA. How can they not know how to figure out a way to check it?

I agree that it's accepted because there is no competition. If there was competition you could point to market share concerns to justify a project.

Other than that, even though I don't know what's going on at Equibase, I'd be willing bet it would be more involved than you are implying.

Someone would have to write specifications. Now granted, this isn't rock science, but someone would have to lay out step by step how to build tables for every track, every surface, every distance, every rail setting, and every time relationship. Then they would have to lay out the rules for using those tables to identify the acceptable ranges for each fraction sequence so anything out of line could be flagged for manual review in various reports.

Once someone wrote that all up, someone else would have to code it.

Once someone coded it, it would go through a series of testing phases by other people to ensure it was working properly.

Once it was all working properly, it would have to be implemented within the existing environment. That means someone would have to be given the responsibility for reviewing reports, doing manual research, and doing updates.

In your environment, something like that can be done relatively quickly. You wouldn't even need specs because you'd be doing everything. In another environment it would turn into a project.

If you are willing to give them the information required to so this then you should contact them. Maybe they will say OK. It's not I disagree with you. I am simply suggesting I think I understand why no one is doing it.

[cj]

I agree that it's accepted because there is no competition. If there was competition you could point to market share concerns to justify a project.

Other than that, even though I don't know what's going on at Equibase, I'd be willing bet it would be more involved than you are implying.

Someone would have to write specifications. Now granted, this isn't rock science, but someone would have to lay out step by step how to build tables for every track, every surface, every distance, every rail setting, and every time relationship. Then they would have to lay out the rules for using those tables to identify the acceptable ranges for each fraction sequence so anything out of line could be flagged for manual review in various reports.

Once someone wrote that all up, someone else would have to code it.

Once someone coded it, it would go through a series of testing phases by other people to ensure it was working properly.

Once it was all working properly, it would have to be implemented within the existing environment. That means someone would have to be given the responsibility for reviewing reports, doing manual research, and doing updates.

In your environment, something like that can be done relatively quickly. You wouldn't even need specs because you'd be doing everything. In another environment it would turn into a project.

If you are willing to give them the information required to so this then you should contact them. Maybe they will say OK. It's not I disagree with you. I am simply suggesting I think I understand why no one is doing it.

No way is it that difficult.

Why in the world would I give them the specs? I'm usually a nice guy, but I'm not that nice.

[Tom]

No one is doing it because no no one has any integrity.
EB and DRF just not interested in making sure their products are accurate.

Data Whores. Nothing more.

[classhandicapper]

No way is it that difficult.



There's a reason EVERYTHING gets done so slowly at larger companies. It's the process.

[MJC922]

No, it really isn't. They could contract me and have something in place within a week. I'm sure plenty others could do it too. Sorry, but cost is a weak excuse here, it wouldn't cost that much. Review it once a year. Done.

The only reason it is accepted is because the industry is so weak there is no competition. There should be no excuse for shoddy work, and that is exactly what this is, typos that aren't proofread.

And, most importantly, THEY HAVE ALL THE DATA. How can they not know how to figure out a way to check it?


CJ is right. When I was doing time based stuff I was processing every chart and flagging all of the suspect times for follow-up. It's precisely because of the sheer number of incorrect fractional and final times that I walked away from time based ratings altogether. NO other reason. When you're contracted to provide numbers for all tracks and error-check a full year of charts getting thousands of times flagged, unless you have a small army of people working for you good luck in making some kind of dent in that backlog. Over the years there were several occasions that I asked EQB to correct some obvious errors, they were responsive but it's a process, they escalate it to someone for review... they're initially skeptical but get it done after looking into it. As I contract for them indirectly I thought about making some of my code available, this code is nothing much, velocity deltas for internal fractions as I recall, all it would take is a simple click to browse to a folder of charts for the day and then click a button to process. This routine could easily be built into whatever data entry form they're using in the field so times are flagged red before anyone even clicks finalize. In the end I never offered it up, maybe could've made some cash. Now that I'm doing other numbers those errors help me more than they hurt me. From what I can tell the people they tend to hire on the code side aren't really people with any handicapping experience. Things like velocity deltas would never even come to mind, for people like CJ and me who have decades making speed and pace figs, these things are trivial to conceptualize and code even if we aren't pro coders first and foremost.

[peteman]

A lot of great posts and ideas in this thread.
They don't use the information themselves so they
do not have a clue how to filter it for errors.
they need to hire a figure maker like C J or D Schwartz
who works with race times To write them some quality control program.
But it's not likely they can think out the box to do this.
Maybe they can give another task to the guy who compiles the
Bad par times for their figures.

[cj]

There's a reason EVERYTHING gets done so slowly at larger companies. It's the process.

You really think Equibase is a big company? I don't. On the grand scale of things, they are tiny.

[classhandicapper]

You really think Equibase is a big company? I don't. On the grand scale of things, they are tiny.

I already know how projects are done between Equibase and one major PP provider. It's the typical process I've seen at every DP job I ever had when I was in that field full time. I've never actually worked for Equibase, but I feel comfortable speculating that you don't just call a CJ quality talent (horse racing expertise, pace expertise, and data processing experience) into an office, tell him what you want, and let him loose. ;)

[Tom]

Unless it's a price increase - they go through faster than Secretariat.:bang:

[infrontby1]

Since when does finishing 8th in a race yield a higher purse than finishing 6th or 7th?

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/WO101914CAN6.pdf

(from today's Patterson Int'l from Woodbine)

If this is an error in the charts, particularly from one of Canada's most prestigious race, how can we have confidence in any of the typical races run in North America run on a daily basis when consulting the charts?

[banacek]

Since when does finishing 8th in a race yield a higher purse than finishing 6th or 7th?

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/WO101914CAN6.pdf

(from today's Patterson Int'l from Woodbine)

If this is an error in the charts, particularly from one of Canada's most prestigious race, how can we have confidence in any of the typical races run in North America run on a daily basis when consulting the charts?

It may be because this horse is Ontario bred and is eligible for bonuses:

Pattison Canadian International (Grade I)
$1,000,000 Guaranteed
(Plus up to $200,000 for Eligible Ontario Breds)
(Plus up to $400,000 for Ontario Sired Horses)