Well, this kinda sucks.....

[PaceAdvantage]

BRIS just made old editions of their EXOTIC RESULTS FILES (I never quite understood WHY this file even exists seperately from other results files) available ONLY through their rather laborious and expensive ARCHIVE service....

Good thing I'm relatively up to date.....LOL


On a sidenote, anybody know why TSNhorse.Com and BRISNET.COM BOTH continue to exist?? They're both owned by the same family, BOTH selling essentially the SAME EXACT files.....what gives?? Oh, and I love the way that even though they BOTH give away the EXACT same FREE software programs, they have to give them different names!!! (Millennium and All-Ways are an example....)



==PA

[Dave Schwartz]

PA,

I believe that one is DRF-based and the other EqB-based.

Dave

[PaceAdvantage]

Dave,

Another thing I don't figure, since all the data is now merged and controlled by Equibase!!! How can BRIS be getting their data from DRF if Equibase supplies the data to everyone?? Is DRF reselling the data it gets from Equibase to BRIS?? But TSN gets its data directly from the source??

How bizarre is that?? Who dreams up these convoluted business relationships???????



==PA

[Dave Schwartz]

PA,

I have no opinion. <G>

Dave

[Observer]

What I find amazing is how all this information comes through the same source, but yet each place might have something different. For example, when you have a U.S. based horse and a foreign horse with the same exact name. DRF might have the foreign based horse's pps while BRIS might have the U.S. based horse's pps and the track programs which go through Equibase will have one or the other. Good luck on figuring out who's right.

This just happened a few weeks ago. There was a Gulfstream race where DRF had the wrong pps, but the pps that were in Aqueduct's Post Parade program from Equibase were correct. But I've also seen where BRIS will have one set of pps for a horse, and the DRF will have completely different pps. I've noticed this on foreign horses coming to the U.S. .. where BRIS shows the horse as a first time starter, rather than a first time U.S. starter with his foreign running lines. Of course, the DRF does make their mistakes too, like that Gulfstream race.

[Dave Schwartz]

Observer,

From what I have been told that is because EqB sends the data to the provider and the provider does what they will with it.

I believe HDW is the only provider that actually keeps the EqB files locally.

Perhaps one of the HDW guys might step in and set us straight on that, but it is what I believe to be true.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[takeout]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Another thing I don't figure, since all the data is now merged and controlled by Equibase!!! How can BRIS be getting their data from DRF if Equibase supplies the data to everyone??
==PA

I have never understood these relationships since the beginning and probably never will. This whole BRIS/TSN, BRIS/DRF, Equibase/DRF "tap dance" is very strange to say the least. It seems that everyone except BRIS and DRF are using Equibase data now. No one but Equibase is collecting the data, right? So, one of the questions that leaps to mind is, what IS DRF data? Is it like you said, that they get it from Equibase like everyone else and then resell it to one reseller - BRIS? Why would one reseller buy from another? It must be something like that, though, because I noticed that DRF data has certain conditions wrong in their PP running lines. Does this mean that they get them correct from Equibase and then change them themselves? How bizarre. :confused::confused::confused:

[Tom]

Originally posted by takeout


I have never understood these relationships since the beginning and probably never will. This whole BRIS/TSN, BRIS/DRF, Equibase/DRF "tap dance" is very strange to say the least. :confused::confused::confused:

They are all clones!
:eek: Tom:eek:

[ranchwest]

I have no knowledge of the inner workings of all of this, but being a programmer, I have some guesses. Each of these companies seems to offer something just a little different, so I suspect that each gets their data from a separate extraction (export). If each of these extractions is written from scratch, then each could be different. That would explain why they might differ on horses of the same name that have data from different countries. The extract defines that data set differently.

As I say, just a guess.

[FortuneHunter]

This is my view.......

DRF was here first

Tracks wanted/forced to get into the PP business and opted for a common database (like USTA Harness). DRF didn't want to participate or weren't invited.

For a brief period of insanity, both had seperate data collection and databases. It really showed how inaccurate chart calling is. It still is, but less obvious.

An Unholy marriage occured with DRF and Equibase out of necessity for the industry.

There is now a common collection of raw data.

Now, lets define common raw data that everyone uses:

Common Raw PP data (partial List)

-standard stuff (date, track, race type, purse)
-points of call position, lengths
-internal fractions
-comments(?)

What's NOT common (partial list)

Speed figures
Pace Figures
Variant
Workout info (?)
"Database figures" for example Money earned and Race record at track. Some will do it by track, some will do it by track and course". I agree with Ranchwest's comment.

Feel free to add to the above. We used tosit at SAR and compare the Official Program, DRF, and BRIS just for laughs

I am told that the Beyer Speed fig is not available in any data file, is this correct?

Bris/TSN situation is as simple as Chevy and Pontiac. My '84 Pontiac motor was built in a Chevy plant in Canaida (inside joke). It is marketing and understanding the consumer mentality.

HDW is the only "legal" way to buy data for commercial use and/or redistribution, and as such they have a "monopoly". IMO they act like a monopoly. And EVERYTHING is under "copyright law".

IMO Raw Data Collection (PP's AND Charts) and Database should be paid for by the tracks as a service to the Patrons and available electronically unrestricted for a minimal fee.

Let DRF charge for hardcopy, Beyers, and all there other "value add". Same for BRISnet etc. etc.

[Tom]

Beyer numbers are now available in the Formulator export.

Tom

[ranchwest]

Do you know the format of the Formulator data? Is it comma-delimited, dBase, proprietary, what?

[Observer]

No question the bells and whistles each place has comes from their own individual programs generating them, but the cold hard facts should remain the cold hard facts.

[FortuneHunter]

Originally posted by Observer
No question the bells and whistles each place has comes from their own individual programs generating them, but the cold hard facts should remain the cold hard facts.

And should they should be provided free, electronically, as a public service by the racetracks.

[takeout]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FortuneHunter
[B]An Unholy marriage occured with DRF and Equibase out of necessity for the industry.

Unholy strikes me as an excellent description. Sure would like to read the prenups on that one.:rolleyes:

Can't fathom how that was good for the industry. I think they need to go to Rio and get a quicky annulment.

[ranchwest]

>No question the bells and whistles each place has comes from their own individual programs generating them, but the cold hard facts should remain the cold hard facts.<

I suspect that it is likely that the original data is exactly the same. My statement is that there could be a difference in the way the data is queried for an extraction.

For instance, maybe there's some obscure field that is called "FOREIGN". Maybe some people know what that really means and maybe some don't. Maybe there are several valid values available from that field. Maybe there might even be some invalid values in that field. So, depending on whether and how you utilize that field in an extraction, you might get all sorts of different sets of data from the same original data.

Just because you have differing extracted subsets doesn't mean that there are necessarily discrepancies in the original data set.

[takeout]

Originally posted byFortuneHunter
And should they be provided free, electronically, as a public service by the racetracks.
Sure. Why not? I'm afraid that it would probably be some half-baked version, though, like many of the track programs.

I see stuff that I like within the bells & whistles of ALL of the resellers but I can't get everything that I want with any one reseller. OTOH, there's a lot of stuff in there that I could care less about and don't want cluttering up the pages. I vote for some way of doing it that will allow players to buy the info piece-meal.

I saw a $15+ winner the other day whose trainer's record for 2001 was 6/12 50%. The track program had no wins or starts for this guy because they begin anew with every new meeting. Probably 90% of the crowd is using the track program so is this being fair to the customers? I've always thought that as far as the generic trainer stats go, there should at least be three categories. The entire record for the previous year, this year's to date and the last 30 days. As far as I know, you can't buy this array from any one reseller. Can't someone put all this kind of stuff under one roof?

[Tom]

Originally posted by ranchwest
Do you know the format of the Formulator data? Is it comma-delimited, dBase, proprietary, what?

Comma-delimited, and there is a full explanation of each filed in the manual. There are many different export files, including the trainer stats. Covers about everything in the DRF PP's.

Tom;)

[ranchwest]

Tom,

Thanks, I think I'll check it out.

[Observer]

Originally posted by ranchwest
Just because you have differing extracted subsets doesn't mean that there are necessarily discrepancies in the original data set.

I'm not saying there is a discrepancy in the original data ... especially since it's all coming from the same place. What I am saying is there is definitely problems somewhere when in a given race, different sources are showing completely different running lines on a specific horse, whether it be some showing an American bred, while the others are showing a foreign bred with the same name .. but obviously not the same horse. Or, it is the same horse, but there is a discrepancy as to just how many starts the horse actually has. If a horse has 10 starts, he has 10 starts, whether they're in Europe, Japan, South American, Canada, etc. Somewhere, somehow the ball is dropped in the quality control process.

[hurrikane]

takeout



I saw a $15+ winner the other day whose trainer's record for 2001 was 6/12 50%. The track program had no wins or starts for this guy because they begin anew with every new meeting. Probably 90% of the crowd is using the track program so is this being fair to the customers? I've always thought that as far as the generic trainer stats go, there should at least be three categories. The entire record for the previous year, this year's to date and the last 30 days. As far as I know, you can't buy this array from any one reseller. Can't someone put all this kind of stuff under one roof?

IMHO...if you homogonize everything your $15+ winner would have come off at 3/2. This is an information game. With everything in life, those that go the extra mile get the extra buck.

[takeout]

Originally posted by hurrikane
takeout



IMHO...if you homogonize everything your $15+ winner would have come off at 3/2. This is an information game. With everything in life, those that go the extra mile get the extra buck.



Certainly I agree. Seems awfully hard on the new folks to the game, though.

[ranchwest]

The only thing that I can think of that is not hard on newcomers to this game is chance -- a broken clock is right twice a day.

[takeout]

ranchwest,

Good point. I have seen newcomers and people that don't pay much attention to the game hit for some pretty amazing payoffs, at times. I think sometimes it's precisely because they don't know (or care) that some horse and trainer are 0-forever.

What really bothers me, though, are those days when that clock is right two more times than I am.
:)

[andicap]

Then you have Michael Pizzolla who loves it when he says a viable longshot with a trainer who's 0-30 or a jock who's at 3%. Get a better price than if bailey were on it or Mott were training it. I'm not saying 6-1 versus 4-1, but 15-1 versus 5-1 because of that.

I think that's when it's viable to bet these o'fers, when you're getting the odds that scare the so-called "sharpies" and the rest of the public away.

[ranchwest]

It's not the odds, it is the hard to find reason to play those longshots. There needs to be an advantage.