Charts and Running Lines [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

BillW

07-28-2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Tom
Confused? You don't WANT reality data? :confused: :confused: :confused:

If it were totally random, no one would win, so there must be some semblence of reality in the numbers.

An example of what I mean: we generally agree that due to surfaces, pace etc. that final time is meaningless. Well, the Beyers clarified that situation, somewhat. Releasing those #'s to the public did not make the game easier even though the data got more accurate.

Bill

kenwoodallpromos

07-28-2004, 11:23 PM

More info makes picking easier, not finding value easier. I agree it depends on how you use it. If you do not want more accurate info, fine by me; I'll take it.

Macdiarmadillo

07-29-2004, 02:14 AM

Well, the Beyers clarified that situation, somewhat. Releasing those #'s to the public did not make the game easier even though the data got more accurate.

Accurate?

takeout

07-29-2004, 04:19 AM

Sounds good to me... except that we’re talking about an industry that won’t keep its trainer & owner names the same across the board. Kind of shakes my faith in the ultimate success of the reporting of something like this. It would be nice though.

07-29-2004, 06:34 AM

I'm for the best data possible. It doesn't mean the everyone will know how to exploit it.

The big question I have about the chart callers is this. Why do we need "Official Charts" within 30 minutes? I just don't get it. You give me 8 hours and the race replays, you'll have some damn good charts.

Valuist

07-29-2004, 09:37 AM

Exactly. Articles like this really make Equibase look like they have no credibility. I've seen some charts that I swear was a completely different race than what I watched.

gillenr

07-29-2004, 10:08 AM

That is the most mis-used comment in the lines. A couple months ago, I checked all these comments for one day at AP versus "lenghths ahead of 3rd place horse", & found that half of them were 1/2L or less. One of you database guys could do a larger study if interested.

takeout

07-29-2004, 10:37 AM

They’ve been making charts the same way forever and it’s way past time for a change to something like this that’s better and more accurate.

I was surprised when I first saw a Trackmaster chart and realized that it was made like PP lines, i.e. lengths behind the leader instead of ahead of the next horse. It made me wonder why that hadn’t been done years ago. Why should a player have to go through the hassle of adding up all of those lengths when working with result charts just because that’s the way the chart is called? The charts should be changed to lengths behind the leader before we ever see them. Hopefully any new system that actually gets implemented will deal with that issue as well.

OTM Al

07-29-2004, 10:42 AM

Having done some empirical work in economics, there are two mantras about data: more is better and accuracy is key. That said though, there is no problem using data you know to be faulty if you know what those faults are and what biases they may cause.

A real queation is, what would be gained by perfectly accurate data? I don't think the gains would surpass the costs (monetary and time) of making the charts better with the possible exception of exact final times for all horses. The chart itself is only a model, a representation, of the actual race and therefore can't show you everything about the race just as an economic model can't show you everything about a market, even if all data contained therein is perfect.

BillW

07-29-2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by OTM Al
Having done some empirical work in economics, there are two mantras about data: more is better and accuracy is key. That said though, there is no problem using data you know to be faulty if you know what those faults are and what biases they may cause.

A real queation is, what would be gained by perfectly accurate data? I don't think the gains would surpass the costs (monetary and time) of making the charts better with the possible exception of exact final times for all horses. The chart itself is only a model, a representation, of the actual race and therefore can't show you everything about the race just as an economic model can't show you everything about a market, even if all data contained therein is perfect.

OTM AL,

You beat me to it! The exact question I woke up with this morning (I must have been dreaming about it :)). I would like to know if those who want data improvement actually forsee an improvement in their handicapping vs. the guy next to them (and if so, in what way?), or is it just of academic interest. And as you also point out, how much would one be willing to pay for this improvement?

Bill

takeout

07-29-2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by BillW
I would like to know if those who want data improvement actually forsee an improvement in their handicapping vs. the guy next to them

No, not at all. I’m still for the more accurate data though. They should’ve had something like this in place eons ago.

JohnGalt1

07-29-2004, 04:17 PM

I vote again for more accurate data.

That still leaves trainer intent, track conditions/bias, jockey competency, class, post positions, and how we compute and determine how the horses pace figures, (using the accurate data), compares to the rest fo the field for us to each come up with different horses.

Accurate data will not eliminate all the nuances.

Someone said Beyers are more accurate but aren't they still based on the flawed data?

And in the pps I love how a last place horse is credited with being 51 3/4 lengths back. The chart caller couldn't just round it to 52? Talk about guessing.

07-29-2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by jgalt1
...

And in the pps I love how a last place horse is credited with being 51 3/4 lengths back. The chart caller couldn't just round it to 52? Talk about guessing.

The chart caller doesn't come up with that number, its just a compilation of all the beaten lengths between the other horses. Guarenteed the 3/4s came from horses near the front.

Doesn't change anything, just point out how its done.

BillW

07-29-2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by takeout
No, not at all. I’m still for the more accurate data though. They should’ve had something like this in place eons ago.

My point is, takeout that I don't want to ask the racing industry to increase their costs (which will be passed back to me) for no perceivable improvement.

To me it's a value thing.

Bill

takeout

07-30-2004, 07:08 AM

BillW,
I see what you mean but since they’ve got to make charts anyway I’d like to see them come out of the dark ages with the way they do it. I have a copy of a chart made in 1933 and it’s pretty much the same thing we’re still looking at today. Amazing.

socantra

07-30-2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by takeout
BillW,
I see what you mean but since they’ve got to make charts anyway I’d like to see them come out of the dark ages with the way they do it. I have a copy of a chart made in 1933 and it’s pretty much the same thing we’re still looking at today. Amazing.

I have my grandfathers watch and its pretty much like the watch I wear today. A pretty crude estimate of actual time. Works though

With more accurate data we could have those wonderful stats like baseball does; (23% against left handed pitchers after the 6th inning on weekdays in June) It would give the talking heads on TVG something to talk about rather than where they had lunch.

Better data is OK, and will slowly come about. It probably won't change things much. It's not the data that makes losers lose. Data can make winners win, but only if no one else has it.

socantra...

Valuist

07-30-2004, 11:45 AM

Takeout is correct. That's the way charts SHOULD be made. I posted on the handicapping forum about a blatant error Equibase made yesterday in an Arlington race. I can't believe some people don't care about having accurate data. If the data is flawed, what do we have to base our decisions on?? Just physicality and trainers. But that's not enough.

BillW

07-30-2004, 12:46 PM

I want to make clear that I am not against Equibase doing a competent job (Although stable mail is nice when errors like this are caught :D). I simply do not want to see a bunch of money spent that I will have to pay for without being assured that I will get an equivalent benefit in return.

Bill

socantra

07-30-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Valuist
Takeout is correct. That's the way charts SHOULD be made. I posted on the handicapping forum about a blatant error Equibase made yesterday in an Arlington race. I can't believe some people don't care about having accurate data. If the data is flawed, what do we have to base our decisions on?? Just physicality and trainers. But that's not enough.

Better data is fine. Are there errors in our current data. Of course. Will there be errors in any new system of data. Of course. Will it be more expensive. Of course.

Electronic transponders, strapped to sweaty animals who 'brush' against each other in 50 races a week will occasionally send out a bad signal, not to mention component failure, interference from cell phones, radio, television, static electricity, radar, other wireless devices,etc. And don't forget, component failure, in which case we will have to keep the current system as a redundancy check so we don't lose any data.

Will it be better data. Probably, but I'd wager that 99.99% of those torn up tickets will still be from faulty processing of the data rather than the data itself.

"It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools"

socantra...

NoDayJob

07-30-2004, 02:34 PM

The present system works just fine and has for a century or more. Sure, it could be updated, but do you think you'd win more races and more money? I doubt it! Information in this business is available to all who seek it out. It's how its used that really counts.

NDJ

takeout

07-30-2004, 05:08 PM

Somehow we got to talking about two different things here. I totally agree that it won’t make anyone a better ‘capper. That, however, shouldn’t be used as an excuse for that part of the industry to stay frozen in time. What other business could get away with that? Bottom line is they haven’t ever upgraded because they don’t have to. They’ve got no competition. They can leave it the same way for another hundred years if they want, and probably will.

As far as the costs, prices have been raised on us many times over the years for no apparent reason. A lot of that is also just because they can. And through all of those price hikes, I’m still looking at those same charts made the same way.

Also, we all remember some good hit we had because of something we saw that was left out of a chart, but I also wonder how much some of the not-so-accurate data sometimes contained in them is costing us as well.

socantra

07-30-2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by takeout

As far as the costs, prices have been raised on us many times over the years for no apparent reason. A lot of that is also just because they can. And through all of those price hikes, I’m still looking at those same charts made the same way.

Also, we all remember some good hit we had because of something we saw that was left out of a chart, but I also wonder how much some of the not-so-accurate data sometimes contained in them is costing us as well.

As far as costs go, they will be borne by one of four groups; The track owners, the state, the horsemen, or the customer. Which of those do you feel has the strongest lobby, or nore to the point, which the weakest.

I may have been the beneficiary of data errors, though I don't know of any off hand. I may also have been the victim of data errors, though I dou't know of any offhand. I am reasonably convinced that the vast majority of my losses can be laid at my own feet. I would like to think the same of my winnings, though I know I get lucky on occasion.

socantra...

ranchwest

07-31-2004, 08:26 AM

A lot of people have asked what the situation would be relative to the guy sitting next to you if the data was more accurate.

Well, my question is what advantage do you have when a chart is wrong and you don't know it?

takeout

07-31-2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by ranchwest
Well, my question is what advantage do you have when a chart is wrong and you don't know it?
You sure put that a lot better than I did. Thanks. :D

socantra

07-31-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by ranchwest
A lot of people have asked what the situation would be relative to the guy sitting next to you if the data was more accurate.

Well, my question is what advantage do you have when a chart is wrong and you don't know it?

If the person sitting next to me was using the same data I was, I would have no advantage or disadvantage. If the person was a good trip handicapper, and experienced at the track, I would be at a severe disadvantage, but that would be the case even if the data was better.

I don't think of it in terms of advantage over the person next to you. When the DRF started printing Beyer ratings, that obviously disadvantaged people who kept their own speed ratings. I was never one of those people, so it didn't make much difference to me.

The inclusion of Beyers was a value added service to the data, brought on by competition from Racing Action, which was cutting into DRF's bottom line, and the cost was a mere fraction of what it would cost to change the entire system of data collection.

It seems to me, if there is this overwhelming demand for better data collection, that it should awaken the entrepenurial instincts in someone out there, who could deal with the individual state racing commissions, install the transponders and receivers, and offer their data at a premium price. Obviously, a lot of people would be willing to pay more money for this improved data.

I'm not against better data. I think better data would be great. I do think that they do apretty good job with the data already. After all, they do track some half million performances a year in approximately 54,000 races, spread across god knows how many tracks. I'm amazed there aren't more errors than there are

I do think that to expect The Jockey Club and Equibase to suddenly decide that they are going to drop XX million dollars just to bring us horseplayers better data is somewhat unrealistic..

I also think, at this particular time, the money might be better spent guaranteeing the integrity of the simulcast pools. I also do not think it would make much difference in most people's handicapping.

"It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools"

And, with apologies to the bard:

"The fault, dear brutus, lies not in the data, but in ourselves that we are losers."

socantra...

JohnGalt1

08-01-2004, 08:15 AM

The reason more uniform and accurate data is important is a situation like this---

I'm looking at two horses. A was 4 lengths behind a 1:10 in his last race that the chart caller got right. Horse B out of a different race was 4 lengths behind a 1:10.1 in his last race. So I have two horses 1/5 second apart. Unfortunately the chart caller in that race got it wrong and horse B was actually 6 lengths back and ran a 1:10.3.

With flawed data I either bet both horses or pass the race.

But with accurate data I bet A who looks to be 3/5 seconds faster.

socantra

08-01-2004, 02:28 PM

If your favorite track has a lot of two horse match races run at the same distance between horses who run with equal mehanical precision in every race, you've got a good point.

If your track is more like the ones I play, the horses turn in very different performances at different times and different distances over varying surfaces, against different levels of competition and with different jockeys on their backs.

When you start making adjustments to compensate for all these factors, you are quite possibly introducing an error factor that exceeds the two length error you speak of.

Again, I am not defending bad data. But, small errors tend to cancel each other out, and glaring errors are quite often spotted.

Either way, if we're all playing with the same data, it shouldn't make that much difference. We've already got more data than most any endeavor on the planet, and there will be errors with any data collection system

socantra......

Tom

08-01-2004, 04:18 PM

I can't believe there is so much defense of bad data. True, we all use the same basic data for PPs, but to not care if it is accurate?
I dudnno. :confused: :confused: :confused:

BillW

08-01-2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Tom
I can't believe there is so much defense of bad data. True, we all use the same basic data for PPs, but to not care if it is accurate?
I dudnno. :confused: :confused: :confused:

The thread has seemed to have drifted from spending money to revamp the data collection system for more accurate data, to simple competence and quality assurance. Quite a difference between the two.

Bill

Figman

08-01-2004, 04:48 PM

Any handicapper in Saratoga the next few days that is interested in new technology might visit the Convention Center downtown on Broadway on Tuesday and Wednesday. There is a free Horse Technology exhibition that includes new data collection technology for handicappers!
See www.horsetechnology.com.

Elliot Masie is the guru behind this event and he has some interesting information.

Figman

08-01-2004, 04:52 PM

Sorry for the dead link in the previous post but that is what was listed in the BloodHorse story.
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=23578

Tom

08-01-2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by BillW
The thread has seemed to have drifted from spending money to revamp the data collection system for more accurate data, to simple competence and quality assurance. Quite a difference between the two.

Bill

I'm using that 887 and putting that horse on my watch list. I got an advantage that no one else has..unelss YOU tell them! Shhhhh!:rolleyes:

socantra

08-01-2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Tom
I can't believe there is so much defense of bad data. True, we all use the same basic data for PPs, but to not care if it is accurate?
I dudnno. :confused: :confused: :confused:

I can't believe you read the foregoing as a defense of bad data. I think the data we have is pretty good. It has some errors, and any expensive new system we add will also have some errors. I think the net gain for the addition of a whole new data collection system will ne negligible.

I also think that people who blame the data for their losses are kidding themselves.

socantra...

08-01-2004, 06:13 PM

Who is blaming bad data for losing? I want the best data I can get because I think I'm smarter than your average horseplayer and can benefit more from it. What's wrong with that?

Tom

08-01-2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Who is blaming bad data for losing? I want the best data I can get because I think I'm smarter than your average horseplayer and can benefit more from it. What's wrong with that?

Exactly my point. One or two more winners a week can make a difference in a year's time.
I really just want what I pay for.....accurate data, not pretty good data. My money is accurate, not pretty good.

KingChas

08-01-2004, 07:33 PM

I'm all for more accurate data.It's not what you have its how you use it.If Nascar can use the accurate timer at points of race why not thoroughbreds.I think they have some tax deductible money to spare.Look at the takeouts!Also something from Nascar for horsetracks ,why can't you pad the dam outer and inner rails?Even cheap foam would help ala(Mike Luzzi).I would rather brush or pinch against foam more than aluminum, metal or steel,not break my leg bailing off!

socantra

08-01-2004, 07:39 PM

Okay! I give. Equibase now has my official permission to spend XX million dollars to bring us shiny, new space age data. I'm sure it will be much better, will have no errors, and we'll all be better handicappers, much happier, and more prosperous.

You guys can start holding your breath whenever you want.

socantra...

KingChas

08-01-2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by socantra
Okay! I give. Equibase now has my official permission to spend XX million dollars to bring us shiny, new space age data. I'm sure it will be much better, will have no errors, and we'll all be better handicappers, much happier, and more prosperous.

You guys can start holding your breath whenever you want.

socantra...

Hey SO- I don't think Equibase is hurting for money.Perhaps the DRF can pinch in some MONOPOLY money too?

Tom

08-01-2004, 08:13 PM

We are already paying for accurate data and not getting it....let's start there. Calling a win margin of 9 lenths only 1.5 lenghts is acceptable to you?it is just laziness and carelessness by a company that doesn't give a crap. They must love you;)

socantra

08-01-2004, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Tom
We are already paying for accurate data and not getting it....let's start there. Calling a win margin of 9 lenths only 1.5 lenghts is acceptable to you?it is just laziness and carelessness by a company that doesn't give a crap. They must love you;)

I believe that particular error was a transcription error, and was corrected the next day according to the other thread on here. Occasional errors will happen in any system, and I think the fact that they corrected it as soon as possible indicates that maybe they do give a crap.

socantra..