DRF Comma Delimited Charts

[The Hawk]

No interest to me, as a guy who's not too tech-savvy, but I know some of you guys were interested in this:

http://www.drf.com/promotions/email/mailing_charts071406-2.html

[Steve 'StatMan']

Thanks for alerting us. Got my email too, and see it at DRF. Very Interesting! Something I'd wanted since I first took the game seriously back in 1991.

[highnote]

Thanks for alerting us. Got my email too, and see it at DRF. Very Interesting! Something I'd wanted since I first took the game seriously back in 1991.


What a disappointment. They are going to ruin the game for everyone. Now everyone who buys these charts is going to be a winner and I'm going to lose my edge. :(

:liar:

;)

:D :D

Better late than never.

[Tom]

Don't worry John,
At those prices, anyone who buys them won't have any money left to BET with! :eek::D

[thebeacondeacon]

Thanks for the tip, Hawk.

Reminds me of the old DRF microfiche chart service.

Wonder if this will have an effect on BRISNET's pricing.


thebeacondeacon

[edek]

They say UNLIMITED charts. I wonder how difficult they make it for downloading several charts at once.

[michiken]

Did any of you download the pdf sample of the comma delimited file?

The bozo at drf who made the page width 100000000000% should be fired... looks like tiny ants on my screen.

What harm would it have been to actually have ONE lousy sample to download instead of a pdf? Marketing geniuses..... not!

[GameTheory]

The field specs are also misnumbered/mislabeled in some cases. Not quite ready for prime-time...

[tahoesid]

Interesting turn of events. They are making it easier to play the game if you have the bucks to get serious If there were more providers the competition would be lowering prices..

[JimBayle]

Lots of info, some 100% worthless but MAJOR PROBLEM is they won't sell more than one or two subscriptions. The current format makes it IMPOSSIBLE for normal handicappers to use them. They NEED to have the track and date on each line of data.

The way they are now only VERY SERIOUS programmers can use them with the date and track only in the header. I suppose you could import one day/track at once and manually type date and track into your database.

I've been collecting the comma-delimited charts for many years now, using a database program for years also and I COULDN'T use them without having a programmer write a fix.

DRF - I HOPE YOU ARE MONITORING THIS THREAD.

[Alan Wight]

The files may not include complete conditions for all races. In the sample file for CRC, race ten's conditions are:

"FOR FILLIES THREE YEARS OLD OR FILLIES AND MARES FOUR YEARS OLD AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON THREE RACES"

The sample file does not appear to indicate that there is a non winner of three condition for the older fillies and mares. Don't the BRIS files have a field for the complete text of the conditions as well as one for an abbreviated version?

[Tom]

DRF has gone backwards with the conditions - used to have like nw1, 6mos, nw1, 24 mos, etc. Now, they just lump them all together. But that is good if you have a databes of real conditions and not the short hand versions

[Vegas711]

Posttimedaily has unlimitted comma delimited charts for $ 75 per month. Been downloading all tracks for all race dates from them since 2002, never had a problem.

[Alan Wight]

DRF has gone backwards with the conditions - used to have like nw1, 6mos, nw1, 24 mos, etc. Now, they just lump them all together.

As far as I can tell, the DRF online and print charts still have the information. They don't use abbreviations, but full dates, such as "which have not won two races in 2005-2006." The description of the text file charts says that the text file charts present the charts "exactly as the information is published in the print and online charts of the Daily Racing Form." It remains to be seen if this is the case.

I haven't seen any more samples than the one they have up, which doesn't include any races with elaborate conditions other than the tenth race, so it remains to be seen if a condition such as "non winners of a race at a mile or more on the turf in 2006" will be presented accurately, but it appears that they are using the abbreviated representation without the full text of the conditions.

[Steve 'StatMan']

One could pair the data with comma delimited pp files, like the Formulator Exports, and get more detailed information.

[Alan Wight]

Here’s a list of the “quirks” I’ve identified:




Incomplete conditions for some races
The standard for the value of a head is 8 heads per length, but these files use 10 heads per length. That’s a difference of 25%. Has the standard changed? Might seem insignificant most of the time, but not for shorter races.
Beaten Lengths, odds, exotics base bet amount and possibly other fields are formatted without a decimal point, whereas fields such as exotic payoffs do have a decimal point. For example, 0.05 is listed as 5, and 2 is listed as 200. At some point, the decimal points need to be added by the end user.
Lack of track and racedate data in each record
The third and fourth problems can be fixed somewhat easily by an end user, but the other problems cannot be easily fixed. For the price being charged, there should be no problems such as these, I would think.

[GameTheory]

Here’s a list of the “quirks” I’ve identified:




Incomplete conditions for some races
The standard for the value of a head is 8 heads per length, but these files use 10 heads per length. That’s a difference of 25%. Has the standard changed? Might seem insignificant most of the time, but not for shorter races.
Beaten Lengths, odds, exotics base bet amount and possibly other fields are formatted without a decimal point, whereas fields such as exotic payoffs do have a decimal point. For example, 0.05 is listed as 5, and 2 is listed as 200. At some point, the decimal points need to be added by the end user.
Lack of track and racedate data in each record
The third and fourth problems can be fixed somewhat easily by an end user, but the other problems cannot be easily fixed. For the price being charged, there should be no problems such as these, I would think.Usual standard that I'm aware of for nose, head, & neck is .05, .10, & .20. Isn't that what DRF always uses?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Usual standard that I'm aware of for nose, head, & neck is .05, .10, & .20. Isn't that what DRF always uses?

I can't speak for those who would decide the "Official" standard is, but when before I made my own data-entry system back in the early 90's, I found some cases where a horse showed as finished 3rd by a "hd", went to the chart, and saw the first two margins were "no". Saw others that were 3rd by a "nk" in the pps, and the charts would show 2 "hd", and some that were 3rd by 1/2 where the margins were two "nk". So, for my own system (not necessarily the 'Official'), I went with noses as 16ths, heads as 8ths, and necks as 4ths - decimially, that's "no"=0.0625, "hd"=0.125, and "nk"=0.25. But for showing in the PPS, according to DRF's Formulator specs, they list a value range for noses, hd's & nk's. I think that helps accomodate when trying to determine how to express "1 nk + 1 no", vs "1 nk + 1 hd", etc.

[Alan Wight]

Usual standard that I'm aware of for nose, head, & neck is .05, .10, & .20. Isn't that what DRF always uses?

Usual standard that I'm aware of for nose, head, & neck is .05, .10, & .20. Isn't that what DRF always uses?

This may well be what DRF uses, but what's your source? The text chart field descriptions actually say a neck equals .25 lengths.

Somewhere I've read Steven Crist himself say 2 noses equal a head; two heads equal a neck; and four necks equal a length. I think Davidowitz says the same thing, too.

This is from a glossary I found at:

http://www.washingtonthoroughbred.com/magazine/Terms.htm

"Margins: A head equals one-eighth length; neck is one-quarter length; two heads equal a neck or one-quarter length; two necks equal a half-length; two noses equal a head."

[tahoesid]

If you can prove that you can differentiate between two horses that finished with a difference of 3 noses a head and maybe a neck, I would really be amazed. This is not really a highly exact science and a few feet here and there arent going to really make a difference as far as i can see. If all it took was to get the best horse was their final time there would be no need for any programs, handicapping etc.