tanda
08-02-2001, 11:58 PM
I did not bet this race, but next time this arises, I am sure it will be on a race I do bet, especially since I be automatically with Automate/CherryPickr.
BRIS PPs (final version with ML and Prgm #s) listed nine horses with no coupled entries. There were no late scratches, all nine went to post.
The horses had different program numbers the those listed by BRIS in the charts. However, their post position corresponded with BRIS prgm #s. BRIS obviously, which is supposed to always be correct in these types of case, assigned a pgrm # corresponding to post position. Somehow, the track assigned different prgm #s even without scratches or entries.
One, how did this happen and, second, how did BRIS report inaccurately? I really cannot blame BRIS because I have never seen a race with prgm numbers assigned which did not correspond with post positions, unless there is an entry or post positions shift because of late scratches. Also, the prgm numbers differed from the post positions by varying amounts (in other words, they were not each off by one positions or shifted a set number).
Any explanations? I would have bet the 4 horse who turned out to be the 5 horse if the odds had been right. I would not have realized it until after placing the bet.
I assume BRIS assumed prgrm numbers corresponding to post position. Fine, I understand that. But why did Canterbury assign random prgm numbers and why only for one race?
BRIS PPs (final version with ML and Prgm #s) listed nine horses with no coupled entries. There were no late scratches, all nine went to post.
The horses had different program numbers the those listed by BRIS in the charts. However, their post position corresponded with BRIS prgm #s. BRIS obviously, which is supposed to always be correct in these types of case, assigned a pgrm # corresponding to post position. Somehow, the track assigned different prgm #s even without scratches or entries.
One, how did this happen and, second, how did BRIS report inaccurately? I really cannot blame BRIS because I have never seen a race with prgm numbers assigned which did not correspond with post positions, unless there is an entry or post positions shift because of late scratches. Also, the prgm numbers differed from the post positions by varying amounts (in other words, they were not each off by one positions or shifted a set number).
Any explanations? I would have bet the 4 horse who turned out to be the 5 horse if the odds had been right. I would not have realized it until after placing the bet.
I assume BRIS assumed prgrm numbers corresponding to post position. Fine, I understand that. But why did Canterbury assign random prgm numbers and why only for one race?