THIS is an INCREDIBLE run

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by mes5107

Are you error checking or error finding? In other words, is your intent to uncover errors, or just to make some of your own notes and analysis, which brings these errors to light.

I think if you put the time in, day in and day out, you will have better information than the guy picking up the form the day of the races as a result of the human element of chartwriting.

There are two ways I can go about this:

1) I can pretty much do my own charts (which I did back in the '80's) breaking each race down split by split. The result would be incredibly accurate data and insight into a given race. The result would also be an incredibly amount of time spent on a given card and I'd be limited to a single track.

2) I can make the assumption that EQUIBASE provides accurate data and focus only on select races, given particular angles I look for. This allows me to play multiple tracks and put in less times doing MUNDANE work.

Of course, if I can't rely on basic data, then 2 is not really an option.

It's interesting that not only am I expected to handicap the horses but I now find myself handicapping the chartmaker. I just love those NYC charts where horses backup the penultimate split YET gain the final one. They really make sense.

Given the above, EQUIBASE's Herculean efforts to 'guard' their precious (flawed) data are laughable.

[mes5107]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

THIS is EXACTLY the point. Even pre-Trakus there's no reason to have any errors in charts, as the technology is already in place to ensure exact data. On another thread, I posted a file from the HKG site that shows the position of the horses at each pole. This is easily done here as well, as cameras are already in place. EQUIBASE has to do away with the present archaic system of chartmaking.

I completely agree. If Equibase is to be the sole provider of chart information for American racing, then it is their DUTY to be as accurate as possible. I don't think most chartwriters are incompetent. There's just a "more perfect" way to write charts and remove the guesswork.

Right now, as a bettor, there is a quandary between whether to report these statistical discrepancies or to let them be misreported and take advantage of the situation. The use of teletimer at each point of call will eliminate this dilemma.

The technology has been around for many years. It's not so much an experiment at Woodbine, it's more a first step in the right direction.

[TheSpyder]

Having said all that, isn't this an opportunity to "outsmart" the competition? I know it means a lot of work but with all the information available it would appear taking the time to find the errors and capitalizing on them is a pretty good angle...no?

Spyder

[hockey2315]

I think the possible edge would be minimal at best.

[pick4]

Steve Crist touches on this topic in his column for Saturday's DRF . Mr. Crist said that Woodbine will expand the use of Trakus.


The next use of Trakus, beginning at Woodbine this summer, will be to collect similarly accurate internal points of call and margins in the charts of races. Despite relying heavily on this data when reading past performances, most players probably do not realize just how much approximation is involved in the current system of visual observation by a chart caller.

This was only one paragraph from Mr. Crist's column which is available online at DRF for subscribers only, and the print edition of the Form. Hopefully this trial of Trakus is a success and is implemented at all race tracks.

[the_fat_man]

Heads up: BEL 4/30/08 R9 is screwed up significantly. I suggest watching the replay and adjusting the chart.

[the_fat_man]

Actually, THIS, is a genuinely impressive run (slow finishing splits and all) by a first time starter.