THIS is an INCREDIBLE run
 

Was doing the charts for the day's races and I was just BLOWN AWAY by the late run of Them There Eyes (AQU R7).

Damn, haven't seen a move like that since Stormy West at GP.

It looks like Them There Eyes was mistakenly put 6 lengths behind Nedjma at the stretch call. Just a Little Jet and Golden Horseshoe have very similar patterns to Them There Eyes, and this would certainly explain it.

The charts have her six lengths back after three quarters. That winning move is rare at the Big A closing into a 29 3/4 final two and a half furlongs and making out that ground. She looks like a filly who could be a player in the state bred turf handicap races.

Right they have her back nearly 6 lengths after 3/4, but a little over 8 1/2 after the mile, meaning she closed that much in 1/16 of a mile. The final 1/16 was run in 5.82 seconds. If you use the assumption that 1 length is approx. 1/5 of a second, she ran 1.7 seconds faster than the leading horse for the final 1/16, in 4.12 seconds. This translates to a 8.24 clip for 1/8. :eek:

Plus if you watch the replay she is not 8 1/2 lengths behind at the stretch call. Don't get me wrong, she closed fast and ran a very nice race, but she is not the fastest horse ever.

I'll record the races tomorrow morning and pay close attention to the race. IMO, the most important part of determining the quality of a turf horse is the last two, or two and a half, or three furlongs of a horses race depending on distance, shape of the race, and pace of the race.

I agree with you there. I never handicap a turf race without looking at how a horse runs at the end, but in this case the information given through the charts is very wrong. When you watch the replays tomorrow, you will see that Them There Eyes is not 6 lengths behind Nedjma (the 5th place runner) at the stretch call.

I just watched the replay at calracing.com and here's what I saw.
I would accept the chart caller's word in having her back six lengths after three quarters and even 2 1/2 from the finish. However at the 1/8 pole she was behind by three lengths tops.

Thanks for pointing this out discrepancy with the chart call.

She's about five lengths back at the half and three quarters and about three off at the eighth pole ( a length to maybe a length and a half off Nedjma ).

No doubt. And maybe this was a bit too obvious to make my point.

Why am I error checking for Equibase?

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.

We have a winner.

If the experiment at Woodbine goes well, and there isn't any reason it shouldn't, this will all be a thing of the past.

Andy,

Do you ever look at the Trakus information(Keeneland)? As a trip capper seems like you would like the exact information it gives.

Spyder

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.

Of course in this industry, once it goes well, we should begin seeing it in widespread use in about 2142.

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.

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.

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

I think the possible edge would be minimal at best.

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.

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

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

There's another woefully screwed up chart that affects a horse in todays fourth race.....Electrify. He finished a length behind the sixth finisher ( who is also in the race ) yet the chart lists it as 14 lengths. Probably should have been 1 1/4 lengths.

Keeneland, April 25th the 6th race.

the chart for BEL-06-12-08_R8 is screwed up big time:

There's never a point in the race where Cardiff Road is ahead of Thunder Minister (and certainly not over 2 lengths ahead). Seems as if the caller relied on Imbriale rather than actually watching the race.

Well, here's just about the worst chart to this point and SURPRISINGLY is not a NYRA race:

there's never ANY POINT in the race where Grand Cinnabar is BEHIND Trippin Up

doing these charts I get the sense that the chartmakers are not watching the live races but rather relying on the replays and the track announcer. As such, there are glaring errors when it comes to the penultimate split (as the camera is typically focused on the leaders --- horses don't typically back up the next to last split and then GAIN the last split as they seem to do so often in the NYRA charts.)

But EQUIBASE really seems to be going about this the RIGHT WAY.:rolleyes:

Rather than tightening up their charts in terms of accuracy they put all their effort in setting downloading limits on their free charts. We wouldn't want too many informed opinions now would we? Sooner or later they'll realize that a piece of **** is not really worth the effort to guard it.

And what really sucks is that the technology is in place to makes these charts accurate; and it's trivial to do so: just take pictures at each split ---SIMPLE AS THAT.