Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the_fat_man
It's getting real tough out there. Even very, very basic assumptions are proven to be unsustainable in the racing business. Like accurate data, for example. I was comparing the DMR EQUIBASE charts with those from TRAKUS recently, and not only are there SIGNIFICANT differences in terms of position and lengths, there are also HUGE differences in terms of the time of the race (final and splits). Needless to day, 'ACCURATE' is not in the vocabulary to those collecting racing data. Makes no sense to me that you would have a couple of DOOFUSES at the track, one with a set of binoculars watching the race and calling out what he sees to the other who is frantically writing it all down, when you can just take a snapshot of the calls off the video feed, like they do in HKG. Much more accurate, less expensive. Duhh
BUT, there are even more basic expectations that fail empirical testing.
For example, it's now IMPOSSIBLE to fully view a turf race in AP without obstructions. I understand that the trees look nice but by next year rather than obstructing the viewing of 40% of the race, we won't be able to see the horses at all. In other words, CUT DOWN THE ****IN TREES, this isn't a jungle/forest, it's a track. Damn, some of us want to actually SEE the race.
|
Back on the subject at hand, I've been watching races and replays with periods of consistency since living in Miami in the late 1970's and early 1980's. In those days, one of the local independent stations showed the races of the day in full every evening. I also caught more than my fair share live and in person at Gulfstream, Calder and Hialeah.
Point is, more than one time I'd catch a race summary in a form that seemed much different than what I had recalled from watching the race on the day it actually took place.
To this day, I normally flatly ignore the verbiage comments offered in the form for each race.