THIS is an INCREDIBLE run

[pick4]

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.

[mes5107]

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.

[pick4]

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

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 ).

[the_fat_man]

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

Why am I error checking for Equibase?

[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.

[blackthroatedwind]

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.

We have a winner.

[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.