This is all from the Graph Code Key:
1. The op\'s op+ or op- you all don\'t add this into the figs right?? and if so may I ask why, if you know by how many L\'s a horse was off by??
2. The H? =Horse may not have been extended....How should we look at this one, in handicapping??
3. Also could you tell us about the H_ and S_ pace codes??
4. The tu = taken up and checked how much is this effect a number??
5. The X = ran on a dead rail, when seeing one of these and it\'s a off or x race should we toss that race, and if they pair up or when forward that would be that much greater right??
Thanks for your time.....keep up the good work.
...expanding on Kev\'s questions, does anyone else think it would be helpful if a fig earned in a WINNING RACE was somehow distinquished on the TGs? (I obviously do not use lifetime PPs. The more info I have, the less positive results I tend to get).
Maybe the guys are busy, so I\'ll take a whack at this as I wait for my meeting...
1. Not added to figs. Each \'+\' is a length. You can make an adjustment or not. I don\'t. It\'s a trackman\'s observation. There\'s no way of knowing if the horse would\'ve run better if he wasn\'t off poorly. There are other variables, so I think it would be presumptuous for TG to make this adjustment for you.
2. H? is also a trackman\'s observation. In my experience, I don\'t think you really know how hard the horse was working. If the jockey\'s sitting still, the horse could still be working his ass off. For me, a minor factor. I\'ve seen plenty bounce off the h? race.
3. Generally used in turf races (90% of the time?). If today\'s race has a few speedballs it may have an impact, or it may not.
4. The horse\'s effort MAY have been compromised. It may be just as stressful to start and stop than it is to run a blazing new top. Another minor thing for me. Plus it may happen again today. Some horses always get in trouble (Dollar Bill?). May be a function of running style.
5. I don\'t think I\'ve ever seen a horse pair a top or move forward on a dead rail. It generally looks like 5, 6, 13X. May be very stressful. Has he had time to recover? Dead rail today? For me, another minor factor.
Richiebee,
I have no interest in whether the horse won or lost. This info IS available on TG as well. Since EVERYBODY with a program knows this, I don\'t think it has any value. A horse that won last out may be overbet. That\'s about it for me.
Good luck. HP
This is all from the Graph Code Key:
1. The op\'s op+ or op- you all don\'t add this into the figs right?? and if so may I ask why, if you know by how many L\'s a horse was off by??
2. The H? =Horse may not have been extended....How should we look at this one, in handicapping??
3. Also could you tell us about the H_ and S_ pace codes??
4. The tu = taken up and checked how much is this effect a number??
5. The X = ran on a dead rail, when seeing one of these and it\'s a off or x race should we toss that race, and if they pair up or when forward that would be that much greater right??
Thanks for your time.....keep up the good work.
Kev
1. op- means less than 2 lengths; op means 2 but less than 4 lengths; op+ means 4 but less than 6 lengths; op++ means 6 but less than 8 lengths; and op+++ means 8 or more lengths.
As HP notes these are estimates based upon the trackman\'s observations. And as defined they\'re not tight enough to be used as a variable computing the horse\'s figure. And indeed as HP states we\'re not quite sure what affect it had on its performance. Also this behavior can be habitual and ascribing effort can turn into a trap. Thus we note it but let you determine its significance.
2. h? means the horse didn\'t appear to be fully extended in the trackman\'s eyes. Again its significance is debatable. As HP notes many horses bounce off such efforts and quiet rides don\'t necessarily stress-free rides.
In terms of handicapping, simply look at the figure in the context of the horse\'s sheet. Is it a top? Repeat?, How big is the top? etc. The figure inself in the context of the line provides the best indication of just how taxing or not the effort was.
3. s_pace means unusally slow pace which affected the final time of a race. h_pace means unusally fast pace which may or may not have affected a horse\'s performance in the race. Both are denoted by the figure maker. The former is easy to catch since the final time is affected. The latter is not as easy to catch. Again we let you determine their significance.
4. tu means steadied, checked or maybe blocked and it is NOT in the figure. This note results from the trackman\'s observation.
Part of our trackman\'s job is to note anything during the course of a race which may have affected performance. Checked, steadied, and/or blocked occurred but the degree is open to question, which again is why we note it but let you determine its significance.
5. X means a horse ran on a dead rail. The figure accompanying this symbol is almost always an off or x effort. Rarely is it a top or repeat.
If the figure is a top or repeat examine the figure in the context of the line to determine significance. Off or x efforts off dead rails more than occasionally can produce good betting opportunities. Again current condition is important but I\'d be very inclined to give a dead rail horse a mulligan if indeed it fits in today\'s race, especially at a juicy parimutuel.
TGAB,
Are you using your own people at the major tracks to develop your charts distances paths etc? or is the information obtained another way and if so how is that done (video replay for instance)?
Been curious about that...
NC Tony
Thanks Alan..........
Yes, we use observers, some of whom also work as Equibase trackmen. They note runups, wind direction and velocity, paths, track maintenance, weather, and any occurence pre-race or during the race which may have affected performance. In addition they hand-time races. Final time, beaten lengths, weight, equipment and medication information are provided by the official chart callers and photo finish companies. We review the official charts, integrate our own data and occasionally when warranted will recheck the data inputs to make sure everything input-wise checks out. Variants are made and we have our \"hard\" figures. \"Hard\" figures are denoted by emboldened path information in the upper left of the sheet.
We also make figures for tracks where we do not have an observer. For these tracks, we again utilize official chart caller and photo finish company information. We do not have runup or weather information other than track condition. We estimate ground loss using a model we\'ve developed which takes track configuration, starting posts, and points of call and attendent lengths behind or ahead information into account. These estimates are checked by the figure maker looking at the chart notes. Variants are made and we have our \"soft\" figures. \"Soft\" figures are denoted by italicized path information in the upper left of the sheet.
Alan,
Thanks for the insight. I know its hard work to keep up. You guys are very good at what you do.
NC Tony
One more thing Alan......Are you guys going to be moving the number scale back anytime soon?? or at all??
I\'m still waiting to see if they get serious about drugs before making a decision about adding 5 points to the data base. But if they haven\'t dealt with it by this November, that\'s it.
Why 5, and not 10, or 15? Just curious, if its the negatives people don\'t like, 5 isn\'t going to fix the issue.
We want to keep the number scheme relatively close to what everyone has become accustomed to. And as far as the other business goes, a) some of us do care about comparing horses from different generations, and b) all of us care about the figures being right. If you make them right you can compare horses from different tracks AND different generations. If you make figures conform to pars you can\'t do either.
What I do when I get TG sheets is I mark out the numbers and add 5 on to them myself.
Pretty funny, Kev. If you agree with Ragozin\'s view of the off tracks, you can add 8 for those.
When you hand time races, Do you start the clock when the gate opens or when the first horse hits the beam?
tnks
We clock from the gate, measure the run-up (distance between gate and beam), use a run-up chart to compare it to track time.
Jerry
Thanks. This means that your figures are made with a \"unique\", accurate, comparable from track to track race time.
What\'s the purpose of comparing your hand time to the beam time? Double checking?
Dodie-- yes, that\'s exactly why-- generally the teletimer is more accurate than hand timing, but when you get a weird one it\'s good to have a check. The other reason we go through the exercise is to get the lengths of the runups for their own sakes-- a short or long runup can affect final time, and keeping track of when they change things lets you know how to correlate different distances, and even different races at the same distance. At Laurel years ago, they would go with really short (like 20 foot) runups for the 7f races and longer ones (like 60 foot) for the 6f races on some days, then reverse them on other days, and have them the same on yet others. Anyone who assumed the distance relationships were a constant was in real trouble.
Of course, changes in runups will also have a dramatic effect on fractions (see Pimlico 6f fractions, where they have a 5 foot runup). But I\'m sure those making pace figures are all getting race to race runups and accurate wind info.
\"Of course, changes in runups will also have a dramatic effect on fractions (see Pimlico 6f fractions, where they have a 5 foot runup). But I\'m sure those making pace figures are all getting race to race runups and accurate wind info.\"
I have no idea if they are or not. Maybe such precision is nice, but not necessary to achieve success, who knows? But like I said before, you can\'t argue with a substantial flat bet profit for four tracks that were posted betting EVERY race for nearly three months. You\'ve avoided this twice, saying you didn\'t know what results I was talking about even after I told you where to find them.
Like I said before, I use both products, as I think they are both very good. And to be honest, many times they point to the same exact horses despite the differing methodologies. I know the $65 FG looked every bit as good from the pace guy that he did on the TG sheets. There is more than one way to skin a cat, some races you need a different knife. But to pretend pace can\'t be measured to produce solid results isn\'t necessarily true.
Okay, Miller. Let\'s play.
So, Paul traced you back through the maze, and found that your posts originated from the same web host as the site you are pushing (in Belgium, no less). Some coincidence. He wanted to block you, I told him not to. Given that you didn\'t disclose your relationship, it\'s pretty obvious that anything you say is suspect. But let\'s go through the exercise:
1-- We know you say there has been some kind of betting profit, and if I looked at the site I\'m pretty sure it would indicate that. Of course, a) we don\'t know whether those picks were made in advance or not, since you pointed them out retroactively, and b) we don\'t know whether there were others not listed during that period, and c) we don\'t know whether there were earlier periods that lost.
That particular stunt is what Ragozin pulled in his book-- he talked about his betting venture in Atlantic City, and how the DRF monitored it, and how he made over $100k in win bets and showed a 14% profit. That was all true, but he neglected to mention the 400k he bet into other pools, and that the venture as a whole was a significant loser-- Brad Free called him on it when he reviewed the book for the DRF. Ragozin cherry-picked the one set of results that made him look good. (And by the way, in the same chapter Ragozin delivered an open invitation for a handicapping contest with \"any leading public handicapper to fight things out with my system, but I doubt very much that anyone with a reputation would accept the dare\". The day after reading that I publicly challenged Len to a contest, and he turned me down, publicly).
And all this aside, even if everything was kosher, there are the questions of what OTHER things (like TG) factored into your plays, how much is attributable to pace data and handicapping, and what relevence a relatively short sample has at all.
2-- You have no idea whether runups and wind affect fractions? Really? That\'s pretty scary, especially if you are, as you appear, behind the data.
I have no idea whether your data is worth anything or not, but I know that what you have said here so far is not. If you want us to track your plays going forward, I\'m sure someone out there will (Jimbo?). The interesting ones will be where your data and picks CONFLICTS with what we see on TG.
Welcome to the Thoro-Graph site.
OK, let\'s play. First off, I am not the guy who runs the site. I\'m Tony Miles, an Army SSG, and his name is Craig, an Air Force guy. I am stationed with him here in NATO, and I\'m a fellow horse player. There aren\'t many of us in the military. He is actually pissed I posted here in the first place. He posts here himself from time to time, and it is not like he is trying to hide that. I told him about the thread with CH, and that he should jump in, and he declined to get involved, so I did. So yes, I screwed up. He thinks my posting here is the reason he is being harassed about posting free figures on the internet now by DRF/Equibase.
As for the results, he posted numbers for four tracks every day, before the races. He always left the figures up after he posted results, win or lose, as he had some losing weeks. There are tons of people who knew about this site on other boards. I find it hard to believe you didn\'t. But I\'m saying no way he posted phony results and didn\'t get called on it.
So, as for #2, no I don\'t know. He has never told me any specifics about his numbers. I know the basics, pace, speed, weight, but that\'s about it. I\'ve offered to help with variants, but he has another guy (his brother I think) that helps him, and he doesn\'t seem very eager to share.
Everything else aside, the internet is an amazing thing, and it\'s astounding how horseplayers from all over the world have found this site-- Moscow, Switzerland (Doug, where\'d you go?), Belgium, England, etc. Also, we have another guy who teaches miltary history here in the states, I think.
The part I\'m interested in about this (and I\'m not the only one, someone in the industry called me about it yesterday) is DRF\'s involvement. What\'s their issue?
I don\'t really know much about DRF problems other than they don\'t want him giving out free figures. You could ask him, or some Mark guy from the Form.
Oh, boy. It\'s Marc, he runs the DRF website, and we know him well-- he\'s been barred from this site for lying about us. I have made clear my opinion of that guy many times, he reads this board for sure, and it may very well be that\'s what set things off.
Please keep me informed about this. If you don\'t want to do it here, you can get me at jerry@thorograph.com.
J Miller,
Believe me, you are wasting your time if you debate this issue further. Those of us that have used those pace/performance figures know their quality and value and have seen the results.
The real issue is that his work has temporarily been pulled and we should try to help him bring it back if the conversations here had anything to do with it.
I discovered the figures several months ago based on commentary on this board.
Post Edited (03-21-05 15:35)
I really dont know why drf has any say. I mean you buy their data file, use an algorithm where you add your own veriable to produce a number. Why would they offer the data files and have a problem doing this? They dont offer pace figures in their product so they have no issues their.
saddle,
I don\'t think DRF has any case really.
He makes the final time speed figures himself.
He makes the pace figures himself.
The process for creating performance figures based on the combination of pace and speed figures has been dicussed by numerous handicappers and in books by Quinn, Quirin, Brohammer and others.
His methodology is similar and is certainly not anything the DRF offers to its customers. I think the real issue for the time being is actually fighting the DRF.
I just think its bull that drf is trying to bully the player.
My opinion of drf, from thier writing, to their business tatics is really shrinking as of late.
I\'m interested in seeing how this plays out, but the legal questions that will apply in this case have nothing to do with what CH said (doesn\'t matter whether it\'s for pace figures or light reading). As a guy who has done deals with DRF and Equibase, the issues will be about re-use of DRF data in some form, the way it is obtained, laid out, resold etc. This came up in all negotiations with Equibase-- if he is not buying bulk data from DRF, just buying hardcopy and keypunching it in, he won\'t have a problem. If he\'s buying it electronically he may or may not, pending contracts, disclaimers etc.
Here is the catch: You don\'t have to buy anything from anybody. Equibase gives the charts away every day, for free, with plenty of info to make competent figures. Certainly not to the extent of info used to make TG figures, but more than enough to make Beyer style.
That\'s an interesting point about free charts, and if a) they don\'t have a problem with him doing it b) he can show that\'s what he did and or c)he can show how he reconfigured the data into his layout without having taken it electronically, he\'ll be okay.
TGJB,
I \"think\" the issue is the actual figures. That\'s why I think the DRF is just bullying. It doesn\'t make sense.
Post Edited (03-21-05 17:02)
Although the actual data is in the public domain, DRF will have certain \'sweat of the brow\' rights. The fact that they and Equibase spend time and money to input the data gives them the right to say how it can be used if they supply it electronically.
If someone wants to take an electronic feed and produce a commercial product they will be charged more than someone using the data for their personal use.
George
I note that the Equibase website includes the following as one of the \"Terms of Use\":
5. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DATA
(a) You understand that information acquired hereunder is for your personal use. You agree that you will not disseminate information acquired hereunder to any third party without having first obtained the written permission of EQUIBASE.
(b) You understand that information acquired hereunder is provided for use in an online or hardcopy print environment. You agree that you will not download information acquired hereunder with the intent to database it for future use. Equibase, at its sole discretion, will determine if user activity patterns indicate that information is being used for purposes other than handicapping in an online or hardcopy print environment. If Equibase determines that information is being used for purposes other than handicapping in an online or hardcopy print environment, Equibase shall immediately terminate any subscriptions or accounts and no refunds will be issued.
Believe me, you are wasting your time if you debate this issue further. Those of us that have used those pace/performance figures know their quality and value and have seen the results..
Trifecta.
The man, the figures and the results are legit. And more.
I have been told that DRF had nothing to do with pacefigures having to stop producing its performance figures. Apparently, there was some initial concern about what he was doing, but DRF did not bully him into stopping.
I\'ve been told that CJ has described the full situation in another forum.
CH...what other forum?
I\'ve been following it at paceadvantage.com
Rich-- I just went over there looking, can\'t find it. Where?
Here is the quote from the PA board:
\"As for the issue with DRF, it was pretty simple. They seemed to think I was just manipulating the Beyer Speed Figure somehow, which isn\'t the case. As I explained to him, the BRIS version uses different data, and comes up with the same figures. As anyone with my program can tell you, there is no database of Beyer figures anywhere in the files I send as part of the program. He informed me if that was the case, no problem, but I would still have problems with Equibase. I haven\'t heard back from him since explaining this, so I don\'t know their stance yet. DRF, and now mostly Equibase, is coming off as some villain now. As far as DRF goes, it isn\'t true. They are trying to protect something they pay a lot of money for, the Beyers, no problem. I haven\'t heard from Equibase yet, so I can\'t really comment on this. I\'m pretty sure the burden of proof would be on them though. So, lets say I was to post nothing but horse\'s names and my own Performance Figures. If Equibase wants to try proving I\'m using their charts to make them, that\'s a fight I may want to participate in, maybe not.\"
Also, good reading under handicap discussion-cj\'s impact.
Richie
Yea, I dont know where DRF is coming from with the Beyer thing as the numbers have nothing to do with Beyers. It would be like Jerry getting a call that his numbers where just Beyers adjusted, which is ludicris.