THE 7 HORSE TAMBO shows 2w whereas the chart calls the horse 4 wide turn. Which is correct?
I just looked at the replay (you can get them by joining racereplays.com). The horse was 2-3-3-4, we robbed him of about a point.
Thanks,JB.I AM NOT CERTAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY2-3-3-4.It\'s a one turn sprint. Do you cut the turn up in 1/4\'s.
In this case, yes. If a horse was rail first third, 2 second third, 3 third third, he would be 1-2-3. What you see printed is the net (2 in this example, 3 if it\'s 2-3-3-4), and if it doesn\'t come out even we round it off when it is printed-- we use the actual net. For example, 2-3 is 2.5, 2-2-3 is 2.33.
thanks again JB, after using the sheets for 15 yrs, I just learned something new.
TGJB-
I rest my case.
Kingfisher
What case? That someone got the ground wrong on a horse? On any given day, our guys are doing ground for over 1,000 horses. There are going to be some errors, we catch them whenever possible.
It\'s not possible to have it exact every single time no matter what you do.I have found very few errors over many years.The overall picture presented by the TG sheets is very sound and has helped me make MANY scores.
p.s.I\'m no advertisement for anyone.
No question, errors occur in any system. But that\'s why you build in things like double checking for verification. At $25 per card, I don\'t think that\'s too much to ask.
Right, we\'re gonna double our trackman costs to eliminate a very small percentage of errors that have in most cases a small effect. Why stop at double checking? How about 3 or 4? We\'ll pass the cost on to our customers.
JB-
In your post regarding the Derby post-mortem, you wrote the following:
\"Now, we take the Derby pretty seriously. It\'s a big field, it\'s an important race, so we have two people do ground, and compare them. This year they came up slightly different on 3 horses, so we had them go back and look again (they had already looked a few times), and we eventually got it all worked out, and I did the race.\"
I mentioned to you that I thought the ground loss figures for a couple of the Derby prep races were not accurate. And asked whether the numbers were derived independently and verified. No more than what you did after the race. While having more than one person checking ground loss may not be possible for all races, certainly for the preps of big races that would be desirable. And I , for one, would be more interested in having numbers that I have confidence in going into a big race, rather than coming out of that race as part of the post-mortem.
Jerry, I\'m just an occassional customer and horse racing fan. I think you have a good product, and just want to see it get better. But please don\'t treat my comments as ridiculous, when by your statements regarding multiple verification you appear to agree with the need for independent agreement.
As I said before, the Derby poses a specific set of problems, not just because of the importance of the race, but because of the size of the field-- much bigger than any other race run all year in this country. I dealt with your specific comments in an e-mail, after we reviewed the preps you mentioned. We took it seriously, and found that with the possible exception of one horse in one race where you might have changed the number by no mre than 1/2 point, we were right. I\'m glad you like the product.