Possible Error In RDSS Adjusted Times
 

I was studying a race that Jeff had posted on July 28th and looked at the equalized and adjusted times from RDSS.
It was brought to my attention that the adjusted times represented at the
2nd call were unrealistic and way too fast.
I have to agree.

I believe that Ted should look at the adjusted RDSS screens and numbers and possibly correct the obvious error.

my look
 

Hi Bill H.

I at one time worried about the adjusted numbers too.
But I found that by trying to re adjust the numbers myself
caused me to loose confidence and races.

The numbers for some tracks and distances are unexplainable
The trick is to accept that they are all adjusted to "Sartin Downs"
so even though they might not show reality, all tracks, distances and surfaces get
adjusted the same way, In this procedure, of course some tracks or distances will
be more accurate then others.

Outside of a electronic method like Trackus,that could be hand entered into a
program what else can we do ? Even accurate would be accurate but then the track variant issue still would be subject to somebody opinion
Any data sorce, Beyer number "sheets" or any track/race data is still heavily influenced by somebodys opinion
Trackmaster does need to evaluate some issues but Its not RDSS's fault
This type of issue goes back to the very beginning of downloaded data in to Sartin programs
Doc used to say " If it is flawed Its still better than whats second best"

Hope to see you do well as always

Bill

Bill V.
Bill,

I agree with you. The RDSS software is excellent and it's not the fault of Ted or the software.
Possibly, Ted should re-address this long standing issue with Trackmaster and have them correct their data files.
I don't think this problem would occur with BRIS, HSW or Post Time Daily data files.

It is hard for me to believe that in a game of precision and accuracy and where the data is our primary tool that one should accept or be content with flawed or inaccurate numbers.

Bill V.
I think what Doc meant at the time he made the statement above was that something is better then nothing. At that time, this may have been true and the only alternative.
However, in todays world of high technology I feel that does not hold true anymore and is not a valid statement. The problem should be addressed and corrected by Trackmaster.

Disagree
 

Hi Bill

No I am certian Doc's quote is in responce to this very issue
As I recall the track in question was Gulfstream Park
The Issue of times being this much or that much off
disturbed some clients but only in regard to how the Sartin Normalized
Adjusted and Equalized numbers were calculated
Remember this The adjusted numbers RDSS shows are unique to trackmaster clients These numbers are not the equibase numbers that all other data
files mirror
This all is written about in a follow up I will research this further
The point I was bringing up is not who has a beter product,

I am confident the powers that be at Trackmaste/eqiubase and
with Ted's input
problems will be addressed and repaired

Hi Bill,

I have no doubt that Ted will address this because he wants his clients to win.
Ted is a very bright fellow and wants his product to be efficient.

I have the utmost confidence that he will get the problem corrected.

I did 3 WOX races this evening and I used the speed numbers from the BRIS PP Generator. These numbers are very similar to the Beyer numbers.
I used them with Synergism 4 which allows the user to set up for Beyer numbers.
The outcome should be interesting and this may yet give Ted another option.

If you are so inclined, you may want to run these races.
Here's what I used:
I purposely included mixed distances.
Syn 4 equalizes them.

Race-6
1-L3
3-L2
4-L2
7-L1

Race-7
1-L1
3-L1
4-L1
8-L3

Race-8
1-L3
2-L2
3-L3
4-L3
9-L2

wild lines
 

Hello Bill
I can't be much help to you today as I am out of my office
I only have my netbook to work with and I don't have synerg 2 3 or 4
on it

Best I can do is show you the TPR numbers from the lines '
you selected and I must caution
your lines are non coparable to say the least
This is a 6.0 poly sprint
you have given me
1 5.5 poly
1 8.5 route
1 6.5 dirt
1 7.0 poly

Here is what i have using your lines

Attachment 28771

Parts,

Funny you posted this ,I did early this morning and deleted it as I
figured what's the point. Pino bought it to my attention about horses
going that fast at CT.

I do want to respond to the originally stated query, about CT 07/28 R9. But I'm afraid I don't understand specifically what the question is. Could someone please restate it here, with as many specifics as possible. Horses Adjusted times too fast? Which lines again, and what is the number that is too fast?

Please remember that in RDSS, the Adjusted times, AND all the velocities and subsequent factors which derive from them ARE NOT BEING RUN AT THE HOST TRACK (e.g. CT here) - THEY ARE BEING RUN AT A NORMALIZED, HYPOTHETICAL TRACK (call it Sartin Downs). CT (and each different distance at CT) has an inter-track differential from Sartin Downs, DMR has a different inter-track differential from Sartin Downs, so does Hastings and Evangeline and Boise, etc. We could adjust all the different tracks and distances to TODAY'S track instead of to the HYPOTHETICAL norm track - but we don't. Same difference, except when people look at an Adjusted Call times and say horses don't typically run that fast (or that slow, whichever) at that track. True - they don't, but they're not running (in the program readouts) at that track.

It's understandable, but don't worry about it. I believe you could get similarly 'unrealistic' velocities showing up in Synergism depending on whatever Setup times you chose to adjust by.

To the extent that the adjustment system may be part of the original query raised by Jeff, the foregoing is my orientation, and it is similar (if not redundant) to the explanation given by Bill V.

Not to sidetrack a potentially valuable explanatory discussion, but the RDSS result (even using the auto paceline selector with Config defaults), worked out pretty well and, at least in this case, is a validation of the adjustment system:

Attachment 28796

Attachment 28797

Anyway, if I can still answer specific questions about the adjustments used in that race, I will try to help.

cheers,

Ted

----------------------------------------------------------
Ted,

I have no fault with the adjusted lines other then the fact that they projected abnormal 2nd call times and for those that try and project how the pace will run, could have disastrous results because the readings do not relate to the actual track you are trying to handicap. For me, "Sartin Downs" does not come into play when projecting how the pace should run at a given track.

You analysis screen did a great job.

As I see it, the original lines would be good enough for conversion as opposed to the adjusted lines because Synergism is self compensating and will equalize the lines.
I have also concluded that Synergism 4 might be a better option then Synergism 3.
Synergism 4 gives one the option to use Beyer type numbers.

Ted Craven:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a screen shot of a screen Bill V. submitted for the CT Race.

Please also let me know which speed rating is representative for the actual track I would be playing.
In this instance I am talking about CT