TrackMaster Variants (Evil or Misunderstood?)
 

These thoughts were prompted by comments from Alydar_David and Ramon201 on this thread:

I know that Val2, Val3c and all versions of Speculator up to Spec150 are affected by TrackMaster/Equibase since Feb 1, 2006 now stating Daily Track Variants (DTV) in 10ths rather than 5ths (that is, 10ths normalized to 8 furlongs). I can't say about immediately previous programs like Synthesis and PaceLauncher which also used TrackMaster data files.

Doc always used only HALF the DTV when adjusting the raw pacelines from TM. This is consistent with his frequent observations that a major component of the variances in final times compared to their 3 year (or periodic) 'pars' was due to the effect of the Match Up in a given race (and also due to calibre of competition on any given day), and much less due to daily changes in the speed of the track surface. But when TM decreased the unit of measure of DTV from 2/10ths (1/5th) to 1/10 seconds this had the effect of causing the programs using their data to use the FULL daily variant instead of the historical HALF variant, thus mooting the foregoing discussion.

This doesn't mean much when DTVs are lower, say -7 to +7, but when you get wild variants like +30 or -27 (like the winner of BEL0610 race 13 in its last paceline, discussed elsewhere recently), adding or subtracting such large numbers to the raw call times can adjust a winner right out of contention, plus make the speed ratings look very bizarre compared to final time.

I'd like to make clear that the ONLY data from TrackMaster used to modify the raw call times is the Daily Track Variant. NOT the Speed Ratings. The Speed Ratings are TM's equalizing measure of Final Time - a guideline for selecting representative pacelines for today's matchup. They have NO effect on the velocities calculated from Equalized, Normalized, Adjusted times, and NO effect on subsequent factors. If you concentrate on mitigating the effects of variants gone wild, and use F6 in Validator or the Perceptor I Total ranking screen in Speculator Past Performances (plus common sense) to select pacelines, I think you end up close to the territory which Ramon discusses, and this seems right, given the best of what we understand Doc intended. And you don't have to rely as much on TM's Speed Ratings to select pacelines, if you don't want to.

Unfortunately, in Validator and previous (excepting ValM), there is no way to manually modify the DTV supplied by TrackMaster. In Speculator you can use the manual entry screen after you have selected some pacelines. As Ramon does, you could take the above mentioned -27 variant and make it be only -9 by entering +18 (-27 +18 = -9). And you could make that DTV = 0 by entering +27 (which puts the horse on top by a mile), like Richie has been experimenting with. Some will recall around February 1 we were discussing the relative merits of using the new (imposed by TM) FULL variant compared to the historical HALF variant used by the programs. The results of some tests were tentatively conclusive, so I released Spec150 with a default of the FULL variant, but made a setting whereby you could reinstate the historical HALF variant (by renaming the file _TVHALF.TXT to TVHALF.TXT, see the Spec150 Release Notes PDF). This was one of the main reasons for even doing Spec150 (along with some bug fixes).

Three things occurred on Feb 1, 2006 which affect Sartin Programs using TrackMaster data:

1. TM updated the par tables they use to calculate DTV and Speed Ratings. They have done this annually since forever.

2. They changed the scale of the Speed Ratings (forced by owner Equibase) from 30 - 100 to 0 - 130 to be in conformance with 'international' (and it seems, Beyer-like scales)

3. The Daily Track Variant (as well as Speed Rating), which is a function of a day's averaged, normalized final times for a given track/surface compared to the par they maintain for that track/surface - had its unit of measure changed from 5ths to 10ths.


Since we know TM's SRs don't affect our numbers, I believe points #1 and #3 above have the biggest impact on changed readouts, with the principal culprit being #1, the new annual pars, and the accomplice being #3 with its effect on how much variant our numbers are now subject to. But I agree with Ramon, that for now, a redoubled attention to the variants being accepted in the calculations is still a source of good mutuels. It just seems there must now be more work required to keep them realistic, in some cases - and paying close attention to what you're doing is never a bad thing.

In my work on the RDSS Windows software, I am now concentrating on the 'Adjustments' module which, when using TM data, permits you to use whatever percentage of DTV you want (e.g. 100%, 50%, 0%), put a minimum/maximum cap (e.g. like Ramon's -9 / +9); also, enter and store regular shipper adjustments from one track to another, one surface to another; use the historical Val/Spec Universal par table for distance adjustments, or DRF 3 year best times, or commercial pars such as HSH, Cynthia, or PaceFigures, or your own. Also change how DTV is applied, from simply 1/10th second per point to 1/10th second normalized to 8 furlongs, or .0125 seconds per point per furlong, which is how TM calculates them. (Amongst other things, these are my current excuses for taking so long to deliver this thing!)

I don't know whether TrackMaster data is becoming too 'dirty' or 'sloppy' to use or whether their last par upgrade had a lot of defects, or whether BRIS, or DRF or HDW data would be better. All these questions can be answered. I know I can't simplistically go to TrackMaster and say: "your data sucks - I lost the Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont for the first time in 10 years." Some people won... (and I'd need to give them a bit more detail than 'sucks'). It reminds me more than ever that we need to continue to forge into the future.

All thoughts welcomed!

Ted

TrackMaster Variants Comments
 

Ted as usual a very informative post. I monitor the HTR board run by Ken Mansa and they have very sharp people there also. I get the sense that their data provider HDW run by Jim Cramer and Ron Tiller are very careful with their work. Ron Tiller also seems to be very accessible as he posts quite often on the HTR board. For awhile Ellis Starr was available at Trackmaster, but I don’t even know if he is associated with them now.

What you plan to do with RDSS as far as the adjustment module is not only a good idea, but I think necessary if one wishes to continue to work with Trackmaster data. Perhaps because of the sometimes wild track adjustments we are seeing a renaissance of the older manual entry programs. Ted, as I told you before I really like working with Energy but if you are doing multiple tracks it becomes a challenge. Of all the alternative data providers you mentioned BRIS, DRF, or HDW I would prefer HDW for the reasons mentioned above. I know they are not interested in pay as you go downloads as they sell monthly subscriptions. I can also understand that some people do not play every day so they could not justify the cost of a monthly subscription. Other than the quality of data that I think they would provide subscribers get unlimited downloads for a monthly fee. This is not a commercial for HDW but I tried this service for a month when I was working with the velocity program HTR has. I was happy with the value added data they provide such as charts, jockey-trainer stats, etc.

Also if you are thinking of having a modeling module in RDSS you will need to have all the downloads for the tracks you are playing. Anyhow I think the adjustment module is a good idea if we are to continue using Trackmaster Data. I hope others post on this topic because it is very important in the direction that Ted decides to go in the development of RDSS.

Trackmaster and Polytrack
 

I have to wonder how Trackmaster will handle the Polytrack issue which many tracks will be switching to in the very near future. How fast will they respond to these changes remains to be seen. I am not trying to cause trouble here, but I think this is an important issue to consider especially when you are putting real money on Equalized, Normalized, and Adjusted pacelines.

Trackmaster and Doc Sartin
 

If I recall correctly Doc was initially against automatic downloads for pp data. Only by working very closely with Ellis Starr at Trackmaster and after many trips back and forth to Trackmaster and O'Henry House was he satisfied with the adjustments that was to be made with Pace-Launcher, Synthesis,etc.

It seems to me when Trackmaster made these changes no-one was notified about them. I would have to think that Doc Sartin would not have accepted the current state of affairs as it was so contrary to what he knew to be true.
Perhaps downloads is not a major moneymaker for Trackmaster so they may be putting their resources elsewhere. Looking at all the other software developers out there I cannot think of anyone using Trackmaster Data.

HTR (Ken Mansa) - HDW data
SYNERGISM VI (Bob Purdy) - HDW data
HSH (David Schwartz) - HDW data
Equisim - Bris Data
All In One - HDW data
Netcapper - HDW data
JCAPPER - Bris and TSN Data
Pace Appraiser (Randy Giles) - Bris Data
Master Magician (Michael Pizzolla) - Post Time Solutions
Power On-Line (Steve Wolfson) - BRIS or TSN
Trackmaster SW (Trackmaster) - Trackmaster

I was wrong Trackmaster uses Trackmaster data. The Pace Advantage BBS had a poll about the worst software. Trackmaster SW came in first by a large margin. I like Trackmaster's price $1.00 for a download, but really have to wonder if we would be better off with this download without any pars or variants. I apologize for going on like this but I really have all the members of this BBS in mind when I am posting this. Ted, is busy developing a software product that may overcome this problem. Since Ted was asking for some input these are only my opinions on data providers.

1) BIZZARO - guess thats my word for evil

Having said that as long as some alternate method is available in RDSS which allows one to use raw data in the calculations and various reads is fine with me.

Can you imagine being able to use "reality based" data coupled with some unreal technological advances Ted has made in RDSS? Going on the paceline screen - clicking on a paceline and having a screen pop up whcih shows the replay of THAT race u are considering. Are you SERIOUS !;)
These other software's on the market are in for a RUDE awakening when this baby is born.

all bull**** aside remember I said that ok? Then when you see it in action tell me if I was "shilling" for Ted ok? This will be the BEST tool on the market to help SERIOUS cappers WIN.

Being able to access a Drf sr+var would be real nice too. As far as I know the only files that have that are the Drf and PostTime daily.

Richie

What is real nice is to be able to use that Buck download on several different programs. I am stuck on Bris because I love the Bris Custom Past Performance Generator, and I use the same Bris single File format for several programs, which ever one I feel like at the time. The track equalization was a snap to do in excel, but have to admit it did take me a long time to figure out the poly surface with the equalization. Pars become part of many programs because folks want to sell them, to me they are something to keep a eye on when considering a contender rather than driving my program to make the equalization. A simple table of more than 60 tracks either fast5 (-5) or slow7 (7) or any + or - figure that works for a given track.

Teds post and trkmast srs
 

First, very interesting post by Ted! My simple mind goes back to the day s when Doc and Ellis Starr both worked side by side on the srs etc. Ever since PIRCO closed shop and Ellis Starr went on to his touting service the srs and variants have in my humble opinion gone to hell in a handbasket. Guy Wadsworth and myself had many a conversation about this over the years while I was testing various versions of SPEC for him. As a matter of fact I was so fed up with the Trkmast Srs that he sent me a version of SPEC that had no variant!
I recall the last conversation I had with him he told me he thought he might finally be making some headway with them.
Im just glad that Ted is working on this problem.
I guess Im old school on this, many moons ago i had a pace program ( close to phase 2) and we used the old American turf monthly track pars and then to get the variant for each distance we simply took 20 srs out of the drf and averaged them and dumped them into the program. It worked well. No out of line srs and all
A thought for Ted here (as if he doesnt have enough of a headachc on his hands with all this:) Why not consult the master of the matchup himself on this? Jim bradshaw in hsi forst book wrote that (and its certainly true with trakmaster today) that most handicappers are adjustment happy. He had a simple and straightforward way of making adjustments when they are needed. This would be a great option in the new program!

Apathy
 

With only THREE people responding to a thread that is EXTREMELY serious as far as where this thing is heading I am depressed.

With all the emails,private messages,posts here I would think 2 pages of comments/advice/suggestions would already exist.

Ellis Starr, Trackmaster, whomever is NOT gonna do "jack" about this.They deal with customer base in the thousands. We are VERY VERY small afterthought especially NOW that Howard has retired which takes ALL of his powerful infuences and influential folks with him.

It is on US now.

Ted is the programmer who can make stuff happen.

Rich

Richie, I agree with you totally on this. This is way to important to be overlooked. I know other people have to have thoughts on this. Ted deserves all the input he can on this so he can figure the best way to proceed on this project.

I am inclined to agree with the notion that Daily Track Variants can be misleading - except when they’re not. One of the points I was trying to make was that, for the time being, Spec150 does provide the means to formally use half the DTV, and all Spec versions provide the means on an ad hoc basis, to use no variant at all or limit the variant swings via the manual entry screen. Richie has been experimenting with that publicly. Others have done this for some time, with success.

Including this range of variant option and other means to modify raw data - when appropriate - is something I hope will be helpful in RDSS.

What I do know is what Ron Tiller at HDW pointed out - that one data provider’s variant being at odds with another data provider’s variant in a one race or in a hundred race sample, does not mean the method of computing those variants is defective. Relatively, one may be more, or one may be less effective than another, but that can only determined after review of a much larger sample. For every 1 race where a suspicious variant eliminates a winner, what if there are 10 other races where such adjustment brings a winner into contention?

I’m not saying TM’s variants pose no issues. I just don’t know, in a way that is useful in the aggregate - over a large number of events. I’d love to be able to critique the detailed formula they use to calculate those numbers, but I don’t see that happening. And something about specialization of labour...

Perhaps the Match Up provides the means to by-pass this whole variant effect, and I aim to become more proficient in that analysis. In the meanwhile, I’m just carrying on from the point where Guy left this software, which was using TM data and SRs and DTVs. He in turn was, in effect, carrying on from where Doc left things. There’s lots of options available.

(And I’d hate to tell those Spec users who have these elaborate manual adjustments that they should return all their winnings...)

Ted

Fair Enough
 

What you said is fine. Maybe all of us are going to have to be more diligent with the Match-Up and making are own adjustments when needed. Perhaps I am overstating the case since I do not work enough with Speculator to tell what tracks are causing problems. I do know that Spec150 did fine on Kentucky Derby day with the turf races I worked that day.

Maybe that has something to do with not having a wide range of variants for that track and surface. Nothing worthwhile is really easy or automatic when trying to handicap. We still have come a long way since Phase III days.

Ted,

I just read the post about the many problems the the new TM variants are causing in the Val/Spec programs. All the discussion seems to be headed towards how the reprogram the new programs to make them compatible with the new data. Have you or any one else thought to modify the new TM data
so it conforms to the OLD format? Since you know the new scheme as opposed tho the old one, it seems to me that it would be much easier to reprogram the data format than to reprogram and change the internal formulas.

Andy

There are still a few tracks that are NOT working with Speculator, but they are easy to stay away from. The program still works well, especially if one compares different versions of it: when they jive, you know there is dominance in that horse.

Andy,

A reasonable observation. Per my initial post above, I think the main issue (if there even is one), is with the new set of track pars TM introduced on Feb 1. They update these pars every year, for better or for worse. If you wanted to restate every DTV from every race in a Past Performance so it used a different (i.e. the previous year) set of track pars and thus was the same as last year, you'd first have to possess that previous set of pars, possess the current set of pars, calculate the difference, which tracks, which distances, then apply the difference and bingo - you'd be in the past again. No one's going to do that.

I think perhaps it makes more sense to find out what data (speed ratings, variants, distance or shipping adjustments) just doesn't make sense on a consistent basis, then tinker with it until you get a consistent method for making it make sense (i.e. getting the winner as a contender).

If ABC Downs ALWAYS projects way fast to BEL, then if you must use those lines for a horse, always make an adjustment to ABC which makes it make sense when it ships to BEL. Or if sprints still project too fast to routes at some tracks, modify them so they make sense (on screen or in your head).

Maybe one or a few of the par changes this year by TrackMaster don't make sense. If you can identify these, either avoid those pacelines or races, or adjust them. We don't have to accept only what they give us.

Ted

Which tracks, do you find?

How would the data have to change to work with Speculator? Or, conversely stated, how would Speculator have to handle the data differently from those tracks?

Can you suggest a couple of example races?

Ted

Brilliant
 

(TED Wrote)
In my work on the RDSS Windows software, I am now concentrating on the 'Adjustments' module which, when using TM data, permits you to use whatever percentage of DTV you want (e.g. 100%, 50%, 0%), put a minimum/maximum cap (e.g. like Ramon's -9 / +9); also, enter and store regular shipper adjustments from one track to another, one surface to another; use the historical Val/Spec Universal par table for distance adjustments, or DRF 3 year best times, or commercial pars such as HSH, Cynthia, or PaceFigures, or your own. Also change how DTV is applied, from simply 1/10th second per point to 1/10th second normalized to 8 furlongs, or .0125 seconds per point per furlong, which is how TM calculates them. (Amongst other things, these are my current excuses for taking so long to deliver this thing!)

Ted,This is brilliant,to allow the user to adjust to changes, as one likes
not be locked into a program output like val2 with no way to change,amount of varient,track to track, distance to distance ect.This is the future of
handicapping software.Being able to apply small tweeks or large ones to
fit your style Everyone then will not have the same output.Some will have
better results some worse or you can use program default settings(Not to talk
For Ted Here)Sometimes making your own infomation pays for itself,like your
own adjustment for a shipper.

Pace figures handle adjustments pretty well,in spec 150 Ted set up the
option of going back to Half of varient so it works the same way as before
I'm New to spec so I can't comment on how its doing since the trackmaster
change,I have been working with Validator and found the top 3 in total energy
and the top 3 in Ent have a flat bet Win profit at all distances at about 9
different tracks that I tested about 155 Races,With a avg win mutual about
11.00 dollars so it still seems good despite the changes.Now I have not used
A Sartin program before this year,so I it Might have been better but it looks
good to me.Even with the bad trackmaster pars and varient issues.

Ted I would not worry about the older programs,they still seem ok I'm not
not ready to break out my commodore 64 with my Brohamer program
that I wrote in basic,that took 2.5 hours to do a card,with my homemade
Pars and Varients.Val is the best program that I have used,and it seems
spec has more potential,I need a couple of months with it still.Just keep
a model of your results with all programs.Some tracks and distances dont
play that dont show logical results.Post position bias,horse doping,Programs
Adjustments out of date.


Good Luck All
Pete

examples
 

TOO FAST: Canterbury, Emerald, Philly sprints, Meadowlands

make them slower, or just don't use them: I am not a programmer.

Do you mean, in the example of PHA sprints, when a PHA horse ships into a sprint at another track (e.g. LRL, DEL, PEN, NYRA, FL...), a PHA sprint paceline will tend to make the horse look too fast?

If so, would you expect to find that if you slowed down the PHA sprint by some amount, it would then not be too fast? (e.g. 1 second, .5 second, 1.5 seconds, or does it vary by destination track?)

Or did you mean something different? Do any other PHA specialists have a comment about this?

And, do you mean the same applies to all distances at Canterbury, Emerald, Meadowlands - when using pacelines from these tracks when the horse ships elsewhere, lines from these tracks make the horse look too fast at many (most) other tracks?

Thanks for the clarifications.

Ted

too fast
 

One cannot use lines FROM those tracks with confidence at others because they transfer TOO FAST. PARTICULARLY Meadowlands and Emerald which are, by far, the most notables out of range.

Now Tampa Bay lines transfer too slow: have seen this when they shipped to Keeneland, Woodbine and others.

Woodbine tranfers too fast to Gulfstream and Kenneland, and Fort Erie transfers too fast to Woodbine.

here are 4 horses pacelines at 6f where the final time including beaten lenghts are within 1/5 of a second. They are coming from 4 different tracks and wound up in the same race.

TOP half shows RAW data.

LOWER half shows TM data adjusted. Speed ratings "adjusted":

1) 74
4) 78
6)- line 1 - 83
6)- line a - 89

Rich

Related thread
 

Here is an important related thread on this topic of TrackMaster variants and speed ratings: http://bindfold.com/forums/showthrea...newpost&t=1336

Ted

perhaps i'm being too demanding, but one of my major difficulties with these newer breed of programs is precisely the various data sources habit of changing the formating, adding fields, etc--and the user is stuck with the price of updating his software, taking a series of hits to his bank due to the new data and its impact on the computations, on so on.

personally, i dont understand why you, as a programmer, can not approach equibase directly for the data? lest its completely prohibitive in price. seems most of the problems arise from the providers, anyway. and i do not understand why a data provider like trackmaster would arbitrarily undermine so many softare users dependent upon their information by changing how a variant is calculated, or intercalating a field into their table, thus requiring some adjustment by the software vendor.

is there any data provider with which one may contract that keeps its db in a stable format? adding fields to a pre-existing db in no way effects how the fields that were there previously are read by your program. they are simply truncated. so, theoretically, one's program would be largely immune to any change in data structures if the provider wished to make that a priority.

tlt

Regarding Speculator and earlier software which used the TrackMaster TMPP file, they were small potatoes users of a data file which was/is in much much larger circulation to users of other software (including TM's own), so although it would have been nice (and polite) to not screw up anyone, Sartin users (at the time) counted less, in the larger scheme (in my view) than the other 99% of consumers of that Speed Rating figure.

That said, TrackMaster did NOT want to make the change - it was forced by Equibase for perceived marketing and competitive reasons. Also, they gave a half-year advance notice to software developers (including Guy Wadsworth, who programmed Speculator), but Guy deemed it inconsequential (a mistake).

Perhaps most importantly, Doc was making a highly non-standard use of TM's Speed Rating and Daily Track Variant (for adjusting and equalizing call times) and, while they helped him understrand how to make this use, after Doc dropped out of the picture (and after asking Guy), they figured if anyone was really impacted by this Speed Rating scale change, well, someone would let them know...

However, your observation about going directly to Equibase (or to Equibase's data sales division, which is TrackMaster) is a precient one! That's what I did for RDSS - I asked for data dedicated to my specific software program, controlled and guaranteed not to change without notice, thow in a few extra data goodies (accurate ITVs, daily result charts, real-time mutuels), charge a reasonable price. Make a realistic business case, appear technically competent, focused on the long term: ask and it is given! After a short while now, RDSS will begin using that new data file.

I think Doc could have asked for the same thing years ago, but I don't think his business model allowed for hiring the programming expertise to make the whole process happen and be sustainable over the long term.

I agree the whole Feb 2006 fiasco was a slap in the face and should NEVER have been allowed to happen. I think TrackMaster (and Equibase) are much more aware now of the growing body of Sartin-oriented software users who are or who could possibly become their customers (as evidenced by their righteous treatment of Bill and Richie re complimentary data accounts). As with many areas of endeavour, it just takes an advocate, a liason, a constant contact, an understanding of mutuality: how can we help each other.

Sounds like a good philosophy to me.:) Hope that answered the underlying question.

Ted

Track Variants From Where I See It
 

To: Ted, Houndog, Richie P. Fast4522 Dugoutgold

From: Stormbringer

Frist Any Or All You Guy Would Be Great To Have Over To The House To Eat Rib Eyes And Drink Beer Or Single Barrel Whiskey Or My Whole Bar Or All The Food I Have I Would Cook For Ya Ll. Each One Of You Are Great Teachers In There Own Right. And What You Say Is Important.
I Once Called The Doc And Was Telling Him My Concerns About Trainers , And Shoes Or Something Like That. And He Told Me Not To Worry About That. He Said You Can't Change It Don't Let It Affect Your Play. you Worry About Things That You Can't Change To Much.from That Day Forward I Quit Worrying About Trainers, Shoes And Such.it's Just A Dang Horse Race.but If I See Troy Young At Louisiana I Bet Him $2.00 And Go On. What I'm Trying To Say Is Should I Worry??? I Think That You Guys Know That Stuff Better Than Doc And Jimmy. Can't You Fix This In The Program. Myself I Like Bris And Drf Stuff. As Many Great Handicappers As This Site Has Could We As A Group Force Track Master To Give Us The Variant We Want? I Wish The Program Would Make The Adjustment For Me,i'm Not You Guys I Don't Know A +20 From A -5 Or What It Means And There Is Allot Just Like Me In This Group There Just Not Gonna Tell You Big Boys That Because Thy Don't Want To Look Bad. And That Ok You Guys Are The Best I Don't Know How To Fix This Except Change To Bris Or Drf Or Another Service. I Didn't Mean To Piss Anyone Off.but Manual Adjustment Are Bad Ted You Will Hear I Always Make The Wrong Adjustments.
I Remember That One From The Thormation Days.i Wish You The Best And Will Keep Making Donations To This Site To Help Ya Ll Thanks

Umm, not quite sure I entirely grasp your point:confused:

What variants are you missing, and what adjustment(s) do you wish the program(s) would make that they aren't?

Ted

P.S. We still have a date for rib-eye and beer (but that means I'll have to give up being vegetarian.)

Stormbringer,

This thread is a year old and was recently revived. In Spec160, Val4 and RDSS, many of these problems have largely been resolved. Just use the newer programs and don't worry about it.

Dick

i'm stupid
 

i just noted the date of the post and see that there are a year old . I'm a very stupid man sorry to all:

Storm,

No worries! Just keep on truckin' with RDSS and keep up the winning ways!

yours,

Ted