- This topic has 31 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’d imagine any private database keepers could tweak historical info with a few formulae.
I’d imagine any private database keepers could tweak historical info with a few formulae.
Please don’t imagine things.
It is not so simple and it costs time and / or money without payment and for zero beneficial purpose.Rumours are that the mighty Timeform have given 2 fingers to it:
"Leaving the [historic draw] as they were while drawing people’s attention to the date and nature of alteration". Now that’s what I call a tweak.
Of course someone is telling whopping porkie pies to or from BHA:
"Key publications which make available draw statistics have been consulted and advise that they will have amended their existing statistics so as they will maintain their accuracy."
Of course the rule that they have conveniently missed out on is that horses have to actually start in the stalls allocated. That does not happen now, BHA cannot even see the problem, and has made draw analysis and record keeping considerably more difficult.
Once the overseas owners and punters find out that horses do not even start in the allocated stalls then will they all go way again?
I have a database Robert and have already started amennding it.
Don’t start from allocated stalls? Does that really occur on a regular basis?
I assume Robert refers to the instances when there is a non-runner and they just shift up one to fill the space. If stall 5 is a non-runner then 6 starts immediately next to 4.
The draw numbering change is a sensible change to bring the UK into line with the rest of the world, Ireland excepted.
The programming needed to change historical draw data is a pretty simple little data migration exercise.
Example: For past race records at those tracks where the draw is to be reversed, I think New Draw = Field size – Old Draw + 1 should do the trick.
- Total Posts 17716
The draw numbering change is a sensible change to bring the UK into line with the rest of the world, Ireland excepted.
But it doesn’t, Venusian.
As I’ve pointed out previously, RH French tracks such as Deauville and Longchamp number their stalls from the outside rail on the straight course,à la
the British way – until tomorrow
The programming needed to change historical draw data is a pretty simple little data migration exercise.
Example: For past race records at those tracks where the draw is to be reversed, I think New Draw = Field size – Old Draw + 1 should do the trick.
But will that be applied to the historical form of every horse that has ever run from stalls at the affected tracks?
Apparently not; if earlier posts about Raceform and Timeform have any credence.The formula I gave is dead simple to program and implement, and will only affect one table, the "race" table.
Records for individual horses will point to this table via the race id key – the information doesn’t need to be stored again on the "horse" table, or anywhere else for that matter. Draw number is a property of the race id pointing to its runner ids, ie it is attached to the race rather than the horse. In any event, wherever the system designer has put the draw number, it should only appear in one place.
Any views, tables, datamarts, files, reports etc extracted from the main database after the changes have been made will then have the updated history in them.
What’s difficult about that?
Raceform’s comments are bizarre.
The draw numbering change is a sensible change to bring the UK into line with the rest of the world, Ireland excepted.
Maybe get rid of the Ring, then, too?
How about making all tracks left-handed ….Just joking.
Silvoir/Paul – if you’re looking in – were any indivdual or groups of punters consulted over these changes?
Hi Corms
Only just seen this, apologies. I had an email along similar lines earlier today so I will use extracts from my response:
It is difficult to consult with punters as there is no representative body for punters. That said, people tend to forget (or conveniently ignore) that the vast majority of people who work at BHA are passionate about racing and are punters themselves. It is therefore entirely wrong to suggest punters views have not been considered.
It is precisely because of punters that we first announced this in December (after which it attracted coverage in the Racing Post and on forums, twitter etc) and issued a reminder this week and used Twitter to ensure as many people as possible are aware. It’s been covered by Attheraces and Racing UK, and will be in the Racing Post again tomorrow. Importantly, the main racecard and form services – Racing Post, Press Association (who provide all the racecards to newspapers) and Timeform – are geared up for the change.
I’ve been a punter for over 17 years, having first become interested in racing when working for a betting shop. The fact that 17 years later I was still having to check to see what the draw meant at what course suggests that I’m either incredibly stupid (quite possible) or the system was confusing and would benefit from being simplified. I accept that it could be confusing in the short term for existing customers (hence the extensive communication) but you actually make an argument for the change when you talk about making it easier for newcomers. The lowest stall number being nearest to the inside rail does just that.
This is one a raft of changes, and I note you don’t mention punter friendly initiatives such as the palpable non-runner rule and the changes to loading procedures, which will hopefully result in less stress for horses at the start (therefore more chance of horses running their race), fewer withdrawals and also ensuring class horses such as Spanish Moon don’t have to go overseas for racing opportunities.
Finally, it is a shame there is no representative body for punters as I strongly believe it would be a good thing for racing. However, in the same way that we didn’t set up the ROA, PJA, NTF, RCA etc etc, nor should it be up to the regulatory body to set it up. That as punters we probably won’t agree on this issue, highlights the problem that any such body would have anyway.
What’s difficult about that?
Raceform’s comments are bizarre.
In my view, Raceform’s abilities are … bizarre.
It is difficult to consult with punters as there is no representative body for punters. That said, people tend to forget (or conveniently ignore) that the vast majority of people who work at BHA are passionate about racing and are punters themselves. It is therefore entirely wrong to suggest punters views have not been considered.
How difficult was it, though?
Lack of a representative body doesn’t stop political parties canvassing the views of voters, does it? Or marketing firms those of consumers?
There are plenty of punters available in their hundreds at race-tracks, obviously – they’re not difficult to find.Punters are consumers; did you enlist the advice of your marketing firm?
The BHA has a web-site; you know that it’s quite possible to conduct polls on web-sites.
Were these ideas communicated to ATR & RUK, the racing press and correspondents, to encourage some debate and feedback? Was that pursued when the feedback seemed less than voluminous? Or just let go?Perhaps a little more discernible effort in this department would lend credence to your protestations that the BHA, full of passionate punters, could successfully test the water by itself.
Thanks Paul – again your openness much appreciated.
The punter-friendly aspects of the changes are also much appreciated and a step forward.
Regarding punter representation I appreciate that you (and I am sure many others) at the BHA are punters to some extent or other and that you do utilise your collective knowledge and experience plus your feel for what the general views are from your various discussions (formal and informal) with punters of all types.
But I’m not sure that is enough. Clearly BHA employees have vested interests, overt or otherwise, and while that input is better than none I’m not sure the BHA should base its views on what they think the racing public (i.e. its customers) want/need on the input of its own employees.
As many slick and successful companies have found over history, second-guessing your customers is an exercise fraught with risk.
I also appreciate that getting a group of punters to agree on anything would be a challenge.
BUT I’m sure the other industry bodies you mention face the same challenge (see no further than the Horsemen’s Group for a glowing example) so I’m not sure that argument washes.
My view is that IT IS incumbent on the regulatory body to try and organise the voice of its key customer (what I would term the general racing public) into something coherent. It’s in its own, and in racing’s, interests to do so.
I take both your points, and I oepnly admit that I’d be entirely for, and indeed would strongly advocate, a punters group. I think it’s near disgraceful that the Bookmakers Committee trousers over £250k from the Levy to fund and staff itself.
I also agree with you that punters views should be canvassed, as they are being at the moment by Racing for Change. I don’t agree that the regulator should be responsible for setting up such a group, indeed when you and I were investigating something resembling such a think opinion on this forum was very much divided.
Looking at Twitter, any canvassing in respect of draw numbering would have been 50/50, and therefore of little use except as both a PR tool (one of the strong criticisms of any formal link-up with TRF as I recall) and an admittedly useful comms tool.
No one here is naive or vain enough to think they speak for punters, but that angle is certainly given consideration.
Silvoir,
We are indeed lucky to have you posting on TRF.
Don’t forget though your punting customers can also come up with ideas to help the cause which may not cost anywhere near expensive Consultants (ie the borrower of watches to tell you the time) can ever come up with. Some excellent suggestion were made, for example, to open the new flat season with a far greater impact with the public. (What has gone wrong this year?)
As has been pointed out consultation with anyone here or overseas is so easy these days whether they have a vested industry body or are individuals. You will certainly get a series of informed, uninformed, sound, mad or divided views but that is the nature of humankind. BHA surely has to make the effort,take note and sort the wheat from the chaff.
However diffcult you imagine it to be, BHA are not meeting its own published objective with regards to punters – a corner stone of the "industry" without which, along with owners, the whole thing collapses.
Re: punters:
AIMS of BHA as published on your own website:(snipped)
"As the Governing Authority for Racing, we will promote the interests of our sport and industry inwhatever way we can
. Working alongside others within Racing and the Breeding and Betting Industries, we will build on Britain’s reputation for
providing to our customers
the most competitive racing in the world, run to the highest integrity standards, as efficiently as possible.
.. We will seek to maintain and promote horseracing as a competitive and attractive sport
and betting medium
.
Building on Racing’s
excellent self-help record
with further creative initiatives, we will work for the injection into Racing of a
higher level of income from horserace betting
.
We want the
future of Racing, which ultimately depends upon it meeting the needs of its customers, to be decided to a greater degree by the industry itself.
In our campaign to make our sport and industry even stronger we will aim to be open and accountable and
strive to balance the interests of everyone in Racing
. We want British Racing to be the best in the world in every respect.
Specifically, we will work:
Here it all falls down. Nothing much at all about punters in the specific objectives – there definitely needs some specific objectives or nothing will ever happen"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.