WOW Vic now has Sectionals for Every Meeting

https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/art...rian-meetings/

And today's Melton meet is even there already

OH NO - they have changed the Sectionals format

Check out Stawell for yesterday - I think this might be what they get in other states, I think it is inferior

https://www.thetrots.com.au/racing/sectionals/

The WOW has been bracketed in the Original title and will be gone completely (just like Sectionals will be removed from my Bookmarks bar) if they do not revert to the previous format

This is what we want back

It may be a mix, as it seems to me that Melton, Ballarat and Mildura are all still using the better/old format

They have 2 different mobs providing sectional data apparently, I complained about the lack of useful information in one of the formats and was informed there is nothing that can be done, they can only provide what they have.
Having the same issue in NSW.

Two in the same state? Has really thrown me
HRA is upgrading its website and the difference in Sectional data between the states has been discussed at feedback meetings
On discovering Stawell to be different from Melton, I have sent off a couple of emails
At the latest I will bring it up at next week's meeting

RISE replied that Vic is using both providers for different tracks

If you just think about it for a minute - how could anybody think that that is what the public would like

That would be like telling me that I cannot have full cream milk for my coffee every day but instead have to have skinny milk every alternate day - yeah, I am going to love that :mad:

Why stop there - lets do the fields and the form and the results differently for different tracks. "What do you mean that would upset people?"

HRV's Cody Winnell replied to my inquiry and explained that at present HRV require 2 providers to cover all their racetracks. My preferred data from TripleS is covering about 75% of Vics meetings. Fingers crossed that they eventually win out

On a somewhat sad note, Cody passed on that he is finishing up as General Manager of Media and Communications at the end of next week.
Cody can feel proud of the great deal he has achieved at HRV in his 9yrs there and he will be greatly missed
Thank you Cody

But he is a trots lover and we can expect to see him on track enjoying himself in the future

If you don't know Cody, he is HRV's clean-shaven Ryan Gosling look alike

Oh No! Mildura Sectionals for last night are the 'kiddies' ones (previously the good ones) – just when I was going to begin following them

Seriously look at the graphics for these sectionals - does it tell you anything more than the mind boggling fact that the better placed horses finished faster than those in the second half of the field

Hi Messenger

I am the person completing the work you refer to as "Crap" in your opening message and I do take offence to that statement.
We have been doing this work since 2015 with praise from everyone who uses it including every state and large organisations like Entain. We commenced doing the work for Ballarat and Melton in April 2015 and continue to this day. We have grown since 2015 and now doing every track in every state for the last 2 quarters of the races. Someone must be finding use for our information.
Triple State's work is completed by telemetry as you probably know. We do our work manually frame by frame on video replays. I was and remain hopeful that telemetry will provide additional useful information, but it needs to be accurate. We require accuracy because our Analyser uses the data. I think you will find the data we provide to be extremely accurate and useful to anyone who knows and understands how to use sectionals. We also time the race sections to make sure they are correct.
We are still performing our work on all tracks with telemetry due to inaccurate data. I have spent significant time comparing our data with telemetry and I am happy to debate what is crap and what isn't with anyone anytime.
Triple State's work looks impressive but if you spend a little bit of time reading/understanding at the data contained in Triple States reports, you should be able to tell some of the inaccuracies. They are very obvious and, in some instances, significantly wrong. I have alerted the people who need to know of the problems and even had a meeting with HR Qld to go over the issues. I don't think they can be fixed. I am happy to provide as many examples as anyone needs. I check every race and I am sometimes horrified at what makes it on-line.
Our visual display is a fairly basis display but highly important information that is again extremely accurate.

I enjoy your forum (It's not crap), so please reframe from calling my business Crap.
For those interested we are PJ Data, the providers of PJ Harness Analyser. The original and the most accurate sectional analysis for harness racing since 2015 (Happy to debate this as well)!
Thanks

I knew who you were JP - it was a comparative rating. I am afraid, to convince me you will have to prove Triples inaccuracies. They provide information that I cannot quantify from looking at the replay and results.

Provide away

ps It can wait until tomorrow as the racing is about to begin

Stridemaster, user in NZ by electronic tracking devices placed in saddle cloths, is the superior system. Other systems, by comparison, appear Mickey Mouse. Or crap, depending on the parameters you have to work within.

I'll show you some of the obvious errors from recent races. There are regular but not consistent.
Note I check the race sections and they are correct, with the exception of Albion Park R8 which was actually 27.4s for the final Qtr.
0.25 seconds difference would be around 3.4m. Albion Park is a massive error and race 9 was the same.

http://pjdata.com.au/wp-content/uplo...mpleErrors.jpg

Sorry - I should have explained that these races are leader winning races so the race sectionals should be the horses sectionals.

I might debate you on the real issues tomorrow but I cannot see how it is in your interests to do so publicly.
I can see why you would not like the word crap and have edited it (but this is just a forum for peoples opinions and it goes without saying that everything has an IMO attached to it)

You will notice that the discrepancies you have highlighted above for leaders is due to the differences in Lead Times that is where they have taken the lead time to finish and the last mile to have begun. When the lead time point is later the last Q is then shorter/faster while for AP when the lead time is earlier/quicker the last Q is then slower.
What is important is the relative merit of the horses runs. Tomorrow you may or may not like to talk about how massive Distance Travelled is

Thanks for the edit. Appreciate it. I also appreciate different opinions and would actually agree that telemetry would provide more information... If it were correct. It would save me many hours doing what I do.

Still scratching my head with your explanation above sorry.
4th quarter is the time taken for an individual horse to run from the 402.5m marker until they get to the finish line.
If you are just displaying a relative merit, why call it 4th quarter. A relative number might works fine for that race but what if you want to compare those time to another race. That is why accuracy is important.

Happy to talk about distance travelled in races. I have spent many years considering how to factor this into analysis and enjoy swapping ideas about that sort of stuff.

The explanation was just a quick thought. I noticed that when your examples had the last quarter too fast - they had the lead time too slow, and when they had the last quarter too slow - they had the lead time too fast. It just seemed to me that where they were taking their last mile from had to be the answer
I have PMd you