Tony Gallagher wrote:

Hi Mark, thanks for your post. I am over protective when it comes to the team as they really do stand up to be counted and give all they can. It was good to see the "points" in a different light so thank you for showing me this. Our main man who looks after this side of GD along with Werner is currently away on holidays so it has been a bit of a learning curve for me. We will get the going allowances sorted as soon as possible.

What a dumb reply

If you want to ignore them just do so

Leave them in situ for those who choose to use them as PART of their selection process

Andy Graveling has now returned to the GD team and is doing a fantastic job working on getting the going up to date.

That's a good point re the tracks but I am not sure if we can remove them if we have results for them as it may stop members looks at these. I will speak with our I.T. and see what we can do.

First, I assume the "going" is a measure of how fast or slow the track was on the day. If so, how is it calculated? I see no explanation.

My initial reaction is that unless that job is done in a very sophisticated fashion it is of doubtful value. Even thoroughbred readings using penetrometers and the like are highly suspect and often criticised, as well as varying from race to race.

Second, while I appreciate the voluntary nature of some contributors the task of taking data from one site and depositing it in another requires a skilled db manager to create a conversion program to do that. Once done, transferring the info needs only seconds to complete each daily job. Thousands would take not much longer.

We have been doing exactly that in Oz for yonks. Moreover, having done all that you then have a db that can be queried for all sorts of reasons and purposes.

You will strike problems only when the originator changes its format but that simply means you then have to make adjustments to your own program. You need a programmer but it's not rocket science.

Back to the "going". At best, these will always be estimates. Precision is not possible. Having said that, adjustments of the order of 0.4 or 0.6 sec (as mentioned) are huge and, I suggest, quite uncommon. Weather is obviously an influence but greyhound performance is seldom influenced very much by normal rain, for example, on a loam or sand track. Slush and wind would be more important though.

Personally, I assess (or used to) the time of each placegetter compared to its career performances and then average all the differences (a minimum of 10 but preferably 20). It also warrants using some personal judgement as related to unusual events such as mixup races.

Finally, if you are short of a programmer, it is much better to use only the actual time and then add or subtract modest amounts based on your own assessment of conditions - changes of -0.1 to +0.3 might be the normal range. A similar result can be achieved by just denoting a given meeting as slow, normal, fast and applying your preferred adjustment to the actual time. That can also be automated or done manually.

The thing is that a trainer or punter will (or should be) looking at a range of performances, not just one. Therefore a modest error in one race will not significantly affect your overall estimate.

Why don't you come out of retirement and do the ratings for Greyhound Data ..

Maybe Tony G will give you your own thread and a special gold star ..

What dogs races are missing (track and date of missing races would be helpful)

Cheers Mick/Deb

Is there any update on when the going allowances will be corrected?

Mark

I am updating going allowances for UK races when time permits, this is no longer an automated process following the GBGB revamp a few months ago. I assume it's Monmore you are looking at, yesterday's meeting has now been updated and ratings available from 1pm.

Thanks Andy, it was Monmore, it was more of a generic question as just looking at my own dogs there's still a few races missing or with no going allowance.

The meeting is online now. Race 14 was a "no race"