possible bug? FC Range

[Huguenot]

I just noticed this when running a query involving Monmouth Park. It is related to the "Learn More" screen and the FC range. Basically there are some races missing.

I don't mind giving the details of the spot play because it didn't work very well. :)

Here are the factors:
Running from May 9-Sept. 26
Mth

6f-6.5f Fast Dirt
Allow/STK and Claimers 3 yr/3 yr old and up
no 2 year-olds
PL 5
Vi 15-32
Field size 5-14
ML of 8-1 to 12-1
K 85-115
Age 3-7
Running style all but "R"

Purses BELOW and ABOVE 10K
everything else as is.

result is
Play All 00112 00006 05% 18% 29% 0.67 0.88 0.87 $25.2 $64 0.47

But under the FC Range the results only show 5 wins in 104 races. There are eight races, including one win, missing from the results. I don't know if it will line up but here it is

FC 90+ 00007 00000 00% 00% 14% 0.00 0.00 0.33 $0 0.00
FC 88-89 00001 00000 00% 100 100 0.00 2.80 1.90 $0 0.00
FC 86-87 00003 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00
FC 84-85 00012 00001 08% 25% 42% 1.03 1.26 1.37 $24.6 $25 0.75
FC 82-83 00012 00000 00% 00% 17% 0.00 0.00 0.31 $0 0.00
FC 80-81 00027 00003 11% 22% 26% 0.62 0.87 0.81 $11.2 $13 0.97
FC 76-79 00016 00000 00% 19% 38% 0.00 0.67 0.90 $0 0.00
FC <= 75 00026 00001 04% 19% 35% 0.55 1.26 1.15 $28.8 $29 0.33


I noticed this because I then ran the same query with FC 80+ and got the correct result with four wins in 62 races. I got confused because the original query above showed a. 0.67 ROI and when I limited it to FC 80+, the ROI actually went down to 0.47 even though the chart shows FC to 79 was only 1-42 for $28.80, a huge loss (0.34). Why did my ROI go down so much when I took away a huge loss like that? Then I noticed the missing races.

Any idea of what's going on here?

Addendum

I ran the Last 100 races for both categories and Voila! I isolated the missing race -- July 4, the 1st race, the winner, the 3 horse was not given an FC number for the race. No apparent reason. Not a foreign horse. It's the a blank under "FC." He paid $64 BTW
Why was this horse not given an FC figure? And why are eight races still missing?

[EricS]

Huguenot, i get the self same results from the query you quoted and cannot help with the missing races for you,
(the fact it's 8 races missing it could be just the 1 day that has gone awol?)

but the fc rating being blank is answered in the pdf help file


http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTR2%20User%20Guide.pdf


"Blanks are common they are given to horses or races that do not have definitive speed figures to assess."

E.

[DanG]

Addendum

I ran the Last 100 races for both categories and Voila! I isolated the missing race -- July 4, the 1st race, the winner, the 3 horse was not given an FC number for the race. No apparent reason. Not a foreign horse. It's the a blank under "FC." He paid $64 BTW
Why was this horse not given an FC figure? And why are eight races still missing?
I can’t speak to the missing races Hug, but that Mth horse should be zeroed out…shouldn’t it? I don’t know how you rate an animal’s form cycle off these lines and layoff to be honest.

w3 Balraj 3c 12/1 Fawkes David (314) Top Speed--> d/s: 59 (9) trk: ---- C90: ----

pp 03 wgt 118 Wk:76 Hill Channin (200) +1 S-8 Pedigree: 440 (4) Life: 05 1-1-0 d/s: 01 0-0-0 trk: 00 0-0-0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
243 Mo 03Nov08 7DEL 8.0D ft 105 2yr NW1 23.8 47.3 112.2 137.8 97 06» 5-5½ 6-9 9-25 9-99 02 36.2 Lb Fawkes|Saez came in badly, stop 09 DEL1103C.TXT07
266 Sa 11Oct08 7DEL 8.5D ft 099 2yr STK 24.2 49.5 114.3 147.0 82 03 3-2½ 4-1½ 5-5½ 6-13 58 17.0 Lb Fawkes|Saez stalked pace, empty 07 DEL1011C.TXT07
#299 Mo 08Sep08 7DELx 8.0D ft 094 2yr MSW 24.3 48.3 113.4 141.1 72 02» 3-2 2-1 1-1½ 1-7½ 72 3.2 Lb Fawkes|Saez †strong handling 06 DEL0908C.TXT07
327 Mo 11Aug08 1DEL 6.0D wf 092 2yr MSW 22.2 46.1 58.9 112.9 68 02 4-4½ 4-4½ 6-3 6-8¾ 46 *1.3 Lb Fawkes|Truji through after half 07 DEL0811C.TXT01
350 Sa 19Jul08 12CRC 5.0D ft 097 2yr MSW 21.8 46.0 --- 59.1 79 05 8-9 7-8 6-8 2-6¾ 59 13.9 Lb Fawkes|Aguil off slow, rallied 08 CRC0719C.TXT12
.................................................. .

[del_dog]

Yes, when a horse is off for 120 days or longer-the fc can't be any good, can it?
Maybe a low value could be inserted,1 or something?


I would be interested in opinions on making the FC more powerful???

[Huguenot]

Dan,
he qualified under the spot play -- that's all that mattered.

In reality I try to limit most of my spot play winners to 25-1 or so, 30-1 tops to weed out the odd bomb that is bound to hit the day I'm not playing. But the missing data kind of threw the results off-kilter.

I guess it's just something to watch out for, the occasionally missing FC range figure. I only spotted it here because I had such few results the discrepency stood out. If I'm running several hundred winners, no way would I catch it.

But yes, I agree in a case like this, the program should automatically give the horse the lowest FC
rating available, something so at least he shows up in the Robot.

[DanG]

But yes, I agree in a case like this, the program should automatically give the horse the lowest FC
rating available, something so at least he shows up in the Robot.
My mistake Hug; I read your post too quickly. The bottom report range of <=75 could use one more step of =0 to eliminate the confusion.

[Huguenot]

No worries, Dan.

Waiting to hear from Ken on this one. Seems a simple fix.

[Huguenot]

Since I don't regularly read the tournament news on this board I hadn't realized Ken was at the Orleans this weekend, so of course he couldn't respond.

Ya know we really are spoiled on this board and with this software. Ken's service is always so great and responsive that on occasion we (OK, I) wonder what's going on when we don't hear from him for a few days.


Tommy, congrats on your 3rd at LAD!

[km]

Hey, i'm sorry about not replying to this sooner, Andy, et al.

i had read the thread earlier and sensed that everyone had figured out the FC blanks, I should have read further.

I'll make sure it has a tight fit in the next update - and the total balances on the FC. Dan's idea will do it, wi'll have a = 0 or N/A result for the FC to acknowledge those blanks.

thank you everyone