TPD Feedback and Issues

[Euler]

It was a pain, as I'm short on data for Ascot and really wanted to capture it.

[lotora]

For clarity, nothing has changed regarding RMG. If you are participating in the markets from these tracks just keep doing what you have been doing. However, watch this space for further announcements in the next few weeks.

Thanks for the clarification.

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

You also mentioned in January: “However, watch this space for further announcements in the next few weeks.” As more than five months have now passed, could you clarify whether those further announcements are still expected, and whether they will be posted here?

[jamesedwards]

You also mentioned in January: “However, watch this space for further announcements in the next few weeks.” As more than five months have now passed, could you clarify whether those further announcements are still expected, and whether they will be posted here?

[jamesedwards]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

[lotora]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

Thanks, James, that’s useful to know.

It will be interesting to see how things develop with RMG data going forward.

[jamesedwards]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

Thanks James, that’s useful, updated information.

It will be interested to see how things develop with RMG data going forward.

I am using the RMG data on almost all tracks. But I am still operating a lower exposure limit for now.

[jamesedwards]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

I just checked and today's hurdles at Uttoxeter are not correct.

[lotora]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

I just checked and today's hurdles at Uttoxeter are not correct.

Aha, so this can occasionally affect the Gmax/ARC side of the TPD data as well. Maybe that is another reason not to rely too heavily on jump-position data in automation anyway.