With people like Patrick Cummings, there's hope for racing

[andicap]

From today's NY Times. Big data can help racing if the industry lets it.

http://therail.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/a-young-mind-helps-shape-the-horse-racing-of-tomorrow/?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Tom]

I don't think a track can call itself major league if they do not have Trakus.

[thaskalos]

I wish they could think of a way to offer their services directly to the players, instead of just to their "track partners"...

[DeltaLover]

My opinion is that with Trakus or not, the objective of the game is always exactly the same.

The whole point is to be able to outsmart the public based in the given data.

As soon as trackus data become available to the public they will be incorporated to the odds and the handicapper will again try to find new holes in the public's opinion.

Sure, this type of data would have been useful assuming that nobody else had access to it, something that is not the case with this technology, which once it becomes mainstream it will become part of the official past performances loosing any betting value it might present.

Another interesting point is that as data are becoming more sophisticated accurate and comprehensive, is the possibility of the game to be 'solved', meaning to elevate the accuracy of the crowd's betting to the point where after the take out to present no betting value at all.

Frankly, I do not believe we need more or better horse racing data.

It seems to me that the one who has to gain more by technologies like trackus are the companies who are selling them and the marketing people (especially those with MBA like mr. Cummings) who are promoting them.

This is not the problem of racing and mr. Cummings should focus in different direction if he is really determined to help the industry....

[Tom]

I wish they could think of a way to offer their services directly to the players, instead of just to their "track partners"...
You can get it direct - I signed up and can access their website.
I'll send you the link tonight.

[Tom]

Sure, this type of data would have been useful assuming that nobody else had access to it, something that is not the case with this technology, which once it becomes mainstream it will become part of the official past performances loosing any betting value it might present.

Having it and knowing how to use it are two different things. It would not be suitable for PPs, so that in itself will limit how many people go for it.

[thaskalos]

My opinion is that with Trakus or not, the objective of the game is always exactly the same.

The whole point is to be able to outsmart the public based in the given data.

As soon as trackus data become available to the public they will be incorporated to the odds and the handicapper will again try to find new holes in the public's opinion.

Sure, this type of data would have been useful assuming that nobody else had access to it, something that is not the case with this technology, which once it becomes mainstream it will become part of the official past performances loosing any betting value it might present.

Another interesting point is that as data are becoming more sophisticated accurate and comprehensive, is the possibility of the game to be 'solved', meaning to elevate the accuracy of the crowd's betting to the point where after the take out to present no betting value at all.

Frankly, I do not believe we need more or better horse racing data.

It seems to me that the one who has to gain more by technologies like trackus are the companies who are selling them and the marketing people (especially those with MBA like mr. Cummings) who are promoting them.

This is not the problem of racing and mr. Cummings should focus in different direction if he is really determined to help the industry....

I, for one, am not overjoyed with the idea of betting my money on past performance information gathered by some guy sitting in the stands with a pair of binoculars. Nor do I relish reading endlessly about the malfunctioning race timers at tracks throughout the country.

I want the most accurate information possible...and I'll take my chances against the rest of the crowd.

Having the information is one thing; using it properly is something else...

[DeltaLover]

Having it and knowing how to use it are two different things. It would not be suitable for PPs, so that in itself will limit how many people go for it.

Correct.

I have to add that what might be proven even more interesting would be how to misuse it (referring to systematic misuse by the crowd).

I do not know much about Trakus, so I will do my investigation latter today to see if I will find something interesting...

[thaskalos]

You can get it direct - I signed up and can access their website.
I'll send you the link tonight.

Thanks, Tom...that would be great!

[DeltaLover]

I, for one, am not overjoyed with the idea of betting my money on past performance information gathered by some guy sitting in the stands with a pair of binoculars. Nor do I relish reading endlessly about the malfunctioning race timers at tracks throughout the country.

I want the most accurate information possible...and I'll take my chances against the rest of the crowd.

Having the information is one thing; using it properly is something else...


NO doubt. Having more accurate of publicly unavailable information is without a question a step ahead of the crowd.

I still believe though that what is of even more value is to understand how the public bets based in the existing data and what are its the largest misconceptions.

Based in this I believe that the game remains equally beatable regardless of the amount and quality of publicly available data. Of course somebody can make the point that the more data is available the larger is the chance of them to be misused by the public. By this token I will agree that more data can be more beneficial.

[Stillriledup]

My opinion is that with Trakus or not, the objective of the game is always exactly the same.

The whole point is to be able to outsmart the public based in the given data.

As soon as trackus data become available to the public they will be incorporated to the odds and the handicapper will again try to find new holes in the public's opinion.

Sure, this type of data would have been useful assuming that nobody else had access to it, something that is not the case with this technology, which once it becomes mainstream it will become part of the official past performances loosing any betting value it might present.

Another interesting point is that as data are becoming more sophisticated accurate and comprehensive, is the possibility of the game to be 'solved', meaning to elevate the accuracy of the crowd's betting to the point where after the take out to present no betting value at all.

Frankly, I do not believe we need more or better horse racing data.

It seems to me that the one who has to gain more by technologies like trackus are the companies who are selling them and the marketing people (especially those with MBA like mr. Cummings) who are promoting them.

This is not the problem of racing and mr. Cummings should focus in different direction if he is really determined to help the industry....

Excellent thoughts DL.

The entire game rests on one thing and that's the ability of the racing secretary to card horse races that are so difficult to decipher, the public can go any which way but loose. Once those races start becoming 'easier' , the takeout becomes more noticible.

Maybe back in 'the day' you could get away with a large takeout because the game wasnt nearly as sophisticated.

When i read an equibase chart from Belmont as i was doing last night for the races that were run on June 1st, you see that the person making the writeups is basically writing a novel, no stone is unturned, every movement that every horse makes is catalogued in that writeup. When i 'cut my teeth' on this game and watched a replay and saw something 'sneaky' and then checked the 'chart' it just said "outrun" and i'm like "perfect, only me and a few others know this horse had subtle trouble". Now, the entire world knows.

Same thing with Beyer figs. Now, they might not be as good as TG/Rag but theyre a pretty solid product that you get basically for free with the purchase of a DRF. Before Beyer figs, you had to spend time looking at turn times and final times and trying to determine how 'fast' certain races ran, now, they just hand all that information to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

I've joked (but was i REALLY joking :D ) about the idea that track might want to card one race a day with no PPs available, just the name of the horse and jockey and that's it. If you wanted to bet the race, you had to either remember how that horse ran last time, or you had to spend a little extra time handicapping and digging thru search engines to find the chart online the night before so you can see how the horse raced. None of this 'handing' all the pertinent info to John Doe without John having to work for it the night before.

I'm not sure 'better technology' will help this game 'grow' it will only create a situation, like you say, where the races become 'easier' and if the races are easier, that 20% blended looks awfully large.

[thaskalos]

NO doubt. Having more accurate of publicly unavailable information is without a question a step ahead of the crowd.

I still believe though that what is of even more value is to understand how the public bets based in the existing data and what are its the largest misconceptions.

Based in this I believe that the game remains equally beatable regardless of the amount and quality of publicly available data. Of course somebody can make the point that the more data is available the larger is the chance of them to be misused by the public. By this token I will agree that more data can be more beneficial.

That may be so...but my confidence level is higher when I know that my decisions are made while using the most accurate information available.

When I stare with disbelief at the stats that I use...then my betting confidence wanes...

For Christ's sake...I have seen claiming horses at Hawthorne who were shown to have made 10-length gains into 24-second last quarters.

[andicap]

Interesting way this thread turned. My main point was how refreshing that a young guy like Cummings is trying to help horseplayers and that we could use more people like him in positions of importance. I'm sure Cummings would make much different decisions as a track president than the current band of idiots who are just trying to wring every last dollar out of the sport before it dies -- and who really just care about the cash flow from their racinos.

I'm impressed by his blog. But the whole issue of how valuable Trakus can be for serious players is also a fascinating one.

I wonder if he monitors this board.

[NTamm1215]

My opinion is that with Trakus or not, the objective of the game is always exactly the same.

The whole point is to be able to outsmart the public based in the given data.

As soon as trackus data become available to the public they will be incorporated to the odds and the handicapper will again try to find new holes in the public's opinion.

Sure, this type of data would have been useful assuming that nobody else had access to it, something that is not the case with this technology, which once it becomes mainstream it will become part of the official past performances loosing any betting value it might present.

Another interesting point is that as data are becoming more sophisticated accurate and comprehensive, is the possibility of the game to be 'solved', meaning to elevate the accuracy of the crowd's betting to the point where after the take out to present no betting value at all.

Frankly, I do not believe we need more or better horse racing data.

It seems to me that the one who has to gain more by technologies like trackus are the companies who are selling them and the marketing people (especially those with MBA like mr. Cummings) who are promoting them.

This is not the problem of racing and mr. Cummings should focus in different direction if he is really determined to help the industry....

What a bunch of drivel. Do you not understand that Trakus data is available right now to the public via their website? It takes just a very brief stop there to see exactly how you can sign up for access.

The public has plenty to gain from using technology like Trakus. The problem right now, in my opinion, is that partner tracks have neither the inclination or necessary personnel to take the data and package it in a format suitable for players. If you could incorporate the data into your handicapping, the interest from the general public would skyrocket.

It's both ignorant and presumptuous to make comments on what Pat Cummings is focused on our how he helps the industry. You deduced an awful lot incorrectly from one simple blog post.

[DeltaLover]

What a bunch of drivel. Do you not understand that Trakus data is available right now to the public via their website? It takes just a very brief stop there to see exactly how you can sign up for access.

The public has plenty to gain from using technology like Trakus. The problem right now, in my opinion, is that partner tracks have neither the inclination or necessary personnel to take the data and package it in a format suitable for players. If you could incorporate the data into your handicapping, the interest from the general public would skyrocket.

It's both ignorant and presumptuous to make comments on what Pat Cummings is focused on our how he helps the industry. You deduced an awful lot incorrectly from one simple blog post.

I admit that I can be ignorant and this is why I frequent PA, so I can be educated by people like you who know better and I want to thank you for your comments.

Besides that can you please explain how the public will benefit from Trakus?
In my ignorand mind, I am using an analogy with beyer speed figures. Since they became part of the DRF if I am not wrong the lost their value (or they created new opportunities by their misinterpretation)...

Can you also explain how exactly mr. Cummings is helping the industry as you say? I really cannot see it but I am sure that you will help me and some other ignorants gain some inside...

thx

[Tom]

http://www.trakus.com/portal.asp

dsi@trakus.com


Try these to get set up - lots of good stuff in T-Net (Trakus network)

[PaceAdvantage]

I wonder if he monitors this board.I'll do you one better. He's been a member since Nov. 2011. He only has 11 posts though...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/member.php?u=82847

[andicap]

Using his real name? Now that takes real courage. :D

[pandy]

I like Trakus and would like to see it become the industry standard for race calls. But in terms of handicapping, like most data it has to be properly interpreted to be useful and most horseplayers aren't good enough handicappers to do that.

Orb covered the third most ground (according to Trakus) in the Derby and I noticed that some TV analysts and writers mentioned that when they heavily touted Orb to win the Preakness. But the amount of ground he covered was essentially meaningless because the bottom line is that he got a dream trip and all of the horses he had to beat, the prime contenders in the race, all got much tougher trips, regardless of the fact that they covered less ground according to Trakus.

[aaron]

I like Trakus and would like to see it become the industry standard for race calls. But in terms of handicapping, like most data it has to be properly interpreted to be useful and most horseplayers aren't good enough handicappers to do that.

Orb covered the third most ground (according to Trakus) in the Derby and I noticed that some TV analysts and writers mentioned that when they heavily touted Orb to win the Preakness. But the amount of ground he covered was essentially meaningless because the bottom line is that he got a dream trip and all of the horses he had to beat, the prime contenders in the race, all got much tougher trips, regardless of the fact that they covered less ground according to Trakus.
It is like the Sheets and Thorograph giving a better number for horses that went wide,when the rail is dead.As a handicapper,you must know the horse who ran well on a dead rail ran the better race.

[pandy]

It is like the Sheets and Thorograph giving a better number for horses that went wide,when the rail is dead.As a handicapper,you must know the horse who ran well on a dead rail ran the better race.

Good point. In the Preakness the rail was dead.

[Stillriledup]

I like Trakus and would like to see it become the industry standard for race calls. But in terms of handicapping, like most data it has to be properly interpreted to be useful and most horseplayers aren't good enough handicappers to do that.

Orb covered the third most ground (according to Trakus) in the Derby and I noticed that some TV analysts and writers mentioned that when they heavily touted Orb to win the Preakness. But the amount of ground he covered was essentially meaningless because the bottom line is that he got a dream trip and all of the horses he had to beat, the prime contenders in the race, all got much tougher trips, regardless of the fact that they covered less ground according to Trakus.

But, a "dream trip" would be to save as much ground as possible, no? You know harness racing pretty well and i cringe when i hear an announcer say a horse who is 2nd over is getting a 'perfect trip' how can it be perfect if he's losing ground on the turns? isnt part of a perfect scenario where the horse only has to cover 1 mile exactly rather than 1 mile and a few lengths?

[ronsmac]

But, a "dream trip" would be to save as much ground as possible, no? You know harness racing pretty well and i cringe when i hear an announcer say a horse who is 2nd over is getting a 'perfect trip' how can it be perfect if he's losing ground on the turns? isnt part of a perfect scenario where the horse only has to cover 1 mile exactly rather than 1 mile and a few lengths?
There was a time in Socal where the 3 wide stalking trip was the absolute dreamdream
trip. not necessarily so these days. 1998 to 2004 Socal was a trip handicappers paradise.

[pandy]

But, a "dream trip" would be to save as much ground as possible, no? You know harness racing pretty well and i cringe when i hear an announcer say a horse who is 2nd over is getting a 'perfect trip' how can it be perfect if he's losing ground on the turns? isnt part of a perfect scenario where the horse only has to cover 1 mile exactly rather than 1 mile and a few lengths?


It depends on the race. In the Derby, the ground that Orb lost racing off the rail was inconsequential in the outcome because all of his main contenders were completely wiped out by the blazing pace and he just plodded past exhausted horses. In that race I can't think of another horse that had as good a trip as Orb. The other horses were either too close to the pace, moved earlier into the hot pace, or got steadied in traffic. He had clear sailing.

I would say that in Harness Racing second over behind strong cover behind a quick pace is pretty close to a perfect trip. The only thing better would be the pocket.

But I believe that pace impacts a race far more than ground loss. If racing a few lengths off the rail was so tough we wouldn't see so many horses win with wide trips.

I do consider ground loss, especially on tight-turned tracks, particularly turf courses. The inner turf at Saratoga wipes out a lot of horses who have to burn energy racing wide around those hairpin turns.

[Stillriledup]

It depends on the race. In the Derby, the ground that Orb lost racing off the rail was inconsequential in the outcome because all of his main contenders were completely wiped out by the blazing pace and he just plodded past exhausted horses. In that race I can't think of another horse that had as good a trip as Orb. The other horses were either too close to the pace, moved earlier into the hot pace, or got steadied in traffic. He had clear sailing.

I would say that in Harness Racing second over behind strong cover behind a quick pace is pretty close to a perfect trip. The only thing better would be the pocket.

But I believe that pace impacts a race far more than ground loss. If racing a few lengths off the rail was so tough we wouldn't see so many horses win with wide trips.

I do consider ground loss, especially on tight-turned tracks, particularly turf courses. The inner turf at Saratoga wipes out a lot of horses who have to burn energy racing wide around those hairpin turns.

In the context of certain horse races, its ok to lose ground in some instances because you can still win anyway, but in reality, the farther distance you cover, the more 'work' youre doing. In that way, it might not be a 'perfect' trip as much as its a 'winning' trip.

[andicap]

Asserting that analyzing Trakus data is all about who saves the most ground is just plain ignorant. Cummings in his blog is more sophisticated than that. Here's an excerpt from his post-Derby column -- written on May 6 - that shows how you can effectively incorporate Trakus data in a way that other, lazier horseplayers, will miss. THIS is 21st Century handicapping. I only wish I had read it BEFORE the Preakness.

http://www.followhorseracing.com/en/the-latest/blogs/2013/05/6/inside-the-trip-kentucky-derby-trakus-data/

You can talk about horses all you want, the biggest threat to Orb’s hopes in the Preakness seemingly has little to do with his competition. As proven in all four of his wins in 2013, this horse needs to be outside where he gets a clear run – a bad (inside) draw, along with the right (wrong) combination of competitors around him, could spell trouble for the impressive Derby winner.

[thaskalos]

It depends on the race. In the Derby, the ground that Orb lost racing off the rail was inconsequential in the outcome because all of his main contenders were completely wiped out by the blazing pace and he just plodded past exhausted horses. In that race I can't think of another horse that had as good a trip as Orb. The other horses were either too close to the pace, moved earlier into the hot pace, or got steadied in traffic. He had clear sailing.

I would say that in Harness Racing second over behind strong cover behind a quick pace is pretty close to a perfect trip. The only thing better would be the pocket.

But I believe that pace impacts a race far more than ground loss. If racing a few lengths off the rail was so tough we wouldn't see so many horses win with wide trips.

I do consider ground loss, especially on tight-turned tracks, particularly turf courses. The inner turf at Saratoga wipes out a lot of horses who have to burn energy racing wide around those hairpin turns.

Serious question, Pandy:

How close to a "blazing" pace should a horse be...in order to claim that this blazing pace "totally wiped it out"...and left it gasping for air down the stretch?

Should a horse who is 5th or 6th at the half mile, while trailing by six or seven lengths, be using the hot pace as an excuse for its bad performance?

I'm not just talking about this year's Derby here; I'm talking about route races in general.

Shouldn't the horse who is sitting 5th trailing by six lengths during a quick half mile be considered as having a pretty good trip?

Why do we excuse ALL the horses who are within 5-7 lengths of the suicidal pace-setter...citing the hot pace as an excuse for their bad performances?

Shouldn't you have to contribute something to that hot pace...before you can claim it as an excuse?

[andicap]

Can you also explain how exactly mr. Cummings is helping the industry as you say? I really cannot see it but I am sure that you will help me and some other ignorants gain some inside...

thx

Well he did give you a $981 Derby exacta if you were willing to use five longshots. From his pre-Derby blog. I'm not saying handicappers should listen to him like the second coming of Pittsburgh Phil, but there are valuable lessons in the Trakus data that are not apparent to everyone. Plus, as I noted above, the analysis is often more sophisticated than who covered the most ground, although in this particular instance that happens to be the variablein play.

Orb remains a massive threat off those characteristics as well, and is absolutely the likeliest winner, but fails to offer much value. .... Longshot placing chances sit with Frac Daddy, Java’s War, Mylute, Golden Soul, and Charming Kitten – all horses who have endured extra ground and still run credibly.

[DeltaLover]

Well he did give you a $981 Derby exacta if you were willing to use five longshots. From his pre-Derby blog. I'm not saying handicappers should listen to him like the second coming of Pittsburgh Phil, but there are valuable lessons in the Trakus data that are not apparent to everyone. Plus, as I noted above, the analysis is often more sophisticated than who covered the most ground, although in this particular instance that happens to be the variablein play.

Orb remains a massive threat off those characteristics as well, and is absolutely the likeliest winner, but fails to offer much value. .... Longshot placing chances sit with Frac Daddy, Java’s War, Mylute, Golden Soul, and Charming Kitten – all horses who have endured extra ground and still run credibly.

I do not consider this a help, neither to the player nor to the industry. Proving above average tips, does not promote the game since it remains a mutual pool and a closed economy.

What would have been helpful would have been to raise a voice against the factors that are causing the decline of the sport. Criticise incompetent stewards decisions, drug use, extremely high takeout, small betting fields, unreasonable winners who do not make sense, transparency in medical records and workout tabs, mild penalties to serious offenders are just a few of the things that someone with the intention to help the industry can deal with...

When was the last time you read a caustic comment in the racing form?

[pondman]

Trakus could help you spot a horses position in relationship to the lane, and where it is willing to run. But it will never predict whether a horse is willing to run a rail, spit horses, or run away from the group. By the time you see this, it's too late. I see the potential for making money when analyzing a racing strategy, and trying to out guess whether the horse is entered in the race to win. But you're probably not going to get this sideways information. Your going to get pipe dream information and more speed ratings.

I frown on using a jockey analysis as stated. I'm in favor of the little known jockey to bump up the odds, and a morning rider who goes out and smokes the field. This will help me, only because the sheep will be playing the super jocks at 6-5.

[pondman]

unreasonable winners who do not make sense, ?

Isn't that why it's considered an art?

I'd hate to see the game become an activity where everyone has to go home happy.

[DeltaLover]

Isn't that why it's considered an art?

I'd hate to see the game become an activity where everyone has to go home happy.


In general I do not disagree with you albeit there are cases where the winner makes no sense at all.

I have seen winners coming from a week layoff after finishing in the back of the pack for months and all of the sudden, one day they reverse their condition, winning paying boxcars, while there is absolutely no change at all, same company, same weight, same distance...

In my opinion the trainer of this type of a winner should be interrogated and perhaps suspended.

On the other hand why the stewards allow such a horse to compete since it has proven his inability to perform on this level? They should enforce some type of a mandatory layoff so the horse can be refreshed and giving to the bettors some clue...

[Stillriledup]

In general I do not disagree with you albeit there are cases where the winner makes no sense at all.

I have seen winners coming from a week layoff after finishing in the back of the pack for months and all of the sudden, one day they reverse their condition, winning paying boxcars, while there is absolutely no change at all, same company, same weight, same distance...

In my opinion the trainer of this type of a winner should be interrogated and perhaps suspended.

On the other hand why the stewards allow such a horse to compete since it has proven his inability to perform on this level? They should enforce some type of a mandatory layoff so the horse can be refreshed and giving to the bettors some clue...

That, in a nutshell, is the most difficult part of this game. Knowing that in today's sport, the fragility of the animals these days creates situations where the tape lies sometimes. A fantastic visual effort means the horse is talented in some fashion, but there arent too many horses who are ultimate warriors who overcome surface, jock, bad entering by the connections, etc to win. Many horses are fragile physically and mentally and a hard effort will make that horse just run poorly with no real way to predict that from the PPs/video other than an educated guess.

I'd sorta be laying on my own desert island if i had one tenth of the money back that i lost on horses who looked great on video, but looked TOO great, ran TOO well, ran their eyeballs out and i bet them because i was so impressed with their replay, and yet, didnt really factor in that the effort was too good and it 'killed' the horse for the time being.

Beautiful chicks and pina coladas are all yours if you can get really good at knowing which horses are 'over the top' one race before everyone else.

[Peter Berry]

I like Trakus and would like to see it become the industry standard for race calls.

It's not a stretch to extrapolate the potential of Trakus to include automated race calls, i.e. race calls by track announcers (not Equibase chart callers, as I know you mean). Each track could have its own distinct automated voice, even employing the talents of long-departed orators.

[VeryOldMan]

It's not a stretch to extrapolate the potential of Trakus to include automated race calls, i.e. race calls by track announcers (not Equibase chart callers, as I know you mean). Each track could have its own distinct automated voice, even employing the talents of long-departed orators.

C'mon - technology replacing guys who actually call races? Heaven forbid :)

[Peter Berry]

C'mon - technology replacing guys who actually call races? Heaven forbid :)

Until Trakus can identify a horse on the wrong lead, I'm not sold.

[pandy]

In the context of certain horse races, its ok to lose ground in some instances because you can still win anyway, but in reality, the farther distance you cover, the more 'work' youre doing. In that way, it might not be a 'perfect' trip as much as its a 'winning' trip.

I agree. I don't think I said Orb got a perfect trip, I said a dream trip. But perhaps that hyperbole. He did get a nice set up though.

[Robert Goren]

I'd settle for getting the lengths backs at the fractional positions right. That would be a huge improvement over what we have now.

[cj]

I'd settle for getting the lengths backs at the fractional positions right. That would be a huge improvement over what we have now.

With Trakus, you get the actual times each horse ran, which is just what you want, only better. You also get how far each horse ran to get that time at each call.

[Tom]

Here is a very interesting read from a study done at Woodbine.....

http://www.followhorseracing.com/en/the-latest/blogs/2012/08/09/trakus-blog-examining-jockey-performance-at-woodbine/