PDA

View Full Version : Trakus


Robert Goren
09-09-2013, 12:53 PM
Will somebody step up and make Beyer style rating using Trakus time? And Pace racing too? I would think with more tracks using Trakus, it would only be matter of time.

cj
09-09-2013, 01:09 PM
Will somebody step up and make Beyer style rating using Trakus time? And Pace racing too? I would think with more tracks using Trakus, it would only be matter of time.

I am not tied in any way to Equibase or Trakus. There aren't really big differences between the two most times. But when there are, I investigate and use the one I think is most accurate, or something in between.

Now adding in ground loss, that will be interesting for sure. I've got what I think are some great, innovative ideas for implementing ground loss into pace and speed figures. Doesn't guarantee they will work, but I'm going to give it my all.

ezpace
09-09-2013, 01:47 PM
I am not tied in any way to Equibase or Trakus. There aren't really big differences between the two most times. But when there are, I investigate and use the one I think is most accurate, or something in between.

Now adding in ground loss, that will be interesting for sure. I've got what I think are some great, innovative ideas for implementing ground loss into pace and speed figures. Doesn't guarantee they will work, but I'm going to give it my all.
****************
Great to hear!!!

therussmeister
09-09-2013, 05:38 PM
To the best of my knowledge, meaning I only checked a few rasaces, Equibase used TRAKUS for the official times at Tampa last year. I hope this is what the future will be at all tracks. But right now, I don't believe TRAKUS is always accurate.

Cratos
09-09-2013, 05:55 PM
To the best of my knowledge, meaning I only checked a few rasaces, Equibase used TRAKUS for the official times at Tampa last year. I hope this is what the future will be at all tracks. But right now, I don't believe TRAKUS is always accurate.

I have no way of proving that Trakus times are accurate or inaccurate and not to be cynical because I am all for Trakus-type technology, but as I stated in a previous thread, Trakus because of its electronic signal processing of data will face susceptibility to EMI which might give out incorrect data readings; therefore inaccurate race times.

However I still believe the Trakus–type technology is better than the existing technology.

Cratos
09-09-2013, 06:05 PM
Will somebody step up and make Beyer style rating using Trakus time? And Pace racing too? I would think with more tracks using Trakus, it would only be matter of time.

I believe the use of Trakus-type technology will move the handicapping in a different direction which I think will be predictive modeling and there are some posters on this forum along with others in horseracing handicapping who are very adept in software programming and statistical methods will shift the handicapping model to a very different level.

MJC922
09-13-2013, 11:35 PM
Only a matter of time.... and wind speed, wind direction, temp, barometric pressure, humidity, pace dynamics, plus preferences of some horses to race wide etc. More accurate timing will help in thousands of races per year granted, still though, time can only go so far as it's a by-product of the contest which is horse against horse. I think where we are right now is probably not very far from where time will ever lead us in three times out of four. At some point you get to accurate time but go no further due to all of the above.

misscashalot
09-13-2013, 11:43 PM
favorites 35%
with or without trakus

MJC922
09-14-2013, 07:46 AM
favorites 35%
with or without trakus

Good point, brings me to another point that odds are probability estimates. Therefore in the average race the crowd makes estimates and the horse with the most money just happens to end up with 35% of the pool hence we get the famous stat as a by-product. This is not a handicapping contest where the crowd is somehow wrong 65% of the time. People who believe the crowd is wrong based upon this number have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what the odds are. Does the favorite in a match race or a four horse field win 35%? Of course not. What better quality information like Trakus will do is it will reduce the level of error which in turn makes the game increasingly difficult to beat practically speaking.

A way to look at it is kind of like the average temperature in my city is probably 50 degrees. Now make that an over and under bet on the avg temp for each month. Well what you find is even though the line is accurate, there's still massive error from one month to the next for us to capitalize on.

So yeah a hundred years ago the favorite probably won a third of the time and now today it's not much different but I would be willing to bet the frequency of gross errors at every odds level has seriously diminished. The game will never be unbeatable however it can reach a point where the amount of return on investment becomes trivial, true overlays can become so infrequent that it's no longer worthy of pursuit. I don't think we're there yet but we're not far from it. Only way to mitigate against this will be to lower the take or possibly betting exchanges to create more potential for error, granular types of bets like lay or play on a specific horse with fixed odds.

Robert Goren
09-14-2013, 08:13 AM
I believe the lengths back at fractions are way off quite a bit of the time with an Equibase chart. The use of Trakus to determine those positions would be a major leap forward.

Tom
09-14-2013, 10:21 AM
I believe the lengths back at fractions are way off quite a bit of the time with an Equibase chart. The use of Trakus to determine those positions would be a major leap forward.

That is the big thing I like about Trakus.
The only drawback to Trakus is is it so far ahead of the industry, few tracks will embrace it. 95% of tracks will never consider it. Most tracks do not consider themselves anything other than entertainment. This is why I think we need at most, 8 tracks nationwide. Racing is still living in the 19th century and the likelihood they will ever get out of it is slim.

Think of it like this, the bettors today are Secretariat, the tracks are Sham.

ronsmac
10-13-2013, 05:30 PM
Speaking of Trakus, I've noticed Gulfstream Trakus and equibase times are the same. I'm assuming they're not using the electronic times at all now. The first yr. they had Trakus i'm pretty sure the Equibase and Trakus times were different. Does anyone know when they went to one time fits all?

cj
10-13-2013, 06:18 PM
Speaking of Trakus, I've noticed Gulfstream Trakus and equibase times are the same. I'm assuming they're not using the electronic times at all now. The first yr. they had Trakus i'm pretty sure the Equibase and Trakus times were different. Does anyone know when they went to one time fits all?

Yes, Trakus is the official timing at Gulfstream.

Some_One
10-13-2013, 06:24 PM
Yes, Trakus is the official timing at Gulfstream.

So the timer starts with the first saddlecloth tripping the start beam and the finish beam also goes off with the first saddlecloth that crosses the line?

cj
10-13-2013, 06:30 PM
So the timer starts with the first saddlecloth tripping the start beam and the finish beam also goes off with the first saddlecloth that crosses the line?

No.

You can contact Trakus and ask them how they do it, not really my place to say. I've had that discussion.

ronsmac
10-13-2013, 08:06 PM
Yes, Trakus is the official timing at Gulfstream.
Thanks for the confirmation. I have to say it's a little odd, since they're using Trakus times, but the Trakus beaten lengths aren't used by Equibase. A little confusing, but I guess we'll all have to get used to it.

ubercapper
10-14-2013, 11:18 AM
Thanks for the confirmation. I have to say it's a little odd, since they're using Trakus times, but the Trakus beaten lengths aren't used by Equibase. A little confusing, but I guess we'll all have to get used to it.

That should not be the case. At Trakus tracks, the Trakus beaten lengths are imported into the Equibase System, except on rare occasions such as when a transmitter fails during a race.

DeltaLover
10-14-2013, 12:17 PM
The game will never be unbeatable...

What makes you to believe so?

senortout
10-14-2013, 03:01 PM
What of a trakus chicklet that seems to jump forward, then retreat almost in the same motion? There may be some value in deciphering those moves. For example, is it the horse and his eagerness followed so quickly by even stronger restraint at this juncture?....those are the only nuances re: trakus that interest me, if at all.

ronsmac
10-14-2013, 04:03 PM
That should not be the case. At Trakus tracks, the Trakus beaten lengths are imported into the Equibase System, except on rare occasions such as when a transmitter fails during a race.
I don't know, I'm looking at the charts and the Trakus charts , though they're using the same times , the beaten lengths are different. For example yesterdays 5th race, time listed as 142.36 Trakus and charts. Obviously using the Trakus times, but final beaten lengths were different. Winner won by 7 1/2 Trakus, 6 3/4 equibase chart. They're using a different scale for beaten lengths . Granted, the difference isn't huge, but it is a difference.

Cratos
10-16-2013, 07:05 PM
I don't know, I'm looking at the charts and the Trakus charts , though they're using the same times , the beaten lengths are different. For example yesterdays 5th race, time listed as 142.36 Trakus and charts. Obviously using the Trakus times, but final beaten lengths were different. Winner won by 7 1/2 Trakus, 6 3/4 equibase chart. They're using a different scale for beaten lengths . Granted, the difference isn't huge, but it is a difference.

Beaten lengths are legacy metrics and the information providers may never be able to get rid of them because of customer demand, but if you are using Trakus data, beaten lengths are not needed and distance between horses at POC using Trakus data is easily calculated.

cj
10-16-2013, 08:23 PM
...but if you are using Trakus data, beaten lengths are not needed and distance between horses at POC using Trakus data is easily calculated.

They are? I take that to mean when the leader hits the point of call, you can calculate where the other horses are, i.e. how far back. I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I think you can only use Trakis to determine how much longer it took each horse to get to that same point. Am I wrong?

Robert Goren
10-16-2013, 08:42 PM
They are? I take that to mean when the leader hits the point of call, you can calculate where the other horses are, i.e. how far back. I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I think you can only use Trakis to determine how much longer it took each horse to get to that same point. Am I wrong?Actually at the finish it has that way been for long time. The Photo Finish picture is not a snapshot in time as winner hits the wire. The film is fixed on the line and is pulled through the lens at constant rate. A horse may be 5 lengths back as the winner hits the wire but the photo finish picture may show it 6 lengths back because it slowing down near the wire. It took me a while to get a grip on this. It did not really happen until I visited the photo finish booth and saw it in action.

cj
10-16-2013, 09:45 PM
Actually at the finish it has that way been for long time. The Photo Finish picture is not a snapshot in time as winner hits the wire. The film is fixed on the line and is pulled through the lens at constant rate. A horse may be 5 lengths back as the winner hits the wire but the photo finish picture may show it 6 lengths back because it slowing down near the wire. It took me a while to get a grip on this. It did not really happen until I visited the photo finish booth and saw it in action.

Yes, this is obvious, but not what I understood the point to be. If not done this way for the finish the finish positions could easily be different than the beaten lengths when the winner hit the wire.

By POC, point of call, seemed to me it implied the various sectional parts of the races, i.e 1/4, 1/2, etc. These have always been done (very roughly) as the leader passes each point.

Cratos
10-17-2013, 05:38 PM
They are? I take that to mean when the leader hits the point of call, you can calculate where the other horses are, i.e. how far back. I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I think you can only use Trakis to determine how much longer it took each horse to get to that same point. Am I wrong?

It is useful to understand that Trakus is a speed-distance curve measurement system for thoroughbred horseracing that measures the speed of each horse in the race with respect to its distance travelled in the race and from that measurement, the distance between horses at the time of POC (point of call) can be measured.

In contrast, the legacy “beaten length” system is a point measurement system which measures the time of the leading horse at the pre-determined POC of the race and does not measure distance. Distance between horses is calculated in this system from the non-standard metric of the length.

In essence, the legacy “beaten length” system does not measure distance and only measure the time of the leading horse at the aforementioned predetermined POC. Distance between horses using this method is fanciful.

An example of the difference between the two methods comes from the 10th race at Belmont on October 14 as follows:

The race was run at the 7F distance on the turf, but only the 1/4M POC is used here to illustrate the difference between the two methods because it would be redundant to do the other POCs of the race.

Trackus Method

Leader at the 1/4M POC is the #7, Giant Jo and it travelled a distance of 1,328 feet in 22.35 seconds.

Mark My Way the #2 horse is in 9th place at the 1/4M POC of the race and it also travelled 1.328 feet, but its time according to Trakus is 23.48 seconds.

Therefore at the 1/4M POC what is the distance between the two horses?

Divide the distance travelled, 1328 ft by the time elapsed and convert into feet/second which for Giant Jo is 59.42 feet/second. For Mark My Way the metric is 56.56 feet/second.

At 22.35 feet we know that Giant Jo travelled 1,328 feet which is the 1/4M POC of the race as measured by Trakus. But Mark My Way at this point would have only travelled 1,264.18 feet (1,328*56.56/59.42).

Therefore the distance between the two horses at the 1/4M POC of the race would be: 1,328 – 1,264.08 = 63.92 feet.

Converting that into feet per 1/5 second or lengths behind it would be:
63.92/11.88 = 5.38 lengths.

Checking our calculation:

23.48 – 22.35 = 1.13 seconds or 63.92/56.56 = 1.13 seconds.

Equibase Method (Beaten Length)

If you go to the Equibase chart for the 10th race at Belmont on October 14 you will see that Giant Jo was in the lead at the 1/4M POC, but its time according to Equibase was 22.43 seconds or.08 slower than Trakus which had Giant Jo in the time of 22.35 seconds.

Mark My Way was in 9th place at 1/4M POC on the Equibase chart and if you count the lengths behind you will have 13.

Converting that into time and using 9 feet per length you will have 117 feet/11.88 =1.97 seconds and adding that to 22.43 you will get 24.40
seconds for the estimated time for Mark My Way at the 1/4M POC.

However there are different metrics used for the length and therefore Mark My Way time can be one of many different times under the beaten length methodology.

Summary

Trakus can be used to measure the distance between horses and if put into a spreadsheet which is easy to do these calculations can be made very quickly in a non-vapid manner.

cj
10-17-2013, 05:57 PM
Horses are measured as each passes each point of call. Therefore, at any one point in time, we don't know what the distance is between horses. We only know how much longer in time it took each horse to reach those specific points. Horses don't run at constant speeds, so we can only make our best approximation of distance if we really think we need that data (I don't).

Trakus could probably give us that information if they wanted to do so, but they don't. They could say when the leader hit the point of call, horse X was Y feet behind, but they don't do that. Therefore, anything we try to plug in is an approximation. When a trailing horse hits each point of call, we have no way to determine how far in distance the leader is ahead of it. We only know how much time has passed since the leader first reached the point of call.

Also, the feet given are far from exact. I mentioned this in another thread, but almost all horses are reported as running farther than they actually did. A horse running 2f on a straightaway is highly unlikely to have run 1328 feet, yet that is in the neighborhood of what is often reported. I know why, but I'll leave that to Trakus to discuss if they choose to do so. But, the FPS calculations are already flawed if the distance traveled is flawed.

Cratos
10-17-2013, 07:18 PM
The point I made is that Trakus “tracks” the running curve of the horse and measures time with respect to distance travelled. That is why Trakus has accumulated distance and it is the correct way to do it because horses move about during their running. This is very common with all electronic tracking systems; horseracing or not.

The chart caller works from the premise of a straight-line which is 90 degrees to the line of the timer beam and the starting line is parallel to the POC except in the turns. The distance using the chart caller method is theoretically exact; that is the only logical way to make the system work.

cj
10-17-2013, 07:23 PM
The point I made is that Trakus “tracks” the running curve of the horse and measures time with respect to distance travelled. That is why Trakus has accumulated distance and it is the correct way to do it because horses move about during their running. This is very common with all electronic tracking systems; horseracing or not.

The chart caller works from the premise of a straight-line which is 90 degrees to the line of the timer beam and the starting line is parallel to the POC except in the turns. The distance using the chart caller method is theoretically exact; that is the only logical way to make the system work.

I know very well the differences between Trakus and chart callers, and of course much prefer Trakus. But you attributed things to Trakus that simply were false.

...distance between horses at POC using Trakus data is easily calculated.

No, it isn't. The only thing that can be easily calculated is the difference it time between horses at each point of call, not the distance.

Cratos
10-17-2013, 08:35 PM
I know very well the differences between Trakus and chart callers, and of course much prefer Trakus. But you attributed things to Trakus that simply were false.



No, it isn't. The only thing that can be easily calculated is the difference it time between horses at each point of call, not the distance.

One thing I have learned is never argue a truism.

ubercapper
10-18-2013, 08:09 AM
I don't know, I'm looking at the charts and the Trakus charts , though they're using the same times , the beaten lengths are different. For example yesterdays 5th race, time listed as 142.36 Trakus and charts. Obviously using the Trakus times, but final beaten lengths were different. Winner won by 7 1/2 Trakus, 6 3/4 equibase chart. They're using a different scale for beaten lengths . Granted, the difference isn't huge, but it is a difference.

Sorry. I meant to say that for Trakus Tracks, the Trakus beaten lengths are imported into the Equibase system for all points of call except the finish, which still comes from the photo finish system of the track.

raybo
10-18-2013, 12:04 PM
I don't know, I'm looking at the charts and the Trakus charts , though they're using the same times , the beaten lengths are different. For example yesterdays 5th race, time listed as 142.36 Trakus and charts. Obviously using the Trakus times, but final beaten lengths were different. Winner won by 7 1/2 Trakus, 6 3/4 equibase chart. They're using a different scale for beaten lengths . Granted, the difference isn't huge, but it is a difference.

If you have accurate times for every horse, you don't need beaten lengths at all. That's the beauty of Trakus, if the times are truly accurate. No more guessing at the distance of a length, and no more guessing at the number of lengths behind, or ahead, and no more guessing at the time value of a beaten length. We will then have only track variant, track to track, and bias adjustments to make.

The poster who said that the game will never become unbeatable, is right, because some of us will still have an edge in the 3 adjustments I mentioned, as well as intent and form, among other "subjective" decisions.

The "chiklet" thing mentioned is probably more due to glitches and delays in the program/video portion of that system, which may or may not become less visible as time goes by.

raybo
10-18-2013, 12:13 PM
It is useful to understand that Trakus is a speed-distance curve measurement system for thoroughbred horseracing that measures the speed of each horse in the race with respect to its distance travelled in the race and from that measurement, the distance between horses at the time of POC (point of call) can be measured.

In contrast, the legacy “beaten length” system is a point measurement system which measures the time of the leading horse at the pre-determined POC of the race and does not measure distance. Distance between horses is calculated in this system from the non-standard metric of the length.

In essence, the legacy “beaten length” system does not measure distance and only measure the time of the leading horse at the aforementioned predetermined POC. Distance between horses using this method is fanciful.

An example of the difference between the two methods comes from the 10th race at Belmont on October 14 as follows:

The race was run at the 7F distance on the turf, but only the 1/4M POC is used here to illustrate the difference between the two methods because it would be redundant to do the other POCs of the race.

Trackus Method

Leader at the 1/4M POC is the #7, Giant Jo and it travelled a distance of 1,328 feet in 22.35 seconds.

Mark My Way the #2 horse is in 9th place at the 1/4M POC of the race and it also travelled 1.328 feet, but its time according to Trakus is 23.48 seconds.

Therefore at the 1/4M POC what is the distance between the two horses?

Divide the distance travelled, 1328 ft by the time elapsed and convert into feet/second which for Giant Jo is 59.42 feet/second. For Mark My Way the metric is 56.56 feet/second.

At 22.35 feet we know that Giant Jo travelled 1,328 feet which is the 1/4M POC of the race as measured by Trakus. But Mark My Way at this point would have only travelled 1,264.18 feet (1,328*56.56/59.42).

Therefore the distance between the two horses at the 1/4M POC of the race would be: 1,328 – 1,264.08 = 63.92 feet.

Converting that into feet per 1/5 second or lengths behind it would be:
63.92/11.88 = 5.38 lengths.

Checking our calculation:

23.48 – 22.35 = 1.13 seconds or 63.92/56.56 = 1.13 seconds.

Equibase Method (Beaten Length)

If you go to the Equibase chart for the 10th race at Belmont on October 14 you will see that Giant Jo was in the lead at the 1/4M POC, but its time according to Equibase was 22.43 seconds or.08 slower than Trakus which had Giant Jo in the time of 22.35 seconds.

Mark My Way was in 9th place at 1/4M POC on the Equibase chart and if you count the lengths behind you will have 13.

Converting that into time and using 9 feet per length you will have 117 feet/11.88 =1.97 seconds and adding that to 22.43 you will get 24.40
seconds for the estimated time for Mark My Way at the 1/4M POC.

However there are different metrics used for the length and therefore Mark My Way time can be one of many different times under the beaten length methodology.

Summary

Trakus can be used to measure the distance between horses and if put into a spreadsheet which is easy to do these calculations can be made very quickly in a non-vapid manner.

Your calculations are in error because you're assuming the trailing horse was traveling at the same speed as the leader, while that is the most accurate way to calculate beaten lengths with present technology, it is not truly accurate. So, your whole exhibition is inaccurate.

Cratos
10-18-2013, 04:40 PM
Your calculations are in error because you're assuming the trailing horse was traveling at the same speed as the leader, while that is the most accurate way to calculate beaten lengths with present technology, it is not truly accurate. So, your whole exhibition is inaccurate.


No I did not, my calculations were based on the Trakus speed of 59.42 feet per second for Giant Jo and 56.56 feet per second for the other horse.

Please re-read more succinctly.

This is a simple algebraic calculation of distance between two moving objects. It really doesn't make any difference if it is horses or baseballs because all of the parameters are given.

If you have another answer, show your calculations.

raybo
10-18-2013, 05:12 PM
No I did not, my calculations were based on the Trakus speed of 59.42 feet per second for Giant Jo and 56.56 feet per second for the other horse.

Please re-read more succinctly.

This is a simple algebraic calculation of distance between two moving objects. It really doesn't make any difference if it is horses or baseballs because all of the parameters are given.

If you have another answer, show your calculations.

My mistake! I thought you were using the leader's fps to calculate the distance traveled by the trailing horse. Your calculations do appear to be correct. :ThmbUp:

cj
10-18-2013, 08:27 PM
One thing I have learned is never argue a truism.

I knew you'd see the light eventually.

ronsmac
10-18-2013, 08:59 PM
If you have accurate times for every horse, you don't need beaten lengths at all. That's the beauty of Trakus, if the times are truly accurate. No more guessing at the distance of a length, and no more guessing at the number of lengths behind, or ahead, and no more guessing at the time value of a beaten length. We will then have only track variant, track to track, and bias adjustments to make.

The poster who said that the game will never become unbeatable, is right, because some of us will still have an edge in the 3 adjustments I mentioned, as well as intent and form, among other "subjective" decisions.

The "chiklet" thing mentioned is probably more due to glitches and delays in the program/video portion of that system, which may or may not become less visible as time goes by.
What you're saying is absolutely true, since trakus times aren't going to be in my pps for every horse, and I'm still not convinced of the accuracy of trakus in the first place, not saying hitting the beams is more accurate ,but that's neither here nor there, I'd prefer the Trakus beaten lengths be used in my pps if the trakus times are going to be used ,Instead of having to look up the exact times for every single horse every single race. It would be more time efficient for me if they did it that way. Not that anyone cares what's best for me.

Tom
10-18-2013, 10:27 PM
The value in Trakus, IMHO, is is analyzing charts and performances.
Having accurate Trakus data for one horse and Joe-StopWatchdata for the rest of the field is not much help.

But face facts, most tracks will never get Trakus. What do you think this game is all about.....racing? :bang: