Article by Beyer on Run-Ups and Class Complexity

[classhandicapper]

I thought this was a terrific one because both conversations came up here recently.

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer-racing-industry-keeps-horseplayers-balance

[LottaKash]

A very good article that reveals how silly and frustrating the handicapping process has morphed, so much, in recent times....

excerpt:

"Does the sport ever do anything because the betting public wants it?"

[cj]

These are things bettors have been saying for a long time. I wrote a blog post on run up not very long ago. I'm glad Beyer is on board. He has a big voice in the industry. It probably won't lead to any change in a game that never changes anything for the "bettor", but it certainly can't hurt.

[thaskalos]

This is my answer to Beyer's last question in the article:

No. The game will not do anything just because the public wants it. The other entities in the game are entitled to the pursuit of profit...so their wishes must be first and foremost in the game's mind. The public is in the game merely for entertainment...so their wishes can safely be pushed to the background.

After all -- as renowned trainer Bob Baffert has already stated -- the gamblers can always move on to some other gambling game if they don't find what they like in horse racing. The horsemen and the track operators, on the other hand, are "stuck" in this game...so the game should cater to them.

Why should the Bafferts of the world have to put their lifestyles in jeopardy during uncertain times...when the risk can easily be carried by the horseplayers?

[098poi]

This is great, talking about how the conditions have become so complex in an effort to make more horses eligible for a given race. This is from Santa Anita

“For 4-year-olds and upward which have never won $10,000 three times other than Maiden, Claiming, Starter or State Bred, or which have never won four races, or which have not won $35,000 other than closed, claiming or starter at a mile or over since August 1, 2013, or optional claiming price of $80,000.”

:confused: (or horses who have never eaten an apple or carrot or those that have tried tuna melts)

[lamboguy]

probably the biggest thing that is killing racing right now are small field sizes. condition books all over have created this problem by paying to high a purses for cheaper claiming races. why would someone invest 3 years to breed and train a horse when they can claim one that is racing already for $20,000, run him back 2 weeks later for $16,000 win and get his money right back? its close to paying ZERO for the horse! the super trainer's look like genius's operating this way, and they have all the horses. also part of the reason why winning favorites are winning at higher than 33% these days.

NYRA tracks 2 years ago broke the record for daily claims. then they figured out what was going on and they had to lower the claiming purses. probably not enough though, and more than likely the game needs a much stronger re-structure to accommodate the breeders and people that develop horses that can't run in top maiden and allowance races in order to get more horses to the tracks and larger fields.

[Light]

I thought it was just me when I started redoing all my class pars a few months ago because new ones were coming up regularly that I had nothing on with 5 years of class pars from the same track! Thanks for the article, verifying my suspicion.

[cj]

http://timeformusblog.com/2013/12/17/run-up-and-its-effect-on-final-time/

This is what I wrote back in December. Beyer described run up the same way I do, as an un-timed portion of a race. Not only is it a portion of the race, it is often the most important one.

[cj]

As for the race conditions, the Meadowlands has simplified them greatly for its harness races, and it is paying big dividends.

We need bigger fields, which would happen with less conditions. Let trainers explain to owners why the horses are not running. Why, for example, do we have claiming races for male and female horses? Why not combine them? Just run a 10k claiming race, and the rule could be it costs 50% extra to claim a female. (I realize 50% might not be the right number, just an example)

The same goes for conditioned claimers. No more NW2 lifetime, NW3 lifetime, etc. Just boost the claiming price. If a race is a 10k claimer, a horse that fits NW2 costs 20k, NW3 15k, etc. You could also build in weight concessions. But lets force more horse to run against each other.

I know I'll hear a bunch of reasons why you can't do this, but my answer will always be of course you can, if you really want to do it. There are always reasons NOT to do something, but that doesn't make the status quo the best path.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

...Why should the Bafferts of the world have to put their lifestyles in jeopardy during uncertain times...when the risk can easily be carried by the horseplayers?

Very true. Until it isn't. Market forces seem to have a great lag when it comes to changes in racing, but any Southern California trainer should realize that the sport there is in steep decline, and there will come a point at which the circuit may no longer be relevant. Kind of like it's worked out for the NFL.

There comes a tipping point, and we're getting closer. Perhaps a national name like a Bob Baffert can rest on his laurels and past glory to survive through his end of life - but many in the sport won't have that option....

[Stillriledup]

This is my answer to Beyer's last question in the article:

No. The game will not do anything just because the public wants it. The other entities in the game are entitled to the pursuit of profit...so their wishes must be first and foremost in the game's mind. The public is in the game merely for entertainment...so their wishes can safely be pushed to the background.

After all -- as renowned trainer Bob Baffert has already stated -- the gamblers can always move on to some other gambling game if they don't find what they like in horse racing. The horsemen and the track operators, on the other hand, are "stuck" in this game...so the game should cater to them.

Why should the Bafferts of the world have to put their lifestyles in jeopardy during uncertain times...when the risk can easily be carried by the horseplayers?

Great post Gus, couldnt agree more.

Love your last sentence, that pretty much sums up the state of the game at this point.

[magwell]

On top of the run up problem the racing form prints workouts that are called in by the the trainers at Payson Park and Palm beach downs,for horses running at Gulfstream its called the honor system........:rolleyes:

[Stillriledup]

As for the race conditions, the Meadowlands has simplified them greatly for its harness races, and it is paying big dividends.

We need bigger fields, which would happen with less conditions. Let trainers explain to owners why the horses are not running. Why, for example, do we have claiming races for male and female horses? Why not combine them? Just run a 10k claiming race, and the rule could be it costs 50% extra to claim a female. (I realize 50% might not be the right number, just an example)

The same goes for conditioned claimers. No more NW2 lifetime, NW3 lifetime, etc. Just boost the claiming price. If a race is a 10k claimer, a horse that fits NW2 costs 20k, NW3 15k, etc. You could also build in weight concessions. But lets force more horse to run against each other.

I know I'll hear a bunch of reasons why you can't do this, but my answer will always be of course you can, if you really want to do it. There are always reasons NOT to do something, but that doesn't make the status quo the best path.

Very good point to bring up Meadowlands. They have written their conditions so that their race secretary has more power to essentially "Seed" horses to make the races more competitive. Also, by having classes such as B1, C1, etc they get rid of more of the claiming races, Meadowlands used to have many options to claim a horse for 20k, 30k and even higher claiming races of 50k and 75k but now, its hard to really claim one which i believe is good, it puts owners in a position to start from the bottom up, purchase one at a yearling sale and nurse the horse from "day 1" to the horse gets to the races.

If you have "skin" in the game, you are going to care more about the horse and the horse's welfare and the game itself, if you're just a musical claiming person, especially in tbred racing, you arent going to care as much about the welfare of the horse, you are going to run that horse first time back under the idea that you just need to win ONE race to "get out" on the horse, that mentality is certainly different from owners who purchase a yearling and raise that baby as their own.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The DRF,all websites,and us need to write the same article once a week and send it.Write 4 different versions and rotate them for 12 months a year endlessly.It's a curable problem and NO is unacceptable.

[Cholly]

When composing race conditions, Racing Secretaries should be forbidden to use the grammatical conjunction “or”.

Violators should receive corporal punishment.

[Tom]

Why should the Bafferts of the world have to put their lifestyles in jeopardy during uncertain times...when the risk can easily be carried by the horseplayers?

That is so true, Thask......now, shut up and deal! :rolleyes: ;)

[Tom]

I thought it was just me when I started redoing all my class pars a few months ago because new ones were coming up regularly that I had nothing on with 5 years of class pars from the same track! Thanks for the article, verifying my suspicion.

I have trimmed down my pars considerably the last couple of years.....


Slow
Slower

[Track Phantom]

This is my answer to Beyer's last question in the article:

No. The game will not do anything just because the public wants it. The other entities in the game are entitled to the pursuit of profit...so their wishes must be first and foremost in the game's mind. The public is in the game merely for entertainment...so their wishes can safely be pushed to the background.

After all -- as renowned trainer Bob Baffert has already stated -- the gamblers can always move on to some other gambling game if they don't find what they like in horse racing. The horsemen and the track operators, on the other hand, are "stuck" in this game...so the game should cater to them.

Why should the Bafferts of the world have to put their lifestyles in jeopardy during uncertain times...when the risk can easily be carried by the horseplayers?

This is backwards. If gamblers can move on and horseman are stuck, you'd think the track operators would cater to the player, not the horsemen.

[pandy]

Great column. It's unfortunate that players resist change otherwise they may actually time the races correctly. In harness racing the races at most tracks should be longer than a mile but some fans want one mile racing no matter how much it sucks because they can't wrap their heads around the different fractional times. This is what happens when you resist change, you get the same old crap and then the sport dies.

Although with harness racing, they could simply run the longer races with an un-timed runup, the way they do at the flats, this way it would keep the gamblers happy and the races would be better. One mile harness racing on half mile tracks is a joke. One mile thoroughbred races around two turns are also a joke.

[Robert Goren]

This is my answer to Beyer's last question in the article:

No. The game will not do anything just because the public wants it. The other entities in the game are entitled to the pursuit of profit...so their wishes must be first and foremost in the game's mind. The public is in the game merely for entertainment...so their wishes can safely be pushed to the background.

After all -- as renowned trainer Bob Baffert has already stated -- the gamblers can always move on to some other gambling game if they don't find what they like in horse racing. The horsemen and the track operators, on the other hand, are "stuck" in this game...so the game should cater to them.

Why should the Bafferts of the world have to put their lifestyles in jeopardy during uncertain times...when the risk can easily be carried by the horseplayers?I am reminded of the debate I got into a few years ago with horsemen over the MTH super meet. The amazing thing I learned is that at least some horsemen consider themselves customers of the race track.

[Tom]

(Nobody ever confused horsemen with rocket scientists.)

Might be the best thing he ever wrote!
What other business prides itself in dis-respecting it's customers?
Baffert might be a HOF trainer, but I think that comment disqualifies him from deserving any respect. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[Robert Goren]

Might be the best thing he ever wrote!
What other business prides itself in dis-respecting it's customers?
Baffert might be a HOF trainer, but I think that comment disqualifies him from deserving any respect. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:But some have become very experimental chemists.

[classhandicapper]

I thought it was just me when I started redoing all my class pars a few months ago because new ones were coming up regularly that I had nothing on with 5 years of class pars from the same track! Thanks for the article, verifying my suspicion.

I mostly play NYRA and had accumulated a pretty good set of PARs over time. I tried to do a national PAR project last year. I started by getting a report of every class and every condition, by age, sex, surface, statebred etc.. in the country. I freaked out and threw in the towel. :bang:

[aaron]

The way things are done now,it makes figures in certain instances meaningless. Gulfstream Park turf figures are particularly hard to do from what I have heard. I believe Thorograph and the Sheets have the run-up time included in their figures.I could be wrong about this,but I imagine trying to create a number using different run-up from different tracks would be very hard. This being one of the reasons you need more than just speed figures to win.
It is interesting that the trotters have gone back to rating races in basically the same way they did over 40 years ago. As with everything with racing,they seem to change the things they get right and not change the things they need to change.

[cj]

The way things are done now,it makes figures in certain instances meaningless. Gulfstream Park turf figures are particularly hard to do from what I have heard. I believe Thorograph and the Sheets have the run-up time included in their figures.I could be wrong about this,but I imagine trying to create a number using different run-up from different tracks would be very hard. This being one of the reasons you need more than just speed figures to win.
It is interesting that the trotters have gone back to rating races in basically the same way they did over 40 years ago. As with everything with racing,they seem to change the things they get right and not change the things they need to change.

Gulfstream is difficult, but it can be done. But lately in addition to all the other issues, they have been misreporting the actual run up. I've seen a few reported as 20 feet where it is really around 5. So if you hand time from the gate and add in the reported run up, you are using the wrong distance.

This wouldn't be a big deal, except accurately figuring out the run up from video or even in person is not easy.

[classhandicapper]

The funniest (or saddest) part about this article is that class handicappers have generally argued that the complexities of making figures lead to inaccuracies that make class handicapping more appealing. The figure handicappers have generally argued that determining field strength based on class designations and the accomplishments of the horses in a race is too subjective and also prone to error. Both valid points.

But instead of things getting better for either school, in some ways they are getting worse for both.

[aaron]

Gulfstream is difficult, but it can be done. But lately in addition to all the other issues, they have been misreporting the actual run up. I've seen a few reported as 20 feet where it is really around 5. So if you hand time from the gate and add in the reported run up, you are using the wrong distance.

This wouldn't be a big deal, except accurately figuring out the run up from video or even in person is not easy.
One question-At Gulfstream do they report all turf races as being on the same course or do they separate the courses as main and inner ?

[cj]

One question-At Gulfstream do they report all turf races as being on the same course or do they separate the courses as main and inner ?

They don't call it main and inner, but they do report the temp rail settings. Usually there are two different ones each day.

[SandyLoam]

Bravo to Beyer for pointing out yet another serious problem with the game. He is the lone voice on a publication that is firmly ensconced in the culture of the exploitation of the horseplayer. DRF ought to be ashamed of itself, but we know it doesn't think in those terms. Instead of all the hoo-ha about the irrelevant--for the horseplayer--Eclipse Awards every year, how about a year-end review of the problems racing failed to solve in the last 12 months?

[thespaah]

I pulled this quote from the article..
7 1/2 furlongs. “Horsemen are begging for them,” track president Tim Ritvo said, “because they want to run a shorter distance [than a mile].” Because these races start close to the turn, Gulfstream employs run-ups as much as 250 feet, making 7 1/2 furlongs almost as long as a mile. (Nobody ever confused horsemen with rocket scientists.)..
I find that incredibly amusing..The math states a race of 7 1/2 F with a run up of 250 ft is just 80 ft short of a mile.
This is 15/16ths of a mile. That plus 330 ft would be.....One mile..
Just goes to show, when a piece of wrong information repeated enough times, people tend to believe it..
So the trainers believe their horse is running in a race less than a mile. Sheesh..
Anyway I don't necessarily have an issue with run ups in an of themselves. I just would like the info given to the public once the gate is set so we can handicap the distance with the run up...
Send the info to the track announcer and the television production people, make the announcement and post in a graphic on the monitors.

[Stillriledup]

I pulled this quote from the article..
7 1/2 furlongs. “Horsemen are begging for them,” track president Tim Ritvo said, “because they want to run a shorter distance [than a mile].” Because these races start close to the turn, Gulfstream employs run-ups as much as 250 feet, making 7 1/2 furlongs almost as long as a mile. (Nobody ever confused horsemen with rocket scientists.)..
I find that incredibly amusing..The math states a race of 7 1/2 F with a run up of 250 ft is just 80 ft short of a mile.
This is 15/16ths of a mile. That plus 330 ft would be.....One mile..
Just goes to show, when a piece of wrong information repeated enough times, people tend to believe it..
So the trainers believe their horse is running in a race less than a mile. Sheesh..
Anyway I don't necessarily have an issue with run ups in an of themselves. I just would like the info given to the public once the gate is set so we can handicap the distance with the run up...
Send the info to the track announcer and the television production people, make the announcement and post in a graphic on the monitors.

So what the horsemen want trumps what the customers want.

Got it.

[thaskalos]

I pulled this quote from the article..
7 1/2 furlongs. “Horsemen are begging for them,” track president Tim Ritvo said, “because they want to run a shorter distance [than a mile].” Because these races start close to the turn, Gulfstream employs run-ups as much as 250 feet, making 7 1/2 furlongs almost as long as a mile. (Nobody ever confused horsemen with rocket scientists.)..
I find that incredibly amusing..The math states a race of 7 1/2 F with a run up of 250 ft is just 80 ft short of a mile.
This is 15/16ths of a mile. That plus 330 ft would be.....One mile..
Just goes to show, when a piece of wrong information repeated enough times, people tend to believe it..
So the trainers believe their horse is running in a race less than a mile. Sheesh..
Anyway I don't necessarily have an issue with run ups in an of themselves. I just would like the info given to the public once the gate is set so we can handicap the distance with the run up...
Send the info to the track announcer and the television production people, make the announcement and post in a graphic on the monitors.
But why have the run-ups in the first place? Because the breeders do not want us to see the real speed of the horses during the first quarter of the race?

It's really better to see the artificial measurement of 22.00...instead of seeing the REAL time of 23.6, that we would likely see if the horses were timed from the starting gate?

Maddening...IMO.

[thespaah]

This is my answer to Beyer's last question in the article:

No. The game will not do anything just because the public wants it. The other entities in the game are entitled to the pursuit of profit...so their wishes must be first and foremost in the game's mind. The public is in the game merely for entertainment...so their wishes can safely be pushed to the background.

After all -- as renowned trainer Bob Baffert has already stated -- the gamblers can always move on to some other gambling game if they don't find what they like in horse racing. The horsemen and the track operators, on the other hand, are "stuck" in this game...so the game should cater to them.

Why should the Bafferts of the world have to put their lifestyles in jeopardy during uncertain times...when the risk can easily be carried by the horseplayers?

What Baffert ignores is the possibility of so few placing wagers, the purses are adversely affected by the lack of takeout revenue.
Then of course the horsemen will start screaming for subsidies( slots, casinos, taxpayer) to fund purses.

[Stillriledup]

This is backwards. If gamblers can move on and horseman are stuck, you'd think the track operators would cater to the player, not the horsemen.

This is one of the best posts i've read in a while, spot on V!

[thespaah]

But why have the run-ups in the first place? Because the breeders do not want us to see the real speed of the horses during the first quarter of the race?

It's really better to see the artificial measurement of 22.00...instead of seeing the REAL time of 23.6, that we would likely see if the horses were timed from the starting gate?

Maddening...IMO.
Run ups are not for the sole purpose of a run up. This is done for track maintenance purposes.
That is to my knowledge

[thespaah]

But why have the run-ups in the first place? Because the breeders do not want us to see the real speed of the horses during the first quarter of the race?

It's really better to see the artificial measurement of 22.00...instead of seeing the REAL time of 23.6, that we would likely see if the horses were timed from the starting gate?

Maddening...IMO.
If I am following your logic properly...
This is where Trackus is an excellent tool.
One can go to the site and see exactly to the foot how much distance each entry covered during a race.
Obviously, not all tracks have this. I believe in the not too distant future, Trackus will gain wide appeal.
The other issue is the technology installed at the tracks themselves. The timing devices are not movable. The starting gate obviously is. So there would be no accurate way to time the race because a fixed start point is not used.

[thespaah]

As for the race conditions, the Meadowlands has simplified them greatly for its harness races, and it is paying big dividends.

We need bigger fields, which would happen with less conditions. Let trainers explain to owners why the horses are not running. Why, for example, do we have claiming races for male and female horses? Why not combine them? Just run a 10k claiming race, and the rule could be it costs 50% extra to claim a female. (I realize 50% might not be the right number, just an example)

The same goes for conditioned claimers. No more NW2 lifetime, NW3 lifetime, etc. Just boost the claiming price. If a race is a 10k claimer, a horse that fits NW2 costs 20k, NW3 15k, etc. You could also build in weight concessions. But lets force more horse to run against each other.

I know I'll hear a bunch of reasons why you can't do this, but my answer will always be of course you can, if you really want to do it. There are always reasons NOT to do something, but that doesn't make the status quo the best path.
Actually Yonkers Roosevelt and Monticello used classified race conditions. Then switched to conditioned.
Also, harness claiming races sometimes include female and male horses. The claiming prices were higher for the females or they drew for the inside post positions.
And, if there were say, 3, 4 and 5 year old claiming races, the younger horses claiming prices were higher.

[burnsy]

This is backwards. If gamblers can move on and horseman are stuck, you'd think the track operators would cater to the player, not the horsemen.

You would think so, seeing that most businesses that survive and thrive are operated in that manner. The conditions now are maddening. I saw the new people asking about that in another thread, Optional Allowance, claiming 25000NX1...when the cock crows twice, during a full moon and the barn dog lifts his left leg to take piss, all grey horses are eligible.......:bang: that's real encouraging to someone trying to learn...it attracts all kinds of new business and is greatly appreciated by your regular customers????

[cj]

If I am following your logic properly...
This is where Trackus is an excellent tool.
One can go to the site and see exactly to the foot how much distance each entry covered during a race.
Obviously, not all tracks have this. I believe in the not too distant future, Trackus will gain wide appeal.
The other issue is the technology installed at the tracks themselves. The timing devices are not movable. The starting gate obviously is. So there would be no accurate way to time the race because a fixed start point is not used.

But, Trakus doesn't provide this info. The time and distance of the run up is removed. They have it, but it isn't public.

[Cratos]

I thought this was a terrific one because both conversations came up here recently.

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer-racing-industry-keeps-horseplayers-balance

The article was well written as usual by Beyer, but his conclusions on run-ups and timing is faulty.

[pandy]

In what way?

Someone wrote on here that run ups don't relate to a faster first quarter. I know in harness racing they do. It's just like racing out of a chute. The longer the straight distance a horse has to run until it hits a turn, the faster the first quarter.

[speed]

In what way?

Someone wrote on here that run ups don't relate to a faster first quarter. I know in harness racing they do. It's just like racing out of a chute. The longer the straight distance a horse has to run until it hits a turn, the faster the first quarter.
You know they do. Anyone not believing that they do, compare Churchill 6 Furlong races with their 6 1/2 furlong opening quarter times.

[thespaah]

But, Trakus doesn't provide this info. The time and distance of the run up is removed. They have it, but it isn't public.
Trackus data provided is truncated with the run up portion deleted?
That is stupid!

[cj]

Trackus data provided is truncated with the run up portion deleted?
That is stupid!

Yes.

[cj]

In what way?

Someone wrote on here that run ups don't relate to a faster first quarter. I know in harness racing they do. It's just like racing out of a chute. The longer the straight distance a horse has to run until it hits a turn, the faster the first quarter.

Of course the longer the run up (to a point) the faster the first fraction can be. It won't always be of course, depends on other factors as well.

[Cratos]

Trackus data provided is truncated with the run up portion deleted?
That is stupid!


I understand your response, but remember Trakus is timing a horse, not a race and apparently they believe that the only thing that is important is from the zero point (the start) to the end.

[cj]

I understand your response, but remember Trakus is timing a horse, not a race and apparently they believe that the only thing that is important is from the zero point (the start) to the end.

False. It isn't the choice of Trakus to exclude the information.

[pandy]

Of course the longer the run up (to a point) the faster the first fraction can be. It won't always be of course, depends on other factors as well.

On average the first quarter will be faster. I also think all the fractions are faster because once the horses start out faster, they build momentum and the other fractional calls are also faster than they would be with a shorter run up. It's not like you can slam on the breaks when riding a thoroughbred. If you go :22 to the quarter the half is going to be faster than if you go :23 to the quarter, so the run up affects the fractions and in many cases will result in a faster final time. Turns always slow things down so the sooner they hit a turn, the slower the time and vice versa. I'm not saying anything that's not obvious.

[Cratos]

False. It isn't the choice of Trakus to exclude the information.
Where was it said that it was Trakus choice?

[Tom]

So, high technology comes to t-bred racing and the industry dumbs it down.
Why we support this bunch of short-sighted losers and their little insiders' club is a mystery to me. Maybe we should take Baffert's advice and say adios to this bunch of poop spreaders. Let them bet against each other and wonder where the money went when we stop funding the purses. The game has no freaking idea who the customers are and never will.

[Cratos]

So, high technology comes to t-bred racing and the industry dumbs it down.
Why we support this bunch of short-sighted losers and their little insiders' club is a mystery to me. Maybe we should take Baffert's advice and say adios to this bunch of poop spreaders. Let them bet against each other and wonder where the money went when we stop funding the purses. The game has no freaking idea who the customers are and never will.

You raise a very good issue and it is perplexing why Equibase or DRF hasn't adopted the Trakus technology as their means of data collection and distribution.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Is the solution for Trackus and/or some other company capable of such things forming up with a players' coalition to get the information right?

I mean would they really run you off the grounds for trying to time races correctly to provide for serious players wanting to bet their races?

From all the posts over the last few years I've read from CJ about Gulfstream,as one of my favorite tracks to play,it is just maddening that they are this ignorant.

[Stillriledup]

So, high technology comes to t-bred racing and the industry dumbs it down.
Why we support this bunch of short-sighted losers and their little insiders' club is a mystery to me. Maybe we should take Baffert's advice and say adios to this bunch of poop spreaders. Let them bet against each other and wonder where the money went when we stop funding the purses. The game has no freaking idea who the customers are and never will.

Until racetracks start carding the races for the BETTORS and not the trainers, the game isnt going anywhere.

Its amazing to me that not ONE track in the entire country is willing to take the bull by the horns and put these trainers in their place. Calif has a great opportunity to do that because its not like trainers who are established in So Cal with great lives, nice families, kids in school, houses they own are going to up and move 3,000 miles away, they're kind of "stuck" in So Cal for the most part, they have no leverage at all and yet, the tracks seem to cater to them like they're gods gift to horse racing.

[cj]

I understand your response, but remember Trakus is timing a horse, not a race and apparently they believe that the only thing that is important is from the zero point (the start) to the end.

Where was it said that it was Trakus choice?

Is Trakus not "they"? If not, who is they? You made it sound like a decision on the part of Trakus to only give the start to end without run up.

[cj]

You raise a very good issue and it is perplexing why Equibase or DRF hasn't adopted the Trakus technology as their means of data collection and distribution.

Trakus isn't free, so not all tracks even have it. Of those that do, some opt not to use it as official, some do. I guess they come to an agreement.

In other situations, I've seen Trakus used when the regular data was in question or unavailable, like fog which we saw at Aqueduct recently.

[thespaah]

So, high technology comes to t-bred racing and the industry dumbs it down.
Why we support this bunch of short-sighted losers and their little insiders' club is a mystery to me. Maybe we should take Baffert's advice and say adios to this bunch of poop spreaders. Let them bet against each other and wonder where the money went when we stop funding the purses. The game has no freaking idea who the customers are and never will.
"poop spreaders"... :lol:

[Cratos]

Is Trakus not "they"? If not, who is they? You made it sound like a decision on the part of Trakus to only give the start to end without run up.

You never answered the question , but your opprobiius reply was predictable.

[cj]

You never answered the question , but your opprobiius reply was predictable.

As was your poor writing.

[Quesmark]

Is everything in life transparent?
No.
So don't expect it to be so in racing either.
Take advantage of the circumspect...

[therussmeister]

You raise a very good issue and it is perplexing why Equibase or DRF hasn't adopted the Trakus technology as their means of data collection and distribution.
To the best of my knowledge TRAKUS times are the official times used by Equibase at Tampa and Gulfstream. They were not used during the first meet after TRAKUS was installed. I'm guessing Equibase wants to give TRAKUS time to make sure all the kinks are worked out before using their technology, and I predict Equibase will start using TRAKUS times for NYRA tracks starting in the fall.

[Tom]

"poop spreaders"... :lol:

:blush: Heavily medicated with flu medicines......

[Valuist]

[QUOTE=CincyHorseplayer

From all the posts over the last few years I've read from CJ about Gulfstream,as one of my favorite tracks to play,it is just maddening that they are this ignorant.[/QUOTE]

I think you hit the nail on the head. A lot of us love playing Gulfstream. Lots of turf races with full fields, quality racing. They know they have us so they don't care.

I'll never understand why they reconfigured that track. There was no reason to do it.

[RXB]

I think you hit the nail on the head. A lot of us love playing Gulfstream. Lots of turf races with full fields, quality racing. They know they have us so they don't care.

I'll never understand why they reconfigured that track. There was no reason to do it.

Widened the grass course. I think it was a wise decision given how the turf fields fill compared to the dirt races.

[Tall One]

On top of the run up problem the racing form prints workouts that are called in by the the trainers at Payson Park and Palm beach downs,for horses running at Gulfstream its called the honor system........:rolleyes:



you're kidding, right? honor system...heh..honor among thieves and those types of things. :mad:

[Saratoga_Mike]

As was your poor writing.

If Andy Beyer wrote an article saying "the sky is blue," certain posters would take issue with it. That's all that's going on here.

[thaskalos]

If Andy Beyer wrote an article saying "the sky is blue," certain posters would take issue with it. That's all that's going on here.

It doesn't bother me to see Beyer's opinions being criticized. I just wish that the people who did the criticizing did a better job of explaining where their disagreement with Beyer lies.

It's easy to hide behind fancy words and indecipherable rhetoric...but I guess it's very difficult to state our case in language simple enough for everyone to understand.

Or is it that these "super-sophisticated" critics are afraid that we would steal their well-guarded secrets...if they were a little more forthright with their own opinions?

[Saratoga_Mike]

It doesn't bother me to see Beyer's opinions being criticized. I just wish that the people who did the criticizing did a better job of explaining where their disagreement with Beyer lies.

It's easy to hide behind fancy words and indecipherable rhetoric...but I guess it's very difficult to state our case in language simple enough for everyone to understand.

Or is it that these "super-sophisticated" critics are afraid that we would steal their well-guarded secrets...if they were a little more forthright with their own opinions?

Genuine disagreement is fine with me, too.

[cj]

More from Beyer...

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-run-distances-add-nothing-distortion

I'm starting to think he follows me on Twitter!

[Valuist]

Widened the grass course. I think it was a wise decision given how the turf fields fill compared to the dirt races.

I don't seem to recall them having trouble getting full fields for their grass races before they widening the course.

[RXB]

I don't seem to recall them having trouble getting full fields for their grass races before they widening the course.

That's the point. There was overload on the AE's list and they couldn't card nearly as many grass races.

The demand for turf racing has increased over the years, plus GP has lengthened its racing season so being able to run on several lanes is a real boon.

[CincyHorseplayer]

More from Beyer...

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-run-distances-add-nothing-distortion

I'm starting to think he follows me on Twitter!

I hope between the two of you with a chorus of uproar behind you this gets taken care of.As a player who turf makes up about 2/3rds of my bets this is directly affecting me and I'm always second guessing aberrations in a performance vs the maturity/improvement cycle.I can only imagine your frustration trying to process this into figures.

[Segwin]

More from Beyer...

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-run-distances-add-nothing-distortion

I'm starting to think he follows me on Twitter!

I wouldn't doubt it.

[cj]

That's the point. There was overload on the AE's list and they couldn't card nearly as many grass races.

The demand for turf racing has increased over the years, plus GP has lengthened its racing season so being able to run on several lanes is a real boon.

It is a boon, but there is no reason not to do it correctly. Why in the world would anyone call a race 7.5f that is really longer than a mile? That is a total slap in the face to horseplayers. Not only are they lying about the distance, they also are not timing a significant (and often the most important) portion of the race. A full 7% of the race wasn't timed, which is ridiculous.

I tweeted on Saturday that many 7.5f races were closer to a mile than the actual mile races, but this stuff set a new standard for bullshit.

[cj]

I hope between the two of you with a chorus of uproar behind you this gets taken care of.As a player who turf makes up about 2/3rds of my bets this is directly affecting me and I'm always second guessing aberrations in a performance vs the maturity/improvement cycle.I can only imagine your frustration trying to process this into figures.

It was tough, and fractions really tough, but there were some workarounds. But lately they haven't even been reporting the run up correctly. I do everything possible to make the best figures possible, but some of these races are just impossible.

[classhandicapper]

Of course the flip side to all this that people that know not to trust some figures have an edge over people that are betting horses because their number is a couple of points faster than another horse or because the fractions look fast or slow.

[Tom]

In a perfect world, Thoroughbred racing would do what every other sport does: Run races at exact distances and time them from the start. OR, if the powers that be that run the game were not total morons with no respect of the customers.

Of course the flip side to all this that people that know not to trust some figures have an edge over people that are betting horses because their number is a couple of points faster than another horse or because the fractions look fast or slow.

I have an edge - I refuse to bet GP. Since the first time they proved that timing a race was far above the capabilities of the pea-brains who run the place.
I would rather raise guppies than bet that sham of a track. You run a race track and can't time races or tell how far the races are. And I should put my money through your windows? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boycott.

[cj]

Of course the flip side to all this that people that know not to trust some figures have an edge over people that are betting horses because their number is a couple of points faster than another horse or because the fractions look fast or slow.

There is a big difference between what you are talking about and the farce that is going on at Gulfstream.

[thespaah]

I think you hit the nail on the head. A lot of us love playing Gulfstream. Lots of turf races with full fields, quality racing. They know they have us so they don't care.

I'll never understand why they reconfigured that track. There was no reason to do it.
What's wrong with a 9 furlong track and an extra wide turf course?

[thespaah]

I hope between the two of you with a chorus of uproar behind you this gets taken care of.As a player who turf makes up about 2/3rds of my bets this is directly affecting me and I'm always second guessing aberrations in a performance vs the maturity/improvement cycle.I can only imagine your frustration trying to process this into figures.
How so?

[CincyHorseplayer]

How so?

What specifically did you want me to elaborate on?

[thespaah]

What specifically did you want me to elaborate on?
Aberrations in performance.
I guess the real question is how do you determine a particular performance was an aberration?
Are you looking at simply form reversal?

[cj]

What's wrong with a 9 furlong track and an extra wide turf course?

Nothing wrong with it, but the 9f was not designed very well. The run into the turns for route races is a joke.

[Stillriledup]

Nothing wrong with it, but the 9f was not designed very well. The run into the turns for route races is a joke.

Not to mention that they don't have a direct head on shot with the tower cameras.

[magwell]

The "Sheets" claim they factor in, the run up distance in the number......;)

[RXB]

It is a boon, but there is no reason not to do it correctly. Why in the world would anyone call a race 7.5f that is really longer than a mile? That is a total slap in the face to horseplayers. Not only are they lying about the distance, they also are not timing a significant (and often the most important) portion of the race. A full 7% of the race wasn't timed, which is ridiculous.

I tweeted on Saturday that many 7.5f races were closer to a mile than the actual mile races, but this stuff set a new standard for bullshit.

The simple solution is not to write 7.5f races. I can't understand how any connections looking for a spot would tell the racing secretary "We'll enter him at 7.5f but not at a mile." If they did, the secretary should tell the guy that they run that shorter distance at Calder-- for a shorter purse.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Aberrations in performance.
I guess the real question is how do you determine a particular performance was an aberration?
Are you looking at simply form reversal?

I'll see a single figure 8-10points higher for a horse and looking at the call to call,times are the same as the horse had normally been running.Or figures on say Laurel's turf course are disproportionately high or on GP's 7.5 races.An older horse in the middle of an 8 race run,evenly spaced,runs the same race but has a spiked number.It's pretty common.And the figures are wrong 9 of 10 times.We all look at enough races to know what to expect in a form cycle and what seems suspect.It's the handicapper's version of maternal instinct!The only person's figures I trust are CJ's.I like to look at the Beyers because they will gauge the crowd usually,and he adjusts times into performance figures which is wrong.I like to look at my own compound rankings in Excel(credit to Raybo)and that is using BRIS and they overrate certain courses,but I can't use other figures to make the compound rankings.I'll relate the raw late fractions to class levels on turf which is great for gauging a field and getting a feel for that particular race.I try to take a lot of different angles on judging these performances,some for reinforcement of another and some because one will not work with another.The tracks don't work for the figure makers and all the figures can't be utilized in a certain way by the player so you end up doing 5 different things.But the abberrations become apparent in the middle of this!

[classhandicapper]

There is a big difference between what you are talking about and the farce that is going on at Gulfstream.

I agree that it's a farce that should be corrected.

I'm just saying it's another example of something that impacts time that can't always be quantified precisely, yet handicappers often form strong opinions about the ability of horses based on a couple 1/5ths here or there. They even do it when comparing horses that raced decades apart even though some figure makers have figures that are drifting in opposite directions over time.

So recognizing some of the limitations can put you in a potentially advantageous position at times against very literal speed handicappers.

[Valuist]

The simple solution is not to write 7.5f races. I can't understand how any connections looking for a spot would tell the racing secretary "We'll enter him at 7.5f but not at a mile." If they did, the secretary should tell the guy that they run that shorter distance at Calder-- for a shorter purse.

It seems to be getting worse. I didn't think they carded many of these races back in December but not too long ago they had three 7 1/2 furlong turf races on one card.

[Valuist]

What's wrong with a 9 furlong track and an extra wide turf course?

CJ addressed it. The very short run to the turn makes the 1 1/8 mile races a joke. I love turf racing but that course doesn't look very wide when the rail is 72 feet out, or 96 feet out or 108 feet out. Maybe if they didn't run in July-November, they wouldn't have to move the rail so much.

[OTM Al]

Nothing wrong with it, but the 9f was not designed very well. The run into the turns for route races is a joke.

This may have been an issue of the chute. There were initially problems getting this to be a mile chute as the start of it is in the next county (Aventura I think). That is backed up as far as it can go as is and thus perhaps the result for the short run into the turn for the 9f races as that forced where the finish must be rather than more in the middle of the stretch. Of course Gulfstream later took full advantage of the situation with those Q horse races which were fully run in Aventura county, thus making that county eligible for....you guessed it...slots.

[cj]

It seems to be getting worse. I didn't think they carded many of these races back in December but not too long ago they had three 7 1/2 furlong turf races on one card.

Well, you know, horsemen love them allegedly.

Horsemen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bettors in most of track management's eyes.

[RXB]

It seems to be getting worse. I didn't think they carded many of these races back in December but not too long ago they had three 7 1/2 furlong turf races on one card.

Three more tomorrow.

[GMB@BP]

Well, you know, horsemen love them allegedly.

Horsemen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bettors in most of track management's eyes.

Horseman have a much better chance of being around long term compared to the player, seems like a smart decision to me.

[cj]

Horseman have a much better chance of being around long term compared to the player, seems like a smart decision to me.

Until the slots go away, that is.

[GMB@BP]

Until the slots go away, that is.


good point, then they screwed as well.

[Tom]

Three more tomorrow.

So that is what, about 3, 3 and a half miles of racing?

Where else can a horse turn back from 7.5 furlongs to a mile?
Gotta love 'em down there.

[PhantomOnTour]

With or without run ups, timing of turf races will always be suspect because of changing rail positions. They don't move the poles.
If the rail is at 27ft for a 9f race on the inner at Belmont then they have gone a further distance when they reach the 1/4 pole than when the rail is in.

You cannot take the clockings at face value if you wish to compare the splits of a 9f race with rails in vs rails at 27ft.
If you have pars for the different rail settings you can eliminate a lot of this.

Throw in the run up times and you've got one huge hairball.

[cj]

With or without run ups, timing of turf races will always be suspect because of changing rail positions. They don't move the poles.
If the rail is at 27ft for a 9f race on the inner at Belmont then they have gone a further distance when they reach the 1/4 pole than when the rail is in.

You cannot take the clockings at face value if you wish to compare the splits of a 9f race with rails in vs rails at 27ft.
If you have pars for the different rail settings you can eliminate a lot of this.

Throw in the run up times and you've got one huge hairball.

I don't think this is entirely true and depends on the track. Yes, they don't move the poles, but there are some corrections in place. It was explained to me a few times but it has been a while.

With Trakus, this would all go out the window. Distance is distance, not poles or beams.

Until then, I do as you say. I have pars for the all different rail settings. I don't mean class pars, but fraction/final time ratio pars. Sadly, this year, I've had to add run up ranges to the pars as well!

[PhantomOnTour]

I don't think this is entirely true and depends on the track. Yes, they don't move the poles, but there are some corrections in place. It was explained to me a few times but it has been a while.

With Trakus, this would all go out the window. Distance is distance, not poles or beams.

Until then, I do as you say. I have pars for the all different rail settings. I don't mean class pars, but fraction/final time ratio pars. Sadly, this year, I've had to add run up ranges to the pars as well!
Yep...in NY they are at 0-9-18-27ft.
I didn't bother with GP this winter. Hopefully optimistic that all this heat will lead to better timing and consistent run ups next year.

A formula can easily be written for outer rails though. Whether 9, 18 or 27ft out the "extra" distance traveled can be calculated for each point of call and factored into your numbers....but I ain't the guy to do it :D ...I also have time pars for all distances and rail settings (on both turf courses) and that was a ton of work. Essentially, you have four different pars for one distance.
I wonder what corrections are in place for these outer rail settings....???

[cj]

Yep...in NY they are at 0-9-18-27ft.
I didn't bother with GP this winter. Hopefully optimistic that all this heat will lead to better timing and consistent run ups next year.

A formula can easily be written for outer rails though. Whether 9, 18 or 27ft out the "extra" distance traveled can be calculated for each point of call and factored into your numbers....but I ain't the guy to do it :D ...I also have time pars for all distances and rail settings (on both turf courses) and that was a ton of work. Essentially, you have four different pars for one distance.
I wonder what corrections are in place for these outer rail settings....???

Regardless of rail position, a mile race is 5,280 (after run up!) feet. Here is a theoretical example. If the turns account for 1/3 of mile race (it is probably more), the circumference of the turns (added to form a circle) would be 1760 feet. By adding 27 feet of rail, or 54 feet to the diameter, you would add 169 feet to the distance of the race.

There is no way that wouldn't be noticeable in the final times of races with the rail out. Not to mention there are tracks with far wider rail placements than New York. So there are definitely adjustments made to the timing and the start position. It has to be the start, since obviously the wire remains in the same place. When I have time I'll watch some replays of similar distance races with different rail settings, but probably won't be this week.

When the course can't be adjusted to the exact distance, that is when the "about" is added.

[thaskalos]

So that is what, about 3, 3 and a half miles of racing?

Where else can a horse turn back from 7.5 furlongs to a mile?
Gotta love 'em down there.

Hey...I think you got a good betting angle there.

[Zydeco]

So that is what, about 3, 3 and a half miles of racing?

Where else can a horse turn back from 7.5 furlongs to a mile?
Gotta love 'em down there.

This is great!! Turn back from 7.5 to a mile.....well the last time we ran a mile and 70...today we are just running a mile..good one Tom :lol:

[CincyHorseplayer]

Well let's get down to it.In the last 2 months I have been on the phone with Equibase,BRIS,DRF on a variety of things from mail delivery to figure explanations to distances to simply changing my login information so I get emails on stable mail.CJ.Beyer if you are here.Anybody else that knows.How and where,website,phone number etc etc can we go about getting up in these people's arse while trying to maintain civility and actually get something done and what is the best approach and I would go so far as to give the questions verbatim?This sucks for all of us.Maybe,maybe not a constant and deliberate and unending effort will lead to something.As it is a pain in my/our ass handicapping and guessing I sure am willing to be that thorn in the side but I would definitely like to know from fellow players what would be the best approach.I can be diplomatic.I can be psycho when barely pushed.Let's do something.

[CincyHorseplayer]

So that is what, about 3, 3 and a half miles of racing?

Where else can a horse turn back from 7.5 furlongs to a mile?
Gotta love 'em down there.

Tom you are the Rodney Dangerfield of horseplayers bro.I love ya! :cool:

[Tom]

Featured article in DRF Saturday, 3.22.14 about timing races.
Print edition, anyway - not sure about the website.
Gives some insight into Trakus.

[cj]

Featured article in DRF Saturday, 3.22.14 about timing races.
Print edition, anyway - not sure about the website.
Gives some insight into Trakus.

It was online. Pretty fuuny the timing company admits what a lot of us knew already, Gulfstream turf fractions were "estimated."

[CincyHorseplayer]

It was online. Pretty fuuny the timing company admits what a lot of us knew already, Gulfstream turf fractions were "estimated."

I tried to post something about this because I scanned a photo from the article but don't know how to get it on here?

Anyway there is a photo with the Trackus equipment and it's piled into a box bottom from a case of Red Stripe beer!Talk about a picture being worth a 1000 words! :cool:

[Tom]

So much for "technology."
Trakus, or Foolus? :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: