Fractional Times vs. Race Calls

[Matt Bryan]

Is it correct to assume, at certain distances, that there's a pretty weak relationship between fractional times and race/post calls?

For example, if the last running line was a 10 furlong route, with the following times and calls (note: the # in parenthesis represents length - not sure how to show a superscript):

:46 1:10 1:35 2:01 9(pp) 7 6(6) 5(4) 5(3) 2(1)

So, in this case, the horse broke 7th and finished 2nd, 1 length back. If the stretch call is always 1/8th of a mile from the finish, there's no way to determine that internal fraction, since there's no corresponding fractional time at the 9 furlong mark. Similarly, if the horse was 6th at the second call (2 furlong mark), there's no corresponding fraction.

Thoughts? I used to be under the impression that the fractions corresponded with the positions, but now understand that's incorrect. If so, why?

[senortout]

You are looking at a route race. the 7 (first number in your sequence) indicates the horse position at the end of a quarter mile(I think that's right, from memory) Not coming out of the gate. Coming out of the gate, the 7 would represent little, only that say in an seven horse field for example, he broke last. It is slightly more informative at a distance of ground however. In a sprint, more than a few very very fast horses don't get out of the gate all that well, but soon assume command! So, eliminating that first call from your consideration, perhaps now the numbers correlate more closely with what you expect, or not?


Is it correct to assume, at certain distances, that there's a pretty weak relationship between fractional times and race/post calls?

For example, if the last running line was a 10 furlong route, with the following times and calls (note: the # in parenthesis represents length - not sure how to show a superscript):

:46 1:10 1:35 2:01 9(pp) 7 6(6) 5(4) 5(3) 2(1)

So, in this case, the horse broke 7th and finished 2nd, 1 length back. If the stretch call is always 1/8th of a mile from the finish, there's no way to determine that internal fraction, since there's no corresponding fractional time at the 9 furlong mark. Similarly, if the horse was 6th at the second call (2 furlong mark), there's no corresponding fraction. If the third call is always at the 1/2-mile mark, there's no corresponding fraction.

Thoughts? I used to be under the impression that the fractions corresponded with the positions, but now understand that's incorrect. If so, why?

[senortout]

First Call -7. The horse's position immediately after leaving the starting gate or after quarter-mile depending on the distance. This horse was seventh after the first quarter mile.



You are looking at a route race. the 7 (first number in your sequence) indicates the horse position at the end of a quarter mile(I think that's right, from memory) Not coming out of the gate. Coming out of the gate, the 7 would represent little, only that say in an seven horse field for example, he broke last. It is slightly more informative at a distance of ground however. In a sprint, more than a few very very fast horses don't get out of the gate all that well, but soon assume command! So, eliminating that first call from your consideration, perhaps now the numbers correlate more closely with what you expect, or not?

[Matt Bryan]

First Call -7. The horse's position immediately after leaving the starting gate or after quarter-mile depending on the distance. This horse was seventh after the first quarter mile.

If the horse was 7th at the 1/4, what are the rest...6 at 1/2, 5 at 3/4, other 5 at stretch, and finish?

How do you know if it's immediately leaving the gate, or after 2F?

[Capper Al]

There has to be a lot of averaging out the calls- extrapolating.

[Matt Bryan]

There has to be a lot of averaging out the calls- extrapolating.
Doesn't that rub you though, Al? Here you have an industry full of 'number crunchers' that sell forms, yet handicappers are forced to extrapolate, or develop crude estimates?

Hell, one can't even extrapolate the final eighth in the above example - 660 feet of mystery. It seems like a really easy fix, you know? I mean, how hard is it for a clocker to push a button again, and how hard is it to publish that number?

[cj]

Doesn't that rub you though, Al? Here you have an industry full of 'number crunchers' that sell forms, yet handicappers are forced to extrapolate, or develop crude estimates?

Hell, one can't even extrapolate the final eighth in the above example - 660 feet of mystery. It seems like a really easy fix, you know? I mean, how hard is it for a clocker to push a button again, and how hard is it to publish that number?

There are a lot of things in racing that are left over from decades ago. Some of them don't change due to limits in the outdated technology used, others due to lethargy on the part of the industry.

[therussmeister]

If the horse was 7th at the 1/4, what are the rest...6 at 1/2, 5 at 3/4, other 5 at stretch, and finish?

How do you know if it's immediately leaving the gate, or after 2F?
If the race is one mile or longer the first call is at two furlongs, if shorter than a mile the first call is the start, after the run-up not right out of the gate.

[Matt Bryan]

If the race is one mile or longer the first call is at two furlongs, if shorter than a mile the first call is the start, after the run-up not right out of the gate.

So, if the 7 is at two furlongs given the route distance, what are the others? Do they correspond with the fractional times - i.e. 4F, 6F, 8F, and 10F?

[Cratos]

Is it correct to assume, at certain distances, that there's a pretty weak relationship between fractional times and race/post calls?

For example, if the last running line was a 10 furlong route, with the following times and calls (note: the # in parenthesis represents length - not sure how to show a superscript):

:46 1:10 1:35 2:01 9(pp) 7 6(6) 5(4) 5(3) 2(1)

So, in this case, the horse broke 7th and finished 2nd, 1 length back. If the stretch call is always 1/8th of a mile from the finish, there's no way to determine that internal fraction, since there's no corresponding fractional time at the 9 furlong mark. Similarly, if the horse was 6th at the second call (2 furlong mark), there's no corresponding fraction.

Thoughts? I used to be under the impression that the fractions corresponded with the positions, but now understand that's incorrect. If so, why?

I am not sure what you are getting at, but the fractional timing of a race and the calling of a race is not the same.

Some race callers will add the time to their call and others will just call the name of the horse at the POC.

What should be understood is that the race caller is identifying a field of horses at the point of calls of a race while only one horse (unless there is a dead-heat) is establishing the fractional time of a race.

[cj]

So, if the 7 is at two furlongs given the route distance, what are the others? Do they correspond with the fractional times - i.e. 4F, 6F, 8F, and 10F?


These are the fractions given in the PPs:

http://www.equibase.com/newfan/fractional_times.cfm

These are the points of call (beaten lengths and position in the field):

http://www.equibase.com/newfan/pointsofcall.cfm

Basically, these two charts should answer all of your questions about how they line up.

[cj]

I am not sure what you are getting at, but the fractional timing of a race and the calling of a race is not the same.

Some race callers will add the time to their call and others will just call the name of the horse at the POC.

What should be understood is that the race caller is identifying a field of horses at the point of calls of a race while only one horse (unless there is a dead-heat) is establishing the fractional time of a race.

He was talking about the chart caller I believe, not the race caller.

[Cratos]

He was talking about the chart caller I believe, not the race caller.

Thanks for the clarification

[Matt Bryan]

These are the fractions given in the PPs:

http://www.equibase.com/newfan/fractional_times.cfm

These are the points of call (beaten lengths and position in the field):

http://www.equibase.com/newfan/pointsofcall.cfm

Basically, these two charts should answer all of your questions about how they line up.


YES...almost. Fractional times are obvious, so I'm not concerned about those....other than how they relate (if at all) to the points of call.

The latter chart is what I'm looking for, but I'm still confused. For 1-1/4 miles, the chart says points of call are taken at:
1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1m, stretch, and finish.

That's one more POC than I have listed, which is modeled after an old race from an Equibase product. I looked at the DRF PP explanation, at it was equally vague....only distinguishing that the first call (questioned earlier) is either after the break, or at the 2F, depending on distance - yet, doesn't clarify the distance. Why is clarity so difficult??

I am not sure what you are getting at, but the fractional timing of a race and the calling of a race is not the same.

Cratos, I want to be able to calculate internal fractions if necessary. You know, infer a final eight fraction (for example) or turn time. One can't do that if they don't know the relationship between the fractions and points of call. In the above Equibase chart, to determine a particular horses fractions (i.e a horse that's not on the lead), one needs to know where the points of call are taken from....and adjust for the lengths (1/5 or 1/6 of a second). Sure, I know that some of this information is available for purchase, but I want to know - or be able to calculate for myself, if necessary.

[Cratos]

YES...almost. Fractional times are obvious, so I'm not concerned about those....other than how they relate (if at all) to the points of call.

The latter chart is what I'm looking for, but I'm still confused. For 1-1/4 miles, the chart says points of call are taken at:
1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1m, stretch, and finish.

That's one more POC than I have listed, which is modeled after an old race from an Equibase product. I looked at the DRF PP explanation, at it was equally vague....only distinguishing that the first call (questioned earlier) is either after the break, or at the 2F, depending on distance - yet, doesn't clarify the distance. Why is clarity so difficult??




Cratos, I want to be able to calculate internal fractions if necessary. You know, infer a final eight fraction (for example) or turn time. One can't do that if they don't know the relationship between the fractions and points of call. In the above Equibase chart, to determine a particular horses fractions (i.e a horse that's not on the lead), one needs to know where the points of call are taken from....and adjust for the lengths (1/5 or 1/6 of a second). Sure, I know that some of this information is available for purchase, but I want to know - or be able to calculate for myself, if necessary.

The best data IMHO is Trakus and even with that data you will have to do some "massaging" to get to 1/8m time increments. However if you don’t want to use calculus, you can use a distance-time graph where speed corresponds to the slope and thus the instantaneous speed of an object (the horse) with non-constant speed can be found from the slope of a line tangent to its curve.

[cj]

YES...almost. Fractional times are obvious, so I'm not concerned about those....other than how they relate (if at all) to the points of call.

The latter chart is what I'm looking for, but I'm still confused. For 1-1/4 miles, the chart says points of call are taken at:
1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1m, stretch, and finish.

That's one more POC than I have listed, which is modeled after an old race from an Equibase product. I looked at the DRF PP explanation, at it was equally vague....only distinguishing that the first call (questioned earlier) is either after the break, or at the 2F, depending on distance - yet, doesn't clarify the distance. Why is clarity so difficult??



Cratos, I want to be able to calculate internal fractions if necessary. You know, infer a final eight fraction (for example) or turn time. One can't do that if they don't know the relationship between the fractions and points of call. In the above Equibase chart, to determine a particular horses fractions (i.e a horse that's not on the lead), one needs to know where the points of call are taken from....and adjust for the lengths (1/5 or 1/6 of a second). Sure, I know that some of this information is available for purchase, but I want to know - or be able to calculate for myself, if necessary.

Equibase provides the calls they list, it is up to the provider of PPs to give them all. I think generally you only get four, but to be honest I haven't seen any but TimeformUS in a while. Usually for 10F races the 6f call is omitted.

[RXB]

These are the fractions given in the PPs:

http://www.equibase.com/newfan/fractional_times.cfm

These are the points of call (beaten lengths and position in the field):

http://www.equibase.com/newfan/pointsofcall.cfm

Basically, these two charts should answer all of your questions about how they line up.

Those are what you see in the charts. If you're looking at past performances, these are what you actually see in terms of points of call and fractional times.

https://www1.drf.com/misc/pointsofcall.pdf

[Matt Bryan]

Those are what you see in the charts. If you're looking at past performances, these are what you actually see in terms of points of call and fractional times.

https://www1.drf.com/misc/pointsofcall.pdf

Hmm. That's totally what I want to know, RXB. I'll have to double-check with Equibase, to make sure it's the same. However....

....what it means if this chart is accurate, is that I can't determine the turn time, if the 6F time is omitted...according to what I've read. And, if the next to last POC is in fact at the stretch (1/8 left), then I'm left without a corresponding fraction at 9F, given that the fraction was taken at 8F.

In other words, if this is correct, it is in fact per my original post, meaning a weak relationship. Because, to me, it makes a difference whether a horse covers several lengths in 660 feet, or 1320 feet. It should make a difference to a handicapper, and information should be clear. This is absurd to me. Totally.

It seems like a game. Probably no coincidence that Harrah's, etc. have a stake in the tracks - keeping it gray and vague. Why is such a simple, extremely basic handicapping issue, so fuzzy!?

[raybo]

I believe these are Brisnet's fractional times and points of call, doesn't help does it - LOL?

[Matt Bryan]

Raybo,
Thanks. That matches what RXB posted from DRF, so it's good to know Brisnet is the same (as I've been tempted to switch forms) - and, I did need to know that I'm forced to extrapolate a final 1/8" fraction on a given horse at certain distances (10 furlongs in this case) - because the point of call is at the stretch, while the fractional time is 'conveniently' at the mile - and similarly, that there's a fractional time at 6 furlongs, while the point of call is at the mile.

Sooo....it just means I can't calculate accurate internal fractions of a specific horse at that distance, in those areas of the race. As Capper Al said earlier, in so many words, you have to sorta guess - because, for some reason, "they" don't want to record a stretch fraction, or give you a point of call at the 6F. As to why, one can only speculate.

Thanks again....to all.

[senortout]

Try capping without using time as such a final 'truth'

You'll do fine.

Ps check out those Australian pps, I just love em. That's gold in them thar hills!

[raybo]

Raybo,
Thanks. That matches what RXB posted from DRF, so it's good to know Brisnet is the same (as I've been tempted to switch forms) - and, I did need to know that I'm forced to extrapolate a final 1/8" fraction on a given horse at certain distances (10 furlongs in this case) - because the point of call is at the stretch, while the fractional time is 'conveniently' at the mile - and similarly, that there's a fractional time at 6 furlongs, while the point of call is at the mile.

Sooo....it just means I can't calculate accurate internal fractions of a specific horse at that distance, in those areas of the race. As Capper Al said earlier, in so many words, you have to sorta guess - because, for some reason, "they" don't want to record a stretch fraction, or give you a point of call at the 6F. As to why, one can only speculate.

Thanks again....to all.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "stretch call" is. It is definitely not the final 1/8th, except for certain distances, and it isn't from the far turn to the finish line. The distance from stretch call to finish varies with race distance, so there is no easy way to compare internals at different distances, thus the difficulty most of us have had, forever, in converting and comparing race performances at different distances. But then, races are many times run differently at different distances, so what good would it do anyway, in the long term?

[Appy]

" races are many times run differently at different distances, so what good would it do anyway, in the long term?"
More people got rich selling shovels and pans to the miners than did miners digging with them.
We use machines to handicap, handicap in a mechanical mindset ("be consistent" advisers say), and expect horses to run mechanically indifferent.
They don't.
Each horse reacts differently to each of the many differences presented by each race despite our best effort attempting to produce consistent result. If that were not the case there would be far fewer faulty memories bragging about successfully gleaning a lucrative living betting on horse races.

[cj]

I guess it depends on what your definition of "stretch call" is. It is definitely not the final 1/8th, except for certain distances, and it isn't from the far turn to the finish line. The distance from stretch call to finish varies with race distance, so there is no easy way to compare internals at different distances, thus the difficulty most of us have had, forever, in converting and comparing race performances at different distances. But then, races are many times run differently at different distances, so what good would it do anyway, in the long term?

The stretch call is always with one furlong to go. The problem is there isn't always a time associated with it. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't.

[cj]

One of the worst examples of how unfriendly this system can be to players is the 5.5f race, which are becoming more prevalent as time goes on. For the first race at Delaware on Saturday, this is what I see.

Charts calls come at these distances:

2F, 3F, 4.5F, 5.5F

Times are recorded at these distances:

2F, 4F, 5F, 5.5F

So of the four, only the first and last even match. There is no way to know the individual times of the horses at the 3F, 4F, 4.5F or 5F marks.

It is similar at 5F.

Chart Calls:

1.5F, 3F, 4F, 5F

Times:

2F, 4F, 5F

[Tom]

The good news is that even if they timed them at the right places, they would get the times wrong anyways.

This is ROCKET SCIENCE!

[Matt Bryan]

The good news is that even if they timed them at the right places, they would get the times wrong anyways.

This is ROCKET SCIENCE!


Haaa.

[Matt Bryan]

One of the worst examples of how unfriendly this system can be to players is the 5.5f race, which are becoming more prevalent as time goes on. For the first race at Delaware on Saturday, this is what I see.

Charts calls come at these distances:

2F, 3F, 4.5F, 5.5F

Times are recorded at these distances:

2F, 4F, 5F, 5.5F

So of the four, only the first and last even match. There is no way to know the individual times of the horses at the 3F, 4F, 4.5F or 5F marks.

It is similar at 5F.

Chart Calls:

1.5F, 3F, 4F, 5F

Times:

2F, 4F, 5F


Yeah, equally frustrating.

[raybo]

Yep, there are just some distances that you can't calculate certain segments of the race. Just calculate the segments where the distances for time and position/beaten lengths are the same, that's about as good as you can do.

I know there are some that say they have accurately converted fractional times at different distances so that all race distances can be accurately compared, but I have never seen concrete evidence of that. I have a client that has adamantly declared, several times, that he has done so, but no evidence has ever been presented to me, just words, and we know how accurate words can be.

[thaskalos]

Raybo,
Thanks. That matches what RXB posted from DRF, so it's good to know Brisnet is the same (as I've been tempted to switch forms) - and, I did need to know that I'm forced to extrapolate a final 1/8" fraction on a given horse at certain distances (10 furlongs in this case) - because the point of call is at the stretch, while the fractional time is 'conveniently' at the mile - and similarly, that there's a fractional time at 6 furlongs, while the point of call is at the mile.

Sooo....it just means I can't calculate accurate internal fractions of a specific horse at that distance, in those areas of the race. As Capper Al said earlier, in so many words, you have to sorta guess - because, for some reason, "they" don't want to record a stretch fraction, or give you a point of call at the 6F. As to why, one can only speculate.

Thanks again....to all.

It ain't that bad...

The lengths-behind calls separating these horses are guesses also...so it sorta evens out. :)

[Matt Bryan]

It ain't that bad...

The lengths-behind calls separating these horses are guesses also...so it sorta evens out. :)

Sort of like two wrongs making a right...gotcha. :)

[traynor]

If there were some clearcut, unambiguous, empirical data indicating that knowing each horses precise position at precise points of past races would actually enable one to pick more/better winners, this would be a far more interesting topic. In horse racing, excruciatingly accurate descriptions of "what happened last week" do not translate into a prescription for what will happen today. They ONLY describe what happened last week.

That ain't theory. I have been involved with more than one group that believed otherwise, and went to great trouble and expense to "get better numbers." If all one is doing (as a basis for decision making) is crunching numbers, don't agonize over trivia. Rough estimates (some considerably rougher than the data providers provide) work as well as--if not better than--"precise figures."

[thaskalos]

If there were some clearcut, unambiguous, empirical data indicating that knowing each horses precise position at precise points of past races would actually enable one to pick more/better winners, this would be a far more interesting topic. In horse racing, excruciatingly accurate descriptions of "what happened last week" do not translate into a prescription for what will happen today. They ONLY describe what happened last week.

That ain't theory. I have been involved with more than one group that believed otherwise, and went to great trouble and expense to "get better numbers." If all one is doing (as a basis for decision making) is crunching numbers, don't agonize over trivia. Rough estimates (some considerably rougher than the data providers provide) work as well as--if not better than--"precise figures."
Would "rough estimates" be tolerated in the timing of human track and field events?

Since the horses run much faster than men do...shouldn't they require an even more precise method of speed measurement?

[Matt Bryan]

If there were some clearcut, unambiguous, empirical data indicating that knowing each horses precise position at precise points of past races would actually enable one to pick more/better winners, this would be a far more interesting topic. In horse racing, excruciatingly accurate descriptions of "what happened last week" do not translate into a prescription for what will happen today. They ONLY describe what happened last week.

That ain't theory. I have been involved with more than one group that believed otherwise, and went to great trouble and expense to "get better numbers." If all one is doing (as a basis for decision making) is crunching numbers, don't agonize over trivia. Rough estimates (some considerably rougher than the data providers provide) work as well as--if not better than--"precise figures."

Well, I didn't know the calls and fractions weren't in sync at certain distances, so I consider it pretty insightful - even though admittedly it is a basic and boring question/topic. But, I surely wouldn't base a decision solely on a fraction from "last week", yet consider them tools for analyzing aspects of a race - along with everything else. In the end, all the figures are "last week".

Personally, I'd be interested to know if a horse ran a final fraction of :25, in :11 :14, or :14 :11, or :12.5 :12.5.....etc. I agree though, that one could get bogged down in a quest for precision....to little or no avail.

[Cratos]

Historically, the horseracing data delivery systems weren’t developed for handicapping as we know horseracing today. The historical method was for race timing, which is how fast a horse ran its race. Incorporated in that methodology was the innocuous “length measurement” which was never given a specific value, but accepted as a universal metric of distance.

With the analytical tools available today, the statisticians and other technical types who have affection for horseracing have moved the analysis far beyond its historical intent, but is having a difficult time in using many of these modern tools because the data suppliers are stuck in yesteryear.

Simply stated horseracing is bounded by 2 non-parametric variables, class and style; and 3 parametric variables in weight, distance, and time. Speed is not considered separate here because speed is a function of time and distance. Yes, there many other variables to consider in your handicapping, but the ones mentioned here are the primary ones.

Equibase and the DRF data give time only. Any speed metric which is calculated from the Equibase/DRF data is average speed.

In order to calculate the speed of a horse we must know how far it's gone and how long it took to get there. "Farther" and "sooner" correspond to "faster". Let's say a horse ran a 6 furlongs race. The distance by measurement is 3,960 feet. If the race took 70 seconds, what was the speed of the horse? Applying the formula below gives:

Speed = 3960 FT/70 Sec = 56.57 FT/Sec

This is the answer the equation gives us, but how right is it? Was 56.57 fps the speed of the horse? Yes, of course it was … Well, maybe, I guess … No; it couldn't have been the speed. Unless you live in a world where horses have some kind of exceptional innate cruise control and races are run in some ideal manner, the horse’s speed during this hypothetical race must certainly have varied. Thus, the number calculated above is not the speed of the horse; it's the average speed for the entire race.

This is the problem that the speed handicapper faces when using Equibase/DRF data; never being able to calculate the speed of the horse and even the above calculation is suspect because Equibase and DRF don’t give actual distance travelled by the horse during the race thus the speed is based on a prescribed distance massaged with the ambiguous beaten length metric.

[traynor]

Would "rough estimates" be tolerated in the timing of human track and field events?

Since the horses run much faster than men do...shouldn't they require an even more precise method of speed measurement?

I assume that both of the above are rhetorical questions. I don't bet on human track and field events, and there is no meaningful relationship between human track and field events and horse racing.

[thaskalos]

I assume that both of the above are rhetorical questions. I don't bet on human track and field events, and there is no meaningful relationship between human track and field events and horse racing.
They are rhetorical questions...meant to address an important point. We bet real money on these races...and we demand the most precise race-timing information possible.

I want micro-chips to be placed on the bridle of every horse, which would trigger sensors strategically placed at every point of call...so I could know PRECISELY how long it took for a horse to run the last two furlongs in a given race. That way I won't have to deal with the frustration which overcomes me when I read that a $10,000 claimer supposedly gained 8 lengths into a 24-second final fraction.

This is REAL money we are betting here...not monopoly money.

[traynor]

Well, I didn't know the calls and fractions weren't in sync at certain distances, so I consider it pretty insightful - even though admittedly it is a basic and boring question/topic. But, I surely wouldn't base a decision solely on a fraction from "last week", yet consider them tools for analyzing aspects of a race - along with everything else. In the end, all the figures are "last week".

Personally, I'd be interested to know if a horse ran a final fraction of :25, in :11 :14, or :14 :11, or :12.5 :12.5.....etc. I agree though, that one could get bogged down in a quest for precision....to little or no avail.

That seems to make sense, and most "pace" advocates would consider it so. The problem is that there is no real proof that indicates (in anything remotely approaching certainty) that one figure is inherently more predictive than another. (Lots of long-winded, boring examples deleted ... ).

I have spent a LOT of time with pace and speed analysis. They are--at best--rough guidelines that may be useful in predicting today's winner. Ideally, they should form no more than a component of race analysis--rather than an excuse to force a decision in a very uncertain situation, like "this horse is better because it is 57.42 fps whatever, while this other horse is only 57.32 fps whatever." Toss a little "track modeling" in and it provides hours of entertainment for those who would otherwise be doing crosswords, jigsaw puzzles, or watching re-runs of Gilligan's Island.

[traynor]

They are rhetorical questions...meant to address an important point. We bet real money on these races...and we demand the most precise race-timing information possible.

I want micro-chips to be placed on the bridle of every horse, which would trigger sensors strategically placed at every point of call...so I could know PRECISELY how long it took for a horse to run the last two furlongs in a given race. That way I won't have to deal with the frustration which overcomes me when I read that a $10,000 claimer supposedly gained 8 lengths into a 24-second final fraction.

This is REAL money we are betting here...not monopoly money.

Don't forget micro-chips on the feet so the efficiency of the stride can be calculated in realtime throughout the race, and used as a predictor of form improvement or decline.

[thaskalos]

Don't forget micro-chips on the feet so the efficiency of the stride can be calculated in realtime throughout the race, and used as a predictor of form improvement or decline.
There you go! :ThmbUp:

Are we in the 21st century...or are we not?

I say the horseplayer has suffered enough!

[Capper Al]

I want the micro-chips also, but why should racetracks care? They get our money with or without them.

[whodoyoulike]

Well, I didn't know the calls and fractions weren't in sync at certain distances, so I consider it pretty insightful - even though admittedly it is a basic and boring question/topic. But, I surely wouldn't base a decision solely on a fraction from "last week", yet consider them tools for analyzing aspects of a race - along with everything else. In the end, all the figures are "last week".

Personally, I'd be interested to know if a horse ran a final fraction of :25, in :11 :14, or :14 :11, or :12.5 :12.5.....etc. I agree though, that one could get bogged down in a quest for precision....to little or no avail.

I think what you're seeking may be impractical for published data. I haven't done this but, why don't you view race replays which are readily available and use a stop watch to determine whether the final fraction was :11 :14 or :14 :11. I recall being at the track and people were using stop watches to time whatever they thought were important

Let us know what you find out because I'm curious.

[Cratos]

There you go! :ThmbUp:

Are we in the 21st century...or are we not?

I say the horseplayer has suffered enough!

Drone technology is what I think you are asking for.

[thaskalos]

Drone technology is what I think you are asking for.
I am not sophisticated enough to know the name for it. I just want to be able to believe the past performances that I see.

[Capper Al]

If we could measure speed accurately, we might find that we are not any better off for picking winners. Even though speed does correlate to class, I believe horses run not against a clock but against each other. Combating, or the fight within, is the confounded variable within speed. This is something between horses which mankind can't directly measure.

[TrifectaMike]

If we could measure speed accurately, we might find that we are not any better off for picking winners. Even though speed does correlate to class, I believe horses run not against a clock but against each other. Combating, or the fight within, is the confounded variable within speed. This is something between horses which mankind can't directly measure.

It can be inferred.

Mike

[Matt Bryan]

I think what you're seeking may be impractical for published data. I haven't done this but, why don't you view race replays which are readily available and use a stop watch to determine whether the final fraction was :11 :14 or :14 :11. I recall being at the track and people were using stop watches to time whatever they thought were important

Let us know what you find out because I'm curious.

Sure, some people do their own clocking. Plus, there are private clockers out there with data for sale. I do like to watch races, and/or 'trip handicap', but except for Graded Stakes, you don't find much on TV or Youtube to clock. More or less, I cut my teeth on 6F races, where calls/fractions correspond...so, I incorrectly assumed other races were similar. Good idea though.

[Matt Bryan]

If we could measure speed accurately, we might find that we are not any better off for picking winners. Even though speed does correlate to class, I believe horses run not against a clock but against each other. Combating, or the fight within, is the confounded variable within speed. This is something between horses which mankind can't directly measure.

Agreed...and, that's a lot of what pace reflects (or tries to capture)....and, why pace can kill speed in a field of fast horses.

[raybo]

While pace and segmental times/velocities may not be enough to bet on by themselves, it certainly helps, regardless of what some here say, who seem to just want to shoot down everything that comes up, except their own stuff of course. Boring and rude!!

[Cratos]

Agreed...and, that's a lot of what pace reflects (or tries to capture)....and, why pace can kill speed in a field of fast horses.

Pace doesn't "kill" speed they are one of the same with pace being to speed what speed is to velocity; its magnitude.

[whodoyoulike]

Sure, some people do their own clocking. Plus, there are private clockers out there with data for sale. I do like to watch races, and/or 'trip handicap', but except for Graded Stakes, you don't find much on TV or Youtube to clock. More or less, I cut my teeth on 6F races, where calls/fractions correspond...so, I incorrectly assumed other races were similar. Good idea though.

I may be misunderstanding your statement. There are so many sources of video replays, look for a thread a little while ago (don't recall the title) which several people posted web links for video replays.

Maybe, someone will post the thread link for you.

[Matt Bryan]

Pace doesn't "kill" speed they are one of the same with pace being to speed what speed is to velocity; its magnitude.

But, there's often an inverse relationship - e.g. when higher pace results in lower speed...etc.

[Matt Bryan]

I may be misunderstanding your statement. There are so many sources of video replays, look for a thread a little while ago (don't recall the title) which several people posted web links for video replays.

Maybe, someone will post the thread link for you.

Yeah, let me know. I can't even get TVG where I live, which from what I hear may not be a bad thing.

[Tom]

I just noticed today that TVG in on TW Cable now.
It is a an extra pay channel ( what else?)
Channel 413 in this FL region.

[Cratos]

But, there's often an inverse relationship - e.g. when higher pace results in lower speed...etc.
No, that is just fatigue which caused a change in the slope of the curve . The curve is continuous there is not an inverse relationship.