Glad to see I'm not alone...

[cj]

...in taking up the abolish run up cause. From Pat Cummings:

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/time-change-why-north-america-must-stop-perpetually-mistiming-races

[parlay]

Good read. Its always interesting to see how things came to be, and difficult it is to make change happen.

[raybo]

Oh, you're not the only one, for sure. It has always seemed "odd" to me that race timing starts while horses are already above 0 mph (or in my case fps). Even more "odd" is the fact that the majority of racegoers don't even know that. :bang:

[thaskalos]

Where is this "figure-focused trend toward advanced analytics in racing"...that Cummings is talking about in his article? Have I missed it?

[raybo]

Where is this "figure-focused trend toward advanced analytics in racing"...that Cummings is talking about in his article? Have I missed it?

I assumed he was talking about the rampant usage of pace, speed, power figures, etc., rather than raw or adjusted time. It would be much easier, and much more accurate for anyone making figures, to accomplish that task.

[Jeff P]

You're not the only one CJ...

Worse, if you time from the gate to the wire - and then work backwards and look at official published times for each segment of the race - it isn't that hard to discover tracks that have been publishing run up distances that are nowhere close to accurate - and have been doing so for years.


-jp

.

[AndyC]

While recognizing the desire for more information and more accuracy in what is reported I feel that doing so just takes away another edge from a handicapper willing to do their homework.

[raybo]

While recognizing the desire for more information and more accuracy in what is reported I feel that doing so just takes away another edge from a handicapper willing to do their homework.

LOL - How many players actually have an edge? I think we could use a few more, for the health of the game. Those of us who actually have an edge won't be able to exploit it if racing goes away. We need more successes, or near successes, in order to keep the game afloat. Even with more accurate data, the big equalizer is in the betting, and that will escape most, with or without better data.

If you're not a whale, you probably will be better off in the end, as more of the whales will leave looking for a better edge somewhere else.

[classhandicapper]

It was a terrific article, but I agree that there will be some resistance.

A solution that includes the run up in the distance (6F and 30 yards, 6 furlongs 20 yards etc...) will be confusing to non figure makers that are unaware of this sort of thing to begin with. It will also take some time for figure makers (especially people that make their own or that sell pace figures) to update all their charts and formulas so they can publish figures that reflect the new realities.

[ronsmac]

I have to give ragozin credit he was addressing run up and wind for decades .

[raybo]

It was a terrific article, but I agree that it will be some resistance.

A solution that includes the run up in the distance (6F and 30 yards, 6 furlongs 20 yards etc...) will be confusing to non figure makers that are unaware of this sort of thing to begin with. It will also take some time for figure makers (especially people that make their own or that sell pace figures) to update all their charts and formulas so they can publish figures that reflect the new realities.

Yes, there will be resistance for sure. Unless Brisnet has recently added it, they don't even include it in their data files. Don't know if HDW does or not, it doesn't appear to be included in the JCapper/HDW data files anyway, which is what I have switched to after years of using Bris files.

[classhandicapper]

While recognizing the desire for more information and more accuracy in what is reported I feel that doing so just takes away another edge from a handicapper willing to do their homework.

One advantage of class handicapping is that occasional misleading fractions or finals times along these lines are a non factor if you are evaluating horses in a qualitative way. So while I think the way we time races now is crazy, part of me wishes there were even more things like this that we did wrong. ;)

[cj]

While recognizing the desire for more information and more accuracy in what is reported I feel that doing so just takes away another edge from a handicapper willing to do their homework.

No matter how much homework you do, you'll never have accurate information. It is possible to get the time of the run up, but it is time consuming. However, as Jeff mentions, even once you put that work in, it is impossible to tell the exact distance of the run up. The posted run up distances are unreliable to be kind, and trying to judge them off of video is not going to be accurate. Sure, if you are a one circuit pony and can go live every day, you can get an edge.

The easiest answer that I rarely see mentioned is this...just time the run up and give us the exact distance. Then you can leave all your useless track records in place and those that like missing information can ignore it and not have to adapt to anything new.

Trakus has the information already, they just don't divulge it. I personally see this as an edge they are given that other horseplayers don't have, and don't particularly find it fair. Tracks are giving them access to information nobody else can get.

[cj]

It was a terrific article, but I agree that there will be some resistance.

A solution that includes the run up in the distance (6F and 30 yards, 6 furlongs 20 yards etc...) will be confusing to non figure makers that are unaware of this sort of thing to begin with. It will also take some time for figure makers (especially people that make their own or that sell pace figures) to update all their charts and formulas so they can publish figures that reflect the new realities.

This is 2014...would probably take about 5 minutes.

[cj]

I have to give ragozin credit he was addressing run up and wind for decades .

Yes, but hand timing isn't very accurate, so it balances out in my opinion.

[classhandicapper]

This is 2014...would probably take about 5 minutes.

I'll take that bet. :lol:

[cj]

I'll take that bet. :lol:

At least in my case, you'd lose. I've already dabbled with it and know exactly how I'd handle it. I can't speak for others.

[BlueShoe]

This situation has long been a headache for those of us that calculate expected early pace, at different distances at the same track, or even worse, comparing two different tracks. An example of this is the often very swift first quarter time at CD in 6F races.

[Grits]

Trakus has the information already, they just don't divulge it. I personally see this as an edge they are given that other horseplayers don't have, and don't particularly find it fair. Tracks are giving them access to information nobody else can get.

Doesn't say much for Trakus' ethics. Or, for their desire to better the game for all interests as opposed to lining their pockets only. Its horseracing, nothing new.

The article? Began with the problem and its impact. Unfortunately, it got really bogged down with a 114 year history lesson on the timing of racing in America. Finally coming back to the present day problem. Less is more.

[cj]

Doesn't say much for Trakus' ethics. Or, for their desire to better the game for all interests as opposed to lining their pockets only. Its horseracing, nothing new.

The article? Began with the problem and its impact. Unfortunately, it got really bogged down with a 114 year history lesson on the timing of racing in America. Finally coming back to the present day problem. Less is more.

I really don't think the information is withheld by choice. I think it is part of the contract with the tracks. But it doesn't change the fact that some people have the information and others do not. I don't blame Trakus, it is up to the racetracks.

I always laugh when people get all up in arms about "split" variants. A run up can cause the time to change substantially even if the track doesn't change (http://timeformusblog.com/2013/12/17/run-up-and-its-effect-on-final-time/). The longer the run up, the more likely the time doesn't really reflect the ability of the runners that day.

[Stillriledup]

Isn't inaccurate timing better for the people who time the races themselves? Don't you want your competition to have bogus times?

[Grits]

Sorry, this one might have created the bigger stir. The one you linked is ... well, later, I guess.

http://timeformusblog.com/2013/08/27/pacific-classic-million-dollar-performance-worthless-timing/

[cj]

Isn't inaccurate timing better for the people who time the races themselves? Don't you want your competition to have bogus times?

Time the races themselves? How exactly are you going to do that and be accurate? Forget final time, which is hard enough, how are you going to record fractions?

[raybo]

Isn't inaccurate timing better for the people who time the races themselves? Don't you want your competition to have bogus times?

All the time related figures, velocities, etc., have to get their raw timings from somewhere, usually from one of the major data sources, which usually get them from Equibase. So, the raw times are used by everyone who uses pace, final, velocities (fractional/sectional and otherwise),performance figures, power figures, anything that uses time as the source, in whole or in part. Beyer, Brisnet, DRF, Equibase, HDW, TFUS, HSH, HTR, JCapper, Sartin Methodology, AllData, etc., use raw times as a starting point, that and distance traveled, among other things.

[ronsmac]

Yes, but hand timing isn't very accurate, so it balances out in my opinion.Good point. Though 1mile races at Santa Anita or 1 1/16 races at Pimlico back in the day had insane runups.

[AndyC]

......The longer the run up, the more likely the time doesn't really reflect the ability of the runners that day.

Aren't we only really talking about the first fraction? And on the turf it is really inconsequential.

[raybo]

Aren't we only really talking about the first fraction? And on the turf it is really inconsequential.

If you add 60 feet to the 1st fraction, you're also adding 60 feet to the race distance, so final speed figures and total velocities would also be affected. And if you're using pace from start to the 2nd call, those would also be affected, because they include the 1st fraction, which would be larger than the raw distances and times. No matter how you look at it, the inclusion of run-up would affect a lot of things other than just the 1st fraction distance and time.

[MJC922]

Time the races themselves? How exactly are you going to do that and be accurate? Forget final time, which is hard enough, how are you going to record fractions?

Back in the old days when doing my own speed figures I was using a VCR for time verification. From the gate to the wire at most tracks could be made pretty accurate by counting frames which as I recall were a specific number per second. Had an email exchange once with someone I don't recall if it was someone at TG or someone on Rags staff, it seemed to me like they were doing the same thing as I was. Let's put it this way I didn't get the impression anyone was using a stopwatch for that in the 90's. Fractional times are another story, there's no good way with the VCR except for maybe the first quarter in sprints, we're looking at the poles from an angle. I always suspected one of the reasons they hesitated to offer a pace fig was for that reason, that and the wind hitting segments at various angles. It's tremendously tough to get to the truth of the matter when it comes to pace.

[JohnGalt1]

While I wish thoroughbred races were timed from the gate like quarter horses, I don't think it's that big a deal.

Excuse all the ifs in the following examples.

If track A has a long run up and the average race is 45.0 and 1:10.0, and if track B has a short run up and the average race is 45.4 and 1:10.4, wouldn't the track to track comparisons in par books reflect the actual times?

So if a horse ran at the A track went to the B track we would adjust the times 4 ticks slower per call and vice versa if a horse from the B track went to the A track.

And I don't know the run up times at the tracks I play, including my home track, but I know that when a horse from Turf Paradise comes to Canterbury in the Spring I add 2 full seconds to TuP sprint times and deduct 12 ticks from sprint races run at Fonner.

The run up times are factored in the track to track pars which is good enough fro me.

[MJC922]

While I wish thoroughbred races were timed from the gate like quarter horses, I don't think it's that big a deal.

Excuse all the ifs in the following examples.

If track A has a long run up and the average race is 45.0 and 1:10.0, and if track B has a short run up and the average race is 45.4 and 1:10.4, wouldn't the track to track comparisons in par books reflect the actual times?

So if a horse ran at the A track went to the B track we would adjust the times 4 ticks slower per call and vice versa if a horse from the B track went to the A track.

And I don't know the run up times at the tracks I play, including my home track, but I know that when a horse from Turf Paradise comes to Canterbury in the Spring I add 2 full seconds to TuP sprint times and deduct 12 ticks from sprint races run at Fonner.

The run up times are factored in the track to track pars which is good enough fro me.

Yeah, run-ups weren't a deal-breaker for me either, there's some gate variability i.e some numbers of feet plus or minus when the guy backs the thing into place but I never saw it as a huge issue. Now if it's wildly inconsistent at the same track and distance then it's a huge problem but I can't say I ever saw that much at my home track or NYRA. It's of course better to have no run up or a constant number of feet run up be mandated but again not a deal-breaker. The bigger issue IMO are the times being published with a significant number of errors. When a cheap horse goes a final 16th in 5 seconds and you data process that on face value correctly, the cheap horse has a number as good as Wise Dan. That creates a problem because I don't ask people to subscribe to my product If wouldn't even wipe my own a** with it. So until they clean up the errors time gets the big middle finger award from me.

[AndyC]

If you add 60 feet to the 1st fraction, you're also adding 60 feet to the race distance, so final speed figures and total velocities would also be affected. And if you're using pace from start to the 2nd call, those would also be affected, because they include the 1st fraction, which would be larger than the raw distances and times. No matter how you look at it, the inclusion of run-up would affect a lot of things other than just the 1st fraction distance and time.


Then I misunderstood run-up. I have always thought that it was the distance run before the timer starts. So some horses would almost be to full speed when the timer started on long run-ups accounting for a very fast first fraction and vice versa. seeBeyer on run-ups (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/horse-racings-runaway-run-ups-are-moving-the-starting-line/2014/03/10/03f84fe8-a87a-11e3-8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html)

[raybo]

Then I misunderstood run-up. I have always thought that it was the distance run before the timer starts. So some horses would almost be to full speed when the timer started on long run-ups accounting for a very fast first fraction and vice versa. seeBeyer on run-ups (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/horse-racings-runaway-run-ups-are-moving-the-starting-line/2014/03/10/03f84fe8-a87a-11e3-8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html)

If you start the timer when the gate opens, you will add distance, and time, to the first call, the 2nd call, the stretch call, and the final call. And, if you change the run-up distance for the same race distance on the same card, then you have even more problems comparing past performances from the same track at the same distances, even on that same card. Variants could be misinterpreted from race 1 through the last race on the card, due to changing run-up distances for the same race distances. It's tough enough to figure variants already, that would just add another dimension to it, which would further affect pace and speed figures, and all the rest.

The run-up, for each race, should at least be published so that the data providers can provide that to its customers. As it is, only Trakus has that info, and as was said, they don't even display it to the public.

[AndyC]

If you start the timer when the gate opens, you will add distance, and time, to the first call, the 2nd call, the stretch call, and the final call. And, if you change the run-up distance for the same race distance on the same card, then you have even more problems comparing past performances from the same track at the same distances, even on that same card. Variants could be misinterpreted from race 1 through the last race on the card, due to changing run-up distances for the same race distances. It's tough enough to figure variants already, that would just add another dimension to it, which would further affect pace and speed figures, and all the rest.

The run-up, for each race, should at least be published so that the data providers can provide that to its customers. As it is, only Trakus has that info, and as was said, they don't even display it to the public.


I don't think the timer starts until the first horse trips the timer. It doesn't start when the gate opens.

[raybo]

I don't think the timer starts until the first horse trips the timer. It doesn't start when the gate opens.

That's beside the point, if the timer starts earlier than it does now, or the run-up to the point at which the timer is set is different, from race to race, that will still affect all of the distances and times. As far as I know, no track starts the timer at or directly in front of the gate, or consistently keeps the same run-up distance to the start of the timer. In short, we don't know what the actual distance, or time, that is being run, from the start of the timer to any of the points of call. How then can we compare performances between horses, and races, even at the same track, accurately, if the distances and times are not even accurate and consistent?

[Tom]

It is amazing how much this industry is not able to do.
High school swim meets have better technology! :lol:

[AndyC]

That's beside the point, if the timer starts earlier than it does now, or the run-up to the point at which the timer is set is different, from race to race, that will still affect all of the distances and times. As far as I know, no track starts the timer at or directly in front of the gate, or consistently keeps the same run-up distance to the start of the timer. In short, we don't know what the actual distance, or time, that is being run, from the start of the timer to any of the points of call. How then can we compare performances between horses, and races, even at the same track, accurately, if the distances and times are not even accurate and consistent?

The timed distances are the same. And most tracks keep the run-up distance the same or nearly the same for each race run at a certain distance. So for each track you are comparing apples-to-apples. The problem with this method of timing is when a horse catches a flyer and trips the timer way ahead of the rest of the field and then ceases to be a factor in the race.

[raybo]

The timed distances are the same. And most tracks keep the run-up distance the same or nearly the same for each race run at a certain distance. So for each track you are comparing apples-to-apples. The problem with this method of timing is when a horse catches a flyer and trips the timer way ahead of the rest of the field and then ceases to be a factor in the race.

Ok, maybe you'll believe CJ if not me.

[Cratos]

Then I misunderstood run-up. I have always thought that it was the distance run before the timer starts. So some horses would almost be to full speed when the timer started on long run-ups accounting for a very fast first fraction and vice versa. seeBeyer on run-ups (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/horse-racings-runaway-run-ups-are-moving-the-starting-line/2014/03/10/03f84fe8-a87a-11e3-8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html)
No, you haven't misunderstood; you are correct with your understanding, but what you trying to address is hyperbole that is exponentially being disseminated within this thread.

There are two good papers that can be downloaded from the Internet which are "Run-ups" by HTR and "Racetrack Surfaces" by Dr. Michael Peterson and company.

Until the physics are explained, you are just getting personal opinions whiich are woven together with true and false assumptions.

[thaskalos]

It is amazing how much this industry is not able to do.
High school swim meets have better technology! :lol:

It seems that the only thing this "industry" is proficient in doing is collect the takeout.

[Tom]

That and drugging horses.

[Cratos]

It is amazing how much this industry is not able to do.
High school swim meets have better technology! :lol:
I agree with you and I believe this industry is for breeders and owners with bettors paying the bills with the authorizing states getting a cut.

What is left for the bettors?

[Jeff P]

Yes, there will be resistance for sure. Unless Brisnet has recently added it, they don't even include it in their data files. Don't know if HDW does or not, it doesn't appear to be included in the JCapper/HDW data files anyway, which is what I have switched to after years of using Bris files.

I'll double check with Equibase to confirm - but the way I recall it being explained to me is that run up distance isn't disseminated as pre-race past performance data. However, it is disseminated as part of chart results data after the races have been run.

That said, runup distance (in feet) for each of the past 10 running lines should be in data fields #1016-1025 of the .JCP file.

Also, runup distance (in feet) for each race should also be in data field #35 of the F.txt chart results file.



-jp

.

[classhandicapper]

I find it curious how horse players (myself being among them at times) seem so willing or even anxious to increase or improve the accuracy of information available to the general public when there are workarounds that can give some players an edge if they used that information privately.

Then in the very next thread everyone is complaining about how hard is to get an edge these days because so much good information is available to everyone.

[acorn54]

I find it curious how horse players (myself being among them at times) seem so willing or even anxious to increase or improve the accuracy of information available to the general public when there are workarounds that can give some players an edge if they used that information privately.

Then in the very next thread everyone is complaining about how hard is to get an edge these days because so much good information is available to everyone.


increased information for horseplayers disseminated by such public venues as bris,equibase,drf, et al, is simply a marketing ploy. these companies claim to give an "edge", but if this information is available to every tom, dick, and harry willing to pay for it, it is not an "edge".

[classhandicapper]

increased information for horseplayers disseminated by such public venues as bris,equibase,drf, et al, is simply a marketing ploy. these companies claim to give an "edge", but if this information is available to every tom, dick, and harry willing to pay for it, it is not an "edge".

I am talking about information that is not public or that is generally misunderstood.

If you have good run up information, make accurate adjustments to your fractional and final time figures at your home track, etc... you might have an edge over someone that either doesn't have that information, doesn't know how to use it, or has a workload that doesn't allow for such detailed analysis because they cover too many tracks.

If we change all this, we'll be giving everyone better information. That's good for the industry in some ways, but it's bad for the guy that currently has better figures.

It's bad for a guy like me that knows that there are a lot of bad figures floating around out there that take a lot of money. I look for edges using a more qualitative approach that doesn't rely on times and all things that impact time that are difficult to quantify. As a gambler, I want there to be more bad figures for me to bet against. ;)

[acorn54]

I am talking about information that is not public or that is generally misunderstood.

If you have good run up information, make accurate adjustments to your fractional and final time figures at your home track, etc... you might have an edge over someone that either doesn't have that information, doesn't know how to use it, or has a workload that doesn't allow for such detailed analysis because they cover too many tracks.

If we change all this, we'll be giving everyone better information. That's good for the industry in some ways, but it's bad for the guy that currently has better figures.

It's bad for a guy like me that knows that there are a lot of bad figures floating around out there that take a lot of money. I look for edges using a more qualitative approach that doesn't rely on times and all things that impact time that are difficult to quantify. As a gambler, I want there to be more bad figures for me to bet against. ;)

well you seem to be a creative and intelligent person and would not surprise me if you show a positive roi
most handicappers i think, i may be very wrong, feel that these "sophisticated" forms of information sold by the data companies will put them on the road to profits.

[cj]

Aren't we only really talking about the first fraction? And on the turf it is really inconsequential.

No, not really, because that carries over to every other fraction and the final time. There are times it doesn't matter much on turf, but I would hardly call it inconsequential. There are plenty of turf races with a fast pace. There are also tracks that change the run up for the same distance, both on the same day and on different days.

[cj]

Back in the old days when doing my own speed figures I was using a VCR for time verification. From the gate to the wire at most tracks could be made pretty accurate by counting frames which as I recall were a specific number per second. Had an email exchange once with someone I don't recall if it was someone at TG or someone on Rags staff, it seemed to me like they were doing the same thing as I was. Let's put it this way I didn't get the impression anyone was using a stopwatch for that in the 90's. Fractional times are another story, there's no good way with the VCR except for maybe the first quarter in sprints, we're looking at the poles from an angle. I always suspected one of the reasons they hesitated to offer a pace fig was for that reason, that and the wind hitting segments at various angles. It's tremendously tough to get to the truth of the matter when it comes to pace.

There is no doubt you can time from the gate from video and be fairly precise, within about .05 I'd say from experience. But, you don't really know how long the run up is, so you don't really know how long the race is.

As for Sheets/Rags, they always advertised they had someone on track hand timing. It was a lot tougher to get races from a lot of tracks on video back then.

[cj]

While I wish thoroughbred races were timed from the gate like quarter horses, I don't think it's that big a deal.

Excuse all the ifs in the following examples.

If track A has a long run up and the average race is 45.0 and 1:10.0, and if track B has a short run up and the average race is 45.4 and 1:10.4, wouldn't the track to track comparisons in par books reflect the actual times?

So if a horse ran at the A track went to the B track we would adjust the times 4 ticks slower per call and vice versa if a horse from the B track went to the A track.

And I don't know the run up times at the tracks I play, including my home track, but I know that when a horse from Turf Paradise comes to Canterbury in the Spring I add 2 full seconds to TuP sprint times and deduct 12 ticks from sprint races run at Fonner.

The run up times are factored in the track to track pars which is good enough fro me.

You should read the article I wrote and cited here. Run up can change the final time from race to race. I don't want to rehash it, but if a no hope speedster opens up early and trips the beam before dropping to last and being eased, that horse alone could alter the final time at least a few fifths, maybe more depending on how far the run up is. So, for example, if that horse is in a race he might cause the final time of a 6f race at CD to be 1:11. If all the other horses run exactly the same but that horse isn't in the race, the final time might be 1:10 2/5. 3/5ths is huge amount of time in racing.

[cj]

Then I misunderstood run-up. I have always thought that it was the distance run before the timer starts. So some horses would almost be to full speed when the timer started on long run-ups accounting for a very fast first fraction and vice versa. seeBeyer on run-ups (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/horse-racings-runaway-run-ups-are-moving-the-starting-line/2014/03/10/03f84fe8-a87a-11e3-8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html)

Yes, you have the definition of run up correct. Put another way, it is the un-timed segment of a race. There were races run at Gulfstream Park this year that were listed and timed at 7.5F that were actually over a mile in distance.

[AndyC]

No, not really, because that carries over to every other fraction and the final time. There are times it doesn't matter much on turf, but I would hardly call it inconsequential. There are plenty of turf races with a fast pace. There are also tracks that change the run up for the same distance, both on the same day and on different days.

I can see a big problem with differing run-ups for the same distance at the same track but is that really happening? If so, how much? 10ft, 20ft?

Being that turf races are won in an accelerating manner versus decelerating for dirt I certainly don't think run-up issues are nearly as important for the turf.

[cj]

The timed distances are the same. And most tracks keep the run-up distance the same or nearly the same for each race run at a certain distance. So for each track you are comparing apples-to-apples. The problem with this method of timing is when a horse catches a flyer and trips the timer way ahead of the rest of the field and then ceases to be a factor in the race.


It actually doesn't even matter if the horse is a factor in the race, just whether he wins or not.

Tracks aren't as consistent as you think with run ups. Any database can show that, even on the bigger circuits. That is if you believe published run up distances, which is another issue in and of itself. They are unreliable.

The whole system is silly and in all honesty I can't believe people think it is ok.

[cj]

I can see a big problem with differing run-ups for the same distance at the same track but is that really happening? If so, how much? 10ft, 20ft?

Being that turf races are won in an accelerating manner versus decelerating for dirt I certainly don't think run-up issues are nearly as important for the turf.

Some tracks change not only day to day, but on the same day, often by much more than 20 feet.

You are painting turf races with too broad a brush. I agree they aren't as important, but as I said, many are run with a fast pace and they are particularly prone to horses that run off early and then don't win. You see it much more often on turf than on dirt. Knowing these races look slower than they actually were is an edge for sure.

[AndyC]

You should read the article I wrote and cited here. Run up can change the final time from race to race. I don't want to rehash it, but if a no hope speedster opens up early and trips the beam before dropping to last and being eased, that horse alone could alter the final time at least a few fifths, maybe more depending on how far the run up is. So, for example, if that horse is in a race he might cause the final time of a 6f race at CD to be 1:11. If all the other horses run exactly the same but that horse isn't in the race, the final time might be 1:10 2/5. 3/5ths is huge amount of time in racing.

Totally agree with how a horse who catches a flyer can alter the timing. Always a good idea to keep notes of horses who trip the timer quickly out of the gate but doesn't lead at the first call.

[cj]

Totally agree with how a horse who catches a flyer can alter the timing. Always a good idea to keep notes of horses who trip the timer quickly out of the gate but doesn't lead at the first call.

Even if said horse leads at the first call the final time will still be affected if he doesn't win.

[JohnGalt1]

You should read the article I wrote and cited here. Run up can change the final time from race to race. I don't want to rehash it, but if a no hope speedster opens up early and trips the beam before dropping to last and being eased, that horse alone could alter the final time at least a few fifths, maybe more depending on how far the run up is. So, for example, if that horse is in a race he might cause the final time of a 6f race at CD to be 1:11. If all the other horses run exactly the same but that horse isn't in the race, the final time might be 1:10 2/5. 3/5ths is huge amount of time in racing.


Since this is a response to my comments--I do agree with you that how a specific race is run DOES change the final times of a race. And that would happen with or with out run up distances.

Almost nothing ticks me off more than a horse I bet who battles with an extreme longshot pop-and-stopper along the backstretch, and watch a closer win in a time one second or more slower than the projected time of what my horse would've finished with out the battle.

[MJC922]

There is no doubt you can time from the gate from video and be fairly precise, within about .05 I'd say from experience. But, you don't really know how long the run up is, so you don't really know how long the race is.

As for Sheets/Rags, they always advertised they had someone on track hand timing. It was a lot tougher to get races from a lot of tracks on video back then.

I've always assumed they parked looking at rail supports relative to the timing beam. These things are clearly visible and for the driver not to get within a full 10 feet I would think is extremely rare (time for a breathalyzer). Sitting outside in the FL upper club for ten years looking at 2-turn flat mile races right in front of my face with that gate up near the finish line, man if that thing was ever 20 feet off everyone would have seen it. Maybe I'm misjudging the impact here, maybe 6 or 7 feet of lets call it variability vs the average run up at a specific track and distance makes a big difference in the times. My guess is no but I don't have any data.

For sheets, my understanding was they didn't have anybody at FL during those years (or that year at least) doing timing / ground, maybe I misunderstood but I was offered the job and gracefully declined. I'm sure they made numbers for FL but without the best possible inputs. The major league tracks yes I'm sure they always had a person on site. What people are really paying for there in large part is the data integrity coming from the staff. Video replays in the 80's and 90's were not hard to come by televised, and if you were willing to pay for the tapes I find it hard to believe there were many they were missing.. I'm sure they had a budget for things they felt they needed. Timing off the VCR is hand timing no? It's manual. Before the VCR of course it was a stopwatch, I doubt they felt the need to change their claim though.

[cj]

I've always assumed they parked looking at rail supports relative to the timing beam. These things are clearly visible and for the driver not to get within a full 10 feet I would think is extremely rare (time for a breathalyzer). Sitting outside in the FL upper club for ten years looking at 2-turn flat mile races right in front of my face with that gate up near the finish line, man if that thing was ever 20 feet off everyone would have seen it. Maybe I'm misjudging the impact here, maybe 6 or 7 feet of lets call it variability vs the average run up at a specific track and distance makes a big difference in the times. My guess is no but I don't have any data.

For sheets, my understanding was they didn't have anybody at FL during those years (or that year at least) doing timing / ground, maybe I misunderstood but I was offered the job and gracefully declined. I'm sure they made numbers for FL but without the best possible inputs. The major league tracks yes I'm sure they always had a person on site. What people are really paying for there in large part is the data integrity coming from the staff. Video replays in the 80's and 90's were not hard to come by televised, and if you were willing to pay for the tapes I find it hard to believe there were many they were missing.. I'm sure they had a budget for things they felt they needed. Timing off the VCR is hand timing no? It's manual. Before the VCR of course it was a stopwatch, I doubt they felt the need to change their claim though.

With software today it is pretty easy to time off of video replays online. I doubt it was as easy then as it is now with a VCR, but I don't know, before my time. I know that hand timing is inaccurate no matter how good somebody thinks they are at it. A human just isn't good enough to judge the start and finish and react quickly enough consistently.

[Nitro]

Glad to see I'm not alone...
...in taking up the abolish run up cause. From Pat Cummings:

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/time-change-why-north-america-must-stop-perpetually-mistiming-races
I may not be alone either, but in any case I’m glad I have the ability to recognize more subjective mumbo-jumbo when I see it. Looks to me like that those who might support this sort of thing are not really looking for an edge. They’re looking for another band-aid in an attempt to resolve the many discrepancies found between the numbers and actual results. They make it sound like there are dark secrets about this game that can only be solved mathematically. Of course, everyone loves a good mystery, especially if their trying to figure out why they’re losing.
But common sense says otherwise. You can’t use an exact science to figure out an ever changing dynamic game that introduces more fluctuating variables and unknowns to compute a worthwhile and consistent outcome. So, of course the next step and fallback position is to develop an array of statistical analyses to derive some sort of pattern which might produce some fleeting value.
Professionals who use numbers as a tool understand their immediate limitations and compensate with the realities of the game. It’s a game where numbers may show a degree of capability, but rarely expose significantly valued probabilities.

[cj]

I may not be alone either, but in any case I’m glad I have the ability to recognize more subjective mumbo-jumbo when I see it. Looks to me like that those who might support this sort of thing are not really looking for an edge. They’re looking for another band-aid in an attempt to resolve the many discrepancies found between the numbers and actual results. They make it sound like there are dark secrets about this game that can only be solved mathematically. Of course, everyone loves a good mystery, especially if their trying to figure out why they’re losing.
But common sense says otherwise. You can’t use an exact science to figure out an ever changing dynamic game that introduces more fluctuating variables and unknowns to compute a worthwhile and consistent outcome. So, of course the next step and fallback position is to develop an array of statistical analyses to derive some sort of pattern which might produce some fleeting value.
Professionals who use numbers as a tool understand their immediate limitations and compensate with the realities of the game. It’s a game where numbers may show a degree of capability, but rarely expose significantly valued probabilities.

Hogwash. We just want races times properly. Nowhere has anyone blamed the system in place for losing.

[barn32]

I really don't see the big deal.

If they start incorporating run-up distances and times in the fractional analysis, all you have to do is move back the quarter, half and finish line poles a commensurate distance at each and every track and you'll end up right where you started.

[ultracapper]

Where is this "figure-focused trend toward advanced analytics in racing"...that Cummings is talking about in his article? Have I missed it?

It's been going on for 40 years and is almost all that's left. If you ain't crunching numbers, you ain't got much to say in this game anymore.

[ronsmac]

I really don't see the big deal.

If they start incorporating run-up distances and times in the fractional analysis, all you have to do is move back the quarter, half and finish line poles a commensurate distance at each and every track and you'll end up right where you started.Yes, but the times will be more accurate.

[Cratos]

Yes, but the times will be more accurate.
No they will not; this entire discussion has been as if a horse race was run in a straight line and it is not.

Take some time and research track geometry as it relates to the outcome of a race with respect to the time of the race and you will find the two most salient factors to be: (a) the distance the start of the race is from the turn and (b) the turn radius.

The aggregate race curve of all races run in North America is downward sloping which can be easily proven by using calculus or constructing a 3D curve.

But the nay Sayers willl stick with their rhetoric because they think they have an edge.

[cj]

No they will not; this entire discussion has been as if a horse race was run in a straight line and it is not.

Take some time and research track geometry as it relates to the outcome of a race with respect to the time of the race and you will find the two most salient factors to be: (a) the distance the start of the race is from the turn and (b) the turn radius.

The aggregate race curve of all races run in North America is downward sloping which can be easily proven by using calculus or constructing a 3D curve.

But the nay Sayers willl stick with their rhetoric because they think they have an edge.

This has nothing to do with timing races correctly from start to finish. Start a new thread if you want to talk about this stuff. It was ignored the first time for a reason.

[cj]

Yes, but the times will be more accurate.

Right, and you don't have to move poles or any of that stuff. We'll know the distance of the first fraction with run up, all others will remain the same.

[Nitro]

Hogwash. We just want races times properly. Nowhere has anyone blamed the system in place for losing.
"Hogwash" . Funny! That’s exactly the sentiment I felt after reading that article.
Aside from creating more controversy in the world of handicapping by numbers (not to be confused with painting by numbers), the author seems to insinuate that the numbers created over the last 50 years or more are bogus. Obviously because he believes that there are inherent time measuring inaccuracies. He seems very enthusiastic as demonstrated by his concluding statement:
“The future of analytics and global integration in horse racing will be bigger and bolder, and that should excite handicappers. The longer we wait to make these adjustments, the less accurate the sport remains.” If anyone believes that this minor adjustment is actually going to inflate their bankroll, then who am I to dissuade the number crunching.

On the other hand, this enlightening disclosure becomes a convenient excuse for those in the red who have relied on this type of information for betting purposes for decades.
“Nowhere has anyone blamed the system in place for losing.”
Then why in the world would anyone balk over the existing timing arrangements, or for that matter want to change it??

One might also wonder what would motivate the director of racing information at Trackus to author such an article. It is as pure and simple as, “We just want races times properly.”?
Or does Trackus have an interest in providing these timing devices for sale at every race track in the country?

[raybo]

I'll double check with Equibase to confirm - but the way I recall it being explained to me is that run up distance isn't disseminated as pre-race past performance data. However, it is disseminated as part of chart results data after the races have been run.

That said, runup distance (in feet) for each of the past 10 running lines should be in data fields #1016-1025 of the .JCP file.

Also, runup distance (in feet) for each race should also be in data field #35 of the F.txt chart results file.



-jp

.

Thanks Jeff! I'll check those fields out.

Ray

[Tom]

Unbelievable - they fail to time a portion of the race, to the extent that some races are totally the wrong distance, and people bitch about wanting to correct it.

[cj]

Unbelievable - they fail to time a portion of the race, to the extent that some races are totally the wrong distance, and people bitch about wanting to correct it.

Only in horse racing is ineptness is not only tolerated, but championed.

[thaskalos]

It's been going on for 40 years and is almost all that's left. If you ain't crunching numbers, you ain't got much to say in this game anymore.
The article says that there is "a figured-focused trend toward ADVANCED ANALYTICS in racing"...and I ask: Where is it?

I see the same numbers getting crunched for the last 30 years. Trakus is tooting its own horn for no reason...IMO. Their "analytics", the way they've been marketed so far...haven't even made a RIPPLE in this game.

And we had such high hopes...

[cj]

"Hogwash" . Funny! That’s exactly the sentiment I felt after reading that article.
Aside from creating more controversy in the world of handicapping by numbers (not to be confused with painting by numbers), the author seems to insinuate that the numbers created over the last 50 years or more are bogus. Obviously because he believes that there are inherent time measuring inaccuracies. He seems very enthusiastic as demonstrated by his concluding statement:
“The future of analytics and global integration in horse racing will be bigger and bolder, and that should excite handicappers. The longer we wait to make these adjustments, the less accurate the sport remains.” If anyone believes that this minor adjustment is actually going to inflate their bankroll, then who am I to dissuade the number crunching.

On the other hand, this enlightening disclosure becomes a convenient excuse for those in the red who have relied on this type of information for betting purposes for decades.
“Nowhere has anyone blamed the system in place for losing.”
Then why in the world would anyone balk over the existing timing arrangements, or for that matter want to change it??

One might also wonder what would motivate the director of racing information at Trackus to author such an article. It is as pure and simple as, “We just want races times properly.”?
Or does Trackus have an interest in providing these timing devices for sale at every race track in the country?

You learn by studying accurate data, simple enough? I have no stake in Trakus. I don't care who times the races, just so it is done properly. Of course Pat Cummings is involved with Trakus, but what does it matter if he is right?

[cj]

The article says that there is "a figured-focused trend toward ADVANCED ANALYTICS in racing"...and I ask: Where is it?

I see the same numbers getting crunched for the last 30 years. Trakus is tooting its own horn for no reason...IMO. Their "analytics", the way they've been marketed so far...haven't even made a RIPPLE in this game.

And we had such high hopes...

The people doing sophisticated numerical analysis aren't really going to publish it on PA. I have many ratings that I use and I'll never share how I do so. Most of what I do would be considered advanced analytics, though I'm sure there are people far more advanced than I am.

[thaskalos]

The people doing sophisticated numerical analysis aren't really going to publish it on PA. I have many ratings that I use and I'll never share how I do so. Most of what I do would be considered advanced analytics, though I'm sure there are people far more advanced than I am.
Yes, Cj...but it's not a "trend" unless it's noticeable. If it remains hidden...then it's not a trend; it's a curiosity.

[cj]

Yes, Cj...but it's not a "trend" unless it's noticeable. If it remains hidden...then it's not a trend; it's a curiosity.

That is true, but in a game that is about having an edge, it is pretty clear to me a lot of horses are being bet on things that are not "traditional" handicapping, and being bet hard.

[thaskalos]

That is true, but in a game that is about having an edge, it is pretty clear to me a lot of horses are being bet on things that are not "traditional" handicapping, and being bet hard.

I agree...but I am not sure that this "hard betting" can be attributed to "figures". Many of these horses seem to be bet hard IN SPITE of their figures.

[cj]

I agree...but I am not sure that this "hard betting" can be attributed to "figures". Many of these horses seem to be bet hard IN SPITE of their figures.

I wasn't implying figures are advanced analytics. They can be, but people can be analyzed too.

[thaskalos]

I wasn't implying figures are advanced analytics. They can be, but people can be analyzed too.

I don't disagree with you, Cj. In fact...I find myself in agreement with practically everything that you post at this site. What I disagree with is the assumption that Cummings makes in his article, when he writes that there is a "figured-focused" trend toward advanced analytics in racing. The serious horseplayer has been waiting for such a trend since 1993, when Beyer hinted about it in his book Beyer On Speed...but this trend hasn't yet arrived.

Was Trakus what Beyer was describing as the "hi-tech" approach to the game, which was sure to take this game by storm? If it was...we waited for it for 21 years, and it's still a huge disappointment.

[cj]

I don't disagree with you, Cj. In fact...I find myself in agreement with practically everything that you post at this site. What I disagree with is the assumption that Cummings makes in his article, when he writes that there is a "figured-focused" trend toward advanced analytics in racing. The serious horseplayer has been waiting for such a trend since 1993, when Beyer hinted about it in his book Beyer On Speed...but this trend hasn't yet arrived.

Was Trakus what Beyer was describing as the "hi-tech" approach to the game, which was sure to take this game by storm? If it was...we waited for it for 21 years, and it's still a huge disappointment.

I agree with you that Trakus hasn't done much for bettor. The format is not user friendly and the information that is made available has limited value.

I was talking about using the data we do have in new ways. The data we have is much more easily explored in databases than it was 10 years ago, let alone 20. Maybe some day we'll get better data, but you and I might be long gone by then.

[Tom]

Trakus is the most over-rated thing to come down the pike in decades.
They have great information and a totally useless delivery system.

Like everything else in racing, is is back-assward crap with a bow on it.

[Grits]

When you (Cj) start taking threads at PA, as personally, as you have this one, (something you've never done here, or anywhere that I'm aware) yes, a few more of us will be gone from racing. Maybe you're too close to this topic of run up and its effect on timing. :confused:

[Tom]

Maybe some day we'll get better data, but you and I might be long gone by then.


Right on. I don't even buy monthly plans anymore! :eek:

[cj]

When you (Cj) start taking threads at PA, as personally, as you have this one, (something you've never done here, or anywhere that I'm aware) yes, a few more of us will be gone from racing. Maybe you're too close to this topic of run up and its effect on timing. :confused:

I'm not taking it personally, I just find it amazing the lengths people will go to defending an obviously flawed system. Everyone is entitled to an opinion though, I respect that.

[Grits]

Right on. I don't even buy monthly plans anymore! :eek:

This is the first year in at least 20...I haven't cared who makes it to Breeders' Cup. Maybe by next Thursday. Santa Anita has ruined it!!! I'm sick too death of the place. I think of last year on Friday.. and its a joke all over again.

[Tom]

I was referring to not being around in the long run, but I do agree - the BC stopped being important a longtime ago. SA is a terrible track to play and between it and CD, the BC is nothing anymore. I look for some good prices to make a bet on, but I don't care who wins. The poly track at SA was far better for the BC than that awful dirt track they have.

[AndyC]

I'm not taking it personally, I just find it amazing the lengths people will go to defending an obviously flawed system. Everyone is entitled to an opinion though, I respect that.

I am certainly not defending it but fixing it takes away an edge for me and other players who analyze the flaw. Certainly not a reason to keep the status quo but possibly a reason why there isn't a bigger outcry.

[cj]

I am certainly not defending it but fixing it takes away an edge for me and other players who analyze the flaw. Certainly not a reason to keep the status quo but possibly a reason why there isn't a bigger outcry.

I understand, I'm just not sure that edge is all it is made out to be by some people. There are times it can help, not arguing that.

[thaskalos]

Right on. I don't even buy monthly plans anymore! :eek:
I don't even buy green bananas.

[raybo]

It's not that knowing the run up is an edge in and of itself, it's what we do with that knowledge that will provide or increase an edge, or not. The run up is just one of the inaccuracy causing factors involving distance run, at different times and in different places. All that those of us who want to know the run up in all past races really want, is that all 6f races for example, regardless of the track or the day or the race number, be timed closer to the same net distance. We already know that these things will still be inaccurate, but they should be more accurate than they are now. It's the age old problem of trying to compare races run at different distances, for projection and analysis purposes. We're not trying to solve all the mysteries in one step, we're just trying to chip away at it, little by little. Being a patient person is a virtue, for sure, but sometimes things can drag on so long that you just want to jump up and start hollering at the top of your lungs. Fortunately, I also have quite a bit of self control also.

[ultracapper]

This may sound stupid, but what's the purpose of a run up anyhow? How hard can it be to position a gate? And if you can position it 30 ft behind the 6f start line one time, why not every time? Why 25 ft today, 40 ft tomorrow?

Edit: I do see the issue here. The race starts when the gate opens, so the run up is definitely part of the race.

[classhandicapper]

I'm not taking it personally, I just find it amazing the lengths people will go to defending an obviously flawed system. Everyone is entitled to an opinion though, I respect that.

Is anyone actually defending it?

It seems more like almost everyone that understands the issue thinks it's preposterous to time races like this when so many people use fractions and final times to evaluate horses.

Resistance to change seems to be the norm.

Others, like me, see inaccuracies as a potential opportunities. Though I must admit I have never knowingly made a play based on run up information. At best I've made plays against figures I felt sure were wrong without knowing why they were wrong (and it may have been an extreme run up issue).

[Tom]

This may sound stupid, but what's the purpose of a run up anyhow? How hard can it be to position a gate? And if you can position it 30 ft behind the 6f start line one time, why not every time? Why 25 ft today, 40 ft tomorrow?

Edit: I do see the issue here. The race starts when the gate opens, so the run up is definitely part of the race.

They move it around to prevent set marks in the same place every time.
Some tracks have to move it due to the configuration - CD might have the 6F gate on the turn, for example. Cummings was on ATR Wednesday, top of the second hour talking about this topic.

[classhandicapper]

Take some time and research track geometry as it relates to the outcome of a race with respect to the time of the race and you will find the two most salient factors to be: (a) the distance the start of the race is from the turn and (b) the turn radius.



Every single figure maker already builds that into the tables they use to compare horses at different distances and at different tracks. That's why no one is including that issue in this conversation.

The thing that few of them do is adjust their figures for varying run up lengths at the same distance at the same track from day to day or even race to race. They don't because they don't have the information. The races aren't timed from the gate. So at best, very studious figure makers try to make estimates.

[senortout]

A question for number crunchers. Do you think:
1. If racing started timing races from the gate to the finish line, and the gate was placed exactly the right distance as race form states, would the times (on average) be,
a.Faster
b. Slower
c. The same
d. Noticeably slower
e. unchanged
f. more helpful
g. more puzzling than before
2. Have any thought of the real consequences, really?
a. If noticeably slower, all track records would be affected, and asterisks would be the name of the game
b. If the methods of timing the races WERE CHANGED , would that raise, or lower, the public reception of racing in general? These days, it is considered a sign of weakness by many to admit a mistake. Why ever do you think takeout levels, for instance, have not been lowered to a playable level after all these years? and finally,
c. Destroying the mystery that exists in racing...is....a....factor here. All sorts of things come to mind. Anyone seen The Black Stallion movie? Where they work the Black in the dead of night, in a driving rain, and the famous clocker is waiting to see the workout sitting in his fancy car? What happens when he realizes the time Black has worked. Those fancy spats he's wearing go right down in that glop outside, the kids tied on I think his hands are bleeding or sumpin' come on. We all like a good mystery.

[Grits]

One gentleman responded with these opening remarks in a comment to Pat Cumming's feature. Decades of benefitting from what he determined as an edge. People, online, write a great deal about their success. .. Most, afterwards.

See the full quote posted below the commentary (linked again, for convenience).

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/time-change-why-north-america-must-stop-perpetually-mistiming-races

Excellent article, Pat. Much of the handicapping success I enjoyed in Racing between 1975-2009 was due to my knowledge and use of run-ups and about settings on the Turf Courses. There was maybe 75 anomalies that provided an advantage to the discerning player.

The change for the worse (for all handicappers) began gradually in 2005. More and more Turf races were demanded and offered. This resulted in more wear and tear on the Turf, especially at the start points. The solution was to create more and wider Turf Courses, (AP, CNL, GP, LRL, WO) with many running lanes (Temp Rails). Increasingly these Turf Courses began to get chewed up, especially at the start points. The track superintendant's reacted by instituting numerous run-ups and temp rails, the intent which was ensure and maintain grass quality. These actions, that do not include the financial welfare of the player, leaves the handicappers with an unmanagable cluster of possibilities when trying to adjust for these run-ups.

[raybo]

I see Cratos' latest post was deleted, good decision as it had nothing to do with this thread. The post he was referencing was also in error, as most figure makers do not take into account the radius of turns, etc.. Now, back to the topic at hand.

[cj]

I see Cratos' latest post was deleted, good decision as it had nothing to do with this thread. The post he was referencing was also in error, as most figure makers do not take into account the radius of turns, etc.. Now, back to the topic at hand.

I would disagree in that even if done without knowing it, it is taken into account. If you are able to determine that a 1:10 at Track A is equal to a 1:11 at Track B without specifically using things like turn radius, it doesn't mean it isn't factored in anyway.

But you are right, it has nothing to do with this thread, so like I told Cratos start another one to talk about that stuff. Now I'm just as guilty.

[classhandicapper]

I see Cratos' latest post was deleted, good decision as it had nothing to do with this thread. The post he was referencing was also in error, as most figure makers do not take into account the radius of turns, etc.. Now, back to the topic at hand.

It's taken into account in a backdoor way by comparing the fractions and final times of races at various distances at different tracks and then equalizing them.

In other words, if I know 7F in "X" at Belmont (with wide sweeping turns and a long straight before the turn) is equal to 6F in "Y" on Aqueduct's Inner Dirt track (narrower turns and shorter straight before you reach the turn), there may be several factors that impact the fractions and times, but two of them are "(a) the distance the start of the race is from the turn and (b) the turn radius".

So if you equalize the race, they are built in even if you aren't referring to them and measuring them separately. This is figure handicapping 101.

No disrespect to Cratos, but he's an expert at what he does. He's not as familiar with what other figure makers are doing.

Edit: I see CJ beat me to it.

[Exotic1]

It's taken into account in a backdoor way by comparing the fractions and final times of races at various distances at different tracks and then equalizing them.

In other words, if I know 7F in "X" at Belmont (with wide sweeping turns and a long straight before the turn) is equal to 6F in "Y" on Aqueduct's Inner Dirt track (narrower turns and shorter straight before you reach the turn), there may be several factors that impact the fractions and times, but two of them are "(a) the distance the start of the race is from the turn and (b) the turn radius".

So if you equalize the race, they are built in even if you aren't referring to them and measuring them separately. This is figure handicapping 101.

No disrespect to Cratos, but he's an expert at what he does. He's not as familiar with what other figure makers are doing.

Edit: I see CJ beat me to it.

Exceptionally clear.

You figure maker guys are too good.

[MJC922]

Replying to senortout:

Times would get slower, but the fans and handicappers will adapt. I don't see where changing this would make anyone walk away from the sport if we just hit the reset button on the track records. With that being said, it's a big move, you never see 21 and change again unless there's a 50mph tailwind, everyone has to recalibrate themselves for a period of time. I'm skeptical that it will happen but for people like CJ and Beyer who are knee-deep in time every day I'd like to see it done away with.

On principle things that can be fixed should be fixed and this would seem to be one of the easier ones for them to do something about -- the only thing in the back of my head is the personal opinion of how little this will really impact the accuracy of any set of speed figures. I could be totally wrong about that though.

For the 'add them all up and divide by nine' track variant crowd with about two years experience in the game I suppose it helps them a bit. However, for the skilled figure makers out there when these things are way off they're projecting anyway, and not just for this reason but a whole slew of others like wind, abnormally slow or fast pace, that catch-all category of changes in surface speed etc. Beyer cited a 7.5F turf race which I wonder how many were on the card that day, one or two? It's a projection in so many cases out of necessity anyway, even if God gives us the times for those 7.5f races transcribed on clay tablets does the output number from Beyer get measurably better if there had been no run up? Minimally yes, but very minimally IMHO.

Quite frankly if I could prioritize to abolish the run up or to have the times uploaded directly to servers immediately after each race so there's no chance for some of these chart callers to fat finger them into the chart I'd probably vote to move on the latter first. I suspect more published times are off by a second or more for that very reason than they are for the occasional bad parking job or when a horse beats the gate.

[MJC922]

I am certainly not defending it but fixing it takes away an edge for me and other players who analyze the flaw. Certainly not a reason to keep the status quo but possibly a reason why there isn't a bigger outcry.

It's good for the sport if we can get better data integrity, new people coming into the game who want to be more data-driven will appreciate this. The powers that be might want to start thinking seriously about getting the human element out of all of this data gathering they have to do. Sensors, GPS all of that data should be streaming in real time onto their servers. Run up distance from gate to the pole should be polled through software systems and GPS, this is not impossible to have done, hire the coders, you pay them once. The times for horses should be accurate and known at any point in a race as should the reading of the anemometer for wind conditions, temperature and whatever else has relevance. After the race what actually makes it into the chart can be decided later on, maybe it's little more than we have now but without the errors -- EQB have databases but they need some type of middleware where all sensor inputs are constantly polled over a network during the running of a race. Maybe they charge a subscription fee to some people to get at this more detailed information, whatever, but the data we see in a chart today, that much should be rock solid.

[Grits]

It's good for the sport if we can get better data integrity, new people coming into the game who want to be more data-driven will appreciate this. The powers that be might want to start thinking seriously about getting the human element out of all of this data gathering they have to do. Sensors, GPS all of that data should be streaming in real time onto their servers. Run up distance from gate to the pole should be polled through software systems and GPS, this is not impossible to have done, hire the coders, you pay them once. The times for horses should be accurate and known at any point in a race as should the reading of the anemometer for wind conditions, temperature and whatever else has relevance. After the race what actually makes it into the chart can be decided later on, maybe it's little more than we have now but without the errors -- EQB have databases but they need some type of middleware where all sensor inputs are constantly polled over a network during the running of a race. Maybe they charge a subscription fee to some people to get at this more detailed information, whatever, but the data we see in a chart today, that much should be rock solid.

This is good.. until you foolishly suggested maybe they create a subscription and CHARGE for "more detailed" data. This information should already be included--at no extra charge. Allowing it only to those people willing to pay more? No, I'm sorry, this isn't a solution to the current problem. It propagates it.

[raybo]

Replying to senortout:

Times would get slower, but the fans and handicappers will adapt. I don't see where changing this would make anyone walk away from the sport if we just hit the reset button on the track records. With that being said, it's a big move, you never see 21 and change again unless there's a 50mph tailwind, everyone has to recalibrate themselves for a period of time. I'm skeptical that it will happen but for people like CJ and Beyer who are knee-deep in time every day I'd like to see it done away with.

On principle things that can be fixed should be fixed and this would seem to be one of the easier ones for them to do something about -- the only thing in the back of my head is the personal opinion of how little this will really impact the accuracy of any set of speed figures. I could be totally wrong about that though.

For the 'add them all up and divide by nine' track variant crowd with about two years experience in the game I suppose it helps them a bit. However, for the skilled figure makers out there when these things are way off they're projecting anyway, and not just for this reason but a whole slew of others like wind, abnormally slow or fast pace, that catch-all category of changes in surface speed etc. Beyer cited a 7.5F turf race which I wonder how many were on the card that day, one or two? It's a projection in so many cases out of necessity anyway, even if God gives us the times for those 7.5f races transcribed on clay tablets does the output number from Beyer get measurably better if there had been no run up? Minimally yes, but very minimally IMHO.

Quite frankly if I could prioritize to abolish the run up or to have the times uploaded directly to servers immediately after each race so there's no chance for some of these chart callers to fat finger them into the chart I'd probably vote to move on the latter first. I suspect more published times are off by a second or more for that very reason than they are for the occasional bad parking job or when a horse beats the gate.

I would think that times would not just be slower, they would be appreciably slower. CJ knows all about run up distances at different tracks and race distances, while I don't, but my memory of some of his examples in the past tells me that the difference in instantaneous speed measured 90 feet or more after they break from the gate, versus 0 feet per second when the gates open, is huge. If a race's timing starts when the horses are already running 25 mph, and another race's timing starts when the horses are running 0-5 mph, I would say the final times would be significantly different.

I agree that everything in the charts should be exactly correct, not error filled. The relatively inexpensive cost of the technology required to accomplish that, on a track by track level, should not be an obstacle. But, I suspect that there are a few people who are using information that they get directly from the track, for their monetary contributions via large betting, so I doubt they will just give in to public demand without threatening the tracks with the loss of their business.

Regarding the majority of the existing track records, they would be supremely safe, IMO.

[Cratos]

This is good.. until you foolishly suggested maybe they create a subscription and CHARGE for "more detailed" data. This information should already be included--at no extra charge. Allowing it only to those people willing to pay more? No, I'm sorry, this isn't a solution to the current problem. It propagates it.

You are absolutely correct: the bettors does not need any additional costs imposed on them for anything.

[MJC922]

This is good.. until you foolishly suggested maybe they create a subscription and CHARGE for "more detailed" data. This information should already be included--at no extra charge. Allowing it only to those people willing to pay more? No, I'm sorry, this isn't a solution to the current problem. It propagates it.

To clarify my position, not every piece of data that I'm talking about capturing would be a good fit for inclusion in a printed publication or in the traditional result chart format. Run ups yes, wind speed and direction yes, I'd like to see those become standard items included in the charts. However what if a person wants to see for example each horse's speed in MPH at 50 foot intervals side by side with wind speed / direction, and then build a set of pars based upon those kinds of inputs. I don't have a problem with that type of specialized information being offered to the more serious researchers for an affordable monthly subscription. Everything being free is not a great idea, trust me, as a third party provider I know what happened to the market when ADWs introduced free PPs. It's like handing out free McDouble's, they aren't so good but everyone will eat them until they have a big day and then you finally might get them to pay for a steak dinner.

[Grits]

However what if a person wants to see for example each horse's speed in MPH at 50 foot intervals side by side with wind speed / direction, and then build a set of pars based upon those kinds of inputs. I don't have a problem with that type of specialized information being offered to the more serious researchers for an affordable monthly subscription.

Wow. I'm in the wrong lane. Being a serious researcher and all, there's no telling how many Pick 6 pools you'll take down with this stuff. :lol:

To clarify my position Thank you. ;)

[Cratos]

:10: To clarify my position, not every piece of data that I'm talking about capturing would be a good fit for inclusion in a printed publication or in the traditional result chart format. Run ups yes, wind speed and direction yes, I'd like to see those become standard items included in the charts. However what if a person wants to see for example each horse's speed in MPH at 50 foot intervals side by side with wind speed / direction, and then build a set of pars based upon those kinds of inputs. I don't have a problem with that type of specialized information being offered to the more serious researchers for an affordable monthly subscription. Everything being free is not a great idea, trust me, as a third party provider I know what happened to the market when ADWs introduced free PPs. It's like handing out free McDouble's, they aren't so good but everyone will eat them until they have a big day and then you finally might get them to for a steak dinner.
In all due apologies you need to get a grip on what you are asking for.

This industry has never been about the discrete timing of racehorses; it has always been about the timing of horse RACES.

I am not against your suggestions, but I don't think the bettors demand is there to compensate the investment.

Additionally, to use the "tools" you are speaking of you would need a revitalization of the bettors learning in the direction of science and high tech; and I take that to be a steep learning curve.

[ReplayRandall]

:10:
In all due apologies you need to get a grip on what you are asking for.

This industry has never been about the discrete timing of racehorses; it has always been about the timing of horse RACES.

I am not against your suggestions, but I don't think the bettors demand is there to compensate the investment.

Additionally, to use the "tools" you are speaking of you would need a revitalization of the bettors learning in the direction of science and high tech; and I take that to be a steep learning curve.


With all due respect Cratos, you're starting to sound full of yourself. Dial it down a notch as you're putting yourself in a no-win situation. You would show true wisdom by heeding my advice...........if not, remember that you brought it on yourself.

[Cratos]

With all due respect Cratos, you're starting to sound full of yourself. Dial it down a notch as you're putting yourself in a no-win situation. You would show true wisdom by heeding my advice...........if not, remember that you brought it on yourself.
Before you go off the deep end I will give an example from personal experience.

When I came out of engineering school in the seventies design were being done with slide rules and on drafting boards; and when CAD/CAE was introduced it was (and still is ) a steep learning curve for many engineers, designers, and drafters to become proficient with the "new set of tools" even they were technically trained.

You shouldn't take things so personal.

Also on this forum the subject of Bayesian statistics came up several times, but got no traction and not because WE were stupid or illiterate, but because the learning curve is steep and many of US don't have the time to learn.

I hope you understand and if not I apologize.

[ReplayRandall]

Before you go off the deep end I will give an example from personal experience.

When I came out of engineering school in the seventies design were being done with slide rules and on drafting boards; and when CAD/CAE was introduced it was (and still is ) a steep learning curve for many engineers, designers, and drafters to become proficient with the "new set of tools" even they were technically trained.

You shouldn't take things so personal.

Also on this forum the subject of Bayesian statistics came up several times, but got no traction and not because WE were stupid or illiterate, but because the learning curve is steep and many of US don't have the time to learn.

I hope you understand and if not I apologize.


It's all good, Cratos. Your post wasn't taken personal, it just came across as impersonal, less human and more like an android.....:)

[raybo]

Before you go off the deep end I will give an example from personal experience.

When I came out of engineering school in the seventies design were being done with slide rules and on drafting boards; and when CAD/CAE was introduced it was (and still is ) a steep learning curve for many engineers, designers, and drafters to become proficient with the "new set of tools" even they were technically trained.

You shouldn't take things so personal.

Also on this forum the subject of Bayesian statistics came up several times, but got no traction and not because WE were stupid or illiterate, but because the learning curve is steep and many of US don't have the time to learn.

I hope you understand and if not I apologize.

Well, I just found out where the run up for the past performances are located in my data files. It took me about 30 minutes to get them in my program so that the 1st call velocities and total velocities are reflecting the shorter distance timed.

The "tools" you speak of, I don't know about, but once you have the data we speak of, implementing it shouldn't be that difficult, most of us have been working with data for decades.

[raybo]

By the way, I have only looked at one track so far, with the new run-ups entered, and the longest I have seen so far is 180 feet, 60 yards, and that was a 6f race. Most are in the 30-50 feet range.

[Tom]

Hats off to Ken Massa and Ron Tiller.
they have been proving this data to HTR users for years - and HTR Velocity has an option to turn or off a feature to recalculate based on the run up.

[MJC922]

Hats off to Ken Massa and Ron Tiller.
they have been proving this data to HTR users for years - and HTR Velocity has an option to turn or off a feature to recalculate based on the run up.

Passing the info along is wonderful and should be applauded. One concern though is what CJ indicated (and I'll take his word for it) i.e. what's being provided for the run up isn't always reliable. If there's a GPS on the gate and another on pole and this difference in feet is uploaded to the Equibase DB when the gate opens then we can count on it.

It would not surprise me in the least bit if the current run up numbers are coming from some guy sitting in the gate tractor who scribbles something onto a napkin which then later gets handed off to the 'trackman' who keyboards it into a form while he's chain smoking and trembling from the money he just dropped on the race. It would be nice to take the human error element out of data collection.

I think people are under the impression these things are tremendously difficult and expensive to implement. I suspect this run up issue is not much more than hiring some kid off of Top Coder, handing him two GPS units some Velcro and a Raspberry Pi. A week later even the janitor is getting nine emails per day of what the run up was.

[Tom]

Things that are relatively simple for normal people seriously challenge the skills of those who run racing.

Whenever faced with a problem, the first thing racing people do is find reasons why it cannot be done. This typically takes years and generally proves to be impossible...for them.

Racing boils down to two questions - how far did they run and how fast did they run it?

Can't get either one of them right.
And we bet on this group of under achievers.

[Nitro]

This term “analytics” is being thrown around a lot in this thread and I just wanted to be sure I understood it in terms of the context its being used. Common definitions:
The systematic computational analysis of data or statistics.
"content analytics is relevant in many industries"
information resulting from the systematic analysis of data or statistics.
"these analytics can help you decide if it's time to deliver content in different ways"
Analytics is the discovery and communication of meaningful patterns in data. Especially valuable in areas rich with recorded information, analytics relies on the simultaneous application of statistics, computer programming and operations research to quantify performance.
The field of data analysis. Analytics often involves studying past historical data to research potential trends, to analyze the effects of certain decisions or events, or to evaluate the performance of a given tool or scenario. The goal of analytics is to improve the business by gaining knowledge which can be used to make improvements or changes.
The article says that there is "a figured-focused trend toward ADVANCED ANALYTICS in racing"...and I ask: Where is it?
I see the same numbers getting crunched for the last 30 years. Trakus is tooting its own horn for no reason...IMO. Their "analytics", the way they've been marketed so far...haven't even made a RIPPLE in this game.
And we had such high hopes... Excellent point, but no matter how precise the timing of the past races are these resulting so called "analytics" will never supersede a solid understanding of red-blooded horse flesh or those who control their movement before, during and after the race.

You learn by studying accurate data, simple enough? I have no stake in Trakus. I don't care who times the races, just so it is done properly. Of course Pat Cummings is involved with Trakus, but what does it matter if he is right? I beg to differ! You learn from experience. And from my experience I can only offer a warning to anyone who relies solely on crunching the numbers. Not because you might not catch a winner now and then, but its doubtful that over the long haul that you'll remain profitable.

The people doing sophisticated numerical analysis aren't really going to publish it on PA. I have many ratings that I use and I'll never share how I do so. Most of what I do would be considered advanced analytics, though I'm sure there are people far more advanced than I am. What makes you think others would even want to waste their time with this stuff? Hell, I've taken friends to the track and given them outright long shot winners and still they prefer to make their own selections. That's the basic problem with the majority of people who play this game. No matter how sophisticated one player might be recognized to be, it doesn't mean his methodology will suddenly change anyone else’s selection process. In fact, from what I've seen over the years the lack of self-control and discipline would negate the results of any so-called sure fire systematic approach to this game.

Professionals who use numbers as a tool understand their immediate limitations and compensate with the realities of the game. It’s a game where numbers may show a degree of capability, but rarely expose significantly valued probabilities. That is true, but in a game that is about having an edge, it is pretty clear to me a lot of horses are being bet on things that are not "traditional" handicapping, and being bet hard. I’ll then take your previous “Hogwash” comment as being retracted, or maybe just a slip of the keystrokes. In any case, if “traditional” means using the numbers then you might as well forget about developing an edge when comes to playing for value.

I agree...but I am not sure that this "hard betting" can be attributed to "figures". Many of these horses seem to be bet hard IN SPITE of their figures. What’s not to be sure of? Just look at some results where horses run real well and get bet in spite of their numbers!