The Beaten Length Graphic

[Cratos]

Am not sure if this graphic will be helpful, but it is an interesting look at how the beaten length is divided.

I use Trakus data which uses .17 seconds per length.

[Capper Al]

Thanks. I have been hunting for some objective data on beaten lengths.

[cj]

Trakus doesn't use .17 seconds per length. They do at times, but it varies by distance.

That image is straight for Charles Caroll's book Handicapping Speed, probably should give him credit.

[Cratos]

Trakus doesn't use .17 seconds per length. They do at times, but it varies by distance.

That image is straight for Charles Caroll's book Handicapping Speed, probably should give him credit.

Trakus do use .17 seconds per length as a convenience to the horseplayer.

However this a nebulous discussion because all of Trakus times come from vector measurements.

The graphic I posted came from a website I visited when I was in Europe and it went in depth about the beaten length (I downloaded the entire PDF).

I know nothing about Charles Caroll’s book, “Handicapping Speed” and have no interest in giving or taking credit away from him for the origination of this graphic, but I will defer argumentatively that the Europeans are more likely the originators than Caroll.

[cj]

Trakus do use .17 seconds per length as a convenience to the horseplayer.

However this a nebulous discussion because all of Trakus times come from vector measurements.

The graphic I posted came from a website I visited when I was in Europe and it went in depth about the beaten length (I downloaded the entire PDF).

I know nothing about Charles Caroll’s book, “Handicapping Speed” and have no interest in giving or taking credit away from him for the origination of this graphic, but I will defer argumentatively that the Europeans are more likely the originators than Caroll.

Like I said, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I've seen .14 used at 5f, for example. Since the times are given at each call it really doesn't matter, but it is always better to state things accurately.

As for the graphic, I know for a fact it comes from the book I mentioned. I have no reason to believe he didn't create the image. It is a direct copy from his book, complete with image number and the text below it. For you even to argue that is absurd. The image you attached is from his book. End of story.

[RXB]

CJ is correct: Trakus' time value of beaten lengths vary according to the distance of the race. Trakus beaten lengths do not mirror those of Equibase.

[Cratos]

Like I said, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I've seen .14 used at 5f, for example. Since the times are given at each call it really doesn't matter, but it is always better to state things accurately.

As for the graphic, I know for a fact it comes from the book I mentioned. I have no reason to believe he didn't create the imagthat intellectually you cannot reponde. It is a direct copy from his book, complete with image number and the text below it. For you even to argue that is absurd. The image you attached is from his book. End of story.
What is absurd is your ridiculous contention that I am saying that Carroll didn't create the image.

What I wrote and will reiterate is that I didn't get it from Carroll's book.

You have tough time with intellectual discourse, but I suppose that why you delete posts that you don’t understand.

For the record, you can delete every post I submit, I am far beyond that level of immaturity.

[cj]

What is absurd is your ridiculous contention that I am saying that Carroll didn't create the image.

What I wrote and will reiterate is that I didn't get it from Carroll's book.

You have tough time with intellectual discourse, but I suppose that why you delete posts that you don’t understand.

For the record, you can delete every post I submit, I am far beyond that level of immaturity.

It isn't right for somebody to pass it off without giving credit. It is from his book and you passed it off without giving him credit, whether directly or indirectly. Obviously you didn't know you were doing it. Now you do.

[cj]

For the record, you can delete every post I submit, I am far beyond that level of immaturity.

For the record, the posts I deleted are because they are off topic and have nothing to do with what is being discussed. They are the same things you've posted here a hundred times. Or, they changed the subject once you are proven wrong.


You run up post had nothing to do with what was being discussed, run up at Gulfstream Park, and was also wrong. Of course run up has an effect on final time. Depending on what the run up is, it can be meaningful. Anybody that follows racing at tracks with very short or very long run ups knows this. But we're not going to have that argument again so it was deleted.

The ".17" is the another example just like you trying so say the thing you posted isn't from the Carroll book. You were wrong when you posted it, you didn't like it, so you veered in a different direction. For a guy that knows a lot about Trakus, you don't seem to really know much about Trakus.

[steveb]

dunno where that pdf comes from, and despite the fact that lengths(or parts of) are yesterday's news, it does not make sense.
the back half is shorter than the first quarter!
is there a reason for that?

[Clocker]

dunno where that pdf comes from, and despite the fact that lengths(or parts of) are yesterday's news, it does not make sense.
the back half is shorter than the first quarter!
is there a reason for that?

Carroll says in his book that assigning fractions of a length is more of an art, and that the different points are approximations. It appears that the points on the horse's body he uses are chosen such that they are easily and quickly identified. He says that the differences don't have to be precise, you are just "docking the horse for losing" and showing that this horse lost by more than that horse.

[cj]

dunno where that pdf comes from, and despite the fact that lengths(or parts of) are yesterday's news, it does not make sense.
the back half is shorter than the first quarter!
is there a reason for that?

Yeah you do I already said it a few times. Why in the world would I make that up?

[steveb]

Yeah you do I already said it a few times. Why in the world would I make that up?

dunno what you mean cj?

said what a few times already?
and i did not infer you made anything up.

[Cratos]

For the record, the posts I deleted are because they are off topic and have nothing to do with what is being discussed. They are the same things you've posted here a hundred times. Or, they changed the subject once you are proven wrong.


You run up post had nothing to do with what was being discussed, run up at Gulfstream Park, and was also wrong. Of course run up has an effect on final time. Depending on what the run up is, it can be meaningful. Anybody that follows racing at tracks with very short or very long run ups knows this. But we're not going to have that argument again so it was deleted.

The ".17" is the another example just like you trying so say the thing you posted isn't from the Carroll book. You were wrong when you posted it, you didn't like it, so you veered in a different direction. For a guy that knows a lot about Trakus, you don't seem to really know much about Trakus.
CJ, you need to stay where you are because some of the things you say in some of your posts are wrong beyond comprehension.

You are the one who wrongly posted that Trackus is making an adjustment of what I believe you said to be 7-1/2 feet to their numbers, but it wasn’t deleted.

Furthermore in another post you posted that Trakus distance measurement was wrong because you checked their numbers using a middle school math formula and their distance was wrong; what you have yet to understand is that Trakus is using vectors to determine their distances. Again, this incorrect post wasn’t deleted.

There wasn’t anything that I posted in those posts that was off topic; you didn’t understand them, so you deleted them.

The bottom-line is that you are the classic “wanna be” with privilege to delete and your insecurity prompt you to delete when you don’t understand.

The beaten length graphic that I posted did not need an originator affixed to it because there wasn’t a claim made by me of the originator because I didn’t have one.

I believe in both my academic career and professional career I have submitted enough position papers to understand when to add references.

You should stick to horseracing talk, you are challenging the wrong poster academically.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Got that. He's smarter than you. Finally we get to the point.

[cj]

Got that. He's smarter than you. Finally we get to the point.

Got it. He's wrong on everything he posted but that is ok. He's smart !

[woodbinepmi]

Got it. He's wrong on everything he posted but that is ok. He's smart !
It must be nice to think, 'I'm the smartest man in every room I walk into'

[VigorsTheGrey]

I'm confused. A length should be a set distance in feet or meters not a time. Or is it the case that the faster a horses velocity, the longer is his length?

[castaway01]

One of the best parts of this board is watching Cratos get destroyed in every argument about Trakus and then sputter and fume about how none of us understand and he's secretly correct because he's so very smart.

One of the worst parts of the board is seeing Cratos post in a thread because you know what the next 50 posts in that thread are going to devolve into an argument about.

[cj]

dunno where that pdf comes from, and despite the fact that lengths(or parts of) are yesterday's news, it does not make sense.
the back half is shorter than the first quarter!
is there a reason for that?

I just meant the PDF comes from the book I cited, that is all.

[woodbinepmi]

My father taught me never trust a man who constantly tells you how smart he is, either he's full of shit or has no friends.

[steveb]

I'm confused. A length should be a set distance in feet or meters not a time. Or is it the case that the faster a horses velocity, the longer is his length?


assuming your country is the same as the others.....

a length measure is basically a metric of a long ago past.
the winner reached the post, and the beaten margins of the also rans were given in lengths(mostly very inaccurately) by being eyeballed.

nowadays the margins are a function of time.
if the winner ran say 70 seconds and the runner up ran 71 seconds, and the conversion factor was perhaps .16(it varies depending on what i don't know!), then the margin will be 1/.16 is 6.25 lengths.
so it depends wholly on how FAST the runner up has travelled the distance between where it was when the winner passed the post, and when it does.
if it was compounding, the margin will be bigger than if it was full of running.

in other words, they take an accurate(hopefully) measure of time, and convert it to an inaccurate measure of distance.
probably because they think the average horse player is too stupid to work with the individual times.

so basically, everywhere has those individual times, but choose for reasons i have no idea of, not to disclose them.

it is the same in most states in australia.
and also the official repositary for all the racing data, would not supply the last team i was with, with this information, despite the fact it had a field in its database for those times(i don't know if it was empty data or not)

no wonder racing in my country(and yours??) is going going going gone.......
it's run by dimwits.

[cj]

Lets clear these up...

CJ, you need to stay where you are because some of the things you say in some of your posts are wrong beyond comprehension.

I have no idea what this means. I went out and played putt putt and drove go karts with the family today then had some lunch. I hope it is ok I didn't stay where I was. I'm back home now so I apologize if it wasn't ok by you.

You are the one who wrongly posted that Trackus is making an adjustment of what I believe you said to be 7-1/2 feet to their numbers, but it wasn’t deleted.

I never said Trakus was making an adjustment. I said they have a built in error which a Trakus employee (now former by his choice) himself confirmed. If a horse runs 6f while never leaving the rail, a horseplayer should expect the distance traveled to be 3960 feet. Instead, we get 3981 or more every time. I know the reason Trakus registers it this way. That doesn't make it correct.

Furthermore in another post you posted that Trakus distance measurement was wrong because you checked their numbers using a middle school math formula and their distance was wrong; what you have yet to understand is that Trakus is using vectors to determine their distances. Again, this incorrect post wasn’t deleted.


I don't care what Trakus uses to determine distances, though I do know how they do it and am familiar with the method. I only care that they are reporting a horse that runs two furlongs on a straight is running 1328 feet or more. I don't need middle school math or kindergarten or calc 3 to know that isn't logical. It isn't what horseplayers are looking for when measuring ground loss.

Here is what Trakus does and the reason they over-report ground traveled. Each chart call, for example the first two furlongs, is broken up into segments that are measured and added together to get total distance. Two furlongs is equal 1320 feet. I don't remember the exact segment length, but lets say it is 165 feet. So there are 8 segments for the first two furlongs. If a horse travels 165.1 feet during the first segment (or even 165.01), it is not rounded or truncated. Trakus counts it is 166 feet. I can't answer why they do it this way. I don't work for them. But if you add up 166 eight times you get 1328 feet which is what you see for the majority of horses on a straight. The real distance is somewhere between 1320 and 1321. So yes, they have a built in error.

As I've said it isn't that big of a deal because all horses are over-reported the same amount within a foot or two per two furlongs. I'd just prefer they actually report ground traveled accurately. When you put the Trakus distance next to time and calculate the rate of travel, the horses aren't really going as fast as Trakus would make it seem.

There wasn’t anything that I posted in those posts that was off topic; you didn’t understand them, so you deleted them.

I understood your posts just fine, thanks. You've posted the same things many times over. It doesn't make them correct or relevant.

The bottom-line is that you are the classic “wanna be” with privilege to delete and your insecurity prompt you to delete when you don’t understand.

What do I "wanna be"? I'm perfectly happy with what I am and what I'm doing. I delete posts that are not productive, are repetitive, or are just trolling. As a moderator, I get more complaints about you than all other posters combined now that a certain other guy is gone.

The beaten length graphic that I posted did not need an originator affixed to it because there wasn’t a claim made by me of the originator because I didn’t have one.

I pointed out where the graphic came from and thought it should be noted since it is A PHOTOCOPY FROM THE BOOK! I'm sure others would like to know where it came from in any case. Is it so hard to credit somebody for the work they did if you are going to use it? I believe you didn't know where it originated. You said you didn't get it from the book. But you did, even if indirectly. But for some reason that really burned your britches. I struck a nerve. My guess is it struck a nerve only because I let you know. Anybody else wouldn't have bothered you.


I believe in both my academic career and professional career I have submitted enough position papers to understand when to add references.

To be frank, who cares? Position papers! :jump: I'm so happy for you.

You should stick to horseracing talk, you are challenging the wrong poster academically.

You are free to give me any advice you like. I'll just ignore it and imagine you know you where you can stick what you think I should stick to.

[Clocker]

in other words, they take an accurate(hopefully) measure of time, and convert it to an inaccurate measure of distance.
probably because they think the average horse player is too stupid to work with the individual times.

so basically, everywhere has those individual times, but choose for reasons i have no idea of, not to disclose them.

I have never seen anything on it for the US, but here is a description of how the Brits convert from time to lengths.

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/faqs/how-does-the-judge-calculate-the-distances/ (http://www.britishhorseracing.com/faqs/how-does-the-judge-calculate-the-distances/)

[steveb]

I have never seen anything on it for the US, but here is a description of how the Brits convert from time to lengths.

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/faqs/how-does-the-judge-calculate-the-distances/ (http://www.britishhorseracing.com/faqs/how-does-the-judge-calculate-the-distances/)


thanks for that link.
it still does not answer the question of why they won't supply the times that they must have, to derive the beaten length margin.

at least if they used the same conversion, you could figure the times that they actually ran, but when they vary it like that(BHA), then......bloody hell!!!
in australia they vary it something like that, but i can't find any pattern to it at all, despite spending a lot time on it.(thankfully i have decided i don't care any more)
and each state will do it their own way as well.

which of course means beaten length metrics are all over the joint, and the same time differences will equate to different beaten lengths depending on conversion factor and where it was run

and the most amazing thing is that officials don't seem to give a fig.
even as they struggle for relevance and their product is dying an ever faster death.

[Tom]

Sounds to me that Takus is a lot like the Beverly Hillbillies. All that technology being used by some idiot from Bugtussle. :lol:

I have long stopped bothering to look at anything Trakus has to offer - I just see them as not competent enough to provide reliable information. Crato's hearty endorsement of them sealed the deal. :lol:

[whodoyoulike]

... As a moderator, I get more complaints about you than all other posters combined now that a certain other guy is gone. ...


Is that "certain other guy" really gone because I noticed he hasn't posted in a couple of days which is unusual for him and was just going to post in the MIA thread?

[cj]

Is that "certain other guy" really gone because I noticed he hasn't posted in a couple of days which is unusual for him and was just going to post in the MIA thread?

I know I haven't seen complaints which means he isn't posting. :)

[steveb]

Sounds to me that Takus is a lot like the Beverly Hillbillies. All that technology being used by some idiot from Bugtussle. :lol:

I have long stopped bothering to look at anything Trakus has to offer - I just see them as not competent enough to provide reliable information. Crato's hearty endorsement of them sealed the deal. :lol:


trakus is full of bugs/errors, i long ago proved that to myself.
that said, it is entirely possible to derive factors from it, warts and all, that will improve your models success.
although i doubt most people would know what to do with the data in the first place, as it's not user friendly.

[AltonKelsey]

Not user friendly and they've gone out of their way to make it difficult or impossible to download.

Why after all these years isn't it available in computer readable format?

I tried scraping the site years ago , and got disgusted with all the hoop jumping.

[VigorsTheGrey]

assuming your country is the same as the others.....

a length measure is basically a metric of a long ago past.
the winner reached the post, and the beaten margins of the also rans were given in lengths(mostly very inaccurately) by being eyeballed.

nowadays the margins are a function of time.
if the winner ran say 70 seconds and the runner up ran 71 seconds, and the conversion factor was perhaps .16(it varies depending on what i don't know!), then the margin will be 1/.16 is 6.25 lengths.
so it depends wholly on how FAST the runner up has travelled the distance between where it was when the winner passed the post, and when it does.
if it was compounding, the margin will be bigger than if it was full of running.

in other words, they take an accurate(hopefully) measure of time, and convert it to an inaccurate measure of distance.
probably because they think the average horse player is too stupid to work with the individual times.

so basically, everywhere has those individual times, but choose for reasons i have no idea of, not to disclose them.

it is the same in most states in australia.
and also the official repositary for all the racing data, would not supply the last team i was with, with this information, despite the fact it had a field in its database for those times(i don't know if it was empty data or not)

no wonder racing in my country(and yours??) is going going going gone.......
it's run by dimwits.

Instead of all this beaten lengths shenanagins, why don't they (DRF, etc.) Just report the placing and the actual time the horses took from where the timing starts to when each horse nose meets the finish line? I don't want to know how far back he was when the winner won, I want to know how long it took him to complete the distance in question.

[MONEY]

I don't see any way of using the graphic that this thread is about.

Here's why.
Yesterday's (05/29) 6th race at Parks was won, wire to wire by the #1 horse.
The #3 finished 2nd by a nose, 3/4 of a length in front of #s 4 & 6, which were only a nose apart.

When the #1 horse hit the wire it was traveling faster than #6 but not as fast as #s 3 & 4.

Using that graphic #s 4 & 6 would get the same beaten lenght time value even though the #4 was obviously
moving faster than #6.

What I wrote looks like a mess, which is exactly what most races are and why a simple graphic like
the subject of this thread has no value, or I completely don't understand what I'm writing about.

[garyscpa]

I don't see any way of using the graphic that this thread is about.

Here's why.
Yesterday's (05/29) 6th race at Parks was won, wire to wire by the #1 horse.
The #3 finished 2nd by a nose, 3/4 of a length in front of #s 4 & 6, which were only a nose apart.

When the #1 horse hit the wire it was traveling faster than #6 but not as fast as #s 3 & 4.

Using that graphic #s 4 & 6 would get the same beaten lenght time value even though the #4 was obviously
moving faster than #6.

What I wrote looks like a mess, which is exactly what most races are and why a simple graphic like
the subject of this thread has no valued, or I completely don't understand what I'm writing about.

You left out the effects of resistance. :D

[therussmeister]

Instead of all this beaten lengths shenanagins, why don't they (DRF, etc.) Just report the placing and the actual time the horses took from where the timing starts to when each horse nose meets the finish line? I don't want to know how far back he was when the winner won, I want to know how long it took him to complete the distance in question.
Actually the charts don't tell you how far back a horse was when the winner won, because beaten lengths are determined by the photo finish which records each horse as it crosses the finish line, not all horses as the winner crosses the finish line.

[cj]

I don't see any way of using the graphic that this thread is about.

Here's why.
Yesterday's (05/29) 6th race at Parks was won, wire to wire by the #1 horse.
The #3 finished 2nd by a nose, 3/4 of a length in front of #s 4 & 6, which were only a nose apart.

When the #1 horse hit the wire it was traveling faster than #6 but not as fast as #s 3 & 4.

Using that graphic #s 4 & 6 would get the same beaten lenght time value even though the #4 was obviously
moving faster than #6.

What I wrote looks like a mess, which is exactly what most races are and why a simple graphic like
the subject of this thread has no value, or I completely don't understand what I'm writing about.

The graphic is actually irrelevant. The photo finishes companies know the actual time that each horse finishes the race in. But rather than give us the time, the convert the difference between the winner and each horse to a lengths value. It makes no sense like a lot of things in horse racing, but that is what they do.

At pace calls it could help, but of course those are just eyeballed anyway so not that accurate. In Trakus they use the actual time of each horse instead of a chart caller's best estimate, so that is definitely an upside of Trakus.

[raybo]

The problem with Trakus' feet traveled data (because of the device being physically mounted on each horse), is that the sidewards movement of all horses as they run is included in the distances run (vectors). No animal (or human) moves in a perfectly straight line as they run (or walk for that matter), so for a given measured distance between one point and another, all of the horses run further than that measured distance, due to the innate sidewards mevement of the animal as it runs. One horse may have less sidewards movement than another (because of it's physical makeup and more efficient stride), so that horse, even if it ran the exact same path as the other one, would show as running a shorter total distance than the other one. I'm sure one can handle that problem well enough, but one will never reach the point of a prefect metric.

[MONEY]

You left out the effects of resistance. :D
What was I thinking?

My post was early before I had my coffee.
I also forgot, Sunburn Index, Pollen Count & especially Relative Humidity.
I mean those humid relatives can really affect the outcome of a race.

The graphic is actually irrelevant.
That's what I wanted to say, I just used too many words.