Pegasus timing

[cj]

https://timeformusblog.com/2017/01/30/pegasus-world-cup-12-million-race-questionable-timing/

[SharpCat]

https://timeformusblog.com/2017/01/30/pegasus-world-cup-12-million-race-questionable-timing/

Personally I thought the time was off a little. I had it a shade under 1:47 myself. Amazing how a track like Gulfstream can have as many timing issues as they seem to have.

[EMD4ME]

https://timeformusblog.com/2017/01/30/pegasus-world-cup-12-million-race-questionable-timing/

So....Their listed run up was wrong AND their course is 1 1/8 minus 25 feet.

And people wonder why I refuse to bet GP .

Great job, as usual CJ :ThmbUp:

[Zaf]

You think it would of been fixed after years of dysfunction ???? :eek:

Z

[cj]

The oval at Gulfstream is not short as I was told, but is actually a little longer. This would support the notion that the timing of the Poseidon is correct and the Pegasus is not. It explains why the actual timing of the race starts after the horses pass finish line the first time.

This come from Simon Rowlands, formerly of Timeform.

[classhandicapper]

Good job CJ.

This come from Simon Rowlands, formerly of Timeform.

Is Simon still in the industry? Good guy and very bright.

[cj]

Good job CJ.



Is Simon still in the industry? Good guy and very bright.

He does freelance writing and still does some stuff for Timeform I believe.

As for the race, I'm about as certain as can be that Arrogate should have the track record. I ran the race alongside the 2014 Donn where Lea set the track record and Arrogate ran faster.

[GMB@BP]

He does freelance writing and still does some stuff for Timeform I believe.

As for the race, I'm about as certain as can be that Arrogate should have the track record. I ran the race alongside the 2014 Donn where Lea set the track record and Arrogate ran faster.


Whats funny is I told someone that was Arrogate's B- race yesterday based on the final time....oops

[classhandicapper]

He does freelance writing and still does some stuff for Timeform I believe.

As for the race, I'm about as certain as can be that Arrogate should have the track record. I ran the race alongside the 2014 Donn where Lea set the track record and Arrogate ran faster.

If you raise the speed figure, how does the rest of the race look figure wise on your numbers.

I didn't see all your numbers, but on Beyer he already has Shaman Ghost running an all time top by 2 points and Neolithic pairing despite being on that lively pace. To add more to the race might start making it look shaky on his numbers.

In a non time based way, not taking anything away from Shaman Ghost, Neolithic etc... but they aren't world beaters.

[pandy]

Very interesting, great work CJ and Bruno. When the time went up I was surprised it wasn't faster. This explains it.

[Tom]

World's Biggest Race run on the world's crappiest stage.:ThmbDown:
Part of the reason I had essentially no interest in the race or the under card.

GP is totally incompetent and has been for decades.
It will not change under present ownership.

[foregoforever]

Very interesting. What does it mean when they say that "Trakus is the official timer"? Does it mean that they rely solely on the positioning system for everything, including determining when the start and finish lines are crossed?

Are there any traditional trip sensors and, if so, are they used to cross-check the positioning data?

[cj]

If you raise the speed figure, how does the rest of the race look figure wise on your numbers.

I didn't see all your numbers, but on Beyer he already has Shaman Ghost running an all time top by 2 points and Neolithic pairing despite being on that lively pace. To add more to the race might start making it look shaky on his numbers.

In a non time based way, not taking anything away from Shaman Ghost, Neolithic etc... but they aren't world beaters.

It is hard to say until I figure out the actual fractions. The posted ones are surely wrong.

[1st time lasix]

World's Biggest Race run on the world's crappiest stage.:ThmbDown:
Part of the reason I had essentially no interest in the race or the under card.

GP is totally incompetent and has been for decades.
It will not change under present ownership.
The undercard was fine.

[cj]

you need to take your meds....The undercard was fine.

Actually neither of the 1 1/2 mile.turf races have fractions for 10f. I know a lot of people that are interested in the last quarter mile of a turf race.

[cj]

Very interesting. What does it mean when they say that "Trakus is the official timer"? Does it mean that they rely solely on the positioning system for everything, including determining when the start and finish lines are crossed?

Are there any traditional trip sensors and, if so, are they used to cross-check the positioning data?

I mean the official times come from the Trakus system. There is no "beam style" timing on place.

[GMB@BP]

Normally this is just another irritant, but in a lot of way Arrogate is running against historical context so the time is rather important to his legacy.

[foregoforever]

There is no "beam style" timing on place.

Not even at the finish line???

Your "back up from the finish" method assumes that the finish was detected correctly, so you then back up to when the start was detected. But if Trakus is used for everything, then isn't it just as likely that the finish was detected incorrectly?

[Tom]

The undercard was fine.

Nothing at GP is acceptable.
May have been a good under card, but it was still run at a terrible track.

It is the end of the month - I get new meds tomorrow.

[cj]

Not even at the finish line???

Your "back up from the finish" method assumes that the finish was detected correctly, so you then back up to when the start was detected. But if Trakus is used for everything, then isn't it just as likely that the finish was detected incorrectly?

Possible, but looking over many replays I think it is highly unlikely here.

[MNslappy]

I'm about as certain as can be that Arrogate should have the track record.

:eek:

When you write the official final write-up on this, I hope someone in the media will pick up on it and try to get a comment from Gulfstream. And the connections of Arrogate. I would think Juddmonte would care quite a bit if he set the track record here, in terms of marketing their future stallion in the breeding shed.

[Si2see]

I mean the official times come from the Trakus system. There is no "beam style" timing on place.

I never realized this was the case.... Do you know if all race tracks that use Trakus also have their official timing done this way ?

Jason

[classhandicapper]

Normally this is just another irritant, but in a lot of way Arrogate is running against historical context so the time is rather important to his legacy.

At least now we have better technology and decades of dealing with figure issues so we can approximate reality better.

The sadder part is what you are suggesting is true of dozens of other great horses whose reputations are partly derived by speed figures that were made when the technologies & methodologies were vastly inferior to now or where various services disagree on how fast the races were to begin with. There's no going back on those.

This is why I am a strong advocate of looking at accomplishments against what quality, trips, etc.. being a huge component of the analysis. I don't need to know what Dr. Fager's speed figures were when I can look at the record of a horse like Damascus and some of his other contemporaries and easily conclude the "Dr" was an all time freak that belongs on an extremely short list.

[dilanesp]

At least now we have better technology and decades of dealing with figure issues so we can approximate reality better.

The sadder part is what you are suggesting is true of dozens of other great horses whose reputations are partly derived by speed figures that were made when the technologies & methodologies were vastly inferior to now or where various services disagree on how fast the races were to begin with. There's no going back on those.

This is why I am a strong advocate of looking at accomplishments against what quality, trips, etc.. being a huge component of the analysis. I don't need to know what Dr. Fager's speed figures were when I can look at the record of a horse like Damascus and some of his other contemporaries and easily conclude the "Dr" was an all time freak that belongs on an extremely short list.

I would add that even with more accurate timing (which obviously excludes Gulfstream, LOL), it isn't as though the old mechanisms for assessing greatness were bad ones. Winning big stakes races, beating open competition, carrying weight, shipping around, having a long career, setting track records, and beating good horses are all very good mechanisms of determining who a great horse is.

Speed figures are a handicapping tool. A good one. But they are not the Rosetta Stone for understanding horse racing. There are plenty of other important metrics when you start talking about who is a great horse and who isn't.

[cj]

I never realized this was the case.... Do you know if all race tracks that use Trakus also have their official timing done this way ?

Jason

No, they don't, but the list is growing. NYRA definitely does not. Santa Anita, Del Mar, Gulfstream and Woodbine do off the top of my head. They might want to rethink that decision.

[cj]

:eek:

When you write the official final write-up on this, I hope someone in the media will pick up on it and try to get a comment from Gulfstream. And the connections of Arrogate. I would think Juddmonte would care quite a bit if he set the track record here, in terms of marketing their future stallion in the breeding shed.

It is getting pretty good coverage so I suspect Gulfstream will have to address it at some point. I here that privately Del Mar knows I was right about Game On Dude's Pacific Classic a few years ago but wouldn't admit it publicly. I hope Gulfstream isn't that petty.

[cj]

Speed figures are a handicapping tool. A good one. But they are not the Rosetta Stone for understanding horse racing. There are plenty of other important metrics when you start talking about who is a great horse and who isn't.

Of course there are other metrics and I would never claim any differently. But as far as handicapping factors go, timing RACES properly should be of utmost importance. People can choose to do what they want with the information, but it shouldn't be in doubt as to accuracy ever.

[Jeff P]

At least now we have better technology and decades of dealing with figure issues so we can approximate reality better.

The sadder part is what you are suggesting is true of dozens of other great horses whose reputations are partly derived by speed figures that were made when the technologies & methodologies were vastly inferior to now or where various services disagree on how fast the races were to begin with. There's no going back on those.

This is why I am a strong advocate of looking at accomplishments against what quality, trips, etc.. being a huge component of the analysis. I don't need to know what Dr. Fager's speed figures were when I can look at the record of a horse like Damascus and some of his other contemporaries and easily conclude the "Dr" was an all time freak that belongs on an extremely short list.

Horseplayers don't have to look all that hard to find timing errors in today's game.

If the bolded part of the above quote is true, what does that say about the timing errors inherent in yesteryear's game?


-jp

.

[dilanesp]

No, they don't, but the list is growing. NYRA definitely does not. Santa Anita, Del Mar, Gulfstream and Woodbine do off the top of my head. They might want to rethink that decision.

This may or may not have anything to do with the GP timing problems, but I have noticed that Santa Anita posts plenty of "corrected" times-- I'd guess it happens once every three weeks at least. Sometimes the timing is laughably off-- such as they will post a quarter in 20 1/5 or something, and then correct it after the race.

[dilanesp]

Of course there are other metrics and I would never claim any differently. But as far as handicapping factors go, timing RACES properly should be of utmost importance. People can choose to do what they want with the information, but it shouldn't be in doubt as to accuracy ever.

I 100 percent agree with this.

[cj]

This may or may not have anything to do with the GP timing problems, but I have noticed that Santa Anita posts plenty of "corrected" times-- I'd guess it happens once every three weeks at least. Sometimes the timing is laughably off-- such as they will post a quarter in 20 1/5 or something, and then correct it after the race.

Yes, I keep up to date on them. The Trakus tracks seem to have more problems than most. It is worse on big days when lots of people are using cell phones.

[Si2see]

No, they don't, but the list is growing. NYRA definitely does not. Santa Anita, Del Mar, Gulfstream and Woodbine do off the top of my head. They might want to rethink that decision.


Thanks for the info. This really helps a theory of mine which I won't post here because I will be the first to admit I don't know much about making speed figures ( I will leave that to the experts ), but I do however expect them to be accurate when using them......

Jason

[Grits]

We've been knowin' this Expert for a few years now...

Hard, hard work always pays off; I'm so proud of you! :)

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/219514/experts-believe-pegasus-time-should-be-faster

[ARAZI91]

Excellent detective work CJ and Bruno De Julio

Here in the UK we have had similar day to day issues with our National Hunt (Jumps) tracks. In fact it took a good bit of "policing" by Timeform UK to highlight the discrepancies to the BHA and only recently have all NH courses been remeasured. (yet even to this day they still cannot report the correct distances)

It is strange that in any other type of "racing" sports ie athletics, moto, swimming, cycling etc the governing bodies take timing and measurement much more serious. CJs correct , the issue here is not about metrics such as speedfigures - this is an integrity issue. Common sense dictates that breaking Track Records and reporting new performance achievemnets would be beneficial in promoting the sport and attracting new spectators and participants(IMHO)

[Exotic1]

We've been knowin' this Expert for a few years now...

Hard, hard work always pays off; I'm so proud of you! :)

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/219514/experts-believe-pegasus-time-should-be-faster

So true.

Thanks to Cj for bringing this issue to the forefront. True he published a work product that may call for a retraction but he could have simply said the Pegasus number is under "review" based on the official timing of the race and come back once the correct final time was determined. He didn't have to describe his methodologies, technologies, instincts etc. that his competitors can only gain from. As a horseplayer, I'm thankful that he went about it the way he did. Cj has already acknowledged Bruno for his contribution to this project. jmo.

[classhandicapper]

It appears that Beyer has upped the Pegasus figure from 116 to 119.

[classhandicapper]

Horseplayers don't have to look all that hard to find timing errors in today's game.

If the bolded part of the above quote is true, what does that say about the timing errors inherent in yesteryear's game?


-jp

.

I'm sure people get tired of me saying stuff along these lines, but I guess I'm just passionate about it because over the decades I've seen some obviously incorrect high profile figures become part of the historical record. I've seen the methodologies change to where if you retroactively went back and changed those old figures to the new methodology the horses would look different. We've all seen cases of figures drift faster and/or slower depending on the service. We've seen surface changes. There are all these timing errors. So when people make historical comparisons based on figures it makes me want to cringe. It makes me double cringe because I know I can make comparisons among high level horses without knowing the times of the races and not lose any accuracy at all. I've tested it. In fact, I'd argue I am probably slightly more accurate when it comes to these stakes horses.

All that said, the times of races are very important and everything should be done to get them right. CJ and Bruno did a marvelous job with this race.

[johnhannibalsmith]

We've been knowin' this Expert for a few years now...

Hard, hard work always pays off; I'm so proud of you! :)

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/219514/experts-believe-pegasus-time-should-be-faster

Some absolutely brilliant comments in there. "If you need to change the race time to know he's he best horse in training then you don't know a thing!" seems to be a fairly common refrain. This is the problem with wanting to bet against total idiots in order to make money. The idiots are numerous and seem to speak up.

[cj]

Thanks for all the nice comments!

I'm changing the figure from a 134 to a 139 for the winner. The final time number changed from 131 to 137.

The fractions were fine, I was within a tenth of a second on all of them.

[cj]

Some absolutely brilliant comments in there. "If you need to change the race time to know he's he best horse in training then you don't know a thing!" seems to be a fairly common refrain. This is the problem with wanting to bet against total idiots in order to make money. The idiots are numerous and seem to speak up.

Unfortunately, they don't really bet much. :)

[cj]

Here is an update:

https://timeformusblog.com/2017/01/30/pegasus-world-cup-12-million-race-questionable-timing/

[AltonKelsey]

I guess I could check again, but off the video I got more like 146.8

[AltonKelsey]

Unfortunately, they don't really bet much. :)

They bet as much as they can until the next paycheck comes. And the wise guys bet too much. :rolleyes:

[cj]

I guess I could check again, but off the video I got more like 146.8

Timing doesn't begin at the finish line. Gulfstream is longer than 1 1/8.

[AltonKelsey]

Ok, so they start the timer after the FL and end AT the FL. Got it.


So Trakus abandons their twitter account in 2015 (hiding under the bed) , refuses for years to make their data downloadable , and can't get the richest race of the century timed right.

Time for some competition?

[dilanesp]

The fractions were fine, I was within a tenth of a second on all of them.

This doesn't surprise me. I commented just after the race that the time indicated that Arrogate slowed down a lot the last 1/8th.

Turns out he didn't. :)

[cj]

http://www.drf.com/news/figures-pegasus-changed-due-possible-timing-glitch

The comments from Trakus are embarrassing, and frankly, scary as a horseplayer.

[classhandicapper]

Here is an update:

https://timeformusblog.com/2017/01/30/pegasus-world-cup-12-million-race-questionable-timing/


When I watched the race live, visually, I thought Arrogate and Shaman Ghost finished well. When I saw the slow last 1/8th posted, I was a little surprised but assumed the clock was more accurate. The new fractions look a lot more like what I thought I saw. It also gives me more confidence I can see subtle things like this. Spectacular job.

[Tom]

"kind of looking into it..." OMG, are these people for real????

Richest race ever, and they screw it up and are kind of looking into it???

[AltonKelsey]

imo the folks over at Trakus should 'kind of' be looking for new employment.

They should have owned up to this days ago and apologized.

Clearly, not trustworthy at all.

[cj]

When I watched the race live, visually, I thought Arrogate and Shaman Ghost finished well. When I saw the slow last 1/8th posted, I was a little surprised but assumed the clock was more accurate. The new fractions look a lot more like what I thought I saw. It also gives me more confidence I can see subtle things like this. Spectacular job.

I've seen some question the figs (Beyer and mine) and Shaman's Ghost and Neolithic getting lifetime tops. I'll just say that if horses aren't going to run fast for a twelve million dollar race while setting or chasing a fast pace, when will they ever run fast? I expect tops when the pace is fast.

[HoofedInTheChest]

The comments from Trakus are embarrassing, and frankly, scary as a horseplayer.
“Bettors can’t play this game without reliable data,” Beyer said.

I couldn’t agree more, the crap that is going on at Woodbine is insulting, Trakus should be ashamed of themselves. I got fed up with the timing issues last year and packed it in half way through the season, any track that doesn’t respect its customers will never get my business.

“Two prominent North American speed-figure makers”... that’s pretty cool.

[cj]

“Bettors can’t play this game without reliable data,” Beyer said.

I couldn’t agree more, the crap that is going on at Woodbine is insulting, Trakus should be ashamed of themselves. I got fed up with the timing issues last year and packed it in half way through the season, any track that doesn’t respect its customers will never get my business.

“Two prominent North American speed-figure makers”... that’s pretty cool.

Woodbine was a nightmare, and it doesn't seem like anyone cared enough that it will get better this year. They were worried more about running races in the opposite direction. Hopefully I'm wrong and it will be better this year.

[ARAZI91]

No doubt the Trakus defenders and apologists will be up soon but makes you wonder how if anybodyand their associates could bet 50 -200 grand into a model based on Fracus (oops sorry ) Trakus data along with imaginary horse weights based on an internet horsey site formula , fiction ,( oops sorry ), friction of surface resistance calculations based on a white paper written by non-horseplayers , weather station reports and no oddsline and STILL come out ahead :faint:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I know I've posted before that I thought Trakus could be revolutionary, but it has been an amazing disappointment. What is really odd is that I've never considered it as a proven product. It has always come up short. I can't for the life of me understand how a real track promoting itself as one of the elite could possibly move to Trakus solely. I think its great that some employ it and you'd think that after a decade of doing that it would be ready to be a default system, but it isn't. When did someone get told that it was or is?

[cj]

I know I've posted before that I thought Trakus could be revolutionary, but it has been an amazing disappointment. What is really odd is that I've never considered it as a proven product. It has always come up short. I can't for the life of me understand how a real track promoting itself as one of the elite could possibly move to Trakus solely. I think its great that some employ it and you'd think that after a decade of doing that it would be ready to be a default system, but it isn't. When did someone get told that it was or is?

I am really glad NYRA didn't make the move to have Trakus be the sole provider of timing. The tracks that have done it were sold a bill of goods in my opinion. It works well at times, not so well at others, and blatantly fails too often.

[dilanesp]

I am really glad NYRA didn't make the move to have Trakus be the sole provider of timing. The tracks that have done it were sold a bill of goods in my opinion. It works well at times, not so well at others, and blatantly fails too often.

I really don't understand why it is that hard to just have a backup system. I realize beam systems aren't perfectly accurate, but obviously the trakus system isn't 100 percent fail-safe. Another backup would be to just hire a flagman and a timer in the press box. Again, it wouldn't be a perfectly accurate substitute, but it would be fine as a backup so that at least the fans and figure operators get an official time that is close to accurate.

[cj]

I really don't understand why it is that hard to just have a backup system. I realize beam systems aren't perfectly accurate, but obviously the trakus system isn't 100 percent fail-safe. Another backup would be to just hire a flagman and a timer in the press box. Again, it wouldn't be a perfectly accurate substitute, but it would be fine as a backup so that at least the fans and figure operators get an official time that is close to accurate.

I believe tracks are supposed to have races hand timed as a backup, but trust me, you don't want hand times. They are generally terrible. With technology today there is no reason races can't be timed from video when there is a problem. It doesn't seem anyone at racetracks has a clue how to do it, however.

[ARAZI91]

Trakus needs all their staff to be Pat Cummings. Heard him at a seminar once and he sounded so passionate about the product from a bettors POV. I know he went to Hong Kong but a few more like Pat would ship-shape the whole system. No doubt they employ some really technical people but a few crack handicappers (Cratos my man) :ThmbUp: from here in a backroom advisory role would work wonders. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Cratos]

I really don't understand why it is that hard to just have a backup system. I realize beam systems aren't perfectly accurate, but obviously the trakus system isn't 100 percent fail-safe. Another backup would be to just hire a flagman and a timer in the press box. Again, it wouldn't be a perfectly accurate substitute, but it would be fine as a backup so that at least the fans and figure operators get an official time that is close to accurate.
You raised a very good question that can be easily answered in one word: COST.

The implementation of the Trakus system was installed in an open-air legacy environment.

If you go back to the early days of the cellphone there were similar problems because of what is called "conducted emissions" which is prevalent in unshielded or poorly shielded open air legacy environments.

Can this be fixed? Yes, but a solution is more economic than technical because thoroughbred race gambling overall is a government controlled oligopoly and is an inelastic market at the present.

However, a method of enhancing the Trakus reliability in part would be to increase the processing speed (that is what was done with the cellphone among other changes).

[dilanesp]

I believe tracks are supposed to have races hand timed as a backup, but trust me, you don't want hand times. They are generally terrible. With technology today there is no reason races can't be timed from video when there is a problem. It doesn't seem anyone at racetracks has a clue how to do it, however.

Well, I've been around track and field all my life. Hand timing FROM A COMPETENT CLOCKER can be very good. The best timers in track meets consistently got within 0.2 of the official time (so the errors would be at most 1/5th of a second).

And the rules of track and field therefore won't accept a hand time for record, but will accept them for qualifying standards, placing, and the like when the automatic timer doesn't function properly.

The problem in track and field has always been that lots of hand timers are very bad at their jobs.

But yeah, timing off digitally recorded video should be pretty accurate (it would be even more accurate if the track hired a visible flagman).

[ARAZI91]

I believe tracks are supposed to have races hand timed as a backup, but trust me, you don't want hand times. They are generally terrible. With technology today there is no reason races can't be timed from video when there is a problem. It doesn't seem anyone at racetracks has a clue how to do it, however.


I know what you mean CJ , whenever i see a "handtimed" anywhere ( we occasionally get them in the UK and Ireland) its time to download the video into the editing software. After that its pretty easy. In fact Timeform UK now have a sectional timing service and most of it has been built based on Simon's work with race videos (pars etc) time consuming but worth the effort.

[cj]

Well, I've been around track and field all my life. Hand timing FROM A COMPETENT CLOCKER can be very good. The best timers in track meets consistently got within 0.2 of the official time (so the errors would be at most 1/5th of a second).

And the rules of track and field therefore won't accept a hand time for record, but will accept them for qualifying standards, placing, and the like when the automatic timer doesn't function properly.

The problem in track and field has always been that lots of hand timers are very bad at their jobs.

But yeah, timing off digitally recorded video should be pretty accurate (it would be even more accurate if the track hired a visible flagman).

I understand, of course some are better than others at hand timing. The biggest problem with video timing is judging the start point (as you note the need for a flagman) and getting fractions correct due to the various angles. Also, the amount of zoom isn't consistent race to race. Eliminating run up would do wonders for that problem.

Those things, however, can be pretty easily remedied once you have a few baseline races that you trust are accurate. You use those alongside the race you are trying to time and can get within a tenth for everything.

[cj]

I know what you mean CJ , whenever i see a "handtimed" anywhere ( we occasionally get them in the UK and Ireland) its time to download the video into the editing software. After that its pretty easy. In fact Timeform UK now have a sectional timing service and most of it has been built based on Simon's work with race videos (pars etc) time consuming but worth the effort.

Simon is really good. When we first partnered with Timeform, I was skeptical. "What do Brits know about 'sectionals'!" But he is sharp as a tack.

[AltonKelsey]

Using video is a no brainer and the problem of angles is really a non issue.

They could set up webcams at the points of call, all feeding into a single video stream. Using the timestamps on the video gives you the fractions.

You could set the whole thing up for a few thousand at most + whatever the consultant robs you for after they steal my idea.

[ARAZI91]

Simon is really good. When we first partnered with Timeform, I was skeptical. "What do Brits know about 'sectionals'!" But he is sharp as a tack.
CJ - you were kind of right to be skeptical as still most pundits over here churn out old hat regarding pace etc but guys like Simon Rowlands and James Willoughby have made inroads and we are hopeful of official sectionals across the board one day. I long ago abandoned traditional UK type handicapping and have been doing DIY video sectionals for a while now. I suppose their is a lesson here that in the richest race in the world , in a speed based sport , Officialdom still cannot get a basic concept such as "The Time" correct. The Answer - Be vigilant and trust nothing. Do It Yourself.

[cj]

Using video is a no brainer and the problem of angles is really a non issue.

They could set up webcams at the points of call, all feeding into a single video stream. Using the timestamps on the video gives you the fractions.

You could set the whole thing up for a few thousand at most + whatever the consultant robs you for after they steal my idea.

Agree, I was speaking more of an at home type of method to get around the current pratfalls. If tracks wanted to do it your method would be fine.

[classhandicapper]

I've seen some question the figs (Beyer and mine) and Shaman's Ghost and Neolithic getting lifetime tops. I'll just say that if horses aren't going to run fast for a twelve million dollar race while setting or chasing a fast pace, when will they ever run fast? I expect tops when the pace is fast.

Whenever older horses get lifetime tops it probably deserves another glance. But both Shaman Ghost & Neolithic have generally improving figures over the long term and it's not like either is heavily raced. So it's not implausible to think they both ran new tops given the rest of the race looks OK. I agree that these kinds of things often happen in higher quality races for big money when the pace is lively enough to bring out their best and everyone was trying to peak.

On the flip side, once CC didn't fire his "A" race (albeit with a tough wide trip chasing that pace) I'm not so sure this was such a great field qualitatively. It isn't very often you see an impressive NW1 ALW horse jump into the most elite Grade 1 company and run that well unless the field was moderate or weak. Not to knock Shaman's Ghost either because I think he's good and getting better, but his overall record is a bit mixed.

I'm going to hold judgement on how good the rest of that field was until later. I'm not going anywhere near betting against Arrogate, but I might take a stab against some of the others if I can find someone to do it with. I've always had a soft spot for Gun Runner. He had quite a few tough trips mixed into that pretty good overall record and is still moving forward. Maybe he can step up into the 2nd spot behind Arrogate.

[classhandicapper]

I am really glad NYRA didn't make the move to have Trakus be the sole provider of timing. The tracks that have done it were sold a bill of goods in my opinion. It works well at times, not so well at others, and blatantly fails too often.

I love Trakus, but it's need some work to be ready for prime time.

[classhandicapper]

Simon is really good. When we first partnered with Timeform, I was skeptical. "What do Brits know about 'sectionals'!" But he is sharp as a tack.

I agree. He's very good and really great guy.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I understand, of course some are better than others at hand timing. ...

During the couple of years I had the misfortune on running a teletimer, I learned pretty quickly to hand-time the races at the same time. By then end of a year, I felt very confident in my final times.

The internals, on the other hand, I felt confident that they were as good as one could realistically achieve over and over. But even at a place with a simple configuration, only one track to time, and literally nothing more than a blade of grass or a weed to obstruct views - it's a bit of a challenge to consistently catch the plane that is broken with the teletimer at each point of call day after day, race after race.

And I will say that a place like Gulfstream has no plausible excuse to NOT have at least a competent clocker there to hand-time races and check them against the reported finals that apparently nobody can diagnose as erroneous. Not even the manufacturer.

[foregoforever]

"kind of looking into it..." OMG, are these people for real????

It shouldn't take a techie more than a few minutes to look into it. All they need to do is pull up the trakus data for each horse at the precise moments when the clock started and stopped, and then compare those positions to the video at the start and end points. They should be doing this for every race.

What will take days or weeks is for the COO and his lawyer buddies to craft a statement of explanation of what went wrong, and why they didn't catch it themselves.

[Tom]

The fact is, they do not care.
GP doesn't care, Woodbine doesn't care, Trakus doesn't care.
In this industry, customers are tolerated at best.

[dilanesp]

The fact is, they do not care.
GP doesn't care, Woodbine doesn't care, Trakus doesn't care.
In this industry, customers are tolerated at best.

It's really something that should be handled at the regulatory level. Here in California, even the announcer has to get a CHRB license. So they should have rules about timing methods and backups. Force the tracks to spend whatever money is necessary to have decent timing.

[Tom]

In the real worlds business have to be held accountable....Sarbanes Oxley, ISO Standards, AS.......apparently racing doesn't even pay attention to integrity.
Hard to respect the world's richest race when it is mucked up by gross, long-standing, institutionalized incompetence.

The game is in-bred.

[ultracapper]

Actually neither of the 1 1/2 mile.turf races have fractions for 10f. I know a lot of people that are interested in the last quarter mile of a turf race.

Haha. There are times your sarcasm is so understated.

[steveb]

The oval at Gulfstream is not short as I was told, but is actually a little longer. This would support the notion that the timing of the Poseidon is correct and the Pegasus is not. It explains why the actual timing of the race starts after the horses pass finish line the first time.

This come from Simon Rowlands, formerly of Timeform.

i would take issue with simon rowlands circumference of 2007 yards.
he is doing wider out on the track, and regardless of if that is where they run, it's not the circumference.

i have had 3 goes and it keeps coming to about 1980 and i guess it will be hard to be exact but that's what i keep getting.

can i ask please how you determine where the timing of the race begins?
why not just start it from where the gates are positioned like everywhere else does?

[Cratos]

i would take issue with simon rowlands circumference of 2007 yards.
he is doing wider out on the track, and regardless of if that is where they run, it's not the circumference.

i have had 3 goes and it keeps coming to about 1980 and i guess it will be hard to be exact but that's what i keep getting.

can i ask please how you determine where the timing of the race begins?
why not just start it from where the gates are positioned like everywhere else does?
There is nothing "magic" or "hidden" about the Gulfstream racetrack circumference measurements; they are publicly shown in geometric detail on Google Earth Professional.

However, the track section markers are not shown, but if you know the stretch length which is given on the DRF website you will be okay because at the interaction of the top of stretch and turn you will have the starting point for constructing the racetrack geometry.

Also, you can accurately measure the widths of both the turf course(s) and the dirt main track from Google Earth.

To answer your question, timing of races in North America are timed from a starting line, but they are started in the gate with variable distance run-ups to the starting line and the length of these run-ups depends on race distance and racetrack.

I have attach a PDF of Gulfstream Park which was constructed in our model.

[thespaah]

The oval at Gulfstream is not short as I was told, but is actually a little longer. This would support the notion that the timing of the Poseidon is correct and the Pegasus is not. It explains why the actual timing of the race starts after the horses pass finish line the first time.

This come from Simon Rowlands, formerly of Timeform.
according to this, the track circumference is 1.1408 miles or 1 mile one furlong plus 79 feet

[thespaah]

https://timeformusblog.com/2017/01/30/pegasus-world-cup-12-million-race-questionable-timing/
Have a question. at what distance from the rail are race tracks measured?
Is there a standard distance recognized by all tracks for measurement?

[cj]

Have a question. at what distance from the rail are race tracks measured?
Is there a standard distance recognized by all tracks for measurement?

I do not know the answer to that.

[cj]

i would take issue with simon rowlands circumference of 2007 yards.
he is doing wider out on the track, and regardless of if that is where they run, it's not the circumference.

i have had 3 goes and it keeps coming to about 1980 and i guess it will be hard to be exact but that's what i keep getting.

can i ask please how you determine where the timing of the race begins?
why not just start it from where the gates are positioned like everywhere else does?

In all honesty, the measurement is of little concern to me. All that matters is the people that run the timing equipment *think* the track is longer than 9f. Therefore, I was able to figure out where the timing actually starts.

As for run up, your preaching to the choir. It is a stupid thing that should have been done away with decades ago.

[cj]

according to this, the track circumference is 1.1408 miles or 1 mile one furlong plus 79 feet

Randy Moss also stated with certainty the track is 9f and 27 yards, very close to that.

[steveb]

There is nothing "magic" or "hidden" about the Gulfstream racetrack circumference measurements; they are publicly shown in geometric detail on Google Earth Professional.

However, the track section markers are not shown, but if you know the stretch length which is given on the DRF website you will be okay because at the interaction of the top of stretch and turn you will have the starting point for constructing the racetrack geometry.

Also, you can accurately measure the widths of both the turf course(s) and the dirt main track from Google Earth.

To answer your question, timing of races in North America are timed from a starting line, but they are started in the gate with variable distance run-ups to the starting line and the length of these run-ups depends on race distance and racetrack.

I have attach a PDF of Gulfstream Park which was constructed in our model.

which is the same as i figured it, so that rowlands is wrong according to both of us.

and it's the run ups that i would take issue with.
why do they need them???
if they timed from the gates from a standing start, then it would be far more realistic imo.

cj said the timing started past the post, so that the distance timed if the circumference was 1 and an 1/8 miles, would make the timed distance less than that.
and yet they start however far before the post, which means they are going forever until they start timing the race.

to my eyes it is ridiculous.

[thespaah]

I believe tracks are supposed to have races hand timed as a backup, but trust me, you don't want hand times. They are generally terrible. With technology today there is no reason races can't be timed from video when there is a problem. It doesn't seem anyone at racetracks has a clue how to do it, however.
The only issue with timing from video is the playback has to be calibrated to "real time" playback speed...That is assuming the playback is an actual tape recording rather than a digital recording playback.....

[cj]

The only issue with timing from video is the playback has to be calibrated to "real time" playback speed...That is assuming the playback is an actual tape recording rather than a digital recording playback.....

I have no problems like that, digital.

[cj]

which is the same as i figured it, so that rowlands is wrong according to both of us.



This alone should give you pause.

Trakus surveys the entire track when setting up their equipment. They obviously measured it longer than 9f. Clearly they don't measure the circumference of the rail. I don't think any track does that.

Also, Randy Moss isn't the kind of guy to post what he did on Twitter if he didn't know it to be factual.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I don't understand...How could they be wrong about one race and right about the other? Both were at 1 1/8 miles right...? What did they do different...? How then, how reliable, can they be for other timings, what ever distance...? How was their clocking automation altered to effect the discrepancy and by whom...? The clocks either work (time accurately), or they don't...

[Cratos]

which is the same as i figured it, so that rowlands is wrong according to both of us.

and it's the run ups that i would take issue with.
why do they need them???
if they timed from the gates from a standing start, then it would be far more realistic imo.

cj said the timing started past the post, so that the distance timed if the circumference was 1 and an 1/8 miles, would make the timed distance less than that.
and yet they start however far before the post, which means they are going forever until they start timing the race.

to my eyes it is ridiculous.
Let’s keep this simple and look at a race start as two parallel lines; one line is the starting line which have a starting beam to excite the timer when the first horse “breaks’ the beam at the start.

The other parallel line is the line which runs across the front of the gate where the horses are standing; the distance between these two “parallel lines” is the run-up distance.

Given that the beam is static and at a fixed height with varying horse heights as they move toward the beam is dynamic, the race start time will vary within a calibrated tolerance; in other words, it is assumed to be accurate.

Why there is a run-up in American racing is an assumption which says tradition and an attempt for an alleged “fair” start.

[Cratos]

I don't understand...How could they be wrong about one race and right about the other? Both were at 1 1/8 miles right...? What did they do different...? How then, how reliable, can they be for other timings, what ever distance...? How was their clocking automation altered to effect the discrepancy and by whom...? The clocks either work (time accurately), or they don't...
Vigors,
Your questions are good, but their answers are complex and I am not going into the physics of electromechanically open-air unshielded electronics devices except to say that they are always susceptible to random conducted emissions and can have faulty timing in any one race or several races.

[foregoforever]

This article from a few years back is a good summary of timing systems and their weaknesses, and an explanation for how the run-up came about.

http://www.drf.com/news/timing-everything-correctly-timing-race-more-complicated-it-looks

[Andrick]

I timed both Arrogate's Pegusus and Lea's Donn four times each from line to line and Arrogate's race was definitely faster. I had his line to line times at 1:46.85, 1:46.88, 1:46.90, and 1:46.93. I had Lea's line to line times at 1:47.19, 1:47.20, 1:47.24, and 1:47.25.

I don't know if Arrogate ran a track record for the distance or not, but it was certainly faster than what Lea ran in the Donn a few years ago. By about one-third of a second based on what I timed.

[dilanesp]

The only issue with timing from video is the playback has to be calibrated to "real time" playback speed...That is assuming the playback is an actual tape recording rather than a digital recording playback.....

Timing from tape (or film) is terrible. You need a digital recording.

Tapes and tape machines are not designed to run at exact constant speeds, because humans don't notice minute deviations. And that can add up over a minute and 45 seconds of tape.

But digital systems snap a consistent number of frames a second (and usually many more than tapes do). So they are accurate.

[cj]

Obviously run up doesn't work the same with Trakus as with other systems. Trakus times the entire race from the gate, but only publishes the time of the last portion of the race that matches the listed official distance. The remainder is not reported to the public and is considered run up. The run up information (length and time) is available within the Trakus system, it just isn't published. Allegedly, this is what tracks want.

I'd bet anything some people have this info and are using it to get an edge or are distributing it to people that are.

[ARAZI91]

From a Euro point of view I understand how run up is calculated , i just could never understand the need for it. Its a bit "arse from elbow" for me. Like throwing in an imaginary second start which varies from track to track. Too confusing for us country bumpkins who time from the stalls to the line.
One question CJ - is there a published standard reference point of Run Up distances for each track that Timeform US use.

[EMD4ME]

Obviously run up doesn't work the same with Trakus as with other systems. Trakus times the entire race from the gate, but only publishes the time of the last portion of the race that matches the listed official distance. The remainder is not reported to the public and is considered run up. The run up information (length and time) is available within the Trakus system, it just isn't published. Allegedly, this is what tracks want.

I'd bet anything some people have this info and are using it to get an edge or are distributing it to people that are.

That is not surprising and extremely annoying....

[steveb]

This alone should give you pause.

Trakus surveys the entire track when setting up their equipment. They obviously measured it longer than 9f. Clearly they don't measure the circumference of the rail. I don't think any track does that.

Also, Randy Moss isn't the kind of guy to post what he did on Twitter if he didn't know it to be factual.


the closest point to the rail is the circumference every where i have ever encountered?
where else can you measure it from?
not going to argue though, because it matters not to me either way.

i take it your first sentence is me agreeing with cratos...in this instance.
i just take every statement from him(anybody) at face value, words i may have had with him on other subjects, are irrelevant here.

his diagram looks carefully composed, and the distances add up to the right length, so i am inclined to say he is correct here, and rowlands and whoever else are wrong.
and it is what I get off google earth, so I reckon he is correct.:lol:
and lastly i don't even know why i bothered checking it, sometimes my curiosity just demands it, especially as i was of the opinion even before i measured it, that rowlands path was too far off the rail on the bends.

[rastajenk]

I'd bet anything some people have this info and are using it to get an edge or are distributing it to people that are.What edge would that be?

[cj]

From a Euro point of view I understand how run up is calculated , i just could never understand the need for it. Its a bit "arse from elbow" for me. Like throwing in an imaginary second start which varies from track to track. Too confusing for us country bumpkins who time from the stalls to the line.
One question CJ - is there a published standard reference point of Run Up distances for each track that Timeform US use.

There isn't one because many tracks change it around from day to day, and some like Gulfstream even change it on the same day.

[cj]

What edge would that be?

Well, run up is an untimed portion of the race. At some tracks, that portion can be quite large. It is over 100 yards at Gulfstream at times and at Del Mar and Santa Anita can be 70 yards. Quite a lot can happen in that distance that could make the time look completely different than what we see.

[cj]

the closest point to the rail is the circumference every where i have ever encountered?
where else can you measure it from?
not going to argue though, because it matters not to me either way.

i take it your first sentence is me agreeing with cratos...in this instance.
i just take every statement from him(anybody) at face value, words i may have had with him on other subjects, are irrelevant here.

his diagram looks carefully composed, and the distances add up to the right length, so i am inclined to say he is correct here, and rowlands and whoever else are wrong.
and it is what I get off google earth, so I reckon he is correct.:lol:
and lastly i don't even know why i bothered checking it, sometimes my curiosity just demands it, especially as i was of the opinion even before i measured it, that rowlands path was too far off the rail on the bends.

As I said, though, it doesn't matter because the track is timing the races like they believe it. Apparently Trakus does also, as did the company that did the races before them with the old timing system. They also started the timing of 1 1/8 mile races in front of the finish line. Maybe they are all wrong, I don't know. But for my work it doesn't really matter.

[cj]

I was on Steve Byk's show this morning, should be able to listen to the Archive later on today at this link:

http://stevebyk.com/broadcast/

[classhandicapper]

I find it amazing that we have one of these conversations after a few major stakes races every year where people are debating the timing, impact of wind, run up, track speed changes, figure differences etc... yet people bet ridiculous sums of money off figures in cheap claimers where almost no one is paying close attention to any of it.

[cj]

I find it amazing that we have one of these conversations after a few major stakes races every year where people are debating the timing, impact of wind, run up, track speed changes, figure differences etc... yet people bet ridiculous sums of money off figures in cheap claimers where almost no one is paying close attention to any of it.

You really think people are betting huge amounts off of just speed figures? I don't. It is one piece of the puzzle.

[classhandicapper]

You really think people are betting huge amounts off of just speed figures? I don't. It is one piece of the puzzle.

Not on a figure alone, but as the core starting point of their handicapping for measuring how well a horse ran. They start with a figure, look at the trip, look at the setup etc... but the core is the figures.

[dilanesp]

I find it amazing that we have one of these conversations after a few major stakes races every year where people are debating the timing, impact of wind, run up, track speed changes, figure differences etc... yet people bet ridiculous sums of money off figures in cheap claimers where almost no one is paying close attention to any of it.

This is right. While CJ may know that a $20,000 claimer's 84 Beyer was inaccurately timed, most horseplayers don't and will bet based on the assumption that it is accurate.

[Tom]

If only we could bet high school track.
Much more sophisticated than horse racing. :rolleyes:

[cj]

Randy Moss came up with 1:46.52 completely independently of my 1:46.53. Pretty sure we're in the ballpark :)

[classhandicapper]

This is right. While CJ may know that a $20,000 claimer's 84 Beyer was inaccurately timed, most horseplayers don't and will bet based on the assumption that it is accurate.

CJ is good that way. He makes corrections and puts notations in his figures when he's less sure for some reason. But even with all his manual and automated effort, I think he'd admit that no one can put as much attention into the miscellaneous claiming race as we all put into the major stakes.

I'm not even sure where I am going with this.

There are probably good opportunities for someone that pays really close attention to the really cheap races or an opportunity to bet against bad figures in those races by stressing other ways to measure the horses.

[classhandicapper]

Randy Moss came up with 1:46.52 completely independently of my 1:46.53. Pretty sure we're in the ballpark :)

That could cost us a head bob. ;)

[Si2see]

This is right. While CJ may know that a $20,000 claimer's 84 Beyer was inaccurately timed, most horseplayers don't and will bet based on the assumption that it is accurate.

Which was exactly my point as well, that was the most informative post from CJ that has ever helped me personally

" Originally Posted by cj
I mean the official times come from the Trakus system. There is no "beam style" timing on place. "


Until the post above, I KNEW something was wrong, but couldn't wrap my head around it.... Then with that post it was like the brightest light bulb went off

Jason

[Cratos]

What edge would that be?
I am what you might call “old school” because I try and understand the premise of an assertion either by theory or application before I accept it.

Therefore, I will apply Newton’s 2nd law of motion which is being applied in horseracing at the start of the race. The formula for the law is:
A = F/m or Acceleration = Force/Mass and in horseracing that is just the acceleration of the horse from the gate is its force divided by its mass and the force of the horse at the start of the race is its mass (body weight +assigned weight) times its rate of velocity from the gate.

Now that we have that, we can set up a simple experiment to test the hypothesis of the effect of run-up on the final time (velocity) of a horserace.

EXPERIMENT:

Let a ball = X pounds (simulate horse’s mass)
Run-up distance = 10 inches
Race Distance = a 100-foot straight lane
Note: to avoid ambient disturbance the lane will have a “V-groove” along its length for the ball’s movement.
Force = Y pounds calculated for the ball’s elapse time over the 100 feet distance to be Z seconds.

We can run trials by increasing the run-up distance in 10-inch increments (keeping force constant) to see the effect of run-up on final velocity and what we find is that as run-up become longer, velocity of the ball decreases; the same happens to the horse in a horserace.

Furthermore, we can run another experiment with the lane having a turn.

We construct a new lane with everything the same except we install a 25 foot turn and the lane dimensions are now 50 feet straight before the turn and 25 feet straight after the turn which will simulate a typical horserace track geometry.

We run our experiments again and we find due to the law of inertia the turn impacts a stopping force of the horse’s velocity because the turn’s lateral force is pushing the horse to go straight, but the jockey is “steering” the horse to negotiate the turn. The net effect is a “stopping force” which further reduces the horse’s final velocity.

In summary, increasing the run-up distance has no/minimum effect on a horse’s final velocity except in rare cases and the “turn effect” further reduces the horse’s final velocity due to the “lateral stopping force” of the turn.

[cj]

This is silly. We don't need experiments, we have real life. Check out a horse running six furlongs at Pimlico and six furlongs at Churchill. The run up has an big effect on final time, certainly not no/minimum effect. The turn has nothing to do with it in the case of these two tracks since it comes along much too late in the race. The horses are already up to speed by then.

We also know that if the leader (the horse that determines the start of official timing) does not win the race, the time will be different than if the horse wasn't in the race. That is certainly an effect of run up that wouldn't be present if races were timed from the gate. I've seen this have a very large effect (in racing terms) on final time.

[classhandicapper]

We also no that if the leader (the horse that determines the start of official timing) does not win the race, the time will be different than if the horse wasn't in the race. That is certainly an effect of run up that wouldn't be present if races were timed from the gate. I've seen this have a very large effect (in racing terms) on final time.

That's a really good one, especially in those cases when one of the horses kind of pops out of the gate with a couple of lengths.

[Cratos]

This is silly. We don't need experiments, we have real life. Check out a horse running six furlongs at Pimlico and six furlongs at Churchill. The run up has an big effect on final time, certainly not no/minimum effect. The turn has nothing to do with it in the case of these two tracks since it comes along much too late in the race. The horses are already up to speed by then.
CJ, it is not silly and you and no one else here or elsewhere will defy the laws of science.

What is silly is your invariable attempt to contradict fact with experiment.

I don’t want to list my resume, but I am Certified Black Belt Six Sigma with core competency in DOE (design of experiment)

The intent of my post was written in a simple manner to illustrate and help others on the forum understand why run-up have a minimal or no effect at all on a horse’s final velocity.

However, I am always willing to learn and if you can prove that what I posted is incorrect with fact beyond incidental empirical evidence I `will humbly agree with you.

[cj]

CJ, it is not silly and you and no one else here or elsewhere will defy the laws of science.

What is silly is your invariable attempt to contradict fact with experiment.

I don’t want to list my resume, but I am Certified Black Belt Six Sigma with core competency in DOE (design of experiment)

The intent of my post was written in a simple manner to illustrate and help others on the forum understand why run-up have a minimal or no effect at all on a horse’s final velocity.

However, I am always willing to learn and if you can prove that what I posted is incorrect with fact beyond incidental empirical evidence I `will humbly agree with you.

I already gave two real life examples that can be backed up with real life data.

I'll give one example. I've seen races at Gulfstream Park with as much as 100 yards or more of run up. There have been times where an early speed horse will burst out of the gate and lead by three lengths when the timing starts. The horse quits and finishes up the track. The three lengths varies with respect to time, but it is roughly one half of a second depending on the quality of the horses.

Had the horse not been in the race, everything else being equal, the final time would have been one half second faster because the clock would have started later. A half a second is an eternity in a horse race as I'm sure you know. That is not mininal/no effect no matter how you try to spin it.

As for Churchill, the run up is very long. The race is actually about 6 1/4 furlongs, but the first quarter of a furlong isn't timed. The horses are usually going as fast as they will go at that point. They trip the beam at full speed. At Pimlico, there is only a couple feet of run up. It generally takes horses more than a full second longer to complete the first quarter mile at Pimlico than it does at Churchill. There is no way the horses can make up that more than one second in the remaining four furlongs. Therefore, final time is once again affected by run up.

The effect is not minimal/none. A very small amount will be gained back because the shorter overall distance of the race will mean the horses aren't tiring as quickly at the finish as they are at Churchill, but it doesn't come anywhere near the deficit from the run up at the beginning.

If you don't understand this is how racing works in real life, there is nothing else I can offer. Maybe somebody else can help.

[Cratos]

I already gave two real life examples that can be backed up with real life data.

I'll give one example. I've seen races at Gulfstream Park with as much as 100 yards or more of run up. There have been times where an early speed horse will burst out of the gate and lead by three lengths when the timing starts. The horse quits and finishes up the track. The three lengths varies with respect to time, but it is roughly one half of a second depending on the quality of the horses.

Had the horse not been in the race, everything else being equal, the final time would have been one half second faster because the clock would have started later. A half a second is an eternity in a horse race as I'm sure you know. That is not mininal/no effect no matter how you try to spin it.

As for Churchill, the run up is very long. The race is actually about 6 1/4 furlongs, but the first quarter of a furlong isn't timed. The horses are usually going as fast as they will go at that point. They trip the beam at full speed. At Pimlico, there is only a couple feet of run up. It generally takes horses more than a full second longer to complete the first quarter mile at Pimlico than it does at Churchill. There is no way the horses can make up that more than one second in the remaining four furlongs. Therefore, final time is once again affected by run up.

The effect is not minimal/none. A very small amount will be gained back because the shorter overall distance of the race will mean the horses aren't tiring as quickly at the finish as they are at Churchill, but it doesn't come anywhere near the deficit from the run up at the beginning.

If you don't understand this is how racing works in real life, there is nothing else I can offer. Maybe somebody else can help.

CJ, please stop the rhetoric and insults; I get you don't have a science and math background because if you did you would easily have formulized your response.

Also, you are not defying me; you are defying the "Man Himself", Sir Isaac Newton and the good thing about my post is that you can plug in values and run a DOE for a statistical representative confidence sample as proof of your assertion.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I have a hard time applying some constant representing steering as a sort of penalty.

[Cratos]

I have a hard time applying some constant representing steering as a sort of penalty.

Please explain?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Please explain?

Most horses know the way and take minimal physical cues to get around the oval. Think of a loose horse or almost any out training in the morning with a guy doing the old water ski in the irons. Along for the ride. Some times you need to be steering, because of trip or the horse itself. I have no idea how you can quantify that in such a way as to make it a useful primary factor in your theory on 'stopping force' is all.

[cj]

CJ, please stop the rhetoric and insults; I get you don't have a science and math background because if you did you would easily have formulized your response.

Also, you are not defying me; you are defying the "Man Himself", Sir Isaac Newton and the good thing about my post is that you can plug in values and run a DOE for a statistical representative confidence sample as proof of your assertion.


How was anything I said an insult? If anyone else here feels my post detailing how run up affects final time was insulting, by all means clue me in. Maybe I'm overlooking something. Don't be afraid, I can take it. I'm a grown up.

Cratos, I explained in detail how run up has an effect on final times. You obviously have a hard time admitting when you were wrong or don't understand something. We've seen it over and over again here. You do exactly what you did here in those cases. You deflect away from the topic and try to move the goal posts.

I live in the real world and speak in simple terms when possible. You interpreting that as some sort of lack of education reflects poorly on you, not me. I don't brag about my credentials as you do. I look forward, not backwards.

Many people here are intimidated by your use of big words that you often don't even use correctly. I see it for what it is, trying to cover up the smell of bullshit. If you can't understand that run has an effect on final time, you are a dumbass. Now you may feel insulted.

[Cratos]

How was anything I said an insult? If anyone else here feels my post detailing how run up affects final time was insulting, by all means clue me in. Maybe I'm overlooking something. Don't be afraid, I can take it. I'm a grown up.

Cratos, I explained in detail how run up has an effect on final times. You obviously have a hard time admitting when you were wrong or don't understand something. We've seen it over and over again here. You do exactly what you did here in those cases. You deflect away from the topic and try to move the goal posts.

I live in the real world and speak in simple terms when possible. You interpreting that as some sort of lack of education reflects poorly on you, not me. I don't brag about my credentials as you do. I look forward, not backwards.

Many people here are intimidated by your use of big words that you often don't even use correctly. I see it for what it is, trying to cover up the smell of bullshit. If you can't understand that run has an effect on final time, you are a dumbass. Now you may feel insulted.

No, you don’t live in a “real world”; this is cyberspace where people like you feel good with superficial power.

Now you are taking the thread off into a personal affront which (doesn’t affect me) with sayings like “big words” and “intimidation.”

The problem here and others through PMs/emails to me have stated; this is “your show”; do I care? No, I don’t sign your paycheck.

Incidentally, I don't feel insulted.

[cj]

No, you don’t live in a “real world”; this is cyberspace where people like you feel good with superficial power.

Now you are taking the thread off into a personal affront which (doesn’t affect me) with sayings like “big words” and “intimidation.”

The problem here and others through PMs/emails to me have stated; this is “your show”; do I care? No, I don’t sign your paycheck.

Incidentally, I don't feel insulted.

Ahhh, now the old "I get PMs". Who cares? I know I don't. If someone can't say something in the open what do I care what they think? That is junior high type stuff. I don't play those games.

This is the real world for me because I work in the industry. Everyone knows my real name here because I'm not afraid to use it or to stand behind what I say. Everything I write here is seen by people that matter to me and can actually influence whether I even get a paycheck or not. So yes, it is very much the real world.

This isn't my show. It is PAs and apparently he thinks I'm a worthwhile moderator. If he decided I wasn't doing it well and took that away, life wouldn't change for me one bit other than I'd have a little more free time.

Now, back to run up, still can't see how it has an effect on final time? Can anyone else not see it?

[cj]

Trakus has changed the time of the race to 1:46.83. They now have the distinction of mistiming the race twice, but at least it is closer to reality.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Take a bow. Bruno as well, but your employer should love you in particular. You don't just do your job, you consider it a personal offense to shortchange yourself, your employer, and the customers. Racing needs a whole lot more of that. :ThmbUp:

[dilanesp]

This is silly. We don't need experiments, we have real life. Check out a horse running six furlongs at Pimlico and six furlongs at Churchill. The run up has an big effect on final time, certainly not no/minimum effect. The turn has nothing to do with it in the case of these two tracks since it comes along much too late in the race. The horses are already up to speed by then.

We also know that if the leader (the horse that determines the start of official timing) does not win the race, the time will be different than if the horse wasn't in the race. That is certainly an effect of run up that wouldn't be present if races were timed from the gate. I've seen this have a very large effect (in racing terms) on final time.

We can take this further.

Imagine two drag races. In race 1, the cars are timed from a standing start.

In race 2, the same cars are timed from a running start, same distance.

Race 2 will always be faster, because it takes time for the car to get from 0 to whatever.

I mean, this can't be controversial, right?

EDIT: And then, cj's other scenario. Let's add a third car to the running start drag race, which is going to go out fast but then blow its engine midway through the race and not finish. Now it's going to start the clock sooner than the start would have been in the 2 car race with the running start, which is going to result in slower reported times for the two other cars than in race 2, but still faster times than in race 1 (no runup).

[AltonKelsey]

Trakus has changed the time of the race to 1:46.83. They now have the distinction of mistiming the race twice, but at least it is closer to reality.

Must have been painful for them.

I'm not sure why Cratos can't see the forest for the trees here. Who breaks the beam and how fast they are going at the time (run up) is 4th grade stuff.

If I was still making my own figs, (way too lazy for that now) I'd be incorporating it.

[cj]

Take a bow. Bruno as well, but your employer should love you in particular. You don't just do your job, you consider it a personal offense to shortchange yourself, your employer, and the customers. Racing needs a whole lot more of that. :ThmbUp:

Thanks jhs.

[cj]

This is a true PM I sent to a friend on Twitter this morning. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Cratos]

We can take this further.

Imagine two drag races. In race 1, the cars are timed from a standing start.

In race 2, the same cars are timed from a running start, same distance.

Race 2 will always be faster, because it takes time for the car to get from 0 to whatever.

I mean, this can't be controversial, right?

EDIT: And then, cj's other scenario. Let's add a third car to the running start drag race, which is going to go out fast but then blow its engine midway through the race and not finish. Now it's going to start the clock sooner than the start would have been in the 2 car race with the running start, which is going to result in slower reported times for the two other cars than in race 2, but still faster times than in race 1 (no runup).

The reason that increasing run-up distance have minimal or no effect on the horse final time in racing is primary due to energy expenditure.

Yes, a horse needs a certain distance to accelerate (per the Jockey Club a horse hits its top velocity in 125 feet), but after that a horse is slowing down due to energy expenditure.

You can find empirical evidence to support many contentions, but that is not scientific fact.

There is yet to be any irrefutable proof in this thread that I am wrong. What there has been are “I don’t believe” and it is okay to be a contrarian, but support your opposition beyond rhetoric.

Also, I don’t own the math and science formulas; they are public knowledge.

Therefore, it should be easy to put the values (a horse’s weight. Its probable acceleration, and distance) into calculus and iteratively evaluate the integral as a maximization/minimization derivative.

We cannot have it both ways, a desire to use modern technology in our handicapping and not use the associated applied science concepts needed.

[cj]

The reason that increasing run-up distance have minimal or no effect on the horse final time in racing is primary due to energy expenditure.

Yes, a horse needs a certain distance to accelerate (per the Jockey Club a horse hits its top velocity in 125 feet), but after that a horse is slowing down due to energy expenditure.

You can find empirical evidence to support many contentions, but that is not scientific fact.

There is yet to be any irrefutable proof in this thread that I am wrong. What there has been are “I don’t believe” and it is okay to be a contrarian, but support your opposition beyond rhetoric.

Also, I don’t own the math and science formulas; they are public knowledge.

Therefore, it should be easy to put the values (a horse’s weight. Its probable acceleration, and distance) into calculus and iteratively evaluate the integral as a maximization/minimization derivative.

We cannot have it both ways, a desire to use modern technology in our handicapping and not use the associated applied science concepts needed.

I have tested this extensively in my database. The time gained getting a flying start with longer run ups is always more than the time lost by having to run a little farther and tiring more. I already mentioned this here in this very thread. Try again. You're wrong.

[cj]

I have tested this extensively in my database. The time gained getting a flying start with longer run ups is always more than the time lost by having to run a little farther and tiring more. I already mentioned this here in this very thread. Try again. You're wrong.

Here is the query. It shows normalized (all races set to equal final times) 1st and 3rd quarters grouped by run up. Pimlico uses only one, the chute is so short they have little choice. Churchill uses three run ups, 34, 120, and 180 feet. I excluded 34 feet because the sample size (listed in far right column) is much too small to be used.

At both 120 and 180 feet the first quarter at Churchill averages 22.28. This indicates horses are indeed at top speed (if asked) by this point and that any extra run up doesn't really quicken the first quarter time. But at Pimlico, the average is 23.32, or more than one full second. I already stated this but that is the exact number.

By cratos's math, the horses at Pimlico would finish the race one second faster because they aren't as tired (energy expenditure) because the horses have run anywhere from either 105 to 175 feet shorter when they hit the wire. The final fractions, however, do not show this to be true.

The average finish at Pimlico is 22.40. Churchill is 22.55. Interestingly enough the horses finish faster in the longer race (180 feet of run up) than in the shorter race, but it is a virtual push.

So yes, the horses finish faster at Pimlico by 0.15 seconds on average, but this is nowhere near enough to counteract the 1.04 seconds the horses lose at the start. The 120 or longer run up gives a net time edge of ~0.89 seconds.

I'll also show that a horse that doesn't win after hitting the start of timing first also has an effect on final time if anyone other than cratos doesn't understand that case. Just let me know. I think most people get it pretty easily.

[JustRalph]

Great thread

[EMD4ME]

Kind of off topic but relevant. Check out the May 25th, 2016 3rd race at GP.

They started the race with a near negative run up. The gate's doors literally open 1-2 feet past the 5/8 pole. Is that because it was a 1st finish line finish? (1/16 pole). What the heck?

[cj]

Kind of off topic but relevant. Check out the May 25th, 2016 3rd race at GP.

They started the race with a near negative run up. The gate's doors literally open 1-2 feet past the 5/8 pole. Is that because it was a 1st finish line finish? (1/16 pole). What the heck?


Figuring out why they place the gate where the do at Gulfstream is akin to figuring out which Rudy horses will run.

[EMD4ME]

Figuring out why they place the gate where the do at Gulfstream is akin to figuring out which Rudy horses will run.

That is why, for years, I play close to ZERO at GP while others next to me fight to get to a machine to bet it.

Have at it boys. Knock yourselves out trying to keep up.

Another off topic/kind of on topic note. I bet those trakus users also get fractions in 1/8th's. Do we, the general public get ALL fractions broken down per 1/8th?

[Cratos]

Here is the query. It shows normalized (all races set to equal final times) 1st and 3rd quarters grouped by run up. Pimlico uses only one, the chute is so short they have little choice. Churchill uses three run ups, 34, 120, and 180 feet. I excluded 34 feet because the sample size (listed in far right column) is much to small to be used.

At both 120 and 180 feet the first quarter at Churchill averages 22.28. This indicates horses are indeed at top speed (if asked) by this point and that any extra run up doesn't really quicken the first quarter time. But at Pimlico, the average is 23.32, or more than one full second. I already stated this but that is the exact number.

By cratos's math, the horses at Pimlico would finish the race one second faster because they aren't as tired (energy expenditure) because the horses have run anywhere from either 105 to 175 feet shorter when they hit the wire. The final fractions, however, do not show this to be true.

The average finish at Pimlico is 22.40. Churchill is 22.55. Interestingly enough the horses finish faster in the longer race (180 feet of run up) than in the shorter race, but it is a virtual push.

So yes, the horses finish faster at Pimlico by 0.15 seconds on average, but this is nowhere near enough to counteract the 1.04 seconds the horses lose at the finish. The 120 or longer run up gives an time edge of ~0.89 seconds.

I'll also show that a horse that doesn't win after hitting the start of timing first also has an effect on final time if anyone other than cratos doesn't understand that case. Just let me know. I think most people get it pretty easily.
Please, you are applying empirical conclusions; not scientific fact, but if that satisfy you I am perfectly ok with you being wrong and I have moved on.

However, your insatiable ego we never allow the truth to be told on this website unless you “sign off” on it.

Again, I have moved on.

[EMD4ME]

Please, you are applying empirical conclusions; not scientific fact, but if that satisfy you I am perfectly ok with you being wrong and I have moved on.

However, your insatiable ego we never allow the truth to be told on this website unless you “sign off” on it.

Again, I have moved on.

Cratos, with all due respect to MIT and all your wizardry, it only takes 1 sharp 1st grader to see that CD 6F races have a 2 mile run up (yes, hyperbole Cratos) VS. Pimlico's poorly put together racecourse AND AQU's inner which have no ROOM for run up at 6F.

You're kidding right?

[Cratos]

That is why, for years, I play close to ZERO at GP while others next to me fight to get to a machine to bet it.

Have at it boys. Knock yourselves out trying to keep up.

Another off topic/kind of on topic note. I bet those trakus users also get fractions in 1/8th's. Do we, the general public get ALL fractions broken down per 1/8th?

Sorry to disappoint you; a lot smaller than 1/8ths.

[Cratos]

Cratos, with all due respect to MIT and all your wizardry, it only takes 1 sharp 1st grader to see that CD 6F races have a 2 mile run up (yes, hyperbole Cratos) VS. Pimlico's poorly put together racecourse AND AQU's inner which have no ROOM for run up at 6F.

You're kidding right?

You are right, science is wrong, but this is not the problem to be answered and I will leave there.

[EMD4ME]

Sorry to disappoint you; a lot smaller than 1/8ths.

So, for a 9F dirt route, you have every 1/16 broken down? You have eighteen 1/16ths of the race?

Sincere question.

[EMD4ME]

You are right, science is wrong.

Are you saying that a horse hitting the timing beam at 37 MPH VS. a horse hitting the timing beam at 8 MPH has no impact on final time?

[cj]

You are right, science is wrong.


Just can't admit it. It is there in black and white for all to see and you still deny it.

How much do you calculate how much faster a horse will run the first quarter with a 120 or 180 foot run up versus a 5 foot run up? How much will running that extra distance cost the horse late?

I mean, I already know the answer. It is right there a few posts ago. But what *should* it be by the math? I mean, who cares what really happens, right? Lets go by what should happen.

I will add that if the math doesn't closely match what I posted, you are using the wrong equations. That is reality.

By the way, how about that beloved Trakus, eh? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[cj]

Are you saying that a horse hitting the timing beam at 37 MPH VS. a horse hitting the timing beam at 8 MPH has no impact on final time?

He is, he can't help himself. Maybe that led to that 200k bet on Dortmund.

I love how he always says it is science and math. Obviously the wrong part here is the misapplication of it by cratos. This is comedy gold.

[Cratos]

So, for a 9F dirt route, you have every 1/16 broken down? You have eighteen 1/16ths of the race?

Sincere question.
Sincere answer: With digital timing and vectors, it is much smaller because it is just points constructing a curve.

[EMD4ME]

Sincere answer: With digital timing and vectors, it is much smaller because it is just points constructing a curve.

Did they teach you TDA in life?

Twist
Deflect
Attack

You're deflecting when asked a direct question. Once more, I'd like to know, do you have access to 18/16th's in a 9F race? To be clear, do you have a breakdown of every single 1/16 in an 18/16th's race?

I'd appreciate a yes or no answer OR any semblance of an answer that is clear simple and direct.

[thaskalos]

Did they teach you TDA in life?

Twist
Deflect
Attack

You're deflecting when asked a direct question. Once more, I'd like to know, do you have access to 18/16th's in a 9F race? To be clear, do you have a breakdown of every single 1/16 in an 18/16th's race?

I'd appreciate a yes or no answer OR any semblance of an answer that is clear simple and direct.

Hey, what are you trying to do...get Cratos to leave from here for ANOTHER month? Leave the guy alone so he could provide us with some entertainment.

[Cratos]

Did they teach you TDA in life?

Twist
Deflect
Attack

You're deflecting when asked a direct question. Once more, I'd like to know, do you have access to 18/16th's in a 9F race? To be clear, do you have a breakdown of every single 1/16 in an 18/16th's race?

I'd appreciate a yes or no answer OR any semblance of an answer that is clear simple and direct.
I apologize for not responding to your question more directly and it was probably because I misunderstood it.

No, I do not have every 1/16M or 1/8M of race data because we don’t build our race curve that way.

For any race, we identify the race start point and build a race curve from there in metrics (every 16 meters) identifying the racetrack’s standard points of call; my interest is more about race dynamics than any static point because I am about points of acceleration and deceleration.

However, this method does require conversion because North America’s race data is given in English units

[Jeff P]

...In summary, increasing the run-up distance has no/minimum effect on a horse’s final velocity except in rare cases and the “turn effect” further reduces the horse’s final velocity due to the “lateral stopping force” of the turn.Cratos,

Is there any chance, in the above quote, that your use of the words "final velocity" are meant to convey the same meaning as a horse’s "top" or "max" velocity?



-jp

.

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/yeah_science_breaking_bad.gif

[Cratos]

Cratos,

Is there any chance, in the above quote, that your use of the words "final velocity" are meant to convey the same meaning as a horse’s "top" or "max" velocity?



-jp

.
No, because typically a horse’s “top” or “max” velocity occurs before the end of the race

[Jeff P]

Ok. (Poor choice of words on my part.)

Were you referring to final velocity (in physics) defined as follows?:
Final Velocity is defined as the Velocity attained by a body after completing or reaching certain distance or a given or certain time interval.

Link, here:
http://physics.tutorvista.com/motion/final-velocity.html



-jp

.

[Cratos]

Ok. (Poor choice of words on my part.)

Were you referring to final velocity (in physics) defined as follows?:


Link, here:
http://physics.tutorvista.com/motion/final-velocity.html



-jp

.
Final velocity; however, if I was calculating max velocity I start with the acceleration vector which is the rate of change of the velocity vector; this should give me instantaneous velocity which would be the horses’ max velocity at that point in the race, but I think we should end this discussion because it might cause some “ruffle feathers.”

[cj]

Only feathers ruffled here are when an important thread is littered with bad information that is trying to be passed off as science.

I'll be frank, not a fan of Jeff's post here. I think you are trying to shelter him or play peacemaker or something. Everyone and his brother knows what I meant by final time. I spelled out exactly what I was talking about and Cratos refused to even address it. He just slung more mud and somehow said it was an insult while deflecting away from the data I posted. Unless somebody thinks I just made up a table, it is obvious what he said trying to discredit me is false. Why try to defend that or let him wiggle away from it?

When Cratos first started spewing his usual crap in this thread I deleted a few because I knew exactly where it would lead, total thread derailment. I should have kept it up but I tried to be nice. Part of the derailment is my fault. I'm a stubborn horseplayer. But I won't let BS go by if that is what I truly believe I see, particularly if I know it is trying to say something I posted I know to be true is wrong.

I also know Cratos hates when I get a little spotlight, which frankly I don't even want. He has done this every time I've found an issue that I thought needed attention and others agreed. The truth is I'd rather none of this ever happened. I wish the sport would get it's crap together. I easily worked an extra 40 hours this week with no benefit to me other than maybe tracks will do better in the future. I'd much rather play tennis and binge watch some TV show I like with my wife in my free time.

After tonight, this thread will be about the timing of the Pegasus and nothing else. So anybody that wants to air laundry or talk about the anything else in this thread, have at it soon. I'm tired and a pretty worn out moderator.

[senortout]

Assume that timing is done the old way, by breaking the light beams.
in my example, the first beam will be broken by 1, either a very
fast gate horse...or...2, by a goose! the goose is on the ground
right next to the first light beam! Now the bell rings and the
gates fly open and the horses begin their 'run-up'....and the
GOOSE
startled by the bell, breaks the beam. The official timing for this
race has now begun! It will NOT be accurate, as the leading
horse(quick as a bunny) is barely out of his stall~this will
very much cause the race to be run in slower time. Same or near
same effect as when a speed horse speed-pops gate and burns
up all his energy. Only if race timing starts when the gate itself
opens is the time accurately reflected. That silly goose (you, I'm
afraid, in this case) only makes it more inaccurate. Go figger. This, I might add, without the goose insult (here's where I apologize) is exactly what cj said in different words, in his post. Please refute these facts with your sort of counter-intelligence.









No, you don’t live in a “real world”; this is cyberspace where people like you feel good with superficial power.

Now you are taking the thread off into a personal affront which (doesn’t affect me) with sayings like “big words” and “intimidation.”

The problem here and others through PMs/emails to me have stated; this is “your show”; do I care? No, I don’t sign your paycheck.

Incidentally, I don't feel insulted.

[steveb]

CJ, it is not silly and you and no one else here or elsewhere will defy the laws of science.

What is silly is your invariable attempt to contradict fact with experiment.

I don’t want to list my resume, but I am Certified Black Belt Six Sigma with core competency in DOE (design of experiment)

The intent of my post was written in a simple manner to illustrate and help others on the forum understand why run-up have a minimal or no effect at all on a horse’s final velocity.

However, I am always willing to learn and if you can prove that what I posted is incorrect with fact beyond incidental empirical evidence I `will humbly agree with you.

you have undone all your good work!!

it might have none or minimal effect on FINAL velocity or, or ,or; but if you think the run up does matter in a zillion other different ways, to those that use times effectively, then you are in cloud cuckoo land.

and i think i have mentioned it before, but i am friends with a very much published physicist.
he was for a long time helping me with racing stuff.
but not surprisingly he could teach me nothing about racing with all his formulae, that i had not already established analysing data.

[Jeff P]

Only feathers ruffled here are when an important thread is littered with bad information that is trying to be passed off as science.

I'll be frank, not a fan of Jeff's post here. I think you are trying to shelter him or play peacemaker or something. Everyone and his brother knows what I meant by final time. I spelled out exactly what I was talking about and Cratos refused to even address it. He just slung more mud and somehow said it was an insult while deflecting away from the data I posted. Unless somebody thinks I just made up a table, it is obvious what he said trying to discredit me is false. Why try to defend that or let him wiggle away from it?

When Cratos first started spewing his usual crap in this thread I deleted a few because I knew exactly where it would lead, total thread derailment. I should have kept it up but I tried to be nice. Part of the derailment is my fault. I'm a stubborn horseplayer. But I won't let BS go by if that is what I truly believe I see, particularly if I know it is trying to say something I posted I know to be true is wrong.

I also know Cratos hates when I get a little spotlight, which frankly I don't even want. He has done this every time I've found an issue that I thought needed attention and others agreed. The truth is I'd rather none of this ever happened. I wish the sport would get it's crap together. I easily worked an extra 40 hours this week with no benefit to me other than maybe tracks will do better in the future. I'd much rather play tennis and binge watch some TV show I like with my wife in my free time.

After tonight, this thread will be about the timing of the Pegasus and nothing else. So anybody that wants to air laundry or talk about the anything else in this thread, have at it soon. I'm tired and a pretty worn out moderator.

I asked the question that I did because I was trying to understand what the hell Cratos was trying to say.

I'm paraphrasing, but what he said was: "Runup distance has no effect on a horse’s final velocity."

It turns out that "final velocity" is a concept from physics.

Once I understood that I was able to understand what he was trying to say.

It's as simple as that.

And OF COURSE runup distance has an effect on a horse’s FINAL TIME.

One more thing CJ,

I'm really glad you caught yet another timing error and decided to write about it.

Too bad this had to happen for such a high profile race.

But I'm hoping something good will eventually come out of this.

Because it happened for such a high profile race:

Maybe Gulfstream/Trakus/Equibase will be embarrassed into putting some tighter safeguards/sanity checks in - and actually start catching timing errors like this on their own going forward.



-jp

.

[cj]

I asked the question that I did because I was trying to understand what the hell Cratos was trying to say.

I'm paraphrasing, but what he said was: "Runup distance has no effect on a horse’s final velocity."

It turns out that "final velocity" is a concept from physics.

Once I understood that I was able to understand what he was trying to say.

It's as simple as that.

And OF COURSE runup distance has an effect on a horse’s FINAL TIME.

One more thing CJ,

I'm really glad you caught yet another timing error and decided to write about it.

Too bad this had to happen for such a high profile race.

But I'm hoping something good will eventually come out of this.

Because it happened for such a high profile race:

Maybe Gulfstream/Trakus/Equibase will be embarrassed into putting some tighter safeguards/sanity checks in - and actually start catching timing errors like this on their own going forward.



-jp

.

Fair enough. I knew you didn't mean anything bad or negative towards me. He is the one that kept changing final time to velocity. That is what he does. I was just annoyed and should have never brought your name up. This is a horse racing board where people use horse racing terminology. Why he insists on trying to force different terms on people that mean the same thing I have no idea.

I appreciate the nice words about the Pegasus.. That is all I want too. I don't care if my name ever gets mentioned. I want the game to stop living in the 20th century.. That is slightly selfish on my part because it would make my work easier, but that really isn't the driving force by a longshot.

[cj]

The reason that increasing run-up distance have minimal or no effect on the horse final time in racing is primary due to energy expenditure.

Yes, a horse needs a certain distance to accelerate (per the Jockey Club a horse hits its top velocity in 125 feet), but after that a horse is slowing down due to energy expenditure.

You can find empirical evidence to support many contentions, but that is not scientific fact.

There is yet to be any irrefutable proof in this thread that I am wrong. What there has been are “I don’t believe” and it is okay to be a contrarian, but support your opposition beyond...

Note here he says final time. After I showed the data it changed to velocity. That is cratos 101 when he can't figure something out or doesn't want to admit he is mistaken, dazzle them with BS and / or change the topic.

[Tom]

Please, you are applying empirical conclusions;

That is what we bet on.

[classhandicapper]

I use a lot of mental energy "theorizing" about things hoping that if I understand what's actually going it will lead me to better conclusions and new ideas. But in the end, if reality does not match your theory you are going to go broke betting on that theory.

[Tom]

CJ put in more Quality Control on one race than GP has on all of its races the last 20 years.

The world's richest race ever and GP puts Abbot and Costello on the timer.

Sad.
One would think for this one day GP would at least try.

[ultracapper]

CJ put in more Quality Control on one race than GP has on all of its races the last 20 years.

The world's richest race ever and GP puts Abbot and Costello on the timer.

Sad.
One would think for this one day GP would at least try.

Particularly when they know damn well they'll get nailed.

[linrom1]

The whole idea of speed handicapping is a joke. Who cares about Beyers or Timeform ratings? The whole discussion about how fast was the mediocre race run at Gulfstream is obsoletely pointless. I don't even look at speed figures?

Andrew Beyers sent horse handicapping back into stone age and directed fools on pursuit equivalent of ancient alchemists for the last 30 years ever since the stupidest book ever written on handicapping--Beyer on Speed.

[JJMartin]

I use a lot of mental energy "theorizing" about things hoping that if I understand what's actually going it will lead me to better conclusions and new ideas. But in the end, if reality does not match your theory you are going to go broke betting on that theory.

I do the same and it is good practice to do so. You will get some wrong and you will get some right. When you get it right, you will have permanently upgraded your arsenal if what you have discovered is something fundamental, especially if not very transparent or easy to calculate.

[ultracapper]

The whole idea of speed handicapping is a joke. Who cares about Beyers or Timeform ratings? The whole discussion about how fast was the mediocre race run at Gulfstream is obsoletely pointless. I don't even look at speed figures?

Andrew Beyers sent horse handicapping back into stone age and directed fools on pursuit equivalent of ancient alchemists for the last 30 years ever since the stupidest book ever written on handicapping--Beyer on Speed.

1. Is that absolutely, or obsolete?

2. Are you asking us, or asking yourself, whether you look at speed figures or not?

3. Is it Andrew Beyers and Beyers on speed, or Andrew Beyer and Beyer on speed?

4. You've sent the written English language back to the days of the Round Table

5. This is the stupidest post ever written.

[thaskalos]

The whole idea of speed handicapping is a joke. Who cares about Beyers or Timeform ratings? The whole discussion about how fast was the mediocre race run at Gulfstream is obsoletely pointless. I don't even look at speed figures?

Andrew Beyers sent horse handicapping back into stone age and directed fools on pursuit equivalent of ancient alchemists for the last 30 years ever since the stupidest book ever written on handicapping--Beyer on Speed.

Profound! :ThmbUp:

Any suggestions of a BETTER book...or are you against READING too?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I convinced myself that the post had to be sarcastic.

[JJMartin]

I don't think that guy was joking.

[ultracapper]

Profound! :ThmbUp:

Any suggestions of a BETTER book...or are you against READING too?

He wasn't even aware of the book for the first 10 years of it's existence.

[Tom]

5. This is the stupidest post ever written.

Hang loose, a stupider one will be along shortly.......

[AltonKelsey]

I don't think that guy was joking.

One would hope so, but unless he's a persistent sarcaster , maybe not.

Some other posts have been in the same vein.

Then again, maybe betting the top fig once too many times and ripping has soured him on the notion of speed handicapping. Used to see lots of folks mumbling to themselves at the track.

[cj]

I found this both sad and funny:

Both Milkowski and Moss said they believed the most accurate time for the race was approximately 1:46.50, several lengths faster than the adjusted time on the new chart. Trakus said in its release that it determined the new time using a “frame-by-frame video-replay analysis.”

If they couldn't figure out the actual time by finding out what went wrong with their equipment, why not reach out and ask for help from people that know what they are doing if resorting to video?

[dilanesp]

I found this both sad and funny:



If they couldn't figure out the actual time by finding out what went wrong with their equipment, why not reach out and ask for help from people that know what they are doing if resorting to video?

Never underestimate the power of "we don't want to admit we are wrong" as an ethos in corporate America.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Frame-by-frame, huh? That sounds tedious. Can't you just take your best shot with benchmarking a start and a stop in a digital video and compute the time between benchmarks?

[cj]

Frame-by-frame, huh? That sounds tedious. Can't you just take your best shot with benchmarking a start and a stop in a digital video and compute the time between benchmarks?

Of course it isn't that hard. Too obvious I guess. I'm sure whoever did it has little to no experience timing races from video. You have two guys, one very well known in Randy Moss, that both have a lot of experience doing this very thing. We posted the time within a hundredth of a second of each other.

But rather than ask either or both of us for help, they get it wrong a second time. You couldn't make this up. It took them nearly a week.

[ribjig]

The Olympics deals in hundredths of a second
& often has 12 or more competitors...
What timing system used?
Error-prone regularly or infrequently?
Too expensive for horse race tracks to employ?

[AltonKelsey]

Is it likely Trakus is not aware of the distance issue at GP, re: it being longer than 1 1/8 ?

[cj]

Is it likely Trakus is not aware of the distance issue at GP, re: it being longer than 1 1/8 ?

That seems highly unlikely since they survey the track to set up and calibrate all the equipment. But it sure seems like whoever timed from video used the finish line as the starting point.

[foregoforever]

That seems highly unlikely since they survey the track to set up and calibrate all the equipment. But it sure seems like whoever timed from video used the finish line as the starting point.

Have you generated a "back up from the finish" photo using their new time?

So the problem came from bad data for Arrogate as he got to the finish line, and it resulted in the original time being off by almost a second, and their quality control didn't catch it???

How the hell do you miss that? If you don't check the data for the winner near the finish line, what the hell do you check? What is their standard quality assurance protocol?

[johnhannibalsmith]

So they know it, but don't see the need to apply the knowledge to time the race? That's encouraging.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... What is their standard quality assurance protocol?

Waiting on a guy named Craig Milkowski from what I've been able to ascertain.

[classhandicapper]

I don't know much about the Trakus technology, but I just had a thought.

Is it possible that when Arrogate crossed the finish line it did not trigger the final time?

Perhaps it was triggered when Shaman Ghost finished. He finished 4 3/4 lengths behind Arrogate. That would put his final time in the ballpark with the original clocking.

If that's the case, then maybe Trakus should just work back the 4 3/4 lengths to get Arrogate's time and at least it will be consistent with itself if not exactly consistent with what Randy and CJ came up with. We know from comparing times in NY for example that Trakus and the official clock often vary by a bit anyway (and not in a consistent way). So if you use Trakus exclusively like GP, you should probably be consistent with yourself instead of another timing even if the other is more accurate. CJ and Randy are not going to go back and retime all the other races at GP. ;)

If you notice, Trakus doesn't even have the times for that race posted on their website. If you watch the replay, the saddle clothes were initially bouncing around like crazy suggesting there some kind of technological issue during that race.

[dilanesp]

I don't know much about the Trakus technology, but I just had a thought.

Is it possible that when Arrogate crossed the finish line it did not trigger the final time?

Perhaps it was triggered when Shaman Ghost finished. He finished 4 3/4 lengths behind Arrogate. That would put his final time in the ballpark with the original clocking.

This actually would be consistent with one aspect of this, which is that Arrogate according to the original official time slowed down and ran a very slow last 1/8th, whereas the rest of the fractions looked legit.

[classhandicapper]

This actually would be consistent with one aspect of this, which is that Arrogate according to the original official time slowed down and ran a very slow last 1/8th, whereas the rest of the fractions looked legit.

Yep. Exactly.

[dilanesp]

The Olympics deals in hundredths of a second
& often has 12 or more competitors...
What timing system used?
Error-prone regularly or infrequently?
Too expensive for horse race tracks to employ?

OK, here's how track and field timing works:

For record purposes, you need a "fully automatic time". That consists of two elements-- a device for starting the timer concurrent with the gun (which involves either a wire or acoustic device attached to the gun), and an imaging system at the finish which imprints the running time calibrations on the photo finish.

Note that track and field does NOT consider light beam times to be fully automatic. Nor would they consider Trackus' system fully automatic. It has to be a sensor on the gun and an imprinted image at the finish.

The earliest forms of FAT in track, which date all the way back to the 1932 Olympics, simply recorded the finish with a stationary motion picture camera that simultaneously recorded the image of a stopwatch dial.

The second generation used a strip camera, which was brought over from horse racing after it was invented at Del Mar in 1937. The strip camera moved the film at the same speed as the runners, and an electronic device digitally imprinted a series of time calibration marks (vertical lines) at the bottom of the film strip. So the timer would draw a line down from the torso of the runner to the calibration mark, which would give the time.

The current generation uses a digital camera, which records a film-strip style image, but with higher resolution, along with the calibration marks at the bottom. Again, draw the vertical line down and you have the FAT.

At big meets, like the Olympics, they will want to display times immediately, so they will use either a light beam or a Trackus-like system of transponders embedded in the runner's bibs to do that. But those times are not official and they will sometimes adjust an announced time up or down by .01 or .02 based on the official digital image or photograph.

Finally, ALL track meets hand time as a backup. Hand times don't count for records, but they do count for results, qualifying marks, etc.

[classhandicapper]

I do the same and it is good practice to do so. You will get some wrong and you will get some right. When you get it right, you will have permanently upgraded your arsenal if what you have discovered is something fundamental, especially if not very transparent or easy to calculate.

Every 10 years or so I seem to come up with a few new ideas to explore. Sometimes I feel like I am breaking away from the published material. Then I go dry again and the published material catches up. This is one of my good periods. But it is very difficult to hold a full time job, keep up with the data I need for gambling now, and try to develop and test any new ideas.

[foregoforever]

Is it possible that when Arrogate crossed the finish line it did not trigger the final time?

Perhaps it was triggered when Shaman Ghost finished. He finished 4 3/4 lengths behind Arrogate. That would put his final time in the ballpark with the original clocking.

If that's the case, then maybe Trakus should just work back the 4 3/4 lengths to get Arrogate's time

That's the way I interpreted their PR-speak ... "a minor anomaly in the underlying tracking data was experienced for Arrogate in the measurement cycle reporting as the horse approached the finish line." :D

If that's the case, the difference between the finishing times for Arrogate and Shaman Ghost should be easily obtained from the photo finish system. But who knows? Maybe Gulfstream uses Trakus to resolve photo finishes as well. :bang:

[rsetup]

He wasn't even aware of the book for the first 10 years of it's existence.

ironic

[ultracapper]

ironic

Got me.

[rsetup]

I found this both sad and funny:



If they couldn't figure out the actual time by finding out what went wrong with their equipment, why not reach out and ask for help from people that know what they are doing if resorting to video?

I read earlier where you'd put in 40 hours of work to get to the bottom of all this. Imagine if you were able to automate the video timing process. Then you wouldn't have a need for TRAKUS or any of the track time information. And you'd have just about the most accurate data around.

There are some highly skilled tech types in here: TRAYNOR, DELTALOVER, CRATOS, etc., maybe a joint effort could get this done.

Just a thought, as accurate time seems to be very important to a lot of people.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Imagine if you were able to automate the video timing process. Then you wouldn't have a need for TRAKUS or any of the track time information. And you'd have just about the most accurate data around.

...

When Trakus was in its infancy, the concept led me to believe that joining these two things would yield probably its best potential use: reliable workout times.

Every horse on the backside gets a chip. Not implanted, but one that is theirs uniquely. If they go to the track in the morning it gets put in the pocket on a saddle/ saddle towel/ bridle/ whatever. Now, every horse that goes to the track is logged. If you go on to the track and are spotted without a functioning chip, you get assigned one at the gap and called in to see the stewards. After 100 chips get turned in dead from liquid poisoning or some such thing, that excuse ceases to be viable. The clockers are now tasked with following the RF and their live counterparts and visually examining them on the track, inserting benchmarks to mark start and finishes for the chips they are responsible for timing.

I thought it had so much potential for that application alone. It isn't making anyone's job any more difficult after some acclimation (other than stews hearing bad stories of how the chip got ruined - but that's an upside not a downside) and kills about a dozen birds with one stone.

Nope. We got Trakus Beta for eternity.

[cj]

I read earlier where you'd put in 40 hours of work to get to the bottom of all this. Imagine if you were able to automate the video timing process. Then you wouldn't have a need for TRAKUS or any of the track time information. And you'd have just about the most accurate data around.

There are some highly skilled tech types in here: TRAYNOR, DELTALOVER, CRATOS, etc., maybe a joint effort could get this done.

Just a thought, as accurate time seems to be very important to a lot of people.

The extra time involved writing it up and other stuff, not just timing. That wasn't all that hard though it took a little longer than normal because the track is longer than was publicly listed.

I could do every race pretty easily if replays were as easy to get as Gulfstream makes them. Most tracks make it much tougher. It can be done but it isn't quick. Gulfstream will probably pull stuff off YouTube after this, lol.

[VigorsTheGrey]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/219578/pegasus-final-time-lowered-to-a-track-record

The article says that "environmental conditions" referring to vendors bringing in their own wireless equipment caused interference with Trakkus timing of the race....Does anybody really know HOW this happens such that a timer slows down because of interference? The devil is in the details....I don't know squat about wireless but I don't think anybody knows what really happened and HOW it transpired at this point...but I could be wrong..

[ReplayRandall]

When Trakus was in its infancy, the concept led me to believe that joining these two things would yield probably its best potential use: reliable workout times.

Every horse on the backside gets a chip. Not implanted, but one that is theirs uniquely. If they go to the track in the morning it gets put in the pocket on a saddle/ saddle towel/ bridle/ whatever. Now, every horse that goes to the track is logged. If you go on to the track and are spotted without a functioning chip, you get assigned one at the gap and called in to see the stewards. After 100 chips get turned in dead from liquid poisoning or some such thing, that excuse ceases to be viable. The clockers are now tasked with following the RF and their live counterparts and visually examining them on the track, inserting benchmarks to mark start and finishes for the chips they are responsible for timing.

I thought it had so much potential for that application alone. It isn't making anyone's job any more difficult after some acclimation (other than stews hearing bad stories of how the chip got ruined - but that's an upside not a downside) and kills about a dozen birds with one stone.

Nope. We got Trakus Beta for eternity.

I believe, as does the Jockey Club, that it's time for all horses to have an equine chip implanted for various reasons, such as horse ID and ICVI Health Certificates. Not only is chipping a far more reliable method for marking horses than traditional methods of branding, it also causes far less injury to the animals. Here are a couple of links that are reliable and up to date on the subject:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/105822/the-jockey-club-to-require-microchips-in-2017

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130625121231.htm

[Cratos]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/219578/pegasus-final-time-lowered-to-a-track-record

The article says that "environmental conditions" referring to vendors bringing in their own wireless equipment caused interference with Trakkus timing of the race....Does anybody really know HOW this happens such that a timer slows down because of interference? The devil is in the details....I don't know squat about wireless but I don't think anybody knows what really happened and HOW it transpired at this point...but I could be wrong..
This was explained to you in a response in an earlier post in this thread and the answer was conducted emissions from Electromagnetic Interference (EMI).

Technically speaking, conducted emissions are internal electromagnetic emissions propagated along a power or signal conductor, creating noise. The noise is subsequently transferred to the equipment.

Therefore, what Trakus is saying is that “noise” (interference) from other electronic devices near interfered with their signal.

That might have happened, I don’t know, but I would say to Trakus: “Spend more money to acquire the technology for better EMC (shielding) and increase signal transmission speed” and the problem should be eliminated.

[ronsmac]

The extra time involved writing it up and other stuff, not just timing. That wasn't all that hard though it took a little longer than normal because the track is longer than was publicly listed.

I could do every race pretty easily if replays were as easy to get as Gulfstream makes them. Most tracks make it much tougher. It can be done but it isn't quick. Gulfstream will probably pull stuff off YouTube after this, lol.A friend asked me if that 5f time on the grass yesterday was legit. I think it was 54.21 for 16k claimers . That seems awfully quick. I thought you may know the answer.

[Tom]

So they know it, but don't see the need to apply the knowledge to time the race? That's encouraging.

Why would the bother?
I am sure they are pissed enough that this was uncovered.
The paying customer and betting public are NEVER considered in this crap-ass excuse of an industry.

[Tom]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/219578/pegasus-final-time-lowered-to-a-track-record

The article says that "environmental conditions" referring to vendors bringing in their own wireless equipment caused interference with Trakkus timing of the race....Does anybody really know HOW this happens such that a timer slows down because of interference? The devil is in the details....I don't know squat about wireless but I don't think anybody knows what really happened and HOW it transpired at this point...but I could be wrong..

If that is the case with environmental conditions, Trakus is admitting what I believe to be true all along - their technology is not adequate for its purpose.
They are a fraud.

I believe, as does the Jockey Club, that it's time for all horses to have an equine chip implanted for various reasons
Agreed. It is time for T-Bred racing to come out of the 18th century.
and long past time for Federal regulation. The game is not responsible engouh to police itself. Time for someone to do it for them.

[cj]

A friend asked me if that 5f time on the grass yesterday was legit. I think it was 54.21 for 16k claimers . That seems awfully quick. I thought you may know the answer.

I haven't started yesterday , but will soon. That does seem really fast.

[cj]

If that is the case with environmental conditions, Trakus is admitting what I believe to be true all along - their technology is not adequate for its purpose.
They are a fraud.

With this being the case how could any track decide to use the Trakus times as official?

[Tom]

Three words.....$$$.
If it cost less, or they got kick backs, what incentive is there for any track to offer correct data, as long as we keep betting?

[Psychotic Parakeet]

I have attach a PDF of Gulfstream Park which was constructed in our model.

Thank you for providing this! I love having this type of information. You wouldn't happen to have one for Santa Anita or Del Mar, would you? ;)

[Cratos]

Thank you for providing this! I love having this type of information. You wouldn't happen to have one for Santa Anita or Del Mar, would you? ;)

Yes, I have both and they are attached.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Yes, I have both and they are attached.

Fantastic! Thank you so much! You have no idea how much I relish having this information. :)

I really love this thread. Very insightful!

[ribjig]

“noise” (interference) from other electronic devices near interfered with their signal.

Related or not? Trakus method-frequency of recalibrating equipment:

Drones that are calibrated near magnetic metal
causing interference, e.g., whilst sitting on concrete
containing rebar, sometimes ignore remote controllers
once airborne & fly off never to be found.

Does Trakus rely on GPS signals? Drones typically
rely on 6-10 or more simultaneous satellite signals
but sometimes that suddenly drops to a couple or
none & drone may fly off out of control...

[Cratos]

Related or not? Trakus method-frequency of recalibrating equipment:

Drones that are calibrated near magnetic metal
causing interference, e.g., whilst sitting on concrete
containing rebar, sometimes ignore remote controllers
once airborne & fly off never to be found.

Does Trakus rely on GPS signals? Drones typically
rely on 6-10 or more simultaneous satellite signals
but sometimes that suddenly drops to a couple or
none & drone may fly off out of control...
You should be addressing your question to Trakus not me because it was Trakus who stated in the published article that it was “interference” what caused their timing problem.

[Si2see]

Great info being added to this thread. It's late and I can't sleep so I figured I would make mention that even Mike Smith thought the time was off when coming back on arrogate. Check out his interview from this week on xbtv

Jason

[cj]

Looks like there was another one. Mike Welsch of DRF tweeted he suspected the time of Nonna Bella's maiden win on Saturday might be too fast. I backed up the video by the final time and you can see the horses are well past the start. Getting tiresome...

[cj]

The other possibility is the pole isn't exactly placed right. Will have to check some other 6.5f races.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The other possibility is the pole isn't exactly placed right. Will have to check some other 6.5f races.

I was going to say that it might be worth seeing if the other lens is right across from either of the two junction looking boxes you see near the ground just past the pole.

[cj]

I was going to say that it might be worth seeing if the other lens is right across from either of the two junction looking boxes you see near the ground just past the pole.

Trakus doesn't use lenses, makes it a little tougher to figure out exactly where they start timing. Actually they start timing from the gate and just subtract any actual distance over the listed race distance as run up.

[AltonKelsey]

Nonna Bela race looks right. Maybe off by a hair (< .2) but nothing like the Pegasus. I'll assume Welsh was talking about too fast by more than a tick.

Wondering why is there a lag in posting the times, should be near instantaneous.

[elhelmete]

This was explained to you in a response in an earlier post in this thread and the answer was conducted emissions from Electromagnetic Interference (EMI).

Technically speaking, conducted emissions are internal electromagnetic emissions propagated along a power or signal conductor, creating noise. The noise is subsequently transferred to the equipment.

Therefore, what Trakus is saying is that “noise” (interference) from other electronic devices near interfered with their signal.

That might have happened, I don’t know, but I would say to Trakus: “Spend more money to acquire the technology for better EMC (shielding) and increase signal transmission speed” and the problem should be eliminated.

If it was an RF issue, here's what's likely.

Pegasus has greater-than-normal TV coverage. This means that there is probably 100x the amount of RF equipment around the facility, such as cameras, microphones, PL, etc.

Normally, on a big production like this (think award shows, NFL, etc.) there would be someone tasked with the responsibility of RF coordinator. You have to submit a list of your equipment and this guy determines whether there will be interference based on proximity to other equipment's frequencies and adjustments get made etc. He also makes a list of known 'background' sources, such as cell towers, TV stations, police and fire, etc.

In reality, there's so much damn RF out there...legal and not...known and unknown...agile and static. You cannot anticipate it all and I can't tell you how many times we've tested and coordinated til our fingers bled and then the show starts and...BOOM...some random source fires up and the RF map goes haywire.

And production cheaps out on small-time sports shoots like this so the coordinator position is often an afterthought.

So...it's not the least bit unlikely that the Trakus system took hits from some random RF source. IMHO a strictly RF-based system has some inherent risks that cannot be fully controlled.

[cj]

Nonna Bela race looks right. Maybe off by a hair (< .2) but nothing like the Pegasus. I'll assume Welsh was talking about too fast by more than a tick.

Wondering why is there a lag in posting the times, should be near instantaneous.

I agree, looked at a few other 6.5f races and I think it is ok. The angle makes it tough to be precise but yes, Mike was talking a full second. I don't think there was a problem.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Trakus doesn't use lenses, makes it a little tougher to figure out exactly where they start timing. Actually they start timing from the gate and just subtract any actual distance over the listed race distance as run up.

:bang:

Sorry, I must have had a bad case of amnesia to not realize the context here. I must have been just reading posts and paying no attention to the thread title and blew right over my head we're still talking Trakus and Gulfstream. :D

[CincyHorseplayer]

I agree, looked at a few other 6.5f races and I think it is ok. The angle makes it tough to be precise but yes, Mike was talking a full second. I don't think there was a problem.

CJ you have been railing for years about GP's timing issues. Do you think now that there is something of a figure making unity with your DRF relationship that you guys can finally make an impact on GP doing this right?

[cj]

CJ you have been railing for years about GP's timing issues. Do you think now that there is something of a figure making unity with your DRF relationship that you guys can finally make an impact on GP doing this right?

Much more well known people than me, including Andy Beyer, have been harping on it for a long time. They don't seem to care. Gulfstream does so many things that are anti-horseplayer I could probably write a small book about it.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Much more well known people than me, including Andy Beyer, have been harping on it for a long time. They don't seem to care. Gulfstream does so many things that are anti-horseplayer I could probably write a small book about it.

Just like charging over $100 to watch the Pegasus Cup in-person.

[dilanesp]

Just like charging over $100 to watch the Pegasus Cup in-person.

They got 17,000 people to show up and pay that. That's a pretty big live gate revenue figure for a horse race.

There's no excuse for the timing, though.

[cj]

They got 17,000 people to show up and pay that. That's a pretty big live gate revenue figure for a horse race.

There's no excuse for the timing, though.

There is no way to know how many people actually were there that PAID to get in. I guarantee you it was nowhere near 17k.

[rsetup]

Trakus doesn't use lenses, makes it a little tougher to figure out exactly where they start timing. Actually they start timing from the gate and just subtract any actual distance over the listed race distance as run up.

How does this impact call position and distance covered?

Can't see how doing it this way wouldn't present issues.

Not to say that starting the timing when the lead horse breaks the bream wouldn't also create related problems.

[PaceAdvantage]

Please, you are applying empirical conclusions; not scientific fact, but if that satisfy you I am perfectly ok with you being wrong and I have moved on.

However, your insatiable ego we never allow the truth to be told on this website unless you “sign off” on it.

Again, I have moved on.Everything you just wrote in criticism to cj actually applies to you 100%.

You whine about being insulted, yet how many times have you basically called cj a dumbass because he doesn't supposedly hold the same degrees and the same education as you supposedly hold?

You could be the smartest ****ing guy on earth, but yet you could still be wrong, and in this particular argument, you appear to be very wrong, but very unwilling to admit such. That, in and of itself, is not the mark of a well educated man.

[PaceAdvantage]

The whole idea of speed handicapping is a joke. Who cares about Beyers or Timeform ratings? The whole discussion about how fast was the mediocre race run at Gulfstream is obsoletely pointless. I don't even look at speed figures?

Andrew Beyers sent horse handicapping back into stone age and directed fools on pursuit equivalent of ancient alchemists for the last 30 years ever since the stupidest book ever written on handicapping--Beyer on Speed.This from the guy who said CC was going to roll in the Pegasus...

[cj]

This from the guy who said CC was going to roll in the Pegasus...

Don't forget that no way Arrogate could beat Midnight Storm at 1 1/16 or 1 1/8. (not that he has yet, but still)

[cj]

How does this impact call position and distance covered?

Can't see how doing it this way wouldn't present issues.

Not to say that starting the timing when the lead horse breaks the bream wouldn't also create related problems.

Since the distance is on a straighaway it really doesn't change anything, they deduct the run up distance from each horse's overall distance.

As for calls, same thing really. They just record each horses time at each POC. The first one is first, the second one is listed second, and so on of course. There are no beaten lengths in reality. If horse A reaches a point in 22.00, and horse B reaches the same point a second later in 23.00, they just convert that 1.00 to a beaten length number. It is much better than the current way of a chart guy making an estimate.

[classhandicapper]

It is much better than the current way of a chart guy making an estimate.

Those differences are sometimes fairly large. :bang:

[cj]

There was some discussion earlier in the thread. Tracks here in the US are measured three feet or from the rail. That is the Jockey Club recommendation and most tracks, if not all, follow it.