PDA

View Full Version : "About" Time for a Change at Gulfstream Park


cj
01-08-2018, 06:10 PM
https://twitter.com/TimeformUS/status/950489407034920961

The other thread has went in different directions, so want to get the focus back on the topic of my article.

Prof.Factor
01-08-2018, 07:02 PM
read the other day at Equibase race day changes for GP .... "distance 7 1/2 furlongs changed to about 7 1/2 furlongs"
LOL

Next they'll be running on about dirt at about half past 10.

HuggingTheRail
01-08-2018, 10:01 PM
read the other day at Equibase race day changes for GP .... "distance 7 1/2 furlongs changed to about 7 1/2 furlongs"
LOL

Next they'll be running on about dirt at about half past 10.


about 4 year olds and up, approximately colts and geldings?

Tom
01-08-2018, 11:33 PM
How about "about turf"
That course looks pretty bad for so early in the season.

onefast99
01-09-2018, 11:46 AM
How about "about turf"
That course looks pretty bad for so early in the season.I'm glad someone else saw this. It seems this course is really chewed up they are getting some rain now and expect showers over the next few days. I am sure the rail will be moved so they can have some new grass but no one knows when that will occur.

classhandicapper
01-09-2018, 11:47 AM
It feels like many of the tracks tend to underestimate their audience. Maybe they are correct that the overwhelming percentage of horse players are totally unaware of these issues, but the ones that are make a lot of noise and probably tend to bet more.

Pigpen
01-09-2018, 12:05 PM
How about "about turf"
That course looks pretty bad for so early in the season.

LOL, very true.

jay68802
01-09-2018, 12:55 PM
The racing secretary writes the conditions of the race, and in the conditions the distance the race is to be run is specified. In the case of the 7.5f turf races at Gulfstream the term "about" is used, or not used. The racing secretary does not know when he or she writes the conditions of a turf race, what the configuration of the turf course is going to be. Wear and tear on the course is going to vary depending on weather. The track maintenance crew is constantly changing where the rails are to prevent over use and for the safety of the horses and jockeys that are running on it. But on the day the race is run, that crew has a plan, with the rails in place, and so the distance and run-up of the race can be measured. So when the racing secretary writes "about" in the conditions it really does not matter. What matters is on the day the race is run, the real distance and run-up can be reported, but is not.

Equibase is the "official" data provider for horse racing. Equibase is responsible for the information provided to the public, and it's accuracy. The reporting or in this case miss-reporting of the distance, and run-up's of the races is entirely their problem. If Equibase needs to have one more person at Gulfstream to be able to collect the correct data, that is what needs to be done. It does not matter how they collect the information. what matters is that they collect accurate information and report it. Does it matter that the original conditions were wrote for 7.5f and because of the track set up today, the distance is really a mile? No, what matters is that the run-up and distance changes are reported to the public before the race is run.

Trackus is another part of this, they provide the "official" times for the races. This is probably the simplest part of the problem. As official timer your job is to accurately time the race. That's it, time the race. We have been timing races and other things for hundreds of years now. We have the technology to do this. Yes, the different lay outs of the turf course's can cause minor problems, but once the real lay out has been learned, you have to do your part also.

So, in the end, Equibase and Trackus, need to get together and figure out a way, to solve this problem. Gulfstream Park should not think that because they only write the conditions that they are not part of this. Because the way these two companies are reporting the information that they collect, it is perceived that your product is not to be trusted.

AskinHaskin
01-09-2018, 01:29 PM
From 2009 through November of 2017, the seven-and-a-half furlong distance was run nearly 800 times at Gulfstream.


How is it that somebody complaining of "about" offers data which is nowhere near to being accurate while he chides a racing association for sticking with "about" so said association doesn't have to be precise?



Gulfstream Park has decided to call a distance “about” when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

... only in the minds of those who have no understanding as to the definition of "about".


The first thing to do is to report data which would fit within the generous swath covered by "about", and then, when your own data is accurate, that's the time to critique others.

Although, in this specific case, your data should be precise before you grumble about somebody else who does not pretend to be precise.

C'mon, you cited a finite window of time (regardless of what you meant by "from 2009..."). You regard yourself as a horse racing official, and these horseplayers deserve better from you.

cj
01-09-2018, 01:57 PM
How is it that somebody complaining of "about" offers data which is nowhere near to being accurate while he chides a racing association for sticking with "about" so said association doesn't have to be precise?




... only in the minds of those who have no understanding as to the definition of "about".


The first thing to do is to report data which would fit within the generous swath covered by "about", and then, when your own data is accurate, that's the time to critique others.

Although, in this specific case, your data should be precise before you grumble about somebody else who does not pretend to be precise.

C'mon, you cited a finite window of time (regardless of what you meant by "from 2009..."). You regard yourself as a horse racing official, and these horseplayers deserve better from you.

Try being coherent instead of just being a dick. If anyone can figure out what this means please let me know.

castaway01
01-09-2018, 03:32 PM
C'mon, you cited a finite window of time (regardless of what you meant by "from 2009..."). You regard yourself as a horse racing official, and these horseplayers deserve better from you.

Whatever the exact number of 7 1/2 furlong races, haven't Gulfstream's timer issues been documented for many years now? What possible reason could there be to defend Gulfstream on this? Their lack of interest in accuracy is a fact at this point.

Fager Fan
01-09-2018, 05:19 PM
Try being coherent instead of just being a dick. If anyone can figure out what this means please let me know.

Doesn't name calling result in demerits? Or is this an "about" situation?

cj
01-09-2018, 05:24 PM
Doesn't name calling result in demerits? Or is this an "about" situation?

Moderators are allowed to follow the NYPD Blue rule when it comes to language, PA instituted that a long time ago. We get a little discretion. :) That said if PA wants to give me one I'm ok with it.

Andy Asaro
01-09-2018, 06:30 PM
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/On-The-Line/comments/01092018-if-at-first-you-do-succeed-try-try-again1/#comments

Excerpt:

Try as it might, it is clear that Gulfstream Park has proven incapable of supplying accurate turf times on a consistent basis, especially at the hybrid distance of 7-1/2 furlongs, according to a well-researched piece authored by TimeformUS figure maker, Craig Milkowski.

Issues at the heart of the concern are the placement and replacement of timing poles with respect to the use of temporary rails; the wide variance of run-up distances prior to the start and the accuracy of the distance itself since Gulfstream has recently employed the term “about” that could cover-up any potential inaccuracies.

We have requested an interview with Gulfstream upper management to discuss the process of collecting the turf times that are a matter of public record via the auspices of past performances data collection by Equibase, a Jockey Club subsidiary.

Tom
01-09-2018, 06:33 PM
Can't wait to hear what they say.....:rolleyes:

Fager Fan
01-09-2018, 07:21 PM
Trust but verify you say in your article.

So:

Why has Gulfstream Park has chosen the route it has chosen? Why isn’t it being made clear to horseplayers that these “about 7.5 furlong” races are really much closer to mile races, and often times even more than a mile? I don’t have the answers to these questions.

Yet here's the latest "about 7 1/2f" turf race from GP:

Race 6, 1/7/18: It lists a run up of 153 feet. That's 12 feet short from being dead smack between 7.5f and 8f.

VigorsTheGrey
01-09-2018, 07:37 PM
There is also a problem with how the DRF is showing wins and starts for 7.5f turf and 8f turf.

Look at 7th race Gulfstream Jan6 2018.

Pony Up, Nauti Boy, Party Boat

So they are considering 7.5f to be the same as 8f...?

cj
01-09-2018, 08:22 PM
Trust but verify you say in your article.

So:

Why has Gulfstream Park has chosen the route it has chosen? Why isn’t it being made clear to horseplayers that these “about 7.5 furlong” races are really much closer to mile races, and often times even more than a mile? I don’t have the answers to these questions.

Yet here's the latest "about 7 1/2f" turf race from GP:

Race 6, 1/7/18: It lists a run up of 153 feet. That's 12 feet short from being dead smack between 7.5f and 8f.

I'm surprised you don't see the biggest problem here. I'll spell it out. Giving a time for an exact distance while reporting it as about is deceptive. No other race in North America is handled this way, even at Gulfstream.

The other part you are ignoring is that the listed run up can't be trusted. Even Equibase sees this. Gulfstream isn't being truthful. It is impossible to calculate the actual run up distance. But time of the run up can be done.

classhandicapper
01-09-2018, 08:30 PM
Aside from the problem with the timing, it's also a problem from a more subjective analysis point of view. If I think a horse has distance limitations and I don't know how far he actually ran last time or how far he's going to be running today, I'm going to make more mistakes.

It doesn't make any sense for a track to be less accurate even if they have issues with certain distances. Just report the reality.

Where's the upside to inaccuracy?

Fager Fan
01-09-2018, 09:03 PM
I'm surprised you don't see the biggest problem here. I'll spell it out. Giving a time for an exact distance while reporting it as about is deceptive. No other race in North America is handled this way, even at Gulfstream.

The other part you are ignoring is that the listed run up can't be trusted. Even Equibase sees this. Gulfstream isn't being truthful. It is impossible to calculate the actual run up distance. But time of the run up can be done.

You are ignoring that you stated something that wasn't true. I went and pulled up the very last race run at the "about 7.5f" distance being nearer to 1 mile when you add the run-up, and it's not.

Why can't the run-up distance be calculated?

VigorsTheGrey
01-09-2018, 09:05 PM
I'm surprised you don't see the biggest problem here. I'll spell it out. Giving a time for an exact distance while reporting it as about is deceptive. No other race in North America is handled this way, even at Gulfstream.

The other part you are ignoring is that the listed run up can't be trusted. Even Equibase sees this. Gulfstream isn't being truthful. It is impossible to calculate the actual run up distance. But time of the run up can be done.

What would be the solutions for this mess considering the maintenance factors of trying to do what is best for the turf course in the long run...there are problems, yes, what do you want them to do about them specifcally...?

storyline
01-09-2018, 09:53 PM
What would be the solutions for this mess considering the maintenance factors of trying to do what is best for the turf course in the long run...there are problems, yes, what do you want them to do about them specifcally...?

Most effective solution, stop wagering

jay68802
01-09-2018, 10:07 PM
Most effective solution, stop wagering

The most effective solution is for Equibase, Trackus, and Gulfstream Park to get together and solve the issue.

storyline
01-09-2018, 10:22 PM
The most effective solution is for Equibase, Trackus, and Gulfstream Park to get together and solve the issue.

Have you considered that someone just might be benefiting from mis-timing races?

Christ my phone lets me know how many steps and distance travelled each day without me even asking for that data. Timing races just isn't that hard unless of course someone doesn't want you to have it.

Maybe Gulfstream should purchase a dozen phones :lol::lol:

jay68802
01-09-2018, 10:44 PM
Have you considered that someone just might be benefiting from mis-timing races?

Christ my phone lets me know how many steps and distance travelled each day without me even asking for that data. Timing races just isn't that hard unless of course someone doesn't want you to have it.

Maybe Gulfstream should purchase a dozen phones :lol::lol:

yes I have considered it, I think that if there is something like this happening it will show when horses that have run poorly at GP on the turf, ship and win. As for your comment on your phone, it shows that there is a solution to the problem, and if it takes someone physically measuring the course each day, then they should do it.

And it should be "about" a dozen phones.

storyline
01-09-2018, 11:03 PM
yes I have considered it, I think that if there is something like this happening it will show when horses that have run poorly at GP on the turf, ship and win. As for your comment on your phone, it shows that there is a solution to the problem, and if it takes someone physically measuring the course each day, then they should do it.

And it should be "about" a dozen phones.


You lost me

Mis-timing races and "it will show when horses that have run poorly at GP on the turf, ship and win" do NOT have a mutual relationship or connection in which one thing affects the other....

cj
01-10-2018, 12:23 AM
You are ignoring that you stated something that wasn't true. I went and pulled up the very last race run at the "about 7.5f" distance being nearer to 1 mile when you add the run-up, and it's not.

Why can't the run-up distance be calculated?

What did I say that wasn't true?

The race you cite, which was run with an alleged run up of 153 feet, would come out to 7.73 furlongs. That is splitting hairs, but that is only if you believe the 153 is accurate. The run up took nearly five seconds. Even from the gate, that is much too slow for thoroughbreds on a firm turf course that is producing fast times. The listed run up distance simply isn't true.

You can't calculate run up distance because of the layout of the course, particularly when the rails are out, often WAY out. The course is not exactly seven furlongs as listed, it is longer. There are no poles. There is no way to visually check where the race starts from a timing perspective.

What you can do is back up from the finish line by the final time of the race. The rest, by default, is the run up...the untimed portion of the race. You can time it and make a pretty reasonable calculation of the distance. I would estimate the run up for this race was at least 30 yards longer than listed.

The problem is, and frankly I can't believe I have to explain this again, that they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They have changed the distance to "about" so frankly they can list the run up at whatever the hell they want to list it. It would be an awful way to treat horseplayers but at least it would be truthful. But the timed distance of the race...the official distance...is not about at all. It is exact.

It is early in the meet, but there were times last year when the run up was taking 12 seconds to complete. It was obviously pushing A FULL FURLONG in length. Equibase called them on it and they were embarrassed I'm sure. They were providing run up distances of less than 300 feet and trying to tell us that could take 12 seconds. Equibase stopped listing the run up for the rest of the meet. What possible excuse could there be for running races that long and only giving you the time for 7.5f?

The biggest joke of the whole thing is that Gulfstream uses Trakus. They know the exact distance of the race. How they can have the nerve to call a distance about is beyond me. It is a lie, a bold faced lie.

Anyway, that is it from me on this. If you can't figure out the issue at this point, I can't help. You don't want to see it.

cj
01-10-2018, 12:25 AM
What would be the solutions for this mess considering the maintenance factors of trying to do what is best for the turf course in the long run...there are problems, yes, what do you want them to do about them specifcally...?

Gulfstream uses Trakus. They know exactly how long the race is. The solution is simple. Give us the time of the race for the nearest half furlong that is available, and give us an accurate distance for the rest of the race, i.e. run up. So easy a caveman could figure out.

Every other track and even Gulfstream for any distance but 7.5f give you this:

Official Distance
Time for that official distance
Run up distance, i.e. the rest

For this distance, Gulfstream is giving you this:

Official Distance (even "about" can be official)
Time for a DIFFERENT distance than the official distance (exactly 7.5f)
Inaccurate run up distance, i.e. the rest

Technically, if you use about, you can call the run up whatever you want. But then you have to time ALL of the rest and give it to us.

jay68802
01-10-2018, 12:50 AM
If horses running at gulf are given lower speed figures and ship to another track and suddenly earn a higher speed figures. Is it because they improved or because the speed figures earned at gulf were lower because of mis-timed races?

VigorsTheGrey
01-10-2018, 01:22 AM
Gulfstream uses Trakus. They know exactly how long the race is. The solution is simple. Give us the time of the race for the nearest half furlong that is available, and give us an accurate distance for the rest of the race, i.e. run up. So easy a caveman could figure out.

Every other track and even Gulfstream for any distance but 7.5f give you this:

Official Distance
Time for that official distance
Run up distance, i.e. the rest

For this distance, Gulfstream is giving you this:

Official Distance (even "about" can be official)
Time for a DIFFERENT distance than the official distance (exactly 7.5f)
Inaccurate run up distance, i.e. the rest

Technically, if you use about, you can call the run up whatever you want. But then you have to time ALL of the rest and give it to us.

...In addition, what I find interesting is that for the "about 7.5" the race heading lists a time of (1:28 and 4/5) and for the "7.5" the heading lists the time of (1:26 and 3/5).

1. " About 7.5" (1:28 and 4/5)
2. "7.5" (1:26 and 3/5).

So the "About 7.5" is longer, but from what I hear you are saying is that both distances at EXACTLY 7.5f verified thru Trakkus? I see what you are saying now...there is no reason why both cannot be timed from the 7.5 distance and make the time for both (1:26 and 3/5). But you are saying the About is excessively longer though claiming to be only 2.125 seconds longer

cj
01-10-2018, 02:38 AM
They are the same. The fake about distance only began this year so the track record is from a small sample. Having a single track record for a distance with over 100 variations is a joke anyway. Many are apples to oranges comparisons.

storyline
01-10-2018, 01:50 PM
If horses running at gulf are given lower speed figures and ship to another track and suddenly earn a higher speed figures. Is it because they improved or because the speed figures earned at gulf were lower because of mis-timed races?

Vigors asked - What would be the solutions for this mess.

The above isn't a solution

cj
01-10-2018, 02:03 PM
Vigors asked - What would be the solutions for this mess.

The above isn't a solution

He was replying to your last post, not to Vigors. I thought that was pretty clear.

You lost me

Mis-timing races and "it will show when horses that have run poorly at GP on the turf, ship and win" do NOT have a mutual relationship or connection in which one thing affects the other....

Jeff P
01-10-2018, 02:59 PM
What did I say that wasn't true?

The race you cite, which was run with an alleged run up of 153 feet, would come out to 7.73 furlongs. That is splitting hairs, but that is only if you believe the 153 is accurate. The run up took nearly five seconds. Even from the gate, that is much too slow for thoroughbreds on a firm turf course that is producing fast times. The listed run up distance simply isn't true.

You can't calculate run up distance because of the layout of the course, particularly when the rails are out, often WAY out. The course is not exactly seven furlongs as listed, it is longer. There are no poles. There is no way to visually check where the race starts from a timing perspective.

What you can do is back up from the finish line by the final time of the race. The rest, by default, is the run up...the untimed portion of the race. You can time it and make a pretty reasonable calculation of the distance. I would estimate the run up for this race was at least 30 yards longer than listed.

The problem is, and frankly I can't believe I have to explain this again, that they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They have changed the distance to "about" so frankly they can list the run up at whatever the hell they want to list it. It would be an awful way to treat horseplayers but at least it would be truthful. But the timed distance of the race...the official distance...is not about at all. It is exact.

It is early in the meet, but there were times last year when the run up was taking 12 seconds to complete. It was obviously pushing A FULL FURLONG in length. Equibase called them on it and they were embarrassed I'm sure. They were providing run up distances of less than 300 feet and trying to tell us that could take 12 seconds. Equibase stopped listing the run up for the rest of the meet. What possible excuse could there be for running races that long and only giving you the time for 7.5f?

The biggest joke of the whole thing is that Gulfstream uses Trakus. They know the exact distance of the race. How they can have the nerve to call a distance about is beyond me. It is a lie, a bold faced lie.

Anyway, that is it from me on this. If you can't figure out the issue at this point, I can't help. You don't want to see it.

I think that's a pretty accurate description of the problem.

I'd also like to say thank you for calling out Gulfstream over this on behalf of horseplayers.

Carry on.


-jp

.

storyline
01-10-2018, 03:07 PM
He was replying to your last post, not to Vigors. I thought that was pretty clear.

I was responding to "What would be the solutions for this mess".

I like others use figures to handicap which are generated largely from fractional and final times provided from Equibase. If those times and distances reported from tracks are inaccurate and can't be quantified then I simply stop wagering.

I don't need to follow horses onto the next circuit to determine if their speed figures improved or not.

So if a horses speed figures improve that proves what exactly? That Gulfstream has mistimed races? Nonsense!

I've made two points only #1 - stop wagering if you can't verify
nor have confidence of mistimed races. #2 Mis-timed races and whether a horse speed figure improves when he runs at another track are NOT correlated.


I thought that was pretty clear

dilanesp
01-10-2018, 03:27 PM
I was thinking about this more deeply and I started to realize what the problem is for Gulfstream.

Let's say you have a turf course that only has one position for the rail. Then it's easy. You position the gate at the same spot every time for 7 1/2 furlongs. It probably has a longer run-up than some other distances because the start is close to the first turn. But speed handicappers like cj have dealt with that one for years. For instance, all of the two turn mile races on mile tracks in California have longer run-ups than other races. They do this to give the horses a longer run into the first turn.

Now, of course, in the real world you have several rail positions on a turf course. So you might say "well, let's position the gate so we have the same distance run-up no matter which position the rail is at". So you have a different gate position for each rail position.

But that creates a couple of problems.

First, the outer rail has to be removable where you are going to park the gate. You have to be able to get the gate in and out. Well, there may not be a gap in the rail at every single parking position. So it may be physically impossible to have the same run-up no matter where the rail is.

Plus, you have the problem of the horsemen. If you put the gate closer to the clubhouse turn when the rails are out, then the guy who draws the outside post is going to get mad when his horse gets hung out on the first turn. Why not park the gate in the same spot where you park it when the rails are in, he is going to ask, so my horse doesn't get hurt so much by the post position?

All of that is with a normal turf course. But one of those super-wide courses like they have at Gulfstream and a few other tracks makes the problem even worse. Because now instead of three different rail positions we might have nine. So you would need to have nine different places to put the gate, and some of them would be quite close to the clubhouse turn.

Now, of course, you could say "well, then, we just won't run 7 1/2 furlong races when the rails are up". But if you do that, the horsemen also get mad, because they want a 7 1/2 furlong race for their stretching out turf sprinter. Now, of course, the race is really a mile, but never underestimate the power of human psychology-- that 7 1/2 furlong race may fill while the mile race doesn't.

So the racing office is now in an impossible position. The horsemen are demanding that a race be carded on all different configurations of the turf course, there's no way to standardize the run-up both for physical reasons and because they don't want to compromise the outside position, and as a result you get ridiculously long run-ups when the rails are up.

"About", of course, is not the solution to this. But I guess I sympathize with the racing office regarding the problem.

cj
01-10-2018, 03:49 PM
I was thinking about this more deeply and I started to realize what the problem is for Gulfstream....



You are assuming horsemen are idiots that they don't realize a race that takes 1:40+ to run on a firm course isn't really 7.5f. Possible for some I guess, but most are smarter than that.

Why would there be some mass demand for these races anyway? Most tracks don't even run them.

cj
01-10-2018, 03:50 PM
#2 Mis-timed races and whether a horse speed figure improves when he runs at another track are NOT correlated.



It just depends...if the speed figure maker isn't diligent, there certainly could be some correlation.

Fager Fan
01-10-2018, 03:56 PM
What did I say that wasn't true?

The race you cite, which was run with an alleged run up of 153 feet, would come out to 7.73 furlongs. That is splitting hairs, but that is only if you believe the 153 is accurate. The run up took nearly five seconds. Even from the gate, that is much too slow for thoroughbreds on a firm turf course that is producing fast times. The listed run up distance simply isn't true.

I already quoted the part of your article that I said wasn't accurate. You said the races were closer to 1m, and this race chart shows that it's not closer to 1m.

What program are you using to come up with these times? I've backed it up, and the online video isn't nearly good enough to verify to any real accuracy. It could be off by a second either way at the finish and also at the start.

I'd also point out that they had a slow start. Even the racecaller notes it, and you could just tell they didn't rocket away from there.

I remember reading an article on the Pegasus timing, and you were noted as coming up with a race time of about half a second different than someone else got and what they ultimately recorded for the time. Trainers and clockers regularly come up with different times, sometimes off by seconds. I'll give that some are better at it than others, but eyeballing is never an accurate way of clocking for obvious reasons.

You can't calculate run up distance because of the layout of the course, particularly when the rails are out, often WAY out. The course is not exactly seven furlongs as listed, it is longer. There are no poles. There is no way to visually check where the race starts from a timing perspective.

What you can do is back up from the finish line by the final time of the race. The rest, by default, is the run up...the untimed portion of the race. You can time it and make a pretty reasonable calculation of the distance. I would estimate the run up for this race was at least 30 yards longer than listed.

Maybe you can't calculate the distance, but someone on the ground could certainly measure it. That's why I was confused as to why you said the run up can't be calculated.

The problem is, and frankly I can't believe I have to explain this again, that they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They have changed the distance to "about" so frankly they can list the run up at whatever the hell they want to list it. It would be an awful way to treat horseplayers but at least it would be truthful. But the timed distance of the race...the official distance...is not about at all. It is exact.

I can understand if they're carding the race as "about" if they don't know exactly what distance it'll be run come raceday. I'm not sure why you are so concerned with the run up, whether it's 5 feet or 250 feet. Normandy Invasion set a track record with a run up of only 5 feet, so short run up, long run up, it's not necessarily the case that the longer run up will result in a faster time even if common sense tries to tell us this will be the case.

As for "how they treat the horseplayers," don't you think distance concerns would be more pressing to the trainers and owners than the horseplayers? I'm guessing that the run ups just don't have that much of an impact, few horses are so exact in their distance capabilities.

It is early in the meet, but there were times last year when the run up was taking 12 seconds to complete. It was obviously pushing A FULL FURLONG in length. Equibase called them on it and they were embarrassed I'm sure. They were providing run up distances of less than 300 feet and trying to tell us that could take 12 seconds. Equibase stopped listing the run up for the rest of the meet. What possible excuse could there be for running races that long and only giving you the time for 7.5f?

I have no idea. I imagine someone gave a reason for what happened.

The biggest joke of the whole thing is that Gulfstream uses Trakus. They know the exact distance of the race. How they can have the nerve to call a distance about is beyond me. It is a lie, a bold faced lie.

Anyway, that is it from me on this. If you can't figure out the issue at this point, I can't help. You don't want to see it.

I'll suggest that it's because it's already entered into Equibase as "about." I know of two tracks who consistently get things wrong. One always lists the wrong purse earnings, and the other always gives the wrong post times on the entries (correct post times are on the results). With both, I'm told they're Equibase issues that they've tried to have corrected multiple times to no avail.

dilanesp
01-10-2018, 03:58 PM
You are assuming horsemen are idiots that they don't realize a race that takes 1:40+ to run on a firm course isn't really 7.5f. Possible for some I guess, but most are smarter than that.

Why would there be some mass demand for these races anyway? Most tracks don't even run them.

Why do merchants mark a product at 99 cents rather than a dollar?

I don't think it is an accident that the distance we are talking about straddles the traditional demarcation between a sprint and a route.

Fager Fan
01-10-2018, 04:02 PM
I was responding to "What would be the solutions for this mess".

I like others use figures to handicap which are generated largely from fractional and final times provided from Equibase. If those times and distances reported from tracks are inaccurate and can't be quantified then I simply stop wagering.

I don't need to follow horses onto the next circuit to determine if their speed figures improved or not.

So if a horses speed figures improve that proves what exactly? That Gulfstream has mistimed races? Nonsense!

I've made two points only #1 - stop wagering if you can't verify
nor have confidence of mistimed races. #2 Mis-timed races and whether a horse speed figure improves when he runs at another track are NOT correlated.


I thought that was pretty clear

Is it a problem? Have Beyers, Ragozin, and Thorograph all said it's a problem? If it's a real problem, then surely it's a problem for all of them.

storyline
01-10-2018, 04:06 PM
It just depends...if the speed figure maker isn't diligent, there certainly could be some correlation.

haha now you're just reaching.

So if a horse improves his speed figure from Saratoga to Belmont that would imply that Saratoga has timing issues? How about SA to Del Mar?

I could list 20 plus different reasons a horse might improve his speed figures and none have to do with mis-timed races.

The question was "What would be the solutions for this mess' so stop with this narrative / misdirection.

Players that use figures generated from a timing system have only two options imo. #1 apply leverage on tracks to provide accurate times and distances/runups. #2 stop wagering.

There are no other options but I'm all ears.

storyline
01-10-2018, 04:10 PM
Is it a problem? Have Beyers, Ragozin, and Thorograph all said it's a problem? If it's a real problem, then surely it's a problem for all of them.

It's a larger problem for the player, they're the ones wagering on inaccurate figs largely unknown to them.

jay68802
01-10-2018, 04:12 PM
03/10/2014 3:23PM
Andrew Beyer: Run-up distances add nothing but distortion
By Andrew Beyer
Print



When Band of Joy was entered at Gulfstream Park last week, most bettors understood that his stamina was a crucial issue in handicapping the race. The horse’s best performances had come in five-furlong sprints on the grass, and now he would be trying to run a much more challenging distance, 7 1/2 furlongs.

Bettors thought he could do it and made him the 2-1 favorite. Band of Joy dueled around the track with Padilla and wrested command 10 strides from the finish line. But Padilla – a colt with more proven staying power – battled back in the final yards to win by a half-length. It might have seemed a reasonable post-mortem to say that 7 1/2 furlongs was a bit too far for Band of Joy.

Read the rest here:

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

Fager Fan
01-10-2018, 04:13 PM
It's a larger problem for the player, they're the ones wagering on inaccurate figs largely unknown to them.

I don't know of any figure makers who aren't well aware of problems making their numbers and warning of such.

jay68802
01-10-2018, 04:18 PM
Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Gulfstream Park Officially Has Run Out of Time

We’ve been sitting on the sidelines observing but now must jump into the Internet fray: The penny-wise, perception-foolish damage being caused by Gulfstream Park’s timing issues have come to a head in recent weeks and inaction can no longer stand.

The track must hire an experienced clocker, a designated Official Timer, a person indicated as such in the official track program.

Read the rest here:

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/On-The-Line/comments/02282017-gulfstream-park-officially-has-run-out-of-time/

classhandicapper
01-10-2018, 04:20 PM
In a perfect world, Thoroughbred racing would do what every other sport does: Run races at exact distances and time them from the start.

The problem with this hope is that then we'd probably have to start constructing tracks differently or stop running some common distances that start too close to the turn as presently constructed.

Maybe instead of 1M being one of the signature distances we'd have to start running more 1M 40 yard races without a run up.

cj
01-10-2018, 04:28 PM
I already quoted the part of your article that I said wasn't accurate. You said the races were closer to 1m, and this race chart shows that it's not closer to 1m.

The chart is wrong, that is the whole point. In this case you were talking about it being off by 0.02 furlongs. Like I said, splitting hairs, but it is wrong anyway. If I implied (or my editor) that EVERY race was closer to a mile, that was a mistake and I'll fix it. But many are, and some even longer. How do you completely ignore my explanation and say the same thing over again? If you want to show me how I'm wrong, fine (though you can't), but you can't just say it again like it is fact. It isn't.

What program are you using to come up with these times? I've backed it up, and the online video isn't nearly good enough to verify to any real accuracy. It could be off by a second either way at the finish and also at the start.

The video I have is crystal clear in HD. I have no idea what you are using. I've never had a problem before and never once have I pointed out a wrong time in a big race and had anyone proved me wrong. A few tried, like Trakus, then went away with their tail between their legs. I've said many times the margin of error for a race is about 0.10 seconds, and that is being conservative. It is probably closer to 0.05.

I'd also point out that they had a slow start. Even the racecaller notes it, and you could just tell they didn't rocket away from there.

Announcers are experts on pace? Come on. No, they didn't rocket out, but the time still tells me the listed run up distance is bogus. Whether you want to admit it or not I'm about as close to an expert in that area as you will find. Randy Moss is another. I don't know anyone else doing this. If they are out there they don't tell anybody. But I know how long run ups should take. Obviously all fields are different, but using track speed, the pace of the race, and horses, it is pretty easy to get within a fifth of a second. My estimate could be a half second off in this case (I did it very conservatively) and the run up would still be wrong in my opinion.

I remember reading an article on the Pegasus timing, and you were noted as coming up with a race time of about half a second different than someone else got and what they ultimately recorded for the time. Trainers and clockers regularly come up with different times, sometimes off by seconds. I'll give that some are better at it than others, but eyeballing is never an accurate way of clocking for obvious reasons.

I have no idea what the point of this is. I've never once said timing was wrong because I eyeballed something. Hand timing is terrible for accuracy, so of course trainers and clockers disagree. Most are lucky to get within a second using hand times. Again, I don't, and never have. When it comes to the Pegasus, Randy Moss and I were 0.01 seconds apart using different equipment and different replays. I'm 100% confident we're both within 0.05 at absolute worst. Of course Gulfstream was never going to use our times. They had enough egg on their face already.



Maybe you can't calculate the distance, but someone on the ground could certainly measure it. That's why I was confused as to why you said the run up can't be calculated.

Well, yes of course. Trakus/Guflstream can and probably do know the exact distance. They just don't give it to us and without access to the track for a few hours nobody can calculate it.



I can understand if they're carding the race as "about" if they don't know exactly what distance it'll be run come raceday. I'm not sure why you are so concerned with the run up, whether it's 5 feet or 250 feet. Normandy Invasion set a track record with a run up of only 5 feet, so short run up, long run up, it's not necessarily the case that the longer run up will result in a faster time even if common sense tries to tell us this will be the case.

You still don't get it. The way Gulfstream times races is with Trakus. There are no about distances. If they want to call them about in the condition book or something, fine, but that info has no business being in the PPs. The distance of the race and the final time should match...they don't in this case. You can't tell customers a race was run and timed for about 7.5f when it was timed for exactly 7.5f.

As for the track record, you don't know much about Gulfstream. First off, the run up is always the same for mile dirt races. So what in the world would that possibly have to do with the track record? There were also timing problems with that race if you've forgotten. A google search will refresh your memory. That race should never have been credited with a track record. But again, completely irrelevant saying he set a track record with a short run up.

There are big problems with how they time the dirt mile races. They can't set up the equipment properly because they don't own the land at the end of the chute. First quarters are often a joke. They also rely on the Equibase chart guy pressing a button when the gate open. Good luck with that being accurate! From experience, it often isn't.



As for "how they treat the horseplayers," don't you think distance concerns would be more pressing to the trainers and owners than the horseplayers? I'm guessing that the run ups just don't have that much of an impact, few horses are so exact in their distance capabilities.

I have no idea if it should be "more important" for horsemen. I also don't care. If it is more pressing, they are being lied to as well. But there is no reason not to give bettors correct information.


I have no idea. I imagine someone gave a reason for what happened.

A reason, no, but PJ made it clear he doesn't give a crap.



I'll suggest that it's because it's already entered into Equibase as "about." There is one track that always lists the purse amounts different than what they actually are. We inquired as to why this is, and were told by the track that it was an issue with Equibase, that they've tried to correct it. Another track always runs late after the first race. We finally inquired why they never go off on time. We were again told that it was an Equibase issue, that they've submitted different (the correct) post times many times, yet it still lists incorrect post times.

Nope, that isn't it all. Races have the distances changed after PPs are drawn all the time and it isn't a problem. Surely you've seen this a time or hundred before.

cj
01-10-2018, 04:29 PM
I don't know of any figure makers who aren't well aware of problems making their numbers and warning of such.

You think BRIS and Equibase speed figures are accounting for this stuff? I know I don't.

cj
01-10-2018, 04:31 PM
Is it a problem? Have Beyers, Ragozin, and Thorograph all said it's a problem? If it's a real problem, then surely it's a problem for all of them.'

It isn't a problem in that we all just do the best we can with the poor data we're given. All I'm saying is we deserve better. I've never said figures can't be made for the races, and I think I do it better than anyone.

cj
01-10-2018, 04:33 PM
haha now you're just reaching.

So if a horse improves his speed figure from Saratoga to Belmont that would imply that Saratoga has timing issues? How about SA to Del Mar?

I could list 20 plus different reasons a horse might improve his speed figures and none have to do with mis-timed races.

The question was "What would be the solutions for this mess' so stop with this narrative / misdirection.

Players that use figures generated from a timing system have only two options imo. #1 apply leverage on tracks to provide accurate times and distances/runups. #2 stop wagering.

There are no other options but I'm all ears.

That is a Stretch Armstrong type reach on what I said. There are obviously a ton of reasons a horse's speed figure could drastically change. A wrong one in one of the races is always a possibility, no matter what the reason is that it is wrong. Timing is certainly one of the reasons a figure could be wrong. There is no need to read way more into what I write than what is there.

I already gave an answer as to the solution. And dude, you haven't been around near long enough to be giving anyone an attitude. I've been polite and so was the other guy to whom you gave a snide response. Try it some time.

cj
01-10-2018, 04:36 PM
Why do merchants mark a product at 99 cents rather than a dollar?

I don't think it is an accident that the distance we are talking about straddles the traditional demarcation between a sprint and a route.

Horsemen I know think in terms of one and two turns much more than the exact distance. Gulfstream isn't fulling anyone at this point. Maybe in the beginning they did.

Tom
01-10-2018, 04:39 PM
And you are not alone in that opinion!
I will defer to CJ's endless posts offering proof, often in the form of video, to the hot air blather some in the thread area spewing out.

Thanks you to CJ for caring about the customers - something most tracks do not.

cj
01-10-2018, 04:43 PM
The problem with this hope is that then we'd probably have to start constructing tracks differently or stop running some common distances that start too close to the turn as presently constructed.

Maybe instead of 1M being one of the signature distances we'd have to start running more 1M 40 yard races without a run up.

Tracks can call them all mile races, just give us the time for the whole distance and the actual distance of the race. You want to also give the time in the traditional method, fine.

onefast99
01-10-2018, 06:46 PM
I just noticed something today in regards to beyer figures, it seems that horses that run on the big race days at tracks end up with higher beyers, why is that?

jay68802
01-10-2018, 10:16 PM
You think BRIS and Equibase speed figures are accounting for this stuff? I know I don't.

Check their figure for Dec 3 Race #10 at Gulf.

classhandicapper
01-11-2018, 12:54 AM
Tracks can call them all mile races, just give us the time for the whole distance and the actual distance of the race. You want to also give the time in the traditional method, fine.

I know you are more interested in the accuracy of times.

I was just commenting on keeping things somewhat consistent. The way the tracks are now, they sometimes can't run a 1m race if they stopped using run ups altogether. They'd have to run races at 1m 40yd or 1m 70yd and call them that even though they'd be identical to the races they run now and call 1m.

classhandicapper
01-11-2018, 12:55 AM
I just noticed something today in regards to beyer figures, it seems that horses that run on the big race days at tracks end up with higher beyers, why is that?

The cards and horses tend to be of higher quality.

cj
01-11-2018, 11:42 AM
I know you are more interested in the accuracy of times.

I was just commenting on keeping things somewhat consistent. The way the tracks are now, they sometimes can't run a 1m race if they stopped using run ups altogether. They'd have to run races at 1m 40yd or 1m 70yd and call them that even though they'd be identical to the races they run now and call 1m.

Yeah, I think the best answer is to just keep things as is but give extra data...the actual distance and time of the entire race. This really shouldn't be that hard. That way, you don't upset the whole apple cart while giving added benefit.

I'm always mystified at people that tell you what data you do and don't need in this game. Just give us everything you can within reason, we'll figure it out from there.

dilanesp
01-11-2018, 03:37 PM
I know you are more interested in the accuracy of times.

I was just commenting on keeping things somewhat consistent. The way the tracks are now, they sometimes can't run a 1m race if they stopped using run ups altogether. They'd have to run races at 1m 40yd or 1m 70yd and call them that even though they'd be identical to the races they run now and call 1m.

One weird thing about Hollywood Park was that over the last 23 years of its existence, they never carded a mile race on the dirt.

I mean, I personally like the symbolic importance of the distance (and another sport I love, track and field, has definitely been hurt in the US by the switch from 1 mile to 1500 meters because casual fans can't relate to the latter distance as well), but its not as though people were going to Hollywood Park on Friday nights and saying "gee I really miss mile races on the dirt".

Denny
01-11-2018, 05:26 PM
I'm glad I've gotten away from betting Thoroughbreds. I do still like to follow it for the big races and on occasion.

I bet Standardbreds where EVERY race is on DIRT and virtually(*) EVERY race is at I-MILE. Speed figures are reliable. Variants have numerous races to be based on.

(*) Some races are run at 1-1/4 at Yonkers on Sundays for simulcast to France. The meadowlands occasionally runs a race at an extended distance as well. But, these are seldom occurrences. Pompano park even had a 5/8's dash recently.

But, the vast, vast majority of races are at the SAME DISTANCE and over a similar racing surface.

I'll never go back to betting thoroughbreds seriously as things are just getting ridiculous with the proliferation of turf racing and temporary rail and gate placements. NO SPEED figures on turf can be trusted IMO.

Furthermore, the dirt figures have less races to be based on, and are therefor less reliable.

Just my opinion, but, I'm glad I re-discovered Harness racing in the last five years and now direct my attention there almost entirely for betting.

Jeff P
01-11-2018, 05:44 PM
To my way of thinking, responsibility for bad chart data rests squarely on the shoulders of track management, horsemen, and state regulators.

Imo, the current situation at Gulfstream, and the situation at many other tracks as well, has become what it is because track management, horsemen, and state regulators don't seem to think accurate timing of races and dissemination of accurate chart data to Equibase is a priority.

If track management, horsemen, and state regulators really thought accurate timing of races and dissemination of accurate chart data to Equibase was a priority:

The industry would become proactive.

They would be reaching out to players (and figure makers like CJ.) Behind the scenes we would be having conversations about:

a. Identifying key areas where the current way of timing races and "sanity checking" of chart data before transmitting it to Equibase is lacking.

b. Improving those key areas.

c. Developing a vastly improved set of internal controls for validating runup, fractional times, and final race time.

d. Implementing these internal controls at the track level. This would include teaching track personnel how to validate runup, fractional times, and final race time from video using software.

Here's a link to a video on the DRF site where CJ explains some of the basics in plain English:
http://video.drf.com/detail/videos/out-of-the-gate/video/5607616734001/out-of-the-gate---episode-33---queen-elizabeth-ii-challenge-cup-edition?autoStart=true

Hint: Fast forward to about the 23:25 mark and watch from there. (It's kind of eye opening.)

As an aside, I find it really odd that validating chart data from video using software is something a lot of serious horseplayers have been doing for years -- but somehow remains an area that many with jobs in the industry are clueless about.

That said, this isn't about making people who work in the industry look bad.

This is about empowering track personnel to vastly improve "sanity checking" of chart data.

Imo, the objective should be to catch and correct timing and data entry errors at the track level -- and PREVENT bad chart data from being transmitted to Equibase in the first place.

Sadly, to the best of my knowledge -- NONE of this is taking place, or even being discussed, behind the scenes.

Imo, the current situation at Gulfstream, and the situation at many other tracks as well, is what it is because industry decision makers continue to bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem will somehow magically go away.

Imo, ignoring the problem isn't a solution.

Imo, it's time for the industry to get proactive.


-jp

.

cj
01-11-2018, 05:57 PM
One weird thing about Hollywood Park was that over the last 23 years of its existence, they never carded a mile race on the dirt.

I mean, I personally like the symbolic importance of the distance (and another sport I love, track and field, has definitely been hurt in the US by the switch from 1 mile to 1500 meters because casual fans can't relate to the latter distance as well), but its not as though people were going to Hollywood Park on Friday nights and saying "gee I really miss mile races on the dirt".

Wasn't Hollywood 1 1/8 miles? They had the one turn miles but then I think they shortened the chute or something so they went away. No way they could run a two turn mile.

cj
01-11-2018, 06:04 PM
To my way of thinking, responsibility for bad chart data rests squarely on the shoulders of track management, horsemen, and state regulators.

Imo, the current situation at Gulfstream, and the situation at many other tracks as well, has become what it is because track management, horsemen, and state regulators don't seem to think accurate timing of races and dissemination of accurate chart data to Equibase is a priority.

If track management, horsemen, and state regulators really thought accurate timing of races and dissemination of accurate chart data to Equibase was a priority:

The industry would become proactive.

They would be reaching out to players (and figure makers like CJ.) Behind the scenes we would be having conversations about:

a. Identifying key areas where the current way of timing races and "sanity checking" of chart data before transmitting it to Equibase is lacking.

b. Improving those key areas.

c. Developing a vastly improved set of internal controls for validating runup, fractional times, and final race time.

d. Implementing these internal controls at the track level. This would include teaching track personnel how to validate runup, fractional times, and final race time from video using software.

Here's a link to a video on the DRF site where CJ explains some of the basics in plain English:
http://video.drf.com/detail/videos/out-of-the-gate/video/5607616734001/out-of-the-gate---episode-33---queen-elizabeth-ii-challenge-cup-edition?autoStart=true

Hint: Fast forward to about the 23:25 mark and watch from there. (It's kind of eye opening.)

As an aside, I find it really odd that validating chart data from video using software is something a lot of serious horseplayers have been doing for years -- but somehow remains an area that many with jobs in the industry are clueless about.

That said, this isn't about making people who work in the industry look bad.

This is about empowering track personnel to vastly improve "sanity checking" of chart data.

Imo, the objective should be to catch and correct timing and data entry errors at the track level -- and PREVENT bad chart data from being transmitted to Equibase in the first place.

Sadly, to the best of my knowledge -- NONE of this is taking place, or even being discussed, behind the scenes.

Imo, the current situation at Gulfstream, and the situation at many other tracks as well, is what it is because industry decision makers continue to bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem will somehow magically go away.

Imo, ignoring the problem isn't a solution.

Imo, it's time for the industry to get proactive.


-jp

.

Well said. Equibase's general response to pointing out errors is something like "thanks, please let us know any time you see one and we'll get it fixed"...but nothing is done to find out why they happen and how to catch them. I volunteered to provide a better way for finding bad times FOR FREE and was actually turned down.

jay68802
01-11-2018, 06:22 PM
To my way of thinking, responsibility for bad chart data rests squarely on the shoulders of track management, horsemen, and state regulators.

Imo, the current situation at Gulfstream, and the situation at many other tracks as well, has become what it is because track management, horsemen, and state regulators don't seem to think accurate timing of races and dissemination of accurate chart data to Equibase is a priority.


.

I am in agreement with what you are saying here. This situation has been a issue for way to long now. Beyer wrote of the same thing in 2014, and we know that it has been going on for longer than that.

Correct me if I am wrong here. I have been looking and can find no regulations any where that require tracks to report any information on the timing or any other information related to PP data. As near as I can tell, Equibase is entirely responsible for the collection and distribution of this information.

If this is true, I can see why tracks would not want to spend money on something like this if it is not required, even if would promote better customer relations.

cj
01-11-2018, 06:33 PM
I am in agreement with what you are saying here. This situation has been a issue for way to long now. Beyer wrote of the same thing in 2014, and we know that it has been going on for longer than that.

Correct me if I am wrong here. I have been looking and can find no regulations any where that require tracks to report any information on the timing or any other information related to PP data. As near as I can tell, Equibase is entirely responsible for the collection and distribution of this information.

If this is true, I can see why tracks would not want to spend money on something like this if it is not required, even if would promote better customer relations.

Usually this stuff is in the rules laid out by the state racing commissions. I found a funny one in Florida:

(26) “Post time” means the time set for the arrival at the starting point of the horses or greyhounds in a race or the beginning of a game in jai alai.

dilanesp
01-11-2018, 06:37 PM
Wasn't Hollywood 1 1/8 miles? They had the one turn miles but then I think they shortened the chute or something so they went away. No way they could run a two turn mile.

They moved the finish line back to its original position, which made the chute a 7 1/2 furlong chute.

jay68802
01-11-2018, 06:42 PM
Usually this stuff is in the rules laid out by the state racing commissions. I found a funny one in Florida:

I would venture a guess and say that there is a "budget shortfall" in their ability to enforce this one. I was watching Gulfstream today, for the race that started the pick 6, it just happened that they started to get in line to load exactly when the pool reached $2,000,000.:eek:

jay68802
01-11-2018, 06:44 PM
Post time for the 4th race tomarrow is $3,000,000.00.

cj
01-11-2018, 06:49 PM
They moved the finish line back to its original position, which made the chute a 7 1/2 furlong chute.

Ah yes, they were the only track that ran 7.5f as a regular distance on dirt around one turn.

cj
01-11-2018, 06:49 PM
Post time for the 4th race tomarrow is $3,000,000.00.

That is some funny stuff right there.

Jeff P
01-11-2018, 06:53 PM
Usually this stuff is in the rules laid out by the state racing commissions. I found a funny one in Florida:

and:
(26) “Post time” means the time set for the arrival at the starting point of the horses or greyhounds in a race or the beginning of a game in jai alai.


Reminds me of that Master Card commercial:

Having just spent several hours today totally immersed in today's Gulfstream card and discovering Florida has a rule on the books defining what post time means?

PRICELESS!



-jp

.

Denny
01-11-2018, 07:08 PM
With Meadowlands cancelled this past weekend, decided to go to the Albany Clubhouse, only to find Aqueduct also cancelled.

Bought the cheapest PP's ($2 printouts) for Gulfstream.

Never needed to look at a SPEED FIGURE.

Handicapped with basic information and hit back-to-back-to-back races at Gulf.
Hawkish at 10-1
Flameaway at 5-2
and a double with
Cove Blue who went off at 5-1.
Then missed (had the runner-up in the next two races) .

Like the good-old days before speed figures were in the Form!!!

An excellent day out.

VigorsTheGrey
01-12-2018, 03:55 AM
Ah yes, they were the only track that ran 7.5f as a regular distance on dirt around one turn.

Something interesting

https://www.twinspires.com/blog/2018/1/11/months-worth-gulfstream-park-turf-racing

cj
01-12-2018, 09:12 AM
Something interesting

https://www.twinspires.com/blog/2018/1/11/months-worth-gulfstream-park-turf-racing

He should use more than this meet to get a worthwhile sample.

cj
01-12-2018, 10:03 AM
Well said. Equibase's general response to pointing out errors is something like "thanks, please let us know any time you see one and we'll get it fixed"...but nothing is done to find out why they happen and how to catch them. I volunteered to provide a better way for finding bad times FOR FREE and was actually turned down.

Here is a good one from Turfway last night, 1st quarter, 1st race. I found it in the blink of an eye. Equibase has no idea. I've stopped helping them for a different reason, nothing against Equibase, but am making this one time exception to show how easy it can be. Whoever entered the time fat fingered it by a full second too fast.

classhandicapper
01-12-2018, 10:37 AM
I'm always mystified at people that tell you what data you do and don't need in this game. Just give us everything you can within reason, we'll figure it out from there.

I'm a huge fan of more data.

I sort of understand why some people might want to help less experienced handicappers that could be overwhelmed by too much information, but that gets very subjective. You and I are both very experienced and agree on a lot of things, but we use different information also.

Tom
01-12-2018, 04:39 PM
Part II

https://www.twinspires.com/blog/2018/1/12/months-worth-gulfstream-park-turf-racing-part-ii

cj
01-12-2018, 07:41 PM
My buddy jocko wants me to kill this thread, but I can't just yet!

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/status/951962147667546113

jocko699
01-12-2018, 07:43 PM
My buddy jocko wants me to kill this thread, but I can't just yet!

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/status/951962147667546113

A Car's song, "Going round and round........"

cj
01-12-2018, 07:48 PM
A Car's song, "Going round and round........"

I'll never give up the fight. The race today, and probably race 10 but I haven't checked, were pushing 8.5f, but are listed and being timed as 7.5f races. It is a slap in the face to horseplayers. They are withholding the time of 11% of the race. And the times are 100% available in the Trakus system. There is no good reason for them not to provide this information.

jocko699
01-12-2018, 07:52 PM
I'll never give up the fight. The race today, and probably race 10 but I haven't checked, were pushing 8.5f, but are listed and being timed as 7.5f races. It is a slap in the face to horseplayers. They are withholding the time of 11% of the race. And the times are 100% available in the Trakus system. There is no good reason for them not to provide this information.

Well you know how I feel. It's a ffing travesty in this day and age. It reflects the people at GP really don't give a shite. That is why they are a third rate track.

jay68802
01-12-2018, 07:57 PM
Maybe they will start not reporting if the race was a CLM, or ALW, that would be fun. And why report what track it was run at, maybe just tell handicappers what state it was run in. And random horses that it ran against, not the first 3 finishers...

Lemon Drop Husker
01-12-2018, 08:14 PM
What's the problem?

7F is horrible. 7.5F is more kinda sorta more horrible.

Isn't every horse in the race running the same course when the gates open?

Are you really nutting down and 'capping the 7.5F vs 7.5F "maybe" distance?

I simply pass. Why even bother.

cj
01-12-2018, 08:23 PM
What's the problem?

7F is horrible. 7.5F is more kinda sorta more horrible.

Isn't every horse in the race running the same course when the gates open?

Are you really nutting down and 'capping the 7.5F vs 7.5F "maybe" distance?

I simply pass. Why even bother.

I hate to say this, but the problem seems to have gone over your head, like a few others in the thread. No big deal, good luck!

Afleet
01-12-2018, 08:30 PM
I hate to say this, but the problem seems to have gone over your head, like a few others in the thread. No big deal, good luck!

why not quit making figures for the track and steer your customers away from playing there due to the lack of transparency? These people only understand money, have to hit them were it hurts. See KEE as an example of stepping on their customers

Lemon Drop Husker
01-12-2018, 08:39 PM
why not quit making figures for the track and steer your customers away from playing there due to the lack of transparency? These people only understand money, have to hit them were it hurts. See KEE as an example of stepping on their customers

If they all suck, what track do you play?

Woodbine?

cj
01-12-2018, 08:43 PM
why not quit making figures for the track and steer your customers away from playing there due to the lack of transparency? These people only understand money, have to hit them were it hurts. See KEE as an example of stepping on their customers

The problem is these horses will show up elsewhere so I have to do the work. I can't have blanks for horses lining up for the Kentucky Derby! I just put the info out there. People can make their own decisions.

Afleet
01-12-2018, 08:43 PM
If they all suck, what track do you play?

Woodbine?

when did I say they all suck?

jocko699
01-12-2018, 08:45 PM
"Going round and round.................."

Afleet
01-12-2018, 08:46 PM
The problem is these horses will show up elsewhere so I have to do the work. I can't have blanks for horses lining up for the Kentucky Derby! I just put the info out there. People can make their own decisions.

Hope they straighten it out. I with what you are trying to do, just throwing something else out there.

Afleet
01-12-2018, 08:50 PM
If they all suck, what track do you play?

Woodbine?

I play OP, KEE (except for last meet), CD, KY Downs-they get 80%+ of my play. Play the BC no matter where it is. Thats why I'm so critical of CD and KEE-they are screwing up the best places to play when they should be taking market share from CA and others.

VigorsTheGrey
01-14-2018, 01:47 PM
Part 3

https://www.twinspires.com/blog/2018/1/13/months-worth-gulfstream-park-turf-racing-part-iii

cj
01-14-2018, 01:59 PM
Part 3

https://www.twinspires.com/blog/2018/1/13/months-worth-gulfstream-park-turf-racing-part-iii

That guy is trying to make something out of data that is way too small to get any useful conclusions, IMO. Post positions in particular take way, way more than this tiny sample to learn anything.

Average winning post position? Seriously?

cj
01-14-2018, 02:02 PM
He also doesn't know what he is talking about. The statement below from the article is about as false as it gets. He doesn't understand that the run up is never 0, that is just how Equibase is telling customers Gulfstream is lying.

Some of them are logical. If you are going to go 7 1/2 furlongs when the rail is out at 96 and 120 feet, there is no run up. When the rail is placed at 36 feet, it can be as low as zero and as high as 242 feet.

VigorsTheGrey
01-14-2018, 02:04 PM
That guy is trying to make something out of data that is way too small to get any useful conclusions, IMO. Post positions in particular take way, way more than this tiny sample to learn anything.

Average winning post position? Seriously?

Agree, AWPP doesn't really tell you much without know the their actual distributions...

Tom
01-14-2018, 05:35 PM
why not quit making figures for the track and steer your customers away from playing there due to the lack of transparency? These people only understand money, have to hit them were it hurts. See KEE as an example of stepping on their customers

I never use a paceline from GP or Kee or Dmr for any other track -- I just look at them as workout s not any indication of a horse's ability. Just WOs over crappy tracks with not credibility. I would not make a bet based on any performance at what I consider to be marginal minor league tracks like these three. Especially GP - the track where time stands still! :rolleyes:

Been working for decades.

Tom
01-14-2018, 05:38 PM
Maybe they will start not reporting if the race was a CLM, or ALW, that would be fun. And why report what track it was run at, maybe just tell handicappers what state it was run in. And random horses that it ran against, not the first 3 finishers...

Yeah, claiming, "about $20,000" at 6 or so furlongs, probably on dirt.
Franky's contributions to this game are legendary! :pound:

Thomas Roulston
01-15-2018, 11:12 AM
Of course Fair Grounds has this same "about" problem - for all its turf distances.

But I've never been able to figure out why.

cj
01-15-2018, 11:54 AM
Of course Fair Grounds has this same "about" problem - for all its turf distances.

But I've never been able to figure out why.

Pretty simple...they only have one set of timing poles. So when the rails move, they time them the same way regardless of where the rail is. Doesn't explain why races where there is no temp rail (0 setting) are also called about. I'm trying to find out today.

Thomas Roulston
01-15-2018, 12:10 PM
I'd really appreciate it if you did find out - and you got to hand it to FG: The turns on their turf course are 814 feet long, and yet they run (about) 7 1/2 furlongs with only a 150-foot run from the finish line to the first turn, making it a 480-foot run overall. Yet Aqueduct refuses to run 7 1/2 furlongs on turf when that would involve approximately a 620-foot run into an 824-foot turn.

cj
01-15-2018, 12:16 PM
I'd really appreciate it if you did find out - and you got to hand it to FG: The turns on their turf course are 814 feet long, and yet they run (about) 7 1/2 furlongs with only a 150-foot run from the finish line to the first turn, making it a 480-foot run overall. Yet Aqueduct refuses to run 7 1/2 furlongs on turf when that would involve approximately a 620-foot run into an 824-foot turn.

Well you should love Gulfstream then, they run tons of 7.5f races even if they really aren't 7.5f.

Thomas Roulston
01-15-2018, 12:22 PM
But the gap from 5 1/2 furlongs to 7 1/2 furlongs at Gulfstream (and Fair Grounds) is lame. My latest "one and a half turf courses" design inside a 1 1/4-mile dirt track has no gaps at all - and its two-turn, 7-furlong turf start has a 530-foot (not counting any run-up) run into a 955-foot turn - well within acceptable guidelines based on what other tracks "get away with."

jay68802
01-15-2018, 01:41 PM
Well you should love Gulfstream then, they run tons of 7.5f races even if they really aren't 7.5f.

Can't resist this correction. They time a lot of 7.5f races, but run them at different distances.

cj
01-15-2018, 01:45 PM
Can't resist this correction. They time a lot of 7.5f races, but run them at different distances.

Perfect.

VigorsTheGrey
01-15-2018, 01:52 PM
"About " covers a whole lot of expected variance...CYA...they, therefore are never lying to anyone ABOUT the distances and the times...

cj
01-15-2018, 01:53 PM
"About " covers a whole lot of expected variance...CYA...they, therefore are never lying to anyone ABOUT the distances and the times...

Problem is, as I've detailed. it isn't an about distance. It is a lie.

Thomas Roulston
01-15-2018, 01:56 PM
But sometimes the difference between the "about" distance and the exact distance was set in stone. At Suffolk Downs, for example, the "about" distance was always 50 feet more than the exact distance, at every distance.

cj
01-15-2018, 02:01 PM
But sometimes the difference between the "about" distance and the exact distance was set in stone. At Suffolk Downs, for example, the "about" distance was always 50 feet more than the exact distance, at every distance.

Not the case at GP, or FG.

Fager Fan
01-15-2018, 02:10 PM
Not the case at GP, or FG.

How many people between here and twitter have you found that cares about this topic? A half dozen? I'll give you a dozen to be generous.

Apparently this isn't bothering the average horseplayer. If you want this data for the product you're selling, then perhaps you should look into partnering with the tracks and putting up some $ to get it. Clearly it costs money on their part to get it, and we know how tracks are all flush with cash.

cj
01-15-2018, 02:17 PM
How many people between here and twitter have you found that cares about this topic? A half dozen? I'll give you a dozen to be generous.

Apparently this isn't bothering the average horseplayer. If you want this data for the product you're selling, then perhaps you should look into partnering with the tracks and putting up some $ to get it. Clearly it costs money on their part to get it, and we know how tracks are all flush with cash.

Hundreds, at a minimum. As usual, like your last lengthy post which I picked apart (you never addressed the reply) and the Frankel thread, you are over your head.

We already pay a ton of money to get the data. Asking for races to be timed properly and distances reported accurately shouldn't come at a premium.

Fager Fan
01-15-2018, 02:32 PM
Hundreds, at a minimum. As usual, like your last lengthy post which I picked apart (you never addressed the reply) and the Frankel thread, you are over your head.

We already pay a ton of money to get the data. Asking for races to be timed properly and distances reported accurately shouldn't come at a premium.

No, I just decided it wasn't worth it. You saying you're always correct to the tenth of a second when this article proves that you even came up with two times that were over .30 different from each other, and other experts who likewise came up with times of .30 or more different than you:

https://www.americasbestracing.net/the-sport/2017-arrogates-pegasus-time-lowered-track-record

Your earlier response as to why they didn't take your time over the time of the other experts was another swipe at GP. You sound very much like a person with an axe to grind, and on this matter and all things GP, like a dog with a bone.

cj
01-15-2018, 02:39 PM
No, I just decided it wasn't worth it. You saying you're always correct to the tenth of a second when this article proves that you even came up with two times that were over .30 different from each other, and other experts who likewise came up with times of .30 or more different than you:

https://www.americasbestracing.net/the-sport/2017-arrogates-pegasus-time-lowered-track-record

As for this issue, as Tom would say, Dog, meet bone.

That article leaves out why I had the time wrong initially. It wasn't the time at all, it was the distance. Gulfstream lies about the distance of the track. It isn't 9f. I subsequently learned it is a little longer than 9f through my own research. The other experts didn't know this either. Nice try though Belinda.

Fager Fan
01-15-2018, 02:46 PM
That article leaves out why I had the time wrong initially. It wasn't the time at all, it was the distance. Gulfstream lies about the distance of the track. It isn't 9f. I subsequently learned it is a little longer than 9f through my own research. The other experts didn't know this either. Nice try though Belinda.

You mean the 16 feet or whatever the track was improperly built at? That's not a "lie" at all because it's a well-known fact, and not much the track can do about it? And why wouldn't you share whatever you're talking about with your buddies who were all timing if this was the case? Also, if the course is longer for all races at 9f, you don't time this one at a shorter distance but instead the same distance as they all run it at.

Good try, Snoopy.

cj
01-15-2018, 03:23 PM
You mean the 16 feet or whatever the track was improperly built at? That's not a "lie" at all because it's a well-known fact, and not much the track can do about it? And why wouldn't you share whatever you're talking about with your buddies who were all timing if this was the case? Also, if the course is longer for all races at 9f, you don't time this one at a shorter distance but instead the same distance as they all run it at.

Good try, Snoopy.

I did share it once I discovered it. My buddies? Where did that come from? It might be well known now, but it wasn't then, and surely Gulfstream wasn't advertising it. Just like they don't advertise the distance of the turf course which is longer than the 7f they list.

As for the timing, you really are over your head. Gulfstream times the races for 9f, not 9f plus the extra distance. The Pegasus was not timed consistently with the way all the other 9f dirt races run at Gulfstream are timed, including one earlier on the SAME card. If it was this never would have been an issue.

Please, try to know what you are talking about before posting. You're embarrassing both of us at this point.

This is from the Gulfstream Park media guide...more lies.

Denny
01-15-2018, 04:02 PM
CJ,
Where are the "extra" 16' on the Main Track?

Is there an extra 2 feet between each 1/8th evenly distributed around the entire course?
Or
Is it all between two specific poles?

If I was guessing, it would be between the finish line and the first pole after it.
This way it would impact timing of only two-turn races.

Also, separately, where is the actual finish line for Turf races?

The red tape on the rails can't possibly be an accurate indicator. That's laughable.

cj
01-15-2018, 04:11 PM
CJ,
Where are the "extra" 16' on the Main Track?

Is there an extra 2 feet between each 1/8th evenly distributed around the entire course?
Or
Is it all between two specific poles?

If I was guessing, it would be between the finish line and the first pole after it.
This way it would impact timing of only two-turn races.

Also, separately, where is the actual finish line for Turf races?

The red tape on the rails can't possibly be an accurate indicator. That's laughable.

Gulfstream doesn't use the poles as part of the timing so it is impossible to say. Since they use Trakus, the poles are for show only.

The red tape on the poles is all we really have to go by as fans. I'd hope they have it pretty accurate, but the real finish is where the photo finish equipment is set up.