Gulfstream timer

[cj]

From Marty McGee's article on DRF:

* A timing system that almost surely has glitches. Fractions for the ninth race, a one-mile turf race for third-level allowance horses, were as follows: 22.91 seconds, 44.80, and 1:07.76, and the final time of 1:31.41 would be a world record for a mile on turf. The clocking for the other turf race, the sixth, was not as outrageous (fractions of 23.23, 48.17, 1:12.04, and 1:35.93, and a final time of 1:47.51 for 1 1/8 miles). The main-track times seemed within reason, too.

Why does he assume the timer is wrong because of the fast time for the feature race on Monday? A "professional" horse racing analyst should know his facts. Here is my case on the matter:

In the 6th, at 1 1/8 miles on the turf, they ran in 1:47.51. I expected a winning Beyer style figure for this race at about 72. On the Beyer chart I use, 1 1/8 in 1:47.51 is a 126, so the variant would be about 54 fast, a very fast track.

Now, fast forward to the feature, and you get a mile run in 1:31.41. That is a 158 on the Beyer scale in a race that projected to around 100, or 58 fast. That is pretty consistent for races run at distances a furlong apart. Average the two and you get a variant of 56, and a Beyer of 70 for the 6th, and 102 for the 9th, both within reason.

As for the fractions of the feature, they are certainly reasonable for a race run on a course that fast. Although there are no pars of course for GP, AP has a similar course in size. The pace figure for that time and variant at AP would be 113 by my methods, giving the race a 113-102 shape.

I just think we have a very fast course, not a timer problem. How can he say that the 6th race was not "outrageous" while the 9th was? It doesn't make sense if you dig a little deeper and do your homework. It could turn out there is a timing problem, but if there was, it affected both races, not just one.

[Valuist]

I would say its safe to assume McGee doesn't know how to make, or project, speed figures.

[RXB]

If you go by the quarter-mile fractions, they went 22.91, then 21.89, followed by a 22.96 and then a 23.65. I know that Tacirring pulled away on the lead in the second fraction, but even allowing for that fact, the second of those fractions seems dubious. Watching the race, it didn't look like he suddenly turned into a monster sprinter during the 2nd quarter. Might be time to pull out the stopwatch.

From my own personal handicapping perspective, though, I don't really care. I don't make speed figures for grass races and I pay little attention to the published Beyer numbers in turf races. As long as the final fractions seem sensible, that's all that really matters to me.

My guess is that the second race was actually run in about 1:32. Which is still very fast. That course is extremely glib right now.

[andicap]

Is there a precedent for a course this fast??

It seems like an abnormally high variant, but then again I don't make figures.

[cj]

I've seen variants this high before on dirt at TuP, NoCal, especially the fairs, and on a few frozen tracks.

As far as turf, Belmont comes close sometimes, but not quite this high, thus the world record.

My point about the writer is you can't say one race was outrageous but not the other, unless you just have no idea what you are talking about.

[cj]

If you go by the quarter-mile fractions, they went 22.91, then 21.89, followed by a 22.96 and then a 23.65. I know that Tacirring pulled away on the lead in the second fraction, but even allowing for that fact, the second of those fractions seems dubious. Watching the race, it didn't look like he suddenly turned into a monster sprinter during the 2nd quarter. Might be time to pull out the stopwatch.


The first fraction was on the turn, the second on a straightaway.

[sjk]

I don't see how the timer could be off. Maybe they need to re-measure the track.

[andicap]

I've seen variants this high before on dirt at TuP, NoCal, especially the fairs, and on a few frozen tracks.

As far as turf, Belmont comes close sometimes, but not quite this high, thus the world record.

My point about the writer is you can't say one race was outrageous but not the other, unless you just have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh your point was a sound one.
Anyone do a hand-time yet?

[delayjf]

keep in mind that GP has a reputation for clock malfuntions in the past few years. With that in mind I too would be dubious.

[Observer]

Don't they have a person hand-timing as a backup???

[rrbauer]

Maybe they've changed the "run up" distance so that horses are running faster when the timer starts. Also, I recall issues with the electronic timer at Gulfstream in years past. If they haven't changed the course itself with new grass, etc., it's hard to understand how the times would change that drastically.

About ten years ago when Santa Anita changed their turf course and went to tifgreen bermuda (putting-green grass) the times became significantly faster and some horses were earning spectacular numbers because some figs were being computed using pars from the old surface. I remember seeing some sheets at the time and most of the horses were running "4"'s and "5"'s based on their SA efforts with slower numbers for other tracks.

Where Beyer numbers are concerned, over the past year, it has appeared to me that on a horse-by-horse basis that: Either the dirt figs understate; or, the turf figs overstate a horses performance. As a result I've made a minor
(-3 pts) adjustment to the turf fig when looking at a horse moving from turf to dirt; and, the same adjustment in reverse (+3 pts) when a horse is moving from dirt to turf (with good turf breeding or proven turf ability) when estimating how fast I think the horse will run in today's race. While I don't play many of the tracks, where I'm playing, the adjustment seems to hold up pretty consistently.

[Buddha]

From Marty McGee's article on DRF:



Why does he assume the timer is wrong because of the fast time for the feature race on Monday? A "professional" horse racing analyst should know his facts. Here is my case on the matter:

In the 6th, at 1 1/8 miles on the turf, they ran in 1:47.51. I expected a winning Beyer style figure for this race at about 72. On the Beyer chart I use, 1 1/8 in 1:47.51 is a 126, so the variant would be about 54 fast, a very fast track.

Now, fast forward to the feature, and you get a mile run in 1:31.41. That is a 158 on the Beyer scale in a race that projected to around 100, or 58 fast. That is pretty consistent for races run at distances a furlong apart. Average the two and you get a variant of 56, and a Beyer of 70 for the 6th, and 102 for the 9th, both within reason.



CJ, damn your good. Very close on the Beyer projections. The 6th got a 70, exactly nailed by you, and the 99th got a 97, only 5 points off. Not bad for a new track with what seems to be fast times.

[andicap]

I'm sure glad we have a true professional horse-race analyst on this site.

CJ's stuff is worth a lot more than than the handicapping columns you have to pay for on the DRF site.....experts, shmexperts. We got the real thing.

[Tom]

Maybe he will mention us in his first book? ;)

[andicap]

Maybe he will mention us in his first book? ;)

Now that's a book worth paying for.