Joe Takach's error/ambiguity

[speculus]

In an otherwise informative and interesting article by Joe Takach, titled "Winning at Del Mar 2005", and featured on the home page of the PA forum, there is an error or ambiguity that can cause huge problems for unsuspecting handicappers if they take it at face value. Mr Takach may not exactly be a math expert (I gather from his articles that his speciality is "physicality handicapping"), therefore I wish to point out the error so that the advantage created by some of his otherwise useful suggestions in the same article should not get nullified by one less than exact observation.

I reproduce here the relevant part of his point #5, highlighting the error or ambiguity in RED LETTERS.
================================================== ======
5---TURF RAILS OUT



................ In our crude example, those with rail-out information know that the 30 feet out winner was about 12 lengths superior to the zero rail winner-----12 lengths!!!!
................


================================================== ===


Such a blanket statement stands the risk of misinterpretation.

The fact is that for a 30-feet out turf rail, every turn at the Del Mar track approximately means an additional distance of 47 feet. So depending upon your measure of one length, you can find out how many extra lengths a horse has to travel (divide 47 by your measure of length) with reference to the 0 rail.

For example, if my measure is 9.2 feet for a length, then I would consider slightly over 5 lenths to be the extra distance around every turn. If it's a two-turn race, that becomes 10 lengths, for three-turn race 15 lengths, and so on.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"It has been mathematically proven that every path you are removed from the rail running around a turn will cost you 1 length at the wire!"
Everyone's opinion of average this or average that is just that- opinion.
He's using 5' as a path- I use 6'. You use 9.2' as a length- I use 8'. It is not proven mathematically that you can decipher "average pace" of those turf races and his statement does not consider any variations in length of grass or amount of watering or turf condition.
But it is obviously common sense to believe rails out will lengthen the distance to some affect. Of course, the track crew can easily measure the added distance or just multiply by PI or PI /2 but what fun is knowing for sure? LOL!
So from your post I gather you keep rails out records? Are rails out always the same on both turns?

[hurrikane]

"It has been mathematically proven that every path you are removed from the rail running around a turn will cost you 1 length at the wire!"......
You use 9.2' as a length- I use 8'.

Correction Ken,

I dont' believe it is mathematically proven. Most can even agree on the distance of 1 length.

[speculus]

Everyone's opinion of average this or average that is just that- opinion.
He's using 5' as a path- I use 6'. You use 9.2' as a length- I use 8'.

It can be mathematically worked out, especially on a track like Del Mar which has almost perfectly curved turns of 90 degrees or Pi/2 radians.

For the rails out of n feet, the formula for the extra distance to be travelled around the turn is: (angle in radians) x n

In Del Mar case, angle at every turn is approx 90 degrees or Pi/2, and for n=30 feet, the extra distance around (one) turn is

(Pi/2) x 30 = (3.142/2) x 30 (the value of Pi substituded as 3.142)

= 47.13 ft

I hope you now agree it is not a mere opinion, but a FACT.

[speculus]

I gather you keep rails out records? Are rails out always the same on both turns?

No, I don't keep rails out records.

For that matter, I have never been to Del Mar or any other US track. I just went to the Del Mar website to check the track map, and wrote my post.

As to your question if rails out are always the same on both turns, I am sorry I am unable to discuss it as I don't know the facts about Del Mar or any other US tracks.

Yes, but the place where I race (India, www.indiarace.com (http://www.indiarace.com)) all racecourses often use rails out to preserve track just like you do in the US. We call them false rails, and generally they are different at various turns, but that does not pose any problems for handicappers. Because every day, after placing the false rails, the track maintenance crew use rodometer to freshly mark the furlong posts and place markers at appropriate places. Thus whatever the width of the false rails, our race distances NEVER change.

[BillW]

Thus whatever the width of the false rails, our race distances NEVER change.

Have you looked at the effect of the change in turn radius? I haven't, but always suspected that a difference could be demonstrated, at least on the small 7f US turf tracks. Something on my list to look into.

Bill

[speculus]

Have you looked at the effect of the change in turn radius?
Bill

please elaborate so that I understand what you want to say?

[BillW]

please elaborate so that I understand what you want to say?

As the rail moves out the turn becomes "softer" or easier to run around (try running in a 10 foot circle and then change to a 50 foot circle). It seems to me that this would change the dynamics of the race. Possibly the rail would be more advantageous when the rail was out and a detriment when in.

Bill

[speculus]

As the rail moves out the turn becomes "softer" or easier to run around (try running in a 10 foot circle and then change to a 50 foot circle). It seems to me that this would change the dynamics of the race. Possibly the rail would be more advantageous when the rail was out and a detriment when in.Bill

If the arc of your 10 foot circle runs exactly parallel to the 50 foot circle (in that case they can be termed as "concentric" circles), then YES, it would be much easier for a horse (and jockey) to negotiate the larger turn than the smaller turn. The reason is they have to balance and counter the centrifugal force that tries to throw them off "away" from the center of the circle.

This is given by the formula F = mV*V/r
where F is the force, m is the mass, V is the velocity and r is radius
(I don't know how to show V square by putting 2 as superscript over V, so I have shown V multiplied by V to signify V square, please excuse)

As you can see from the equation, force F is inversely proportional to radius r, meaning higher the radius, lower the force and vice versa.

However if a horse races 4 wide around the smaller circle or the bigger circle, IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE EXTRA DISTANCE TRAVELLED, and it remains the same as can be seen from the discussion that follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine the smaller turn as forming an arc of a circle of radius r feet. Let the bigger turn be x feet away (for example, in your case r=10 ft, and x=40 ft) from the smaller turn. So the radius of the circle of which the bigger turn is an arc is (r+x) feet. Note both are concentric circles. Therefore if you draw radius from the centre of the circle to the point of entry and exit of both the turns, they are going to be the same lines, the bigger circle radius just running longer by x feet to touch its circumference. Obviously, both arcs make the same angle with the center of the circle. Let's call this angle theta (I don't know how to use this keyboard to depict theta, so I will write [theta] to indicate it is an angle).

Now the length of the arc of the smaller circle is given by the formula
(L smaller arc) = {[theta]/(2*Pi)} * (2*Pi)* r = [theta] * r feet

The length of the bigger arc, similarly, would be
(L bigger arc) = {[theta]/(2*Pi)} * (2*Pi)* (r+x) = [theta] * (r+x)

The extra distance to be travelled when you shift from smaller arc to the bigger arc, therefore, is

(L bigger arc) - (L smaller arc) = [theta] * (r+x) - [theta] * r
= [theta] * x

NOTE: 1)The answer is INDEPENDENT OF radius r, therefore, smaller or bigger has nothing to do with the extra distance to be covered.

2) Always remember the angle [theta] is in radians and NOT in degrees.


For example, if a horse goes 15 feet wide at the turn, and if the start and end points of the turn make an angle of 60 degrees (that is Pi/3 radians) with the centre of the imaginary circle, then the horse has to travel 15 * Pi/3 = 15.71 feet or 15 feet & 8-1/2 inches extra.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Any queries are welcome.

[DJofSD]

Well, I'll likely cross his path some time today. I'll let him know you've set him straight. I'm sure he'll appreciate the help -- NOT!

DJofSD

[speculus]

Well, I'll likely cross his path some time today. I'll let him know you've set him straight. I'm sure he'll appreciate the help -- NOT!
DJofSD

Who are you talking about? Joe Takach? BillW?

[DJofSD]

Joe.

[midnight]

Please explain why the position of the rail in any given race is important to turf handicapping.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I do not disagree that a 30" difference at 1 turn = 47.13. Joe is saying that is "crudely" about 4 lengths.
All I am saying is that it is not supposed to be an exact number according to him; his point is that that proves one horse is superior to another without regard to other factors, and that is opinion.
I have not found total agreement even on what a "length" is and neither has the racing industry.
For ease of measurement I use 6' paths and 8'=1 length per turn. But I try to stay away from judging a horse's race or comparing it with another horse based on projected times. I guess I'm more of a class-form-trip person but I like to look at everything.

[BillW]

If the arc of your 10 foot circle runs exactly parallel to the 50 foot circle (in that case they can be termed as "concentric" circles), then YES, it would be much easier for a horse (and jockey) to negotiate the larger turn than the smaller turn. The reason is they have to balance and counter the centrifugal force that tries to throw them off "away" from the center of the circle.


This was my though (and what I was referring to in my question). There is much more stress on the knees of the horses around the tighter turns. Putting up the temporary rails provide some relief for the horse running in the 1 path. This would be magnified on a horse with sore knees.


This is given by the formula F = mV*V/r
where F is the force, m is the mass, V is the velocity and r is radius
(I don't know how to show V square by putting 2 as superscript over V, so I have shown V multiplied by V to signify V square, please excuse)



I've always used V^2. Theta will be a bit of a problem in USASCII - spelling it is perfectly acceptable.

[Vegas711]

If the arc of your 10 foot circle runs exactly parallel to the 50 foot circle (in that case they can be termed as "concentric" circles), then YES, it would be much easier for a horse (and jockey) to negotiate the larger turn than the smaller turn. The reason is they have to balance and counter the centrifugal force that tries to throw them off "away" from the center of the circle.

This is given by the formula F = mV*V/r
where F is the force, m is the mass, V is the velocity and r is radius
(I don't know how to show V square by putting 2 as superscript over V, so I have shown V multiplied by V to signify V square, please excuse)

As you can see from the equation, force F is inversely proportional to radius r, meaning higher the radius, lower the force and vice versa.

However if a horse races 4 wide around the smaller circle or the bigger circle, IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE EXTRA DISTANCE TRAVELLED, and it remains the same as can be seen from the discussion that follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine the smaller turn as forming an arc of a circle of radius r feet. Let the bigger turn be x feet away (for example, in your case r=10 ft, and x=40 ft) from the smaller turn. So the radius of the circle of which the bigger turn is an arc is (r+x) feet. Note both are concentric circles. Therefore if you draw radius from the centre of the circle to the point of entry and exit of both the turns, they are going to be the same lines, the bigger circle radius just running longer by x feet to touch its circumference. Obviously, both arcs make the same angle with the center of the circle. Let's call this angle theta (I don't know how to use this keyboard to depict theta, so I will write [theta] to indicate it is an angle).

Now the length of the arc of the smaller circle is given by the formula
(L smaller arc) = {[theta]/(2*Pi)} * (2*Pi)* r = [theta] * r feet

The length of the bigger arc, similarly, would be
(L bigger arc) = {[theta]/(2*Pi)} * (2*Pi)* (r+x) = [theta] * (r+x)

The extra distance to be travelled when you shift from smaller arc to the bigger arc, therefore, is

(L bigger arc) - (L smaller arc) = [theta] * (r+x) - [theta] * r
= [theta] * x

NOTE: 1)The answer is INDEPENDENT OF radius r, therefore, smaller or bigger has nothing to do with the extra distance to be covered.

2) Always remember the angle [theta] is in radians and NOT in degrees.


For example, if a horse goes 15 feet wide at the turn, and if the start and end points of the turn make an angle of 60 degrees (that is Pi/3 radians) with the centre of the imaginary circle, then the horse has to travel 15 * Pi/3 = 15.71 feet or 15 feet & 8-1/2 inches extra.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Any queries are welcome.

Great response, this is the kind of information that makes this site worth reading. I have long felt that this game is all about mathematics it is nice to see some of it.

[hurrikane]

So ponder this.

A horse that is normally a closer, racing around the turn on the outside and coming on down the stretch. What happens when this horse get caught inside?

too much stress? Can't handle it's normal speed around the turns. A horse you would normally expect to be a closer cannot accertate around the turn to get it's momentum up coming down the stretch. Now he never gets in the game.

so, I guess the it's what, a dead rail as he could not accelerate?
One more consideration for the path bias gang.

[karlskorner]

If you re-read Joe T's article again, he is talking about a temporary rail out 30 feet around the "entire" track, not just the turns, as he states, it is customary to put temp. rails out to save wear and tear on the track. The distance out can vary day to day, depending on how worn the inner rail is. Joe T. may be correct in his statement.
Consider this, if Del Mar is a one mile turf track ( 5280 feet ) the starting gate is usually set back for the "run up" to the light anywhere from 40' to 100', let use 60' as average. This additional distance leads to question the accuracy of the 1/4, 1/2 and final times as published and the accuracy of pace figures for the inner fractions and final time. If the temp. rails are set out 30 feet, this adds an additonal distance of approximately 254 feet to the the distance, whether the distance of the race is 1 mile, 1 1/6 or 1 1/8 miles. Therefore, a 1 mile race, with the temp. rail set at 30 feet actually becomes approximately a 1 1/16 mile race on the rail. The longer the distance the shorter the stride of the animal. Publications such as the "sheets" and Thoro-graph ( and others ) hand time the race from the gate, taking in consideration the path traveled. If Joe T states that an outside horse is 12 lengths better than a rail horse, he is probably right, as the outside horse has run a greater distance.

[Tom]

I ignore rail placement.
Do I have to give back the money I have won on turf races?
******
So the one horse is 12 lenghs better than another, eh, Joe?
What if the "other" horse has a milkshake today?

Too much data to worry about.

[speculus]

Please explain why the position of the rail in any given race is important to turf handicapping.

The position of the rail (especially temporary rail out on a particular day) is important because, as explained earlier, horses have to travel some extra distance. However, this extra distnace comes into play ONLY AROUND THE TURNS where rails take a curve, not anywhere else as long as it runs in a straight line.

[Hosshead]

Although these mathamatical calculations seem well thought out. There is more here than can be "calculated". Which is why some call handicapping an "art".
The "stress" that BillW talks about, and Hurricane alluded to, can also be thought of as %E.(Energy) (in addition to the physical stress on knees, joints etc.
The horse on the rail is using more %E to fight centrifugal force than the outer horse. So although the centrifugal force can be calculated, the effect on each horse can be a "personal thing". Then there's the "turning for home factor". If the horse on the rail has a clear lead, when turning for home, (at the end of the turn), he can "release" that centrifugal force (like a slingshot), and be "shot out into the stretch" (a little wide) to gain more of an advantage.
Whereas if that same horse has another horse directly on his outside, he can't do that. So the horses position around other horses has something to do with it. Even on a straightaway, a horse will use more %E running neck and neck VS. a Lone F.

[speculus]

I have not found total agreement even on what a "length" is and neither has the racing industry.

This has been one of the sorriest states for horse racing--and also the reason why horse racing does not have a decent, DEFINITIVE theory despite some of the best brains practicing it as hobby or profession.

Actually, such an intellectual community as handicappers should have no difficulty at all in devising ways and means to offer a solution to this age-old problem, but sadly that has not happened.

The concept of the "measure of a length" can be solved ONLY if we focus onto the fact that we are looking for a "one horse length IN MOTION", and NOT a static horse.

By extensive reseaerch and experiment in the early 1980's, I devised a formula that would (hopefully) give me accurate finish timings (for all horses in the race) up to 1/100th of a second for ALL THE HORSES in ALL THE RACES over ALL THE TRIPS. Obviously I needed to be accurate about the "measure of a length", or this would not be possible. Helped by either excellent observation, or most probably intuition, I settled on a figure of 2.8 meters (unlike the US, we race in meters). I have posted this formula on another forum, and I will post it here too.

The point is, although I started getting amazing results (not that I could covert this edge into great profits in those days; I had never even heard about money management until then!), I did not know, until 1999, that I had ACTUALLY HIT THE BULL's EYE.

In 1999 & 2000, some race clubs in my country imported a digital video equipemnt that would give out accurate finish time (up to 1/100th of a second) up to the last horse in the race. I was struck by a bolt of lightning when I found my formula's timing predictions were almost identical! The accuracy was + or - 1/100th of a second for upto six furlongs and 2/100th of a second for distances beyond mile, when compared to the device.

You will agree that video examination of a race finish, FRAME BY FRAME, can be called THE BEST WAY to empirically validate any claim for a universally aceeptable figure of "a length". Since the 2.8 meter fits in so well as to give accurate timing up to hundredth part of a second, it leaves us in know doubt what the universally accepted measure of a length (for a horse in galloping mode) should be.

By the way, 2.8 meters translates to 9.19 feet or 9 feet and 2.28 inches!

[speculus]

BTW, can someone guide me how to post HTML here?

[PaceAdvantage]

You can't post HTML here...too many ways folks with not-so-good intentions can screw things up if I allowed HTML postings....or at least that's the theory...

[speculus]

Oh. I understand. I will work out some other way to display the table contents. Thanks for a quick response.

[BillW]

Oh. I understand. I will work out some other way to display the table contents. Thanks for a quick response.

If you have your own website capability via your ISP, you can post your info there and a link to it here.

[speculus]

If you have your own website capability via your ISP, you can post your info there and a link to it here.

AT present I don't have, do any of YOU have the facility? I could mail you the HTML code. Thanks.

[speculus]

Gosavi's Formula
for Accurate Timing

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
T = t ÷ { 1 - (G¹ × L)}

where


t = time of call (leading horse)


L = lengths behind (see table 1.2), (please note that accuracy of L may be open to human error unless you are checking actual video by freezing frame)



and G¹ = Gosavi's constant

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 1.1
Gosavi's Constant for various distances (G¹)

================================================== =====

[speculus]

TABLE 1.1
Gosavi's Constant for various distances (G¹)


The two tables I have sent to PA. Hope he will be able to paste them. Until then please bear with the ambiguity.

[PaceAdvantage]

The file you sent me contains text, but no html coding....

[speculus]

The horse on the rail is using more %E to fight centrifugal force than the outer horse.

I am sorry, but I really don't know what is this %E?

Can someone explain me so that I can follow the thread properly?

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, I can't post any HTML without leaving that option set permanently to ON. If I post some HTML, then turn HTML off, it disables the HTML output of stuff previously posted while HTML was ON, ergo, no HTML on the board....sorry....

[BillW]

I am sorry, but I really don't know what is this %E?

Can someone explain me so that I can follow the thread properly?

%E is a Sartin calculation representing "percent early energy" expended by a thoroughbred. It is calculated as follows:

%E = EP / (EP + LF ) where EP = early pace and LF = last fraction.

EP is the velocity in feet per second at the second call (distance in feet to 2nd call divided by time in seconds to 2nd call) and LF is in feet per second of the last fraction (dist of last fraction in feet divided by the time in seconds of the last call).

Speculus, paste your HTML table into a private message to me. I'll try to convert it to text for display.

Bill

[Hosshead]

As Bill described above, %E is an attempt by some SW to quantify the horse's proportion of race energy used early. But I was referring to %E in more of a basic way. For example you could calculate the %e of a horse Uncontested, running x-time EP, x-time LP etc. and get the %E.
Then take the Same Horse, Running Head and Head running the same times,= same %E, BUT I Guarantee that the Contested Pace will take more (Energy) out of the horse, leaving less for the stretch. Of course some will say that if it is a contested pace, the EP will be faster, and it often is, But I'm saying that Even If It Is The Same Time, it will cause both horses to use a higher % of there (finite) total Energy.

This is true on the turns, as some horses like to run on the turns,some don't.
Some can run good on the inside when not having a horse breathing down there neck, then use the 'Slingshot Effect" when straighting out into the stretch. But with a horse on the outside, they fold.

I'm just pointing out that it's fine to make all the calculations you want (I use them too), but HOW the Race is run, and the position of the horses, can make those figures work or not. ;)

[speculus]

Gosavi's Formula
for Accurate Timing





T = t ÷ { 1 - (G* × L)}

where

T = Accurate timing upto 1/100th of a second
t = time of call (leading horse)
L = lengths behind* (see table 1.2),
and G* = Gosavi's constant


*Lengths behind is prone to human error unless
it is recorded from a frozen video frame


TABLE 1.1


Gosavi's Constant for
various distances G*
=====================================

Mile, furlongs, value of G*
3/16 1-1/2 0.00928

1/4 2 0.00696
3/8 3 0.00464
7/16 3-1/2 0.00398
1/2 4 0.00348
9/16 4-1/2 0.00309
5/8 5 0.00278
11/16 5-1/2 0.00253
3/4 6 0.00232
13/16 6-1/2 0.00214
7/8 7 0.00199
15/16 7-1/2 0.00186
1 8 0.00174
[1 mile & 70 yards] [8 fur & 70 yards] 0.00167
1-1/16 8-1/2 0.00164
1-1/8 9 0.00155
1-3/16 9-1/2 0.00147
1-1/4 10 0.00139
1-3/8 11 0.00127
1-1/2 12 0.00116
1-5/8 13 0.00107
1-7/8 15 0.00093
2 16 0.00087
2-1/8 17 0.00082






TABLE 1.2
Table of decimal values for verdict

Verdict Value of "L"

Deadheat 0

Short Head 0.1

Head 0.2

Short Neck 0.25

Neck 0.35

½ L 0.5

¾ L 0.75

1 L 1

1 ¼ L 1.25

1 ½ L 1.5

1 ¾ L 1.75

2 L 2

2 ¼ L 2.25

2 ½ L 2.5

2 ¾ L 2.75

3 L 3

Over 3 L Accordingly

[speculus]

%E is a Sartin calculation representing "percent early energy" expended by a thoroughbred. It is calculated as follows:

%E = EP / (EP + LF ) where EP = early pace and LF = last fraction.

EP is the velocity in feet per second at the second call (distance in feet to 2nd call divided by time in seconds to 2nd call) and LF is in feet per second of the last fraction (dist of last fraction in feet divided by the time in seconds of the last call).

Speculus, paste your HTML table into a private message to me. I'll try to convert it to text for display.

Bill

I am very surprised. This is very strange. You are taking the RATIO of SPEED to SPEED, and calling it ENERGY? Why, may I ask?

Energy has the dimentions of ML^2T^-2 or (ML*L)/(T*T)

By no stretch of imagination can you call it percentage of energy or %E.

[chickenhead]

The accuracy was + or - 1/100th of a second for upto six furlongs and 2/100th of a second for distances beyond mile, when compared to the device.


I love a bold statement, but I have to claim foul here, this is patently absurd. All horses would have to be running at the same velocity to be able to convert distance to time so accurately using the same constant, and I KNOW this is not true.

Doesn't mean I don't think your formula gives a good result, tho there are easier ways to do it if all you care about are finish times.

[DJofSD]

Don't get hung up on a label.

The very first time I heard Sartin talk about his idea and how he applied it, my training in the physical sciences started to blow a fuse.

Just think L'hospital rule and you'll be OK.

DJofSD

[speculus]

I love a bold statement, but I have to claim foul here, this is patently absurd. All horses would have to be running at the same velocity to be able to convert distance to time so accurately using the same constant, and I KNOW this is not true.

You are wrong when you say "All horses would have to be running at the same velocity to be able to convert distance to time so accurately using the same constant".

I think you are confusing between the static and the dynamic view of the finish.

Suppose you have access to a still photograph of the finish when the winner is crossing the wire and the runner up is, say, 8 lengths behind. Now depending upon whether the runner up is slowing down or accelerating (of course with respect to the winner, make no mistake about that!), the actual verdict of lengths (that will go down into the charts or record books) between the two, would be more or less than 8 lenghts.

Why? Because the final verdict is decided by the image of the runner up on the photo finish strip, and it is nothing but the exact instance when the runner up crosses the wire.

If it is 7 lenghts, then that's what goes into the formula; similarly if it's 9 lenghts, then that's what goes into the formula.

So the finishing time, given by the formula, never errs.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"*Lengths behind is prone to human error unless
it is recorded from a frozen video frame"
Ain't it the truth!
Just like across the pond, PP's do not give times from video tapes; they want us to calculate it! You guys do not even have fractionsl times!
You can call %E % velocity or visible result of actual energy expended or anything else you want.
Can you information be used without access to full electronic timing or hand timing? Do you time off of video tapes by hand? How do you get fractional time information?
Is there any way to get workout (training) time information?
In the US decades ago the only way to get such information was to be present for workouts and races and hand time them; So those people had a big advantage.
Even though I am no good at certain math, your information is presented in a very easy-to-read table.

[BillW]

Gosavi's Formula
for Accurate Timing




Attached is the file Speculus has formatted here. Slight improvement in format, some may find it easier to read. Probably most easily read in wordpad or something similar. Let me know if there is any problem (I don't run windows and I'm doing this blind).

Bill

[chickenhead]

You are wrong when you say "All horses would have to be running at the same velocity to be able to convert distance to time so accurately using the same constant".

I think you are confusing between the static and the dynamic view of the finish.

Suppose you have access to a still photograph of the finish when the winner is crossing the wire and the runner up is, say, 8 lengths behind. Now depending upon whether the runner up is slowing down or accelerating (of course with respect to the winner, make no mistake about that!), the actual verdict of lengths (that will go down into the charts or record books) between the two, would be more or less than 8 lenghts.

Why? Because the final verdict is decided by the image of the runner up on the photo finish strip, and it is nothing but the exact instance when the runner up crosses the wire.

If it is 7 lenghts, then that's what goes into the formula; similarly if it's 9 lenghts, then that's what goes into the formula.

So the finishing time, given by the formula, never errs.





aha! I did assume you were talking a static view, as you were talking about lengths as if they described distance rather than time (you claimed a length was equal to 2.8 meters). If you agree that a length has no meaning with regards to a distance(at the finish), we are in agreement.

I still claim foul on your claim of accuracy, even if using charts you will get round off errors that will put you further off than you claim. I also do not believe that your constant should change based on the length of the race, the photo finish camera does not change, and therefore the time increment x number of lengths represents does not change either.

[DJofSD]

I think you are confusing between the static and the dynamic view of the finish.

Yes, the difference between assuming a constant velocity v. a model that takes into account delta velocity over delta time -- acceleration.

Of coarse, all of this tweaking would be totally unneeded if we had electronic transmitters embedded in the nose of the horse to allow tracking of all 4 vectors.

Hell, combine that with the radio identification chip and then we can go onto the next problem of getting horses weighed.

DJofSD

[speculus]

Just like across the pond, PP's do not give times from video tapes; they want us to calculate it! You guys do not even have fractionsl times!kenwoodallpromos] You can call %E % velocity or visible result of actual energy expended or anything else you want. Can you information be used without access to full electronic timing or hand timing? Do you time off of video tapes by hand? How do you get fractional time information?

We have fractional times, but they are hand-clocked by time-keepers of various private race books/sheets, and we have a number of them at each track. I however, get my fractions from a chinese vieo software which allowes me to view the race frame by frame if I need.

Is there any way to get workout (training) time information? In the US decades ago the only way to get such information was to be present for workouts and races and hand time them; So those people had a big advantage. Even though I am no good at certain math, your information is presented in a very easy-to-read table.

The professionals who collect data are called track reporters at our place. Unfortunately, most of them are simply duds, a very few know what to look for in a horse to spot improvement. The better ones, obviously, find employment with reputed race books/sheets, and some of them know their job, are very good at it, and at a price, "discuss" some of their so-called secret findings only with big punters who pay them handsome money for that kind of information.

Personally, I enter all the track work data in my excel file, set auto filters, and use by sorting it on horse_name when I study the card. But I don't fancy myself as a good track-work reader from recorded data.

[speculus]

I still claim foul on your claim of accuracy, even if using charts you will get round off errors that will put you further off than you claim. I also do not believe that your constant should change based on the length of the race, the photo finish camera does not change, and therefore the time increment x number of lengths represents does not change either.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Why don't you apply the formula and check for yourself?

Or even better, PM me your address, and I will send you a CD of race video with time stamped onto it (in 100th of a second). Play it in slow motion or freeze it at the finish, and check the truthfulness of the formula.

[chickenhead]

Like I said, I like the finish times your formula gives. It gives an accurate result...but you can't be more accurate than the underlying data you are using, which is what you're claiming. It's not a big deal, I just don't see why you would say such a thing.

But I'm willing to let you prove me wrong...I've sent a PM. Please send at least one whole card in sequence, please. No picking and choosing.

[speculus]

Like I said, I like the finish times your formula gives. It gives an accurate result...but you can't be more accurate than the underlying data you are using, which is what you're claiming. It's not a big deal, I just don't see why you would say such a thing.
But I'm willing to let you prove me wrong...I've sent a PM. Please send at least one whole card in sequence, please. No picking and choosing. Bold and underline by speculus

Here I reached for my shelf and found this video CD. It contains races #299 to 343. That is 44 consecutive races--so you can be sure it's not docored. I will send it by DHL courier from Bombay. Write to me when you receive it.

And write to this board when you run a check on the formula.

Thanks.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Are you talking about India with the timing and video equipment? Sounds like what they were starting to do in England.

[JustMissed]

I bet Joe T. is really enjoying this discussion.

I would have loved to have heard his comment when someone told him a PA member said he didn't know how to handicap a Cal. turf race. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just one question.

I was under the impression that the poles never move and the finish wire never moves(in the U.S. in any event). Doesn't matter if it is turf or dirt. The poles never move and are alway the same distance from the finish wire.

If a one mile turf race is run at +30 rails, isn't this race always longer than a 1 mile at +0?

I know they do move the run-up to adjust for the condition of the ground under the gate, but they don't move the poles do they?

If they do move the poles in India, I think that is fine and dandy but I have to question why why Joe T's crude example was questioned to begin with?

JM :)

[vtbob]

Glad to see someone take the time to point out that the extra distance is independent of radius. As for the "squared" another way to express it in ascii is v exp 2.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"I have to question why why Joe T's crude example was questioned to begin with?"
Questioned by Speculus on 2 points- 1) amibuous= Joe said "12 lengths" twice. 2)error= Speculus claims the horse is 10+ lengths better, not 12 because Speculus judges 1 length to equal about 9.2', not 8'.
Then I made some comment about opinion and so we're off to a discussion to see if anyone can mathematecally prove how long a length is either running or not or whether on video or still photo and whether they move the finish line, poles and cameras at Keenland India or anywhere, and if .00000786 or whatever is exactly correct and if %Energy is a correct enough term for % speed of speed (velocity)? It all sounds like voodoo handicapping to me!
In other words, it's Monday so we can all go back to sleep until noon Wednesday when the races start- Only Del Mar races on Monday this week! :confused:

[Pace Cap'n]

Then there is the matter of gate placement...

[JustMissed]

[QUOTE=kenwoodallpromosQuestioned by Speculus on 2 points- 1) amibuous= Joe said "12 lengths" twice. 2)error= Speculus claims the horse is 10+ lengths better, not 12 because Speculus judges 1 length to equal about 9.2', not 8'.
[/QUOTE]

....... misspelling "ambiguous". Just kidding. You see my point, 12 lengths or 10 lengths who cares. Maybe they were WIRs or FDKs.

I will have to go back an re-read Joe T's newsletter but I believe he used the words "simple" and "crude" to indicate that his example was not to be construed as resulting in an exact answer.

Anyway, thanks for replying.

To me 10 lengths and 12 lengths don't matter. I am usually more concerned with nose, heads, a length or three and placement.

As far as spelling goes, have you noticed one of our newest members spells so bad he makes Tom look to have a PHD in English. :lol: :lol:

JM :D

[DJofSD]

I would have loved to have heard his comment when someone told him a PA member said he didn't know how to handicap a Cal. turf race.

He had a response alright. But not one that I can quote here.

DJofSD

[speculus]

Are you talking about India with the timing and video equipment? Sounds like what they were starting to do in England.
I am talking about India. For the last more than 20 years we have time-coded video (giving only the winner's timing), but five years ago the clubs here got a digital camera/video equipment that now instantly gives finishing times of ALL THE RUNNERS IN ALL THE RACES.

That's when I actually lost the edge I enjoyed by the formulae.
You can see some of the video clippings at www.indiarace.com (http://www.indiarace.com) , only, some race callers you will find funny because of their accent and pronunciation, but then you have to excuse them--after all English is NOT their mother tongue.

The video (since it is FREE) will show you only the last 3 furlongs of the race. You can see the timer (in 1/10 th of a second, again since it is free, the paid video shows 1/100th second) in the upper right corner. On the same site you can check results of races where you will get finish time for ALL horses.

[speculus]

I bet Joe T. is really enjoying this discussion.
I would have loved to have heard his comment when someone told him a PA member said he didn't know how to handicap a Cal. turf race. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I did not say "he didn't know how to handicap a Cal. turf race".
If you go to my opening post you can yourself see I said the article is "informative and interesting", and his suggestions "useful".

I had made it very clear that in an otherwise informative and interesting article with useful suggestions, why should there be error or ambiguity on one count?

So I set out to say what I said. How Joe Takach reacts to this discussion or what comment he makes (which you would have loved to hear!) is not a topic of my interest.

If they do move the poles in India, I think that is fine and dandy but I have to question why why Joe T's crude example was questioned to begin with? JM :)
True, Takach called this example crude. That's the reason I added the word "ambiguity" to the title of the thread. Do you mean to say that vague information, if possible, should not be replaced by more accurate information? Then what is this handicapping board for?

[speculus]

You see my point, 12 lengths or 10 lengths who cares. JM :D

Speed handicappers, of all colors and hues, care.
Or rather, SHOULD care.

And by the way please notice that for 30' out rails, EVERY turn at Del Mar will add approx 5 lenghts extra. So if a race is round all the four turns, like a mile or over as I see from the map on the website (correct me if I am wrong), then it's not 12, it's over 20 lengths! And THAT's not a figure to s****** at, is it?

[Fastracehorse]

.........how important the EXACT margin of victory is.

It is similar to EXACT 100ths of seconds when recording time.

I guess if you want to determine a post-race effort, SPECULUS' math that corrects for rail positioning is PERFECT.

However, this perfect information may lead us no closer to winning handicapping than times do.

Of course, most serious handicappers don't use one factor to analyze a horse race - they use a host of factors.

For me, turf racing is more about pace/trip than anything - the sharpest horse TODAY with the best luck.

fffastt

[JustMissed]

Speed handicappers, of all colors and hues, care.
Or rather, SHOULD care.

And by the way please notice that for 30' out rails, EVERY turn at Del Mar will add approx 5 lenghts extra. So if a race is round all the four turns, like a mile or over as I see from the map on the website (correct me if I am wrong), then it's not 12, it's over 20 lengths! And THAT's not a figure to s****** at, is it?

I believe Del Mar runs out of a infield shute for the 1 1/8 & 1/16.

There are only two turns, the club house turn and the far turn.

I suppose, and maybe a Del Mar player might want to comment, but if they run a race longer than 1 1/8, they would start on the back stretch, go around the far turn, go around the club house turn, then go around the far turn once more before heading down the the to the wire for only 3 turns.

I suppose also that maybe they could run a 2 miler that would require the horses to go around 4 turns as you reference but those kind of of races would be so few as to not warrant any discussion.

Regards,

JM

[DJofSD]

I believe Del Mar runs out of a infield shute for the 1 1/8 & 1/16.

Yes, that's correct (and the diagram rendered as a part of the new BRIS Custom PP Generator is wrong, too).

if they run a race longer than 1 1/8, they would start on the back stretch, go around the far turn, go around the club house turn, then go around the far turn once more before heading down the the to the wire for only 3 turns.

Correct again.

You get two point today. But remember, one aw sh*t wipes the slate clean.

DJofSD

[kenwoodallpromos]

Speculus, in the USA 360 degrees on a racetrack is 2 turns which = PI/2.
I'm not a math whiz, but 2 does not = 4. You simply made a small mistake based on a brief visual observation. Not even based on a difference of opinion of what a length is.
The whole reason you started this thread in the first place!!LOL!! :D :eek: :bang: :lol: :ThmbDown:

[speculus]

I believe Del Mar runs out of a infield shute for the 1 1/8 & 1/16.

There are only two turns, the club house turn and the far turn.

I suppose, and maybe a Del Mar player might want to comment, but if they run a race longer than 1 1/8, they would start on the back stretch, go around the far turn, go around the club house turn, then go around the far turn once more before heading down the the to the wire for only 3 turns.

I suppose also that maybe they could run a 2 miler that would require the horses to go around 4 turns as you reference but those kind of of races would be so few as to not warrant any discussion.

Regards,

JM

First, my post was based on the ground map of Del Mar given at the following url: http://www.delmarracing.com/include.php?i=/images/grounds.jpg&h=Grounds+Map&c=season

If that's right, then I stick to my argument.

When I very clearly mention Pi/2 or 90 degrees, where is the cause for misinterpretaion? It's very clear I am counting every left-handed 90-degree turn as one turn whereas you are counting 180-degree turn as one turn.

So "my turn" for 30' rails out would "add" approx 47 feet (for 90 degree or Pi/2 radians). If you want to talk about Pi radians or 180 degrees as ONE TURN, then so be it! It would just "add" double the figure. It will then be 94+ feet. So where is the discrepancy?

The fact remains that one "round trip" (my 4 turns or your 2 turns, it hardly matters how we choose to view it!) would still mean 188+ feet extra (or 20+ lengths) for 30' rails out, as I have said.

Hope this clears the confustion as to "who" has to clean the specks.

[speculus]

Speculus, in the USA 360 degrees on a racetrack is 2 turns which = PI/2.


Pi radians is 180 degrees, so 360 degrees (anywhere, not only on a racetrack in the U.S.) would be 2 Pi.

[speculus]

I do not disagree that a 30" difference at 1 turn = 47.13.

If you too, like JustMissed, felt I was talking about a half-circular turn, then I must make it clear that 30-feet difference at "your 1 turn = 94.26 feet".

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The fact is that for a 30-feet out turf rail, every turn at the Del Mar track approximately means an additional distance of 47 feet."
Get back to me when you figure out how many turns you are talking about. Del Mar has 2 turns, period.

[cj]

Delmar runs 1 3/8 mile races on the turf, which of course involves three turns, navigating one of them twice.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I will admit that you are right about Joe making some kind of error:
From Joe's website:
"Even if a horse runs flush against the rail in a 2-turn turf route when the rails are out 30 feet, he loses 4 lengths on each turn vs. running against the rail when at “zero” feet. If the rails are out 30 feet, that comes to 8 total lengths".
In Joe's article for Paceadvantage, Joe says a horse loses 12 lengths.
So my excuse is that both Joe and Speculus are confusing me! Neither one has even said if they move Del Mar's gate; but Joe obviously has some explaining to do!LOL!!:mad: :confused: :p :bang: :faint: :lol: :rolleyes: :ThmbDown:

[rrbauer]

Phew! Folks, when the temp rails are up they change the gate placement (placing it closer to the finish) to compensate for the larger circumference created by moving the rails out.

At the SoCal tracks, moving the rails out makes the track less oblong and more circular (at the wider rail settings they don't set them out as far in the turns as they do the straights because it would reduce the width too much). This makes it easier to run the turns because they aren't as sharp. It comes into play mostly at the top of the lane where the inside horses don't flare out as much as they do when the rails are down. Hence, a horse attempting to rally up the rail from behind will often be blocked if it stays on the rail. The rail will open up at Del Mar when the infield chute is reached but by then half of the stretch distance is gone.

For those wanting to do the math, I suggest that you email Tom Robbins the Director of Racing at Del Mar and ask him how the gate placement is changed vis-a-vis the rail settings at the various turf distances. I've found him to be pretty responsive to questions such as this.

[JustMissed]

[QUOTE=speculus]First, my post was based on the ground map of Del Mar given at the following url: http://www.delmarracing.com/include.php?i=/images/grounds.jpg&h=Grounds+Map&c=season

If that's right, then I stick to my argument.

When I very clearly mention Pi/2 or 90 degrees, where is the cause for misinterpretaion? It's very clear I am counting every left-handed 90-degree turn as one turn whereas you are counting 180-degree turn as one turn.

So "my turn" for 30' rails out would "add" approx 47 feet (for 90 degree or Pi/2 radians). If you want to talk about Pi radians or 180 degrees as ONE TURN, then so be it! It would just "add" double the figure. It will then be 94+ feet. So where is the discrepancy?

The fact remains that one "round trip" (my 4 turns or your 2 turns, it hardly matters how we choose to view it!) would still mean 188+ feet extra (or 20+ lengths) for 30' rails out, as I have said.

Hope this clears the confustion as to "who" has to clean the specks.[/QUO

Hey Spec, whose confusted?

In your original post you said:

"The fact is that for a 30-feet out turf rail, every turn at the Del Mar track approximately means an additional distance of 47 feet. So depending upon your measure of one length, you can find out how many extra lengths a horse has to travel (divide 47 by your measure of length) with reference to the 0 rail.

For example, if my measure is 9.2 feet for a length, then I would consider slightly over 5 lenths to be the extra distance around every turn. If it's a two-turn race, that becomes 10 lengths, for three-turn race 15 lengths, and so on."

If you had seriously believed that there are two turns in one turn you never would have mentioned a "three-turn race". This would mean the race started midway in a turn.NOT.

Your busted dude. Your original post was intended to discredit a fine handicapper and contributor to this board and when you realized your error you tried to cover your ass with this half-turn bs.


JM :mad:

[speculus]

If you had seriously believed that there are two turns in one turn you never would have mentioned a "three-turn race". This would mean the race started midway in a turn.NOT.
JM :mad:

I had made it amply clear that "I have never been to Del Mar or any other US track. I just went to the Del Mar website to check the track map, and wrote my post (post #5)", but I could see a point marked "3/4" "midway in a turn" on the turf track which, I hope, even without specs, you can see at http://www.delmarracing.com/include.php?i=/images/grounds.jpg&h=Grounds+Map&c=season), so obviously I presumed horses in the 6-furlong races will have to negotiate 3 turns (my turns of Pi/2 radians or 90 degrees, not yours) before straightening out for the finish line. Okay?

Your busted dude. Your original post was intended to discredit a fine handicapper and contributor to this board and when you realized your error you tried to cover your ass with this half-turn bs.
JM :mad:

Now, first about covering my ass:

Hoping that you have your specs on now, here are instances of when I have talked about "one" turn at Del Mar, it was always meant to be 90 degrees, and unlike you, was always sure of what Pi radian means:

Refer this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It can be mathematically worked out, especially on a track like Del Mar which has almost perfectly curved turns of 90 degrees or Pi/2 radians. (post #4)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Del Mar case, angle at every turn is approx 90 degrees or Pi/2, and for n=30 feet, the extra distance around (one) turn is
(Pi/2) x 30 = (3.142/2) x 30 (the value of Pi substituded as 3.142)
= 47.13 ft (#4 again)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to make maths involved crystal clear, I even went to the extent of taking an altogether different example (of Pi/3 radians or 60 degrees):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, if a horse goes 15 feet wide at the turn, and if the start and end points of the turn make an angle of 60 degrees (that is Pi/3 radians) with the centre of the imaginary circle, then the horse has to travel 15 * Pi/3 = 15.71 feet or 15 feet & 8-1/2 inches extra. (#9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then about discrediting Joe Takach:

Here is a part of my first post:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an otherwise informative and interesting article by Joe Takach, titled "Winning at Del Mar 2005", and featured on the home page of the PA forum, there is an error or ambiguity that can cause huge problems for unsuspecting handicappers if they take it at face value. Mr Takach may not exactly be a math expert (I gather from his articles that his speciality is "physicality handicapping"), therefore I wish to point out the error so that the advantage created by some of his otherwise useful suggestions in the same article should not get nullified by one less than exact observation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally, about you.

Now, a little about your apparent intent, which to put it mildly, is un-gentlemanly.

Looks like I have touched a raw nerve somewhere in you, and it's hurting. Though God know why unless you carry your ego on your sleeve and take a personal affront from any post just because it contains seeds of knowledge.

Otherwise I fail to understand why would someone so vehemently get personal in a discussion that is purely academic in nature, without meaning slightest disprespect to anyone, including Joe Takach.

First you put words into my mouth (in post #49) saying that I "said he (Joe Takach) didn't know how to handicap a Cal. turf race."

That was not just a lie, it was a case of monstrous distortion of fact.

I had also picked up the wicked undertone of your post, but chose NOT to react to it, as I did not want this discussion to degenerate into a brawl, and I believed you were perhaps just in a nasty mood for a moment or two. But your subsequent posts, their language and tone, and continual effort to disparage this discussion, speak otherwise.

You say that my intention was to "discredit a fine handicapper" like Joe Takach. I reproduce here, for you to re-read, my earlier post on this topic when you insinuated similarly:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not say "he didn't know how to handicap a Cal. turf race".
If you go to my opening post you can yourself see I said the article is "informative and interesting", and his suggestions "useful".

I had made it very clear that in an otherwise informative and interesting article with useful suggestions, why should there be error or ambiguity on one count?

So I set out to say what I said. How Joe Takach reacts to this discussion or what comment he makes (which you would have loved to hear!) is not a topic of my interest.
True, Takach called this example crude. That's the reason I added the word "ambiguity" to the title of the thread. Do you mean to say that vague information, if possible, should not be replaced by more accurate information? Then what is this handicapping board for? (post #56)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have the highest regard for Joe Takach and every fine handicapper around.
Have you heard that famous quote from the history of philosophy, "Dear is Plato, but dearer still, is the Truth"?

Well, the same applies here.

Dear is Joe Takach, but dearer still, is the Truth!

I don't enjoy writing personal responses on a public forum. Hope you will spare me the misery in the future.

Lovingly yours,

~Speculus

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The gate is reset."

Mary Shepardson
Director of Publications
Del Mar Thoroughbred Club
http://www.delmarracing.com

> ----------
> From: ken woodall
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:03 PM
> To: Mary S
> Subject: Rails out
>
> When the turf rails are set out, is the distance re-set by moving the gate or by another means? Thank you! Ken Woodall.
__________________________________________________
Speculus-= I admitted that I was wrong about the PI thing; Since I have good specs and looked at the same track layout you did without seeing straightaways on each side of the Del Mar Turf track but just on the backstretch and homestretch, I think it is time to admit that the continuous arc you saw on the map means 2 total turns of 180 degrees each.
You would be right about the 180' + distance if the gate at Del Mar was not reset, which you assumed was not, even though India resets gate AND poles. perhaps since Joe is at Del Mar every race day, He may know exactly where the placement is- maybe about 90' closer!LOL!
I think since you do so much research and seem to be up on math, you should make it a point to find out where the gate is placed for the mile and/or 1 1/16 mile races (turf). I will be waiting to hear from you.
Also, you said in an earlier post that horses running on a smaller arc need to be counter-balanced, but you did not say how. I would like to know that.
The only thing I know for sure is that horses are supposed to shift lead feet when starting and ending a (180 degree) turn in American racing. I believe that is to conserve energy on the lead foot on the turn.
I am also aware that one thing that causes the resultant effect of centrifical force is the speed at which the object is moving. One way to counterbalance the force would be to slow down 5% or about 2 MPH on a tight turn. :ThmbUp: (The thumbs up in this case is a positive sign, as opposed to the thumbs up in Roman gladiatorial matches, which meant death).

[speculus]

I think it is time to admit that the continuous arc you saw on the map means 2 total turns of 180 degrees each.

I think this whole misunderstanding was in the first place created because of the way we have been conditioned to view the "turns" in our respective countries. Unlike the Del Mar track, which is geometrically symmetrical in shape, we have tracks (we call them "oval" by tradition, although it is clearly a misnomer) which look oval from the clubhouse and the opposite side) but oblong from the adjacent sides. So for us, ANY "round the track" trip has 4 turns and not two.

That's why instead of viewing two turns (of 180 degrees each), I viewed them as four turns of 90 degrees each, and discussed maths for that angle.

My only point was when I am specific in mentioning the angle, there is no room for "ambiguity", although there could be confustion about the perception of the term "turn", especially to the US audience. But that should not render the maths wrong.

[speculus]

I think since you do so much research and seem to be up on math, you should make it a point to find out where the gate is placed for the mile and/or 1 1/16 mile races (turf). I will be waiting to hear from you.

I don't know where the gates "are" placed. As you know my knowledge about Del Mar is limited to the ground map on their website.

But if you want to know where the gates "should" be placed so as to "correct" the difference due to rails out of say, x feet, it can be done this way.

Assuming the angle infield chute makes with the main track is [theta] radians, the distance, d, will work out to

d = ([theta] * x / 2*Pi) + 2*Pi*x feet

where the quantity in bracket is the correction for the infield chute contact point and 2*Pi*x represents the correction for the 4 turns. (Ooops! Let me learn my American lessons, two turns of 180 degrees each! LOL!)

[speculus]

Also, you said in an earlier post that horses running on a smaller arc need to be counter-balanced, but you did not say how. I would like to know that.

Horses running around ANY TURN (smaller or bigger) have to counterbalance the centrifugal force (that attempts to "throw" them "out", so to say).

Only, smaller the arc, bigger is the force and bigger the arc, smaller the force, as it is given by the formula

F = m * V^2 / r

where m is the mass, V is the velocity and r is the radius of the circle to which the arc (turn) belongs. Since r is in the denominator on the right hand side, the force F is said to be inversely proportional to r, meaning if one goes up the other goes down and vice versa.

[speculus]

One way to counterbalance the force would be to slow down 5% or about 2 MPH on a tight turn. :ThmbUp:

You are dead right!

Since F = m * V^2/r,

and since the horse cannot change its mass m,

the only way to "reduce" the force is to slow down, thereby reducing velocity V, as the force F is directly proportional to the square of velocity.:ThmbUp:

[DJofSD]

The only thing I know for sure is that horses are supposed to shift lead feet when starting and ending a (180 degree) turn in American racing. I believe that is to conserve energy on the lead foot on the turn.

If you've ever ridden a horse (or know anything about haute ecole) you would know that running on the wrong lead is called the counter canter. It requires greater balance more than anything else and it does not lend itself to traveling at speed while moving in an arc. The horse is counter flexed with the neck and quarters on the wrong side from a balance perspective. Counter canter is by definition traveling in an arc on the "wrong" lead. Moving in a straight line does not have a right or wrong lead.

Do not mistake this for the cross canter. That's where the lead foot for the front quarters does not properly correspond to the lead foot of the hind quarters. And it is the hind quarters that determines the proper lead -- not the front.

In the U.S where all races except for part of the SA down-the-hill are all left handed turns, horses will naturally switch to the left lead in the turn. Whether they continue it once on the straight section of the track is a matter of how tired the horse is from running on that lead. Some will switch to a new lead by themselves while others need a little help. Often times what appears to be shifting into another gear while coming towards the wire is nothing more than switching leads. Horses that run straight can more easily change leads when asked. Those that travel with haunches leading to one side or the other will not change leads.

DJofSD

[kenwoodallpromos]

Thank you DJofSD! I do not ride, just watch but read what I wrote, but you provided more detail.

____________________
Speculus:"Originally Posted by kenwoodallpromos
One way to counterbalance the force would be to slow down 5% or about 2 MPH on a tight turn.



You are dead right!

Since F = m * V^2/r,

and since the horse cannot change its mass m,

the only way to "reduce" the force is to slow down, thereby reducing velocity V, as the force F is directly proportional to the square of velocity."
Gee, you think maybe that plays into Joe's comments that says less than 20 lengths at the wire? He never did actually give the velocity #s for the 2 horses or the energy expended; He just said where he thought they would wind up at the wire, not detailing trip, pace, velocity, etc. Maybe that is why it takes more than mere math wizardry to win a bet! It helps to know the track!LOL!!

[JustMissed]

Ken, Excellant observation about the velocity.

At 0 rail the turn would be tighter than at +30 and consequently the +30 horse should be able to go a little faster around the turn. Nice job at analysing that..

Couple of other point.

1. Even though the Del Mar folks said that they adjust the gate for temp. rails, they do not adjust for every out position. They normally adjust the same for 24 & 30 feet, 15 & 20 feet, etc.. This is not an exact science but I believe an attempt to allow the horses to expend similiar amount of energy from 0-30ft.

In any event, this does not change the timing as the electronic timing devices do not move and only the run-up changes.

2. Joe prefaced his statement by discussing the 1 path=1 length rule of thumb.

It appears Joe uses 2.5 feet as a path width and therefore +30 feet would contain 12 paths. I've seen some guys use 4 feet as a path width but I personally believe this is too liberal. The measurement of a mounted jockey-iron to iron-could not possible be over 3 feet.

Maybe Tom Mac could measure this for us if he hasn't had all his horses claimed away.

JM :)

[Macdiarmadillo]

Here's more fuel for the fire:
http://www.goto4winds.com/horse/dynamics-of-turns.html

[JustMissed]

Great article Mac, thanks for posting that.

Did you notice this in the article:"Each path away from the rail results in an extra 11 ft (3.5 X pi) traveled".

The 3.5 he refers to is the path width. If you assume a length to be an amount less than 11 ft., like 9 ft. for example, this means a narrower path width.

For example, using 9ft. for a length, the path width would be 9 divided by pi(3.14) = 2.87 ft.. Pretty damn close to what I said Joe T. was using, 2.5 ft..

Anyway, I compliment you on your post.

All you did was present the information with a comment and did not accuse anyone of being "math deficient" or accuse anyone of publishing erroneous information that, God forbid, would be "disastrous" to the unknowing player.

Between the info that Ken posted and the good stuff you posted, it appears that Joe T., even though he called it a crude example, was just about dead on about accounting for temporary rails.

Keep up the good work. We need guys like you and Ken.

JM :)

[speculus]

All you did was present the information with a comment and did not accuse anyone of being "math deficient" or accuse anyone of publishing erroneous information that, God forbid, would be "disastrous" to the unknowing player.
JM
Did you notice somethings else? He also did not accuse anyone of saying something he did not say. How about that?



Keep up the good work. We need guys like you and Ken.
JM
How about changing that "We" to "I"?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Grow up, dude. Grow up.

BTW, I am sure pretty soon I am going to get tired of your slant comments, so RIGHT NOW you go on my IGNORE list

[kenwoodallpromos]

Since I am lazy, I find it easier to gat the information once from the most direct source and keep it.
Whatever the chartcallers or those at the tracks call a length, path turn, or width I have to go with. If I bet India I would handicap based on 4 turns and moving poles.

[Overlay]

I'm not saying that this thread doesn't have some useful information in it (I guess), and I admit that I got hooked on handicapping before the admittedly beneficial analytical refinements that have occurred in recent years. Call me unenlightened, but I just can't see expending the time or the emotion that seems to have been generated here on this subject. I respect anyone's right to their personal handicapping preferences, but it would seem to me that any incremental gain from getting this far down in the weeds would be more than offset by the length, difficulty, and frustration of the analysis, as evidenced by the nature and tone of the exchanges here. (Just one player's opinion.)

[rrbauer]

Just to add fuel to the fire: They don't set the rails out 30 feet at Del Mar...

[kenwoodallpromos]

This is an internet forum. It is all on the screen!
Getting "down in the weeds" about turf betting is good for me because I hardly bet turf so I do not have much emotion invested. It is simply a learnig exercise! It not serious like reputation icons!LOL!
Besides, my saver is the Solitare games on my desktop!LOL! :cool:

[Overlay]

This is an internet forum. It is all on the screen!
Getting "down in the weeds" about turf betting is good for me because I hardly bet turf so I do not have much emotion invested. It is simply a learnig exercise!

I always try to gain useful knowledge from any exchange about handicapping, and I don't get personally wrapped around the axle over anything someone might say on this board. It just seemed to me that in this case, regardless of any player's personal preferences, the learning value of this thread had been obscured by the nature and tone of the exchanges that were taking place, and that the amount of heat being generated was disproportionate to the amount of light that this discussion was shedding on the total handicapping picture (which to me is the main purpose of this site).

[BillW]

I always try to gain useful knowledge from any exchange about handicapping, and I don't get personally wrapped around the axle over anything someone might say on this board. It just seemed to me that in this case, regardless of any player's personal preferences, the learning value of this thread had been obscured by the nature and tone of the exchanges that were taking place, and that the amount of heat being generated was disproportionate to the amount of light that this discussion was shedding on the total handicapping picture (which to me is the main purpose of this site).

Make sure you express your opinion with the community moderation option (the green square thingy :)) It could be a good thing.

Bill

[Tom]

bump