Microchip Timing

[karlskorner]

http://www.nypost.com/business/62385.htm

[PaceAdvantage]

While many, no doubt, picked a horse based on a catchy name, a favorite jockey or a friend's advice, most serious bets were made after carefully perusing horses' previous performances — times broken down in the Daily Racing Form in exact quarter-mile increments.

Those times have been recorded the same way for more than 100 years — with binoculars and a stopwatch. That time-tested way is mostly accurate, but not always.

Binoculars and a stopwatch? No, times are recorded by a light beam and a teletimer. The chart caller then determines beaten lengths with binoculars and a VCR. The only times that are recorded are the race leader's times, and those times have been accurately measured via the teletimer for as long as I can remember, (except for Gulfstream Park....lol)

Binoculars and a stopwatch? Where? Only place I know of is on the training track in the morning....

[Figman]

Of course the beaten lengths at the finish are NOT determined by the chart caller. These are determined by the photo finish equipment that accurately drags the field through its surveyed finish line to determine the distance from one horse to the next.

[PaceAdvantage]

And of course there is always someone with a stopwatch as a BACKUP in case the teletimer fails....

[karlskorner]

And then again there is the "sheets" and Thorograph that use a stop watch and time from the gate. Both been around a long time, as others come and go.

[karlskorner]

Lets excuse the author of the article and his lack of knowledge as to how a race to is timed, after all he is writing in the business section of the NY Post regarding a microchip that will time a race 1/1000th of a second. If I were responsible for putting an outhouse on the moon, I would be concerned about 1/1000th of a second, not in a horse race.

[twindouble]

Lets excuse the author of the article and his lack of knowledge as to how a race to is timed, after all he is writing in the business section of the NY Post regarding a microchip that will time a race 1/1000th of a second. If I were responsible for putting an outhouse on the moon, I would be concerned about 1/1000th of a second, not in a horse race.:lol: :lol:

[JustRalph]

just like gps timing......... I will believe it when i see it

[PaceAdvantage]

Lets excuse the author of the article and his lack of knowledge as to how a race to is timed, after all he is writing in the business section of the NY Post regarding a microchip that will time a race 1/1000th of a second.

I can't excuse a lack of basic knowledge from a writer. Screw that. I'm tired of excusing "outsiders" for their lack of knowledge about our game. If they are going to write about racing, then they damn well better learn the BASICS!

If the author has me cringing within the first couple of sentences, how is he going to get me to read the rest of the story?

[kenwoodallpromos]

The following USA racing gets finish times on ALL contestants:
Humans above 8th grade level; Quarterhorses; Harness racers; Mules; other equine breeds; Greyhounds; Maine dog sled races; Pigeons; airplanes; Some yatch racers. Racing pigs do not (That sports entertainment and all 1 owner!). All the above have it in their rules.
In any (at least annual) worm races, only the winner is timed but all other contestant get an exact measured distance credited, unlike Thoroughbred Racing.
The following tracks, and maybe more, time ALL Quarterhorses up to 870 yards but only the winning Thoroughbred, even at 2f and in 990 yard (4 1/2 furlong) races:
Sam Houston
Manor Downs
Los Alamitos
Will Rogers Downs
Portland Meadows
Rialto
Sunland.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Maybe he was just looking at the Equibase charts at tracks for TBred/Qtrhorse where the Quarterhorse races say "Electronic Timer" and the TBred races do not say how the finish is timed!!LOL!! :lol: :D :blush: :bang:
_____
Can we bet on pigeon races? :lol:

[Vegas711]

The Question that should be answered is wether a microchip is a good thing for Horse racing? One argument will be that timing of the individual runners will be very accurate but will this help or hurt the better. The most inportant component of horse racing is the horse player, with out betting there is no horse racing. If racing wants to be totally uniform as what is happening with polytrack it will remove edges that the astute handicapper works so hard to gain. If every player is on equal footing then we all will lose the track take plus dime breakage.


It is my opinion that it is best to keep the game the way it always has been run.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Beginning when? When you were a newbie? When I was a newbie? When George Washington was a newbie?
No computer, no software, no Beyer's, no CJ figures, only whatever information the form and ATM wants you to have. Fine by me!
10 years ago when I began handicapping, there was no milkshake testing and not much other drug testing; there was not nearly the national organizational aspect to racing as now. I believe only the biggest owners and trainers could afford to have TC horses and I assume many of the smaller owners and trainer who have been winning the KY Derby could not. And no slots to prop up low attendance. No online or simulcast or OTB's. You had to buty thew DRF and keep stacks of charts, workouts, trainer stats yourself because there were no trainer or joockey stats in the form either. Many like Brisnet now hands you most all the info you need on a silver platter.
I'm kind opf glad I was not around for the "good old days" when you did not have the choices of info or betting that you do now.
Handicappers like me that like to pick and chose their races are better off now.
As far as the tracks themselves, very few bettors actually know how the track is composed or maintained. It is a mystery because few study the track itself. Polyturf is not Astroturf or human track composite material. As loing as a racetrack has components that are loose like dirt or Polytrack, or can change like grass growing, dynamics will never be totaly set. We have already seen that on days when Polytrack was frozen at TP.

[JustMissed]

Can you answer this?:

The 1 horse wins. When his nose crosses the finish line the second closest horse is 18 lengths behind him. This horse is the 2 horse.

The 6 horse, being a damn fast closer, swings wide and passes the 2,3,4 & 5 horse and finishes second 10 lenghts ahead of the 2 horse.

What does the chart say?

JM :D

[Tom]

The surface is not the only variable.
There will always be edges for smart gus to find and exploit.
I wouldn't worry about the effect of poly track.
Is everything paying $4.00 at TP now?

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?type=inr&country=USA&track=TP&date=2006-02-26&enc=525834342A10191F14037B7A5440BDD6F2F4F0D1C65220 4C745EB490F5

6 races Sunday paid over $10.00.

[classhandicapper]

The surface is not the only variable.
There will always be edges for smart gus to find and exploit.
I wouldn't worry about the effect of poly track.
Is everything paying $4.00 at TP now?

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?type=inr&country=USA&track=TP&date=2006-02-26&enc=525834342A10191F14037B7A5440BDD6F2F4F0D1C65220 4C745EB490F5

6 races Sunday paid over $10.00.

Yea but did any of those winners make any sense? ;)

[Tom]

You have to handicap them.

No sense winners to one might be standouts to others.

I used to rgularly get $9-16 dollars on Beyer top fig horses, when they were sold on BRIS and hardly anyone had them.

Brush up on form and class, conditions.

[socantra]

Yea but did any of those winners make any sense? ;)

5th ML 15/1, 8th ML 12/1, 4th ML 6/1, everything else ML 5/1 or less. Looks like most of them made sense to the morning line maker.

socantra

[kenwoodallpromos]

What every chart ever written says is that every non-winner of every race ever charted as still standing out on tracks all across America because no chart I have ever seen says no horse other than the winner ever crossed the finish line?
Here's 1 for you- If according to the charts the winner is the only horse ever to cross the finish line, how are purses and payoffs other than for win justified? How can there be an order of finish if according to the charts the horses never finished the race? Both according to where the horses were when the winner crossed the line? That is what the charts say.
The fact that time and distance are both frozen is the acknowledgement that you are not getting the full race information.
How can tracks have photo finishes for place or show and not have the time recorded somewhere?

[Figman]

The finish times in thousandths (not hundredths) of a second for all finishers are recorded within the official photo system in New York.

Equibase management has made the decision that the public NOT need such detailed information. Complain to the Jockey Club that deemed Equibase as the OFFICIAL purveyor of thoroughbred information in North America.

Oh I forgot, it is the Jockey Club that has also decided that microchipping horses is not necessary!

[Macdiarmadillo]

If we get honestly reported workout times, it will change that part of the handicapping picture.

Oh I forgot, it is the Jockey Club that has also decided that microchipping horses is not necessary!
Not exactly true. They were stumping for using microchips last year. I went to a CHRB meeting where the JC made a presentation about it and didn't end it with "Just kidding!" They have backed off suggesting using microchips for racing ID rather than papers and tattoos. Microchips for ID will still be required in all livestock in a year or two anyway, per The Feds. The ones for humans maybe the year after. :(

Why not go to the chips that give internal temperature readouts (horses must get their temps taken 2-3 times before a race anyway) and can be read at a distance (for splits and workouts)? The former already exists and only adds a couple of bucks to the chip.

[twindouble]

What every chart ever written says is that every non-winner of every race ever charted as still standing out on tracks all across America because no chart I have ever seen says no horse other than the winner ever crossed the finish line?
Here's 1 for you- If according to the charts the winner is the only horse ever to cross the finish line, how are purses and payoffs other than for win justified? How can there be an order of finish if according to the charts the horses never finished the race? Both according to where the horses were when the winner crossed the line? That is what the charts say.
The fact that time and distance are both frozen is the acknowledgement that you are not getting the full race information.
How can tracks have photo finishes for place or show and not have the time recorded somewhere?

Who would want that information? The majority of horses after the winner are eased up and are no longer racing anyway with the exception of those that have a shot to hit the board even then some don't race for 3rd or 4th. Sure many time two or three are battling to the wire or it's a blanket finish.

What upsets me is, online they just pan the winner and we can't see how the rest of the race is run, even the replays suck to no end. I've seen jocks stand up when they have an easy third and get nipped at the wire.

T.D.

[ezpace]

The surface is not the only variable.
There will always be edges for smart gus to find and exploit.
I wouldn't worry about the effect of poly track.
Is everything paying $4.00 at TP now?

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?type=inr&country=USA&track=TP&date=2006-02-26&enc=525834342A10191F14037B7A5440BDD6F2F4F0D1C65220 4C745EB490F5

6 races Sunday paid over $10.00.

888888888888888888

Willie M 's found some flaws in the surface and uses pace POSITION for the equitrack very well to

get some double digit wins. IMO .*****

[kenwoodallpromos]

Who would want all runners' finishing times? Everyone now who uses any figures for finish times- DRF, Beyer, and the rest. As far as I know, all speed figures are based on some kind of finishing times calculation. But maybe those in control of the numbers think we do not need that detailed of information. NEED? No, and we do not NEED to bet either!
IMHO the most accurate figures are 2nd call foot per second as far as most horses running a quick pace.
If ITM horses are the only ones trying at the end, and we had accurate figures, the ITM horses are the ones where it may matter!
The Jockey club and DRF did not think bettors needed accurate celding information either until CHRB and a few of us handicappers contacted them- they and the trainers and tracks got their act together real fast because it was easy to do and the higher ups decided to complain.
If the photo finish cameras already time the non-winners, then it is just a matter of convincing some higher-ups that it is "needed" information (especially at Poly tracks!).

[Vegas711]

I will just stand with the position that the more uniform and readily the information the more difficult it will be to find an edge.

[RonTiller]

Can you answer this?:
The 1 horse wins. When his nose crosses the finish line the second closest horse is 18 lengths behind him. This horse is the 2 horse.
The 6 horse, being a damn fast closer, swings wide and passes the 2,3,4 & 5 horse and finishes second 10 lenghts ahead of the 2 horse.
What does the chart say?
We had the same question and spoke with the the person in charge of the chart calling at Equibase. The positions and lengths behind the winner are not "frozen" for all the other horses at the instant the winner's nose crosses the finish line, as many people assume. The camera at the finish runs continuously and the lengths behind the winner for each horse are measured off the resulting composite photographic image. Don't ask me to explain it further - that's all I know. There's probably other members of this forum who can fill in the technical details.

Ron Tiller
HDW

[Red Knave]

The positions and lengths behind the winner are not "frozen" for all the other horses at the instant the winner's nose crosses the finish line, as many people assume. The camera at the finish runs continuously and the lengths behind the winner for each horse are measured off the resulting composite photographic image.Henry Kuck, years ago, reported that at Tampa Bay, they timed every horse across the line, using the film which had a timer embeded in it, and generated the lengths behind using the old 5 lengths per second formula. Is this still accurate?

[twindouble]

Who would want all runners' finishing times? Everyone now who uses any figures for finish times- DRF, Beyer, and the rest. As far as I know, all speed figures are based on some kind of finishing times calculation. But maybe those in control of the numbers think we do not need that detailed of information. NEED? No, and we do not NEED to bet either!
IMHO the most accurate figures are 2nd call foot per second as far as most horses running a quick pace.
If ITM horses are the only ones trying at the end, and we had accurate figures, the ITM horses are the ones where it may matter!
The Jockey club and DRF did not think bettors needed accurate celding information either until CHRB and a few of us handicappers contacted them- they and the trainers and tracks got their act together real fast because it was easy to do and the higher ups decided to complain.
If the photo finish cameras already time the non-winners, then it is just a matter of convincing some higher-ups that it is "needed" information (especially at Poly tracks!).


Granted there can be or is software out there that can produce pace and speed figures but after that I think it's all down hill. Primarily because there's so many other variables that just can't be scaled.


T.D.

[JustMissed]

Don't ask me to explain it further - that's all I know. There's probably other members of this forum who can fill in the technical details.

Ron Tiller
HDW

Thanks Ron for the effort.

Like most things in life--the devil is in the detail.

JM :)

[twindouble]

Thanks Ron for the effort.

Like most things in life--the devil is in the detail.

JM :)

When you look at the charts, they reflect the beaten lengths as shown in the past performances, when winner hit the line. The added benefit of the charts is you can see where each horse was at the calls in that race relative to the leader at that point. There isn't any posted finish times for each horse crossing the wire after the winner. You have to estimate or guess at it when it comes to beaten lengths. Anyone who's clocking horses that are eased up has a screw lose.

T.D.

[Figman]

http://www.teletimer.com/
This site should answer some of your questions.

[twindouble]

http://www.teletimer.com/
This site should answer some of your questions.

Thanks Figman, it was predictable that this would come about but as a break through in handicapping I doubt it. What would help is getting a clear picture how the race is run, I'm talking the video and replays. To me a chart is a chart is a chart, what I get out of them may differ from others. Maybe this close scrutiny will put pressure on jocks to persevere better than they do now.


T.D.

[trigger]

When you look at the charts, they reflect the beaten lengths as shown in the past performances, when winner hit the line. The added benefit of the charts is you can see where each horse was at the calls in that race relative to the leader at that point. There isn't any posted finish times for each horse crossing the wire after the winner. You have to estimate or guess at it when it comes to beaten lengths. Anyone who's clocking horses that are eased up has a screw lose.

T.D.

You are incorrect. For instance, when Horse A (the winner) crosses the finish line, Horse B was second by 5 lengths; however, Horse C outfinishes Horse B and crosses the finish line second. In your scenario (charts and PPs show beaten lengths when the winner hits the wire), Horse C, who finished second, would show beaten lengths in the charts and PPs that were more than the Horse B (who finished third but was second when Horse A reached the finish line). The Charts/PPs always show beaten lengths that are progressively bigger based on the order that each horse reaches the finish line after the winner.
My understanding is that the photo finish camera records the actual time of each runner as it crosses the finish line. Then , based on a formula ,the difference in time between the winner's time and each of the non-winner's finish time is converted to beaten lengths using a pre-set amount of time for each length. For some unknown reason, the amount of time assigned to each beaten length appears to be a secret known only to the track, the photo finish company, and Equibase (and maybe the DRF). Accordingly, anyone converting final beaten lengths to time based on the charts/PPs has to guess at the secret amount of time (and distance) assigned to each length .
Trigger

[twindouble]

You are incorrect. For instance, when Horse A (the winner) crosses the finish line, Horse B was second by 5 lengths; however, Horse C outfinishes Horse B and crosses the finish line second. In your scenario (charts and PPs show beaten lengths when the winner hits the wire), Horse C, who finished second, would show beaten lengths in the charts and PPs that were more than the Horse B (who finished third but was second when Horse A reached the finish line). The Charts/PPs always show beaten lengths that are progressively bigger based on the order that each horse reaches the finish line after the winner.
My understanding is that the photo finish camera records the actual time of each runner as it crosses the finish line. Then , based on a formula ,the difference in time between the winner's time and each of the non-winner's finish time is converted to beaten lengths using a pre-set amount of time for each length. For some unknown reason, the amount of time assigned to each beaten length appears to be a secret known only to the track, the photo finish company, and Equibase (and maybe the DRF). Accordingly, anyone converting final beaten lengths to time based on the charts/PPs has to guess at the secret amount of time (and distance) assigned to each length .
Trigger

I'm not saying the charts don't reflect the order of finish of course they do, I'm saying theres no posted times for horses crossing the wire after the winner! We have to guess at those beaten lengths. Timing horses when eased up gets us nowhere.



T.D.

[chickenhead]

I talked to a couple of guys at photo finish companies trying to find out the secret recipe...I heard 0.2 and .18 = 1 length from two different guys at two different companies....from the TG board I think I remember JB asked Equibase, they told him all tracks are 0.16.

I think they forgot to write it down or something, I'm not sure they have a clue as to what it is.

[trigger]

I talked to a couple of guys at photo finish companies trying to find out the secret recipe...I heard 0.2 and .18 = 1 length from two different guys at two different companies....from the TG board I think I remember JB asked Equibase, they told him all tracks are 0.16.

I think they forgot to write it down or something, I'm not sure they have a clue as to what it is.

Does anyone know for sure how beaten lengths are determined for the internal fractions? I always thought that these fractional beaten lengths are estimated by the race caller or chart maker based on a visual review of a replay of the race. Also, I think the fractional beaten lengths are based on how many lengths each horse is behind the leader as the leader passes the given pole (i.e., not based on the actual time of each horse as it passes the pole). If this is correct, then the beaten lengths for internal fractions and beaten lengths for the finish are two different animals. And, wouldn't this fact(if correct) screw up the comparibility of pace ratings vs. final time ratings?

[chickenhead]

Everything you say is true, except for necessarily the last sentence. That depends on too many things to make a blanket statement...but definately yes they (the internal and the finish lengths) represent two different things...

[Steve 'StatMan']

Does anyone know for sure how beaten lengths are determined for the internal fractions? I always thought that these fractional beaten lengths are estimated by the race caller or chart maker based on a visual review of a replay of the race. Also, I think the fractional beaten lengths are based on how many lengths each horse is behind the leader as the leader passes the given pole (i.e., not based on the actual time of each horse as it passes the pole). If this is correct, then the beaten lengths for internal fractions and beaten lengths for the finish are two different animals. And, wouldn't this fact(if correct) screw up the comparibility of pace ratings vs. final time ratings?

They make the fractional position calls and fraction margin estimates visually with binoculars as the races is occuring, normally one person making the calls and the other writing them down. Whether they go back and review them on the replays or not is up to the callers and their available time, since they're supposed to have the chart finished and online 20 minutes after the race, plus be prepared to call and chart the next race. Perhaps sometimes they review them on a replay, or perhaps the start call.

[JustMissed]

Always found it interesting that the Charts show the lengths ahead a particular horse is ahead of the horse just behind him.

Then, when the PP's are produced, they report the lengths behind the winner each finisher is except the winner where they show the lengths ahead of the second horse.

The chart makers probably use the photo finish tape to make the chart within the requisite 20 minutes and then the data guys perform some sort of "Voodoo Mojo" to come up with the PP's.

Like someone may have mentioned earlier, if a horse wasn't in the money or up close and even--what difference does it matter anyway? At Tampa on the 28th, a horse finished 44 lengths ahead of the horse behind it and that horse was ahead of two horses that DNF.

JM :)

[kroebuck67]

Does anyone suppose that they'll start using RFID chips in horse racing (and every other sport, for that matter)? I personally think it would be a good thing.. no more question about call positions in a race... no more debate on wether a ball was out of bounds in other sports, etc.


Just a newbie's .02 (my first post)

[Vegas711]

The day will come when we ALL will be micro chipped, then will anyone think that it is a good idea.

[RonTiller]

Always found it interesting that the Charts show the lengths ahead a particular horse is ahead of the horse just behind him.
Then, when the PP's are produced, they report the lengths behind the winner each finisher is except the winner where they show the lengths ahead of the second horse.
The chart makers probably use the photo finish tape to make the chart within the requisite 20 minutes and then the data guys perform some sort of "Voodoo Mojo" to come up with the PP's.
The data collected at the track and input into the Equibase system is the lengths ahead of each from the horse behind them. There is no 2nd set of independent measurements that constritutes lengths behind the winner. The lengths behind the winner for each horse is just calculated by adding up all the lengths ahead fields for all the horses in front of each horse. The chart callers might make fine tuning adjustments to the lengths ahead numbers after the race but I frankly don't know.

That the DRF style charts display lengths ahead of the horse behind rather than lengths behind the winner, as displayed in the traditional DRF PPs, is just a matter of convention; indeed, it has achieved the status of tradition. Most companies that make charts follow this tradition. We never liked this style of charts so all of our charts display lengths behind the winner, like the PPs, but this is pretty much just a formatting decision.

A further issue is the printing of the chart or PP. A horse that is a nose ahead or behind gets printed as "no". A horse that is 3 lengths and a nose ahead or behind does not get listed as "3 and a nose" so the convention (now tradition) is to round the numbers to the nearest 1/4 length after 1 whole length has been reached; below 1 whole length, the printed fractions are nose, head, neck, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4. There is no ahead or behind by 3/4 and a head - it gets printed as 3/4. This probably derived from a convention to NOT print lengths ahead or behind in decimal notation, like .85 (3/4 and a head). Fractions like 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 are easier to read than fractions like 17/20 (.85), so you print 3/4 instead of 17/20 or .85 or 3/4+hd. I should point out that this rounding, when it occurs, is at most adding or subtracting 1 foot, taking 1 length to be 10 feet, rounding to the nearest 2.5 feet in either direction. Calculating times based on the "real" recorded beaten lengths versus the sometimes rounded published beaten lengths results in small changes (1/100 to 3/100 of a second difference).

Ain't tradition grand!

Ron Tiller
HDW

[Tom]

Which is why I seriously question the worth of using times in hundredths. there is so much inaccurracy built in to begin with, and there is no way to really know what a beaten length is really worth and day to day variants just add to the pile.