KEE GPS data

[DJofSD]

After the two races from KEE featured on ESPN yesterday, there was a chart shown for each runner in the race. The chart was for total distance covered during the running of the race.

While it was interesting to note the differences, it begs the question: what other data is not being shared with us?

I suspect everything that we might want to know is there but we'll end up having to wait. And when it finally is available to be purchased, we'll be paying through the nose for it.

And, then, there is another looming issue, and that is this: will your current software tool of choice even be able to use that new data?

Additionally what might happen, both good and bad, to other parts of the industry when this new "high resolution" data is out there?

[cj]

Also, what tracks are going to pay to have this technology? In most races you deal with shippers from all over. What good is the data if you only have it for a few horses in each field?

[sjk]

There is a massive amount of information collected by this system and it is not at all clear what sort of data structure would be feasible for communicating it.

Something simple like feet from the rail at various points in the race would be pretty useful to work with. Right now the chartcallers vary so much in how much information they give you on this that it doesn't seem very useful but if it was consistently available you could probably get a lot from it.

It is pretty certain that today's software is not geared up to handle the added data but if it were consistenly available it would be pretty easy to analyze and build in.

If your tool of choice is looking at a printed page it is hard to envision how they are going to stuff much more into the PP format without making it harder to absorb.

[Tom]

With onjly a couple of tracks using the technmology, there is still a valuable use for the information - research.

We can now find out what a length is worth in time with more accurrate than ever before. We can find out how much time a horse loses running two wide, three wide, etc.

We can use this to refine our current data.

Now, how do we get access to it to analyze?

[BillW]

We can now find out what a length is worth in time with more accurrate than ever before. We can find out how much time a horse loses running two wide, three wide, etc.


Tom,

Next time you are at FL, go see the placing judge (it may take "knowing" someone and a little talking as they are in a restricted area) and ask to see the photo finish strip. It resolves to far greater than this system will.

The problem in determining a "length" is that a horse extends and contracts during a stride (remember headbobs) such that a length varies greatly (few feet). You end up back in the same boat, using an average that you may or may not be happy with.

I noticed that after Keeneland showed a photo finish (Race #5 10/6) where the animation showed the wrong horse winning that they stopped putting the animation up on the simulcast signal the next day. In order to use the animation with the simulcast signal in the future they will have to cut it off before the finish .

The one feature I did like about this system is that they show the odds vertically beside the video on the infield toteboard in running order.

Bill

BTW does anyone know if Equibase is even collection this data?

[DJofSD]

Unless the GPS transmitter is somehow located on the tip of the nose and the end of a flaired nostril, it should not be used for placing.

I'd assume the electronics is located on the horse and not the jockey. You now have to assume a stand distance from the tip of the horse's nose to the location of the transmitter if you want to use this new data for beaten lengths.

[BillW]

Unless the GPS transmitter is somehow located on the tip of the nose and the end of a flaired nostril, it should not be used for placing.

I'd assume the electronics is located on the horse and not the jockey. You now have to assume a stand distance from the tip of the horse's nose to the location of the transmitter if you want to use this new data for beaten lengths.

Even if the transmitter is on the nose of the horse, the error of the system will prevent it from being used for placing. The electronics is located in the saddle cloth area. The distance from the transmitter to the nose will vary with the stride also and introduce another error into the system.

Even if you end up with a system error of say +/- 3 feet, the system can be effectively used for placing trailers at the call points where the accuracy of the present system is horrendous.

Bill

[DJofSD]

BillW - I agree.

If it isn't accurate to better than 3 feet then the system is a POS -- and I don't mean point of sale.

[the_fat_man]

So, Gorella beat Karen's Caper in a headbob

while taking the turn one path closer to the rail

and thus travelling 5,334.8 feet as opposed to the 5348.8 feet covered by Karen's Caper

14 feet is a HEALTHY stride (length)

(My Typhoon, recipient of a garden trip at the Spa when she narrowly beat K'sC, was taken off the rail by GG, and didn't benefit from what could've been a suckup rail trip, covering 5343.4 feet and not being able to keep up late.)

Gorella is going the BC Mile, per the trainer, after the race.

The feet covered information doesn't exactly make the issues transparent, however as it appeared that, had they gone around again, K'C would not have gotten by Gorella.

The new technology will possibly mean a paradigm shift is in order.

Now, while not precise, wasn't it obvious from watching the race that K'C ran more distance than Gorella? Especially, the headon view.

Of course, the not everyone watches the races.

Additionally, when the distance from rail numbers become available, we can get even clearer insight as to what being wide is all about. (Well, we'll have information as to a horse's position all around the track ---seems that presently, in general, the concern is with turn position only.)

[classhandicapper]

Also, what tracks are going to pay to have this technology? In most races you deal with shippers from all over. What good is the data if you only have it for a few horses in each field?

Even when it's available for every track, IMO most people are going to use it incorrectly for at least awhile.

Based on previous conversations I know we mostly agree on this issue.

There are reasons to think there are often at least partially offsetting benefits to racing outside even though you are losing ground. That doesn't even take into account the possibility of path biases when it's better to be outside (or at least neutral). There is also the pace issue. It's obviously a lot tougher to get caught 4 wide on the first turn of a fast pace route than it is to get caught wide in the back of the pack loafing.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Trakus Race Information for October 14, 2006

Race 1

Finish
Position Program
Number Post
Position Horse Race
Distance (feet)
1 1 1 Mixteca 6,008.3
2 5 5 Brother Bobby 6,001.4
*****3 9 8 Higher Cause 6,079.4
4 12 11 Purely Wild 6,067.1
5 8 7 Pew 6,033.6
6 3 3 Thalian Hall 6,024.1
7 6 6 Gray Mountain 5,998.7
8 4 4 Cool Valley Cowboy 6,007.6
9 10 9 Say It Son 6,029.8
10 11 10 High Pitch 6,035.7
****11 2 2 Boonesborough 5,985.2 (shortest)

Anybody want to take my action on the next head-to-head? I'll take Higher Cause, you take Boonesborough!LOL!!

___________________

[Tom]

Ken, where did you get that data?

[BillW]

Ken, where did you get that data?

http://www.keeneland.com/liveracing/trakus.asp :)

[rrbauer]

I noticed today (Sunday 10/15) that on the KEE simulcast feed that on the graphic that showed order of finish it showed how far the winner ran and then showed the beaten off distances in feet.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Chart from Equibase shows finishers;
1) inside 1st turn, 4w 2nd;
2) inside;
3) 3-4 wide both turns; about 3 back.
4) sweeping 2nd turn 6-7 wide
_____________
So far no times or speed from Trackus.
Maybe speed or Beyers adjustment for distance and trip would help?
In this race the mile was 1:36 and change.

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://www.keeneland.com/liveracing/trakus.asp :)
______
Website also has Clocker's Comments on workouts and name of "in company" horse!

[classhandicapper]

Does anyone know approximately how many feet are in a length?

I realize the official beaten lengths are a function of time and not distance, but the formula is not public. No one seems to know the answer and at least an approximation would help make these ground loss figures more useable.

How long is the average horse?

Maybe I can back into the answer by watching some races and looking at the official charts.

The fractional beaten lengths are visual approximations. That's another can of worms.

[Tom]

Ken, Bill - thanks - neat site.

Class - varies by programer - generally, 10 feet was the norm, but CJ used 8 I thinkg, and Sartin used various at different points of call - anything from 2 - 12 feet in his advanced prgrams.

It's not how long a horse is, it's how long people think he is! :D

[cj]

I read the 8 feet thing in Handicapping Speed by Charles Carrol. The evidence is pretty conclusive. Still, I wasn't sure, so I also (no kidding) measured a few horses, and all were close to 8 feet.

[formula_2002]

http://www.keeneland.com/liveracing/trakus.asp :)
"Trakus Race Information

"Thanks for your interest in Keeneland’s Trakus technology which provides the ability -- via sensor chips carried in saddlecloths and antennas positioned around the racetrack -- to track each horse in a race electronically and digitally in real time. "

I'd be more interested in infraray heat sensoring.
A complete body scan of horse and jockey during the post parade.

The track could sell hand held devices for whatever they could get..Say twice the cost of the 'Sheets" :p

[highnote]

Boy, this polytrack must be really amazing stuff. I visited the link above and clicked on "Troubled Trips" for each and every day at Keeneland this meeting and there was not one report of a troubled trip. WOW!
;)

[kenwoodallpromos]

Does anyone know approximately how many feet are in a length?

I realize the official beaten lengths are a function of time and not distance, but the formula is not public. No one seems to know the answer and at least an approximation would help make these ground loss figures more useable.

How long is the average horse?

Maybe I can back into the answer by watching some races and looking at the official charts.

The fractional beaten lengths are visual approximations. That's another can of worms.
_________________
I go by the Equibase Glossary as the "official" length since they originate the charts they say-
"length
A measurement approximating the length of a horse, used to denote distance between horses in a race For example, "Secretariat won the Belmont by 31 lengths.""
Actually I use the length from Fontana Safety Rail post to post (1 length of Fontana Safety Rail), which is exactly 8'.
Based on 12 seconds per furlong, 1/5 of a second is exactly 11'.
Ainsle used 1 length= 1/7 th of a second, which is just about (7 x 8'= 56 ' per second) 11 4/5 seconds per furlong.

[classhandicapper]

I read the 8 feet thing in Handicapping Speed by Charles Carrol. The evidence is pretty conclusive. Still, I wasn't sure, so I also (no kidding) measured a few horses, and all were close to 8 feet.

I think we've discussed this a bit in the past.

Most other beaten lengths charts are based on a greater number of feet per length than 8, but Equibase will not tell us what they use.

It doesn't make too much of a difference when the margins are small, but when they are larger (a horse ran in the wrong class or was used up in a duel) it can make a significant difference in the speed figure calculation. (I know "you" know all this)

I'm going to try to start charting my visual perception of beaten lengths based on the horse's length of 8 feet and match it to the charts to try to back into what Equibase is using. That's the value I am interested in most.

[JustRalph]

Let's just remember, this is not GPS data. It is localized radio data. Or who is receiving it? We don't know the real value in it yet. And the Trakus guys have hinted (via some secret emails :lol: ) that it may be way more valuable than I thought it would be. Or that they can tweak it to be more valuable.

[betovernetcapper]

I've been toying with the Trakus readouts and thought I'd try converting them to velocity ratings (shades of Sartin) just as an experiment. This is Sunday's first race

program # finish-margin velocity
4 -- won - - 57.27
5 -- 2nd-5.75 - - 56.5
3 -- 3rd-6.75 - - 56.09*
9 -- 4th-7 - - 56.47
6 -- 5th-7.5 - - 56.39
2 -- 6th-9.25 - - 55.93
7 -- 7th-14.25 - - 55.24
8 -- 8th-14.25 - - 55.21
1 -- 9th-15.5 - - 54.82
I found it interesting that the 3rd place finisher was significently worse than the 4th and 5th horse. This kind of thing might be of some use somewhere down the line.

[Tom]

Here is my question.

What Trakus is reporting - a final time and various distances travelled by the horses. Is the final time relevant for anone but the winner? Don't we also need the indivivual horses' real times to go with that distance? Using the winner's time, you do not have the right numbers for anything else. Time expires after the winner crosses the line.

[betovernetcapper]

The HDW pdf charts report final times for each horse and I used that in conjuntion with the Trakus distances-not perfect, but good enough for government work, :)

[Zaf]

At Woodbine last Friday, I was watching a guy taking trip notes after each race in his program from the chicklets pan replay.

Z

[Zaf]

Ground loss in races no longer matter of guesswork
By MARTY McGEE
LEXINGTON, Ky. - Keeneland has become the first American track to make public the tracking and recording of the precise footage a horse actually runs in a race. As of Wednesday, the track is regularly displaying the results of the Trakus technology that computes those numbers shortly after the running of each race.

Until Trakus, an independent company that also has introduced other new racing technologies at the Keeneland fall meet, there had been no methodology for accurately gauging the distance a horse traveled in a race. But by employing sensor chips carried in saddlecloths that are detected by antennas positioned around the racetrack, those distances are now available, and the process of developing that breakthrough technology has reached the point where Keeneland is now able to disseminate the information through its in-house television network and on its website, keeneland.com.

The ontrack displays show the number of feet a winner traveled, while the distances that also-rans completed are displayed as a differential versus the winner. For example, in the first race Wednesday, the winner, Pure Classy, took 5,682.6 feet to run the 1 1/16-mile race, while the runner-up, Trio, took 5,710.1, or an extra 27.5 feet in running the same race - so the distance for Trio was displayed as a "plus 27." Conversely..............



http://www.drf.com/news/article/79709.html

[cj]

While kind of neat to look at, the info provided as of now isn't of much use. Doesn't anyone want to know when the ground was lost? It certainly would matter if the horse lost ground pressing a :45 second half in a route race as opposed to a horse in the same race swooping around the leaders on the second turn.

Also, as someone mentioned, what are the final times of each horse? How about fractional times of each horse, which is what was supposed to be one of the big selling points of the system?

This is a start, but until there is some meat on the bone, big deal. We should get, for each 1/8 of a mile, the times and distance travelled of each horse.

[classhandicapper]

Here is my question.

What Trakus is reporting - a final time and various distances travelled by the horses. Is the final time relevant for anone but the winner? Don't we also need the indivivual horses' real times to go with that distance? Using the winner's time, you do not have the right numbers for anything else. Time expires after the winner crosses the line.

That's why I keep bringing up the beaten lengths question.

Equibase beaten lengths are based on time, not physical lengths behind. If we knew what the Equibase formula was for "time/length" and approximately how long a length was we could back into these answers.

[Valuist]

While ground loss can be important on the grass, or positive rail biased dirt tracks, it has to be viewed in terms of how the ground was lost. I believe going wide on the first turn is more detrimental than on the second turn. I also think its more stressful for a horse to race 3 wide into the first turn (with two horses to his inside) rather than a horse who's jock decided to keep it in the 3 path w/nobody to the inside. Also a horse who alters course to the outside in the stretch run isn't battling gravity the way a horse who races wide on the turn does. Yet they may end up with the same Trakus number. Bottom line: actually seeing the race is far better than what any Trakus number will represent.

[betovernetcapper]

I think this is another example of the glass being half full or half empty. It's true that in it's current state there isn't much more than novelty value to the ratings, but I expect over the next year or so we may find some use for these figs.

[speculus]

Here is my question.

What Trakus is reporting - a final time and various distances travelled by the horses. Is the final time relevant for anone but the winner? Don't we also need the indivivual horses' real times to go with that distance? Using the winner's time, you do not have the right numbers for anything else. Time expires after the winner crosses the line. (sentence highlited by speculus)

You can have accurate individual horses' real times using my formula posted on this forum here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204992&postcount=35

I can guarantee the formula is accurate, but of course, the perfectness of the answers will depend on the accuracy of the beaten lengths. If your chart caller errs, the formula cannot help it.

[cj]

This cannot be good news for the TG/Sheets crowd. It will be very easy to incorporate ground loss into the figures now, which is their main selling point.

Brown is already spinning things for his customers, telling people how the track is changing 5 and 6 lengths in speed during a card. I think he is full of it. Probably the widely varying paces and new surface fooling him.

[classhandicapper]

This cannot be good news for the TG/Sheets crowd. It will be very easy to incorporate ground loss into the figures now, which is their main selling point.

Brown is already spinning things for his customers, telling people how the track is changing 5 and 6 lengths in speed during a card. I think he is full of it. Probably the widely varying paces and new surface fooling him.

When I first saw the data on the ESPN coverage last weekend I posted on the RAG board to see if it would prompt a discussion, but Len pretty much stayed away from it. It's got to be a negative for them because sooner or later the DRF is going to pick up on this. Even if Beyer refuses to incorporate it into the figures (which I would prefer and think he and Crist agree on), just making it available will be an issue for TG and RAG.

[DJofSD]

I have some other ideas about how this data can be used but I would need to know specifics about the data being collected.

Is is documented any place for public consumption exactly what the raw data looks like? Who's the owner of the data? What agreements, if any, exist with the data providers to acquire and resell the data -- raw or otherwise?

[classhandicapper]

(sentence highlited by speculus)

You can have accurate individual horses' real times using my formula posted on this forum here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204992&postcount=35

I can guarantee the formula is accurate, but of course, the perfectness of the answers will depend on the accuracy of the beaten lengths. If your chart caller errs, the formula cannot help it.

This is the problem I keep identifying. Beaten lengths are NOT visual margins of victory in feet/inches. They are actually based on time and converted to lengths by Equibase. Each horse is clocked as it crosses the finsih line and the various times are converted to beaten lengths. But no one will tell us the exact formula. We have very educated guesses.

[classhandicapper]

While ground loss can be important on the grass, or positive rail biased dirt tracks, it has to be viewed in terms of how the ground was lost. I believe going wide on the first turn is more detrimental than on the second turn. I also think its more stressful for a horse to race 3 wide into the first turn (with two horses to his inside) rather than a horse who's jock decided to keep it in the 3 path w/nobody to the inside. Also a horse who alters course to the outside in the stretch run isn't battling gravity the way a horse who races wide on the turn does. Yet they may end up with the same Trakus number. Bottom line: actually seeing the race is far better than what any Trakus number will represent.

:ThmbUp:

[speculus]

Does anyone know approximately how many feet are in a length?

I realize the official beaten lengths are a function of time and not distance, but the formula is not public. No one seems to know the answer and at least an approximation would help make these ground loss figures more useable.

How long is the average horse?

Maybe I can back into the answer by watching some races and looking at the official charts.

The fractional beaten lengths are visual approximations. That's another can of worms. (sentence highlighted by Speculus)

Length is not a static measure, it's dynamic in nature as it concerns a horse in galloping motion.

Horses vary in individual length (longishness). Also, their image on the photo finish film is inversely proportional to the speed with which they cross the wire, meaning smaller if the horse travels faster, longer if the same-size horse travels slower. That's why the tracks feel the need to have a "standard" measure of length.

A "standard" beaten length is equal to 9.18 feet (in decimal terms) or 9 ft 2-1/4 inches approximately. According to me, this is not a matter of guesswork or subjective feeling, there is a way to verify it.

Use my formula given at the link in the post above. Work out the timings for various horses over various trips. Use some slow motion video software (say like Xingplayer where every frame is equal to 0.04 sec or 1/25th of a second) to confirm that the results are ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE. Thanks to Trakus, you now may not even need to do this, check the timings for all finishers as and when Trakus release them (I am sure it will be soon), and you have the proof.

Since we are putting beaten lengths for 'L' in the formula, it will not generate right answer unless the standard measure of length is accurate and in accordance with that. There will be ONLY ONE VALUE of the length of a stride (in feet) that will agree with the formula, and that is 9.18 feet. Any other value, and the answers will be in error.

[speculus]

This is the problem I keep identifying. Beaten lengths are NOT visual margins of victory in feet/inches. They are actually based on time and converted to lengths by Equibase. Each horse is clocked as it crosses the finsih line and the various times are converted to beaten lengths. But no one will tell us the exact formula. We have very educated guesses.

Doesn't matter what Equibase does. I am talking of using "visual margins" to test the soundness of the formula. Once you do it, there is no need to make an "educated guess" as to the right value of a length.

[BillW]

I have some other ideas about how this data can be used but I would need to know specifics about the data being collected.

Is is documented any place for public consumption exactly what the raw data looks like? Who's the owner of the data? What agreements, if any, exist with the data providers to acquire and resell the data -- raw or otherwise?

DJ,

Try e-mailing either Trakus or one of the tracks. Trakus, at least has been very forthcoming the few times I've written them with questions.

Bill

[classhandicapper]

Doesn't matter what Equibase does. I am talking of using "visual margins" to test the soundness of the formula. Once you do it, there is no need to make an "educated guess" as to the right value of a length.

Accurate visual margins are virtually impossible even for someone that had the resources to attempt it. All you have to do is look at the pace call margins (done by eye) to see how often they are inaccurate.

We are stuck with the "time based" beaten lengths provided by Equibase until they provide accurate final times for all the horses.

[chickenhead]

Doesn't matter what Equibase does. I am talking of using "visual margins" to test the soundness of the formula. Once you do it, there is no need to make an "educated guess" as to the right value of a length.

We have talked about this before. The problem is that the only lengths we have to work with are not visual margins, they are calculated from time. So the question "how long is a length" can only be answered in fractions of a second, not in feet.

Even if it were in feet, we still would only need to know what "they" are using. The absolute right answer doesn't matter. If Equibase posted beaten lengths using 10 feet per length, then the right answer is 10 feet.

[speculus]

We have talked about this before. The problem is that the only lengths we have to work with are not visual margins, they are calculated from time. So the question "how long is a length" can only be answered in fractions of a second, not in feet.

Even if it were in feet, we still would only need to know what "they" are using. The absolute right answer doesn't matter. If Equibase posted beaten lengths using 10 feet per length, then the right answer is 10 feet.

What I understand from yours and Class H's post is this:

Equibase provides "beaten lengths"
beaten lengths are "generated" by the "finishing time" of each horse
This "finishing time" of each horse is "clocked" by equibase clockers by "hand"
Equibase uses a "formula" to convert these timings to "beaten lengths"
Based on these beaten lengths (the formula for which is "guarded" by Equibase more secretively than the formula of atom bomb), speed and pace figures (Beyers' et al) are calculated
based on these figures, the public lines (like ML) are published
based on the "ML" and "pace figures", softwares are written to generate "oddsline" that dictate betting decisions or help in that area
Is it so?

No wonder, "In God, you trust!"

You will HAVE to, mates!

[chickenhead]

mostly sums it up, but the final times actually come off the photo finish strips. So the time itself is extremely accurate. But then yes they do some sort of black magic conversion to lengths.

It's all done by the software at the terminal, so part of the problem is that noone but the sw programmer really knows what the hell the conversion factor is, and whether it's dynamic based on the type of race (the speed the horses are traveling will expand or shrink a "length" in visual terms).

I've has a few of the photo companies tell me it's .20 sec/length, I had a few tell me it's .16 sec/length. It's somewhere in that range, but then of course they round everything off, so by the time you get back a few horses there is a pretty large +/- no matter what you do.

[BillW]

mostly sums it up, but the final times actually come off the photo finish strips. So the time itself is extremely accurate. But then yes they do some sort of black magic conversion to lengths.

It's all done by the software at the terminal, so part of the problem is that noone but the sw programmer really knows what the hell the conversion factor is, and whether it's dynamic based on the type of race (the speed the horses are traveling will expand or shrink a "length" in visual terms).

I've has a few of the photo companies tell me it's .20 sec/length, I had a few tell me it's .16 sec/length. It's somewhere in that range, but then of course they round everything off, so by the time you get back a few horses there is a pretty large +/- no matter what you do.

This is consistant with my experience of viewing the process. The finish photo is scrolled across the screen and the operator touches the nose of each finisher with a stylus. The operator is then prompted to enter a saddlecloth number. This results in a printed beaten length report on the priner. The beaten length constant used by the photo-finish software is programmable by the user but I saw 0.2 sec/length used. Of course the intermediate beaten lengths are eyeballed by the chart caller and a different beast altogether. :eek:

[kenwoodallpromos]

That may be true; As I have said, .2 lengths/sec is 16.5 seconds per furlong.

[speculus]

the thinking of EQUIBASE!

Again, look at this wheel:

They are in the business of providing data.
They must always try to expand their customer base.
That's possible only if fresh fresh customers come into this sport.
The new faces will come only if they hear more and more success stories of existing customers.
The existing customers MAY have more winners if real, authentic data is supplied to them, rather than withheld from them.
The questions is WHY IS EQUIBASE BEHAVING AS IF THEY RUN A BOOKMAKING FIRM? Why don't they want more winners around?

[kenwoodallpromos]

the thinking of EQUIBASE!

Again, look at this wheel:

They are in the business of providing data.
They must always try to expand their customer base.
That's possible only if fresh fresh customers come into this sport.
The new faces will come only if they hear more and more success stories of existing customers.
The existing customers MAY have more winners if real, authentic data is supplied to them, rather than withheld from them.
The questions is WHY IS EQUIBASE BEHAVING AS IF THEY RUN A BOOKMAKING FIRM? Why don't they want more winners around?


--------------
from Equiubase website- primary function-
"Equibase Company LLC is a general partnership between the Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America (TRA) and The Jockey Club. The company was formed in 1991 to provide the Thoroughbred racetracks of North America with a uniform, industry-owned database of racing information and statistics.

That goal was achieved in 1998 when Equibase became the sole data collection agency and provider of racing data to the Daily Racing Form.

Through a network of chartcallers, Equibase collects past performance information from all Thoroughbred racetracks in North America. The information is processed and stored in the company's state-of-the-art database in Lexington, Ky. where it is made available for retrieval in support of the day-to-day operations of the more than 100 tracks and 1,100 simulcast outlets across the continent; the industry's daily publisher, Daily Racing Form; a host of electronic value-added resellers; and the industry's major interactive wagering services."
Set up to serve tracks and breeders- bettors were an afterthought.

[classhandicapper]

I've has a few of the photo companies tell me it's .20 sec/length, I had a few tell me it's .16 sec/length. It's somewhere in that range, but then of course they round everything off, so by the time you get back a few horses there is a pretty large +/- no matter what you do.

Off the top of my head, I think Formulator uses .18 (but don't hold me to it).

I've been trying to watch finishes, estimate feet, look at the official chart etc... to get some kind of handle on this and I wouldn't be shocked if the answer is closer to .14 or .15. (near 7 lengths per second) Then again, I can't trust my estimates very well. :confused:

[the_fat_man]

I believe going wide on the first turn is more detrimental than on the second turn. I also think its more stressful for a horse to race 3 wide into the first turn (with two horses to his inside) rather than a horse who's jock decided to keep it in the 3 path w/nobody to the inside. Also a horse who alters course to the outside in the stretch run isn't battling gravity the way a horse who races wide on the turn does. Yet they may end up with the same Trakus number. Bottom line: actually seeing the race is far better than what any Trakus number will represent.

Why is this position is so often repeated on this forum (as correct)?

I suggest that those advancing this view actually go out and test it so we can put it to rest once and for all.

Anyone who has competed, running, cycling, whatever, KNOWS that
ground loss EARLY, when fresh, is much less 'detrimental' than ground loss late, when tired and losing form. Picture the sprinter struggling to hold his/her form while tiring badly towards the end of the 100 or 200 meter run, suddenly forced to go wide. Why would this be LESS detrimental than the same sprinter going wide while fresh and in good stride/form at the early part of the race?

Why is being wide, outside of 2 horses (assuming they're not forcing you wide) more detrimental than running 3 wide on your own? Ask a cyclist about the benefits of riding with a pack as opposed to alone.

I agree with the rest of it ---assuming that the Trakus distance will not be presented in splits anytime soon.

TRAKUS shows the flaws of the present number systems (Mr Beyer needs to account for the horse RUNNING FASTER than the winner, e.g.)

and they'll be scrambling for a while (and their followers along with them) until they settle on CONVENTIONS.

In the meantime, the game goes on as usual for those primarily interested in watching races.

[twindouble]

Why is this position is so often repeated on this forum (as correct)?

I suggest that those advancing this view actually go out and test it so we can put it to rest once and for all.

Anyone who has competed, running, cycling, whatever, KNOWS that
ground loss EARLY, when fresh, is much less 'detrimental' than ground loss late, when tired and losing form. Picture the sprinter struggling to hold his/her form while tiring badly towards the end of the 100 or 200 meter run, suddenly forced to go wide. Why would this be LESS detrimental than the same sprinter going wide while fresh and in good stride/form at the early part of the race?

Why is being wide, outside of 2 horses (assuming they're not forcing you wide) more detrimental than running 3 wide on your own? Ask a cyclist about the benefits of riding with a pack as opposed to alone.

I agree with the rest of it ---assuming that the Trakus distance will not be presented in splits anytime soon.

TRAKUS shows the flaws of the present number systems (Mr Beyer needs to account for the horse RUNNING FASTER than the winner, e.g.)

and they'll be scrambling for a while (and their followers along with them) until they settle on CONVENTIONS.

In the meantime, the game goes on as usual for those primarily interested in watching races.

Skinny, I got the impression Beyer was agains't polytracks from the begining because he knew his numbers wouldn't hold up, not that I think they did from day one and I predicted the results we are getting now. Your right, Trakus exposes the numbers for what they are.

As far as early loss of ground, what a handicapper has to focus on is getting position from the gate. That does have an effect on the out come of many races, ESP sprints and we are loaded with them. Route races that early loss isn't that much of a factor because there's very little pressure put on the horses, just settling in as we say, plus there's time to adjust if mistakes or trouble occurs. Not having good position can cause horses to go wide for a good part of the race if they can't come over, even in routes. Then it's wing an prayer for an opening to crop up or the horse is just hung out.


T.D.

[the_fat_man]

Skinny, I got the impression Beyer was agains't polytracks from the begining because he knew his numbers wouldn't hold up, not that I think they did from day one and I predicted the results we are getting now. Your right, Trakus exposes the numbers for what they are.

As far as early loss of ground, what a handicapper has to focus on is getting position from the gate. That does have an effect on the out come of many races, ESP sprints and we are loaded with them. Route races that early loss isn't that much of a factor because there's very little pressure put on the horses, just settling in as we say, plus there's time to adjust if mistakes or trouble occurs. Not having good position can cause horses to go wide for a good part of the race if they can't come over, even in routes. Then it's wing an prayer for an opening to crop up or the horse is just hung out.
T.D.


TRAKUS, or any system that tracks the actual distance covered, EXPOSES the flaws in any system that relies on final time for a speed figure (and doesn't incorporate pace or position around the track.)

Implicitly, Beyer is delivering a number for the winner. He's probably never stated that his number is for the 'fastest' horse in the race; yet that's always been the assumption (naive or otherwise). Now, the fact that the winner, in all cases, gets his higest figure, points to the inherent flaws is his (and others') systems.

And this is not to fault him. When a runner wins a mile race, we're not concerned with how wide he or his competition was. We have a winner; and a final time for the race. Notice, AGAIN, we don't have a final time for the 'fastest runner' in the race. So, all these years, people are betting and citing the numbers as if they're GOLD. And, in any number of cases, these numbers aren't even the fastest for the race they came out of. Go figure.

Time for the intelligencia to put their heads together and:

1) actually start doing some work and incorporating TRIPS (which include pace) into their figures --a VERY TALL ORDER, to say the least

I know that CJ does this; I have noticed quite a few cases where a horse that finishes second is given a figure higher than that of the winner.

2) come up with some 'reasonable' yet time saving CONVENTIONS that will pacify their followers ---cause, as much as the Beyer crew (and others) don't want to do the extra work, their followers certainly don't want to actually have to watch races (for positions). Damn, what's this game coming to. I'm eagerly awaiting the "TRAKUS' version of the 'BOUNCE'.

Now, for those who don't really care one way or another about numbers (a very small group), we can only sit back and watch the developments.

SHORTCUT or bust, being the motto. :lol:


As for your comments vis a vis trips:

The most important thing is for a horse to be running comfortably --no matter where it might be positioned. If a horse is forced into an uncomforable situation, be it, asked to run too fast, forced wide, forced to run too early, etc. that race is of note and should be looked at carefully.
Blanket, seemingly arbitrary, statements, generalizations that don't appear to have been thought out, really have no place in a discussion of trips. Especially, with those that actually watch races. Such are the dangers of straying outside of one's area of expertise. Easily explained, however by the need to generalize and quantify ---the paths to less work.

As long as they offer replays with HEADONS (not necessarily a guarantee given the devlopments at Meadowlands and Oaktree) who cares what changes they make. The game will always be beatable.

[cj]

Anyone who has competed, running, cycling, whatever, KNOWS that ground loss EARLY, when fresh, is much less 'detrimental' than ground loss late, when tired and losing form.

Anyone who has watched thousands of horse races knows that ground lost on the first turn of a dirt race, when the horses are running fastest at least 95% of the time, hurts a lot more than ground lost on the second turn, when the horses are running slowest. Why? I have no idea. I just know it is true. I assume it has something to do with humans being able to rate themselves a lot better than horses do with a jockey pushing the crap out of him, but why doesn't really matter.

[classhandicapper]

Why is this position is so often repeated on this forum (as correct)?

I think most people believe that racing wide during a fast part of the race is worse because not only are you losing ground, you are coping with the pace. For instance, if a turn time was 23 and your horse was 4 wide, that means that your turn time was 22.2 if you kept up.

So you lost approx. 3 lengths PLUS a lot of energy. If the turn time was 25, going 24.2 was probably not as stressful even though you lost the ground.

On dirt, many routes are tough early, pace wise (first turn).

On turf, I think it's actually the other way around sometimes. Making that big sweeping move when the race pace is just picking up on the second turn can be a bigger problem.

[cj]

...Your right, Trakus exposes the numbers for what they are.

What they are? They are a measure of how fast a horse ran from the start to the finish, with no adjustments other than the speed of the track. I'm not sure what Trakus does to "expose" this. Please clue me in.

[the_fat_man]

What they are? They are a measure of how fast a horse ran from the start to the finish, with no adjustments other than the speed of the track. I'm not sure what Trakus does to "expose" this. Please clue me in.

How does this differ from my comments above?

The 'exposure' is that with the distance covered now available, the winner need not necessarily be the fastest horse in the race.

So basically, for you, having the winner get a higher number than the fastest horse in the race, is not a problem?

While the elite, like yourself, knew about the problem beforehand,

The blind followers will now have to actually confront the problem.

We can have a Beyer for the winner and a Beyer for the fastest horse (in those cases).

[the_fat_man]

I think most people believe that racing wide during a fast part of the race is worse because not only are you losing ground, you are coping with the pace. For instance, if a turn time was 23 and your horse was 4 wide, that means that your turn time was 22.2 if you kept up.

So you lost approx. 3 lengths PLUS a lot of energy. If the turn time was 25, going 24.2 was probably not as stressful even though you lost the ground.

On dirt, many routes are tough early, pace wise (first turn).

On turf, I think it's actually the other way around sometimes. Making that big sweeping move when the race pace is just picking up on the second turn can be a bigger problem.

Trust me, if you've ever competed, and I do daily at the park, while running/cycling faster than you'd want to early will certainly wipe you out, it's no where near as devastating as having to pick it up late when you're tired (assuming ground loss in both cases).

Moreover, you're qualifying a general statement. And, really, my argument here is that each case need be looked at individually.

I assume, then, that you are very careful in noting the positions of the horses on the BACKSIDE as well as the turns?

[twindouble]

Anyone who has watched thousands of horse races knows that ground lost on the first turn of a dirt race, when the horses are running fastest at least 95% of the time, hurts a lot more than ground lost on the second turn, when the horses are running slowest. Why? I have no idea. I just know it is true. I assume it has something to do with humans being able to rate themselves a lot better than horses do with a jockey pushing the crap out of him, but why doesn't really matter.

Yes, like I said jocking for position ESP in sprints can take a lot out of a horse, also when they have to make more than one move to get where they want to be.

[cj]

Trust me, if you've ever competed, and I do daily at the park, while running/cycling faster than you'd want to early will certainly wipe you out, it's no where near as devastating as having to pick it up late when you're tired (assuming ground loss in both cases).

Horses are not "picking it up" late in dirt races. I am sure you know this, so I don't understand the analogy. Humans and horses are apples to oranges. Try racing, bike or running, where everyone goes all out the whole way. That is what horses on dirt generally do.

I still have no problem with speed figures giving the winner the highest figures, even if techically the horse losing ground ran a better FPS time, which is what we are talking about with Trakus.

Many times, horses lose ground because they can't keep up early and are forced to go around. Why should they be rewarded with a better figure?

p.s. I am hardly elite, Beyer wrote Picking Winners many, many years ago and anyone who read the book would understand this.

[the_fat_man]

Anyone who has watched thousands of horse races knows that ground lost on the first turn of a dirt race, when the horses are running fastest at least 95% of the time, hurts a lot more than ground lost on the second turn, when the horses are running slowest. Why? I have no idea. I just know it is true. I assume it has something to do with humans being able to rate themselves a lot better than horses do with a jockey pushing the crap out of him, but why doesn't really matter.

1)I thought your argument, at one time or another, is that you don't watch races?

2) If you test this theory, either by actually getting out there on a bike and competing or asking any of the many bike maniacs in Belgium, you might have a different perspective.

3) horses aren't usually GUNNING on the first turn of route races (excepting the idiotic rides) and while they're going faster, they're also stronger and their form is better. They might run slower the latter part of the race (excepting some turf races) but they're also alot more tired and their stride is anything but optimum (once again, excepting the crawling pace turf races.)

[twindouble]

What they are? They are a measure of how fast a horse ran from the start to the finish, with no adjustments other than the speed of the track. I'm not sure what Trakus does to "expose" this. Please clue me in.

Very simple, the fastest or best horse in the race didn't win. Ground covered, trouble in the race. That don't show up in his figures, not only that the varients are way off base. Why assign a horse 75 when he very well could have got an 85?

[the_fat_man]

Horses are not "picking it up" late in dirt races. I am sure you know this, so I don't understand the analogy. Humans and horses are apples to oranges. Try racing, bike or running, where everyone goes all out the whole way. That is what horses on dirt generally do.

I still have no problem with speed figures giving the winner the highest figures, even if techically the horse losing ground ran a better FPS time, which is what we are talking about with Trakus.

Many times, horses lose ground because they can't keep up early and are forced to go around. Why should they be rewarded with a better figure?

p.s. I am hardly elite, Beyer wrote Picking Winners many, many years ago and anyone who read the book would understand this.

They are 'picking it up' in the sense that, in most cases, the contenders are bidding. So, an essentially tired (or at least slowing down) horse is asked to give its all (in a good number of cases, all too prematurely, as well).

If you have an accurate distance covered (didn't previously) and a final time, which allow you to calculate an accurate velocity for the race

why would you still be okay with the winner getting the highest figure when its velocity wasn't the highest in the race?

By definition, the concerns of the speed figure generator are not with pace or trips but rather with raw speed.

[Valuist]

Why is this position is so often repeated on this forum (as correct)?

I suggest that those advancing this view actually go out and test it so we can put it to rest once and for all.

Anyone who has competed, running, cycling, whatever, KNOWS that
ground loss EARLY, when fresh, is much less 'detrimental' than ground loss late, when tired and losing form. Picture the sprinter struggling to hold his/her form while tiring badly towards the end of the 100 or 200 meter run, suddenly forced to go wide. Why would this be LESS detrimental than the same sprinter going wide while fresh and in good stride/form at the early part of the race?

Why is being wide, outside of 2 horses (assuming they're not forcing you wide) more detrimental than running 3 wide on your own? Ask a cyclist about the benefits of riding with a pack as opposed to alone.

I agree with the rest of it ---assuming that the Trakus distance will not be presented in splits anytime soon.

TRAKUS shows the flaws of the present number systems (Mr Beyer needs to account for the horse RUNNING FASTER than the winner, e.g.)

and they'll be scrambling for a while (and their followers along with them) until they settle on CONVENTIONS.

In the meantime, the game goes on as usual for those primarily interested in watching races.

I don't have numbers to prove it. But I know you watch races and how many times do you see a "3 wide" on first turn horse win on the grass? Its very, very rare. Usually the only times it occurs is when its a closer who's three wide is aided by a blistering pace that falls apart late. Its amazing how often the 1-2-3 finishers in a grass race save ground on the first turn. As for my other contention, I think the horse finds it more stressful to be outside horses on the first turn where momentum is possibly going to take them even wider.

I don't think we can compare it to cycling or track. Apples and oranges.

[the_fat_man]

I don't have numbers to prove it. But I know you watch races and how many times do you see a "3 wide" on first turn horse win on the grass? Its very, very rare. Usually the only times it occurs is when its a closer who's three wide is aided by a blistering pace that falls apart late. Its amazing how often the 1-2-3 finishers in a grass race save ground on the first turn. As for my other contention, I think the horse finds it more stressful to be outside horses on the first turn where momentum is possibly going to take them even wider.

I don't think we can compare it to cycling or track. Apples and oranges.

This could go on indefinitely.

What I do notice in turf races is that inside trips on the 2nd turn win a huge amount of the time.

Who is pushing on the first turn? (save Stewart Elliott and those types).

(Allowing for the blown turn trips.)

I disagree: there are many similarities between cycling (track) and the races ---especially on the turf with the cover trips and late moves (now coming to polytrack).

[classhandicapper]

Moreover, you're qualifying a general statement. And, really, my argument here is that each case need be looked at individually.

I assume, then, that you are very careful in noting the positions of the horses on the BACKSIDE as well as the turns?

I agree that it's a case by case thing, but the general race development tendencies are pretty obvious.

I have no experience competing as a runner or cyclist, but I've watched thousands of wide duelers on the first turn of a dirt route being used in a fast pace drop dead. Then they came back to run well with a more normal trip. Not the same on the 2nd turn.

Turf is a different animal altogther.

If they pick it up into the 2nd turn, they are often "literally" picking it up - even the front runners. That makes it almost impossible for the closers that are running very wide to make up much ground before they straighten out because they are all fresh. That ground loss is very important because it impacts the horse's position for the stretch drive. Then, there are limitations to how much ground you can make up late when horses are often coming home in sub 12 furlongs. You can close much better up the rail because there's no ground loss preventing you from getting into position to strike while the pace is fast on that 2nd turn.

I agree that if you really want to understand performances well, you have to watch races and see what really happened.

You can win without watching races, but you can win more if you do. If you do though, you have less time to handicap other races. It's a time tradeoff issue. But I agree strongly, if you aren't familiar with trips, you almost can't evaluate how well horses actually ran by figures alone.

[the_fat_man]

I agree that if you really want to understand performances well, you have to watch races and see what really happened.

You can win without watching races, but you can win more if you do. If you do though, you have less time to handicap other races. It's a time tradeoff issue. But I agree strongly, if you aren't familiar with trips, you almost can't evaluate how well horses actually ran by figures alone.

It's interesting when it comes to race watching: we all apparently focus on what seem to be different things, looking for consistency. We are more probably looking at the same factors, just in different ways, given our strengths (perception).

I strongly agreely with the time-consuming nature of tripping. I've thought of ways to significantly facilitate the process (probably at least 50%)
but I'm too lazy to write the software. :bang:

[Tom]

(sentence highlited by speculus)

You can have accurate individual horses' real times using my formula posted on this forum here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204992&postcount=35

I can guarantee the formula is accurate, but of course, the perfectness of the answers will depend on the accuracy of the beaten lengths. If your chart caller errs, the formula cannot help it.

That's the whole idea - Trakus makes beaten lengths totally irrelevant. They have the actual distance and actual time for each horse - no beaten lengths need ever be used for any reason.

[Tom]

This is the problem I keep identifying. Beaten lengths are NOT visual margins of victory in feet/inches. They are actually based on time and converted to lengths by Equibase. Each horse is clocked as it crosses the finsih line and the various times are converted to beaten lengths. But no one will tell us the exact formula. We have very educated guesses.

Beaten lengths offer nothing - all you need is times. And they have it. Give me the time of horse A and B and the distances they ran, I don't need to know beaten lenghth. They don' t mean anything.

[the_fat_man]

Beaten lengths offer nothing - all you need is times. And they have it. Give me the time of horse A and B and the distances they ran, I don't need to know beaten lenghth. They don' t mean anything.

While I agree that the time and distance are what's relevant here

I would think that a pace person would need more than just the total distance

I don't think Trakus is presently giving the distance at the splits.

[Tom]

Very simple, the fastest or best horse in the race didn't win. Ground covered, trouble in the race. That don't show up in his figures, not only that the varients are way off base. Why assign a horse 75 when he very well could have got an 85?
Because he didn't get it.
He lost the race with a slower figure.
Would you prefer he lost the race with a better figure?;)

[Tom]

While I agree that the time and distance are what's relevant here

I would think that a pace person would need more than just the total distance

I don't think Trakus is presently giving the distance at the splits.

Off IGGY, am I?:cool:

Of course I want time and distance, say every 1/2 furlong - I want a pace
graph of the whole race.
Imagine, looking at 10 line graphs and being able to pick out the abberant lines by sight!

[the_fat_man]

Because he didn't get it.
He lost the race with a slower figure.
Would you prefer he lost the race with a better figure?;)

yeah

if the horse ran more distance and it's velocity is higher for that distance (the race) than the winner's velocity for the race (less distance) then

it would be appropriate for the horse to get a higher figure

[twindouble]

Because he didn't get it.
He lost the race with a slower figure.
Would you prefer he lost the race with a better figure?;)

No, keep it as is, I know the horse race a better race. That's my edge and hopefully not many more picked up on it. :cool:

[the_fat_man]

Off IGGY, am I?:cool:

Of course I want time and distance, say every 1/2 furlong - I want a pace
graph of the whole race.
Imagine, looking at 10 line graphs and being able to pick out the abberant lines by sight!

No kidding, Einstein

But are you getting that with Trakus? Presently, only total distance is offered.

The whole thing is incredible.

If distance splits are offered we can finally get quantitative insight into what going wide on the turns means; and other such long debated issues.

[the_fat_man]

[/b]

No, keep it as is, I know the horse race a better race. That's my edge and hopefully not many more picked up on it. :cool:

Twin

The point is that EVERYONE will know about it.

And Beyer will have to revise a bit.

[chickenhead]

how 'bout this for an explanation as to why going wide on the first turn hurts more that the second:

which will effect you final time more, sapping some strength early in a race, or sapping some strength late in a race? Considering how much further you have to run yet, the answer is the earlier has more effect. Even if, as a horse (or a cyclist), it doesn't feel like it took as much out of you -- the cumulative effect over the entire race (and hence your final time) is greater.

Taking some away late feels like more, but since you are almost home -- it has a disproportially smaller effect on your final time.

Kind of like boxing -- going to the body early is what is effective. Going there late probably hurts more on a punch by punch basis, but doesn't have nearly as much effect.

maybe, maybe not. just thought I'd throw it out there.

[Tom]

No kidding, Einstein

But are you getting that with Trakus? Presently, only total distance is offered.

The whole thing is incredible.

If distance splits are offered we can finally get quantitative insight into what going wide on the turns means; and other such long debated issues.

I understand Trakus will soon be offering head on replays....of the dots!

[DJofSD]

I understand Trakus will soon be offering head on replays....of the dots!

I sure hope this isn't Flatland otherwise we won't be able to see the dots.

[twindouble]

Twin

The point is that EVERYONE will know about it.

And Beyer will have to revise a bit.


No, keep it as is, I know the horse had a better race. That's my edge and hopefully not many more picked up on it. :cool:

Can old age bring on dyslexia? Now I read the above post twice before I posted and I'll be dammed I left out the word "had" and put in race in the first sentence. :bang:

Skinny, I still think watching the race will produce more than something that's charted with numbers or watching little balls bounce around on a screen. The only thing that might improve is where the horses actually are at the points of call. On the other hand, I've used the DRF points of call for many years and found them to be within reason. If anyone thinks a few feet at those calls will improve their bottom line, they better think twice about that.

This is just conversation, what we actually get out of Trakus has yet to be determined and I'm not against using something that helps my game. There's no question Beyer will be scrambling if Trakus takes off.

[the_fat_man]

No, keep it as is, I know the horse had a better race. That's my edge and hopefully not many more picked up on it. :cool:

Can old age bring on dyslexia? Now I read the above post twice before I posted and I'll be dammed I left out the word "had" and put in race in the first sentence. :bang:

Skinny, I still think watching the race will produce more than something that's charted with numbers or watching little balls bounce around on a screen. The only thing that might improve is where the horses actually are at the points of call. On the other hand, I've used the DRF points of call for many years and found them to be within reason. If anyone thinks a few feet at those calls will improve their bottom line, they better think twice about that.

This is just conversation, what we actually get out of Trakus has yet to be determined and I'm not against using something that helps my game. There's no question Beyer will be scrambling if Trakus takes off.

I'm with you, Bro.

All I know is a horse I thought got HANDS DOWN THE WORST RIDE of the meet at Belmont last out, won today by open lengths at 9/2. He wasn't wide, he didn't have gate problems BUT his jockey moved him (NEEDLESSLY) way too soon, IMO. This 'angle', moving too soon on the turn, is a goldmine.

Wonder what his numbers looked like (I didn't even buy the form.)

Wonder how you quantify 'moving too soon'.

Nothing better than having a strong opinion and the corresponding positive result.

[speculus]

Here is another explanation:

It's not the FIRST turn or the SECOND or a LATER turn when it comes to "sapping" of energy for a horse. It's always the one that the horse negotiates "fastest".

And it also depends upon the "angle" of the arc of the turn.

The horse will "WASTE" more energy by running wider along a small or acute-angled turn with high speed, than by running similarly wider along a borad or wide-angled turn with low speed.

And now if you'll don't agree, I will give the proof!;)

Take it as a THREAT!:)

[the_fat_man]

Here is another explanation:

It's not the FIRST turn or the SECOND or a LATER turn when it comes to "sapping" of energy for a horse. It's always the one that the horse negotiates "fastest".

And it also depends upon the "angle" of the arc of the turn.

The horse will "WASTE" more energy by running wider along a small or acute-angled turn with high speed, than by running similarly wider along a borad or wide-angled turn with low speed.

And now if you'll don't agree, I will give the proof!;)

Take it as a THREAT!:)

"fastest' is a relative term, Spec

more about whether 'fastest' is above the comfort zone of the horse

Let me try this, once again, with an oft' used example:

I can cycle, fixed gear, at a 20 MPH clip for 40 miles (with a steep hill) and some turns
IF
I'm allowed to build my way up to it
So, my first lap might be at 15 or 16 MPH
and some of my middle laps might be 22,23, or so
and the last 10 miles or so at a 20 mph clip

However, as has been painfully demonstrated to me many times,

If I am confronted by the (usual) pack of roadies in the middle of my first lap

and am 'forced' to ride the initial laps at 23,24,25 (that would be 20+
UPHILL, 25+ on the straights, and 35 or so on the downhill)

I basically collapse after 20 miles or so and struggle to complete the 40 miles, let alone at a 20 MPH clip.

My point then is that it's not really about how 'fast' a horse is running at a given point in the race but rather about whether the pace is within its comfort zone.

Additionally, riding fixed gear against geared bikes points to the MAJOR DISADVANTAGE encountered by the horse that doesn't change leads.

You boys watching for lead changes these days?

On Saturday, a loose 28:1 shot at Belmont (turf) opened up a nice lead and failed to last when it didn't change. (Didn't change the time before either, with, what the charts falsely described as a suckup rail trip.)

On Sunday, a 9:1 just missed getting up for second at 9:1 when it didn't change. (Didn't change the last time either, but it did the time before-- a win.)

What I'm interested in, Spec, is what kind of running a horse has done BEFORE it gets to the critical points you refer to. A horse that goes 2 turns LEFTY is certainly running alot more than the others. A horse that doesn't change leads in the stretch is certainly running more than the others. A
horse that is forced to run faster than its comfort speed is running more than the others (or is just not good enough). A horse that is forced to run TOO SOON is certainly running more than the others. A horse that is zig zagging on the backstretch (going from 1 to 10 position) is running more than the others ---ditto for a horse zig zagging in the stretch.

Now, tell me, again, why my primary focus in on turn positions --especially the FIRST turn?

[twindouble]

I'm with you, Bro.

All I know is a horse I thought got HANDS DOWN THE WORST RIDE of the meet at Belmont last out, won today by open lengths at 9/2. He wasn't wide, he didn't have gate problems BUT his jockey moved him (NEEDLESSLY) way too soon, IMO. This 'angle', moving too soon on the turn, is a goldmine.

Wonder what his numbers looked like (I didn't even buy the form.)

Wonder how you quantify 'moving too soon'.

Nothing better than having a strong opinion and the corresponding positive result.

That's a good question, it has more to do with the running style of the horse, the pace of the race, along a horses ability to be rated. Also taking the latter into concideration when there's a change in distance.

Based on your example I'm sure you know how to go about utilizing the above factors, I can also determine if a horse shot his wad to soon, come on to late or one that didn't settle in and was all out pressing to early. Dam those jocks,:D sometimes their goof ups are money in the bank down the road. :cool:

[classhandicapper]

Beaten lengths offer nothing - all you need is times. And they have it. Give me the time of horse A and B and the distances they ran, I don't need to know beaten lenghth. They don' t mean anything.

Equibase has all the times also and has for a very long time, but they don't give them out.

Now we are getting ground loss.

Unless someone gives us both, we need to use beaten lengths and need the correct conversion factor to get at those times.

[classhandicapper]

He wasn't wide, he didn't have gate problems BUT his jockey moved him (NEEDLESSLY) way too soon, IMO. This 'angle', moving too soon on the turn, is a goldmine.

I'm not sure it's a gold mine, but it's the kind of thing that doesn't show up in speed or most pace figures. The horses as a group could reach a pace point of call in average time, yet an early middle mover could have been used real hard between calls. I don't think there are formulas for these kinds of things. You either have the information and adjust your thinking a little relative to the numbers or you are probably misunderstanding the performance.

[kev]

First, how many feet in a length? I read 10, maybe I heard 9 or 8, let's say it's 9. After looking at some of these horse on the Keenland website along with the Trakus data, some of those horses are covering so much more ground than other's. Here's some of the top +106.4/ +83.1/ +78.1/ +69.8/ so a horse goes 78.1 feet longer that's what 8 1/2 length's is that right? If so how can some figure makers act like losing ground is not big of a deal and don't think it effect's their own numbers? I know the story about saving ground and being trapped, but that can't be measured, this can. The point is the horse that ran the extra ground say 78.1 longer and after seeing how many lengths he got beat say only 7L he ran almost the same number or better and might have just ran his A game.

[the_fat_man]

I'm not sure it's a gold mine, but it's the kind of thing that doesn't show up in speed or most pace figures. The horses as a group could reach a pace point of call in average time, yet an early middle mover could have been used real hard between calls. I don't think there are formulas for these kinds of things. You either have the information and adjust your thinking a little relative to the numbers or you are probably misunderstanding the performance.

Definitely, there are things that happen between splits that never show up in the numbers or the charts. I started a thread a while ago about the run to the first call (just after the break to the 2F mark) and all that happens there and goes undocumented.

Here's an example of what I actually meant:

There's a pacesetter; a stalker; and a horse (or a couple) immediately behind the stalker.

They get to the midturn point and someone has to go after the speed (this would actually be relative but let's just accept it as it's the norm)

so the stalker is put into a drive (think John Velazquez here, going to the pattented midturn whip, not Stewart Elliott, whose horse is already in a drive out of the gate) and hooks up with the speed and they duel on (this is midturn, mind you ---I'm usually asking WHY???:bang: at this point)

now, since the stalker has moved to challenge the speed, the 3rd horse doesn't need to move and challenge as well. In fact, if this horse sits chilly, more often than not, it wins the race. Let's face it, if it can't catch the top 2 by sitting and letting them duel it out, it's just not good enough.

Now, that's the fantasy. The reality is that the 3rd place horse (and the 4th and 5th, etc.) usually, if not almost always, is asked to go after the top two prematurely/needlessly.

This is why races collapse. (Even 4 horses races, in the case of the horse I referred to as getting the worst trip of the meet.) Too many needless moves. Moreover, it kinda takes a physical toll on the horses as well.

[twindouble]

Definitely, there are things that happen between splits that never show up in the numbers or the charts. I started a thread a while ago about the run to the first call (just after the break to the 2F mark) and all that happens there and goes undocumented.

Here's an example of what I actually meant:

There's a pacesetter; a stalker; and a horse (or a couple) immediately behind the stalker.

They get to the midturn point and someone has to go after the speed (this would actually be relative but let's just accept it as it's the norm)

so the stalker is put into a drive (think John Velazquez here, going to the pattented midturn whip, not Stewart Elliott, whose horse is already in a drive out of the gate) and hooks up with the speed and they duel on (this is midturn, mind you ---I'm usually asking WHY???:bang: at this point)

now, since the stalker has moved to challenge the speed, the 3rd horse doesn't need to move and challenge as well. In fact, if this horse sits chilly, more often than not, it wins the race. Let's face it, if it can't catch the top 2 by sitting and letting them duel it out, it's just not good enough.

Now, that's the fantasy. The reality is that the 3rd place horse (and the 4th and 5th, etc.) usually, if not almost always, is asked to go after the top two prematurely/needlessly.

This is why races collapse. (Even 4 horses races, in the case of the horse I referred to as getting the worst trip of the meet.) Too many needless moves. Moreover, it kinda takes a physical toll on the horses as well.

Hey Skinny, you are indeed a handicapper, why your not playing the horses is beyond me. I don't want to know, so don't take it as a lead in. Maybe you want to put some weight on to feel like yourself again. :cool: That's a Cuban cigar, not a cigarette.

T.D.

[highnote]

First, how many feet in a length? I read 10, maybe I heard 9 or 8, let's say it's 9. After looking at some of these horse on the Keenland website along with the Trakus data, some of those horses are covering so much more ground than other's. Here's some of the top +106.4/ +83.1/ +78.1/ +69.8/ so a horse goes 78.1 feet longer that's what 8 1/2 length's is that right? If so how can some figure makers act like losing ground is not big of a deal and don't think it effect's their own numbers? I know the story about saving ground and being trapped, but that can't be measured, this can. The point is the horse that ran the extra ground say 78.1 longer and after seeing how many lengths he got beat say only 7L he ran almost the same number or better and might have just ran his A game.

It will be interesting to start making figures for horses based on the actual distance they raced.

One problem is that a stalker might always have to run farther because he has to go around horses. So you might be tempted to bet a stalker with a big number. Then in the race you bet him, he stalks the field, circles wide, runs farther than the other horses and still comes up a nose short.

Is it better to award a bigger figure for a losing effort than awarding a smaller figure for the actual time it took the horse to get from point A to point B?

Maybe it's 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other. You might get better prices to make speed figures based on distance covered rather than just on time alone. So even if your horse with the bigger figure based on distance covered loses, you'll score bigger when he wins.

It will be good to know the answers to these things.

Maybe Ragozin already does. My understanding is that he has been incorporating ground loss (ground covered?) for years.

[kev]

They do, ground loss, wind, weight and hand time the races. Thing is their not the first to do this, back in the 30's there was a book out that some guy was making figs like this, the problem is it's hard to get your hands on it. See in Sheet reading it's not about who ran the fastest in their last race, far from it, that's why trying to get a pin-point number is a major for reading pattern's a little small move like this 12" 15- 12 that move from the 12" to the 12 is one of many things to look for in a 3yr that's about ready to jump forward and run a new top and if the number's are off ( without the ground loss, wind, blah, blah ) then it might read like this 12" 15- 13" and then you won't like it and miss the pay-off race. A " is a 1/2 point.

[kev]

The book is “Consistent Handicapping Profits”, by E.W. Donaldson, published by Montee Publishing of Baltimore. From the early to mid 1930's.

[twindouble]

Lets get real here guys, we are back to the problem of "overload" when it comes to information. Sure it would be interesting to break down a race to a minute level working with Trakus but who has the time to do it? Trakus will be the closest thing that will come to it but the key word is "raced", did the horse race to his ability? Any chart developed won't show the real picture, now will it?

Pars, variants, power numbers or speed rating regardless of how they are created, here again don't tell the whole story. For example, how would you take into account form cycles, change in distance, dirt to turf, turf to dirt, layoffs, change in equipment and worst of all young horses on the improve up and down the class scale. When it comes to troubled races, you will either rely on the comments or do the trip handicapping yourself, even with Trakus. Will Trakus be an added factor? I'm sure it will but to hang your hat on it my gut tells me that will be a mistake.

We all know anything that can produce winners for the general public kills the odds so we will like always be looking to beat it and that will only be done with traditional handicapping in my opinion. How well you know your track, the horses and all involved will allow us to do that, whereas others will be engrossed in Trakus if it has that kind of impact.


Good luck,

T.D.

[cj]

Lets get real here guys, we are back to the problem of "overload" when it comes to information. Sure it would be interesting to break down a race to a minute level working with Trakus but who has the time to do it? ...

Anyone with a computer and crude programming skills will have the time.

Pars, variants, power numbers or speed rating regardless of how they are created, here again don't tell the whole story...

They don't tell the whole story, but they sure help. Many times they do actually tell most of the story.

[Whirlaway]

Buddy Got Even races in the 7th at KEE today. Won his last despite having the 5th longest trip out of 183 horses to race 6 furlongs this meet. He went 4027 feet. Average trip at 6 furlongs is 3999. Shortest was 3975. Longest was 4034.

[twindouble]

Anyone with a computer and crude programming skills will have the time.



They don't tell the whole story, but they sure help. Many times they do actually tell most of the story.

cj, I can't dispute what you are saying, that's my frustration. I have no access to your numbers and I sure as heck won't use Beyers. Believe it or not, by not using Beyer figures caused me to do better than most. Keep in mind I'm comparing with those people I've been associated with over the years, no one else. The fact you create your own figures supports what I'm saying, regardless of how you come about them. I know your capable of picking winners, like many others here including myself but that's not the point. I can only express what I think for you and others to weigh, other than that, nothing changes for me except getting older. :D


Good luck,

T.D.

[DJofSD]

Bravo, cj!

I've got a short list of 5 different things I could analyze -- if -- I had all the raw data. My experiences in scientific research allows me utilize large amounts of data and to extract information from the noise. Bring it on.

[twindouble]

Bravo, cj!

I've got a short list of 5 different things I could analyze -- if -- I had all the raw data. My experiences in scientific research allows me utilize large amounts of data and to extract information from the noise. Bring it on.

What the heck are you referring to? Bring what on? I have no quarrel with cj, he does one thing and I do another, so what!

[DJofSD]

What the heck are you referring to? Bring what on? I have no quarrel with cj, he does one thing and I do another, so what!

Bring on the mountain of data. My thesis is that most folks will not have the software tools nor the analytical ability to find the nuggets.

[twindouble]

Bring on the mountain of data. My thesis is that most folks will not have the software tools nor the analytical ability to find the nuggets.

Ok, I get it but are you suggesting I don't have a brain? :D

[robert99]

This is the problem I keep identifying. Beaten lengths are NOT visual margins of victory in feet/inches. They are actually based on time and converted to lengths by Equibase. Each horse is clocked as it crosses the finsih line and the various times are converted to beaten lengths. But no one will tell us the exact formula. We have very educated guesses.


C,

Yes, it is uphill explaining this.
I call them time-lengths to differentiate between 8-10 feet that others guess a traditional running length might be.
I introduced this way of deciding beaten "lengths" with the UK Jockey Club some 20 years ago. The judge just guessed the values before and made no use of the precise timing data on the finish photo sitting in his box.
What UK officially uses is surprise, surprise, 0.2 seconds = 1 time length for flat racing and 0.25 seconds = 1 time length for national hunt racing.

If the judge states a horse finished 3 time-lengths behind in a flat race that means it finished in a time exactly 0.6 seconds slower than the winner.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Buddy Got Even races in the 7th at KEE today. Won his last despite having the 5th longest trip out of 183 horses to race 6 furlongs this meet. He went 4027 feet. Average trip at 6 furlongs is 3999. Shortest was 3975. Longest was 4034.
__________Should be a an interesting race- BGE 1 race since July, several others with low posts have at most 1 race since summer, and most of them have ITMs at Woodbine or this track!

[toetoe]

I've only read the first five pages, so apologies if this has been mentioned. Light made a great point about this the other day. (Long pause while those who have fainted are revived .................................................. .........................doo de doo .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ... dum, de dum .................................. okay.) He said that distance off the rail is worse than useless, because no more ground is being covered --- it's only turn paths that matter. And he's right !! Now, turn on the trackass when the turns begin and turn it off when they end, and you'll have a decent tool.

[Tom]

Ok, I get it but are you suggesting I don't have a brain? :D

But....is it a pentium? :lol:

[Tom]

I think there is a great potential to revolutionize tbred race data with Trakus. Let's just hope the have enough sense to consult with PLAYERS on how best to use it and NOT tracks or horsemen.

[robert99]

If you want to see how the one track in UK that publishes free, one furlong, individual sectionals and graphs see:

http://www.newmarketracecourses.co.uk/results/sectional.jsp

Full data is only made available for one week from that site.
Ironically, we do not get the distance raced data at all.

[twindouble]

I've only read the first five pages, so apologies if this has been mentioned. Light made a great point about this the other day. (Long pause while those who have fainted are revived .................................................. .........................doo de doo .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ... dum, de dum .................................. okay.) He said that distance off the rail is worse than useless, because no more ground is being covered --- it's only turn paths that matter. And he's right !! Now, turn on the trackass when the turns begin and turn it off when they end, and you'll have a decent tool.

toetoe, don't make light of the break from the gate and getting position at the first turn like it don't mean anything. Plus horses going 5 or 6 wide for 3/4 of the race are covering more ground, turn or no turn. Take those same horses next time out getting good position on the inside to the first turn will or could be a real threat. Providing they don't get in over their heads.

T.D.

[the_fat_man]

Bravo, cj!

I've got a short list of 5 different things I could analyze -- if -- I had all the raw data. My experiences in scientific research allows me utilize large amounts of data and to extract information from the noise. Bring it on.

Ummm

Let's see

everyone (including MOI) is salivating about

getting the distance covered, and the actual time

but, more importantly, at the splits

sounds like quite a prodigious undertaking (conceptually, theoretically, programmatically)

would be real tough to put something together with that data

uh huh

now doubting your skill, of course:ThmbUp:

[kenwoodallpromos]

__________Should be a an interesting race- BGE 1 race since July, several others with low posts have at most 1 race since summer, and most of them have ITMs at Woodbine or this track!
Buddy won!!

[NYPlayer]

Buddy won!!

Aaah! And so another system is born.....

Congratulations!

[PriceAnProbability]

First at Pha.

Gate scratch, they don't cancel show wagering.

2-5 favorite with a top figure of 10 (that's TEN) is off the board.

Considering that Cigar paid $3.80 to place in the 1995 BC Classic, well...