HOW MANY Lengths per Second

[Robert Fischer]

I have seen 4.5 (.22seconds/length) , 5(.20 s/l), and 6(.167 s/l) being used.

:confused:

[cj]

There is no exact answer. All horses are not the same length, and when tired horses cover less ground in a second than they do when fresh.

If a horse is 9 feet long, and a 6f race is run in :22, :45, and 1:10, what is his lengths per second?

1320 feet in 22 seconds is 60 feet per second, or 6.67 lengths per second for the 9 foot long horse.

2640 feet in 45 seconds is 58.67 feet per second, or 6.52 lengths per second for the 9 foot long horse. However, at that point, he covered the 2nd 1/4 in 23 seconds, or 57.39 fps, which equates to 6.38 lengths per second for the 9 foot long horse.

3960 feet in 1:10 is 56.57 fps, or 6.29 lengths per second. Broken down by last quarter, which was 25 seconds, is 5.87 lengths per second.

Which one do you want to use? :lol::lol::lol:

(Of course, that is only if you believe the horse is 9 feet, which most aren't in my opinion)

[Greyfox]

I know certain handicappers, particularly those in the Sartin camp, want dead on accuracy. But will it matter? All horses in a computer program are going to be treated as constant . If you call them 9, 10, or 11 feet long, and the number of lengths that that travel per second 4, 5 or 6, you'll still be applying the same equation to all of the horses. Even if you absurdly assumed a horse to be 20 feet long and running 7 lengths a second, this is all going to take place in ratio and the outcome will be a number, that when converted to a percentage, will be the same as if you were dead on the money.

[shanta]

I know certain handicappers, particularly those in the Sartin camp, want dead on accuracy.

Grey,
Actually at the end Howard created formulas that brought the top 2-4 contenders closer together in "look" to allow for what he termed "wagercapping" based on VALUE instead of "handicapping" based on the best horse camp.

Richie

[Robert Fischer]

3960 feet in 1:10 is 56.57 fps, or 6.29 lengths per second. Broken down by last quarter, which was 25 seconds, is 5.87 lengths per second.


This gives me a pretty good guess at what i want to do.

greyfox - good point about using the ratio

[shanta]

IAll horses in a computer program are going to be treated as constant . If you call them 9, 10, or 11 feet long, and the number of lengths that that travel per second 4, 5 or 6, you'll still be applying the same equation to all of the horses. Even if you absurdly assumed a horse to be 20 feet long and running 7 lengths a second, this is all going to take place in ratio and the outcome will be a number, that when converted to a percentage, will be the same as if you were dead on the money.

Sartin's last software changed the value of beaten lenghts according to distance and the particular fraction in the race.

This is how quite often a horse that was beaten by another in the previous race rated better when matched up TODAY.

Richie

[Greyfox]

Sartin's last software changed the value of beaten lenghts according to distance and the particular fraction in the race.



Richie, undoubtedly Sartin did that, ultimately.
I won't get into why he did that, but Dick Schmidt would know.
Nevertheless, even if you give a horse 6 lengths/ second in the first fraction,
5.4 lengths per second inthe second fraction, and 4.8 lengths per second in the third fraction, you're still performing the same operation as a constant across all horses in a given race.
If you are coming up with a result of f.p.s. and total energy based on f.ps.
there might be some very minor changes to accuracy of the number versus reality. But, simply assuming that horses were 10 feet long and travelling 5 lengths per second across all three fractions and then putting it into percentages will give you the same outcome. I know that you'll disagree but some of his earlier simpler programs were every bit as good as his "progressive" improved ones.

[shanta]

[b]Richie, I know that you'll disagree but some of his earlier simpler programs were every bit as good as his "progressive" improved ones.

I would NOT disagree with that at all Grey. I think you are on the money man!
Richie :)

[bobphilo]

It all depends on how fast the horse is running and how exact you want to be. One thing that is certain is that the traditional notions that 1 length = 10 feet and 1 length = 1/5 second are wrong. The average Thoroughbred length is closer to 8 feet. Clydesdales are 10 feet. Thoroughbreds cover more than 5 lengths per second. Such a velocity is more like trotting horse speed. Charles Carrol covers the subject in some detail in his “Handicapping Speed”.

His method of getting a precise beaten lengths - seconds conversion involves determining the velocity in FPS based for the race time, or even more precise, the fractional split, and to use this velocity in converting beaten lengths to seconds.



A “quick and dirty” method that I have found to be almost as accurate is to multiply beaten lengths by .15 to find the time behind in seconds.



Bob

[ranchwest]

Richie, undoubtedly Sartin did that, ultimately.
I won't get into why he did that, but Dick Schmidt would know.
Nevertheless, even if you give a horse 6 lengths/ second in the first fraction,
5.4 lengths per second inthe second fraction, and 4.8 lengths per second in the third fraction, you're still performing the same operation as a constant across all horses in a given race.
If you are coming up with a result of f.p.s. and total energy based on f.ps.
there might be some very minor changes to accuracy of the number versus reality. But, simply assuming that horses were 10 feet long and travelling 5 lengths per second across all three fractions and then putting it into percentages will give you the same outcome. I know that you'll disagree but some of his earlier simpler programs were every bit as good as his "progressive" improved ones.

You were right when you were talking about the feet in a length being somewhat arbitrary. One reason is that I suspect you'll get a different real value of a length in different charts. You'd have to know who made up the chart to have any idea of the value, so it just makes sense to settle on a figure, such as 9 feet. And, as you pointed out, most people are likely going to use some constant value, so it doesn't make a huge difference what the constant is. I figured up one time what seems to be a reasonable figure and used it, don't recall off the top of my head what it was. It will make some difference, though, because the lead horse is always at zero.

However, the seconds to a length definitely does vary from fraction to fraction and race to race, as CJ was explaining.

The reason Sartin's results were similar probably has more to do with pace being an inexact science (as far as exact values of split times) to begin with more than the appropriateness of methodologies in determining speed. IMHO, there's a lot more to pace handicapping than just calculating spilt times. You have to choose appropriate running lines, evaluate need to lead, etc.

[pressman]

The office of animal husbandry uses the following equation:
5/3 times height in inches
the standard horse being between 15-17 hands they use 16
16 hands x 4 inches (a hand)=64 inchesx5/3= 320 inches /3=107 " which is just shy of 9 feet(rounding up)

[the_fat_man]

I know certain handicappers, particularly those in the Sartin camp, want dead on accuracy. But will it matter? All horses in a computer program are going to be treated as constant . If you call them 9, 10, or 11 feet long, and the number of lengths that that travel per second 4, 5 or 6, you'll still be applying the same equation to all of the horses. Even if you absurdly assumed a horse to be 20 feet long and running 7 lengths a second, this is all going to take place in ratio and the outcome will be a number, that when converted to a percentage, will be the same as if you were dead on the money.

Exactly right --- as long as your conversions are constant, the numbers gods have no problem

[bobphilo]

The office of animal husbandry uses the following equation:
5/3 times height in inches
the standard horse being between 15-17 hands they use 16
16 hands x 4 inches (a hand)=64 inchesx5/3= 320 inches /3=107 " which is just shy of 9 feet(rounding up)

Thanks Pressman,

This is the best estimate not based on conjecture that I'v seen. I've been using 8 feet feet but it seems that 9 is a better estimate and I will adjust accordingly.

Bob

[ranchwest]

The office of animal husbandry uses the following equation:
5/3 times height in inches
the standard horse being between 15-17 hands they use 16
16 hands x 4 inches (a hand)=64 inchesx5/3= 320 inches /3=107 " which is just shy of 9 feet(rounding up)

That's good, but when you're trying to handicap I think you have to evaluate the length as it is used in practice. You have to look at enough figures to zero in on a reasonable value to use. You have to determine what value for a length makes the data work with reasonable consistency.

[ranchwest]

Exactly right --- as long as your conversions are constant, the numbers gods have no problem

Well, as I pointed out the lead horse is always at zero. So, if you use 8 feet then the horse a length back is 8 feet back or if you use 9 feet then the same horse is 9 feet back, but the lead horse is still at the constant zero. So, it does make a difference in relation to the lead. It makes no difference among trailers (non-leaders).

[trigger]

If you are going to use the beaten lengths as shown in the race charts you have to know what time is assigned to each length by the photo company that the given track is using.
Even then, the further you get from the winner the more inaccurate the beaten lengths may be because the photo companies figure beaten lengths from the winner to the 2nd place horse and then from the 2nd place horse to the 3rd place horse, etc. etc,. Accordingly, each horse's beaten lengths is subject to rounding (eg., 1-1/2 lengths in the charts may actually be 1.65 lengths time-wise) and the inaccuracy may be compounded for each subsequent finisher.

[the_fat_man]

Well, as I pointed out the lead horse is always at zero. So, if you use 8 feet then the horse a length back is 8 feet back or if you use 9 feet then the same horse is 9 feet back, but the lead horse is still at the constant zero. So, it does make a difference in relation to the lead. It makes no difference among trailers (non-leaders).

This is all based on accurate data as to lengths behind at each split (and accurate timing at each split). While (relatively) simple enough to do for the lead horses at the wire, it's not at all straightforward at the other splits.

So, the 'accuracy' of one's adjustments (what we're spending time discussing here) depends on the eye/judgment of the (time pressed) chartman.

This, of course, will not be an issue when Trakus is the norm.

Didn't see trigger's post before I posted: are there photo companies that set the lengths behind or does the chartperson do this? For example, NYRA shows the lengths behind at the finish but not at the other splits.

[bobphilo]

Exactly right --- as long as your conversions are constant, the numbers gods have no problem

I can’t agree. Just being consistently wrong in what you are basing your ratings on does not remove the problem springing from being wrong. Every error in the measurement of a length will disproportionately increase or decrease a horse’s time and this will be multiplied by the number of beaten lengths. If every horse you are evaluating was the same number of lengths behind the leader, then what value to give to a length wouldn’t matter, but when you multiply an incorrect number by several differing beaten lengths, the error becomes significant.



Bob

[ranchwest]

This is all based on accurate data as to lengths behind at each split (and accurate timing at each split). While (relatively) simple enough to do for the lead horses at the wire, it's not at all straightforward at the other splits.

So, the 'accuracy' of one's adjustments (what we're spending time discussing here) depends on the eye/judgment of the (time pressed) chartman.

This, of course, will not be an issue when Trakus is the norm.

Didn't see trigger's post before I posted: are there photo companies that set the lengths behind or does the chartperson do this? For example, NYRA shows the lengths behind at the finish but not at the other splits.

Certainly there are flaws in trying to calculate the figures based on the lengths provided by data providers (from chart callers), but pretty much all most of us can do is to do our best. Some means of calculating are more sound than others. I'm just trying to provide an explanation of why I think certain methods are as sound as we can reasonably utilize today. I do think that if we use sound methods then we can pretty much reach a "close enough" figure. There are a lot of factors other than ability that will affect a horse's future performance.

Photos only apply to the finish, not to the other points of the race.

[the_fat_man]

Certainly there are flaws in trying to calculate the figures based on the lengths provided by data providers (from chart callers), but pretty much all most of us can do is to do our best. Some means of calculating are more sound than others. I'm just trying to provide an explanation of why I think certain methods are as sound as we can reasonably utilize today. I do think that if we use sound methods then we can pretty much reach a "close enough" figure. There are a lot of factors other than ability that will affect a horse's future performance.

Photos only apply to the finish, not to the other points of the race.

I agree. If exact information is not available, we do the best we can with the available information (and use it as if it were exact).

[karlskorner]

Now I know when I see 2 people in the paddock with a pocket ruler, one holds the end and the other walks back the distance as the horses past by. Of course the home viewer just "eyeballs" the length. Next some thumb sucker will be asking that DRF to print the length of each horse in the race.

[Greyfox]

Every error in the measurement of a length will disproportionately increase or decrease a horse’s time and this will be multiplied by the number of beaten lengths.


Bob

Right on. Maybe some day Trakus http://www.trakus.com/technology.asp
may give us more accurate beaten lengths.

[Light]

When Charles Carrol's book came out,he made me realize that there was a great fallacy that 1 length=1/5 second=10feet. I did go around measuring horses. I disagree that they are 9 feet. Thats a pretty big horse.Most were 8-1/4 to 8-1/2. My conclusion is 8-1/2 feet =1 length.

[the_fat_man]

When Charles Carrol's book came out,he made me realize that there was a great fallacy that 1 length=1/5 second=10feet. I did go around measuring horses. I disagree that they are 9 feet. Thats a pretty big horse.Most were 8-1/4 to 8-1/2. My conclusion is 8-1/2 feet =1 length.

This brings up another issue. Assuming, you're not as fast as light and measured them when stationary rather extended in stride, how does the actual size of the stationary horse compare to the extended (while running) horse?

As an example of the possible problems here, consider the measurements of basketball players (while stationary, so this process is simpler even -- of course, with or without shoes might be an issue too):

1) do you measure by height ---- top of the head

or

2) by reach ----- wingspan ----

the latter is usually more important and a shorter player can have a longer wingspan

so, assuming we've got horses of varying leg length, and that you neglected to measure LEG LENGTH (i.e. wingspan), probably not in Carrol's book, thus you did the first of the basketball measurements, we're still stuck

I mean, when I look at races and try to eyeball beaten lengths, I'm naturally considering the horse in stride.

So, I'm thinking that I can approximate the size of the horse . Whether 8.5 9, or whatever feet, I can assume that EXTENDED the horse is longer. As long as I settle on a given size as a CONSTANT and adjust all horses beaten lengths evenly from there, it's about the best I can do.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I believe Carroll also notes in his book that, depending on the expected speed of the race, the speed of the photo finish camera is adjusted so that the images of the horses will be more clearer. Otherwise, horses finishing in a faster late fraction will appear scrunched on the photo, and horses that are moving slower will appear stretched out somewhat on the photo. I've seen days on my home circuit where the high class horses, esp. in a turf race, will finish in 24- to 25-, whereas in a cheap maiden claimer going 2 turns, the final quarter can often be 29+ or worse.

(added later: remember, the finish photo is one continuous image of the finish line plus the mirror at the rail).

[bigmack]

I mean, when I look at races and try to eyeball beaten lengths, I'm naturally considering the horse in stride.
Imagine a day in the not too distant future fm, that you'll be able to manipulate, from any vantage you wish, a Trakus driven virtual re-creation of each & every race. What then will we question, the lengths of tails and ears?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiV0ezHAhIw

[Light]

FM

I measured the horses at rest from their butt to nose with a relaxed head,not extended.I assume that the false 10 feet per length of horse is also at rest.

[ranchwest]

Does anyone know any actual chart callers? How are they actually judging lengths? Are they using the rail or do they actually have a learned ability to estimate lengths visually or are they doing something I'm not even considering?

[Tom]

And consider that in any given race, you might be looking at 10 different caller's idea of a length.

[JPinMaryland]

Interesting discussion in answer to the question of: do they use photos at all pts. of call? the answer from the limited data pts I've studied is "no."

Last years derby chart was/perhaps still is a horror show. They messed up: Bro Derek, Jazil (by a lot), the leader (Keyed Entry??) and Barbaro a little. They (bris) had Jazil coming home in under 24 sec, it was a real mess...(this has been discussed ad nauseum so PM me if you want the reformatted chart based on the overhead)

Most of the problem, at least for the KY derby comes between the 3/4 mi and 1 mile. Prototypical example is Jazil who was moving up rapidly between these two calls, but bris chart had him like 18 length behind at the 1 mile mark, not sure exactly, but it turned out to be in reality 8 lengths (going from memory this could be a little off).

THe error usually seems to apply more to horses that are far back and I think it has to do with when the chart caller starts to eyeball it. It seems that the chart caller starts eyeballing these horses, at some pt. BEFORE the marker. And he writes down or somehow gives this to the race caller. SO as they approach the 3/4 mark the chart guy hands this to the race caller ...

Okay what happens is the race caller now starts to announce how far back so so horse is, starting with the leaders. However by the time he gets to Jazil at the end, some time has expired maybe 15-20 sec..? Jazil has made his move between after the chart caller has eyeballed it (just before the leader makes the 3/4 pole) and say 15 sec. after the leader has passed the marker.

I see it as typical because I got into an argument with a lady about a horse in the 1967 derby called LIghtening Orphan. She tried to tell me that this horse had the fastest closing quarter in Derby history something like 23.6, faster than Ponder faster than Secretariat, some totally non descript horse.

So actually had a grainy replay of that, and as they round the quarter pole (1 mile mark) you can actually count the horses and find LIghtening Orphan their in the back along with a pack of others. He wasnt no 20 lengths back or whatever according to the chart he was in a pack that was w/in sight of the leaders.

What happened was just like Jazil, he had made his move on the turn. BUt, when the chart calller looked at him, at a little before Damascus was passing the quarter pole, maybe he was 20 length back, but by the time the rest of the horses were starting the stretch run, he was not that far back. His Secretariat like move was a merely a chart caller error.

Depends on what chart you look at, we (internet arguers) looked at Bris and it appeared they did the chart just as it was called in the race by the race caller. The other chart may have been done differently but still had errors.

If people recall Jazil's Wood Memorial race he was described as having closed from 20 lenghts back that day at AQU. I never studied the tape, and he's hard to spot, but it's also possible that this too is a chart caller error, I'd have to pull the tape out again, but I suspect his final fraction just a little too much for that muddy track.

I suspect lots of other closing fractions in the Derby that might have similar problem..

[kenwoodallpromos]

I say ask a quarterhorse bettor.

[bobphilo]

This brings up another issue. Assuming, you're not as fast as light and measured them when stationary rather extended in stride, how does the actual size of the stationary horse compare to the extended (while running) horse?

As an example of the possible problems here, consider the measurements of basketball players (while stationary, so this process is simpler even -- of course, with or without shoes might be an issue too):

1) do you measure by height ---- top of the head

or

2) by reach ----- wingspan ----

the latter is usually more important and a shorter player can have a longer wingspan

so, assuming we've got horses of varying leg length, and that you neglected to measure LEG LENGTH (i.e. wingspan), probably not in Carrol's book, thus you did the first of the basketball measurements, we're still stuck

I mean, when I look at races and try to eyeball beaten lengths, I'm naturally considering the horse in stride.

So, I'm thinking that I can approximate the size of the horse . Whether 8.5 9, or whatever feet, I can assume that EXTENDED the horse is longer. As long as I settle on a given size as a CONSTANT and adjust all horses beaten lengths evenly from there, it's about the best I can do.

We have to be careful not to confuse the measurement of length (from nose to tail) with stride length, which increases dramatically at higher speeds.. A still-motion photo study (perhaps referenced by Carrol ?) showed a horses length, even in full running extension, surprisingly only increases by a few inches. It’s a situation similar to how everyone thought horses ran, as if they were leaping at every stride as depicted in old paintings, until still-motion photography showed this to be an illusion.

In any case, a running horse spends as much time in flexion as extension, so that the average length remains the same.



Bob

[bobphilo]

Right on. Maybe some day Trakus http://www.trakus.com/technology.asp
may give us more accurate beaten lengths.

We now have to convert beaten lengths to feet or seconds. In time, with accurate measurement like Trakus, margins may just be reported directly in feet or seconds, like in track and field, and the issue of the real length of a horse will no longer be a problem.

Bob

[Robert Fischer]

For now I am going to settle on 6.25 lengths/second for the 6f call of a route race, and 6.5 lengths/second for the 4f call of a sprint race.

-as far as the discussion about the accuracy not mattering as long as the numbers are constant---- Within what I have been playing with, It is nice to have somewhat accurate numbers to keep the numbers somewhat realistic. Using 6.25, if you find a horse to be 3 Lengths back of a 1:11.50pace, this would account for about a half second slower "time" for that horse (1:12.00).
Easy to use. If the numbers are less accurate, I could still rate them on a scale, it would not be as easy to see at a glance.


Innaccuracies of chart callers-
A difficulty with deep closers is noted.
Also, the very large fields full of action such as the derby, would suit any handicapper well to study personally.

[bobphilo]

Innaccuracies of chart callers-
A difficulty with deep closers is noted.
Also, the very large fields full of action such as the derby, would suit any handicapper well to study personally.

How true. One time several years ago when I was feeling ambitious, I noticed that a pace analysis of some horses in the Derby based on the chart's beaten lengths produced some impossible splits for some of the horses. I measured the margins between horses using stop action on my VCR. I found several huge discrepencies between the beaten lengths on the chart and my own measurements.
It's almost impossible for even the best chartmaker to accurately report beaten lengths at every call for large fields spread out over wide areas.
Fortunately, the problem is much less for smaller fields, but Trakus would eliminate the problem entirely.

Bob

[stu]

Folks,

At Sunland Park, we have the following set as the seconds per length in the photofinish software:

0.18 seconds/length in thoroughbred races
0.15 seconds/length in quarterhorse races

I believe that this is true for all tracks in New Mexico as we use the same photofinish vendor. The variables are the vendors recommendation.

Yours truly,
Stuart Slagle
Sunland Park Placing Judge

[kenwoodallpromos]

Daily Racing Form - Glossary of Horse Racing TermsDaily Racing Form offers horse racing past performances, free handicapping software, ..."LENGTH- Length of a horse from nose to tail, about 8 feet"

[ranchwest]

Daily Racing Form - Glossary of Horse Racing TermsDaily Racing Form offers horse racing past performances, free handicapping software, ..."LENGTH- Length of a horse from nose to tail, about 8 feet"

Do chart callers stand on a track with a tailor's tape and measure 8 foot lengths?

What I want to know is how the charts are done in practice.

We've been told that in New Mexico it is .18 seconds per length under the wire. What about other places? What about other than the finish?

[the_fat_man]

We have to be careful not to confuse the measurement of length (from nose to tail) with stride length, which increases dramatically at higher speeds.. A still-motion photo study (perhaps referenced by Carrol ?) showed a horses length, even in full running extension, surprisingly only increases by a few inches. It’s a situation similar to how everyone thought horses ran, as if they were leaping at every stride as depicted in old paintings, until still-motion photography showed this to be an illusion.

In any case, a running horse spends as much time in flexion as extension, so that the average length remains the same.



Bob

While the front legs never extend beyond the head in full stride, the rear legs extend beyond the rump. Whatever the case, hard to believe that a fully extend horse is ONLY a few inches longer than the horse at rest. Watch any race, you'll see that's not quite true.

During the race, the horses head, whether in or extension or retraction is still extended beyond what it is at rest.

Whatever the case, this discussion has revealed the figure pedants. There's no advantage to be gained here.

[Light]

Folks,

At Sunland Park, we have the following set as the seconds per length in the photofinish software:

0.18 seconds/length in thoroughbred races



The reasoning here seems to be based on horses 10feet per length(which do not exist in general):

In a 6f race there are 3960 ft/10feet(length of horse) = 396 lengths in the race

If average time is 1:11 then 71 seconds/396 lenths=.179 or .18 seconds rounded off or 1/5 second per lenth

If you use 8 feet as basis of horse length then a length =.14 seconds or 1/7 second per length.

[bobphilo]

While the front legs never extend beyond the head in full stride, the rear legs extend beyond the rump. Whatever the case, hard to believe that a fully extend horse is ONLY a few inches longer than the horse at rest. Watch any race, you'll see that's not quite true.

During the race, the horses head, whether in or extension or retraction is still extended beyond what it is at rest.

Whatever the case, this discussion has revealed the figure pedants. There's no advantage to be gained here.

A length goes from nose to tail. How far the the hindlegs extend does not come into the measurement. Even if one takes the horses butt as a point of measurement, it is the part of the leg beyond it, especially the hooves, that extend. Again, they are not part of the measurement.
You may find the results of the study hard to believe but I will take the findings of a stop-action photo analysis over appearances any day.
I do agree with one point, if one isn't concerned with the accuracy of the figures, there's no point in discussing the accuracy of the length measurement. However, it is rather unfair to call all those who showed an interest in this topic pedantic. Nothing personal, I'm just disagreeing with some of your statements.

Bob

[Robert Fischer]

Folks,

At Sunland Park, we have the following set as the seconds per length in the photofinish software:

0.18 seconds/length in thoroughbred races
0.15 seconds/length in quarterhorse races

I believe that this is true for all tracks in New Mexico as we use the same photofinish vendor. The variables are the vendors recommendation.

Yours truly,
Stuart Slagle
Sunland Park Placing Judge

Great info. Now I have an understanding for the finish. Wouldn't be surprised if many of the tracks use the same system/vendor. Implies that they measure time to the finish and convert it to lengths.

As far as the calls I am now using 9ft/length 6.15 lengths/second for a 6furlong call in a route, and 6.28 lengths for a 4f call in a sprint. Still working with it...

[kenwoodallpromos]

See the 2003 thread on the subject- callers generally estimate 1 length= the distance from 1 post to the next, standard from the length of a cord of wood, transfered to the length of 1 piece of wood used to make fence rails= Fontana Safety Rail is 8' in length, used to measure 1 length because of convenience and because horses are not all the same langth.
It is the time required to cover 1- 8' length that is off- should be 6 1/2 lengths per second= 52' per second. Check your pace figures that go by feet per second. I would not use 7 lengths per second because we are not usually talking about the first 4f of a race.
8'= 1/5 second is how fast harness races are run, slower even than mules!

[ranchwest]

See the 2003 thread on the subject- callers generally estimate 1 length= the distance from 1 post to the next, standard from the length of a cord of wood, transfered to the length of 1 piece of wood used to make fence rails= Fontana Safety Rail is 8' in length, used to measure 1 length because of convenience and because horses are not all the same langth.
It is the time required to cover 1- 8' length that is off- should be 6 1/2 lengths per second= 52' per second. Check your pace figures that go by feet per second. I would not use 7 lengths per second because we are not usually talking about the first 4f of a race.
8'= 1/5 second is how fast harness races are run, slower even than mules!

Okay, I think this is the best post in this thread. I thought I recalled from that old thread that the rail poles were 8'. But, hey, I'm working too many hours to have much of a memory.

Even though I agree with your interesting assertion that there should be about 6 1/2 lengths in a second, let's look at what the chart callers are measuring.

Under the wire, they're measuring speed and expressing it in lengths. In NM, they're using .18 seconds per length. So, 1 second = about 5.5 lengths. If we go with the fairly short (for this comparison) distance of 8 feet, that's only 44 feet per second. I don't see how we can accept anything less than 8 feet.

At other calls, they're measuring distance and expressing it as distance. It's 8 feet, the 8 foot rails.

So, it seems to me that 8 feet is the proper distance unless two different values were used, maybe 9 feet at the wire and 8 feet at the other calls.

I looked it up and I've been using 8 feet.

Any thoughts?

[Robert Fischer]

See the 2003 thread on the subject- callers generally estimate 1 length= the distance from 1 post to the next, standard from the length of a cord of wood, transfered to the length of 1 piece of wood used to make fence rails= Fontana Safety Rail is 8' in length, used to measure 1 length because of convenience and because horses are not all the same langth.
It is the time required to cover 1- 8' length that is off- should be 6 1/2 lengths per second= 52' per second. Check your pace figures that go by feet per second. I would not use 7 lengths per second because we are not usually talking about the first 4f of a race.
8'= 1/5 second is how fast harness races are run, slower even than mules!

using 8' is a big change as opposed to 9'.

if I use 6 1/2 lengths/second for a 6furlong call then 3960'/8' = 495 ,
(1/6.5)(495)= 76.15 = 1:16.15 seconds. Too slow for pars.

If I use 1:11.75 and 8 feet, then I come up with 6.9 lengths/second for 6f(495/71.75).

and if I use a 1:10 pace for 4furlongs I would get 7.07 lengths/second (495/70).

[ranchwest]

using 8' is a big change as opposed to 9'.

if I use 6 1/2 lengths/second for a 6furlong call then 3960'/8' = 495 ,
(1/6.5)(495)= 76.15 = 1:16.15 seconds. Too slow for pars.

If I use 1:11.75 and 8 feet, then I come up with 6.9 lengths/second for 6f(495/71.75).

and if I use a 1:10 pace for 4furlongs I would get 7.07 lengths/second (495/70).

It isn't a matter of how fast the horses are actually running. It is a matter of taking what the chart callers give you and matching what they're actually telling you. If they say a horses is 4 lengths off after a quarter and they're basing that on 4 8-foot rails, then the horse is 32 feet off, no matter how that times out.

In fact, I don't even view it as an adjustment to time. If the horse is 4 lengths off of a 24 second quarter, then I view that as the horse has run 1320 feet minus 32 feet in 24 seconds. I know it doesn't make much difference, but it's what makes me feel comfortable, knowing that I'm measuring it the way it is happening.

[Robert Fischer]

It isn't a matter of how fast the horses are actually running. It is a matter of taking what the chart callers give you and matching what they're actually telling you. If they say a horses is 4 lengths off after a quarter and they're basing that on 4 8-foot rails, then the horse is 32 feet off, no matter how that times out.

In fact, I don't even view it as an adjustment to time. If the horse is 4 lengths off of a 24 second quarter, then I view that as the horse has run 1320 feet minus 32 feet in 24 seconds. I know it doesn't make much difference, but it's what makes me feel comfortable, knowing that I'm measuring it the way it is happening.

So you are using feet/second of given horse and comparing that to the pace. I like that.:ThmbUp:

[ranchwest]

So you are using feet/second of given horse and comparing that to the pace. I like that.:ThmbUp:

Yes, I guess you could put it that way.

[kenwoodallpromos]

using 8' is a big change as opposed to 9'.

if I use 6 1/2 lengths/second for a 6furlong call then 3960'/8' = 495 ,
(1/6.5)(495)= 76.15 = 1:16.15 seconds. Too slow for pars.

If I use 1:11.75 and 8 feet, then I come up with 6.9 lengths/second for 6f(495/71.75).

and if I use a 1:10 pace for 4furlongs I would get 7.07 lengths/second (495/70).
_____________
I'm figuring 8' x 6.5= 52' per second, at 660' in a furlong = 12.6 seconds per furlong. But I'm not trying to average the whole race, basically just after 2nd call; and I'm figuring the average horse including losers do not run under 12 seconds per furlong the last part of most races. 1:11.75 or 6.9 lengths/econd is great for horses that average sub-12 second furlongs in all classes at all distances even for w/p/s.

[robert99]

Why do people still use such vague things as lengths when it is time difference that is important?
In UK, the photofinish camera is used to time all horses passing the winning line. Each 0.2 seconds behind is called a length (for tradition's sake) but the important thing is that the horse "beaten a length" is 0.2 seconds behind, and that is exact.

The varying lengths of horse, pace of finish, whether the horse's neck is down or raised are irrelevant to that exact 0.2 seconds scale measurement.

For sections, you again do not need lengths, as the only reasonably accurate way, without trakus, is to time individual horses from video replays. Again lengths just do not come into it.

[ranchwest]

Why do people still use such vague things as lengths when it is time difference that is important?
In UK, the photofinish camera is used to time all horses passing the winning line. Each 0.2 seconds behind is called a length (for tradition's sake) but the important thing is that the horse "beaten a length" is 0.2 seconds behind, and that is exact.

The varying lengths of horse, pace of finish, whether the horse's neck is down or raised are irrelevant to that exact 0.2 seconds scale measurement.

For sections, you again do not need lengths, as the only reasonably accurate way, without trakus, is to time individual horses from video replays. Again lengths just do not come into it.

In the US, the finish is done similarly to what you describe. See the message above from the NM track offiical.

In the US, we also have several points of call that are clocked only for the first horse and then the subsequent horses are listed by lengths off of the leader. This is the way it has been done for years. It will probably continue to be done this way for years to come. Change is slow.

[trigger]

[QUOTE=Robert Fischer]Great info. Now I have an understanding for the finish. Wouldn't be surprised if many of the tracks use the same system/vendor. Implies that they measure time to the finish and convert it to lengths.
Yes,this is definitely the way beaten lengths are estimated for the finish. In other words, each horses final time is known by the photo company and then the final beaten lengths are estimated using the difference in final time of each horse(again rounding from 2nd horse to 3rd horse and then from 3rd horse to 4th horse could produce inaccurate times when trying to backtrack to final times using final beaten lengths).
BTW, if you are trying to be as accurate as possible for final times, it doesn't matter how long a horse really is or how long a length really is if you are using final chart beaten lengths in your calculations.....what matters is what the photo company is using for time per final beaten length and how they compute final beaten lengths of the various horses in the race.

[kenwoodallpromos]

If you go to Equibase charts for some tracks that hold both Quarterhorse and Thoroughbred races intermittently, you will not that all Quarterhorse runners get a final time, but if the next race is THoroughbred only the winner is timed; this goes back and forth all day at Los Alamitos, WIll Rogers, Sam Houston, and other tracks. You may know also that in morning workouts 1 stopwatch can time 5 horses.
The answer is, timing only the winner is on of several areas where information is held from the public. The only reason I can think of is maybe the tracks want more guessing as to the handicapping and future races.

[thelyingthief]

i believe Brohammer details a feet-per-second methodology that more accurately describes the value of a beaten length at various points of call. in fact, i'm sure of it.

first or second chapter.

[bobphilo]

i believe Brohammer details a feet-per-second methodology that more accurately describes the value of a beaten length at various points of call. in fact, i'm sure of it.

first or second chapter.

Brohammer's methodology incorrectly assumes a length to be 10 feet and this error increases as the beaten lengths increase. He was probably able to get away with it at the old California dirt tracks where most horses were ridden close to the pace, but the error may be more apparent at other tracks and even in Cal now with the new synthetic surfaces.

The rest of the methodology could still be applicable, however, if one corrects the value for the length.

Bob

[thelyingthief]

Brohammer goes to some length (sic) proving that one may assume any multiple in calculations of this type: one is attempting merely to abstract the difference in any given distance or phase of a race (here, race segment) from any other distance or phase of a race per unit of time.

the whole idea of "a horse's length" is peculiar, as there are as many answers to this question as there are horses in the population. the whole idea is to adopt a constant, and determine differences based upon it. after all, one can say 100 kilometers an hour, or 67 miles an hour: the unit by which the measure is taken is arbitrary, and can be interpreted by any other equally arbitrary measuring system, so long as it is internally consistent. fps per increment of the race is just so arbitrary, and allows the quantifier to MEASURE RELATIVE POSITION--SPEED--PER SEGMENT.

or some such.

[Bill Olmsted]

Esoteric formulae do nothing to increase the bottom line. Most aspiring horseplayers focus too much on the minutiae (sp?) of the handicapping process without considering the primary objective of this game: TO MAKE MONEY--which is a completely different animal altogether. Big Brains lose Big Bucks.

Who gives a crap whether a horse runs x feet per second? All the information you need is right before your eyes in the pps. Finally, if you can't manage your bankroll like an adult, then no amount of "expertise" will deliver you from the deep dark depths of continuous losses.

You wanna win? Grow up and look at the large picture. Or you can continue to participate in this tedious intellectial Circle Jerk until you fade away like 98% of the suckers out there.

Billy O

[thelyingthief]

most race goers are unaware that there are poles located every ten feet around a race track. those poles are there to facilitate the caller's accuracy.

hence, the use of ten feet is not only convenient, it is the functional base on which the calling is done.

know thy track.

[Robert Fischer]

Esoteric formulae do nothing to increase the bottom line. Most aspiring horseplayers focus too much on the minutiae (sp?) of the handicapping process without considering the primary objective of this game: TO MAKE MONEY--which is a completely different animal altogether. Big Brains lose Big Bucks.

Who gives a crap whether a horse runs x feet per second? All the information you need is right before your eyes in the pps. Finally, if you can't manage your bankroll like an adult, then no amount of "expertise" will deliver you from the deep dark depths of continuous losses.

You wanna win? Grow up and look at the large picture. Or you can continue to participate in this tedious intellectial Circle Jerk until you fade away like 98% of the suckers out there.

Billy O

Point well taken. I think that an excellent "old-school" handicapper would benefit the MOST from accurate technology. He has some race sense. It has to be easy to use and it has to MAKE MONEY or else it is a waste of that guy's time.

The trouble with the past performances is that they are like a nose- everyones got 'em. We are then forced to go on a "hunch" or a "feel", and if we know our ponys and are patient, then we can score.

The nice thing about the technology, if it is pointed in the right direction it can occasionally uncover a gem that wasn't obvious in the pps. You still have to go and take a look at the past performance and video if possible. Maybe it is just one more thing that helps you guess if a horse is a good or bad bet.

[Tom]

I would hardly call using beaten length adjustments "esoteric."
And as far as all you need is right there in the PP's. to each his own. But that is limited data at best. If you make money off it, more power to you, but excuse me if some of us play on a higher level.

[ranchwest]

Brohammer goes to some length (sic) proving that one may assume any multiple in calculations of this type: one is attempting merely to abstract the difference in any given distance or phase of a race (here, race segment) from any other distance or phase of a race per unit of time.

the whole idea of "a horse's length" is peculiar, as there are as many answers to this question as there are horses in the population. the whole idea is to adopt a constant, and determine differences based upon it. after all, one can say 100 kilometers an hour, or 67 miles an hour: the unit by which the measure is taken is arbitrary, and can be interpreted by any other equally arbitrary measuring system, so long as it is internally consistent. fps per increment of the race is just so arbitrary, and allows the quantifier to MEASURE RELATIVE POSITION--SPEED--PER SEGMENT.

or some such.

It is true that the measure of a length is irrelevant -- FOR ALL HORSES EXCEPT THE LEADER. The leader is always at zero. So, if a horse is beaten by five, then you could assign that horse based on 8, 9, 10 or whatever and the horse will be 40, 45, 50 or whatever feet behind the leader. The leader didn't change. So, YES, it DOES make a difference which unit of measure you use.

[ranchwest]

Esoteric formulae do nothing to increase the bottom line. Most aspiring horseplayers focus too much on the minutiae (sp?) of the handicapping process without considering the primary objective of this game: TO MAKE MONEY--which is a completely different animal altogether. Big Brains lose Big Bucks.

Who gives a crap whether a horse runs x feet per second? All the information you need is right before your eyes in the pps. Finally, if you can't manage your bankroll like an adult, then no amount of "expertise" will deliver you from the deep dark depths of continuous losses.

You wanna win? Grow up and look at the large picture. Or you can continue to participate in this tedious intellectial Circle Jerk until you fade away like 98% of the suckers out there.

Billy O

I want to look at information at which other people are not looking. And, I want it in a format that is different, too. Could be strange, could be wrong, but I perceive it to give me an advantage. There's no doubt that making a profit is about advantage.

[chickenhead]

there is no one right answer for any of the internal calls. Different chart callers calling different horses at different parts of the track at different tracks. Squabbling over 8 feet or 10 feet assume first that any one of them is consistent, and second that they are all uniform. it aint so.

[Bill Olmsted]

I want to look at information at which other people are not looking. And, I want it in a format that is different, too. Could be strange, could be wrong, but I perceive it to give me an advantage. There's no doubt that making a profit is about advantage.


Is "different" really better? Yes, but only if it is consistently better. Is "hidden" info. better? Certainly. But you must ask yourself this question: Does this "information at which other people are not looking" produce a long term ROI?The greatest horseplayer that ever lived, Ernie Dahlman, when asked about his secret to success with the horses, was quoted in the New York Times saying: I'm a MOTO player. Master of the obvious. It's just that more things are obvious to me than to others."

To quote Gertrude Stein: "There ain't no answer. There never has been an answer. There never will be an answer. That's the answer."

[GameTheory]

It is true that the measure of a length is irrelevant -- FOR ALL HORSES EXCEPT THE LEADER. The leader is always at zero. So, if a horse is beaten by five, then you could assign that horse based on 8, 9, 10 or whatever and the horse will be 40, 45, 50 or whatever feet behind the leader. The leader didn't change. So, YES, it DOES make a difference which unit of measure you use.Thank you. This is actually the primary goal as I see it when determining how you are going to figure these things. The winner/leader is fixed -- that's reality. Now you've got to get your formula for determining the times for the non-leaders to match that reality. You can't just pick an arbitrary number and say that the ratios don't change because of course they do change the ratio of the non-leaders to the leader, as ranch has said...

[Bill Olmsted]

Thank you. This is actually the primary goal as I see it when determining how you are going to figure these things. The winner/leader is fixed -- that's reality. Now you've got to get your formula for determining the times for the non-leaders to match that reality. You can't just pick an arbitrary number and say that the ratios don't change because of course they do change the ratio of the non-leaders to the leader, as ranch has said...

Lord deliver me. I am surrounded by a coterie of intellectual mongoloids.

[GameTheory]

Lord deliver me. I am surrounded by a coterie of intellectual mongoloids.Or maybe you are an emotional child surrounded by adults.

You act as if making good numbers -- measurements used in handicapping -- and making money are mutually exclusive. If you can make a number more accurate, and that will help your handicapping, and that will lead to more profits, why not do it? What exactly did I say that deserves your insults?

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The winner/leader is FIXED"
That's what I always figured!LOL!! :lol:

[Bill Olmsted]

Or maybe you are an emotional child surrounded by adults.

You act as if making good numbers -- measurements used in handicapping -- and making money are mutually exclusive. If you can make a number more accurate, and that will help your handicapping, and that will lead to more profits, why not do it? What exactly did I say that deserves your insults?


Yes, I am an emotional child surrounded by adults, and I take that as a compliment. Who wouldn't want to be a child for life? There are worse things.

That aside, what you have to realize is.....good numbers (or whatever theory you devise) will not solve the riddle. I made good numbers for over 20 years and I became obesssed with that one single factor to the detriment of all the other myrid factors that can influence the outcome.

I do believe that "measurements used in handicapping" and making money are, without a shadow of a doubt, mutually exclusive. The synergy of good handicapping together with competent "bankroll mangement" is the surest path to LONG TERM (read: for life) success. But as I have stated, most handicappers focus on the handicapping component without due regard to the money issues.

Handicapping is only 30% of the game. Handling your money is this critical issue.

[Tom]

I've always found that money management works best if you have winners. If you don't handicap winners, not much to manage.:rolleyes:

Serioulsy, I've found that with more tracks avaialble everyday, I don't need to spend a lot of time on all those other factors that only put you off a good figure horse. I prefer to focus on the good fig horses and bet more races. I make alot more money handicapping less.

[GameTheory]

I do believe that "measurements used in handicapping" and making money are, without a shadow of a doubt, mutually exclusive.So making good numbers PREVENTS one from making money? I don't think so.

The synergy of good handicapping together with competent "bankroll mangement" is the surest path to LONG TERM (read: for life) success.So we do need good handicapping after all? But we are only allowed to use bad numbers to do so? You've lost me again.

But as I have stated, most handicappers focus on the handicapping component without due regard to the money issues.Fine. Agreed. What does that have to do with THIS thread? Can we look forward to you commenting in every *handicapping* thread that we are all wasting our time on this stuff? Do you make a habit of dropping into forums where people are talking about stuff you are not interested in and posting how bored you are with the subject? We not start another thread about how to turn a profit once handicapping is finished? If that is what you want to talk about, go talk about it. We could use more of those kinds of threads. But why disrupt this conversation just to draw attention to yourself?

Handicapping is only 30% of the game. Handling your money is this critical issue.Interesting topic. You should start a thread about that...

[Bill Olmsted]

I've always found that money management works best if you have winners. If you don't handicap winners, not much to manage.:rolleyes:

Serioulsy, I've found that with more tracks avaialble everyday, I don't need to spend a lot of time on all those other factors that only put you off a good figure horse. I prefer to focus on the good fig horses and bet more races. I make alot more money handicapping less.


Good point. I handicap every track in the USA. But I ask you this: Are you making a profit? Nothing else matters. Nothing.

Good fig horses win more than their fair of races, but do the odds compensate? It is no Palace Secret that the heavy hitters pound monster fig horses into the grave. The key is to find corraborating evidence that will insure that your high fig horse is overlay and not a Dog with Fleas.

[cj]

Good fig horses win more than their fair of races, but do the odds compensate?

I guess it depends on the figures. :D

[JPinMaryland]

Hey I have a stupid question that's mildly related to this thread, what happens to horses that lose or gain position after the leader has crossed the line?

Let's say Jazil is 8 lengths behind Barbaro when Barb. crosses the line. But in the last few seconds, Jazil loses his place to BroDerek, let's say. Bro Derek gets third, but what do they do with beaten lengths? Is Jazil still beat by 8? Or what if Jazil never finishes? Does he still lose by 8? DOesnt this mess up the final fractional time of Jazil?

There is prolly an obvious answer, but maybe some other people are wondering the same thing. Thx.

[Bill Olmsted]

I guess it depends on the figures. :D

Figs is figs. Parts is Parts. Don't buy into that delusion that some figs are so much better than others that that will make a difference in your BOTTOM LINE. Don't hitch your wagon to single-minded thinking. It is the surest path to ruin.

[Tee]

Wow r u barking up the wrong tree with the comments below. Kinda sounds like the guy at my otb telling me my computer was absolutely positively no good for handicapping/wagering. Little did he know that my printer was busted & I was using the computer just for pp's & these crappy pace/performance figures :)


Figs is figs. Parts is Parts. Don't buy into that delusion that some figs are so much better than others that that will make a difference in your BOTTOM LINE. Don't hitch your wagon to single-minded thinking. It is the surest path to ruin.

[cj]

Hey I have a stupid question that's mildly related to this thread, what happens to horses that lose or gain position after the leader has crossed the line?

Let's say Jazil is 8 lengths behind Barbaro when Barb. crosses the line. But in the last few seconds, Jazil loses his place to BroDerek, let's say. Bro Derek gets third, but what do they do with beaten lengths? Is Jazil still beat by 8? Or what if Jazil never finishes? Does he still lose by 8? DOesnt this mess up the final fractional time of Jazil?

There is prolly an obvious answer, but maybe some other people are wondering the same thing. Thx.

Beaten lengths at the finish are measured in time and converted to lengths. In your example, it doesn't matter how far Jazil is back when Barbaro crosses the finish line. What matters is how much time elapses between the time Barbaro does and the time Jazil does.

[Light]

Bill Olmsted

Are you the author?

[ranchwest]

Good point. I handicap every track in the USA. But I ask you this: Are you making a profit? Nothing else matters. Nothing.

Good fig horses win more than their fair of races, but do the odds compensate? It is no Palace Secret that the heavy hitters pound monster fig horses into the grave. The key is to find corraborating evidence that will insure that your high fig horse is overlay and not a Dog with Fleas.

Now, I didn't say I bet "good fig horses". I'm assuming you are referring to horses with high numbers.

I just want some numbers that are at least somewhat accurate so that I can use those numbers to evaluate the puzzle at hand.

If high numbers always won, it would be easy to handicap.

[ranchwest]

Handicapping is only 30% of the game. Handling your money is this critical issue.

So, everyone who evaluates speed/pace is a wagering idiot?

[ranchwest]

Figs is figs. Parts is Parts. Don't buy into that delusion that some figs are so much better than others that that will make a difference in your BOTTOM LINE. Don't hitch your wagon to single-minded thinking. It is the surest path to ruin.

The fact that I'm counter to single-minded thinking is exactly why I look at figs from several different perspectives. They can't possibly all be right. But, which ones are the best? I look at it different ways so I can try to figure out which are the phoney numbers and which represent a fair assessment of the horse's pace and ability. Once I gain confidence in which are the best numbers, I'm then ready to evaluate the rest of the handicapping picture.

[Cratos]

I have seen 4.5 (.22seconds/length) , 5(.20 s/l), and 6(.167 s/l) being used.

:confused:

The length of the “beaten length” in horseracing is a distance metric and the feet/second is a speed metric. Although related, the length is fixed by the data supplier and feet/second is a calculated rate based on how fast the horse is traveling.

We can conjure all types of fancy equations, but we can’t change what is and what I am saying is that on the DRF website, they declare the length to be 9 feet and if that is the metric that the chart-caller use, then that is the length value as publish by the DRF and what was used by their chart-caller.

On the other hand another data supplier can use a different metric, but it will not change the time of the race.

Hypothetical Example:

Distance
1st Qtr
½ Mile
5f
6f & Finish

Actual Time
22 Sec
45 Sec
57 Sec
69 Sec

Leader
Horse A
Horse A
Horse A
Horse B

2nd Horse
Horse B behind by 2
Horse B behind by 3
Horse B behind by 1
Horse A behind by ½

Ft per 1/5 Sec
12.0000
11.7333
11.5789
11.4783

If this hypothetical was run as above and the data came from the DRF and using their metric of 9 feet the beaten length or length behind would be derived as follows:

1st Qtr
Horse B was behind by 2 lengths or 18 feet which is .30 seconds in time (18/12 * .2) and its time for the quarter would be 22.30 seconds.

½ Mile
Horse B was behind by 3 lengths or 27 feet which is .46 seconds in time (27/11.7333 * .2) and its time for the half would be 45.46 seconds

5f
Horse B was behind by 1 length or 9 feet which is .16 seconds in time (9/11.5789 * .2) and its time for the 5f would be 57.16 seconds

Last 1/8 mile
Horse B would pass Horse A by running the last 1/8m in 11.84 seconds while Horse A fell to 12.08 seconds for his last 1/8m and lost by ½ length (4.5 feet)

[JPinMaryland]

Beaten lengths at the finish are measured in time and converted to lengths. In your example, it doesn't matter how far Jazil is back when Barbaro crosses the finish line. What matters is how much time elapses between the time Barbaro does and the time Jazil does.

Oh is that how they do it? Then what was all that talk about using the photo at the finish? The guy on one thread was saying that they used special hi speed photography so the horses didnt shrink down or something.

[Tom]

Except that it all comes from Equibase.
And there is no way to acccurately measure a length at fractional calls.
And not all chart callers percieve 9 feet the same.
Other than that, Pudding! :lol:

[Bill Olmsted]

Yes

[Bill Olmsted]

So, everyone who evaluates speed/pace is a wagering idiot?

Not at all. I am first and formost, a speed/pace handicapper because I believe that s/p figs are the greatest invention since sliced bread. But you have to realize that everyone has access to accurate figs these days. One or two points either way in how one comes up with a rating has minimal bearing on the race at hand because fig horses are bet hard, as they should be.

Again, it doesn't matter one whit whether your figs are "better" than the rest because the public is an excellent collective setter of odds, which are heavily biased in favor of high fig animals. Do this test: Track all horses that have a triple fig advantage (last three races) over the rest of the field. These types win 75% of the time, but are a net loser over time because the public is highly aware of speed and will, over the long run, melt the prices.

[chickenhead]

Then what was all that talk about using the photo at the finish? The guy on one thread was saying that they used special hi speed photography so the horses didnt shrink down or something.

they don't actually clock the other horses...everything is calculated off of the "photo"...which really isn't like any photo as we think of it. It's really not even worth thinking about. The whole line of inquiry this thread is based on eventually leads to madness....

[Bill Olmsted]

Wow r u barking up the wrong tree with the comments below. Kinda sounds like the guy at my otb telling me my computer was absolutely positively no good for handicapping/wagering. Little did he know that my printer was busted & I was using the computer just for pp's & these crappy pace/performance figures :)

Yes, but do you MAKE MONEY with the aid of your computer? Great handicappers are often lousy bettors. Handicapping is, of course, the intellectual part. Wagering is an intense emotional challenge that few are able to master.

[Bill Olmsted]

they don't actually clock the other horses...everything is calculated off of the "photo"...which really isn't like any photo as we think of it. It's really not even worth thinking about. The whole line of inquiry this thread is based on eventually leads to madness....

Ask the ghost of Hunter Thompson. He knows a thing or two about madness.

[Tee]

Yes, but do you MAKE MONEY with the aid of your computer? Great handicappers are often lousy bettors. Handicapping is, of course, the intellectual part. Wagering is an intense emotional challenge that few are able to master.

Bill,

Read my post again & you will see my point that was apparently you missed just like the loudmouth know-it-all guy at the otb. The computer is/was simply a vehicle for me to read my past performances.

So to answer your question - I am not making money with my computer. I do however occasionally make money with data & my interpretation of that data.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35208
Race 10 was particularly kind today.

U will also notice that I haven't partaken in the thread/topic at hand. Reason being, I am not a figure maker, nor do I use times & beaten length adjustments in my handicapping.

Getting back to my original thought. Don't think for a second that members of this board have not increased their bottom line with good figures that aren't available to the masses.

Good Evening,

Tee

[Bill Olmsted]

Tee,

I wish you and the contributers of this thread only the best. It is not my intention to offend, but it is in my nature to be direct. And since I have been around the block a time or two, I feel that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Therefore I say things that, in retrospect, I wish I had not. But I will never apologize for my opinion(s).

So, hell. Let us all ramble on down to the Sean Donlan's in Annapolis tonight for a pint of Guiness and a game of darts. And maybe all will be well.

[Tee]

Tee,

I wish you and the contributers of this thread only the best. It is not my intention to offend, but it is in my nature to be direct. And since I have been around the block a time or two, I feel that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Therefore I say things that, in retrospect, I wish I had not. But I will never apologize for my opinion(s).

So, hell. Let us all ramble on down to the Sean Donlan's in Annapolis tonight for a pint of Guiness and a game of darts. And maybe all will be well.

What else do they have @ Sean Donlan's, I gave away the last couple cans of Guinness I had purchased some time ago. :D

Looks like the Whiskey and Single Malt selection will do.:)

Better have a pool table in the place though!!!

Hope you enjoy the rest of your evening Bill,

Tee

[Greyfox]

But I will never apologize for my opinion(s).

What a shock.

[Light]

... the public is highly aware of speed and will, over the long run, melt the prices.

I think this is the most lame and repeated excuse I have heard in horseracing. Users of this excuse which include Andy Beyer make it sound that no horse pays over $5 anymore when in fact the favorites continue to win at the same rate and payoff since the inception of para mutual wagering and upsets continue to be the rule rather than the exception.

[Charlie D]

Esoteric formulae do nothing to increase the bottom line. Most aspiring horseplayers focus too much on the minutiae (sp?) of the handicapping process without considering the primary objective of this game: TO MAKE MONEY--which is a completely different animal altogether. Big Brains lose Big Bucks.

Who gives a crap whether a horse runs x feet per second? All the information you need is right before your eyes in the pps. Finally, if you can't manage your bankroll like an adult, then no amount of "expertise" will deliver you from the deep dark depths of continuous losses.

You wanna win? Grow up and look at the large picture. Or you can continue to participate in this tedious intellectial Circle Jerk until you fade away like 98% of the suckers out there.

Billy O




I think that's a good post Bill, as there is a lot of truth in it

I do think we tend to overcomplicate horse racing and good money management is a big part of succeeding at this game , but I also think, exploring and trying out new/different approaches to horse racing can also have it's benefits

[Charlie D]

And while i'm here, we had a discussion a while back about how long a horse length was, if i remember coorrectly, it ranged from around 7ft to 11ft, think we settled on an average of 9ft,

The only accurate measurement in determining how far a horse is behind another horse, is via time and to do this you need a system like Trackus, the 1/2 length, 2 length etc, etc is just an estimation or a guess on behalf of the race reader

[thelyingthief]

THE CALLER IS NOT GUAGING THE LENGTH OF A HORSE WITHOUT REFERRENCE TO AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD: HE IS MEASURING DISTANCE WITHIN A FRAMEWORK OF TEN FEET.

POLES ARE SPACED AROUND THE TRACK AT TEN FEET INTERVALS. THE CALLER IS REFERENCING THOSE POLES AS HE CALLS THE RACE. HIS POINT OF REFERRENCE IS


TEN FEET


obviously this referrence is overshadowed by horses racing in very close proximity, where relationships are predicated on perception ad hoc.

but his formal frame of reference is, AGAIN, the poles spaced around the track at intervals of

TEN FEET.

that is why YOU would be best served using

TEN FEET

in YOUR calculations, if you want, as you have expressed wanting, a reliable simulacrum of the event. otherwise, you must introduce a constant by which to transform YOUR calculations based on X feet into an effective translation of the signal caller's

TEN FEET.

the fps method i referred you to above will give you accurate values for BL at ANY point of call. if you dont want to employ that formula, which is based on the FACTS of the system, that is your prerogative. it goes without saying that introducing another interpretative schema, even as a constant value, compounds the probable inaccuracy of the imprecise and INTERPRETIVE original.
__________________________________________________ ______


this is the procedure, this is how it's done, this is the STANDARD, by which the race is called. if you want to minimize such errors as the process produces, which is laudable, you must not generate solutions without a precise appreciation of the problem before adopting same-said solutions. these guys set up the procedure years ago with a practical solution in mind: to make effective and plausible calls of the race. adopting an arbitrary system, yes, but one conducive to accuracy. so they set up a system involving poles and markers to facilitate their plan. YOU MUST TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN TRANSLATING THEIR DATA.

[thelyingthief]

bill olmstead is right in just about everything he's said. speed IS of little enough use in making a profit; honing a number that is already a) at its limit of accuracy, given the nature of the process and its unreliable methods (you cannot introduce levels of precision beyond those permitted in the very parameters of the event); and b) that it describes the performance of an animal, organic, living thing (whose ability gyrates around thresholds determined by age, diet, mood, estrus cycle, the matchup and herd dynamic, the list goes on) in a number thought of as an absolute.

we DO only have the data before us, in the racing form, at least, most of us. even those privvy to such esoterica as maiden and breeding stats lack any objective appreciation of its application and money making power.

unfortunately, bill likes to come across as an a__hole, and this tends to obscure the message in our reactions to the messenger.

and what is most shameful about it all, if he's correct, and i think he is, then why dont WE do a new PIRCO, and generate new ideas to make us money? i guess, cuz we're too stupid, and that there Sartin guy was a jerk anyway, so let's opine.

me, i'm betting the gray, it being monday, the third. i remember once't i made a bundle on a gray, twas the third of june, twas.

[Robert Fischer]

POLES ARE SPACED AROUND THE TRACK AT TEN FEET INTERVALS. THE CALLER IS REFERENCING THOSE POLES AS HE CALLS THE RACE. HIS POINT OF REFERRENCE IS


TEN FEET

There is another reference in this thread to the poles of the safety rail being eight feet apart. Do you know of any documentation/proof on this?

[thelyingthief]

years ago, i read of the calling procedure in a FollowUp Journal (Sartin). I subsequently confirmed the measurement listed there by inquiring at the racing secretary's office at Suffolk Downs.

however, since i am comfortable with the precision of the figures i use, which are compounded ratings (velocity) and energy ratios, i undertook no further validation of the procedure, which may vary by race track (although, since this is drf related, i cannot imagine that being so).

i have emailed drf for input.

we will see.

tlt

[chickenhead]

the most interesting thing I learned talking to a few chart callers had nothing to do with how they gauged distance...it had to do with where the calls took place.

Remember these horses are running ~55 feet per second. It takes time to make the calls. In a 12 horse field think about how much ground they cover from the time the call on the lead horse starts until the last call is made on the horse in last. By the time the chart caller finishes calling the straggler, it is damn near time to start calling the leader again.

In a big strung out field the call is spread out over a good furlong, or more. It doesn't happen right at the pole. To adjust for this some of them start calling well before the leader hits the pole, so that roughly by the time they get to the middle horses they are at the pole, and when they get to the stragglers they are some distance past the pole.

I've never heard of anyone actually trying to capture that in their pace figures, but that is reality as related to me.

[Greyfox]

Surely in this day and age chart callers should recheck their placings with video replalys? No?

[chickenhead]

Surely in this day and age chart callers should recheck their placings with video replalys? No?

I asked them, and they said they often checked their orderings and looked for glaring distance problems using video.

The real question is why isn't video used for everything? Why bother making live calls? I think the answer is that making calls off the replay requires zero skill, you can get someone to do it for peanuts. Making live calls requires some skill and higher wages.

I imagine to protect their wages, chart callers are resistant to use video very much. Thats all I can think of. Because I think you'd honestly get more accurate readings paying a high school kid $5 to do it all from replay.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"LENGTH- Length of a horse from nose to tail, about 8 feet. Also distance between horses in a race."

[JPinMaryland]

There is no proof that the lengths are set 10' apart at horse tracks. They seem to vary. It's funny no one has done any serious study on this, although I'd think it be easy given the sort of equipment we have today.

Putting it in capital letters doesnt make it a fact..

On what Chickenhead said, I agree with, but one thing is these callers or chart makers dont really seem to check their calls with the videos. Last years derby being a prime example of this. The chart is way off on number of horses including BroDerek, Jazil, Keyed Entry and a little off on Barbaro's lead...Bris had Jazil coming home in 23.6, DRF had him in 24 something and yet he's not making any ground up on Barbaro on the video.. :rolleyes:

ANother thing Chick. was saying was that the horse call at the markers takes a while to say. Boy that is the truth. Last night, I am watching last years Derby (slow night for me) and I dunno who the caller was but he decided to call out the place number of each horse! SO he's like Steppenwolfer IN EIGHTEENTH, STorm treasure IN NINETEENTH, Jazil in TWENTIETH....

He starts to call them at the quarter pole and they are already rounding the 1/2 mile mak and he's not done with the call. So he finishes the call and then says "They're rounding the half mile..."

No they're not, they already at the 5/8 pole. the half mile time had already been posted in the middle of his call..Gee whiz, no wonder that chart is so messed up...(who the hell was the caller anyway?)

[Greyfox]

who the hell was the caller anyway?


Probably Luke Kruytbosch .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Kruytbosch

[thelyingthief]

i sent drf an enquiry and received this in response:

"This is an automated message created by mail delivery software.

Your message to:
cservice@drf.com

has not yet been delivered because the recipient server did not respond.

This is just a warning, you do not need to take any action. We will continue to attempt delivery of this message for 5 days."

if anyone would like, please also try to email them for the exact measure. i will report if information is forthcoming.

tlt

[kenwoodallpromos]

GGF's rail posts are 8'
I measured. They use Fontana Safety Rail. Let us know if anyone else goes to the track and decides to measure.
Let us know also if anyone hears that the chart callers find an easier way to quickly estimate the distance between horses. Maybe they get out a taspe measure and measure the actual length of each horse in the paddock!.
I will contact DRF and tel them to list the actual measured length of each entrant in the form- LOL!!

[Tom]

Why would DRF know?
They dont collect the data. Ask Equibase.

[DanG]

Yes, but do you MAKE MONEY with the aid of your computer? Great handicappers are often lousy bettors. Handicapping is, of course, the intellectual part. Wagering is an intense emotional challenge that few are able to master.
(I picked this post at random just to associate the correct “Bill” with my opinion.)

Great posts Bill… :ThmbUp:

All the subtlety of a hand grenade, but they are dripping in truth…IMO.

Thanks; I wish you wrote here more often.

[cj]

I never really get this great handicapper, lousy bettor thing. If someone is a great handicapper, they will win, unless they are a compulsive gambler with no plan whatsoever.

Most times, the people that claim this are really just lousy handicappers.

[the_fat_man]

I never really get this great handicapper, lousy bettor thing. If someone is a great handicapper, they will win, unless they are a compulsive gambler with no plan whatsoever.

Most times, the people that claim this are really just lousy handicappers.

Let me explain this to you, with an MLB analogy.

It's like being a GREAT HITTER but a POOR FIELDER or even worse a FLAKE or NOT a NICE GUY:jump:.

You can't be a great allaround player or a nice guy. Which sucks.

Of course, you can make a TON of MONEY as a hitter but that doesn't really count cause you really want to be a great all around player AND a nice guy.

I mean, only on the internet do people try to convince you that if you get really good at something you can't be successful at it --especially something that not too many are good at.

let's face it, GOOD HANDICAPPERS are like GOOD HITTERS, a dime a dozen ---- why would they be successful at the game JUST by picking winners?

[Dan Montilion]

HOW MANY Lengths per Second...

The two I went for today were hard pressed to get ONE length per second.

[Pace Cap'n]

Are not the track announcer and the chart caller two different people? I would assume the chart caller could complete his quarter-pole task much quicker since he does not have to articulate positional analysis (GAIN-ING GROU-ND), instead rather quickly rattlling off the lengths into his recorder.

[Greyfox]

Are not the track announcer and the chart caller two different people?

Yes. They are different people. I suspect JPofMaryland was using the term "caller" in reference to the track announcer, who may have been Luke.

[Tom]

I gotta agree with CJ - if you can pick winners, it doens't take rocket scienc formualae and intricate odds lines to make money. I don't really need to differentiate how much value 5-1 offers compared to 9-2. And I don't play 8-5 no matter how good they are. I pick winners, then decide it they are worth a bet.

[chickenhead]

instead rather quickly rattlling off the lengths into his recorder.

correct. One guy told me a good caller can do ~ 1 horse per second. So in a 12 horse field, 12 seconds. at ~55fps, that means the entire pack of horses traveled around 660 feet, or 1 furlong during the call.

Even if a length was of a precise 8 ft or 10 ft, you don't know precisely where it was made. Track management are apparently strong believers in the heisenberg uncertainty principle; they're afraid if they gave us enough data to figure out the precise position and velocity of a horse the sun would explode and the rapture would be upon us.

[bobphilo]

years ago, i read of the calling procedure in a FollowUp Journal (Sartin). I subsequently confirmed the measurement listed there by inquiring at the racing secretary's office at Suffolk Downs.

however, since i am comfortable with the precision of the figures i use, which are compounded ratings (velocity) and energy ratios, i undertook no further validation of the procedure, which may vary by race track (although, since this is drf related, i cannot imagine that being so).

tlt

I see. So are you saying you want to believe what you want to believe so why bother getting the right answer.

Having read Brohamer's book, I can tell you that at no time does he say the ten feet per length is not meant to be a true measurement but merely a relflection of the chart caller based on the spacing of poles. He puts forth that ten foot is what he considers the length of a horse, period.
Ten feet is just a handy round number and easy to use in calculations as well as being traditional. It's still wrong.

Bob

[ranchwest]

Are not the track announcer and the chart caller two different people? I would assume the chart caller could complete his quarter-pole task much quicker since he does not have to articulate positional analysis (GAIN-ING GROU-ND), instead rather quickly rattlling off the lengths into his recorder.

No!!!!! Don't go there! lol

<UP ON THE OUTTTT-SIIIIIDE>

[ranchwest]

Let me explain this to you, with an MLB analogy.

It's like being a GREAT HITTER but a POOR FIELDER or even worse a FLAKE or NOT a NICE GUY:jump:.

You can't be a great allaround player or a nice guy. Which sucks.

Of course, you can make a TON of MONEY as a hitter but that doesn't really count cause you really want to be a great all around player AND a nice guy.

I mean, only on the internet do people try to convince you that if you get really good at something you can't be successful at it --especially something that not too many are good at.

let's face it, GOOD HANDICAPPERS are like GOOD HITTERS, a dime a dozen ---- why would they be successful at the game JUST by picking winners?

Say hey Willie.

[DanG]

Track management are apparently strong believers in the heisenberg uncertainty principle; they're afraid if they gave us enough data to figure out the precise position and velocity of a horse the sun would explode and the rapture would be upon us.
This is good!!! :cool:

[ranchwest]

This is good!!! :cool:

Yeah, hopefully this thread will someday be mentioned alongside the days of no starting gates and mutuel tickets that had funny little characters on the border so the tellers could verify authenticity.

[JPinMaryland]

Yes. They are different people. I suspect JPofMaryland was using the term "caller" in reference to the track announcer, who may have been Luke.


Yes that is what I meant, as I was typing that I realized something was amiss but I didnt stop to think about it so much. So for confusing.

YEs, the track announer, or the house announcer, or whomever was doing the announcing for the TV he called out the horses and gave each one's position. By the time he got through the first call at the quarter pole they had already got past the 1/2 mile...He stopped doing this but at that pt. He only got around to calling like the first 6 or 7 at the next call. He did see Jazil making a move but I doubt if he ever managed to call all the horses at any time later in the race.

You'd think someone would know not to do it that way, but maybe it's just one of those things when 20 horses are in the lineup...

[JPinMaryland]

I gotta agree with CJ - if you can pick winners, it doens't take rocket scienc formualae and intricate odds lines to make money. I don't really need to differentiate how much value 5-1 offers compared to 9-2. And I don't play 8-5 no matter how good they are. I pick winners, then decide it they are worth a bet.

I thought about this the ohter day and tend to agree w/ CJ and Tom, but maybe the other side should present their case. I think an example might help.

For me the classic example is where the poster says "I hit the first race of the day on a longshot then proceeded to piss it away by playing some turf race I didnt understand and then I got cocky with the house money trying to hit a pick 4 that was not going to happen."

Conclusion: I am a good handicapper I just dont know how to manage my money.

Or this: "I had the 4 horses nailed for the exacta but I got cocky and thought I could use them to hit the trifecta and some 50-1 shot beats me." COnclusion: I am a good handicapper I just didnt use common sense...

Or whatever. So it seems to me it still comes down to handicapping but perhaps those with opposite view can give an example of the difference between a handicapping mistake and a money management mistake or whatever you want to call it..

[ranchwest]

I thought about this the ohter day and tend to agree w/ CJ and Tom, but maybe the other side should present their case. I think an example might help.

For me the classic example is where the poster says "I hit the first race of the day on a longshot then proceeded to piss it away by playing some turf race I didnt understand and then I got cocky with the house money trying to hit a pick 4 that was not going to happen."

Conclusion: I am a good handicapper I just dont know how to manage my money.

Or this: "I had the 4 horses nailed for the exacta but I got cocky and thought I could use them to hit the trifecta and some 50-1 shot beats me." COnclusion: I am a good handicapper I just didnt use common sense...

Or whatever. So it seems to me it still comes down to handicapping but perhaps those with opposite view can give an example of the difference between a handicapping mistake and a money management mistake or whatever you want to call it..

Certainly money management can never be under-estimated or under-appreciated, but picking horses is also very important.

We can't say that the two abilities are mutually exclusive. There's four possibilities:

1) can't handicap, can't build and execute wagers
2) can't handicap, can build and execute wagers
3) can handicap, can't build and execute wagers
4) can handicap, can build and execute wagers

I don't know about the sizes of the first three groups, but I feel pretty certain that the number of people in group 4 is a pretty small group. Most people either don't have the mindset or are not dedicated to making their handicapping work.

Again, the two abilities are not mutually exclusive and are not even really very much related.

So, there you have it. We're WAY off topic.

[Charlie D]

From another forum

Quote: by me on 5:14 pm on Mar. 24, 2007[br]

I think 5-2 ML may be thing of dreams and i'd ignore his last run

Hard Spun should take this and see him back on the Kentucky Derby trail



Quote: by me on 10:54 pm on Mar. 24, 2007[br]
Nice performance by Hard Spun

couldn't believe 5-2 ML held up


The best handicapping tool is knowing when the probability of winning is far greater than the quoted odds



How much of your bankroll would have put on this horse, if i'd told you Hard Spun was virtually unbeatable in the Lanes End?

[ranchwest]

From another forum







The best handicapping tool is knowing when the probability of winning is far greater than the quoted odds



How much of your bankroll would have put on this horse, if i'd told you Hard Spun was virtually unbeatable in the Lanes End?

Day late and a dollar short. :sleeping:

[Charlie D]

Day late and a dollar short. :sleeping:


post was made well before race @ 5.14 GMT, so not too late for some, i don't understand the "dollar short" and sorry if i bore you

[Charlie D]

i don't understand the "dollar short"


Got it, you mean price in dollars

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like i've quoted above, the 5-2 was a thing of dreams :)

[cj]

From another forum

The best handicapping tool is knowing when the probability of winning is far greater than the quoted odds

How much of your bankroll would have put on this horse, if i'd told you Hard Spun was virtually unbeatable in the Lanes End?

This race was a great example of the pitfalls of value betting. Hard Spun was 2 to 1 all the way until he entered the backstretch. So, if someone's value line was 5 to 2, they didn't bet this horse.

Keep in mind this was no 5k claimer at Beulah. This was a G2 Stake with a huge pool, and still the odds changed after the break.

[ranchwest]

post was made well before race @ 5.14 GMT, so not too late for some, i don't understand the "dollar short" and sorry if i bore you

AFTER the race, the horse went from the pre-race "should take this" comment to "unbeatable". I'm not sure what you think of that, but I think it is a good redboard when your picking blossoms after the race.

"A day late and a dollar short" is an American expression that roughly means "not enough and not soon enough".

[JPinMaryland]

Certainly money management can never be under-estimated or under-appreciated, but picking horses is also very important.

We can't say that the two abilities are mutually exclusive. There's four possibilities:

1) can't handicap, can't build and execute wagers
2) can't handicap, can build and execute wagers
3) can handicap, can't build and execute wagers
4) can handicap, can build and execute wagers

I don't know about the sizes of the first three groups, but I feel pretty certain that the number of people in group 4 is a pretty small group. Most people either don't have the mindset or are not dedicated to making their handicapping work.

Again, the two abilities are not mutually exclusive and are not even really very much related.

So, there you have it. We're WAY off topic.

Okay maybe you're right, maybe this is a tenable way of thinking. But can you give concrete example of how this would play out? I gave example of playing one race too many but really if the guy didnt understand the race he shouldnt have bet, and if he really did understand the race then there's nothign wrong with betting it...

Give an example.

[cj]

To me, a major part of handicapping (that many seem to confuse with money management) is knowing what races to bet on and what races to pass. Forcing bets in races where you have no real opinion of value is poor handicapping.

[Bill Olmsted]

To me, a major part of handicapping (that many seem to confuse with money management) is knowing what races to bet on and what races to pass. Forcing bets in races where you have no real opinion of value is poor handicapping.

CJ: Bravo! This is the whole point. The ability to distinguish between a "bet" and a "pass" --- no matter what the odds --- is the key to beating this game. Money management is not about whether or not to bet a flat amount or a percentage of bankroll---or whatever..... It is knowing deep down in your gut, which horses to play and which horses to lay.

[Bill Olmsted]

bill olmstead is right in just about everything he's said. speed IS of little enough use in making a profit; honing a number that is already a) at its limit of accuracy, given the nature of the process and its unreliable methods (you cannot introduce levels of precision beyond those permitted in the very parameters of the event); and b) that it describes the performance of an animal, organic, living thing (whose ability gyrates around thresholds determined by age, diet, mood, estrus cycle, the matchup and herd dynamic, the list goes on) in a number thought of as an absolute.

we DO only have the data before us, in the racing form, at least, most of us. even those privvy to such esoterica as maiden and breeding stats lack any objective appreciation of its application and money making power.

unfortunately, bill likes to come across as an a__hole, and this tends to obscure the message in our reactions to the messenger.

and what is most shameful about it all, if he's correct, and i think he is, then why dont WE do a new PIRCO, and generate new ideas to make us money? i guess, cuz we're too stupid, and that there Sartin guy was a jerk anyway, so let's opine.

me, i'm betting the gray, it being monday, the third. i remember once't i made a bundle on a gray, twas the third of june, twas.


Many thanks for a fine post. I agree with every word especially betting on the Gray (Grey?)

[ranchwest]

Okay maybe you're right, maybe this is a tenable way of thinking. But can you give concrete example of how this would play out? I gave example of playing one race too many but really if the guy didnt understand the race he shouldnt have bet, and if he really did understand the race then there's nothign wrong with betting it...

Give an example.

CJ had a good response. Also....

A good wager is winning on a race. A good wagering strategy wins over time. There may be a big difference for some people.

I could say a lot more about that, but I think it would mostly be noise, a distraction.

[Bill Olmsted]

If anyone is still interested, I have a two-part series in the March/April issues of American Turf Monthly which lay out my philosophy in a much less combative manner than I have let fly here.

That aside, I think we should continue to discuss how best to intergate the actual handicapping process with the learned skill of knowing when to Hold 'Em and when to Fold "Em.

A good way to start is to analyze--not your winners--but your losers. It will be a painful exercise because the denial mechanism will kick in. Who wants to get cozy with failure? But it is critical to understand, not only why you won, but why you lost. Of course, luck always plays a role and sometimes the best horse doesn't win--even at 1-10. But I've found that bad luck happens infrequently enough so as not to plunder a positive ROI.

Finally, I don't want to discourage anyone from learning everything they can about how to improve their analytic skills, even though I may have given that impression in previous posts. I first learned this game by studying mechanical systems and then proceeded from there. I just believe that understanding what constitues a "good bet" vs. a marginal one, must be a part of the overall process and needs further treatment.

[ranchwest]

It will be a painful exercise because the denial mechanism will kick in. Who wants to get cozy with failure? But it is critical to understand, not only why you won, but why you lost.

Good post, Bill. This reminds me of the quote that goes something like, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

[Bill Olmsted]

Good post, Bill. This reminds me of the quote that goes something like, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."


Al Pacino in THE GODFATHER, my all time favorite movie!

[thelyingthief]

will those articles be available on line? im not so great a fan of ATM that i know where it's to be had here abouts.

tlt

[Bill Olmsted]

Here's what I propose we do: We only begin with horses listed on the morning line at 8-5 or less. Then we proceed to make our case for a bet or a pass. Certainly, any horse listed at 8-5 or less will probably be even money or less at post time. But short favorites are still underbet these days--especially to place. So don't let the price scare you off (Heed the favorite-longshot bias).
I suppose direct analysis has no place in this forum and we should probably move to a more specific board that will tolerate multiple analyses from all quarters as to the merits, or lack thereof, of any one particular animal.

I will give my opinion as to why I believe a short horse (1) will win (2) or is vulnerable. Anyone interested should contribute because we will all become better handicappers via specific examples, and not roundhouse theory.

[Bill Olmsted]

will those articles be available on line? im not so great a fan of ATM that i know where it's to be had here abouts.

tlt

I'm not a fan either. It is the first stuff I have written in about 10 years and I think it is worth your while. As to whether it is online or not, I don't think so.

[Charlie D]

AFTER the race, the horse went from the pre-race "should take this" comment to "unbeatable". I'm not sure what you think of that, but I think it is a good redboard when your picking blossoms after the race.

"A day late and a dollar short" is an American expression that roughly means "not enough and not soon enough".


Ooops sorry, i remember to keep my statements exact and i said virtually unbeatable,

thanks for the explanation

Here's the thread

http://www.theracingforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=15&topic=10783




CJ

[Charlie D]

CJ: Bravo! This is the whole point. The ability to distinguish between a "bet" and a "pass" --- no matter what the odds --- is the key to beating this game. Money management is not about whether or not to bet a flat amount or a percentage of bankroll---or whatever..... It is knowing deep down in your gut, which horses to play and which horses to lay.



Bill,

If you are paasing, it means (to me anyway) there either is no value in the race or the race is too competitive with 2/3/4 horses having similar probablities of winning, all of which should show up in your oddsline

[Charlie D]

I

A good way to start is to analyze--not your winners--but your losers. It will be a painful exercise because the denial mechanism will kick in. Who wants to get cozy with failure? But it is critical to understand, not only why you won, but why you lost.




this is an excellent way to identify which type of races you are good at handicapping and which you fall flat on your face in


Look forward to reading your articles

[Light]

It is the first stuff I have written in about 10 years and I think it is worth your while..

I bought your book over 10 years ago "Complete Handicapper,professional horseplayers resource guide". I paid $50 for it back then and am shocked it is now selling for 3 times that price used on Amazon. I liked the multitude of subjects it covered but honestly learned nothing from it and disagreed with the track pars as I made them myself and felt the book's were inaccurate.(no offense,just being honest).

So I'm wondering if what you wrote recently since then as your quote says,uses anything from the book. If so what? BTW I think that your idea of a group disussion of a race before and after would be a good exercise. I did one like that in the selections thread during a big pk6 at SA asking for opinions as to who and why they liked a horse in one of the pk6 legs.

[ranchwest]

Ooops sorry, i remember to keep my statements exact and i said virtually unbeatable,

thanks for the explanation

Here's the thread

http://www.theracingforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=15&topic=10783




CJ

Sorry, it is very unlikely that I'm going to read another board to be able to respond to a post on this board.

[Charlie D]

ok ranchwest, we seem to have got off on the wrong foot and that was not my intention, lets just forget about it and move on

[ranchwest]

ok ranchwest, we seem to have got off on the wrong foot and that was not my intention, lets just forget about it and move on

Seems like a good idea.

[john del riccio]

I never really get this great handicapper, lousy bettor thing. If someone is a great handicapper, they will win, unless they are a compulsive gambler with no plan whatsoever.

Most times, the people that claim this are really just lousy handicappers.

CJ,

I agree that knowing when to hold em' and when to fold em' is a must, and not getting flustered by a $6.00 horse winning by a pole that you passed on
is going to test your will sometimes.

My personal experience is that if I had to grade myself on wagering vs. handicapping, I would always score better on the handicapping that betting.
The Race of The Week I did this week is a great example. My top four horses were:

TWILIGHT METEOR
SEDGEFIELD
HARD SPUN
JOE GOT EVEN

I bet the race as follows:

TWILIGHT METEOR 150 win, SEDGEFIELD 50 win, 5 exacta box TM, SF, HS
and a 5 excta box TW, JGE. 250 total. I collected 246.50. My reasoning for the bet was that SEGDFIELD was the value as I had him at about 9-2 in my betting line and he was 12-1 with 2 minutes to post but I beleived TWILIGHT METEOR was the best horse so I bet both. The exacta came back at 98.60
and the trifecta with JGE hame back at 777.00 but I didn't play the triple.

Obviously I under-rated HS, mostly because he hadn't proved to me he couldn't win from off the pace yet but overall I think I read most of the field
pretty well and I didn't profit from it the best way possible given how I viewed the race.

If you don't catch the winner of the race as your top selection, there is till money to be made if your handicapping was good (racing luck aside). My
handicapping was better than my wagering approach fro this particluar race.


John

[Tom]

151 posts on how much is a beaten length! :bang:

I hope nobody wants to talk about weight! :eek:

[ranchwest]

151 posts on how much is a beaten length! :bang:

I hope nobody wants to talk about weight! :eek:

It takes an exceptional filter for some of these threads to be of benefit, but some are.

[the_fat_man]

CJ,

I agree that knowing when to hold em' and when to fold em' is a must, and not getting flustered by a $6.00 horse winning by a pole that you passed on
is going to test your will sometimes.

My personal experience is that if I had to grade myself on wagering vs. handicapping, I would always score better on the handicapping that betting.
The Race of The Week I did this week is a great example. My top four horses were:

TWILIGHT METEOR
SEDGEFIELD
HARD SPUN
JOE GOT EVEN

I bet the race as follows:

TWILIGHT METEOR 150 win, SEDGEFIELD 50 win, 5 exacta box TM, SF, HS
and a 5 excta box TW, JGE. 250 total. I collected 246.50. My reasoning for the bet was that SEGDFIELD was the value as I had him at about 9-2 in my betting line and he was 12-1 with 2 minutes to post but I beleived TWILIGHT METEOR was the best horse so I bet both. The exacta came back at 98.60
and the trifecta with JGE hame back at 777.00 but I didn't play the triple.

Obviously I under-rated HS, mostly because he hadn't proved to me he couldn't win from off the pace yet but overall I think I read most of the field
pretty well and I didn't profit from it the best way possible given how I viewed the race.

If you don't catch the winner of the race as your top selection, there is till money to be made if your handicapping was good (racing luck aside). My
handicapping was better than my wagering approach fro this particluar race.


John

John, with all due respect, you really need to start watching races.

Twilight Meteor got an ABSOLUTELY PERFECT TRIP last out against Sedgefield. And I can't stress enough how good the setup was.

[john del riccio]

John, with all due respect, you really need to start watching races.

Twilight Meteor got an ABSOLUTELY PERFECT TRIP last out against Sedgefield. And I can't stress enough how good the setup was.

Fats,

I do watch alot of races, no disrespect taken. The race TM ran at KEE as a 2yo was a quality race, as another poster pointed out, KEE Polytrack isn't TP and the artifician surfaces need to be treated individually & not as a group. The other potential excuse was that thay KEE race was off the turf so there may have been moisture in the surface which there obviously was none on saturday at TP ?

I think the thing that surprised me was the level of support he got right from the get go. At one point I considered betting Sedgfield only because he opened at 35-1 which was ludicrous.

John

[the_fat_man]

The race at Keeneland was an offtheturfer. I looked up the chart and, at least officially, the poly was 'fast'. My point concerns the level of competition in the race ---assuming good turfers are not necessarily also good poly horses.

Combined with his perfect trip against Sedgefield, I tossed, TM, and was SHOCKED, like you, when he opened the favorite. So shocked, in fact, that I got off my lazy ass, went down to the local OTB, and bet a few dollars to win on HS.

Of course, I don't do figures.

[cj]

Of course, I don't do figures.

I think we all get this by now. There is more than one way to win.

[the_fat_man]

I'm not flaunting it OR disparaging what others do. I certainly trip 'based on pace', even though I don't use pace numbers.

The Lane's End points out the difficulties of handicapping for the different approaches.

As a tripper, I was easily able to kick out TM.
BUT I HAD to CONSIDER For You Reppo and (at least look at) Forefathers. And, I certainly didn't give the other turf horses much of a shot, as not having numbers to work with, I was left to assume that they wouldn't run on the 'dirt' (poly).

As for Sedgefield, I looked at him long and hard, as I've mentioned elsewhere, as he beat Delightful Kiss (who I think is actually okay) on the turf. But I didn't know what to do with him on poly. And without replays for CD, I couldn't look at the poly race. (Ditto for TP and Joe Got Even.)

[Kelso]

will those articles be available on line?


Here's the link to the March article.
American Turf Monthly (http://www.americanturf.com/current/playingodds.cfm)

It appears that April isn't online yet.

[DanG]

Thanks for the link Kelso...:ThmbUp:

[NoDayJob]

151 posts on how much is a beaten length! :bang:

I hope nobody wants to talk about weight! :eek:

Yeah, I do... I need to lose about 15-20lbs... what say??? :D

[ranchwest]

Yeah, I do... I need to lose about 15-20lbs... what say??? :D

How much do you think you could get on an apprentice allowance? :)