Question about chart making

[Cangamble]

When a horse finished second beaten 12 lengths for example, was the horse beaten 12 lengths according to the chart maker, or did the horse run a final time 2 2/5th seconds off the winner's time?

I thought I knew the answer, but I've forgot it for sure, and maybe it has changed from when I first got an explanation over 20 years ago thanks to modern technology changes.

[ManeMediaMogul]

Actually both. The photo finish is actually a photo of each horse as it hits the finish line - every nose in the photo is on the wire. The distances are measured on a scale to derive the beaten lengths.

This helps to explain why you might think a horse wins by two lengths and it is actually four in the chart. The scale is not totally scientific, but relatively accurate.

The finish call is the only one done this way. The rest of the calls are determined by the "trackman" at each track, who calls every horse's margins at the points of call while the race is being run.

This is why a point or two difference in pace and speed figures is negligible.

I will say, the charts are amazingly accurate most of the time. A tribute to the men and women who make them.

[Dave Schwartz]

CanG,

It also brings up an intersting point that applies to not only the final time but pace times. Imagine that you have a horse that is 10 lengths back as the winner crosses the finish line and is quitting (or closing) fast.

The lengths behind are not measured as the winner crosses the finish line, but rather as the horse in question crosses the finish line.

However, at the pace calls, since it is all done from the eye of the chart called, the horses' lengths behind are just that: lengths behind as the lead horse trips the timer.


Dave

[Cangamble]

If it is actual lengths at finish, then the times are wrong. As we know, horses travel at a lesser speed the longer a race is, so a horse beaten one physical length going a mile and a sixteenth is beaten by more in actual time than a horse beaten a length in a sprint race.

Also, what happens when a horse wins by 12 but the horse who was second when the winner crosses the wire loses second to a horse that was 3rd or 4th beaten 15 when the winner crossed the wire and may have only lost by less than 2 seconds in real time?

This is why, I think they should use real time for all horse at least at the finish of a race.

[Tom]

On one end of the scale, we have Trakus, hardly being used ( or even planned to used) and then we have Gulfstream and Hawthorne - the two "minorest" tracks there are.

Can, this game is not up to cutting edge technology, like timing, counting, colors........when you hire morons to run your game, you get what we got.
Bottom line, what do you expect from a game who TURNS AWAY PAYING
CUSTOMERS ?????

[Cangamble]

On one end of the scale, we have Trakus, hardly being used ( or even planned to used) and then we have Gulfstream and Hawthorne - the two "minorest" tracks there are.

Can, this game is not up to cutting edge technology, like timing, counting, colors........when you hire morons to run your game, you get what we got.
Bottom line, what do you expect from a game who TURNS AWAY PAYING
CUSTOMERS ?????
The reason I'm even bring this up is because Trackmaster seems to have leaped ahead of the curve by doing individual fractional times for harness horses:
http://www.trackmaster.com/cgi-bin/axprodlist.cgi?tfp
In thoroughbreds we can't even do real times for finishers other than winners it seems.

[Tom]

I e-mailed them to see if they are planning a T-bred version of those PPs....let you know if I hear anything.

[BillW]

This is why, I think they should use real time for all horse at least at the finish of a race.

I seem to remember them doing this for Quarter Horses.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Length


Unit of measurement in racing and charting terminology. The length of an American Quarter Horse, the distance from the horse's nose to the tip of his flying tail, is .16 seconds (16/100ths), while the length of a Thoroughbred is .20 seconds (20/100ths). " (Tbreds 8+ feet per 1/5 second officially).
Thanks for the chance to quote from this again!!
Tbreds run 5 lengths per second and Quarters 6 2/3 lengths per second officially.
Since trotters/harness horses trot at about 1 mile per 2 minutes (600 fifth-seconds for 5280 feet), they trot about 8.8 feet in 1/5 second.
Now you see that trotters actually move in races faster than TBreds!!

[chickenhead]

The reason I'm even bring this up is because Trackmaster seems to have leaped ahead of the curve by doing individual fractional times for harness horses:
http://www.trackmaster.com/cgi-bin/axprodlist.cgi?tfp
In thoroughbreds we can't even do real times for finishers other than winners it seems.

That's the crazy thing about it...they HAVE the real times for each of the horses, but they convert it to beaten lengths using their proprietary adjustomatic formula (which I have heard all sorts of conflicting data about, but generally that they use 1/6th of a second = 1 length at all distances, but those who have tried find discrepancies with any fixed formula), which we all then try to convert back into real time.

[chickenhead]

I know this has been discussed before, but if someone were wiping the slate clean, and starting a chart service from scratch, what would you want it to be?
Assuming it was all taken from video, but having the benefit of the official times to work with.

A few things I can think of:

Race Info:

Runup distance

Horse Info:

Runup time (time from gate open to official timing start)
Actual times, each fractional section
Path info at say: Enter Turn, Mid Turn, Exit Turn, Midstretch

It seems to me that for a computer program, just those few data points could be combined and used against one another to know just about everything you'd want to know about the facts of the race.

[Tom]

I know this has been discussed before, but if someone were wiping the slate clean, and starting a chart service from scratch, what would you want it to be?


Trakus on each horse. Start when the gate doors open, end when they hit the wire, individually. How far did they run, how long did it take? Give a readout every 1/2 furlong.

Boy, rocket science, huh?

[strapper]

I think Trakus is on the expensive side, that's why you don't see it at more tracks. It is the best, cutting edge technology out there and one day it may be at every track in the country I would hope, in the interest of accuracy. (I'm a former chartcaller so I know human error is involved with that, some chartcallers better than others)

Trakus on each horse. Start when the gate doors open, end when they hit the wire, individually. How far did they run, how long did it take? Give a readout every 1/2 furlong.

Boy, rocket science, huh?

[Cangamble]

I think Trakus is on the expensive side, that's why you don't see it at more tracks. It is the best, cutting edge technology out there and one day it may be at every track in the country I would hope, in the interest of accuracy. (I'm a former chartcaller so I know human error is involved with that, some chartcallers better than others)
All I want is exact time of the finishers. Is that too much to ask for? I know I'm being selfish because exact pace numbers don't matter that much to me.

[slewis]

Trakus on each horse. Start when the gate doors open, end when they hit the wire, individually. How far did they run, how long did it take? Give a readout every 1/2 furlong.

Boy, rocket science, huh?

I know I'm gonna start a ruckus with this comment, but the more precise data, (like trakus) information and handicapping tools available to the "general public" , the WORSE the game gets (and it's been getting worse and worse every year from a betting prospective).

Beyers, hi-tech speed figures, video replays on demand, all make for smarter money in the pools... which equates to no value... which in turn for me equates to: "I'm not playing". I dont need action... I need to win.

[Tom]

I doubt 90% of the bettors would have a clue as to how to use the Trakus data. Most can't even read a program. Many can't even read! :rolleyes:

[the little guy]

I doubt 90% of the bettors would have a clue as to how to use the Trakus data. Most can't even read a program. Many can't even read! :rolleyes:


What?

[strapper]

I can sympathize with you on this logic. Computerized data has taken away the edge players had several years ago.

I know I'm gonna start a ruckus with this comment, but the more precise data, (like trakus) information and handicapping tools available to the "general public" , the WORSE the game gets (and it's been getting worse and worse every year from a betting prospective).

Beyers, hi-tech speed figures, video replays on demand, all make for smarter money in the pools... which equates to no value... which in turn for me equates to: "I'm not playing". I dont need action... I need to win.

[JustRalph]

I don't think Tom is too far out of bounds with his comment. You would be surprised how many errors I hear from other horseplayers when it comes to reading the form or analyzing data.

I am no rocket surgeon, but, spending some time in the Simulcast at Keeneland you would be surprised some of the stuff you hear...........especially when it comes to analyzing pace etc..........

[slewis]

I doubt 90% of the bettors would have a clue as to how to use the Trakus data. Most can't even read a program. Many can't even read! :rolleyes:

Tom.

From your mouth to god's ears.... but on this one.. I dont think he hears you.

Better cut your percentage down a bit.

[Tom]

What?

Have CJ read it to you.



:D

[cj]

Have CJ read it to you.



:D

What?

[sealman]

I know I'm gonna start a ruckus with this comment, but the more precise data, (like trakus) information and handicapping tools available to the "general public" , the WORSE the game gets (and it's been getting worse and worse every year from a betting prospective).

Beyers, hi-tech speed figures, video replays on demand, all make for smarter money in the pools... which equates to no value... which in turn for me equates to: "I'm not playing". I dont need action... I need to win.

I agree. This noble undertaking of ours is both art and science and I think (because we're all looking for that edge) we've gotten too involved in the science end of things. And yet every investigation I've heard of indicates that the high-tech stuff has not made things easier: knowledge is now too widespread and mutuels have gone down. Also the state lotteries and casinos have sopped up so much of the casual gambler's dollar that only the cognoscenti, so to speak, are betting on thoroughbreds. I would not argue against anyone who suggested this is a dying sport. I'm 62 years old and the handful of times I go to Monmouth each summer I look around and I think I'm the youngest guy there.

So - what now? Well, although I have in the past expressed appreciation for All-Ways, and from time to time have used other computer programs, I think it's time to emphasize the art and eschew the science. It's all a matter of adapting to the situation. You might call it contrary thinking. When everyone else is gazing at the computer screen while ruminating over feet-per-second ratios, maybe it makes more sense to pour yourself a cup of coffee and peruse your Daily Racing Form with a pencil and note pad testing out a long-forgotten angle from a fifty year old racing magazine. 'Nuff said!

[Tom]

Do I have to give back the money????? :rolleyes:

[bobphilo]

I know I'm gonna start a ruckus with this comment, but the more precise data, (like trakus) information and handicapping tools available to the "general public" , the WORSE the game gets (and it's been getting worse and worse every year from a betting prospective).

Beyers, hi-tech speed figures, video replays on demand, all make for smarter money in the pools... which equates to no value... which in turn for me equates to: "I'm not playing". I dont need action... I need to win.

You have point with the Beyers, but that’s mainly because they were such an improvement over the very inaccurate DRF figs, or no figures at all. As long as one has reasonably accurate info, the advantage by far goes to those who know how to interpret it.
I love it when the pools are filled with bets based on "200 variables" by those who don’t know what an independent variable really is. All the data in the world won’t do anyone much good if they don’t have the statistical knowledge or skill to use it.


Bob

[bobphilo]

So - what now? Well, although I have in the past expressed appreciation for All-Ways, and from time to time have used other computer programs, I think it's time to emphasize the art and eschew the science.

Why does it have to be either or? Why not use the most accurate scientific data possible and use the old noodle to interpret it.

Bob

[sealman]

Why does it have to be either or? Why not use the most accurate scientific data possible and use the old noodle to interpret it.

Bob

No argument there. I don't mean to imply that it's an either-or situation, only that we might be looking too intently for a black box solution. One of the things I love about this game is that you can use whatever approach suits your temperment.

[bobphilo]

No argument there. I don't mean to imply that it's an either-or situation, only that we might be looking too intently for a black box solution. One of the things I love about this game is that you can use whatever approach suits your temperment.

I agree, Sealman. While good accurate data is an important starting point, but too many people are so fascinated by the numbers that they short change the all-important evaluation stage. If that's what yo're saying, I'm with you 100%.

While the techies are right when they say "garbage in - garbage out", it's also true that sometimes it's "gold in - garbage out" when one doesn't know how to handle the good data. That's OK since the advantage goes to those, like yourself, that emphasize that part.

I must confess that, having studied statistics, I was seduced by all the powerfull software. Like you, I think that All-Ways sometimes has its place (though it is a bit pricey with its tons of data) but I soon learned that my best handicapping tool is between my ears.

Bob

[sealman]

I must confess that, having studied statistics, I was seduced by all the powerfull software.


Yes, me too. There is somehing almost mystical about a page filled with sigma's, tau's, and theta's

[Thomas Roulston]

When a horse finished second beaten 12 lengths for example, was the horse beaten 12 lengths according to the chart maker, or did the horse run a final time 2 2/5th seconds off the winner's time?

I thought I knew the answer, but I've forgot it for sure, and maybe it has changed from when I first got an explanation over 20 years ago thanks to modern technology changes.


This would be true only if the horses were going at a 24-second-per-quarter-mile pace at the finish - and they almost never do.

The most accurate way of computing the correct time value of beaten lengths is to use the time of the last recorded fraction and that of the finish. If, for example, it was a 6-furlong race and the last quarter was run in :25, reckon each beaten length as .208 second; a 1 1/8-mile race whose last furlong was run in :13 (thus :26 per quarter), each beaten length is worth .217 second; a :27 last quarter makes the value .225 second, a :28 last quarter (or :14 last furlong, or :07 final sixteenth), .233 second.

Specifically, the formula is 0.2 divided by 24 times f, with f representing the time (in seconds) of the last quarter, or double the time of the last furlong, or quadruple the time of the last 16th. For 1m70y races, use 0.2 divided by 7, then multiply by 44.