View Full Version : Another example of tracks not caring about bettors
Why are races run at distances where fractions can't be recorded and final times are probably a joke?
A few of many examples:
Pha, 7.5f on the turf
Mth, 5.5f on the turf (sometimes they have them, sometimes not)
Suf, all races on the turf
Just seems to me another way tracks show they don't give a crap about bettors.
andymays
07-03-2009, 01:20 PM
Why are races run at distances where fractions can't be recorded and final times are probably a joke?
A few of many examples:
Pha, 7.5f on the turf
Mth, 5.5f on the turf (sometimes they have them, sometimes not)
Suf, all races on the turf
Just seems to me another way tracks show they don't give a crap about bettors.
I agree that it makes it tougher to handicap.
Some Racetracks don't care like you said. Some have space limitations for turf sprints (Hollywood had to change the configuration to have a 6f turf sprint). As for the 7.5 on the turf, the only reason I can see is to have less wear and tear on the starting position (turf) rather than having it on the mile mark. Just guessing.
jballscalls
07-03-2009, 01:25 PM
wow, interesting take. I must say, i've never sat and looked at a race, and said "wow this distance is ridiculous, they don't care about me" LOL
wow, interesting take. I must say, i've never sat and looked at a race, and said "wow this distance is ridiculous, they don't care about me" LOL
Why card these distances if you can't properly time them? What is the point? It isn't just that day, now you have these running lines in the PPs for at least a year or two.
Thistledown is now running races at 1m40y and 1m70y ON THE SAME DAY. Is that necessary? It is just silly and certainly does nothing to help newcomers to the sport.
So, why do you think this is done? I promise not to LOL!
CincyHorseplayer
07-03-2009, 01:36 PM
Why card these distances if you can't properly time them? What is the point? It isn't just that day, now you have these running lines in the PPs for at least a year or two.
Thistledown is now running races at 1m40y and 1m70y ON THE SAME DAY. Is that necessary? It is just silly and certainly does nothing to help newcomers to the sport.
So, why do you think this is done? I promise not to LOL!
I bet Thistledown quite a bit being here in Ohio and that drives me crazy.The times are warped at 1-40 yards IMO.And it is unnecessary.If they don't want to keep it the traditional mile and mile 16th,at least keep it 2 distances.
andymays
07-03-2009, 01:39 PM
I bet Thistledown quite a bit being here in Ohio and that drives me crazy.The times are warped at 1-40 yards IMO.And it is unnecessary.If they don't want to keep it the traditional mile and mile 16th,at least keep it 2 distances.
I'm sure they will say it's a safety issue. They do not want to keep rolling the starting gate over the same spot on the track. They will probably say that if they keep it on the same spots the surface will be compacted in that area.
Just a guess!
As Cincy says, the times at 1m40y are a joke. No way is it a safety issue unless they don't have basic maintenance equipment.
andymays
07-03-2009, 01:41 PM
There's one way to find out. I'll send them an email and see what shakes out!
Update.....I just spoke to someone on the phone who said it depended on the field size.
jballscalls
07-03-2009, 01:47 PM
i have no ideas why racing secretaries do what they do. surely there must be a reason and i'm sure if you call or email they will tell you.
i have no ideas why racing secretaries do what they do. surely there must be a reason and i'm sure if you call or email they will tell you.
I have, and I usually don't get an answer. When I have, it is "we never considered that". Apparently, after considering it, we don't matter because it persists.
One track, NYRA, has made an effort to keep run ups the same after it was brought up. That is about it...
andymays
07-03-2009, 01:51 PM
I have, and I usually don't get an answer. When I have, it is "we never considered that". Apparently, after considering it, we don't matter because it persists.
One track, NYRA, has made an effort to keep run ups the same after it was brought up. That is about it...
They have a toll free number on their website and they answered my question a few minutes ago. See the post above!
They have a toll free number on their website and they answered my question a few minutes ago. See the post above!
Just because they give an answer doesn't mean it makes it a good one. Did they give an explanation?
andymays
07-03-2009, 01:56 PM
Just because they give an answer doesn't mean it makes it a good one. Did they give an explanation?
Just said it was because of field size. Racing Office Information: 1-800-289-9956
CJ, you would be able to ask better questions than me. I explained to them that we were discussing this subject right now on a Horse Racing Forum. Give em a call!
ryesteve
07-03-2009, 02:01 PM
Just because they give an answer doesn't mean it makes it a good one. Did they give an explanation?Sounds like they mean if there's a large field, they want a longer run into the first turn, but that doesn't explain why you'd ever want a short run into the first turn, even if it is a short field.
castaway01
07-03-2009, 02:02 PM
Hi, first post here.
I don't think this is huge issue unless you're a figuremaker, but I don't deny that it is strange. I know at Philadelphia Park they have a 7-furlong turf course and 7 1/2 furlongs passes as a short "route" there. Why they do it when they can't time it, I don't know, but they've had those races for many years. To be honest, they probably haven't gotten many complaints about them because most bettors aren't making figures and aren't as sharp as you are CJ. We take what we're given and don't notice these finer points---maybe we should.
jonnielu
07-03-2009, 02:05 PM
I have, and I usually don't get an answer. When I have, it is "we never considered that". Apparently, after considering it, we don't matter because it persists.
One track, NYRA, has made an effort to keep run ups the same after it was brought up. That is about it...
You can see what crowd the track wants to attract in what they do. An NY track would be like a ghost town if there were no appeal to the "figure" folks.
Some lean in other directions in an effort to appeal to the average gambler, hence the varied distances to supply the element of unpredictability.
Not all tracks are trying to cook the same soup.
jdl
You are right, we should complain more and I'm going to start. It is something I just accepted over the years, but there really is no real reason for it.
You can see what crowd the track wants to attract in what they do. An NY track would be like a ghost town if there were no appeal to the "figure" folks.
Some lean in other directions in an effort to appeal to the average gambler, hence the varied distances to supply the element of unpredictability.
Not all tracks are trying to cook the same soup.
jdl
The could run 100 distances for all I care, but times would be nice...accurate times, not made up ones.
jballscalls
07-03-2009, 02:11 PM
I remember at River they could only run 10 horses max at the mile distance, but at 1 mile and 70 yards they could get 12 horses.
I remember at River they could only run 10 horses max at the mile distance, but at 1 mile and 70 yards they could get 12 horses.
It isn't that they couldn't, but I guess they figured the 11 and 12 would have zero chance at a mile. It isn't like the track is narrower at some points in the stretch. I'm sure those drawing the 10 hole were thrilled at a mile.
jballscalls
07-03-2009, 02:21 PM
It isn't that they couldn't, but I guess they figured the 11 and 12 would have zero chance at a mile. It isn't like the track is narrower at some points in the stretch. I'm sure those drawing the 10 hole were thrilled at a mile.
when i said they couldn't i was referring to the fact that there is a rule in place that they wont card more than 10 at a mile distance. i dont know if the rule was from the horseman, the track, the state or whoever
andymays
07-03-2009, 02:26 PM
Hi, first post here.
I don't think this is huge issue unless you're a figuremaker, but I don't deny that it is strange. I know at Philadelphia Park they have a 7-furlong turf course and 7 1/2 furlongs passes as a short "route" there. Why they do it when they can't time it, I don't know, but they've had those races for many years. To be honest, they probably haven't gotten many complaints about them because most bettors aren't making figures and aren't as sharp as you are CJ. We take what we're given and don't notice these finer points---maybe we should.
Welcome Castaway!
Funny topic, I just got back from lunch, and I was sitting by the lake looking over Saturday's From and thought to myself, after seeing a 7.5F paceline at Belmont, "How many horses do they have that can't get a mile and 7 is just too damn short????"
Times or not, why run stupid distances?
But I guess I should shut up because my track, FL , once carded a race at 4 miles and 70 yards! Some trainer probably bitched after 4 miles that his horse needed more ground! :rolleyes:
CincyHorseplayer
07-03-2009, 03:06 PM
The run up and field sizes still doesn't explain Thistledown's rationale.Were talking a differential of 90 feet from 1-40 to 1-70 or 120 feet from 1m to 1-40.The difference is an understandable 210 or 330 at 1-70 and 1-1/16.
I think they do it just to mess with us,for real.There is no reason for it IMO.
Bruddah
07-03-2009, 03:59 PM
Times or not, why run stupid distances?
But I guess I should shut up because my track, FL , once carded a race at 4 miles and 70 yards! Some trainer probably bitched after 4 miles that his horse needed more ground! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Well, you can bet your ass it wasn't to please the bettors. It either had to do with some stupid rule imposed by the horsemen or state. They have done (all tracks) these type of things for so long, they have forgotten the why. Bettors continue to throw their money into the pools and not complain. So, why change anything. The wheel is not squeaking so why grease it.
Boycott those races!
Imriledup
07-03-2009, 05:34 PM
CJ i feel your pain, but here's the reason you really need to pick and choose your battles. By crying foul on something like this, even if you are technically right, just gives the racing industry more ammo to just say "well, bettors cry about everything". We can't be crying about little stuff like this, we need to focus our energy on the big battles, like a better takeout rate and lower prices for admission, parking, etc.
Not recording fractions is supposed to be a good thing for you as an expert horse player. If you need exact fractions, buy a great stop watch and record this info yourself. Than, you'll have info that your competition does not.
Warren Henry
07-03-2009, 06:27 PM
Maybe the reason for a strange distance is physical track layout. I remember attending a track years ago that NEVER ran a mile race. They always ran 1mi70 instead. The track was an older track and was a one mile oval. The position of the infield toteboard prevented the ability to maneuver the starting gate into and off of the track at or near the finish line.
That would not explain why run more than one of the 1mi70, 1mi40, or 1mi races at the same track.
Some of the stuff that happens in old businesses is tradition or because "we always did it that way". A good for instance is why the width between railroad tracks is what it is.
jballscalls
07-03-2009, 06:31 PM
isn't 7.5 furlongs just as stupid a distance as a mile and 1/16 or 6.5 furlongs?? i mean they are all just a certain amount of feet from one point to another.
Not recording fractions is supposed to be a good thing for you as an expert horse player. If you need exact fractions, buy a great stop watch and record this info yourself. Than, you'll have info that your competition does not.
That is ridiculous! Extra fractions?????
How about BASIC racing information.
Maybe you could talk them into not publishing who the jockeys are, then anyone with a year book would have an edge.:bang:
Your post sound like you should not gripe about the appetizer because they will mess up your main course then. We are not simply bettors, we are CUSTOMERS, and many us are taking our business elsewhere.
To be clear, here is the point. Every race run should be able to provide basic handicapping information. First and foremost among these is the TIME of the race, and the internal fractions. There really is no defense for not providing these.
Anybody that thinks recording fractions off a replay is simple without knowing the exact start point of the timer and doing it by hand is kidding themselves. Sure, sometimes it is easy, but many times, it is not.
Cratos
07-03-2009, 08:48 PM
Why are races run at distances where fractions can't be recorded and final times are probably a joke?
A few of many examples:
Pha, 7.5f on the turf
Mth, 5.5f on the turf (sometimes they have them, sometimes not)
Suf, all races on the turf
Just seems to me another way tracks show they don't give a crap about bettors.
You are absolutely right, racing management is very rarely if ever sensitive or responsive to the needs of their customers/fans.
If a race is run at any distance, it should be accurately timed and with all fractions and final time being published or it shouldn’t be run.
You are absolutely right, racing management is very rarely if ever sensitive or responsive to the needs of their customers/fans.
If a race is run at any distance, it should be accurately timed and with all fractions and final time being published or it shouldn’t be run.
I knew we could agree on something eventually! ;) Can I assume you agree the having run ups at all is pretty ridiculous as well?
Valuist
07-03-2009, 09:07 PM
Why card these distances if you can't properly time them? What is the point? It isn't just that day, now you have these running lines in the PPs for at least a year or two.
Thistledown is now running races at 1m40y and 1m70y ON THE SAME DAY. Is that necessary? It is just silly and certainly does nothing to help newcomers to the sport.
So, why do you think this is done? I promise not to LOL!
I can just hear those idiot trainers, badgering the racing secretary
"A mile isn't far enough, and a mile and 70 is too far. Think you could card another mile and 40 race." You know these guys say that; if I was the racing secretary, I'd tell them that they must suck if they need a race THAT specific.
BTW, lets outlaw ALL 7.5 furlong races and limit 5.5 furlong races to 2YOs only. And the 1m 40 yards and 1m 70 yards should get booted as well.
kenwoodallpromos
07-03-2009, 09:28 PM
Have them start at 1 mile for 6 horses, and back it up 20 yards for every additional runner!
BIG49010
07-03-2009, 11:35 PM
A few track use odd distances to get the gate away from the turn, but Arlington used to run about 1 1/16th mile on dirt that was closer to turn and posts 1-3 won everything.
They have changed this race now, but still card it and times are always questionable.
Irish Boy
07-03-2009, 11:56 PM
They have to or else they'd have almost no two turn routes. 1 mile is run at one turn out of the chute. Unless they ran 1 1/8m regularly, 1 1/16 is the only option. I wouldn't trust the times too much though because they use the alternate finish line.
Valuist
07-04-2009, 12:44 AM
A few track use odd distances to get the gate away from the turn, but Arlington used to run about 1 1/16th mile on dirt that was closer to turn and posts 1-3 won everything.
They have changed this race now, but still card it and times are always questionable.
Not to mention the finish line is at the 1/16th pole. I've suspected Arlington did this (writing races that are hugely advantageous to the inside and speed) to help the stats of their speed killing Polytrack. Before Polytrack, they had probably run 5 races at that distance in the previous 10 years.
Valuist
07-04-2009, 12:45 AM
They have to or else they'd have almost no two turn routes. 1 mile is run at one turn out of the chute. Unless they ran 1 1/8m regularly, 1 1/16 is the only option. I wouldn't trust the times too much though because they use the alternate finish line.
They can, and have, carded races at 1 1/8 miles in the past. There is no need for the 1 1/16 mile races there. Nothing wrong with the one mile chute.
Overlay
07-04-2009, 01:19 AM
At least distances like 1 mile, 40 yards, or 1 mile, 70 yards are precise figures. Races run at "about" distances (e.g., "about seven furlongs" or "about one mile") always puzzled me.
Imriledup
07-04-2009, 04:06 AM
That is ridiculous! Extra fractions?????
How about BASIC racing information.
Maybe you could talk them into not publishing who the jockeys are, then anyone with a year book would have an edge.:bang:
Your post sound like you should not gripe about the appetizer because they will mess up your main course then. We are not simply bettors, we are CUSTOMERS, and many us are taking our business elsewhere.
Take your business elsewhere, its no skin off of anyone's nose.
No one cares if you leave the industry.
Irish Boy
07-04-2009, 08:27 AM
They can, and have, carded races at 1 1/8 miles in the past. There is no need for the 1 1/16 mile races there. Nothing wrong with the one mile chute.
I know they can, and that they do, but there's no doubt (as we see every March and April) a significant difference between 8.5 furlongs and 9 furlongs, and I'm sure a number of owners and trainers appreciate being able to run at both. It's not as silly as the 1M 40y and 1M 70y races appearing at the same track.
Valuist
07-04-2009, 09:08 AM
As a handicapper, I do NOT find a huge difference between 1 1/8 mile races and 1 1/16 miles. I do see a big difference between 9 furlongs and 10; but I would not toss a horse out in a 1 1/8 mile race because they haven't won past 1 1/16 miles.
Take your business elsewhere, its no skin off of anyone's nose.
No one cares if you leave the industry.
You must work in track management! :lol:
Rookies
07-04-2009, 11:30 AM
The point of this thread is to out certian negative aspects of the industry which make no sense, perhaps even to the insiders who agreed to the criteria in the first place. As some have pointed out, THEY may not even know the original "why". I support almost all of these efforts, just like the one a while back on that fiasco, incomptetent decision at Penn to refund all rather than taking the time to eliminate the illegal betting outriders.
If you don't complain, it's the old adage: " Shit in, shit out. "
The industry is in big trouble. If they are to attract younger generations to keep it going, they need to smarten up- everywhere, correct deficiencies and explain themselves in an intelligent manner.
Relwob Owner
07-04-2009, 11:37 AM
Hi, first post here.
I don't think this is huge issue unless you're a figuremaker, but I don't deny that it is strange. I know at Philadelphia Park they have a 7-furlong turf course and 7 1/2 furlongs passes as a short "route" there. Why they do it when they can't time it, I don't know, but they've had those races for many years. To be honest, they probably haven't gotten many complaints about them because most bettors aren't making figures and aren't as sharp as you are CJ. We take what we're given and don't notice these finer points---maybe we should.
With the amount of figuremakers there are, I think it is a huge issue and CJ brings up a very good point IMO....the overwhelming majority of bettors use some sort of time based figures and it shows an amazing(well, not really, considering it is unfortunately the norm in racing) lack of regard for the bettors....I would disagree when you say they probably havent gotten many complains and would speculate that they probably have gotten complaints and one can only guess how they have handled them.............
Beginning Monday, I'm going to compile a list of all the tracks doing stupid things with their races. Be it running distances with no times, or fraudulent times, or running silly distances when their are other similar distances available. I'm going to write the tracks and see what kind of responses I get and I will post the answers.
I imagine I'll get that Don Quixote feeling, but what the hell.
njcurveball
07-04-2009, 04:34 PM
Beginning Monday, I'm going to compile a list of all the tracks doing stupid things with their races. Be it running distances with no times, or fraudulent times, or running silly distances when their are other similar distances available. I'm going to write the tracks and see what kind of responses I get and I will post the answers.
I imagine I'll get that Don Quixote feeling, but what the hell.
Why do this yourself? Isn't there already a group named HANA? Isn't the whole reason for having HANA issues EXACTLY like this?
Why do this yourself? Isn't there already a group named HANA? Isn't the whole reason for having HANA issues EXACTLY like this?
I would take the support, but I think there are probably more important issues that concern all horse players so I understand the focus being elsewhere.
Cangamble
07-04-2009, 04:54 PM
I'm a proponent of less distances...lets face it, the harness folks basically just run a mile other than special Xtreme days. And that is difficult enough to handicap.
Fort Erie got rid of 5 and a half furlongs a few years ago....good move.
The don't run maiden races going 6 and a half either, because they had a few incidences where horses ducked in where the rail chute ended and tried to go the wrong way...also a few threw their riders.
I wish they would get rid of the mile and seventy yard race.........everywhere.
I'm no fan of 7 furlong races except on bullrings.
rrbauer
07-04-2009, 06:23 PM
I would like it if one of the database folks could build a report by track of the number of races this year with 5 or less betting interests. Maybe if you're playing serial ("Pick") bets you're forced to deal with those races but we have to take a stand on this crap and not play them if we ever want to make them go away. Bitching about them won't change anything unless we withhold our money from them.
Relwob Owner
07-04-2009, 07:28 PM
Beginning Monday, I'm going to compile a list of all the tracks doing stupid things with their races. Be it running distances with no times, or fraudulent times, or running silly distances when their are other similar distances available. I'm going to write the tracks and see what kind of responses I get and I will post the answers.
I imagine I'll get that Don Quixote feeling, but what the hell.
Good cause and great idea.....one that someone pointed out to me is that at Delaware, they havent written a turf race less than seven and a half furlongs(a new distance, I believe) and there is no real reason why....maybe someone else on here can give more details but I dont know that track that well....looking forward to hearing the response you get!
I would like it if one of the database folks could build a report by track of the number of races this year with 5 or less betting interests. Maybe if you're playing serial ("Pick") bets you're forced to deal with those races but we have to take a stand on this crap and not play them if we ever want to make them go away. Bitching about them won't change anything unless we withhold our money from them.
First pass - 1187 with 5 or fewer horses.
I will have to look deeper to get out the entries, so that number will only go up.
I would like it if one of the database folks could build a report by track of the number of races this year with 5 or less betting interests.
Here are the worst offenders with at least 20 such races in 2009:
AQU 50
BEL 44
BEU 45
CD 25
CRC 25
CT 23
DEL 28
EMD 26
GG 153
GP 21
HAW 39
HOL 38
HST 24
LRL 52
MTH 36
NP 25
PHA 70
PID 20
PRM 26
RD 40
SA 39
TP 30
TUP 27
CincyHorseplayer
07-04-2009, 10:52 PM
I can just hear those idiot trainers, badgering the racing secretary
"A mile isn't far enough, and a mile and 70 is too far. Think you could card another mile and 40 race." You know these guys say that; if I was the racing secretary, I'd tell them that they must suck if they need a race THAT specific.
BTW, lets outlaw ALL 7.5 furlong races and limit 5.5 furlong races to 2YOs only. And the 1m 40 yards and 1m 70 yards should get booted as well.
Nice.I was about to say something similar.I had a vision of a trainer gazing off in the distance at a horse in the pasture at some Ritzy horse farm and saying to himself with utmost certainty "That horse is a mile forty yarder"!!
Java Gold@TFT
07-05-2009, 06:08 AM
Just watched a replay of the United Nations at Monmouth and according to the timer on the screen Precious Passion went the opening 1/4 in 19:4. Wow! :rolleyes:
Just watched a replay of the United Nations at Monmouth and according to the timer on the screen Precious Passion went the opening 1/4 in 19:4. Wow! :rolleyes:
I mentioned this in the thread about the horse. The other times are probably off as well. It is only a G1 race, why bother checking it a few times and getting it right?
andymays
07-05-2009, 09:20 AM
19.4 1st quarter is impossible!
OTM Al
07-05-2009, 09:29 AM
Here are the worst offenders with at least 20 such races in 2009:
You may want to filter this list for those races that were rained off the turf to get a truly accurate picture. It is silly to criticize if the track carded full field turf races only to have the weather decimate the fields.
You may want to filter this list for those races that were rained off the turf to get a truly accurate picture. It is silly to criticize if the track carded full field turf races only to have the weather decimate the fields.
Unless, that is, they card a bunch of turf races without looking at the weather forecast.
KingChas
07-05-2009, 11:29 AM
Why are races run at distances where fractions can't be recorded and final times are probably a joke?
They shouldn't run any races were fractions cannot be recorded properly.
They should not run races with almost distances.Agree
As far as the odd distances,if fractions can be recorded properly,no problem.The last thing I want to see in horseracing is total conformity.
Ala the baseball stadiums of the 70's.Philly,Cincy,Pitt etc.
Cangamble
07-05-2009, 12:06 PM
Here are the worst offenders with at least 20 such races in 2009:
AQU 50
BEL 44
BEU 45
CD 25
CRC 25
CT 23
DEL 28
EMD 26
GG 153
GP 21
HAW 39
HOL 38
HST 24
LRL 52
MTH 36
NP 25
PHA 70
PID 20
PRM 26
RD 40
SA 39
TP 30
TUP 27
Any way you can convert this list into percentage of total races at the track?
NYPlayer
07-05-2009, 10:00 PM
Beginning Monday, I'm going to compile a list of all the tracks doing stupid things with their races. Be it running distances with no times, or fraudulent times, or running silly distances when their are other similar distances available. I'm going to write the tracks and see what kind of responses I get and I will post the answers.
I imagine I'll get that Don Quixote feeling, but what the hell.
You may as well be tilting at windmills.
Ever thought of hand-timing the races from the replays? It would certainly be a better use of your time.
You may as well be tilting at windmills.
Ever thought of hand-timing the races from the replays? It would certainly be a better use of your time.
I just don't have that kind of time. Maybe some bad publicity will help.
Any way you can convert this list into percentage of total races at the track?
Sure,
Here they are sorted from worst to best:
GG17.4% MTH13.2% ARP12.5% BEL12.5% LRL11.2% HST10.9% RD10.4%HOL10.2% HAW10.0% NP9.9% DEL9.0% BEU8.8% PIM8.8% PHA7.7% AQU7.7%PRM7.4% ASD7.3% EMD7.3% PID7.0% CNL7.0% CD6.3% KEE6.3% CBY6.1% CRC6.1% SA6.1% PM5.6% TP5.2% AP5.1% FL3.8% TUP3.7% RUI3.6% FP3.5%GP3.1% FG2.9% IND2.6% FE2.5% CT2.3% WO2.3% PEN2.2% OP2.0% LS2.0%LA1.9% MNR1.5% SRP1.2% SUN0.9% SUF0.9% DED0.8% LAD0.8% TDN0.8%YAV0.8% FON0.6% EVD0.6% WRD0.6% RET0.4% TAM0.4%
johnhannibalsmith
07-06-2009, 01:24 PM
Having just joined in recently and read this thread, and now backtracking a few pages - from the perspective of someone that (among many things) has done tele-timing:
There is little to no excuse for unpublished fractional times. Equibase should always be provided with fractional times, even if those times do not readily appear as part of the 'live' graphics. There can always be tele-timing malfunctions or graphics display problems that cause for some information to be disseminated incorrectly or incompletely (or not at all), but that information should never be omitted from the final charts due to the (human) timer's lack of effort.
Occassionally, Equibase will decide against publishing fractional times that, in their estimation, can not be accurate or are compromised to such a degree as to be considered unreliable. Legitimate reasons - such as heavy winds that create severe tailwinds, headwinds, or cross winds or track conditions that implore riding in an otherwise illogical manner when those circumatances cannot be conveyed in a meaningful way in chart form - jump to mind.
As for missing internals on specific distances - If it is a consistent, regular (more than a few days) problem, then the track, in my opinion, needs to hire a (human) timer that can clock those intervals accurately.
A tele-timer is an infallible machine that relies on light sensors, essentially reflectors that trip when the beam is crossed, much like those nifty Hollywood spy film infrared security beams that Tom Cruise deftly avoids in whatever movie he is in this month.
The sensors and beams are usually well maintained, but can easily become misaligned due to weather or other circumstances. They can be prematurely tripped by birds, rain, droplets from water trucks, an obscure angle of the sun - you name it. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
Obviously, most places have people that can readily repair a malfunctioning or damaged cell (the sensor that 'reads' beam), but occassionally they won't, or the required electrical components simply are not 'at hand'. Sometimes the wiring just goes batty and the whole thing needs to be reworked.
The other important aspect to consider is that tele-timers work much like a circuit. The cells must be tripped in a proper sequence for it to work at all, which is actually a safe guard. For example, for a six furlong race, the computer is told to tele-time a six furlong race by the operator.
The computer then views the race as five unique events, START (6f pole), 1/4 (half pole), 1/2 (quarter pole), 5/8 (eighth pole), and FINISH (finish pole). The cells at each pole must be working properly for the tele-timer to accurately time the race.
If the 'START' pole works and the half-mile pole works, but surprisingly, the cell at the quarter pole is dead - what you will see is simply a quarter mile fraction and then - nothing! It will never register a half-mile split and simply continue to run until something, (usually a water truck nine minutes later) finally trips the next cell in the sequence, which is still after all of this time, the broken quarter pole cell.
So, often, if a track is aware that a cell is malfunctioning, they may choose to simply override the internal splits and simply use START and FINISH as the lone cells in the sequence, to ensure that the actual time of the race is in fact accurately tele-timed.
Other tracks may elect to manually input the internal (missing) split by changing that specific cell to gather information from a 'manual punch' by the operator as opposed to the mechanical (malfunctioning) cell itself.
Tracks vary on their protocol - but most places are adamant that any race considered 'hand timed', which includes a race in which the sequence is interrupted by a 'manual punch', is an 'illegitimate time' - and can not be relied upon as accurate, particularly for important data such as track records.
So, that may account for those tracks that prefer to 'tele-time' accurately, but without internals. The solution is to fix the tele-timing cells promptly and if you don't have a cell for the proper split - get one, hand time it and call it as much, or stop running the distance.
Thanks for reading all seventy eleven paragraphs if you are still here.
andymays
07-06-2009, 01:58 PM
johnhannibalsmith good first post and welcome!
BlueShoe
07-06-2009, 02:58 PM
No surprise as to the runaway winner in this short field derby,both in total number and percentage of short field races;Golden Gate.What a mess;bah.
Alan Wight
07-06-2009, 03:06 PM
The sensors and beams are usually well maintained, but can easily become misaligned due to weather or other circumstances. They can be prematurely tripped by birds, rain, droplets from water trucks, an obscure angle of the sun - you name it. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
What happens when a riderless horse trips the beam first?
beertapper
07-06-2009, 05:22 PM
this should be a metric that HANA uses...
is there some way to create a weighted average ?... some tracks have really short meets
not surprised at tampa being the best... :ThmbUp: good track and looking forward to opening day this winter
andymays
07-06-2009, 05:55 PM
As Cincy says, the times at 1m40y are a joke. No way is it a safety issue unless they don't have basic maintenance equipment.
Finally got a response from Thistledown and this is it:
Andy,
According to Director of Racing Bill Couch, Thistledown does not card races at a mile and 40 yards. When you see a race at a mile and 40 yards, it's because a race that was scheduled for a MILE attracted a field of over 10 horses. A rule change, prompted by the riders, dictates that mile races go to a mile and 40 yards when the field is large. Mile races with 10 or more starters get to the first turn too quickly for the jockeys who feel it's a safety issue.
As for mile and 70 yard races, Mr. Couch says trainers want them. He said that such races are huge with horsemen, who think a mile and a sixteenth ( which is 40 yard longer) rates a distant second compared to mile and 70 yard races.
Bob Roberts
Thistledown publicity
johnhannibalsmith
07-06-2009, 07:25 PM
What happens when a riderless horse trips the beam first?
Most systems use a 'run switch', a simple toggle that the operator switches 'on' when all horses are loaded to activate the system. Since there is a slight run-up distance from the gate to the first pole, hopefully the operator can toggle the 'run switch' off before a horse breaks the beam.
If the horse breaks loose, or more commonly depending upon where he/she stands during the load, the starter crosses the beam prior to dispatch, the operator toggles the run switch back to off and then resets the timer before the start and tries again.
That part can get a little hairy with a starter that stands behind the gate until just prior to the last horse loading and then walks out to the cord, which they invariable place in close proximity to the START cell. But, once the operator is familiar with a starter's nuances and is quick with the system, it usually isn't terribly difficult to orchestrate the method...
...you better get smooth and proficient or you take a heap of abuse from folks watching and typing from home...
Finally got a response from Thistledown and this is it:
Andy,
According to Director of Racing Bill Couch, Thistledown does not card races at a mile and 40 yards. When you see a race at a mile and 40 yards, it's because a race that was scheduled for a MILE attracted a field of over 10 horses. A rule change, prompted by the riders, dictates that mile races go to a mile and 40 yards when the field is large. Mile races with 10 or more starters get to the first turn too quickly for the jockeys who feel it's a safety issue.
As for mile and 70 yard races, Mr. Couch says trainers want them. He said that such races are huge with horsemen, who think a mile and a sixteenth ( which is 40 yard longer) rates a distant second compared to mile and 70 yard races.
Bob Roberts
Thistledown publicity
So why not just care 1m 70 yard races? Totally asinine response from the track. But, it proves my point. Jockeys concerns, trainer concerns, but no concern for the bettor.
proximity
07-06-2009, 09:18 PM
this should be a metric that HANA uses...
is there some way to create a weighted average ?... some tracks have really short meets
not surprised at tampa being the best... :ThmbUp: good track and looking forward to opening day this winter
actually tampa should lose a couple h.a.n.a. points per this thread though because i think they just started carding those hokey 1m 40y races in the past year or two. :)
Cratos
07-06-2009, 10:59 PM
So why not just care 1m 70 yard races? Totally asinine response from the track. But, it proves my point. Jockeys concerns, trainer concerns, but no concern for the bettor.
A very astute observation; you are hitting on all cylinders. Also run-ups don’t make any sense because the starting gate is supposed to align the horses for the start.
Also the timing beam can be brought to point that is a tangent line across the front of the horses in the gate and once the gate is open it is every horse for itself
The last thing I want to see in horseracing is total conformity.
Ala the baseball stadiums of the 70's.Philly,Cincy,Pitt etc.
Fair point.
fmolf
07-07-2009, 08:55 AM
A very astute observation; you are hitting on all cylinders. Also run-ups don’t make any sense because the starting gate is supposed to align the horses for the start.
Also the timing beam can be brought to point that is a tangent line across the front of the horses in the gate and once the gate is open it is every horse for itself
I wonder why the timer is not attached to one of the starting gates say the #1 gate when it opens the races timer is started.If all tracks did this simple thing after a year or year and a half we would have uniform times to work with across all tracks.No confusing run up numbers.this could be done wirelessly.I print my pp's with a wireless connection i know this can be done!
actually tampa should lose a couple h.a.n.a. points per this thread though because i think they just started carding those hokey 1m 40y races in the past year or two. :)
They've run several, and a few years prior they called them 'About' one mile.
Pace Cap'n
07-07-2009, 06:43 PM
I wonder why the timer is not attached to one of the starting gates say the #1 gate when it opens the races timer is started.If all tracks did this simple thing after a year or year and a half we would have uniform times to work with across all tracks.No confusing run up numbers.this could be done wirelessly.I print my pp's with a wireless connection i know this can be done!
What might happen then could be called a "hidden run-up"...if the gate was positioned anywhere other than the EXACT mark for a specific distance (say it's 20' or 30' back) then final times revert to guesswork.
fmolf
07-07-2009, 08:14 PM
What might happen then could be called a "hidden run-up"...if the gate was positioned anywhere other than the EXACT mark for a specific distance (say it's 20' or 30' back) then final times revert to guesswork.
If the gate is not positioned at the same spot for all the different races the tele beam and runup distance is useless anyway.
I just thought of another, different, way tracks have overlooked us. Do any bettors gain anything because of the rescinding of the claiming "jail" rule that has happened over the last decade? Of course not, it is all about horsemen.
johnhannibalsmith
07-08-2009, 12:56 AM
What bettors get, or as was the intent for the most part, is larger field sizes. Tracks simply cannot afford to be forcing people to either run in spots that they don't want to/won't or force them to wait thirty days. If a guy claims a horse and wants to run back for the same price in 15 days, that's one more horse in a field that wouldn't have been there prior to the rescinding of the rule. As near as I can tell, field size seems of paramount importance to the bettor.
What bettors get, or as was the intent for the most part, is larger field sizes. Tracks simply cannot afford to be forcing people to either run in spots that they don't want to/won't or force them to wait thirty days. If a guy claims a horse and wants to run back for the same price in 15 days, that's one more horse in a field that wouldn't have been there prior to the rescinding of the rule. As near as I can tell, field size seems of paramount importance to the bettor.
With the proliferation of huge stables, notably super trainers, many enter these horses in spots that make the race unplayable anyway, regardless of field size.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.