Trakus Beaten Lengths

[Tom]

Anyone ever look closely at the trakus charts at DelMar or Kee? (Not sure WO had them?)

Not too far into it yet, but I am finding the time for a BL is not consistent and wondered if anyone else has seen this. I've only looked a few races, but I've seen enough variation to make we really question it.
As an example, DelMar, R5, 9/9/09 Turf, 1m16....Victory Pete ran third timed in 141.06, one length ahead of Get Funky, times in 141.26, so 1 length = .20.
Get Funky is one length ahead of Buenos Dias, timed in 141.41, so 1 length here = .15.

I have so far seen 1 length = .15 up to .23....if I round all out to .20, then that says 1/5 = 1 length is correct, but isn't the generally dismissed as an inaccurate rule of thumb? So much for timing in hundredths?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Anyone ever look closely at the trakus charts at DelMar or Kee? (Not sure WO had them?)

Not too far into it yet, but I am finding the time for a BL is not consistent and wondered if anyone else has seen this. I've only looked a few races, but I've seen enough variation to make we really question it.
As an example, DelMar, R5, 9/9/09 Turf, 1m16....Victory Pete ran third timed in 141.06, one length ahead of Get Funky, times in 141.26, so 1 length = .20.
Get Funky is one length ahead of Buenos Dias, timed in 141.41, so 1 length here = .15.

I have so far seen 1 length = .15 up to .23....if I round all out to .20, then that says 1/5 = 1 length is correct, but isn't the generally dismissed as an inaccurate rule of thumb? So much for timing in hundredths?
Maybe there was a strong wind at their backs in the stretch that day :)

[Backstretch Pirate]

As the horses approach the wire, their rates of decceleration will vary widely.
One horse may still be going reasonably well, while the other one is essentialy stopping dead.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I just checked a race. Trakus has the second horse running faster than the winner:


Start 1/4 1/2 3/4 Mile Finish

Tap Show
1Neck
3:14.45

Lifes Not a Breeze
23/4
3:14.41

Include Us
3Head
3:14.61

Mack's Blackhawk
4Head
3:14.61

Paullinus
56 1/2
3:14.61

Criminal Power
64 1/2
3:15.88

Deputy Lor
71 3/4
3:16.77

Faye's Gray
81/4
3:17.15

Silent Knight
9Head
3:17.25

Regal Storm
101/2
3:17.26

Christo
114
3:17.34

Parabola
1218
3:18.29

Aggressive Joe
1317 1/2
3:22.78

King Cayenne
14
3:27.62
Race Notes: Win and Fourth Photo.

3tB5OhahYBE

[Backstretch Pirate]

Clearly then, trakus is out to lunch.

[BillW]

That's well within the error of the Trakus system.

I just checked a race. Trakus has the second horse running faster than the winner:


Start 1/4 1/2 3/4 Mile Finish

Tap Show
1Neck
3:14.45

Lifes Not a Breeze
23/4
3:14.41

[46zilzal]

I just checked a race. Trakus has the second horse running faster than the winner:



I any horse has a wider trip, and thereby covers more ground, there is a chance that it could run faster than another and yet be further back at the wire.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I any horse has a wider trip, and thereby covers more ground, there is a chance that it could run faster than another and yet be further back at the wire.
How exactly does that work? Trakus times aren't adjusted to distance covered by the horse are they? All the other times in the race are in the right order of finish.

[Tom]

That was my point - if time is not used to calculate the BL, then what is?

[BillW]

How exactly does that work? Trakus times aren't adjusted to distance covered by the horse are they? All the other times in the race are in the right order of finish.

No they're not. You have to understand that Trakus has an error. It can't pinpoint a horse to the exact .01 inches. It's error is +/- 2 feet and is sampled every 1/30th of a second (as of the last time I talked to them - maybe 2 years ago) which adds additional error (the software can possibly compensate for the sampling error). In addition the position of the trakus device is variable, i.e. it is not glued on the point of the nose. For finishes, the photo is much more accurate. With Trakus it is entirely possible to show the order of any 2 horses reversed from reality.

[BillW]

That was my point - if time is not used to calculate the BL, then what is?

I think that the problem you are seeing is that the photo is used to calculate BL's (as it should) but not used to correct for the Trakus error. i.e. the Trakus data you are looking at is the raw data.

BTW, using Trakus for intermediate BL's should be more accurate than the chart caller because they don't have the benefit of a photo at each call.

[Show Me the Wire]

I would guess beaten lengths would vary according to ground loss related to the wideness from or nearness to the front horse.

[kenwoodallpromos]

1/5 or .20 seconds X 660 = 132 seconds, or 2:12.00 minutes
1 "length" (8') X 660 = 1 mile
No equine runs that slow.'
Do not believe any distance that is based on time. It is always inaccurate, even Trakus. Convert to your own ' per second based on inner rail distance. All the bumping in the race will not cause a horse to be pushed wide enough toactually lose much distance. If the horse goes further in the same race as an opponent it is the fault of the horse and/or connections. All you can do is measure the Trakus feet per second if you so wish.

[DJofSD]

Velocity (or speed, if you must) is the change in distance over a period of time:

v = delta distance / delta time, or v = dx/dt .

Algebra allows these to be written:

dx = v * dt .

Trakus is giving you the dt, delta time or the difference in time. Unless you know the value for v, velocity, you can not determine the change in distance.

As another poster has already pointed out, the runners are decelerating, that is, their velocity is changing, so, that value you want for v is going to be changing albeit by a small value.

Given enough Trakus data and a small enough difference in the time differences, you can make good estimations for the values.

For me, this represents the Holy Grail of pace handicapping and will allow expansion into other areas of investigation.

[cj]

I agree, this will be very good stuff once the chart callers become transcribers of Trakus info at all tracks.

However, there is no excuse to report times with the second finisher faster than the first. You have to build some error checking in to fix minor issues like this.

[DeanT]

I have never looked at it at the end of WOX tbred races, but I do check it for harness regularly. As 46 alluded, trips in harness are important for ground saving, as you have the bike and want plenty of room. Horses who go wide can travel a ton further than pocket trip horses from the rail, and they will be rated going faster than the winner at times. I think this is accurate and trackus seems to show this very well.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I have never looked at it at the end of WOX tbred races, but I do check it for harness regularly. As 46 alluded, trips in harness are important for ground saving, as you have the bike and want plenty of room. Horses who go wide can travel a ton further than pocket trip horses from the rail, and they will be rated going faster than the winner at times. I think this is accurate and trackus seems to show this very well.
I accept Bill's explanation of margin for error. As far as I know, the times do not take the trip into account at all. It is simply supposed to be the time the first horse breaks the beam to the individual time each horse finishes the race.
Now if they are using the time the individual horse breaks the beam, that could possible account for the differences too.

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't think once the beam is broken (activated) it resets to time each individual horse.

[46zilzal]

I don't think once the beam is broken (activated) it resets to time each individual horse.
But the timing and placing SOFTWARE does that: i.e., Finish Lynx

Our stewards use this all the time to determine which pacers need to re-qualify

[Cratos]

Velocity (or speed, if you must) is the change in distance over a period of time:

v = delta distance / delta time, or v = dx/dt .

Algebra allows these to be written:

dx = v * dt .

Trakus is giving you the dt, delta time or the difference in time. Unless you know the value for v, velocity, you can not determine the change in distance.

As another poster has already pointed out, the runners are decelerating, that is, their velocity is changing, so, that value you want for v is going to be changing albeit by a small value.

Given enough Trakus data and a small enough difference in the time differences, you can make good estimations for the values.

For me, this represents the Holy Grail of pace handicapping and will allow expansion into other areas of investigation.

Speed and velocity are not the same. Speed is how fast something is going or the magnitude of change with respect to time.

Velocity is directional; it means which way you’re going. For example, if you’re running in a circle, then your velocity is constantly changing, because your direction is changing. But your speed doesn’t change at all unless you start running faster or slower.

[Cratos]

How exactly does that work? Trakus times aren't adjusted to distance covered by the horse are they? All the other times in the race are in the right order of finish.

A length is distance traveled, therefore:

d = vt + (1/2)a*tsquared

Where d is distance traveled in a certain amount of time (t), v is starting velocity, a is acceleration (must be constant), and t is time. This gives you the distance traveled during a certain amount of time. If you know any three of those things, you can plug them in to solve for the fourth.

[cj]

I have never looked at it at the end of WOX tbred races, but I do check it for harness regularly. As 46 alluded, trips in harness are important for ground saving, as you have the bike and want plenty of room. Horses who go wide can travel a ton further than pocket trip horses from the rail, and they will be rated going faster than the winner at times. I think this is accurate and trackus seems to show this very well.

I understand that some horses may cover more ground and thus have a faster rate of speed, but that doesn't excuse reporting a faster final time. It isn't a huge deal, but it is something that should be fixed.

[DJofSD]

Speed and velocity are not the same. Speed is how fast something is going or the magnitude of change with respect to time.

Velocity is directional; it means which way you’re going. For example, if you’re running in a circle, then your velocity is constantly changing, because your direction is changing. But your speed doesn’t change at all unless you start running faster or slower.
Ya, I understand that. That's why I said "speed, if you must". Vectors v. magnitude is covered in 1st term lower division physics.

[ranchwest]

I agree, this will be very good stuff once the chart callers become transcribers of Trakus info at all tracks.

However, there is no excuse to report times with the second finisher faster than the first. You have to build some error checking in to fix minor issues like this.

I agree.

The biggest advantage of Trakus is in the split times, not the final time. We can derive how the final times are calculated from callers. We can't figure out the split times from callers.

[Tom]

I agree.

The biggest advantage of Trakus is in the split times, not the final time. We can derive how the final times are calculated from callers. We can't figure out the split times from callers.

Next step I have is to look at the pace call data.
But moreso there, what determines a length? Time?

[cj]

Next step I have is to look at the pace call data.
But moreso there, what determines a length? Time?

Trakus will be of the most use when they scrap lengths and just give times and ground lost at each point of call for each horse.

After the 100m final in the Olympics, they don't give me "beaten lengths" of the runners behind the winner. There is no need for arbitrary units of measure any longer.

[ranchwest]

Next step I have is to look at the pace call data.
But moreso there, what determines a length? Time?

IMHO, the split time Trakus lengths should be tied to a specific distance per length.

So, if a length is 8 feet and the half time is 49 flat and the beaten lengths is 4...

The distance is 2640 feet (half mile) minus (4*8=32) feet = 2608 feet.

The time is 49.

So, we calculate the velocity from there, 53.22 fps.

I want to know the velocity at the time the leader trips the split. This sets the positions at the split, with no horse able to increase position after the leader trips the split.

We can't do that at the finish because the trailing horses can still move up in position. So, to get the positions right at the finish we have to have the time when each horse crosses the wire.

I'm sure others may have a different position, but that's mine.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Trakus will be of the most use when they scrap lengths and just give times and ground lost at each point of call for each horse.

After the 100m final in the Olympics, they don't give me "beaten lengths" of the runners behind the winner. There is no need for arbitrary units of measure any longer.
Yeah, as long as the winner's time is less than the rest of the field :)

But I agree, I would rather have actual times, and not see arbitrary lengths anymore.

[Tom]

Trakus will be of the most use when they scrap lengths and just give times and ground lost at each point of call for each horse.

After the 100m final in the Olympics, they don't give me "beaten lengths" of the runners behind the winner. There is no need for arbitrary units of measure any longer.

Amen.....such a good idea, I doubt it will ever happen.:rolleyes:

[Tom]

IMHO, the split time Trakus lengths should be tied to a specific distance per length.

So, if a length is 8 feet and the half time is 49 flat and the beaten lengths is 4...



that is my point - who says it is 4? Where does the 4 come from?

[ranchwest]

that is my point - who says it is 4? Where does the 4 come from?

The 4 comes from Trakus calculating 32 feet, then using a fixed 8 feet per length and arriving at 4 lengths. If we know for certain that a length is considered 8 feet, then there is no ambiguity.

Handicapping has always been based on positioning at the time when the first horse trips the split and then when the individual horses cross the wire. Admittedly, the current common methodology for actually doing this is not ideal, but do we want to change the basic premise when we could keep it and improve the methodology? I don't want to change the basic premise.

[Cratos]

Ya, I understand that. That's why I said "speed, if you must". Vectors v. magnitude is covered in 1st term lower division physics.

Sorry, I missed that class

[Cratos]

Trakus will be of the most use when they scrap lengths and just give times and ground lost at each point of call for each horse.

After the 100m final in the Olympics, they don't give me "beaten lengths" of the runners behind the winner. There is no need for arbitrary units of measure any longer.

Excellent

[FenceBored]

I just checked a race. Trakus has the second horse running faster than the winner:


Start 1/4 1/2 3/4 Mile Finish

Tap Show
1Neck
3:14.45

Lifes Not a Breeze
23/4
3:14.41



Does the timing of the race for each horse start (A) when it passes the timing pole, or (B) when the first horse passes the timing pole? In a non-Trakus timed race the answer is (B). If Trakus times each horse individually (start when it passes the timing pole and stop when it passes the finish), then this should happen sometimes. If two horses run the timed distance in the same time, the horse who "won" the run-up will win the race.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Does the timing of the race for each horse start (A) when it passes the timing pole, or (B) when the first horse passes the timing pole? In a non-Trakus timed race the answer is (B). If Trakus times each horse individually (start when it passes the timing pole and stop when it passes the finish), then this should happen sometimes. If two horses run the timed distance in the same time, the horse who "won" the run-up will win the race.
In a later post, I came to the same conclusion as this being a possibility as to what happened.

[Tom]

Here is what I am concerned with - the Trakus data say A beat B by a length and B beat C by a length, but the times of the two "lengths" is not the same.
What is making it to the PPs? In spite of this high tech stuff, we still get a 19th century report - the PPs.

[ranchwest]

Here is what I am concerned with - the Trakus data say A beat B by a length and B beat C by a length, but the times of the two "lengths" is not the same.
What is making it to the PPs? In spite of this high tech stuff, we still get a 19th century report - the PPs.

It is clear from our posts that the message of what Trakus is doing is not reaching us.

[therussmeister]

Here is what I am concerned with - the Trakus data say A beat B by a length and B beat C by a length, but the times of the two "lengths" is not the same.
What is making it to the PPs? In spite of this high tech stuff, we still get a 19th century report - the PPs.
The designation of 1 length is too crude. One could have been slightly more than a length, while the other is slightly less than a length.

[bobphilo]

Trakus will be of the most use when they scrap lengths and just give times and ground lost at each point of call for each horse.

After the 100m final in the Olympics, they don't give me "beaten lengths" of the runners behind the winner. There is no need for arbitrary units of measure any longer.

Precisely. The whole point of using beaten lengths was to estimate each of the other horses' time when the leader is the only one who broke the beam, and therefore the only horse who's time is known precisely. Trakus can give each horse's individual time without resorting to beaten lengths intermediary so they shouldn't even bother with them.

I can see how with Trakus the 2nd horse's time would be faster than the leader if you time each horse seperately from the time each broke the starting beam. If the winner broke the beam before the 2nd place horse by X fractions of a second and the 2nd place horse finishes less than X fractions of a second behind the leader, he really did run the race distance (from starter beam to finish) faster than the winner.

With traditional timing, the race starts for the whole field as soon as the leader breaks the starter beam. The only way to do away with these discrepancies is to start timing every race from the gate, like they do in Quarterhorse racing and in the Olympics.

Bob

[raybo]

Anyone ever look closely at the trakus charts at DelMar or Kee? (Not sure WO had them?)

Not too far into it yet, but I am finding the time for a BL is not consistent and wondered if anyone else has seen this. I've only looked a few races, but I've seen enough variation to make we really question it.
As an example, DelMar, R5, 9/9/09 Turf, 1m16....Victory Pete ran third timed in 141.06, one length ahead of Get Funky, times in 141.26, so 1 length = .20.
Get Funky is one length ahead of Buenos Dias, timed in 141.41, so 1 length here = .15.

I have so far seen 1 length = .15 up to .23....if I round all out to .20, then that says 1/5 = 1 length is correct, but isn't the generally dismissed as an inaccurate rule of thumb? So much for timing in hundredths?

This is exactly why I don't use a "static" time per beaten length, but rather, a "variable" time per beaten length, based on the fractional leader's time. If the fraction is run faster, the time for a beaten length is less than when the fraction is slower.

It makes perfect sense to me that using a "static" time per beaten length, regardless of the speed the horses are running, is a built-in error in one's adjustments. The faster they run the less time it takes to cover a length.

One would either need to vary the distance of a length or the time it takes to run a static length distance.

It's not that difficult to calculate a variable time per length. It boils down to finding out how long it took fractional leaders to run one static length, for each fraction. This is the time per beaten length for each particular fraction. Simply multiply that time per length with each horses' beaten lengths, for that fraction. To get the entire race's average time per beaten length simply average all the fractions' times per beaten length, using the winner's time and the total distance of the race

[CBedo]

Here is what I am concerned with - the Trakus data say A beat B by a length and B beat C by a length, but the times of the two "lengths" is not the same.
What is making it to the PPs? In spite of this high tech stuff, we still get a 19th century report - the PPs.Have you tried asking Trakus?

[ranchwest]

This is exactly why I don't use a "static" time per beaten length, but rather, a "variable" time per beaten length, based on the fractional leader's time. If the fraction is run faster, the time for a beaten length is less than when the fraction is slower.

It makes perfect sense to me that using a "static" time per beaten length, regardless of the speed the horses are running, is a built-in error in one's adjustments. The faster they run the less time it takes to cover a length.

One would either need to vary the distance of a length or the time it takes to run a static length distance.

It's not that difficult to calculate a variable time per length. It boils down to finding out how long it took fractional leaders to run one static length, for each fraction. This is the time per beaten length for each particular fraction. Simply multiply that time per length with each horses' beaten lengths, for that fraction. To get the entire race's average time per beaten length simply average all the fractions' times per beaten length, using the winner's time and the total distance of the race

I don't think you've carefully considered my suggestion. If we know the fairly exact time the first horse tripped the split and we know the fairly exact distance of the split and we know the fairly exact beaten distance, then we don't need to consider acceleration/deceleration to determine the speed for that split. We have a specific time and distance and that encapsulates the speed we seek.

The main objection here to a length seems to be the practice of rounding of the length value. There's nothing mandatory about rounding. The beaten lengths could just as easily be expressed in hundredths of a length.

There's no reason why we can't be specific, exact and unambiguous and yet continue to work from the same basic premise as we've always used, just more precisely.

There's nothing inherently wrong with beaten lengths. The problem is in the guestimates and rounding with which we currently endure.

In fact, I suggest that beaten lengths are actually an advantage to the serious handicapper who knows it is a very simple matter to convert the beaten lengths to fps or mph.

[ranchwest]

continuing...

Of course, all we require at the finish is the time. However, if we have a formula that can consistently and precisely get us back to the exact time of each horse, then using lengths is not really a problem.

[raybo]

I don't think you've carefully considered my suggestion. If we know the fairly exact time the first horse tripped the split and we know the fairly exact distance of the split and we know the fairly exact beaten distance, then we don't need to consider acceleration/deceleration to determine the speed for that split. We have a specific time and distance and that encapsulates the speed we seek.

The main objection here to a length seems to be the practice of rounding of the length value. There's nothing mandatory about rounding. The beaten lengths could just as easily be expressed in hundredths of a length.

There's no reason why we can't be specific, exact and unambiguous and yet continue to work from the same basic premise as we've always used, just more precisely.

There's nothing inherently wrong with beaten lengths. The problem is in the guestimates and rounding with which we currently endure.

In fact, I suggest that beaten lengths are actually an advantage to the serious handicapper who knows it is a very simple matter to convert the beaten lengths to fps or mph.

I guess we're trying to arrive at the same thing in different manners. I'm finding the leader's average speed in each fraction and determining how much time it takes for that leader to run a length, then applying that time to the beaten lengths for the other horses. This is a variable time per beaten length based on the average pace (or speed) for each fraction. Then just average these fractional times per beaten lengths to get the average time per beaten length for the final time and apply that to the other horses final beaten lengths.

With the current state of affairs in racing I find this to be the most accurate method of adjusting fractional and final times for each horse in the race. So many handicappers are still using 1/5 second or some other static time to adjust the leader's and winner's times. That method cannot be as accurate as it could be, obviously, at least it's obvious to me and others here and elsewhere.

Of course the only truly accurate way would be for the tracks to record each horse's fractional and final times as each breaks the beam at the fractional call points and at the finish line. But, that's not likely to happen, in my lifetime anyway.

This method is only one step in determining the energy expenditure of each horse, in each of their pacelines, in order to determine their capabilities and their expected abilities in today's race, when compared to the other competitors.

[ranchwest]

I don't really want to know when every horse crosses the split. I want to know how far off the pace the horse was when the leader crossed the split. I don't want that affected by acceleration after the leader crossed the split.

[Tom]

Have you tried asking Trakus?
I will, but I want to have several good, specific examples to use when I do.
Not sure if I will get a reply from them. In my third week waiting for a reply from Track Master, the internet home of customer service! :rolleyes::lol:

[Tom]

I don't really want to know when every horse crosses the split. I want to know how far off the pace the horse was when the leader crossed the split. I don't want that affected by acceleration after the leader crossed the split.

Yes, me too. What I want to know is, what is it that occurred in the real world that has been massages, transposed, adjusted, whatever, into what ends up in the PPs. T_F_M made the comment he knows he is getting reliable data from Trakus tracks.....I do not accept that as fact without knowing how they translate reality into a PP.

[raybo]

I don't really want to know when every horse crosses the split. I want to know how far off the pace the horse was when the leader crossed the split. I don't want that affected by acceleration after the leader crossed the split.

That's fine, and as it is now, that's all that the data can provide us with directly, however, having both the lengths behind and the actual times each horse crossed the beams would be ideal. One could then determine, more accurately, at what point and of what duration added energy was expended by each horse. "Races within races" would then be more visible, without having to analyze race videos, etc.. We already have enough analysis to do, as it is.

[46zilzal]

The OLD Hong Kong form used to have great charts: No splits, but they showed you a photo of each major call so you could figure them out yourself. Good stuff.

[HuggingTheRail]

The OLD Hong Kong form used to have great charts: No splits, but they showed you a photo of each major call so you could figure them out yourself. Good stuff.

They are still available online...they post 4 pictures usually....1/2 mile from finish, quarter mile from finish, eighth from finish, and finish.

[Tom]

Looked all over Woodbine's website - no sign of Trakus charts. I emailed to find out why.

I did find this on the Trakus site:

Trakus has been shown to be accurate, reliable, and
consistent with existing techniques for timing and scoring

That is not too reassuring! Existing techniques are outdated, unreliable, incorrect, and often worthless! :lol:

[harness2008]

From what I'm digesting by reading these posts, the question is does Trakus incorporate the extra feet covered by horses on turns in their calculation of time? This would explain the apparent anomoly of listing a second place finisher with a faster time than the winner. In fact it can be the only explanation.

I know that this is too much of a simplistic answer to the problem but if the second horse covered additional ground compared to the winner of the race and the two were relatively close at the wire, then of course the second place horse would have an adjusted time for the exact race distance faster than the winner.

This can easily be computed based on the actual feet run by a horse and its final time, calculated to the actual distance of the race. Hopefully someday all past performances will include the total feet covered by a horse in a race which will be a heyday for all of the math people out there who can then compute an adjusted time for each based on the extra feet covered in a race, and adjust their speed figs accordingly.

[startngate]

Does the timing of the race for each horse start (A) when it passes the timing pole, or (B) when the first horse passes the timing pole? In a non-Trakus timed race the answer is (B). If Trakus times each horse individually (start when it passes the timing pole and stop when it passes the finish), then this should happen sometimes. If two horses run the timed distance in the same time, the horse who "won" the run-up will win the race.We have a winner!

Trackus times each horse individually, it does not time the leader and calculate a time for the rest. Think drag racing ... there are many occurances in that sport where the winner of the race doesn't have the fastest elapsed time.

For those who think that showing a final time for the second place finisher as being less than the winner is 'incorrect' then to fix this issue in the charts, they would have to start every horse's clock when the first horse crossed the official 'start' pole.

Of course you could still have the problem with tight finishes due to the accuracy issues of the transmitter (2 feet apparently) and where the transmitter was placed on the horse (since it's not on the nose).

[ranchwest]

We have a winner!

Trackus times each horse individually, it does not time the leader and calculate a time for the rest. Think drag racing ... there are many occurances in that sport where the winner of the race doesn't have the fastest elapsed time.

For those who think that showing a final time for the second place finisher as being less than the winner is 'incorrect' then to fix this issue in the charts, they would have to start every horse's clock when the first horse crossed the official 'start' pole.

Of course you could still have the problem with tight finishes due to the accuracy issues of the transmitter (2 feet apparently) and where the transmitter was placed on the horse (since it's not on the nose).

That's just quibbling about 2 feet. I think if you watch races closely and study the charts you'll find a good percentage of cases that are off more than 2 feet. It's pretty difficult to tell the difference between 7 lengths and 8 1/2 lengths. And, they don't usually sort out 21 lengths or 21 1/4 lengths (about two feet difference).

[BIG49010]

Does anybody on the board work thru the Trakus charts for Woodbine or any other tracks on a regular basis?

If so is there an easy way to pull them up, seems like it takes a long time to load, etc.?

What do you look for, fast mph horses, extra lengths traveled, etc?

Thanks

[Robert Fischer]

Does anybody on the board work thru the Trakus charts for Woodbine or any other tracks on a regular basis?

If so is there an easy way to pull them up, seems like it takes a long time to load, etc.?

What do you look for, fast mph horses, extra lengths traveled, etc?

Thanks
The interface is very slow. I' just watch the videos, but will use trakus as a chart substitue for some races

one thing you can look at is the final fraction numbers, and look at the "cumulative mph" for the race.

i like to compare horses that made similar moves for ground loss.

in the early fractions of certain races ground loss (gate to turn) is big as well.