View Full Version : How are distances calculated in US races?
UK View
10-21-2010, 11:07 AM
Hi all,
Just wondered how official distances are recorded in US races and especially the Breeders Cup this year?
In the UK distances are calculated as follows....
TURF RACES
Good or quicker 6 lengths per second
Good (G to S) in places 5.5 lps
G to S (Good) in places 5.5 lps
Good to Soft 5.5 lps
Good to Soft (Soft) in places 5.5 lps
Soft or slower 5 lengths per second
AW
Polytrack (similar to pro ride) 6 lengths per second
Fibresand (as close to dirt as we get over here) 5 lengths per second.
Many thanks in advance if anyone can answer this one... :)
DJofSD
10-21-2010, 11:18 AM
I appears you are asking what is the value of a beaten length.
Good luck with that. The values range from 7 to 10 feet depending upon who does the math, how much massaging they do to get their numbers the way they want them and different theories about how horses run.
I'm sure if you used the search facility on this forum, you'd find plenty of threads discussing the topic.
UK View
10-21-2010, 11:29 AM
Thanks.
Are you telling me that there is no official method on how winning distances are calculated?
DJofSD
10-21-2010, 11:54 AM
To the best of my knowledge, it is strictly what the race caller estimates. If I am incorrect, I am sure others reading this will correct me.
There is a newer data acquisition system in use at a few race tracks in the USA and Canada that is called TRAKUS. It uses radio signals from devices on each runner during the race. When I am watching a race that employees the system while on track or at an OTB, on the bottom of the track feed showing the race there will be a series of colored dots or squares with the number of the horses. Those dots or squares are showing you the TRAKUS data in near real time. Usually the track feed eventually will show a table of total distances covered by each runner, some of which will be negative values, i.e. that runner covered less distance than the winner.
I mention TRAKUS because the telemetry is collected and becomes data similar to what we are used to here in the USA except in much finer details and, in theory, more accurate. The raw data is for each horses location during the race and is not a relative position to the leader. It is where they are located at any given moment on the race track. And while there are some issues some might have such as the transmitter is not on the horses nose, it does go a long way towards obtaining more accurate information.
Thanks.
Are you telling me that there is no official method on how winning distances are calculated?
Winning distances? There is an official method, but it is a closely guarded secret for some reason by the various photo finish companies.
FenceBored
10-21-2010, 12:03 PM
Winning distances? There is an official method, but it is a closely guarded secret for some reason by the various photo finish companies.
If you were them, would you publish a picture of a guy holding a ruler up to the monitor?
DJofSD
10-21-2010, 12:12 PM
Ruler, they use a ruler? Wow. And here I thought they just used their thumb or hand.
UK View
10-21-2010, 12:19 PM
thanks guys.
I'm amazed that there seems to be no certain answer on this.
As an example (say polytrack in the UK), if the winner of a race beats the runner up by 0.6 seconds it is said to have won by an official distance of three and a half lengths (6* x 0.6 = 3.6 rounded down to 3.5)
*6 lengths per second
Show Me the Wire
10-21-2010, 01:22 PM
The traditional calculation based on the finish camera is in 5ths, 5 lengths per second.
The traditional calculation based on the finish camera is in 5ths, 5 lengths per second.
That isn't true.
Show Me the Wire
10-21-2010, 01:35 PM
That isn't true.
Why?
The beaten lengths are calculated at the finish line. The traditional measurement is in 5ths. The printed daily racing form prints time in 5ths.
Now tell me the above is not true.
mountainman
10-21-2010, 01:37 PM
To the best of my knowledge, it is strictly what the race caller estimates. If I am incorrect, I am sure others reading this will correct me.
Beaten lengths are marked off to facilitate counting on the same film that provides photos to the placing judges. I'm not certain what the time-lapse formula is.
Why?
The beaten lengths are calculated at the finish line. The traditional measurement is in 5ths. The printed daily racing form prints time in 5ths.
Now tell me the above is not true.
It is the traditional measurement, but I can assure you the photo companies do not equate 1/5 to one length. If a horse is 1 second back at the finish, it is not reported as 5 lengths. Do you disagree?
Show Me the Wire
10-21-2010, 02:10 PM
It is the traditional measurement, but I can assure you the photo companies do not equate 1/5 to one length. If a horse is 1 second back at the finish, it is not reported as 5 lengths. Do you disagree?
First, I did say, TRADITIONAL. If the calculation is ""secret" proprietary information, you can't assure me it is not based on fifths, unless you are privy to the proprietary calculation.
Let's leave this discussion as the best "traditional" answer to his question is one second is equal to five lengths.
First, I did say, TRADITIONAL. If the calculation is ""secret" proprietary information, you can't assure me it is not based on fifths, unless you are privy to the proprietary calculation.
Let's leave this discussion as the best "traditional" answer to his question is one second is equal to five lengths.
It is wrong. I didn't say I don't know the formula. Why would we leave something as wrong?
Show Me the Wire
10-21-2010, 02:22 PM
It is wrong. I didn't say I don't know the formula. Why would we leave something as wrong?
If you know the formula, then give us the answer, what is the official BL conversion. If you know it it is no longer proprietory, unless you paid for the info and signed a non-disclosure.
If you obtained knowledge of the formula any other way, I would be hesitant to admit having it.
also, it may be possible you think you may possess something you don't.
chickenhead
10-21-2010, 02:24 PM
I talked to the photo finish company that produces the equipment for some tracks (some Cali tracks, at least)...they told me they use 6 lengths per second for all surfaces, distances, and classes -- that is the factor built into their equipment. So a horse that crosses the wire 1 second later than another would be officially recorded as 6 lengths behind.
I believe I once read Jerry Brown say that he had been given the same information, by someone at Equibase, maybe.
But, I'm not sure I believe them, and other photo finish companies may do something different.
If you know the formula, then give us the answer, what is the official BL conversion. If you know it it is no longer proprietory, unless you paid for the info and signed a non-disclosure.
If you obtained knowledge of the formula any other way, I would be hesitant to admit having it.
also, it may be possible you think you may possess something you don't.
Honestly, how I know it is none of your business. Don't get your feelings hurt because I corrected you. Either believe or don't, I really don't care, but it IS NOT 1/5 = 1 length.
Show Me the Wire
10-21-2010, 02:38 PM
Honestly, how I know it is none of your business. Don't get your feelings hurt because I corrected you. Either believe or don't, I really don't care, but it IS NOT 1/5 = 1 length.
My feelings are not hurt. My answer to you was more of a cautionary tale.
But, you can't tell me my answer about "traditionally" and the DRF is wrong, unless you are willing to disclose the actual formula.
BTW, it is my understanding that it really depends on the shutter speed of the camera, and unless you know the actual shutter speed, you can't correctly calculate the BLs.
UK View
10-21-2010, 03:03 PM
I talked to the photo finish company that produces the equipment for some tracks (some Cali tracks, at least)...they told me they use 6 lengths per second for all surfaces, distances, and classes -- that is the factor built into their equipment. So a horse that crosses the wire 1 second later than another would be officially recorded as 6 lengths behind.
I believe I once read Jerry Brown say that he had been given the same information, by someone at Equibase, maybe.
But, I'm not sure I believe them, and other photo finish companies may do something different.
Thanks, 6 lengths per second would sound about right. I guess it is either 5 or 6?
chickenhead
10-21-2010, 03:14 PM
Thanks, 6 lengths per second would sound about right. I guess it is either 5 or 6?
it makes more sense to do it like you guys do -- giving a nod to how the fast the horses are actually or likely to be traveling in the final 100 yards. It's hard to believe they aren't doing any kind of adjustment that might move it around between 5 and 6 lengths, depending -- but at least from what they told me, they aren't.
PhantomOnTour
10-21-2010, 03:35 PM
...what about BL at the pace call? Even more subjective than the finish with no slo-mo camera.
...what about BL at the pace call? Even more subjective than the finish with no slo-mo camera.
There is nothing really subjective about the finish, while the pace calls are all subjective. At the finish, the formula is set in stone. If you know it, you know the final time of the horse. That said, the formula(s) are flawed, big time.
UK View
10-21-2010, 03:43 PM
...what about BL at the pace call? Even more subjective than the finish with no slo-mo camera.
sorry BL? I don't understand what this means? :confused:
sorry BL? I don't understand what this means? :confused:
Beaten lengths, or lengths back, or lengths behind.
PhantomOnTour
10-21-2010, 03:46 PM
BL=beaten lengths
The leader hits the 1/4m pole in a 6f race in :45.30....the chart caller estimates (?) the BL of everyone behind him. The time of the leader is all we can be certain of...many anti-pace fig guys bring this up and they are essentially correct, but what else can we go on? The pace call is crucial and we will try to calculate each horses' BL or time or fig no matter how crude it may be to some.
UK View
10-21-2010, 03:53 PM
Aah I see. thanks.
The only distance (or beaten lengths) that I am actually interested in are 1st to 2nd at the finish.
ie Goldikova won the Mile last year by 1/2 length
Zenyatta won the Classic by 1 length
DJofSD
10-21-2010, 04:27 PM
it makes more sense to do it like you guys do -- giving a nod to how the fast the horses are actually or likely to be traveling in the final 100 yards. It's hard to believe they aren't doing any kind of adjustment that might move it around between 5 and 6 lengths, depending -- but at least from what they told me, they aren't.
It assumes the velocity of both horses are the same and the velocity of the horses still running to the wire do not change.
Robert Goren
10-21-2010, 04:46 PM
You tell me how fast the film is fed though the photo finish camera and I tell how many seconds each horse is back. Lengths back have nothing to with. I helped a few times run that camera in a quarter horse races in the early 80s. I am pretty sure they use a slower speed on T-breds than on Q-horses, but I am not sure. It sounds confusing until you see it operation.
Robert Goren
10-21-2010, 04:56 PM
There no reason they could not give the exact time for each finisher. They use the basically same equipment in sports like swimming and they give time for each finisher. With the advent of digital cameras this could be done very easily without any additional cost.
Turkoman
10-21-2010, 06:11 PM
There no reason they could not give the exact time for each finisher. They use the basically same equipment in sports like swimming and they give time for each finisher. With the advent of digital cameras this could be done very easily without any additional cost.
Maybe they don't do it because the races would become too predictable? They do it in greyhound racing, but they bump each other in every race anyway. This makes them extremely unpredictable.
Turkoman
Go to the Del Mar site and look at the Trakus charts.
Find horse beaten exactly 1,2,5 10 lengths and see what you get.
Go to the Del Mar site and look at the Trakus charts.
Find horse beaten exactly 1,2,5 10 lengths and see what you get.
Shhhhhhhhh.....
Then there's also the little matter of the Trakus times being from the first timing beam, not the starting gate. "Whaddya mean, the second finisher has a faster time than the winner?"
UK View
10-24-2010, 04:53 PM
Then there's also the little matter of the Trakus times being from the first timing beam, not the starting gate. "Whaddya mean, the second finisher has a faster time than the winner?"
Eh?
I don't get this?
Sorry guys but my original question wasn't really meant to be that complicated? i just wanted to know how winning distances were calculated? Just the distance between 1st and 2nd.
Steve 'StatMan'
10-24-2010, 06:30 PM
They just look at the photograph and approximate it in visual terms.
The real answer is more complex, as the responses suggest, and is not consistent as far as actual time goes.
One of the many little secrets in the game, particularly the U.S. game. The 'Why?' is 'Because it's always been done this way."
UK View
10-29-2010, 05:20 PM
Do you think there is anyone out there who would be able to give a definitive answer? Over here it is the BHB (British Horseracing Authority).
Do you think there is anyone out there who would be able to give a definitive answer? Over here it is the BHB (British Horseracing Authority).
No, I tried to make that clear. There are a few that could give you the answer if they chose to do so, but none will. You have to figure it out for yourself. There are also a few different photo finish companies to deal with here, but I think they are all very similar.
There is no difference for distance and/or track condition. You can figure it out. Find horses that are exactly one length, five lengths, and ten lengths behind at the finish. Then, hand time how long it takes them to reach the line after the winner from video. Do this a hundred times or so and you'll have a very reasonable value to use in any calculations.
johnhannibalsmith
10-29-2010, 05:50 PM
You tell me how fast the film is fed though the photo finish camera ...
Oh oh oh its so much niftier than that now... digital captures at amazing frame rates... this is a pretty widely used model/system now...
http://www.finishlynx.com/sports/equitation/documentation/Thoroughbred_Racing.pdf
Robert Goren
10-29-2010, 05:57 PM
Eh?
I don't get this?
Sorry guys but my original question wasn't really meant to be that complicated? i just wanted to know how winning distances were calculated? Just the distance between 1st and 2nd. The number of lengths you see in the charts or the past performances is an eye ball guess and that is the sad truth.
The number of lengths you see in the charts or the past performances is an eye ball guess and that is the sad truth.
Not at the finish, which is what he is has asked for a few times in this thread.
johnhannibalsmith
10-29-2010, 05:59 PM
The number of lengths you see in the charts or the past performances is an eye ball guess and that is the sad truth.
Not at all true for margins at the wire. All margins at the finish are calculated by the photo finish machine, as has been discussed from the first few posts in this thread.
UK View
10-29-2010, 06:08 PM
No, I tried to make that clear. There are a few that could give you the answer if they chose to do so, but none will. You have to figure it out for yourself. There are also a few different photo finish companies to deal with here, but I think they are all very similar.
There is no difference for distance and/or track condition. You can figure it out. Find horses that are exactly one length, five lengths, and ten lengths behind at the finish. Then, hand time how long it takes them to reach the line after the winner from video. Do this a hundred times or so and you'll have a very reasonable value to use in any calculations.
I wonder why this is such a secretive piece of information? In a culture that posts split times for everything including gallops it seems strange that this info is not freely available?
You rarely get split times for any races in the UK let alone gallops!!
:)
johnhannibalsmith
10-29-2010, 06:45 PM
I wonder why this is such a secretive piece of information? In a culture that posts split times for everything including gallops it seems strange that this info is not freely available?
You rarely get split times for any races in the UK let alone gallops!!
:)
I have a feeling that it isn't so much secretive as it is just an unknown to most that would normally field such a question. I suspect that the manufacturer uses a default setting that is probably rarely altered by the actual owner upon purchase, i.e. the photo-finish company at that track.
The website for FinishLynx is rather awkward, but there are a few PDFs of documentation, installation material, and technical specs... or you could probably just email FinishLynx and pose the scenario and question and someone would probably give you a better answer than if you actually asked someone at the racetrack level.
I suspect it is secret because nobody wants to divulge an obviously inaccurate formula.
raybo
10-29-2010, 06:52 PM
I wonder why this is such a secretive piece of information? In a culture that posts split times for everything including gallops it seems strange that this info is not freely available?
You rarely get split times for any races in the UK let alone gallops!!
:)
Have you ever asked anyone, who actually knows, why split times are not common knowledge over there? Could it be that most of your races are run on grass and therefore splits aren't always that important, in the running of a race?
Turf races, over here at the stretch call, look like 20 people trying to get in an elevator designed for 8. Dirt, however, is different, early pace means much more.
As to your question, I have to use the times I am given, but, I figure my own distance per beaten length, in each fraction, based on the average speed of the leader (the average pace of that fraction). Then I add up all the adjusted fractional times to get the adjusted final time. There may be a better way to figure adjusted final time, according to those who posted that the beaten lengths distance is accomplished via the photo finish camera, I don't know. But, my way works fine for me.
skate
10-29-2010, 07:22 PM
Thanks, 6 lengths per second would sound about right. I guess it is either 5 or 6?
The use of 5 is not because it is exact, but rather the 5 is easier (simple) when calculating., it works.
To me it makes NO sense to figure between 5 or 6, too small of a measure for horse racing.
Cratos
10-29-2010, 08:58 PM
Hi all,
Just wondered how official distances are recorded in US races and especially the Breeders Cup this year?
In the UK distances are calculated as follows....
TURF RACES
Good or quicker 6 lengths per second
Good (G to S) in places 5.5 lps
G to S (Good) in places 5.5 lps
Good to Soft 5.5 lps
Good to Soft (Soft) in places 5.5 lps
Soft or slower 5 lengths per second
AW
Polytrack (similar to pro ride) 6 lengths per second
Fibresand (as close to dirt as we get over here) 5 lengths per second.
Many thanks in advance if anyone can answer this one... :)
Many years ago when the one length per one-fifth second rule was established in North America racing, it worked well if nothing more than a convenience, but today with modern technology, the more sophisticated horseplayer, and the advent of the personal computer the calculation need to be more accurate; and there are some people today who are pushing the “envelope” in that direction.
Bruddah
10-29-2010, 09:12 PM
The use of 5 is not because it is exact, but rather the 5 is easier (simple) when calculating., it works.
To me it makes NO sense to figure between 5 or 6, too small of a measure for horse racing.
Finally, someone using common sense get's it right! I call it splitting hairs by numbers junkies. I am convinced the number junkies splitting of hairs doesn't mean a damned thing. I'll bet a 1000 races using five lengths and they can bet a 1000 races using their propriatery numbers and there won't be a "diddle squat" bit of difference. Nor will it put them on any greater ROI.
Skate's use of common sense gets' an Amen Bruddah....nice going Skate. :ThmbUp:
Finally, someone using common sense get's it right! I call it splitting hairs by numbers junkies. I am convinced the number junkies splitting of hairs doesn't mean a damned thing. I'll bet a 1000 races using five lengths and they can bet a 1000 races using their propriatery numbers and there won't be a "diddle squat" bit of difference. Nor will it put them on any greater ROI.
Skate's use of common sense gets' an Amen Bruddah....nice going Skate. :ThmbUp:
This thread has absolutely nothing to do with what you and skate are talking about.
raybo
10-29-2010, 10:08 PM
When it is common for horses to win or lose by a nose, don't insult our intelligence by insisting, without any documented proof, that more accurate calculations doesn't make a difference.
Anyone still using 5 lengths per second, or 6 or any other static number, is living in the past. Why even use anything if what you're using is dead wrong?
Sorry for the ranting but this stuff really defies logic.
Raybo, the beaten lengths at the fractions are hardly precise. Why go to all the trouble when your basic data is flawed?
raybo
10-29-2010, 10:32 PM
Raybo, the beaten lengths at the fractions are hardly precise. Why go to all the trouble when your basic data is flawed?
Because I'm a form and pace handicapper, and fractionals are very important, for both. Since all I have for fractionals are position, leader time, and "flawed" beaten lengths, I must use them, flawed or not.
However, if I must use flawed raw data, it behooves me to make all my calculations, on them, as accurate as possible, or, I end up with more grossly flawed data.
UK View
10-30-2010, 04:33 AM
This again is getting a bit too technical and not really relevant to my original point (even though it is interesting to see how much you guys rely on times/splits etc).
It's pretty impossible to do it in the UK because all of our tracks are different, from shape, gradient, going etc etc to make it worthwhile.
All I wanted to know was how are official winning distances calculated? From what I've read it seems there is no definitive answer?
It doesn't matter to me how accurate or not the method of calculating it is, just how you do it. As I said if for a particular race in the UK it is measured as 5 lengths per second and a horse wins by 0.5 seconds it will be listed as having won by 2 and 1/2 lengths. Whether that is an accurate way of measuring it is another argument and not important to what I asked. To me it wouldn't matter if you measured winning distances at 1 lps or 10 lps I just wanted to know how you guys did it?
Thanks.
skate
10-30-2010, 01:11 PM
This thread has absolutely nothing to do with what you and skate are talking about.
Oh no and all that coming from the "village" in which you exist.
AND and and, what does your comment have to do with ANYTHING at all, thank you.;)
skate
10-30-2010, 01:26 PM
Finally, someone using common sense get's it right! I call it splitting hairs by numbers junkies. I am convinced the number junkies splitting of hairs doesn't mean a damned thing. I'll bet a 1000 races using five lengths and they can bet a 1000 races using their propriatery numbers and there won't be a "diddle squat" bit of difference. Nor will it put them on any greater ROI.
Skate's use of common sense gets' an Amen Bruddah....nice going Skate. :ThmbUp:
You da MAN Bruddah.
AND and and ifin we ever get into the VAST distinguishing characteristics between European and USA racing...um... dees girls wiould confuse purpose and diffraction.
Then we would have to reconsider an updated version of the Yongel Dadion, yep.
OH, by the way, Bruddah, i am very proud of you, thank you very much for putting THE ISSUE into clear English, also thanks to TOM, he's not been wrong lately.:cool:
skate
10-30-2010, 01:28 PM
This again is getting a bit too technical and not really relevant to my original point (even though it is interesting to see how much you guys rely on times/splits etc).
It's pretty impossible to do it in the UK because all of our tracks are different, from shape, gradient, going etc etc to make it worthwhile.
All I wanted to know was how are official winning distances calculated? From what I've read it seems there is no definitive answer?
It doesn't matter to me how accurate or not the method of calculating it is, just how you do it. As I said if for a particular race in the UK it is measured as 5 lengths per second and a horse wins by 0.5 seconds it will be listed as having won by 2 and 1/2 lengths. Whether that is an accurate way of measuring it is another argument and not important to what I asked. To me it wouldn't matter if you measured winning distances at 1 lps or 10 lps I just wanted to know how you guys did it?
Thanks.
xactely stated, thanks to you UKer.
johnhannibalsmith
10-30-2010, 01:41 PM
...All I wanted to know was how are official winning distances calculated? From what I've read it seems there is no definitive answer?...
Directly stated: In my experience, the photo finish camera, when capturing an image at the wire begins an internal timer. When the race has completed and the placings are done officially by the judges using the image captured by the photo finish camera - a perpendicular line is "drawn" for every nose in the image and they are sequenced based upon that nose, basically placed from first to last.
At each point at which there is a "placing", there is a time, recorded to the thousandths associated with that placing. The calculation computes the margins from relative finisher to finisher in terms of elapsed time and then also expresses it on the report in terms of lengths, based upon the secret formula for time to lengths, for the benefit primarily of Equibase.
They then may use these placings or may elect to report another value (I'm fairly certain) if in their opinion, the margins are suspect (this is probably most common at mixed breed meets where the margins for quarter horses for example can be plainly flawed when applying the standards used for thoroughbred racing).
Is that to the point and not too terribly confusing?
raybo
10-30-2010, 02:15 PM
I suspect it is secret because nobody wants to divulge an obviously inaccurate formula.
Inaccurate, to say the least.
I checked the Delmar Trakus times and lengths ahead, and, some of the stuff they show is so far from possible I can't imagine they believe it themselves. Just one example was a horse who, presumably, traveled 17 lengths in .6 seconds.
Somebody else figure out the speed required, in miles per hour, I don't want to waste the time, but, it's equivalent to running slightly more than 50 yards in a little over 1/2 second. I know there are some fast horses out there but, whew!!!!!!!!!!! That's movin'!!
raybo
10-30-2010, 03:09 PM
Basically, my times for fractional B/Ls vary from about .14 seconds to around .19 seconds, for open 15,000 claimers.
1/5 second (.20 seconds) doesn't even enter the picture.
1/6 second (.167 seconds) would be a rough average.
raybo
10-30-2010, 03:25 PM
Heck, I might as well finish my point.
If you're using 5 lengths per second (1/5 second per length) and it's really closer to 6 lengths per second (1/6 second per length), you're talking about a whole length (8' to 10') of error. If a horse loses by 3 lengths you're talking about 24' to 30' of error.
Is that ok with you? I would hope not.
ronsmac
10-30-2010, 07:44 PM
I've asked the exact question at 3 different tracks over the yrs, and all 3 at the time used different photo finish equipment and slightly different formulas for calculating beaten lengths.
Robert Fischer
10-31-2010, 12:26 AM
Sorry if this is repeated , or if this info is outdated and a new change in methodology has been mentioned previously in this thread:
the standard for PHoto Finish Technology (beaten lengths at the finish line) = 0.18 SECONDS per second per beaten length. This is their setting and translates to 5.55feet or so/ length. I don't remember if this was because of working backwards from quarters or what the deal is. (as obviously 5.55 would be a poor estimate) From the info I was given, PFT and similar are the standard in TBred as well. Yet another area that apparently could use an upgrade in tech.:rolleyes: the knowledge is good because it is counter-intuitive
my standard for beaten lengths at calls is 8Feet per beaten length. This is based on the length of the safety rails (which is one chart caller's technique for calling beaten lengths at calls) rather than the intuitive idea of guessing the "average length of the horses from .A-->.B" .
raybo
10-31-2010, 07:13 AM
Sorry if this is repeated , or if this info is outdated and a new change in methodology has been mentioned previously in this thread:
the standard for PHoto Finish Technology (beaten lengths at the finish line) = 0.18 SECONDS per second per beaten length. This is their setting and translates to 5.55feet or so/ length. I don't remember if this was because of working backwards from quarters or what the deal is. (as obviously 5.55 would be a poor estimate) From the info I was given, PFT and similar are the standard in TBred as well. Yet another area that apparently could use an upgrade in tech.:rolleyes: the knowledge is good because it is counter-intuitive
my standard for beaten lengths at calls is 8Feet per beaten length. This is based on the length of the safety rails (which is one chart caller's technique for calling beaten lengths at calls) rather than the intuitive idea of guessing the "average length of the horses from .A-->.B" .
This may be based on 12 seconds per furlong, example:
6f = 3960 feet
6f x 12 seconds = 72 seconds or 720 tenths
3960 feet / 720 tenths = 5.5 or 11 feet per fifth
8f = 5280'
8f x 12 secs = 96 seconds or 960 tenths
5280' / 960 tenths = 5.5 or 11' per fifth
etc.
.18 secs per length would equate to a 1:12 6f time if using 10' per length.
Of course, all of this ignores run-up. That would change things a little.
skate
10-31-2010, 01:09 PM
I wonder why this is such a secretive piece of information? In a culture that posts split times for everything including gallops it seems strange that this info is not freely available?
You rarely get split times for any races in the UK let alone gallops!!
:)
Welp, over there (UK) you have your UK board, while over here (USA) they have the Commissioners for varying States.
It could be ONE regulation, but it's not, much do to the irrrelevance of the real concern.
After running around a mile or so, a length, one second or 1/20 of a second does not give any significance to the outcome.
UK View
11-01-2010, 09:23 AM
Aah but it does if you are betting on winning distances ;)
After running around a mile or so, a length, one second or 1/20 of a second does not give any significance to the outcome.
Really? That is news to me, seems like I've seen a few races decided by that or less.
raybo
11-01-2010, 07:50 PM
Really? That is news to me, seems like I've seen a few races decided by that or less.
I guess all the winners he sees win by a mile. :rolleyes:
skate
11-03-2010, 03:41 PM
Really? That is news to me, seems like I've seen a few races decided by that or less.
You missed the point.
Two ideas from this post , neither started by myself. One deals with the finish while the other deals with "taking the developed race" and applying those figures to the next race that these horses might enter.
Are you saying the conclusive point at which the race ends for each horse is the offcial order? How true...yep.
I'm talking about "over a distance" during a race, not at the conclusion, the matter of 1/20 or 1 length, has not enough significance to carry that 1/20 or 1 length to the next race that these horses will enter.
Far too many other factors and and and i didnt mean to bring about a turn from the original Post, but other factors were brought into play by others.:)
skate
11-03-2010, 03:46 PM
Welp, over there (UK) you have your UK board, while over here (USA) they have the Commissioners for varying States.
It could be ONE regulation, but it's not, much do to the irrrelevance of the real concern.
After running around a mile or so, a length, one second or 1/20 of a second does not give any significance to the outcome.
This has NOT concluded "Race Over". Maybe that helps?
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.