Further evidence Gulfstream timing sucks

[cj]

Check out some of these differences between final times reported by Trakus and Equibase from yesterday:

R-2, T: 1:35.15, E: 1:34.27
R-3, T: 1:43.86, E: 1:43.08
R-6, T: 1:40.39, E: 1:39.78

Nice of them to advertise that what they are putting in the PPs is woefully inaccurate.

[thaskalos]

Check out some of these differences between final times reported by Trakus and Equibase from yesterday:

R-2, T: 1:35.15, E: 1:34.27
R-3, T: 1:43.86, E: 1:43.08
R-6, T: 1:40.39, E: 1:39.78

Nice of them to advertise that what they are putting in the PPs is woefully inaccurate.
And they dare call it the "premiere" winter meet in the country...:ThmbDown:

[cj]

And they dare call it the "premiere" winter meet in the country...:ThmbDown:

What business in the world would do something like this? They are advertising that something is woefully wrong with their information, but nothing is done to correct it. We are talking between 4 and 6 length differences on those races alone.

Before I totally blame Gulfstream, I will spend some time looking at differences at Woodbine and Keeneland and see if they are similar.

[BillW]

Check out some of these differences between final times reported by Trakus and Equibase from yesterday:

R-2, T: 1:35.15, E: 1:34.27
R-3, T: 1:43.86, E: 1:43.08
R-6, T: 1:40.39, E: 1:39.78

Nice of them to advertise that what they are putting in the PPs is woefully inaccurate.

Is Trakus including run-up? They'd have a tough time triggering on the track's start timer unless they were wired directly into it.

[cj]

Is Trakus including run-up? They'd have a tough time triggering on the track's start timer unless they were wired directly into it.

They don't use the run up, same as the official timer. Some races are really close, even to a hundredth or so, while others are way off. Whatever it is, Gulfstream is making itself look foolish reporting two things so different when they are supposedly measuring the same exact thing. They would be better off including run up so at least there would be an explanation other than one of the two systems is wrong.

[thaskalos]

What business in the world would do something like this? They are advertising that something is woefully wrong with their information, but nothing is done to correct it. We are talking between 4 and 6 length differences on those races alone.

Before I totally blame Gulfstream, I will spend some time looking at differences at Woodbine and Keeneland and see if they are similar.
This business is unlike any other in the civilized world, my friend...and it all stems from the total disregard that they have for the wagering public.

Malfunctioning teletimers...missing or "estimated" fractional times...men with binoculars creating the charts, using "lengths" instead of accurate and consistent units of measurement -- the whole thing is mind-boggling.

It's amazing how efficient they are in collecting their percentage though...

[Turkoman]

Check out some of these differences between final times reported by Trakus and Equibase from yesterday:

R-2, T: 1:35.15, E: 1:34.27
R-3, T: 1:43.86, E: 1:43.08
R-6, T: 1:40.39, E: 1:39.78

Nice of them to advertise that what they are putting in the PPs is woefully inaccurate.

That is simply pathetic!

[lamboguy]

this sounds like playing three card monte

[Steve 'StatMan']

Probably goes back to the old inaccurate race track saying "Time only matters when your in jail."

[Robert Fischer]

Is Trakus including run-up? They'd have a tough time triggering on the track's start timer unless they were wired directly into it.

hmmm

[Tom]

New advertising campaign:

We suck but it's warm here! :lol:

[The Hawk]

This has been going on for nearly 20 years, at least. When they tore down the old Gulfstream I figured that would be the one good thing to come out of it, but it's at least as bad now as it was then, and it's probably worse.

[FenceBored]

What business in the world would do something like this? They are advertising that something is woefully wrong with their information, but nothing is done to correct it. We are talking between 4 and 6 length differences on those races alone.

Before I totally blame Gulfstream, I will spend some time looking at differences at Woodbine and Keeneland and see if they are similar.

I've noticed that the Trakus final time doesn't always agree with the time in the Equibase chart.

For example, CD on BC Saturday (dirt races only excluding Marathon)

Race Trakus_ -- Equibase = Diff
r01: 1:36.92 -- 1:37.21 = +.29
r02: 1:09.96 -- 1:10.10 = +.14
r05: 1:09.06 -- 1:09.17 = +.11
r07: 1:34.85 -- 1:34.59 = -.26
r09: 1:44.30 -- 1:44.44 = +.14
r11: 2:04.02 -- 2:04.27 = +.25
r12: 1:36.74 -- 1:37.03 = +.29

Not even reliably consistent at a given distance.

Races 1 and 9 were won wire to wire, so even the my first idea that the Trakus final time is influenced by the winners position relative to the first horse to cross the timing beam seems like a non-starter.

[BillW]

Trakus has an error of +/- 2 feet and a sample rate of 30/sec. I'm not sure if Trakus attempts to correct for the sampling error in software or not. +/- 2 feet @50 ft./sec. would be +/- 0.04 sec. and sample error could put them off by another 0.016. Then the sensor is in the saddle and not pasted on the horses nose - more error.


Given a properly functioning timer, Trakus would be suspect in introducing the error. Unfortunately GP is known for malfunctioning timers, so all bets are off. :bang:

[CincyHorseplayer]

This business is unlike any other in the civilized world, my friend...and it all stems from the total disregard that they have for the wagering public.

Malfunctioning teletimers...missing or "estimated" fractional times...men with binoculars creating the charts, using "lengths" instead of accurate and consistent units of measurement -- the whole thing is mind-boggling.

It's amazing how efficient they are in collecting their percentage though...

Gospel according to Thaskalos.I agree.Amen.The gap in these times is sick.

[CincyHorseplayer]

New advertising campaign:

We suck but it's warm here! :lol:

Is that what she said??!!!!:cool:

[cj]

Trakus has an error of +/- 2 feet and a sample rate of 30/sec. I'm not sure if Trakus attempts to correct for the sampling error in software or not. +/- 2 feet @50 ft./sec. would be +/- 0.04 sec. and sample error could put them off by another 0.016. Then the sensor is in the saddle and not pasted on the horses nose - more error.


Given a properly functioning timer, Trakus would be suspect in introducing the error. Unfortunately GP is known for malfunctioning timers, so all bets are off. :bang:

This all makes sense looking at the times for the Breeder's Cup. They are probably within the tolerance you stated. But for the Gulfstream races, no way.

[funnsss1]

just another example of race tracks ripping off the betting public and the bettors letting them get away with it.Horseplayers should start boycotting races to make the tracks accountable for there actions and the only way is by affecting there handle.

[lamboguy]

what you should do is try to clock your own horses in the morning in palmmeadows and see if they let you in the place with a stopwatch in your hands

[johnhannibalsmith]

what you should do is try to clock your own horses in the morning in palmmeadows and see if they let you in the place with a stopwatch in your hands

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=815038&postcount=5

There's the first post from the thread that covers this subject sufficiently in case anyone is wondering what this has to do with Gulfstream's teletiming and wants to learn more without derailing the thread.

[classhandicapper]

The errors seem to be fairly consistent in the same direction (though not always). That suggests that there is an explanation. It's probably not all some random malfunction.

There's one way around these issues with times - Class Handicapping. :lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

This thread is a great place for my favorite quote:

A man with a watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.

:lol:

[bob60566]

I read long time ago in A old hand at the track made comment Time is only for those behind bars.

That convinced me to this day waste of Time

Mac:)

[cj]

I read long time ago in A old hand at the track made coment Time is only for those behind bars.

That convinced me to this day waste of Time

Mac:)

As I have stated many times, variant adjusted figures (TIME) are the single best performance related predictor of future performance.

[cj]

The errors seem to be fairly consistent in the same direction (though not always). That suggests that there is an explanation. It's probably not all some random malfunction.

There's one way around these issues with times - Class Handicapping. :lol:

I've seen them in both directions, I only posted a few of the bigger ones...and it has only been two days!

[cj]

what you should do is try to clock your own horses in the morning in palmmeadows and see if they let you in the place with a stopwatch in your hands

Does this relate to this thread in even a tiny way?

[lamboguy]

[QUOTE=cj]Does this relate to this thread in even a tiny way?[/QUOTE i believe you brought up accurate times at gulfstream, the horses in palm meadows also run in gulfstream, and often times people rely on workout times to evaluate their analysis of a particular event.

[pktruckdriver]

What business in the world would do something like this? They are advertising that something is woefully wrong with their information, but nothing is done to correct it. We are talking between 4 and 6 length differences on those races alone.

Before I totally blame Gulfstream, I will spend some time looking at differences at Woodbine and Keeneland and see if they are similar.


What is your suggested advice to overcome this mis-information?

Not play the tracks, get info somewhere else, or ??

patrick:confused: :confused:

[magwell]

This has been going on for nearly 20 years, at least. When they tore down the old Gulfstream I figured that would be the one good thing to come out of it, but it's at least as bad now as it was then, and it's probably worse. Cant agree, as i was there both days the racing was good (not great) and the atmosphere was good and the weather was great......:)

[therussmeister]

I've looked at all the races run so far. Not a lot of data yet, but all the odd numbered races Trakus timed faster than Equibase, and all the even numbered races Trakus timed slower, except the first race Dec. 3, which Trakus had as an inconsequential .01 second slower.

Most, but not all of the even number races were on the turf, (8 of 10). All of the odd number races were dirt.

Most of the fractional times were off in the same direction, but not the same amount as the final times.

[andymays]

If they're going to continue this then they just shouldn't time the races. CJ is right, there is no excuse. That goes for all the tracks that have trouble timing a race.

[therussmeister]

More analysis; the discrepancy so far seems to be distance related.

[bob60566]

My take on this thread
How many handicappers base there selections on the paid contractors posting at these tracks Waste of time.

My guess all the downloaded data files contains this Waste of time and I receive this every day.

For me A decade ago it went out the barn door as a Waste of time

Mac:)

[castaway01]

My take on this thread
How many handicappers base there selections on the paid contractors posting at these tracks Waste of time.

My guess all the downloaded data files contains this Waste of time and I receive this every day.

For me A decade ago it went out the barn door as a Waste of time

Mac:)

You've even leading lamboguy in incomprehensible posts, which is quite the accomplishment. Of course it matters, why would you not want accurate speed figures for races at a major track? C'mon.

[bob60566]

You've even leading lamboguy in incomprehensible posts, which is quite the accomplishment. Of course it matters, why would you not want accurate speed figures for races at a major track? C'mon.

I do not play major tracks

Mac :) :) :) :)

[cj]

What is your suggested advice to overcome this mis-information?

Not play the tracks, get info somewhere else, or ??

patrick:confused: :confused:

My suggestion is to do what I'm doing. I'm talking to the right people to get this rectified. This may be surprising, but talking about it on this board gets noticed so I like to point these things out here first.

[Robert Fischer]

Gulfstream has had some run-ups that were funny to begin with.

I haven't refreshed my memory but I do remember that one of their distances (mile?) uses virtually no run-up, and a couple of there distances use a rather big run-up.

Then you have things like the short run to the 1st turn 9F, the new 2nd finish line... the turf rails that seem to vary from hedge to 100+? feet?

Great track for biases and doing some extra work by hand.
However it's something that I will have to devote a half-day to just to get back up to speed.

[PaceAdvantage]

This may be surprising, but talking about it on this board gets noticed so I like to point these things out here first.Not surprising to me... :lol:

[OTM Al]

Shouldn't the trackus time always be different than the time of the race? Thought the point of Trackus was to give time and distance run of each horse. If this is correct,mthen the only time the two should be the same is when a horse leads start to finish.

[cj]

Shouldn't the trackus time always be different than the time of the race? Thought the point of Trackus was to give time and distance run of each horse. If this is correct,mthen the only time the two should be the same is when a horse leads start to finish.

Trakus includes run up, and the time of the winner "should" be about the same, within a tolerance much smaller than what I have reported here. The winner's race time doesn't matter if a horse comes from last or goes wire to wire.

[cj]

Gulfstream has had some run-ups that were funny to begin with.

I haven't refreshed my memory but I do remember that one of their distances (mile?) uses virtually no run-up, and a couple of there distances use a rather big run-up.

Then you have things like the short run to the 1st turn 9F, the new 2nd finish line... the turf rails that seem to vary from hedge to 100+? feet?

Great track for biases and doing some extra work by hand.
However it's something that I will have to devote a half-day to just to get back up to speed.

The run ups shouldn't be relevant in this case since they are known.

[OTM Al]

Trakus includes run up, and the time of the winner "should" be about the same, within a tolerance much smaller than what I have reported here. The winner's race time doesn't matter if a horse comes from last or goes wire to wire.

I guess my question really was, do the timers start all at the same time as the regular timer or are they individual to each horse, triggering when they cross the timer?

[FenceBored]

The run ups shouldn't be relevant in this case since they are known.

Plus, the run-ups in your three examples are 10ft (.88 sec), 60ft (.78 sec), and 35ft (.61 secs). The time that is the most whacked is the shortest run-up.

[cj]

I guess my question really was, do the timers start all at the same time as the regular timer or are they individual to each horse, triggering when they cross the timer?

It is supposed to start at the same time as the regular timer. If it didn't, we would see horses losing with faster times than winners by at least a few lengths on occasion. That never happens.

[FenceBored]

My head officially hurts.

Looking at the T-chart for the 2nd race on Sunday the overall 'finish' time is 1:43.01. The 'finish' time for the winning horse is 1:43.08 (but he led at all but the 6f call). That means he would have been first past the timing pole and first past the finish line. How can the race-wide time be lower than that?


The place horse has a 'finish' time of 1:43.01.

[OTM Al]

It is supposed to start at the same time as the regular timer. If it didn't, we would see horses losing with faster times than winners by at least a few lengths on occasion. That never happens.

So the Trackus time then gives no more information than the regular time. For example, consider the filly that won the Demoiselle the other weekend. Her time to cover the distance was quicker than the official time as she was getting off her knees when the leader broke the timer beam. Is that counted in ground-loss then?

As to the problem, they should never be dead on the same, but agree it should be closer then. Guess we would need to know more about positioning of sensors, etc, to find the systematic error being intoduced. Also would wonder who calibrated it all in the first place as one would have to assume tests were run?

[PhantomOnTour]

Time to break out the stop watch and DIY.
Accurate pace clockings would be very difficult, but your final times would be right on.

[cj]

So the Trackus time then gives no more information than the regular time. For example, consider the filly that won the Demoiselle the other weekend. Her time to cover the distance was quicker than the official time as she was getting off her knees when the leader broke the timer beam. Is that counted in ground-loss then?

As to the problem, they should never be dead on the same, but agree it should be closer then. Guess we would need to know more about positioning of sensors, etc, to find the systematic error being intoduced. Also would wonder who calibrated it all in the first place as one would have to assume tests were run?

Ground loss is only circumference, not poor starts. The sensors are in the saddle cloth so that can cause a slight difference. Not all horses are the same length, and not all saddle clothes are in the same position on the horse. The biggest difference seems to be in the way they account for the run up at different distances. After the first fraction, all the times seem to be very close.

[cj]

My head officially hurts.

Looking at the T-chart for the 2nd race on Sunday the overall 'finish' time is 1:43.01. The 'finish' time for the winning horse is 1:43.08 (but he led at all but the 6f call). That means he would have been first past the timing pole and first past the finish line. How can the race-wide time be lower than that?


The place horse has a 'finish' time of 1:43.01.

See Bill's post: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1199720&postcount=14

[senortout]

lemmee see if I have this straight....I think, surely, the winning horse can run farther than any other horse in the race, and still win.

However, I cannot see the second finisher running the race in faster time than the winner. If for example the second horse got stuck in the gate that still counts as running time, no?

[classhandicapper]

Are we even sure which of the two sources is the one that's wrong?

[cj]

Are we even sure which of the two sources is the one that's wrong?

No, of course not, and I don't think I made that case. Given the history though, I know which I'd bet on. One of the races I posted seemed to have a timing glitch while the race was live, then mysteriously, fractions and a final time appeared in the charts.

[cj]

lemmee see if I have this straight....I think, surely, the winning horse can run farther than any other horse in the race, and still win.

However, I cannot see the second finisher running the race in faster time than the winner. If for example the second horse got stuck in the gate that still counts as running time, no?

Yes, that time still counts. It has to do with the tolerance of the GPS sensors as Bill pointed out in his post. I'm really not that concerned with a few hundredths.

[BIG49010]

Has anybody checked how the times were for the first week with other tracks that install Trakus?

Could it be a shake out period before they get everything set up?

[FenceBored]

See Bill's post: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1199720&postcount=14

That explains the place horse having a faster time, but not what was irking me. What I now think is a programming decision to use the fastest time in the 'Finish' column as the official 'Finish' time for the race is what got me. The sampling error is just the reason that this decision looks bad sometimes.

Note: I mistakenly said the 2nd race when the race in question was the 3rd.

[speculus]

Here are my two cents on the topic:

All horses cross (or rather, CUT) the beam at the finish, but at most racecourses there is no such electronic beam mechanism at the start.

What is employed is a crude way of some person actually triggering the start of the timer at the instant the gates click open. However greatly trained a person may be for this job, he or she is still open to error.

Also, another very important point is the gates generally take half a second to open completely (the Australian gates that we have imported last year are taking 0.48 seconds to be exact), and these timers set in operation manually thus have that much response time before they can press the start button.

I have seen at least 4 different such manual starters having their own "zero" error (if we can call it that), ranging from .05 sec to .35 sec, and the strangest fact was that their reflexes were so trained for this job that they would ALWAYS be very close to whatever was their individual zero error. Like if someone's response time was 0.25 sec, he would almost always be close to that figure (say in the range of 0.20 to 0.30) thanks to reflex training and repetition over a large number of races.

What needs to be found out if this is the case at Gulfstream, which is quite a possibility. That would answer why generally there would always be differences in the similar direction.

There is a way to run a check on this if anyone here has an old Chinese video software called Xing player (this company I think was later bought by Real Player) which had this facility to verify accurate timing by counting the number of frames, each frame being equal to 0.04 second.

[BillW]

Here are my two cents on the topic:

All horses cross (or rather, CUT) the beam at the finish, but at most racecourses there is no such electronic beam mechanism at the start.

What is employed is a crude way of some person actually triggering the start of the timer at the instant the gates click open. However greatly trained a person may be for this job, he or she is still open to error.



In the US timing does not start at the spring of the gate in Thoroughbred races (it does for Quartrhorses). Timing starts after a run up distance and I'm pretty sure a beam is used as it is at the call points.

[Tom]

Yes, remember the Derby one year where it was tripped early?

[speculus]

In the US timing does not start at the spring of the gate in Thoroughbred races (it does for Quartrhorses). Timing starts after a run up distance and I'm pretty sure a beam is used as it is at the call points.

If that's how they do it, then you should be able to see in race video both parts of the beam equipment (an emitter of beam on one side of the track & a receiver of the beam at the other side of the track) placed opposite each other soon after the start.

Can you see that anywhere along the track in a race video?

[BillW]

If that's how they do it, then you should be able to see in race video both parts of the beam equipment (an emitter of beam on one side of the track & a receiver of the beam at the other side of the track) placed opposite each other soon after the start.

Can you see that anywhere along the track in a race video?

I don't have any video available but I can confirm with track management if you wish. I also don't think a beam is used at the finish line.

[speculus]

I don't have any video available but I can confirm with track management if you wish. I also don't think a beam is used at the finish line.

The photo finish mechanism has its own built in beam & mirror mechanism, that goes without saying.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to find out from the track management if the timers are set in motion manually or electronically.

[FenceBored]

From a column by Steve Crist on the 2008 Fountain of Youth:
Shortly after the race, DRF reporter Mike Welsch manually retimed the first quarter of the race several times and came up with a far more plausible 24.10. Clearly, something had caused the timer to begin 1.68 seconds earlier than it should have, and it was later found that an outrider's pony 20 feet from the starting gate may have tripped the beam. That premature start explained the slow first quarter, and there was and is no reason to think any other segment of the race is in error. So Welsch substituted the posted 25.78 with the 24.10, used all the other posted splits, and DRF published a final time of 1:50.17.
-- http://www.drf.com/blogs/fountain-truth
And don't miss the update on the size of Gulfstream's oval at the bottom of the column.

[speculus]

From a column by Steve Crist on the 2008 Fountain of Youth:Shortly after the race, DRF reporter Mike Welsch manually retimed the first quarter of the race several times and came up with a far more plausible 24.10. Clearly, something had caused the timer to begin 1.68 seconds earlier than it should have, and it was later found that an outrider's pony 20 feet from the starting gate may have tripped the beam. That premature start explained the slow first quarter, and there was and is no reason to think any other segment of the race is in error. So Welsch substituted the posted 25.78 with the 24.10, used all the other posted splits, and DRF published a final time of 1:50.17.
-- http://www.drf.com/blogs/fountain-truth
And don't miss the update on the size of Gulfstream's oval at the bottom of the column.

Thanks, I think that should settle it, coming from Crist.

But curiously, when I watched the Gulfstream Park Turf Handicap video posted on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRep0KyLFH0), I couldn't spot ANY such mechanism placed along the track that could be even remotely be called a teletimer. (Unless, of course, it is a portable and microscopic device and the man in white shirt standing at the rails was holding it!:confused: , because if you compare the flash of fractional timings the timer seems to have started very close to the spot where he is seen standing.)

Can you?

[speculus]

This is getting more curious. Because I can't even see ONE beam mechanism in place even for the quarter & half mile fractions.

Are you sure someone, a trained clocker, is not doing it manually?

There has to be an explanation because I don't expect to be right about this, I must surely be missing something.

Will be glad to learn about the mechanism.

[FenceBored]

Thanks, I think that should settle it, coming from Crist.

But curiously, when I watched the Gulfstream Park Turf Handicap video posted on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRep0KyLFH0), I couldn't spot ANY such mechanism placed along the track that could be even remotely be called a teletimer. (Unless, of course, it is a portable and microscopic device and the man in white shirt standing at the rails was holding it!:confused: , because if you compare the flash of fractional timings the timer seems to have started very close to the spot where he is seen standing.)

Can you?

The problem I see in trying to judge by that race is that according to the chart (http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbPDFChartPlus.cfm?RACE=9&BorP=P&TID=GP&CTRY=USA&DT=02/05/2011&DAY=D&STYLE=EQB) the rail you're seeing on their left is the temporary rail set at 60ft out from the permanent rail. Notice the 1/8th pole in the upper right of the screen 21 seconds into the video. The mechanisms are going to be outside the permanent fences. There appear to be plenty of free standing poles in that area which could house the timers.

[classhandicapper]

Len Friedman of The Sheets has confirmed that he believe there have been "some significant timing errors (in addition to the usual "errors" that are permanently a part of the GP landscape)".

[cj]

Len Friedman of The Sheets has confirmed that he believe there have been "some significant timing errors (in addition to the usual "errors" that are permanently a part of the GP landscape)".

To be honest, I don't think the errors are as bad this year as he is making them out to be. He certainly has incentive to exaggerate. I'm not saying he is, but you have to keep that in mind.

[speculus]

The problem I see in trying to judge by that race is that according to the chart (http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbPDFChartPlus.cfm?RACE=9&BorP=P&TID=GP&CTRY=USA&DT=02/05/2011&DAY=D&STYLE=EQB) the rail you're seeing on their left is the temporary rail set at 60ft out from the permanent rail. Notice the 1/8th pole in the upper right of the screen 21 seconds into the video. The mechanisms are going to be outside the permanent fences. There appear to be plenty of free standing poles in that area which could house the timers.

Okay.

But I just checked another race. The start of the Sunshine Stakes run at Gulfstream Park on Dec 4 which they have put as a featured video on the homepage of their official website. And the strange part is you can't see ANY EQUIPMENT on the OTHER SIDE either! Now I seriously wonder who (or what) is clocking the starting & fractional timings.

Someone here must try to get an official word from them.

[BIG49010]

To be honest, I don't think the errors are as bad this year as he is making them out to be. He certainly has incentive to exaggerate. I'm not saying he is, but you have to keep that in mind.

I have to agree with you on the exaggeration of these guys, the first two days of racing were not that far out of wack when I put my numbers together. I used to sit with the track man for Jerry Brown at Arlington, he used to have a stop watch around his neck, but I never saw him put it to use.

[cj]

Okay.

But I just checked another race. The start of the Sunshine Stakes run at Gulfstream Park on Dec 4 which they have put as a featured video on the homepage of their official website. And the strange part is you can't see ANY EQUIPMENT on the OTHER SIDE either! Now I seriously wonder who (or what) is clocking the starting & fractional timings.

Someone here must try to get an official word from them.

Whether you can see it or not, I can assure you the timing is done electronically. Most, and I stress most, race times recorded by the official timer are within a couple hundredths of the Trakus timer after the first fraction...every single fraction. You cannot do that by hand, no way, no how.

I have done a lot of hand timing, and to be honest, this is why I chuckle sometimes at the Rags and TG guys bragging that they hand time from the gate. I'm sure they do, but I also know it is never going to be very accurate. Humans aren't that good.

[maddog42]

From hand timing 40 yard dash times in football, I know that they aren't that accurate. Why do you think pro coaches and scouts use electronic timers, and usually their own setup? Back about 30 years ago coaches would hear about some young phenom who could run the 40 in 4.29 and bench press 500 lbs.Uh huh. They would laugh and chuckle to themselves and say Sure. Then electronic timing came in and mostly those are accurate. So many of those 4.3 times turned out to be 4.5 or worse.

[Robert Fischer]

i found in my notes that Gulfstream's MILE distance on the dirt that I subtract "1.4 seconds" from the raw 1st fraction time.
(info from using a digital timer w/replays)

There is a short run up to to the "mile pole", however the race is timed from the gate. (This run up typically takes about 1.4 seconds per my notes)

For this reason you see a lot of fractions at GP 1M like 24.00 46.6 which seem like slow 1st quarters followed by quick 2nd quarters, but in reality were rather steady paced.

---------------------------

more notes on timer technique

"I use a split-lap online stopwatch from http://www.online-stopwatch.com/split-timer/

then I just open and resize two browser windows side by side (one replay, one stopwatch)

at first you're just clicking the "Split" button for every pole you see(or think you see), but you get the hang of which poles are which and when they will come up.

It's not a bad thing to do once or twice anyway if it's something that is totally unfamiliar."

[FenceBored]

Okay.

But I just checked another race. The start of the Sunshine Stakes run at Gulfstream Park on Dec 4 which they have put as a featured video on the homepage of their official website. And the strange part is you can't see ANY EQUIPMENT on the OTHER SIDE either! Now I seriously wonder who (or what) is clocking the starting & fractional timings.

Someone here must try to get an official word from them.

Now, I see free standing pipes with small boxes on top all over the place.* In the video you're talking about the starter is standing between two of them. There's another one right at the first 1/16th pole. If those aren't timer mechanisms, what are they?

*My doctor assures me that nothing I'm taking would cause that kind of hallucination.

[Tom]

These?

[speculus]

Now, I see free standing pipes with small boxes on top all over the place.* In the video you're talking about the starter is standing between two of them. There's another one right at the first 1/16th pole. If those aren't timer mechanisms, what are they?

*My doctor assures me that nothing I'm taking would cause that kind of hallucination.

Good observation.

Thanks, FB, I think THAT must be the equipment we are looking for.

But in any case, it would be better to have official word about this to resolve the timing discrepancy mystery which was basically the issue raised in this post.

[rubicon55]

i found in my notes that Gulfstream's MILE distance on the dirt that I subtract "1.4 seconds" from the raw 1st fraction time.
(info from using a digital timer w/replays)

There is a short run up to to the "mile pole", however the race is timed from the gate. (This run up typically takes about 1.4 seconds per my notes)

For this reason you see a lot of fractions at GP 1M like 24.00 46.6 which seem like slow 1st quarters followed by quick 2nd quarters, but in reality were rather steady paced.

---------------------------

more notes on timer technique

"I use a split-lap online stopwatch from http://www.online-stopwatch.com/split-timer/

then I just open and resize two browser windows side by side (one replay, one stopwatch)

at first you're just clicking the "Split" button for every pole you see(or think you see), but you get the hang of which poles are which and when they will come up.

It's not a bad thing to do once or twice anyway if it's something that is totally unfamiliar."



Thanks Robert, I did not know that, that clears up a lot for me personally regarding the mile at GP.

[Robert Fischer]

Thanks Robert, I did not know that, that clears up a lot for me personally regarding the mile at GP.

Remember this is a couple years old, so you may want to test it out for yourself. Some of the trakus times on the first page of this thread seem to be @ ".3 seconds":bang:.
Either way, make sure your pace figs reflect the "slower" 1st quarter fractions that will result. :ThmbUp:

If I have some free time I will try a race and see what I come up with.

[Rigger]

I have noticed the different times of Trakus vs On-Track since it's concept. My way of thinking is that with the chip in the saddle cloth, this causes a different run-up time for each race and shows just how important a run-up calculation program is needed. If you are betting on a 6F race with the 2 main horses running the same est. time, I would definetly bet the one who had the shortest run-up time and the best pace.

[lamboguy]

what you should do is try to clock your own horses in the morning in palmmeadows and see if they let you in the place with a stopwatch in your handsmr davidowitz seems to be encountering some problems in the training and clocking of horses in palm meadows


http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/index.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail&agid=1138&year=2011&month=12&day=21&Itemid=35

check out hour #3.

i got thrown out of that place 3 years ago.

[Tom]

Some morons who run racing think that work outs are a secret.
These people qualify as anti-horse payers and deserve no support from any of us.


Support tracks that support players.

[lamboguy]

Some morons who run racing think that work outs are a secret.
These people qualify as anti-horse payers and deserve no support from any of us.


Support tracks that support players.these big time trainers say they don't want you to get any information on their horses. they all run for maiden special weight races. they aren't getting claimed, so why don't they just say they want to bet their own horses without you knowing about it?

we hit a big pick 6 3 years ago in gulfstream because we snuck in the joint and clocked horses and the shit hit the fan there. they honestly thought that the money we took down belonged to them, it was like i stole their rent money right out of their pockets.

i have no problem with public clockers clocking horses anywhere. they don't give anyone problems in fairhill. in florida its a country club though.

[Tom]

If they want the game to be about horsemen and not bettors, then outlaw betting on all MSW races. Simple.

[lamboguy]

If they want the game to be about horsemen and not bettors, then outlaw betting on all MSW races. Simple.the pools that they are betting into are pretty decent. on a stakes day gulfstream will have $1.5 million bet on a race. roughly the takeout is $300k. that is a total of $1.3 million left to get. that's a lot of money to have an edge with. ever wonder why this game has its problems?

how about these trainers don't have .06 of their own money tied up into the ownership and training of these horses to start out with. when its time for the horse to run, the trainer don't tell his client anything confident about his horse, the trainer don't want the owner betting on his own horse either.

they want the public to pick horses with beyer numbers or pedigree's or turf feet or whatever, but not what really matters, how they trained.

[cj]

they want the public to pick horses with beyer numbers or pedigree's or turf feet or whatever, but not what really matters, how they trained.

If that were all that mattered, you'd have a lot of rich trainers walking around and giving bargain day rates. Don't really see that happening though.

[Rigger]

The run-up in the mile dirt is only 10'. A horse takes 110' to reach his speed. It has been difficult trying to create a run-up program that will apply to more than one racetrack at a time. The only algorithm that is feasible so far is creating a database with the time travelled in the average last half furlong before the 1/4 pole (332') used with the actual time of the race for each horse. So instead of a time like 24.00 sec's, you have a time of 5.69 sec's your program will show you if you are using 1/2 furlongs for speed/pace or 22.76 secs if using 2F figures. This has been profitable when figuring speed and pace.

[PhantomOnTour]

So, we're a month into the GP meet and we've all had time to digest the Trakus stuff, timing issues and the new 8.5f distance with alternate finish line.
I read a tweet from a DRF guy at GP and he mentioned that jocks are still riding out to the old finish line in 8.5f races...makes me a lil uneasy.

For those of you who make figs for GP, how are they going? I haven't found any wild variations from day to day or within the same day to lead me to conclude that their timing is all wrong. Yes, a few splits are odd...like a 6.5f race that went in something like 23.4-45.1 on 11Dec. Which is suppose is possible but very unlikely.
The variant was tough for yesterday also (2Jan) but I've found most days to be uniform in their deviations from par.

Also, what exactly are you doing with Trakus?
Using it for accurate BL calculations and losers' actual running times?
Are you adjusting for ground loss now that we know exactly how much ground each horse covered?
Are you using it at all?

[Tom]

I read a tweet from a DRF guy at GP and he mentioned that jocks are still riding out to the old finish line in 8.5f races...makes me a lil uneasy.

Better that than pulling up early at the other finish line.

I'm curious if anyone is using the Trakus data to calculate actual velocity for beaten horses, actual distance run/actual time and then converting that to a figure? Or using it as is?

Problem still is shippers.

Hard to believe that this industry has the state of the art timing available and collectively refuses to embrace it. Racing will ever be a second class sport/game. Can you imaging some Nascar tracks still timing by hand with a stopwatch?

[RXB]

Are we even sure which of the two sources is the one that's wrong?

Yes, I can tell you with full confidence that the Equibase times for GP dirt miles are essentially correct. It is the Trakus times that are wrong. The problem is in the first quarter (carried through to the subsequent timing points) and the errors are significant in EVERY dirt mile that I've checked so far. Generally between about 0.6-1.0 seconds. Bizarrely, the Trakus times almost alternate between too fast and too slow, one race to the next.

In a most obvious vein, the Trakus chart for the 3rd race on Jan 2 shows a first quarter of 12 seconds. Also, some of the start call margins in the dirt miles are preposterous. In one race, a horse is listed as having a lead of 20 lengths when the runup is completed. (The runup itself, of course, is ten feet, or about one length.) In another race, the lead horse is listed as being 5 3/4 lengths in front after the runup-- and even better, the 2nd horse is another 63 lengths in front of the third horse.

Don't know if there are problems with Trakus at other distances. Anyway, if anyone was using Trakus times, consider yourself notified.

[RXB]

Trakus seems to be starting to correct some of the inaccuracies in its dirt mile charts.

I've checked plenty of GP dirt mile races and found only one error in the DRF/Equibase fractions: Race 2 on Sun Dec 4. (The fractions didn't actually come up on the TV screen, and the posted times in Equibase/DRF are way, way off.) I've handtimed it and if you just add 1.9 seconds to each of the posted fractions (22.66 45.93 1:09.81 1:34.27 becomes 24.56 47.83 1:11.71 1:36.17) you'll have it very close. Too late for anyone who might have played Gorgeous Melody last Sunday based on those incorrectly fast times.

DRF seems to have listed "Fractions Unavailable" for all of the GP dirt miles since mid-December. I will check some more but other than the above example I've found the Equibase dirt mile times to be essentially true. The Trakus dirt mile charts are the ones littered with errors and inconsistencies.

[sammy the sage]

If that were all that mattered, you'd have a lot of rich trainers walking around and giving bargain day rates. Don't really see that happening though.

Wrong...some of them DO have their cake and eat it too....called double dipping...you think it doesn't happen...

an example...no names....from this Sun past...Horse w/2 races in 'em....morning line of 12/1....shoulda been 20/1 or more....w/figs on display...but connections looked good...One of the owners of this horse stops by our table...says horse gonna roll...I asked why...what surgery...he said no...just shin splints...got corrected...he dropped in last 3 mins. to 5/2 and won EASILY...this at Santa Anita...that TAKES MUCHO dough to drop that kinda odds there...

so Lambo is right sometimes...your figures or anybody else's don't mean damn thing. :bang:

[cj]

Wrong...some of them DO have their cake and eat it too....called double dipping...you think it doesn't happen...

an example...no names....from this Sun past...Horse w/2 races in 'em....morning line of 12/1....shoulda been 20/1 or more....w/figs on display...but connections looked good...One of the owners of this horse stops by our table...says horse gonna roll...I asked why...what surgery...he said no...just shin splints...got corrected...he dropped in last 3 mins. to 5/2 and won EASILY...this at Santa Anita...that TAKES MUCHO dough to drop that kinda odds there...

so Lambo is right sometimes...your figures or anybody else's don't mean damn thing. :bang:

Sure, it happens, but for every story like that that actually comes true, about 50 flop. Not sure why you have to bring figures into it, but whatever.

[cj]

Trakus seems to be starting to correct some of the inaccuracies in its dirt mile charts.

I've checked plenty of GP dirt mile races and found only one error in the DRF/Equibase fractions: Race 2 on Sun Dec 4. (The fractions didn't actually come up on the TV screen, and the posted times in Equibase/DRF are way, way off.) I've handtimed it and if you just add 1.9 seconds to each of the posted fractions (22.66 45.93 1:09.81 1:34.27 becomes 24.56 47.83 1:11.71 1:36.17) you'll have it very close. Too late for anyone who might have played Gorgeous Melody last Sunday based on those incorrectly fast times.

DRF seems to have listed "Fractions Unavailable" for all of the GP dirt miles since mid-December. I will check some more but other than the above example I've found the Equibase dirt mile times to be essentially true. The Trakus dirt mile charts are the ones littered with errors and inconsistencies.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh!

[lamboguy]

the thing about any type of a number is that they are as good as anything in certain races. they are probably a lot better in an open $25k, or $10k claiming race than anything else. you might know the horse that is training great for one of those races, but there usually are more than just one in those races, and because they have run so many prior times, the history comes into play more.

another thing that a number would be good at is if there were 3 or 4 horses in the race with aproximately the same type of early speed. i don't think you would want to be betting the favorite in that type of race.

[Valuist]

There was a grass route on Saturday where they posted 20 and change and 44 flat. Its a joke. The best thing to do with their turf races is completely ignore times and watch the races and look at charts. The way Equibase now prints charts focusing on lengths behind, you can tell in an instant if a field was all bottled up within 5 lengths, or strung out 15 lengths.

[cj]

There was a grass route on Saturday where they posted 20 and change and 44 flat. Its a joke. The best thing to do with their turf races is completely ignore times and watch the races and look at charts. The way Equibase now prints charts focusing on lengths behind, you can tell in an instant if a field was all bottled up within 5 lengths, or strung out 15 lengths.

They do have the occasional misfire, but if you study Trakus times you can get a pretty good read on the differences between Trakus timing and "official" timing and come up with a very good approximation of what the official time should have been.

I can't answer if people think it is worth the trouble, but it leads to an occasional gem of a race that is rated way too slow or way too fast.

[PhantomOnTour]

They do have the occasional misfire, but if you study Trakus times you can get a pretty good read on the differences between Trakus timing and "official" timing and come up with a very good approximation of what the official time should have been.

I can't answer if people think it is worth the trouble, but it leads to an occasional gem of a race that is rated way too slow or way too fast.
And that's what the game is all about for figure guys imo.
I am reluctant to do the work, but it seems i have to go back to opening day and compare Trakus to the official clockings...ugh.

[Tom]

And that's what the game is all about for figure guys imo.
I am reluctant to do the work, but it seems i have to go back to opening day and compare Trakus to the official clockings...ugh.

Or form a team to split the work.....

[RXB]

I sent an e-mail to DRF last night, asking them to publish the teletimer fractions for GP dirt miles since they are essentially correct, except for the race that I noted earlier.

Re: Trakus, I can't say for sure because I haven't checked thoroughly at other distances but the serious problems seem to be limited to the dirt mile charts, where the times are inaccurate and start call positions/margins have been utterly laughable throughout the meet. They should be doing a full blitz to get these corrected ASAP but based on the very limited progress that I've noticed so far-- only a few races revised-- I'm not convinced that they're really getting after it in a concerted way.

I also have to wonder why Trakus doesn't seem to have any quality control measures in place to prevent these kinds of glaring errors from going on for so long.

[Tom]

1/11/12 - R5 GP
1st quarter

Devin's Star ran .56 seconds slower than the leader, but he covered 183 feet more!? Leader's velocity 53.44, Devin's Star velocity 59.45.....duh?

[RXB]

When Trakus corrected the two dirt mile races from Saturday, I thought that maybe they were finally on the case. But from yesterday's and today's mile charts, they're not. The Trakus times from today's 1st are even more incorrect than usual-- about 1.5 seconds off in this race. And Charlie's Quest is listed as having a nine-length lead after the (10-foot) runup.

[PatCummings]

Hi gang. As you may or may not know, I work for Trakus as a business manager.

There have been some issues with select data from the starting point of one mile dirt races at Gulfstream. I assure you all that we are working on this and appreciate the feedback and support. The data and displays generate chatter, strong opinions, and interests, all things we hope will continue for the good of the game. On the whole, the data is available for your analysis as you see fit.

There is much more ahead for Trakus and we are glad to be part of the discussion and interaction with players. We continue to analyze the issue related to one-mile dirt starts and will adjust going forward. In the meantime, feel free to reach out to us at customerservice@trakus.com.

[Edward DeVere]

Hi gang. As you may or may not know, I work for Trakus as a business manager.

There have been some issues with select data from the starting point of one mile dirt races at Gulfstream. I assure you all that we are working on this and appreciate the feedback and support. The data and displays generate chatter, strong opinions, and interests, all things we hope will continue for the good of the game. On the whole, the data is available for your analysis as you see fit.

There is much more ahead for Trakus and we are glad to be part of the discussion and interaction with players. We continue to analyze the issue related to one-mile dirt starts and will adjust going forward. In the meantime, feel free to reach out to us at customerservice@trakus.com.

WOW, this is unbelievably lame.

Care to take another stab, with, say, 75% less BS and 75% more specificity?

[RXB]

Since I'm all for more specificity and less BS, too, I'll ask some specific questions that I think might be of interest to PA readers:

1. When and how did Trakus become aware that there was a problem?
2. Is it the decision of Trakus or of Gulfstream to continue publishing this data even though it is so obviously incorrect?
3. Why has there been no public acknowledgement of the problem on either the Gulfstream or Trakus web sites? Why is there no notice from either of the parties involved to alert people who are using the Trakus data that there are significant errors in the GP dirt mile charts?

[RXB]

Partly to offer an update, and partly because I would like to keep this thread on the front page until Trakus and/or GP answers the questions that I posted in the previous message, here I am again.

DRF says that it might take another week or so to reinstate the GP dirt mile fractions into its PP's. I think Dec 11 was the last date for which dirt mile fractions are posted; since then they say "Fractions Unavailable." I'm not sure why they did this in the first place; it took only a stopwatch and a modest time investment with some replays to determine that Trakus' system was the one that was screwing up constantly, not the teletimer.

Even after Pat C acknowledged the errors here on Saturday, Trakus continued to publish further incorrect data for the dirt mile races on Sunday and Monday. Strange. Why not just pull all of their dirt mile charts-- they've been incorrect right from the start of the meet-- until the problem is resolved and the data is corrected in full? And where is GP management during all of this? A huge failure by both entities. Lack of data accuracy checks, lack of customer communication and customer service ethics-- a textbook case of how-not-to.

[Tom]

When you know you have a problem and do not immediately implement a containment strategy, you slap your customers in the face. This is an unacceptable business practice. Trakus would never make it in the real business world. Knowingly publishing fraudulent data is an unforgivable sin.

[RXB]

When you know you have a problem and do not immediately implement a containment strategy, you slap your customers in the face. This is an unacceptable business practice. Trakus would never make it in the real business world. Knowingly publishing fraudulent data is an unforgivable sin.

Definitely not a very good job by Trakus. And Gulfstream is equally culpable.

Trakus is accountable to its direct customer-- which is Gulfstream.

Gulfstream is accountable to its direct customers-- the bettors.

If Trakus has screwed up, perhaps Gulfstream is contractually able to demand a piece of flesh from them for failing to meet reasonable standards.

But the Trakus problems have been documented on this board for a while now, and still there is no public action from Gulfstream to try to alert/protect its customers with regard to the inaccurate data provided by its contractor. So from a bettor's perspective, I hold Gulfstream more responsible for failure to communicate at this point. They can put out useless fluff about Abigail Fuller in their "Racing News" section but can't be bothered to issue any notice to their customers that the Trakus dirt mile charts are wrong. And why hasn't Gulfstream ordered Trakus to stop publishing the incorrect data?

[PatCummings]

Hello once again. This topic is of great interest by all at Trakus including our senior management, with significant efforts underway to address the issue.

Corrective measures have been taken to prevent future occurrence, and updated software developed and released. We are committed to high-quality results and our team is taking steps to annotate existing t-charts accordingly. Once again, we apologize for the inconvenience and we ask your patience with the information already published.

At Trakus we’re working hard to broaden appeal for racing through innovation and new rich-media products. We believe longer-term benefits of new technology generally outweigh instances of shortcomings that happen under certain operational conditions. In this particular case, the instances are isolated to the data for a minority of runners, and we decided against pulling the entire charts for 8F dirt races while we work to resolve the problem and garner feedback from users of the data across all sources.

Our vision is to help horse racing remain competitive with other forms of sport and gaming entertainment in an increasingly technology-enabled global marketplace. We think Trakus can be an effective agent to make this happen.

While we continue on this mission, we always invite and welcome your thoughts and feedback through sending email to customerservice@trakus.com.

[PhantomOnTour]

Hello once again. This topic is of great interest by all at Trakus including our senior management, with significant efforts underway to address the issue.
Corrective measures have been taken to prevent future occurrence, and updated software developed and released. We are committed to high-quality results and our team is taking steps to annotate existing t-charts accordingly. Once again, we apologize for the inconvenience and we ask your patience with the information already published.

At Trakus we’re working hard to broaden appeal for racing through innovation and new rich-media products. We believe longer-term benefits of new technology generally outweigh instances of shortcomings that happen under certain operational conditions. In this particular case, the instances are isolated to the data for a minority of runners, and we decided against pulling the entire charts for 8F dirt races while we work to resolve the problem and garner feedback from users of the data across all sources.

Our vision is to help horse racing remain competitive with other forms of sport and gaming entertainment in an increasingly technology-enabled global marketplace. We think Trakus can be an effective agent to make this happen.

While we continue on this mission, we always invite and welcome your thoughts and feedback through sending email to customerservice@trakus.com.
No one is looking for you to reinforce your mission statement.
Nor are we looking for you to tell us how hard you're working.
We want to see what you're getting done Mr. Cummings, and so far you've not solved the problem.

All I see here is form letter management-speak...yadda yadda yadda

[RXB]

For all of the corporate "We're all on it" blah-blah, the problem continues. The Trakus times are way off again today for the 3rd race, but still the chart is posted.

At least Trakus has somebody here to provide some form of updates, even if they're full of obfuscation. How about Gulfstream? Nothing. Really, I hold GP more responsible for the ongoing nature of the problem. Let's list the obvious failures of GP management (on the off-chance that someone there might actually read and understand the criticisms and do something for the future):

1. Failure to monitor contracted data for accuracy. GP has a counterpoint technology for comparison purposes-- its own teletimer, which in turn can be checked for accuracy via timing software or even a stopwatch. (The first two furlongs of GP dirt miles, which is where Trakus' problems are occurring, are dead easy to time by hand.) This type of data review/double-check is standard business practice, especially with initial implementation of a contracted technology when bugs are most likely to be present. It would've quickly shown GP that Trakus was the primary source of inaccuracies.

2. Failure to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate data, even after it was publicly admitted by the contractor that the data was flawed. Today's 3rd race, same story-- significantly flawed Trakus times, still being posted and made available to potentially unsuspecting customers via links on the Gulfstream web site. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Gulfstream, ultimately, is responsible for not discontinuing the public transmission of flawed data.

3. Failure, to a shocking degree, to communicate to their customers. To this day, I haven't seen a single public statement or bulletin anywhere by GP officials to make their customers aware that there are serious problems with the published Trakus dirt mile data.

The level of incompetence displayed by Gulfstream on this issue is truly bewildering. Also bewildering is the silence from so-called racing journalists.

Since I haven't employed the Trakus data, and I'm not really inconvenienced by the missing DRF dirt mile fractions since I have access to excellent Pace Figures (brand name, yes it's a plug), I haven't suffered financially from this fiasco. But I think it brings to light some of the real shortcomings of the racing industry, beyond just "the times are wrong." Lack of due diligence, lack of understanding of customer needs, lack of transparency and communication, lack of accountability… no lack of apathy, though.

[eqitec]

Here are the variances between Trakus and Equibase for last Saturdays' 10th at TAM:

Trakus-----22.73---46.02---71.19---83.88

Equibase---22.82---46.09---71.16---83.88
--------------------------------------------
Variance -.15 -.07 +.03 0.00

[RXB]

Here are the variances between Trakus and Equibase for last Saturdays' 10th at TAM:

Trakus-----22.73---46.02---71.19---83.88

Equibase---22.82---46.09---71.16---83.88
--------------------------------------------
Variance -.15 -.07 +.03 0.00

Those are minimal differences and within reason-- and BTW, the first fraction differential is .09, not .15 seconds.

The Trakus errors for GP dirt miles are significant, typically at least .5 and as great as 1.5 seconds.

[Pace Cap'n]

Some sharp posts here by RXB.

I noticed several references to Gulfstream and its "customers". I think therein lies the problem. Tracks and most horsemen do not regard bettors as customers. They hold us in much the same regard as State Troopers hold the looky-loos. They look as us as they would look at something they just stepped in. This attitude will have to change if bettors are to have any hope for improving their lot.

24-hr blackout, anyone?

[overthehill]

I dont pay that much attention to time but if its that important to you why cant you just get a stop watch and time the races yourself? if they are messing up the times that should give you an advantage.

[PhantomOnTour]

Getting the splits is nearly impossible.
Trees and toteboards make some of the designated poles impossible to see; not to mention the angle at which one is seeing the race (which can cause errors when hand timing).

[Stillriledup]

2014 and they're still posting nonsense fractions on the tv screen, see Race 1 (May 30) for example of this :bang:

[cj]

2014 and they're still posting nonsense fractions on the tv screen, see Race 1 (May 30) for example of this :bang:

I haven't looked, was it a mile dirt race? Those times are farcical. (even with Trakus doing them)

[Stillriledup]

I haven't looked, was it a mile dirt race? Those times are farcical. (even with Trakus doing them)

Yes, 1 mile.

As of now, Equibase has no times in the chart.

[Tom]

Maybe they should have kept a few buck from the bog payout last week and bought a Coo Coo Clock!

Side note-
Traynor, a perfect example of Why I bet so much less I used to - the game is becoming a joke. A game of RACING and they can't time a race. Pathetic.

[cj]

Yes, 1 mile.

As of now, Equibase has no times in the chart.

I don't trust any of the one mile times as being accurate at Gulfstream, even at Trakus. The starting point of the race is a problem, a big one. Anybody remember how slow times were with the old timer? They made sense with basically no run up. The Trakus times are a joke. Suddenly horses are running the first quarter miles MUCH faster with the same very short run up. It doesn't wash.

[PhantomOnTour]

Maybe they should have kept a few buck from the bog payout last week and bought a Coo Coo Clock!

Side note-
Traynor, a perfect example of Why I bet so much less I used to - the game is becoming a joke. A game of RACING and they can't time a race. Pathetic.
Surely you don't think these timing problems are new, do you?
I remember in Ragozin's book he talks about timing errors (I think at GP, no less) that were happening decades ago.

[Tom]

GP has NEVER been a reputable race track.
I stopped playing it back when Beyer first wrote about it.
I have never regretted it a bit.

GP is the "greasy spoon" of tracks. It is like Denny's - nobody goes there, you end up there.

The only thing that has been consistent at GP is the incompetence of those who run it.

[Tom]

This from January, 2012.....I guess it IS rocket science. :rolleyes:

"A man's gotta know his limitations."
- - Dirty Harry



Hi gang. As you may or may not know, I work for Trakus as a business manager.

There have been some issues with select data from the starting point of one mile dirt races at Gulfstream. I assure you all that we are working on this and appreciate the feedback and support. The data and displays generate chatter, strong opinions, and interests, all things we hope will continue for the good of the game. On the whole, the data is available for your analysis as you see fit.

There is much more ahead for Trakus and we are glad to be part of the discussion and interaction with players. We continue to analyze the issue related to one-mile dirt starts and will adjust going forward. In the meantime, feel free to reach out to us at customerservice@trakus.com.

[therussmeister]

Due to suspect timing, no more Beyer figures for Gulfstream 4 1/2 furlong races, and DRF is expunging previously printed figures.

Read all about it here (http://www.drf.com/news/no-beyers-gulfstreams-4-12-furlong-races).

[cj]

Due to suspect timing, no more Beyer figures for Gulfstream 4 1/2 furlong races, and DRF is expunging previously printed figures.

Read all about it here (http://www.drf.com/news/no-beyers-gulfstreams-4-12-furlong-races).

Interesting. Mile races are highly suspect too, if not fictitious. They going to delete those too?

[cj]

Interesting. Mile races are highly suspect too, if not fictitious. They going to delete those too?

For the record, I found it interesting on how the races were being run, I didn't really question the timing on the 4.5 races. In the beginning, I had the races fast because I didn't realize the extent of the run up, but once I adjusted I haven't had any problems. Trakus is pretty straight forward, they are timing the 4.5 races for the last 4.5 furlongs from the finish line backwards. I have no reason to believe the times or the distance is wrong in this case.

[cj]

No time given for the 1st race Sunday.

[garyscpa]

No time given for the 1st race Sunday.

Yes, but they've got the temperature to one decimal point. :D

[Nitro]

It kind of makes you wonder why inconsequential information on threads like this can attract so much attention. Does anyone really believe that if the timing was correct that they’d be any making any more money?!

I really enjoy this track and all the potential value each race has. Its almost as much fun as the racing in Hong Kong.

[cj]

It kind of makes you wonder why inconsequential information on threads like this can attract so much attention. Does anyone really believe that if the timing was correct that they’d be any making any more money?!

I really enjoy this track and all the potential value each race has. Its almost as much fun as the racing in Hong Kong.

Seriously, the TIME of a RACE is inconsequential? I absolutely think knowing the times of races helps me make money. If they didn't time races, I'd find something else to do.

That said, I'll time the race myself from video and make figures.

[cj]

...and by the way, they are doing the run up crap again, varying run up for the same distance on the same day on the same course.

[steveb]

...and by the way, they are doing the run up crap again, varying run up for the same distance on the same day on the same course.

Is there a reason that run ups are needed to begin with?

I don't know, but I am going to take a wild guess, and think that you would
include the run up as part of your figures?

No other country that I have worked on has run ups.

Reminds of a problem I have in Australia.
In one of the states when they move the rail out, they leave the gates in the usual position, and still call it the normal distance.
So a 1200 metre race might in fact be 1220 metres.
It is as bad as wrong times, but I guess those that fix these errors, have an advantage over those that take official info as gospel.

[cj]

Is there a reason that run ups are needed to begin with?

I don't know, but I am going to take a wild guess, and think that you would
include the run up as part of your figures?

No other country that I have worked on has run ups.

Reminds of a problem I have in Australia.
In one of the states when they move the rail out, they leave the gates in the usual position, and still call it the normal distance.
So a 1200 metre race might in fact be 1220 metres.
It is as bad as wrong times, but I guess those that fix these errors, have an advantage over those that take official info as gospel.

Run up has been discussed here many times, of course it isn't necessary. It has just "always been done that way", even though it really hasn't.

I make note of run up and when it might have an impact on times, but it is very tough to time from video at many distances. Actual distance of run ups isn't reported very accurately either, for that matter.

[steveb]

Thanks.

Nice to know that officials elsewhere are just as 'smart' as those in Australia.

They wonder why nobody wants to bet any more, and at the same time delight in non-disclosue, and straight out lies often times.

Meanwhile those with the resources can fix all these mistakes, which in turn hurts the smaller players even more than it does if everybody had the wrong info.

[ReplayRandall]

Thanks.

Nice to know that officials elsewhere are just as 'smart' as those in Australia.

They wonder why nobody wants to bet any more, and at the same time delight in non-disclosue, and straight out lies often times.

Meanwhile those with the resources can fix all these mistakes, which in turn hurts the smaller players even more than it does if everybody had the wrong info.

The "right" non-mainstream info, and being able to decipher it effectively is the biggest key to success into today's racing. Where to find the "right" info is up to how much determination the handicapper has to winning long-term. No one is giving up this info for free.......

[steveb]

The "right" non-mainstream info, and being able to decipher it effectively is the biggest key to success into today's racing. Where to find the "right" info is up to how much determination the handicapper has to winning long-term. No one is giving up this info for free.......

Yes, but I am one of those with the resources to fix it.

But, that does not change the fact that officials should be doing their best to make sure that the info they give is correct, and if it isn't, to at least say it isn't.

Without the smaller players, none of the bigger ones can exist.
The bigger ones will end up with all the money anyway, no matter if the data is all accurate or not.
The main thing is what you do with the data.
But the little guy is entitled to accurate information, and those in power should be doing their utmost to make sure it is.

[ReplayRandall]

Yes, but I am one of those with the resources to fix it.

But, that does not change the fact that officials should be doing their best to make sure that the info they give is correct, and if it isn't, to at least say it isn't.

Without the smaller players, none of the bigger ones can exist.
The bigger ones will end up with all the money anyway, no matter if the data is all accurate or not.
The main thing is what you do with the data.
But the little guy is entitled to accurate information, and those in power should be doing their utmost to make sure it is.


I agree that there should be fairness to all regarding correct "public" info.

Steve, were you once the little guy, or did you inherit your "resources"? If you busted your tail and made your own fortune, how did you gain a competitive edge in your business endeavors? You had to have the edge from some source, such as education, mentors, the right connections, etc..

All that you are, is because you had the "right" info either taught to you or purchased at a premium. Bottom-line, most successful players were once the "little guy", and how they climbed the heights of success was due to their persistence of finding an edge against their competition. How much info is too much? Doesn't this abundance of info overwhelm the new player, which horse racing needs to survive? Where does anyone draw the line on "public" info?

[Tom]

GP - every sport needs a good joke.

[steveb]

I agree that there should be fairness to all regarding correct "public" info.

Steve, were you once the little guy, or did you inherit your "resources"? If you busted your tail and made your own fortune, how did you gain a competitive edge in your business endeavors? You had to have the edge from some source, such as education, mentors, the right connections, etc..

All that you are, is because you had the "right" info either taught to you or purchased at a premium. Bottom-line, most successful players were once the "little guy", and how they climbed the heights of success was due to their persistence of finding an edge against their competition. How much info is too much? Doesn't this abundance of info overwhelm the new player, which horse racing needs to survive? Where does anyone draw the line on "public" info?

I guess everybody was once al little guy.
For myself my days are basically over, as it no longer interests to the same degree it once did.
As for information taught to me, I was never actually 'taught' anything as far as horse racing goes.
In fact I can plead guilty to once being a know all, and would have sworn that time is a waste of time!
My time knowledge in the first instance was seeing a Beyer book on a shelf in a shop, and as it was cheap, I bought it.
After reading it I was more intrigued to understand the 'numbers', than having any insight how I may go about using times.
I guess now after 30 or more years of doing it, I am confident I have left Beyer and all those guys a long way behind.
But Beyer would be the one that got me thinking so I suppose he did 'taught' me.

Anyway, my history is that I have been punting since about 1975 but mostly for myself.
So I guess it's that long ago since i have been a little guy, because I was punting by about 1970, but was crap at it.
But apart form Beyer books, I have had no help, in fact I tended to shun books, because I did not want to know what everybody else knows.
More like 14 and 16 hour days self educating and questioning myself were how I got my 'edge' as you call it.

But somewhere along the line people have heard of what I can do, so have sought me out.
Entropy was paying for me to anyalyse his data, for a while, because I could do what he couldn't(what his employees couldn't would be more accurate, because I don't think Alan was that smart as far as racing goes, but that's just my opinion).
Then I have been part of another Syndicate, and own part of it still, although I have no involvement in it any more.

I don't know much about how Entropy's syndicate operated, as I mostly just conversed with them via email.
But being part of one(I was the 'times' guy) until the fairly recent past, I know how much is spent on fixing and sourcing data.

But then I look back on it, and really I wonder what use it is being a punter?
I see it as a lot of wasted years.
Plenty of money maybe, but when you question yourself about what you have achieved.
I still can't think of an answer, except for 'nothing'

[Nitro]

Yes CJ - in spite of your devotion to the "numbers" it's Inconsequential.

I believe these so-called timing flaws are just another excuse for acknowledging the inaccuracies of any numbers that are derived and the shortcomings of any handicapping method that uses them. Even if they were a 100% accurate they may well demonstrate how an individual horse has performed in a past event among a group of other competitors. Attempting to predict how this same animal might perform against a different group (especially under different conditions like class, distance, racing surface, and most important of all: Its own individual current mental and physical conditional) is like shooting in the dark. Betting on this type of this prediction is truly a gamble and might explain why the vast majority of horse players are losing.

The "right" non-mainstream info, and being able to decipher it effectively is the biggest key to success into today's racing. Where to find the "right" info is up to how much determination the handicapper has to winning long-term. No one is giving up this info for free.......Absolutely a myth! The “right” info for all outsiders playing this game is right in front of their faces and it’s free! However, I will admit that deciphering it effectively is another story because that's not free. But as they say, "You get what you pay for."

[Cratos]

Is there a reason that run ups are needed to begin with?

I don't know, but I am going to take a wild guess, and think that you would
include the run up as part of your figures?

No other country that I have worked on has run ups.

Reminds of a problem I have in Australia.
In one of the states when they move the rail out, they leave the gates in the usual position, and still call it the normal distance.
So a 1200 metre race might in fact be 1220 metres.
It is as bad as wrong times, but I guess those that fix these errors, have an advantage over those that take official info as gospel.
A better question: "How does 10% or less of the total race distance affect the speed/velocity of the racehorse? This a simple total mechanical energy problem with a negative slope.

[cj]

Yes CJ - in spite of your devotion to the "numbers" it's Inconsequential.

I believe these so-called timing flaws are just another excuse for acknowledging the inaccuracies of any numbers that are derived and the shortcomings of any handicapping method that uses them. Even if they were a 100% accurate they may well demonstrate how an individual horse has performed in a past event among a group of other competitors. Attempting to predict how this same animal might perform against a different group (especially under different conditions like class, distance, racing surface, and most important of all: Its own individual current mental and physical conditional) is like shooting in the dark. Betting on this type of this prediction is truly a gamble and might explain why the vast majority of horse players are losing.

Absolutely a myth! The “right” info for all outsiders playing this game is right in front of their faces and it’s free! However, I will admit that deciphering it effectively is another story because that's not free. But as they say, "You get what you pay for."

Silly me thinking races should be timed...not sure what I was thinking.

[cj]

A better question: "How does 10% or less of the total race distance affect the speed/velocity of the racehorse? This a simple total mechanical energy problem with a negative slope.

Easier said than done with missing and inaccurate information.

[Greyfox]

Yes CJ - in spite of your devotion to the "numbers" it's Inconsequential.

I believe these so-called timing flaws are just another excuse for acknowledging the inaccuracies of any numbers that are derived and the shortcomings of any handicapping method that uses them. Even if they were a 100% accurate they may well demonstrate how an individual horse has performed in a past event among a group of other competitors. Attempting to predict how this same animal might perform against a different group (especially under different conditions like class, distance, racing surface, and most important of all: Its own individual current mental and physical conditional) is like shooting in the dark. Betting on this type of this prediction is truly a gamble and might explain why the vast majority of horse players are losing.



Sounds like your attempts to employ numbers has not been beneficial to you.
That's okay. Horse racing is not like panty hose where one size fits all.
However, for some of us, a good set of numbers sheds light on the horse racing game and coupled with the ability to factor in other influences
playing the ponies is not like shooting in the dark.

The old axiom "Past performance is the best predictor of future performance." applies in many aspects of life, including betting on horses.
Of course the predictions are not 100 % accurate.
But they beat spinning the bottle or betting on license plates numbers, although they might kick out the occasional winner too.

[biggestal99]

Attempting to predict how this same animal might perform against a different group (especially under different conditions like class, distance, racing surface, and most important of all: Its own individual current mental and physical conditional) is like shooting in the dark. Betting on this type of this prediction is truly a gamble and might explain why the vast majority of horse players are losing.



the vast majority of players are losing because high takeout on bets.

cut down the takeout to 8% and watch those losers turn into winners.

Allan

[Cratos]

Easier said than done with missing and inaccurate information.
There is nothing significant missing and whatever factors you think are missing can easily be estimated with much more confidence than not.

However a simple 2D graphic can prove this without any intricate math calculations.

[Tom]

Real world example?

[cj]

There is nothing significant missing and whatever factors you think are missing can easily be estimated with much more confidence than not.

However a simple 2D graphic can prove this without any intricate math calculations.

The time of the run up is missing, and the distance is often questionable, certainly to the for but often much more than that. Sure, I can time the full race from video and estimate the run up distance, but who has time to do that for every race?

Of course these things can be estimated and be pretty close most times, but I'd rather have the actual times. Races are decided by inches many times. Any estimates won't be within that tolerance.


Like Tom says though, lets see an example. 6 furlongs run in 1:10, 75 foot run up.

[Greyfox]

Of course these things can be estimated and be pretty close most times, but I'd rather have the actual times. Races are decided by inches many times. Any estimates won't be within that tolerance.


Like Tom says though, lets see an example. 6 furlongs run in 1:10, 75 foot run up.

With just the final time alone and 6F+75 ft. that is going to be damn hard to do within an acceptable range of tolerance.
The first call time might give him a slope, but without knowing how the horse broke from the gate and whether or not it was a front runner or stalker I don't think it can be done without making serious errors in the guesstimate.
Even then you'd have to assume the slope line was linear and it may not be.

You're right cj. Without an accurate run up time, the exercise is only an intellectual one and the best answer will be too rough to have value when you're laying your money down at the track.

[Cratos]

With just the final time alone and 6F+75 ft. that is going to be damn hard to do within an acceptable range of tolerance.
The first call time might give him a slope, but without knowing how the horse broke from the gate and whether or not it was a front runner or stalker I don't think it can be done without making serious errors in the guesstimate.
Even then you'd have to assume the slope line was linear and it may not be.

You're right cj. Without an accurate run up time, the exercise is only an intellectual one and the best answer will be too rough to have value when you're laying your money down at the track.
It is not an intellectual argument/debate.

Without knowing too much it is easy to figure out that the aggregate slope of a horserace slopes upward from the zero point (the start) due to acceleration and typically starts to slope downward (deceleration) at or near the end of the first quarter.

In most races at distances of 6F or longer the deceleration will occur before the first turn and at the beginning of the second quarter; and for the rest of the race there will be a downward slope of the horse’s running curve.

This downward slope is exacerbated by the turn and the side force in the turn.

If run-ups help any horse’s style at all, it would be the closer.

Are there cases where horses violate this phenomenon? Yes there are, but in general the run-up adds nebulous time quantity to the final time.

There is no way you can calculate the delta time impact with DRF/Equibase data because they give you a normalized distance with a virtual final time.

[Tom]

Which is it?

There is nothing significant missing and whatever factors you think are missing can easily be estimated with much more confidence than not.

There is no way you can calculate the delta time impact with DRF/Equibase data because they give you a normalized distance with a virtual final time.

[Cratos]

I've noticed that the Trakus final time doesn't always agree with the time in the Equibase chart.

For example, CD on BC Saturday (dirt races only excluding Marathon)

Race Trakus_ -- Equibase = Diff
r01: 1:36.92 -- 1:37.21 = +.29
r02: 1:09.96 -- 1:10.10 = +.14
r05: 1:09.06 -- 1:09.17 = +.11
r07: 1:34.85 -- 1:34.59 = -.26
r09: 1:44.30 -- 1:44.44 = +.14
r11: 2:04.02 -- 2:04.27 = +.25
r12: 1:36.74 -- 1:37.03 = +.29

Not even reliably consistent at a given distance.

Races 1 and 9 were won wire to wire, so even the my first idea that the Trakus final time is influenced by the winners position relative to the first horse to cross the timing beam seems like a non-starter.

You are comparing “apples and oranges.” DRF/Equibase is timing the race off of a normalized distance. That is for instance, 6F is 3,960 feet.

Whereas Trakus is timing the race using the actual distance the horse traveled in the “X” direction from the start and the “Y” direction from the rail; what you get from Trakus is instantaneous speed with the horse having traveled “Z” distance.

However if you normalized the Trakus data you should get an approximation of the DRF/Equibase time for the same race and distance.

[Greyfox]

It is not an intellectual argument/debate.

Without knowing too much it is easy to figure out that the aggregate slope of a horserace slopes upward from the zero point (the start) due to acceleration and typically starts to slope downward (deceleration) at or near the end of the first quarter.

In most races at distances of 6F or longer the deceleration will occur before the first turn and at the beginning of the second quarter; and for the rest of the race there will be a downward slope of the horse’s running curve.

This downward slope is exacerbated by the turn and the side force in the turn.

If run-ups help any horse’s style at all, it would be the closer.

Are there cases where horses violate this phenomenon? Yes there are, but in general the run-up adds nebulous time quantity to the final time.

There is no way you can calculate the delta time impact with DRF/Equibase data because they give you a normalized distance with a virtual final time.

What you've written above is all theory.
Let's see it play out in practice.
So if it's not an intellectual argument give us your specific answer to the question cj posed to you.

[cj]

You are comparing “apples and oranges.” DRF/Equibase is timing the race off of a normalized distance. That is for instance, 6F is 3,960 feet.

Whereas Trakus is timing the race using the actual distance the horse traveled in the “X” direction from the start and the “Y” direction from the rail; what you get from Trakus is instantaneous speed with the horse having traveled “Z” distance.

However if you normalized the Trakus data you should get an approximation of the DRF/Equibase time for the same race and distance.

The final times recorded by Trakus and other timing systems are doing the same thing but in a different manner, recording the amount of time it takes to run the last "listed" distance of the race. If the race is 6f, both Trakus and the other systems (Teletimer, for example) are giving you the time for the final 6f of the race, run up excluded. Trakus does time the run up, but they do not publish it and it is deducted from the total time.

For both systems, the timing is begun when the first horse hits the "6f to go" mark. Timing ends when the last horse crosses the wire, but the official race time is when the winner hits the wire.

[Cratos]

The final times recorded by Trakus and other timing systems are doing the same thing but in a different manner, recording the amount of time it takes to run the last "listed" distance of the race. If the race is 6f, both Trakus and the other systems (Teletimer, for example) are giving you the time for the final 6f of the race, run up excluded. Trakus does time the run up, but they do not publish it and it is deducted from the total time.

For both systems, the timing is begun when the first horse hits the "6f to go" mark. Timing ends when the last horse crosses the wire, but the official race time is when the winner hits the wire.
In all due respect I understand your explanation, but Trakus benefit is "instantaneous speed" for actual distance.

Again, DRF/Equibase is a "normalized distance."

To use sensor technology for "normalized distance" is a waste of money in my opinion.

[Tom]

There is nothing significant missing and whatever factors you think are missing can easily be estimated with much more confidence than not.

So then, this is false?
You can't do it?

[Cratos]

What you've written above is all theory.
Let's see it play out in practice.
So if it's not an intellectual argument give us your specific answer to the question cj posed to you.
Are looking for an absolute answer for time in a race run in 1:10 seconds with a 75 foot run-up?

If so, I think we both are making different calculations.

Also would you agree that the Total Mechanical Energy curve has a negative "burn" rate which is exponential and multiplied by an efficiency factor for stamina?

For as it playing out in practice it happens every race day; either you understand the science or you do not and I am not being offensive to you.
I am not sure what more you want. If you choose not to believe me that is okay, but I am not going through a mathematical proof.

[Tom]

For as it playing out in practice it happens every race day; either you understand the science or you do not

Where did this go? I thought nothing was missing and it was easy to understand.

However a simple 2D graphic can prove this without any intricate math calculations.

[cj]

In all due respect I understand your explanation, but Trakus benefit is "instantaneous speed" for actual distance.

Again, DRF/Equibase is a "normalized distance."

To use sensor technology for "normalized distance" is a waste of money in my opinion.

I'm not arguing that Trakus doesn't give you distance traveled, just that the times they report are for the same portion of the race as other sources. This is two totally different discussions.

[Nitro]

Sounds like your attempts to employ numbers has not been beneficial to you.
That's okay. Horse racing is not like panty hose where one size fits all.
However, for some of us, a good set of numbers sheds light on the horse racing game and coupled with the ability to factor in other influences
playing the ponies is not like shooting in the dark.

The old axiom "Past performance is the best predictor of future performance." applies in many aspects of life, including betting on horses.
Of course the predictions are not 100 % accurate.
But they beat spinning the bottle or betting on license plates numbers, although they might kick out the occasional winner too.Many years ago I too was caught up in believing that an understanding of the "numbers" would provide more insight and long term benefits into this game. Being very pragmatic I've come to the realization that they will never provide the betting value required to stay ahead. Maybe for the casual bettor they might seem adequate, but I'm not willing to risk my money on a guessing game that's being continually influenced by so many unknown factors. I think its pretty sad when people put in so much time and effort into this game and have to rely on rebates to eek out some profit.
I'm not sure where you came up with that axiom, but I've come to realize that the only way to predict the future is to manipulate it. Since I'm an outsider and not in a position to do that, I'll leave that up to those that do, and do so successfully.

the vast majority of players are losing because high takeout on bets.

cut down the takeout to 8% and watch those losers turn into winners.

AllanSorry Allan. The vast majority of those losing are doing so because they're making losing bets where the take-out is 100%. Only those who make winning bets are affected by the track take-out (which by the way is already accounted for when the pre-race odds are posted). BTW If you know of anyone trying to really turn this game around by demanding tax relief for horse players let me know. I'm on board for that!
.
.

[Tom]

A lot of people using the sheets to bet and claim/place horses will disagree with you.

[Nitro]

A lot of people using the sheets to bet and claim/place horses will disagree with you.Will disagree with what? Are you speaking for them and implying that because they use the sheets that they're all successful?
.
.

[Tom]

Many people will disgree that numbers will never give them the betting value to stay ahead.

[Cratos]

I'm not arguing that Trakus doesn't give you distance traveled, just that the times they report are for the same portion of the race as other sources. This is two totally different discussions.

My point is DRF/Equibase gives you "virtual time" of the horse based on real time of the race.

Trakus gives you "real time" (to the accuracy of their sensors) of both the horse and the race.

It is not that DRF/Equibase time is wrong; it is that they don't time the horse, they time the race.

[Greyfox]

Are looking for an absolute answer for time in a race run in 1:10 seconds with a 75 foot run-up?

If so, I think we both are making different calculations.

Also would you agree that the Total Mechanical Energy curve has a negative "burn" rate which is exponential and multiplied by an efficiency factor for stamina?

For as it playing out in practice it happens every race day; either you understand the science or you do not and I am not being offensive to you.
I am not sure what more you want. If you choose not to believe me that is okay, but I am not going through a mathematical proof.

I believe that what you are saying is quite true scientifically even though I don't understand some of the concepts.

I also don't believe that you've answered the question in cj's original example, but let's move on.

[biggestal99]

Many years ago I too was caught up in believing that an understanding of the "numbers" would provide more insight and long term benefits into this game. Being very pragmatic I've come to the realization that they will never provide the betting value required to stay ahead. Maybe for the casual bettor they might seem adequate, but I'm not willing to risk my money on a guessing game that's being continually influenced by so many unknown factors. I think its pretty sad when people put in so much time and effort into this game and have to rely on rebates to eek out some profit.
I'm not sure where you came up with that axiom, but I've come to realize that the only way to predict the future is to manipulate it. Since I'm an outsider and not in a position to do that, I'll leave that up to those that do, and do so successfully.


.
.

Well numbers certainly aren't everything but they are a part of this handicappers arsenal, taken in conjuction with other handcapping factors that i deem important for the type of race run.

But each to his own method of play.

Allan

[biggestal99]

Sorry Allan. The vast majority of those losing are doing so because they're making losing bets where the take-out is 100%. Only those who make winning bets are affected by the track take-out (which by the way is already accounted for when the pre-race odds are posted). BTW If you know of anyone trying to really turn this game around by demanding tax relief for horse players let me know. I'm on board for that!
.
.
Well only speaking for myself i figure that my blended takeout for my winning bets is about 18%, now reduce that to 8% over the 40 years of playing, and well lets just say i,d be in a much better place financally.

:-)

Allan

[cj]

My point is DRF/Equibase gives you "virtual time" of the horse based on real time of the race.

Trakus gives you "real time" (to the accuracy of their sensors) of both the horse and the race.

It is not that DRF/Equibase time is wrong; it is that they don't time the horse, they time the race.

I understand what you are saying about the horses, Equibase does not give the final time, just race time plus beaten lengths. They could give the time, in fact I saw it on the tote board on Sunday at Remington. They listed the exact final time of each horse after the race along with beaten lengths. I meant to take a picture but forgot.

My point was the race time is virtually the same regardless of which source you use, and neither accounts for run up. Trakus certainly has virtues over traditional timing and I wish it was in place at all tracks. They also do a much better job on courses with temporary rails at getting the distance right.

It hasn't really been addressed in this thread, but obviously run up has a bigger effect on the first quarter mile times than it does on final times due to being a much larger percentage of that part of the race.

[Cratos]

I understand what you are saying about the horses, Equibase does not give the final time, just race time plus beaten lengths. They could give the time, in fact I saw it on the tote board on Sunday at Remington. They listed the exact final time of each horse after the race along with beaten lengths. I meant to take a picture but forgot.

My point was the race time is virtually the same regardless of which source you use, and neither accounts for run up. Trakus certainly has virtues over traditional timing and I wish it was in place at all tracks. They also do a much better job on courses with temporary rails at getting the distance right.

It hasn't really been addressed in this thread, but obviously run up has a bigger effect on the first quarter mile times than it does on final times due to being a much larger percentage of that part of the race.
I agree with your last paragraph and that has been my point of contention all along.
It could be extrapolated that as the run-up distance gets longer it would favor the closer type horses and conversely as the run-up distance shortens the frontrunner types gain an advantage.
Of course this would depend on the quality of the horses.

[Tom]

I agree with your last paragraph and that has been my point of contention all along.
It could be extrapolated that as the run-up distance gets longer it would favor the closer type horses and conversely as the run-up distance shortens the frontrunner types gain an advantage.
Of course this would depend on the quality of the horses.

Why?
What difference does the run up make to the outcome of the race?

[dansan]

good thing i dont use final times when handicapping :D

[castaway01]

I wish I could take the final time I spent reading the past few pages and add it back on to my day...sorry, I know that's not productive, but are some people really arguing that a racetrack shouldn't even both timing the races accurately? Can't the "I'll argue the other side of anything for theory's sake and to boost my post count" crew take a day off now and then?

[classhandicapper]

good thing i dont use final times when handicapping :D

That's the way I feel every time I handicap a race using 2 more or more sets of figures. There are many significant differences and some are so huge you can't help but feel there has to be a better way.

[The Hawk]

CJ, what final time are you using?

[Spiderman]

Why?
What difference does the run up make to the outcome of the race?

Races with longer run-up times allow the advantage to speed types. Monmouth Park has a longer run up time than most tracks. Except for the Haskell, I haven't placed a bet on a MP race in three years.

[cj]

Races with longer run-up times allow the advantage to speed types. Monmouth Park has a longer run up time than most tracks. Except for the Haskell, I haven't placed a bet on a MP race in three years.

This defies logic...the longer the race, the more it favors those coming from behind. Longer run up equals longer race.

[biggestal99]

This defies logic...the longer the race, the more it favors those coming from behind. Longer run up equals longer race.

Monmouth park indeed has a long run up for 6f races and also favors speed types.

Allan

[cj]

Monmouth park indeed has a long run up for 6f races and also favors speed types.

Allan

That isn't the point. If the run up were even longer, would it favor speed even more?

The shorter the race, the more "speed" is favored. The shorter the run up, the shorter the race.

[The Hawk]

Hey CJ: Did you come up with a final time for Sunday's first race? And how?

On that note: This may be naive, but is there a way to time races using frames of a video? In other words, if you can establish frames per second couldn't you check the exact frame when the gates open, and note the frame when the first horse hits the wire, and figure out the final time very accurately?

[cj]

Hey CJ: Did you come up with a final time for Sunday's first race? And how?

On that note: This may be naive, but is there a way to time races using frames of a video? In other words, if you can establish frames per second couldn't you check the exact frame when the gates open, and note the frame when the first horse hits the wire, and figure out the final time very accurately?

I haven't yet, was waiting to see if Trakus would do a correction. I'll time it in the AM and let you know. It is pretty easy to time races from the gate using good software. It is more difficult to do fractions and time from after the run up, depends on the distance of the race and the camera angle.

[cj]

One thing that is alarming to me is that when Trakus malfunctions, we get nothing. There is zero information given for the 1st race on Sunday still, how would this fly if there was no Equibase for back up? Trakus also doesn't give anything for race 2, but there are times in the chart. Sorry, but this all seems fishy and unreliable to me.

It is pretty interesting to look at to be honest. So while Trakus is the "official" timer" for Gulfstream, only that is being used in charts, not the beaten lengths or positions. And where did the time in Race 2 come from if not from Trakus? There is no mention in the chart of any malfunction, no way to know where the time came from.

[ReplayRandall]

One thing that is alarming to me is that when Trakus malfunctions, we get nothing. There is zero information given for the 1st race on Sunday still, how would this fly if there was no Equibase for back up? Trakus also doesn't give anything for race 2, but there are times in the chart. Sorry, but this all seems fishy and unreliable to me.

It is pretty interesting to look at to be honest. So while Trakus is the "official" timer" for Gulfstream, only that is being used in charts, not the beaten lengths or positions. And where did the time in Race 2 come from if not from Trakus? There is no mention in the chart of any malfunction, no way to know where the time came from.

Can "Sunspots" be a contributor to any malfunction concerning Trakus?

[cj]

Can "Sunspots" be a contributor to any malfunction concerning Trakus?

I have no idea.

[Cratos]

Can "Sunspots" be a contributor to any malfunction concerning Trakus?
No, "sunspots" will not be a contributor to Trakus problems because Trakus is a RFID tracking system with a passive transponder.

I would believe that Trakus probably have a component(s) failure in their system which is very typical with electronic components or their algorithms have some sort of "gitch" that they have not fixed or cannot afford to fix.

While Trakus has the leading edge technology at the present for timing thoroughbred racing, they are a still small fledgling company that is going through typical growing pains of a small company; give them the opportunity to "debug" themselves and we might see something very good in the future.

[Tom]

Assuming track will be willing to pay for it.
I don't ever see the majority of tracks adding anything - probably just keep buying used equipment from Gulfstream. :D

[cj]

R4 yesterday is WAY off, even with Trakus timing.

[cj]

Tim Ritvo was on Roger Stein show today. Archive can be found here:

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio-shows.htm

I haven't listened yet, but apparently he said a lot of good things. We'll see. Words mean nothing, they've known about the silly run ups they use and that hasn't changed.

Yesterday, there were two 8.5f races on turf, both stakes, Races 8 and 10. Both were run on the same course, i.e. the same rail setting. However, one was run with 18 feet of run up, the other 80 feet. That is a HUGE difference. The times of course reflect this difference.

[cj]

I did get around to listening. I think Ritvo said some good things, but I have some concerns.

They are not going to stop using different run ups for the same distance and surface and rail setting on the same card. I don't mind doing it on different days, but why on the same day? That is a slap in the face to horseplayers. You simply can't compare times when this is done. Saturday, December 20th, races 8 and 10 is a great example.

It is tough enough dealing with run up, but at least when it is consistent you have some frame of reference. But moving it around on the same card makes no sense at all. If you are worried about tearing up the turn in one spot, fine, that makes sense. Change it every day, just not on the same day.

Then, he was hailed as doing something in two days when the time of mile dirt race was obviously wrong. He didn't do anything in two days. This has been going on for two years, or since Trakus took over. I've mentioned it here many times and to Trakus personnel as well. Finally they are going to investigate it and we're supposed to be thrilled?

We'll see what happens, but it sounds like a bunch of lip service to me. I'm probably being too jaded, but I have good reason to be.

[cj]

continued...

The frustrating thing isn't that the guy doesn't care. I'm sure he does. It is that he just doesn't get it. So instead of just not carding different run ups for races that are otherwise the same distance and rail setting, they are going to post the differing run ups on the Gulfstream web site pre-race.

That is fine, but it doesn't address the whole problem, just a very small part of it.

[Cratos]

A good read on run ups and race timing

[Tom]

Basically, no track on the continent is benign to the scourge of run-up.

BS.
That should read the scourge of the lazy, incompetent, clueless track managements.

For God's sake, we put men on the moon and brought them back with less computer power that your wristwatch today. 45 years ago.

Today, we can't time a stinking race??????

[Valuist]

I thought the figure for the Holy Bull seemed a little high. When Keen Ice improves his lifetime best by 12 Beyer points while flailing 10 1/2 lengths behind the winner, it does seem a little suspicious. Bluegrass Singer was clearly tiring in the stretch, yet he paired up his 93 he ran while winning the Mucho Macho Man Stakes in early January. I think everyone had the race rated very high; with the short finish lines in 1 1/16 mile races, maybe the timer was wrong for that race. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time.

[classhandicapper]

I thought the figure for the Holy Bull seemed a little high. When Keen Ice improves his lifetime best by 12 Beyer points while flailing 10 1/2 lengths behind the winner, it does seem a little suspicious. Bluegrass Singer was clearly tiring in the stretch, yet he paired up his 93 he ran while winning the Mucho Macho Man Stakes in early January. I think everyone had the race rated very high; with the short finish lines in 1 1/16 mile races, maybe the timer was wrong for that race. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time.

Keen Ice apparently came back and paired that figure in the Risen Star yesterday and Frammento ran an even better figure yesterday in the FOY.

The Holy Bull and FOY were opposites pace wise.

The pace looked easy in the Holy Bull but yesterday it appeared to me the FOY got pretty hot in the middle and all the top horses were tiring a bit. I haven't looked at run up or timing datal for either of those races though.

[Valuist]

Keen Ice apparently came back and paired that figure in the Risen Star yesterday and Frammento ran an even better figure yesterday in the FOY.

The Holy Bull and FOY were opposites pace wise.

The pace looked easy in the Holy Bull but yesterday it appeared to me the FOY got pretty hot in the middle and all the top horses were tiring a bit. I haven't looked at run up or timing datal for either of those races though.

Are you talking Timeform or Beyer? Since you mention pace, I assume you meant Timeform. My point was really geared toward the Beyers of the Holy Bull, which I felt were a bit high.

[classhandicapper]

Are you talking Timeform or Beyer? Since you mention pace, I assume you meant Timeform. My point was really geared toward the Beyers of the Holy Bull, which I felt were a bit high.

I was talking about the Beyer figure.

My pace comment was based my visual observation of the race. The race "looked" hot in the middle. I haven't seen any pace figures yet.

[cutchemist42]

Edit-Ouch didnt see it was such an old thread.

[cj]

Gulfstream timing, Trakus or no Trakus, continues to be a joke for mile dirt races. Did some video work on the races yesterday and it is obvious something is amiss with the first quarter times. This carries over throughout the races.

[RXB]

They report only a 5-foot runup for the dirt miles yet the runup deduction from the gate-to-wire time is close to a full second.

Race 10 yesterday was handtimed or teletimed as Trakus didn't function for that race.

[cj]

They report only a 5-foot runup for the dirt miles yet the runup deduction from the gate-to-wire time is close to a full second.

Race 10 yesterday was handtimed or teletimed as Trakus didn't function for that race.

Yep, race 10 was the one that had me doing the work in the first place with a tip from a friend. (not RXB this time, though he is very helpful!)

[cj]

Not just the timing...

Yesterday Gulfstream ran two stakes races at 5f on the turf, both with no temporary rail. The "reported" run up was 69 feet for each race, but watching the replays it is clear to see the race for fillies and mares has a MUCH shorter run up than that of the male race, like thirteen lengths of rail shorter.

[OTM Al]

Not just the timing...

Yesterday Gulfstream ran two stakes races at 5f on the turf, both with no temporary rail. The "reported" run up was 69 feet for each race, but watching the replays it is clear to see the race for fillies and mares has a MUCH shorter run up than that of the male race, like thirteen lengths of rail shorter.
When I saw first fraction that was the first thing that came to mind.

[cj]

When I saw first fraction that was the first thing that came to mind.

It is just so frustrating. I know that people probably get tired of hearing about this stuff, but I try my best to do a good job and get really sick of getting crap information that my company, myself, and our customers and all customsers pay good money to get. We deserve better than this shoddy crap. Billions of dollars bet a year and the industry can't report correct run ups. Are you kidding me?

And this happened for two high quality races. It also happened for the Belmont stakes and the other mile and a half race on the card this year. If it happens for days like this, what do you think is going on at smaller tracks that few people watch?

The sad part is not a soul at Gulfstream Park seems to notice, or worse yet if they notice they don't care.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Keep up the good fight because that's the only way those responsible will even register the concept that out there in the world someone is noticing. They may blow you off but someone in a similar position elsewhere is reading this and realizing that this an opportunity to do something real ****ing simple to be better than Gulfstream.

[thaskalos]

They may blow you off but someone in a similar position elsewhere is reading this and realizing that this an opportunity to do something real ****ing simple to be better than Gulfstream.
It'd be nice if it was done while we are still alive, though.

[Tom]

Race tracks have no respect for their customers.
Most have no clue who the customers are.

[thaskalos]

Race tracks have no respect for their customers.
Most have no clue who the customers are.
I was in the retail grocery business for more than 30 years. Customers came to my store and handed me their money, in return for real products that they took home and used. And I appreciated their patronage greatly. In horse racing...the customer comes in to bet his hard-earned money...and the racetrack takes 17-30% right off the top, depending on the wager type. And, in the vast majority of the cases, the customer takes nothing home as proof for the money that he spent. How can a customer like this get no respect from the business that he patronizes?

[cj]

I was in the retail grocery business for more than 30 years. Customers came to my store and handed me their money, in return for real products that they took home and used. And I appreciated their patronage greatly. In horse racing...the customer comes in to bet his hard-earned money...and the racetrack takes 17-30% right off the top, depending on the wager type. And, in the vast majority of the cases, the customer takes nothing home as proof for the money that he spent. How can a customer like this get no respect from the business that he patronizes?

It is bad enough to run the same distance on the same day with vastly differing run ups. That is a slap in the face to bettors. It is another thing altogether to publish wildly false information. That is more like a punch in the face.

[thaskalos]

It is bad enough to run the same distance on the same day with vastly differing run ups. That is a slap in the face to bettors. It is another thing altogether to publish wildly false information. That is more like a punch in the face.
They must be trying to get us to move over to the slots.

[Tom]

Hopefully, the slots will be independent of the race tracks and the tracks can go pound slat and close their doors. We probably have, in the whole country, 7-8 people qualified to run a race track at best. Certainly the idiot who runs GP is not on the list.

[SG4]

Not just the timing...

Yesterday Gulfstream ran two stakes races at 5f on the turf, both with no temporary rail. The "reported" run up was 69 feet for each race, but watching the replays it is clear to see the race for fillies and mares has a MUCH shorter run up than that of the male race, like thirteen lengths of rail shorter.

If you watch replays of the 2nd & 4th from Saturday as well you'll see the 2nd race come up clearly much slower than the time reported & the 4th race clearly faster than the final time (I saw it more than a second each way in timing it), which would make a lot more sense for the caliber of horses. Really can't understand how GP is doing their timing, and as discussed this has been going on for years now.

I was always under the impression if they are starting a race from the wider turf course that they would move the starting gate up to account for the longer turns, is this actually being done? And if so where are they taking fractional points from? In order to trip the correct sensors do they just have to start all races at the normal spots & trip the sensors at the poles like usual, thus obviously creating misleading times due to the extra ground covered?

[classhandicapper]

This is probably beyond paranoid, but when something doesn't make sense, it sometimes pays to ask who benefits.

Most handicappers use speed and pace figures these days. High quality numbers are widely available. So if you are trying to get a edge with numbers, whatever you are using has to bring something extra to the table or you are banging heads with other very smart people looking at the same things.

Screwing around with the rails and run ups adds a layer of complexity to the process of making numbers and almost certainly adds inaccuracy to many commercially available figures. No one has the time and resources to check and watch races from all over the country. You are lucky if you can follow two circuits that carefully.

The people that benefit from this are the people that do KNOW or that are given that information and adjust. The more often it happens and the more inaccuracies that are reported, the bigger their edge. This is a gambling game with a lot of money at stake and some very heavy players in action. I don't think it's totally impossible that some people WANT it to remain this way and would be willing to pay a few bucks to keep it this way or even encourage it.

[Tom]

Interesting choice, Class.... crooked or incompetent.

[ubercapper]

Not just the timing...

Yesterday Gulfstream ran two stakes races at 5f on the turf, both with no temporary rail. The "reported" run up was 69 feet for each race, but watching the replays it is clear to see the race for fillies and mares has a MUCH shorter run up than that of the male race, like thirteen lengths of rail shorter.

CJ and I have exchanged emails on the subject and corrections will be forthcoming shortly.

Equibase appreciates being made aware of errors or inaccuracies. You can always email feedback@equibase.com or call (800)333-2211 to report any issues.

Thanks

[thaskalos]

Interesting choice, Class.... crooked or incompetent.
Or both.

[vadinho]

I have to think that anyone investing serious time and money in the game that relies on time has a more accurate timing mechanism in place. Surely someone has programmed computer analysis of race videos. Better than anything out there; including the occasionally malfunctioning Trakus.

[no breathalyzer]

This is probably beyond paranoid, but when something doesn't make sense, it sometimes pays to ask who benefits.

Most handicappers use speed and pace figures these days. High quality numbers are widely available. So if you are trying to get a edge with numbers, whatever you are using has to bring something extra to the table or you are banging heads with other very smart people looking at the same things.

Screwing around with the rails and run ups adds a layer of complexity to the process of making numbers and almost certainly adds inaccuracy to many commercially available figures. No one has the time and resources to check and watch races from all over the country. You are lucky if you can follow two circuits that carefully.

The people that benefit from this are the people that do KNOW or that are given that information and adjust. The more often it happens and the more inaccuracies that are reported, the bigger their edge. This is a gambling game with a lot of money at stake and some very heavy players in action. I don't think it's totally impossible that some people WANT it to remain this way and would be willing to pay a few bucks to keep it this way or even encourage it.


I agree good point

[cj]

There is a very good chance based on the video work I've done so far that the gate for the Lady Shipman race was actually in the wrong place. I don't think the race was even a full five furlongs believe it or not.

[cj]

No doubt about it now, race was definitely shorter than 5f.

[dasch]

I have found that these "mistakes" seem to coincidentally happen most often when there are split divisions of the same race and/or multiple races at the same distance.

And I am not specifically only talking about Gulfstream

Seems people can't help themselves trying to get an edge any way they can. Personally I don't have a problem with it, I just have to pay close attention at all times.

[VeryOldMan]

No doubt about it now, race was definitely shorter than 5f.

Nice work. Just watched the replay of both races - based on the small silver stanchion in the foreground, the 4th race started well ahead of the 10th race. Hard to tell because of a perspective difference on the side view, but it looked like 1 1/2 of the white panels. Looks even worse on the head-on when they pull away and you see the relative starting position of the gate v. the turn of the inside rail. Good grief!!

[cj]

I have found that these "mistakes" seem to coincidentally happen most often when there are split divisions of the same race and/or multiple races at the same distance.

And I am not specifically only talking about Gulfstream

Seems people can't help themselves trying to get an edge any way they can. Personally I don't have a problem with it, I just have to pay close attention at all times.


In this case I think the gate was just put in the wrong place. No don't get me wrong, that is pretty bad in and of itself, but I don't think there was any intentional chicanery here.

[cj]

I have to think that anyone investing serious time and money in the game that relies on time has a more accurate timing mechanism in place. Surely someone has programmed computer analysis of race videos. Better than anything out there; including the occasionally malfunctioning Trakus.

This would be some task. Fractions are tough due to the camera angles, and even if you figure that out, the camera isn't consistent. Sometimes it focuses in closer than other times, sometimes they pan out sooner than other times. It is tough to do manually, programming it would be a monumental task.

I'll also add many racetracks make it very tough to download replays to your computer. Yes, you can watch them, but getting them on your PC is another story. Some are much easier than others.

[dasch]

In this case I think the gate was just put in the wrong place. No don't get me wrong, that is pretty bad in and of itself, but I don't think there was any intentional chicanery here.


In this particular case I also believe it was just a mistake. With the "musical runups" they play at Gulfstream I imagine it gets very confusing for the gate crew.

[classhandicapper]

I just noticed that Beyer made the Lady Shipman race faster (103) than the GP Turf Sprint (Power Alert 100) even though she ran 58.14 and the latter ran in 57.74.

[Jeff P]

This is probably beyond paranoid, but when something doesn't make sense, it sometimes pays to ask who benefits...
and:
There is a very good chance based on the video work I've done so far that the gate for the Lady Shipman race was actually in the wrong place. I don't think the race was even a full five furlongs believe it or not.
and:
In this case I think the gate was just put in the wrong place. No don't get me wrong, that is pretty bad in and of itself, but I don't think there was any intentional chicanery here.

If I were considering the possibility of chicanery - the first thing I would look into would be any unusual betting patterns for the race in question.

As it turns out, for the Lady Shipman race, one could make the argument that may have been the case.

I have the total show pool for that race at $286,342 - with $239,798 of that landing on Lady Shipman.

Bridgejumping a show pool certainly isn't all that rare...

But I'm having a hard time recalling the last time I saw it happen to that degree on the turf - and with a field of eight runners.

And now it turns out the gate was in the wrong place too?

I'm not saying chicanery actually happened here. But I agree with you CJ. It certainly looks bad.



-jp

.

[cj]

I just noticed that Beyer made the Lady Shipman race faster (103) than the GP Turf Sprint (Power Alert 100) even though she ran 58.14 and the latter ran in 57.74.

Definitely the right call based on the timing I did of the races, even with the Lady Shipman race being shorter!

[cj]

Watching the race, it is unlikely the shorter distance affected the top 3 finishers, but a case could be made the superfecta would have changed.

[cj]

and:

and:


If I were considering the possibility of chicanery - the first thing I would look into would be any unusual betting patterns for the race in question.

As it turns out, for the Lady Shipman race, one could make the argument that may have been the case.

I have the total show pool for that race at $286,342 - with $239,798 of that landing on Lady Shipman.

Bridgejumping a show pool certainly isn't all that rare...

But I'm having a hard time recalling the last time I saw it happen to that degree on the turf - and with a field of eight runners.

And now it turns out the gate was in the wrong place too?

I'm not saying chicanery actually happened here. But I agree with you CJ. It certainly looks bad.



-jp

.

It would be hard to predict how this could help on race day unless you had a faint hearted sprinter you were trying to help. The chicanery would more likely come in the future if people were using bad information. I've written an article on this that will be out tomorrow, but I'm confident the race was more than 100 feet short of the advertised distance if you include run up. It is disgraceful.

[sammy the sage]

Anyway to bring a class action lawsuit... :bang: :mad:

[johnhannibalsmith]

This has to be the shittiest track in North America.

[RXB]

Thanks to some handtiming and research, here is my gift to you all, normalizing the times for the 4th race (which indeed was shorter than 5f) to the same course as the other stakes, the 10th race.

4th Race Sat Feb 6, use:

22.12 44.92 57.04

That's an estimate but a fairly good one, TONS MORE ACCURATE than the official timing which totally messes up the first 2f.

The entries and results both show the 4th race as having the rail at 96 feet (as used for the 2nd race), but in fact it was the same course as the 10th race-- i.e., the rail was actually at the zero setting. I wonder if perhaps they took the gate in from where they should go for a 96-foot rail, and thus screwed everything up.

Equibase should correct the rail setting for the 4th race, and change the listed runup from 10 feet to N/A since there wasn't really a runup. Also, I think the initial runup of 69 feet for the 10th race is more accurate than the currently listed 48 feet. The difference between gate-to-wire time and official time is 2.5 seconds and it takes more than 48 feet of runup to cause that much difference.

[cj]

For whatever it is worth my data feed had both races with a zero rail position all along. Not sure why the charts say differently. I think Equibase has it correct.

[RXB]

As of right now both Bris and Equibase charts say "Rail at 96 feet," as did the Equibase entries.

[cj]

As of right now both Bris and Equibase charts say "Rail at 96 feet," as did the Equibase entries.


Maybe Ellis can fill us in, that is clearly an error. I'm attaching the charts I downloaded as of yesterday from Equibase, you can see there is no rail setting for those races. I actually just checked the Equibase and neither R4 nor R10 shows a rail setting.

http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=GP&raceDate=02/06/2016&cy=USA

[cj]

I see what you mean now, it is in the conditions part, but it is not below the split times which is where they report the actual rail setting that was used. I have no idea why they do it that way.

[ebcorde]

Maybe Ellis can fill us in, that is clearly an error. I'm attaching the charts I downloaded as of yesterday from Equibase, you can see there is no rail setting for those races. I actually just checked the Equibase and neither R4 nor R10 shows a rail setting.

http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=GP&raceDate=02/06/2016&cy=USA

although it would be fun to get paid a salary to make figures. If the tracks do not have to be accurate on distance, no matter what your solution, some people will never be happy. That sucks they should be forced to provide exact distance. Instead guys like you take the heat.


If I dwell on run-ups I would probably quit playing.

[ebcorde]

Maybe Ellis can fill us in, that is clearly an error. I'm attaching the charts I downloaded as of yesterday from Equibase, you can see there is no rail setting for those races. I actually just checked the Equibase and neither R4 nor R10 shows a rail setting.

http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=GP&raceDate=02/06/2016&cy=USA


R4 run up 10 feet, rail setting 96 feet (at the end of the race conditions)
R10 run up 48 feet , no rail setting

that might mean rail setting of 96 feet on all Turf races.

[cj]

R4 run up 10 feet, rail setting 96 feet (at the end of the race conditions)
R10 run up 48 feet , no rail setting

that might mean rail setting of 96 feet on all Turf races.

Like I said though, if you look under "Split Times", there is no rail setting for R4 or R10. That is the most accurate place to look to know where the rail really was. I'm not saying it is always right, but it is better than in the conditions.

[cj]

Here you go, the whole story best I can piece it together.

http://timeformusblog.com/2016/02/09/the-curious-case-of-the-ladies-turf-sprint-stakes-at-gulfstream-park/

[thaskalos]

Here you go, the whole story best I can piece it together.

http://timeformusblog.com/2016/02/09/the-curious-case-of-the-ladies-turf-sprint-stakes-at-gulfstream-park/
This article of yours deserves much wider circulation. These things need to get out there for all to see.

[cj]

This article of yours deserves much wider circulation. These things need to get out there for all to see.

Feel free to pass it on to anyone that will have an interest. We will push it via email and Twitter and our blog. Maybe Paulick can pick it up, and hopefully Bloodhorse. I don't even care if my name is on it. People need to know the crap that is going on in this sport.

[classhandicapper]

In the replay of the 4th race, you don't even see the 5/8 pole. So it's pretty clear they started the race AFTER the 5F point in the race. The thing I find interesting is how they clocked the first quarter fraction. I thought the clock started when they crossed that 5F pole, but they never actually crossed it because they started past it.

This is laughable and not so funny all at the same time. :rolleyes:

[cj]

In the replay of the 4th race, you don't even see the 5/8 pole. So it's pretty clear they started the race AFTER the starting point and the race was shorter than 5F. The thing I find interesting is how they clocked the first quarter fraction. I thought the clock started when they crossed that 5F pole, but they never actually crossed it.

This is laughable and not so funny all at the same time. :rolleyes:

It was possible the 5f pole wasn't visible due to the closeness of the shot the gate and the camera angle.

As for the clocking, Trakus does things differently, there is no "beam".

[classhandicapper]

It was possible the 5f pole wasn't visible due to the closeness of the shot the gate and the camera angle.

As for the clocking, Trakus does things differently, there is no "beam".

That's right I forgot that Trakus is timing the races there.

Honestly, I almost never make a serious bet on a horse based on the times of races anymore, but at this point I'm not even sure I'm interested in the times of the races. It's ridiculous that they aren't even running the races at the right distances.

[Tom]

Calling Joe Drape,
Calling Joe Drape.

Time for a blistering article on how bad racing is - this time, for real.

[thaskalos]

Where is Beyer when we need him?

[outofthebox]

Cj, what is your take on the 2nd race being that it was the fastest of the three? How did you adjust the figs for that race?

[cj]

Cj, what is your take on the 2nd race being that it was the fastest of the three? How did you adjust the figs for that race?

The second race was run on a different part of the course, outside the rail which was set at 96 feet. It was treated separately from the two stakes races.

[ebcorde]

Like I said though, if you look under "Split Times", there is no rail setting for R4 or R10. That is the most accurate place to look to know where the rail really was. I'm not saying it is always right, but it is better than in the conditions.

okay I see what you mean, read your article.