Erroneous Times - GMAX
 

Worth a read about the problems with the new timing system.

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...timing-system/

There a a pretty significant issue when he seems to be saying if we get within a length of the actual time we're doing our job.

Thanks for posting that.

From the article:
20 Beyer points. :rolleyes:

I know I've posted this question before:

But why aren't tracks (especially those with new timing systems) sanity checking final times from video prior to sending chart data to Equibase?

Not hand timing. But using the procedure CJ has posted about where you freeze recorded race video when the nose of the winner breaks the plane of the wire, rewind the video by the race time generated by the timing system - freeze the video at that point - and LOOK where the horses are.

If the horses are not where they should be:

You will know right then and there that time generated by the timing system is off.



-jp

.

The part that made me laugh (not in a good way) was that the attitude toward figure makers was dismissive, as if a 1/5th or 2/5th should mean nothing to them. They don't understand the customer at all.

Exactly.

I think they do, and we aint it

Imo, they don't understand the customer because they don't bet.

If they did they would know the top priority for any race timing system is accurate times.

They would also know if they can't get the times right:

Horseplayers and Whales are going to have zero confidence in all of the secondary information they are talking about:

"‘data depth’ –more detailed information about the race: speed, acceleration, stride length, frequency and distance traveled" and the ability to "open up new bet types such as in-running betting"


-jp

.

Do whales depend on the timing or do they do it themselves, thus making the tracks current position more profitable?

"Is this accuracy that the figure-makers require an absolute need?", Dave Siegel asks. And this man is to be taken seriously? :faint:

I know from conversations I've had with some of them that for thoroughbred races in the US and Canada where speed figs are available, yes, they do use speed figs... Beyer, TimeformUS, and HDW, etc.

I also know they make custom adjustments to the figs.

For international races where Beyer, TimeformUS, HDW, etc. are not available, they've been known to hire a capable figure maker. (Hint: search for some of the posts by steveb.)

I would guess a few of them likely have an in-house figure maker on the payroll for races in the US and Canada too.

I would also guess many/most of them are perfectly capable of sanity checking times in the chart data using recorded video and the procedure CJ has written about.


-jp

.

again, it seems like the tracks likely have no incentive to make it more difficult for their main customer by making better data available to the average customer.

More on the same topic.

https://racingthinktank.com/blog/equ...tance-accuracy

I've actually gotten a lot better at this since I made that. Previously it was easy to spot problem races using multiple races at the same distance, but getting accurate times from a single replay was much harder. I can do that now for most races.

From the article where it compared two races from from Parx that one race was about a second faster than the other, but were equal when timed from the gate with no run up.

Sure the time looked slow at about 1:14, but at least it was more accurate and could be compared to other tracks without using run ups.

From my par books I have Parx 6f $10k at 111.3 and Churchill at 1:10.4. Would they still be 4 ticks different with out run ups? And if not, wouldn't the 2, or 4 or 10 tick differences be more accurate?

Isn't this the simplest solution to time irregularities?

Jeff,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a 2nd-place horse 5 lengths back WHEN THE WINNER CROSSES THE WIRE should show as 5 lengths back.

Doesn't this create a problem if the horse that was 5 lengths back actually finishes 3rd?

#1 - Wins
#2 - 2nd 5 lengths back
#3 - 3rd 5.5 lengths back

But the actual finish is #1, #3, #2.

How does that reconcile?