Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
The second call can be a little tricky at these short distance because the time is given for four furlongs but the call is given at a different point. Here is a good reference point:
http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/stati...calltimeschart
Could be that BRIS does what I also do. I match the calls to the fractions given. In this case, here is how the second call looks, but keep in mind it comes at the 3 furlong mark:
 0.1
 1.0
The next call is the stretch call, which always comes one furlong before the finish. So in this case it is 4.5 furlongs, which more closely matches the given fraction which is being used to make the pace figures:
5.0
2.5
What I do is figure out the time at both points and estimate each horse's time at four furlongs. It isn't perfect, but it is all you can really do unless you want to watch every replay and chart them yourself. You could also blend the beaten lengths to give a decent estimate.
The was 0.1 back at 3f and 5 lengths back at 4.5f, so you can estimate the horse was ~3.35 lengths back at 4f.
The was 5.0 back at 3f and 2.5 lengths back at 4.5f, so you can estimate the horse was ~3.33 lengths back at 4f.
Obviously the passed the at some point between the 3f call and the 4.5 call and based on the beaten lengths the 4f point looks like a pretty good estimate of when it happened.
Main point is you do the best you can with poorly constructed data. Why in 2018 we're still using calls and fractions that don't match is beyond me. |
Thanks CJ & Tom, I was thinking that only 5f was using 3f. for 2nd call, thought that 5.5f was like the 6f, duh. Okay, using your estimates for lengths back at 2nd call(4f) we have:
3.35 bl's = 80
3.33 bl's. = 82 so .02/100's of a length = 2 pts.
It almost looks like they're using 4.5 f mark. No need to respond. These two look to be the favorites today.
