Carroll's Handicapping Speed

[46zilzal]

THIS book is like no other you will ever read. It delves into the upper limits attainable by horses and mixes, and shows linearly, the upper limits that horses can reach and why.

He breaks down distances (based upon world records) by how many seconds per length were in that special event and the outcome is not surprising once your understand the text.

Here is a breakdown of the world speed records by distance and time per length
4f 44.2 330 lengths in this race 0.134 time per length
4.5f 50.4 371.25 0.1357
5f 55.2 412.5 0.1338
5.5 61.4 453.75 0.1353
6 67.2 495 0.1358
6.5 73.6 536.25 0.1372
7 79.4 577.5 0.1375
8 92.2 660 0.1397
8.318 96.7 686.25 0.1409
8.5 98.4 701.25 0.1403
9 105 742.5 0.1414
9.5 112.4 783.75 0.1434
10 117.8 825 0.1428

It is almost hard to believe it is so linear.

[newtothegame]

Ok zil......heres another question regarding handicapping. Hopefully you will answer this one since you ignored the last.
Again, serious question.....
Why would anyone use "lenghts"? I am assuming that this refers to the horses actual length? Why not just use the actual length of the measured distance divided by the time? I am failing to see the relevance in knowing what times the horse's "length" travelled that distance except to say for that race or covered distance.
My question regarding the relevance is what happens if a smaller or larger horse in size would run that distance? How would the above information help someone handicap?
Thanks in advance....

[HUSKER55]

So, you are saying that at 4f a horse runs 7.46 lengths per second and at a mile he runs 7.16 lengths per second, set to a global scale.

Is that correct?

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

So, you are saying that at 4f a horse runs 7.46 lengths per second and at a mile he runs 7.16 lengths per second, set to a global scale.

Is that correct?

Carroll stated these are related to WORLD'S RECORDS. Read the book as he has some very interesting comments about speed that no one else ever touched upon.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

Ok zil......heres another question regarding handicapping. Hopefully you will answer this one since you ignored the last.
Again, serious question.....
Why would anyone use "lenghts"? I am assuming that this refers to the horses actual length? Why not just use the actual length of the measured distance divided by the time? I am failing to see the relevance in knowing what times the horse's "length" travelled that distance except to say for that race or covered distance.
My question regarding the relevance is what happens if a smaller or larger horse in size would run that distance? How would the above information help someone handicap?
Thanks in advance....

These are for final winning times, so lengths are simply the selected unit of measure -- really irrelevant. The important fact is that speed is fairly constant up to 6f and then fairly linear beyond.

[fmolf]

Call me ignorant but i just finished ...thank god! It was very dry, very boring with lots of mathamatical calculations and i found it had no practical value for t bred racing.Maybe it does for other breeds most notably quarters.I was mostly skimming thru it and in the wagering part of the book he recommends betting on two or more horses using his mathamatical calculations.Not for me thanks!

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

These are for final winning times, so lengths are simply the selected unit of measure -- really irrelevant. The important fact is that speed is fairly constant up to 6f and then fairly linear beyond.

Thanks ranch......

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

THIS book is like no other you will ever read. It delves into the upper limits attainable by horses and mixes, and shows linearly, the upper limits that horses can reach and why.

He breaks down distances (based upon world records) by how many seconds per length were in that special event and the outcome is not surprising once your understand the text.

Here is a breakdown of the world speed records by distance and time per length
4f 44.2 330 lengths in this race 0.134 time per length
4.5f 50.4 371.25 0.1357
5f 55.2 412.5 0.1338
5.5 61.4 453.75 0.1353
6 67.2 495 0.1358
6.5 73.6 536.25 0.1372
7 79.4 577.5 0.1375
8 92.2 660 0.1397
8.318 96.7 686.25 0.1409
8.5 98.4 701.25 0.1403
9 105 742.5 0.1414
9.5 112.4 783.75 0.1434
10 117.8 825 0.1428

It is almost hard to believe it is so linear.

Thank You 46. I have been preaching about the superior method that Carroll uses in calculating Beaten Lengths for a while now. I missed this thread when it came out in january. In january I also posted my use of this method while combining it with PPF Pars and the handicapping Magic theories. I believe that
Handicapping Speed is one of the top 5 handicapping books of all time.
Among the tidbits of info in this book: 10k claimers often run within %5 of
the world record. The run-up time to the teletimer affects speed and pace severely. Most people think that the clock starts when the gate opens, It does not. Only in quarterhorses does the clock start when the gate opens.
Horses are not 10 feet long, they average about 8 feet.

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

Ok zil......heres another question regarding handicapping. Hopefully you will answer this one since you ignored the last.
Again, serious question.....
Why would anyone use "lenghts"? I am assuming that this refers to the horses actual length? Why not just use the actual length of the measured distance divided by the time? I am failing to see the relevance in knowing what times the horse's "length" travelled that distance except to say for that race or covered distance.
My question regarding the relevance is what happens if a smaller or larger horse in size would run that distance? How would the above information help someone handicap?
Thanks in advance....

Using 10 feet to figure a horses Beaten length and 1/5 second per length will often make you off 1/4 to 1/2 second in sprints. In figuring Final Fraction numbers this is a catastrophe.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

THIS book is like no other you will ever read. It delves into the upper limits attainable by horses and mixes, and shows linearly, the upper limits that horses can reach and why.

He breaks down distances (based upon world records) by how many seconds per length were in that special event and the outcome is not surprising once your understand the text.

Here is a breakdown of the world speed records by distance and time per length
4f 44.2 330 lengths in this race 0.134 time per length
4.5f 50.4 371.25 0.1357
5f 55.2 412.5 0.1338
5.5 61.4 453.75 0.1353
6 67.2 495 0.1358
6.5 73.6 536.25 0.1372
7 79.4 577.5 0.1375
8 92.2 660 0.1397
8.318 96.7 686.25 0.1409
8.5 98.4 701.25 0.1403
9 105 742.5 0.1414
9.5 112.4 783.75 0.1434
10 117.8 825 0.1428

It is almost hard to believe it is so linear.

Just for the record, the true relationship isn't linear. If you look at distances beyond 10F, horses slow down significantly.

[cj]

Originally Posted by maddog42

Most people think that the clock starts when the gate opens, It does not. Only in quarterhorses does the clock start when the gate opens.
Horses are not 10 feet long, they average about 8 feet.

I like the 8 feet thing and use it myself. However, that doesn't mean chart callers do, and however long they think a horse is matters most. It also doesn't mean squat at the finish since there is a hard coded formula built into photo finish companies software.

As for the other part, I guarantee you most people at PA know about run up. This isn't handicapping kindergarten.

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by cj

I like the 8 feet thing and use it myself. However, that doesn't mean chart callers do, and however long they think a horse is matters most. It also doesn't mean squat at the finish since there is a hard coded formula built into photo finish companies software.

As for the other part, I guarantee you most people at PA know about run up. This isn't handicapping kindergarten.

Maybe most people at PA do, maybe not. I just read a post where one fellow was saying 1/5 second was one beaten length. Have you read the Carroll book?
It has gotten good reviews from Sartin,Brohamer and Quinn. It goes into the most exacting detail from Photo Finish Lab to Trackman to Starting Gate personnel. From The technical side of the Race Track it is by far the best handicapping book I have ever read.
You are right about the chart callers, they vary tremendously. Carroll got me interested in the BL and value of lengths about 2 years ago. I had always used 8 feet but 1/5 second per b.l. ala brohamer. So I started Recording races and timing the actual additional time it took the beaten horses to finish.
This was awkward and not the most scientific, but my stopwatch told me that using 8ft and the lengths/ furlong that carroll uses was superior. Carroll in an online article had stated that he tried using 7.5 and 8.5 and they just don't work as well. When I go to all this trouble to make Pace figures , I want them to reflect reality.

[cj]

Originally Posted by maddog42

Maybe most people at PA do, maybe not. I just read a post where one fellow was saying 1/5 second was one beaten length. Have you read the Carroll book?
It has gotten good reviews from Sartin,Brohamer and Quinn. It goes into the most exacting detail from Photo Finish Lab to Trackman to Starting Gate personnel. From The technical side of the Race Track it is by far the best handicapping book I have ever read.
You are right about the chart callers, they vary tremendously. Carroll got me interested in the BL and value of lengths about 2 years ago. I had always used 8 feet but 1/5 second per b.l. ala brohamer. So I started Recording races and timing the actual additional time it took the beaten horses to finish.
This was awkward and not the most scientific, but my stopwatch told me that using 8ft and the lengths/ furlong that carroll uses was superior. Carroll in an online article had stated that he tried using 7.5 and 8.5 and they just don't work as well. When I go to all this trouble to make Pace figures , I want them to reflect reality.

Absolutely I have read it and have nothing but good to say about it. I have made pace figures for a long time and I have used the 8 feet which I took directly from the book. I don't agree with everything in the book, but it is very good and I'd recommend it to anyone.

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by cj

Absolutely I have read it and have nothing but good to say about it. I have made pace figures for a long time and I have used the 8 feet which I took directly from the book. I don't agree with everything in the book, but it is very good and I'd recommend it to anyone.

CJ, Let me publicly apologize if I came across as rude in my previous post. I respect your opinion more than anyone on this board. I find i agree with you more than anyone. As a Sartin follower, I even found your criticism of him to be right on. I tend to get fired up when it comes to handicapping.