|
|
01-31-2019, 04:57 PM
|
#706
|
Sartin Methodology Fan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 328
|
Today at Santa Anita, Race 3, did they really go 43.66 for the half on a sloppy track?
__________________
"And there they go! It's Toupée going on ahead, Long Underwear has fallen behind, Toothpaste is being squeezed out on the rail as Banana joins the bunch, and Cabbage is trailing by a head."
|
|
|
02-10-2019, 01:41 AM
|
#707
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,844
|
Sam Houston. I'm not sure you can trust a single race at that place at this point. There are problems every single day.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 02:55 PM
|
#708
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,827
|
2-18 the first race at Gulfstream no internal times, with 220 foot run up?
__________________
Every time you are tempted to react in the same old way, ask if you want to be a prisoner of the past or a pioneer of the future.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 03:11 PM
|
#709
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,844
|
If you read the chart at the end of the comments, it is noted that the race was hand timed. It is the only place this is available for now. I try to push for this even for races with fractions as hand timing is not accurate at all, so hand timed races should be identified in my opinion. I'd love to see it in the PPs. We do it at TimeformUS but that is part of our coding, not coming from Equibase.
I try to video time races like this one (much more accurate, see this link) but when the rail is way out and the run up is long it is very difficult to do. Why tracks aren't doing this instead of posting bad hand times I really don't know.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 03:21 PM
|
#710
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Sam Houston. I'm not sure you can trust a single race at that place at this point. There are problems every single day.
|
When you make such discoveries, do you contact the track? I know it isn't your job, just wondering. Thanks for the diligence.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 03:24 PM
|
#711
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,844
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike
When you make such discoveries, do you contact the track? I know it isn't your job, just wondering. Thanks for the diligence.
|
I go through Equibase to get to tracks.
|
|
|
02-24-2019, 06:38 AM
|
#712
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 159
|
Tampa 2/23/19 Races 7 & 9.
Starter Hdcp. for males and females at 9F
Race 7 (F/M)
:23.31, :47.16, 1:10.45, 1:35.25, 1:47.52
Race 9 (M)
:23.60, :49.49, 1:13.41, 1:37.13, 1:49.02
The 6F pace call for males was nearly 3 full seconds slower than f/m. These fractions just don't pass the smell test to me.
|
|
|
02-24-2019, 11:28 AM
|
#713
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,844
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rispa
Tampa 2/23/19 Races 7 & 9.
Starter Hdcp. for males and females at 9F
Race 7 (F/M)
:23.31, :47.16, 1:10.45, 1:35.25, 1:47.52
Race 9 (M)
:23.60, :49.49, 1:13.41, 1:37.13, 1:49.02
The 6F pace call for males was nearly 3 full seconds slower than f/m. These fractions just don't pass the smell test to me.
|
I'll time them today from video.
|
|
|
02-24-2019, 07:16 PM
|
#714
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,844
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I'll time them today from video.
|
Might not get to this until morning, but the races look very fishy on my worksheets. The 9th fits with the other turf races. The 7th looks much too fast.
|
|
|
02-24-2019, 08:04 PM
|
#715
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,844
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Might not get to this until morning, but the races look very fishy on my worksheets. The 9th fits with the other turf races. The 7th looks much too fast.
|
Timed from the gate and also with run up (backing up from final time to where ever timing started). The times are actually good. What isn't good is the run up. It is WAY, WAY longer than 40 feet IMO.
From the gate I get a 1.45 second difference which matches pretty closely with the official times. When using run up, the leaders are in the same position in both races, it just happens to be much further down the track than 40 feet.
|
|
|
02-25-2019, 11:25 AM
|
#716
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,844
|
This is an image I took that shows where timing began for the race. The listed run up of 40 feet would probably be correct if there wasn't a temp rail used. But with the rail 30 feet from the inside, there is a lot of distance added so the start is moved way up. The run up is much longer than 40 feet as suspected, like 200 feet or more I'd guess just from eyeballing it.
|
|
|
04-28-2019, 11:06 AM
|
#717
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk VA
Posts: 6,246
|
CJ,
How do you initially determine that there is a issue with the timing of the race?
|
|
|
04-28-2019, 11:24 AM
|
#718
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,844
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by delayjf
CJ,
How do you initially determine that there is a issue with the timing of the race?
|
First I have a bunch of checks built into the flow of the fractions. Things like a 22, 25, 23 or a 23, 21, 26, etc. The rest are usually just outliiers based on projected final time variants.
Check out Woodbine's first yesterday. The flow was flagged and when I timed it the half mile is a half second too fast.
|
|
|
04-28-2019, 12:53 PM
|
#719
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk VA
Posts: 6,246
|
Interesting -On an average, how many races with anonamial do you have have to adjudicate a day?
|
|
|
04-28-2019, 01:06 PM
|
#720
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,844
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by delayjf
Interesting -On an average, how many races with anonamial do you have have to adjudicate a day?
|
I'll admit I've probably gotten overly cautious, but I probably still have less than 3% get flagged automatically. Of those I might actually check half. I've learned over time the ones that look really odd and need checking.
For example, if I see a 6f race that looks like this shape (figures, not time):
1/4 90
1/2 80
Fin 100
I'll check the chart and if it is a horse that came from off the pace and drew away I've found that shape is fine. It checks out timed properly every time so I don't time it any more.
The ones that are based on variant occur as I'm making my speed figures. That probably adds another 2-3% of the races to my list. These can be timing problems, fat fingered chart entry, etc. The first thing I do is check the chart and see if there was a timing problem. There is usually a note at the end of the footnotes if a race was hand timed or a particular fraction is missing or was hand timed. These almost always get flagged automatically as hand timing just isn't very accurate no matter how good a person thinks they are at doing it.
Then I check the replay to see if the fractions on the video match what is in the chart. This used to be a much bigger problem. Equibase has been doing a much better job at this the past year or so. It happens once in a while but the frequency has really been reduced.
Lastly, if those things check out OK, I'll time the race from video. Sometimes you can see a problem where the fractional or final time will pop up on the screen too soon and it is obvious. But otherwise the beam system is usually deadly accurate when everything is working properly. I wish I could say the same for Trakus and the new GPS system that is popping up at tracks in North America. It just isn't accurate enough in my opinion at this point. Maybe we'll get there some day but currently we're not as I've found via video timing quite often.
Here is a link on how I do video timing:
https://timeformusblog.com/2018/12/1...ming-tutorial/
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|