B/Ls mutiplier

[raybo]

I would like to get an idea of what the handicappers here use when adjusting times by beaten lengths. .2 seconds per length has been the standard for years but I've heard there are other multipliers that are more accurate.

[Johno]

None of the above is correct. It depends on how fast the horse and race is running that determines how much time equals a length.

Johno

If the course uses the photofinish camera to measure time-lengths it is common that each 0.20 seconds late in finishing (passing the winning post) equals one time-length. There is no standard definition of a length and it is better to keep to using time ie horse is beaten beaten by exactly 2.40 seconds, say, (12.0 time lengths) than any other measure using physical guess at "lengths" in distance terms.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Johno

None of the above is correct. It depends on how fast the horse and race is running that determines how much time equals a length.

Johno

Ah-Haaaa! I was wondering if someone was doing what I have been thinking about for quite sometime. Do you adjust by the leader's pace at each call (using distance traveled by the leader versus distance traveled by each horse in the same amount of time)?

One can figure the leader's average speed per fraction easy enough. Based on the distance traveled by the leader vs. the distance traveled by each horse (using 8', 9', 10' per length, shouldn't matter as long as you apply the same distance per length to all horses, you can compare distances traveled by all horses and therefore the average time per length).

It's hard to explain my thinking but I've come up with a formula that varies according to the fraction leader's average pace rather than using a static time per length regardless of the pace or distance traveled in any particular fraction, and the race distance itself.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by robert99

If the course uses the photofinish camera to measure time-lengths it is common that each 0.20 seconds late in finishing (passing the winning post) equals one time-length. There is no standard definition of a length and it is better to keep to using time ie horse is beaten beaten by exactly 2.40 seconds, say, (12.0 time lengths) than any other measure using physical guess at "lengths" in distance terms.

This would be great if all tracks actually timed each horse at each fraction and then converted the individual timings into a standard beaten length (whether it be 8', 9' 10' or whatever, shouldn't matter as long as we know what the length measurement is).

[cj]

Originally Posted by raybo

Ah-Haaaa! I was wondering if someone was doing what I have been thinking about for quite sometime. Do you adjust by the leader's pace at each call (using distance traveled by the leader versus distance traveled by each horse in the same amount of time)?

I do something similar, but I use how fast the horse itself is traveling (best estimate of course) at each call rather than the leader. Of course you have to know the leader's fraction to get this info.

[Jeff P]

Speed and pace figs are problematic. We've talked about the effect of track speed, bias, wind, weight, trips, ground loss, the effect of pace on final time, riders rating horses differently in the early stages of races depending on distance and perceived track bias, and more.

Despite that, speed and pace figs, or incremental velocity, or beaten lengths and time - no matter what you call it... it's THE starting point for the vast majority of players. I'll offer up a few random thoughts on figure making.



I think one of the first things a would be figure maker needs to do is ascertain is the length of a horse. After all, if we need to use X seconds per length when making figures - don't we also need to know how long a length is?

Is the widely held 10 ft per length accurate? FWIW, I've seen different authors use different values for this. In Modern Pace Handicapping Brohammer used 10 feet per length. Nick Borg used 9 ft. And Charles Carroll used 8 ft. If you did your own sample - if you busted out a tape measure and start recording actual measurements of say 1000 horses; how would that relate to the typical beaten lengths distance used by a chartcaller at a NYRA track? And would beaten lengths for the same horses in the same race be different if the NYRA caller called in sick and a chartcaller from KY or FL sat in that day?




The second thing you need to know as a figure maker is that X seconds per length can vary based on distance and class of horse.

I recently started a project where I began making my own velocity figures. Whether or not that project pans out and those figures make their way into JCapper is still yet to be determined. But after coding out logic to record the fractional times for every race winner in every race run in North America over the past two years a number of things became apparent. Aside from discovering significant differences (track pars) for the various track layouts at identical distances - I was able to reinforce my own undertsanding of the basics behind figure making.

Final fraction velocity in fps for horses in routes is much slower than final fraction velocity for horses in sprints. So a relationship exists for F3 time in fps based on distance travelled. The same type of relationship exists among the horses of different ages and class levels. For example, at identical distances 3 yr old maiden claiming fillies run much slower F3 numbers in fps than do 5 yr old male stakes horses. That's not really a revelation and should come as no surprise to anybody.

But it suggests to me there might be a better way than universally applying X seconds per length in all situations for the purpose of figure making.



-jp

.

Originally Posted by raybo

This would be great if all tracks actually timed each horse at each fraction and then converted the individual timings into a standard beaten length (whether it be 8', 9' 10' or whatever, shouldn't matter as long as we know what the length measurement is).

A few use Trakus and In UK we used to have Turftrax but professionally you have to get all "reliable" sectional timing and any other timing data from video software. If you are interested in time and speed why do you ever need to go into "lengths" then back into time. Forget "lengths" completely - they are historical artifices, only necessary before the days of stopwatches and video etc.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

I do something similar, but I use how fast the horse itself is traveling (best estimate of course) at each call rather than the leader. Of course you have to know the leader's fraction to get this info.

That's what I'm doing.

[raybo]

I agree with all of your post. Using a static time per length for all races and all tracks is, IMO, inaccurate at best. We can't change the way individual timers or track timing equipment produce their beaten lengths numbers so there will always be inaccuracies/inadequacies involved. However, using .2 seconds per length universally seems to be, simply, wrong.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by robert99

A few use Trakus and In UK we used to have Turftrax but professionally you have to get all "reliable" sectional timing and any other timing data from video software. If you are interested in time and speed why do you ever need to go into "lengths" then back into time. Forget "lengths" completely - they are historical artifices, only necessary before the days of stopwatches and video etc.

Using lengths, in my case, is required by the handicappers I am designing spreadsheets for.

As for my own personal requirements, I have no need for lengths other than the necessity of using them to adjust the leader's fractional times to obtain individual horses' fractional times.

[raybo]

Here's the formula I'm playing with to vary the time per length based on the fractional leader's time:

"L1Fr" = Leader's 1st call fraction. 9' is the length of a horse, but could be 8' or 10' or 11', doesn't matter too much.

"LTPL1Fr" = Leader's Time per length, in seconds, for 1st fraction.

"BLs" = Horse's beaten lgths end of 1st fraction.

"D1fr" = distance of 1st fraction in feet.

"LL1FR" = Leader's lengths run during 1st fraction time.

"HL1Fr" = Horse's lengths run during 1st fraction time.

"Adj1Fr" = Horse's Adjusted 1st call fraction


LL1Fr = D1FR/9
LTPL1Fr = L1Fr/LL1Fr

HL1Fr = LL1Fr-(BLs*9)

Adj1Fr = HL1Fr*LTPL1Fr

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Johno

None of the above is correct. It depends on how fast the horse and race is running that determines how much time equals a length.

Johno

That's why I chose "Other" as the best answer. The time it takes a horse to cover a length depends entirely on how fast he's moving.
Given that the average horse is about 8 feet long, the traditional .2 answer is the least likely. Horses just don't run that slow unless, as Charles Carroll says in Handicapping Speed, you're handicapping harness horses or Clydesdales. Clydesdales are about 10 feet per length so the tradirional measures of 10 feet per length and .2 lengths per second would be more accurate for them.

Come to think of it, the traditional measures might work for t-breds too since the 2 errors in measurement might cancel each other out. I doubt that it would be as accurate as using the accurate measures of a length and how fast the horse is actually moving.

Bob

[kenwoodallpromos]

Ideally I would like to have all horses timed at each 1/4 pole and along with the final times that are actually done now, give only me the information.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by kenwoodallpromos

Ideally I would like to have all horses timed at each 1/4 pole and along with the final times that are actually done now, give only me the information.

Yeah,that would solve a lot of things, for you, anyway.