Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 01-10-2018, 01:38 AM   #31
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
They are the same. The fake about distance only began this year so the track record is from a small sample. Having a single track record for a distance with over 100 variations is a joke anyway. Many are apples to oranges comparisons.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 12:50 PM   #32
storyline
Registered User
 
storyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay68802 View Post
If horses running at gulf are given lower speed figures and ship to another track and suddenly earn a higher speed figures. Is it because they improved or because the speed figures earned at gulf were lower because of mis-timed races?
Vigors asked - What would be the solutions for this mess.

The above isn't a solution
storyline is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 01:03 PM   #33
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyline View Post
Vigors asked - What would be the solutions for this mess.

The above isn't a solution
He was replying to your last post, not to Vigors. I thought that was pretty clear.

Quote:
You lost me

Mis-timing races and "it will show when horses that have run poorly at GP on the turf, ship and win" do NOT have a mutual relationship or connection in which one thing affects the other....
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 01:59 PM   #34
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
What did I say that wasn't true?

The race you cite, which was run with an alleged run up of 153 feet, would come out to 7.73 furlongs. That is splitting hairs, but that is only if you believe the 153 is accurate. The run up took nearly five seconds. Even from the gate, that is much too slow for thoroughbreds on a firm turf course that is producing fast times. The listed run up distance simply isn't true.

You can't calculate run up distance because of the layout of the course, particularly when the rails are out, often WAY out. The course is not exactly seven furlongs as listed, it is longer. There are no poles. There is no way to visually check where the race starts from a timing perspective.

What you can do is back up from the finish line by the final time of the race. The rest, by default, is the run up...the untimed portion of the race. You can time it and make a pretty reasonable calculation of the distance. I would estimate the run up for this race was at least 30 yards longer than listed.

The problem is, and frankly I can't believe I have to explain this again, that they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They have changed the distance to "about" so frankly they can list the run up at whatever the hell they want to list it. It would be an awful way to treat horseplayers but at least it would be truthful. But the timed distance of the race...the official distance...is not about at all. It is exact.

It is early in the meet, but there were times last year when the run up was taking 12 seconds to complete. It was obviously pushing A FULL FURLONG in length. Equibase called them on it and they were embarrassed I'm sure. They were providing run up distances of less than 300 feet and trying to tell us that could take 12 seconds. Equibase stopped listing the run up for the rest of the meet. What possible excuse could there be for running races that long and only giving you the time for 7.5f?

The biggest joke of the whole thing is that Gulfstream uses Trakus. They know the exact distance of the race. How they can have the nerve to call a distance about is beyond me. It is a lie, a bold faced lie.

Anyway, that is it from me on this. If you can't figure out the issue at this point, I can't help. You don't want to see it.
I think that's a pretty accurate description of the problem.

I'd also like to say thank you for calling out Gulfstream over this on behalf of horseplayers.

Carry on.


-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 02:07 PM   #35
storyline
Registered User
 
storyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
He was replying to your last post, not to Vigors. I thought that was pretty clear.
I was responding to "What would be the solutions for this mess".

I like others use figures to handicap which are generated largely from fractional and final times provided from Equibase. If those times and distances reported from tracks are inaccurate and can't be quantified then I simply stop wagering.

I don't need to follow horses onto the next circuit to determine if their speed figures improved or not.

So if a horses speed figures improve that proves what exactly? That Gulfstream has mistimed races? Nonsense!

I've made two points only #1 - stop wagering if you can't verify
nor have confidence of mistimed races. #2 Mis-timed races and whether a horse speed figure improves when he runs at another track are NOT correlated.


I thought that was pretty clear
storyline is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 02:27 PM   #36
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
I was thinking about this more deeply and I started to realize what the problem is for Gulfstream.

Let's say you have a turf course that only has one position for the rail. Then it's easy. You position the gate at the same spot every time for 7 1/2 furlongs. It probably has a longer run-up than some other distances because the start is close to the first turn. But speed handicappers like cj have dealt with that one for years. For instance, all of the two turn mile races on mile tracks in California have longer run-ups than other races. They do this to give the horses a longer run into the first turn.

Now, of course, in the real world you have several rail positions on a turf course. So you might say "well, let's position the gate so we have the same distance run-up no matter which position the rail is at". So you have a different gate position for each rail position.

But that creates a couple of problems.

First, the outer rail has to be removable where you are going to park the gate. You have to be able to get the gate in and out. Well, there may not be a gap in the rail at every single parking position. So it may be physically impossible to have the same run-up no matter where the rail is.

Plus, you have the problem of the horsemen. If you put the gate closer to the clubhouse turn when the rails are out, then the guy who draws the outside post is going to get mad when his horse gets hung out on the first turn. Why not park the gate in the same spot where you park it when the rails are in, he is going to ask, so my horse doesn't get hurt so much by the post position?

All of that is with a normal turf course. But one of those super-wide courses like they have at Gulfstream and a few other tracks makes the problem even worse. Because now instead of three different rail positions we might have nine. So you would need to have nine different places to put the gate, and some of them would be quite close to the clubhouse turn.

Now, of course, you could say "well, then, we just won't run 7 1/2 furlong races when the rails are up". But if you do that, the horsemen also get mad, because they want a 7 1/2 furlong race for their stretching out turf sprinter. Now, of course, the race is really a mile, but never underestimate the power of human psychology-- that 7 1/2 furlong race may fill while the mile race doesn't.

So the racing office is now in an impossible position. The horsemen are demanding that a race be carded on all different configurations of the turf course, there's no way to standardize the run-up both for physical reasons and because they don't want to compromise the outside position, and as a result you get ridiculously long run-ups when the rails are up.

"About", of course, is not the solution to this. But I guess I sympathize with the racing office regarding the problem.

Last edited by dilanesp; 01-10-2018 at 02:29 PM.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 02:49 PM   #37
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
I was thinking about this more deeply and I started to realize what the problem is for Gulfstream....
You are assuming horsemen are idiots that they don't realize a race that takes 1:40+ to run on a firm course isn't really 7.5f. Possible for some I guess, but most are smarter than that.

Why would there be some mass demand for these races anyway? Most tracks don't even run them.

Last edited by cj; 01-10-2018 at 02:52 PM.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 02:50 PM   #38
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyline View Post

#2 Mis-timed races and whether a horse speed figure improves when he runs at another track are NOT correlated.
It just depends...if the speed figure maker isn't diligent, there certainly could be some correlation.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 02:56 PM   #39
Fager Fan
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
What did I say that wasn't true?

The race you cite, which was run with an alleged run up of 153 feet, would come out to 7.73 furlongs. That is splitting hairs, but that is only if you believe the 153 is accurate. The run up took nearly five seconds. Even from the gate, that is much too slow for thoroughbreds on a firm turf course that is producing fast times. The listed run up distance simply isn't true.
I already quoted the part of your article that I said wasn't accurate. You said the races were closer to 1m, and this race chart shows that it's not closer to 1m.

What program are you using to come up with these times? I've backed it up, and the online video isn't nearly good enough to verify to any real accuracy. It could be off by a second either way at the finish and also at the start.

I'd also point out that they had a slow start. Even the racecaller notes it, and you could just tell they didn't rocket away from there.

I remember reading an article on the Pegasus timing, and you were noted as coming up with a race time of about half a second different than someone else got and what they ultimately recorded for the time. Trainers and clockers regularly come up with different times, sometimes off by seconds. I'll give that some are better at it than others, but eyeballing is never an accurate way of clocking for obvious reasons.

Quote:
You can't calculate run up distance because of the layout of the course, particularly when the rails are out, often WAY out. The course is not exactly seven furlongs as listed, it is longer. There are no poles. There is no way to visually check where the race starts from a timing perspective.

What you can do is back up from the finish line by the final time of the race. The rest, by default, is the run up...the untimed portion of the race. You can time it and make a pretty reasonable calculation of the distance. I would estimate the run up for this race was at least 30 yards longer than listed.
Maybe you can't calculate the distance, but someone on the ground could certainly measure it. That's why I was confused as to why you said the run up can't be calculated.

Quote:
The problem is, and frankly I can't believe I have to explain this again, that they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They have changed the distance to "about" so frankly they can list the run up at whatever the hell they want to list it. It would be an awful way to treat horseplayers but at least it would be truthful. But the timed distance of the race...the official distance...is not about at all. It is exact.
I can understand if they're carding the race as "about" if they don't know exactly what distance it'll be run come raceday. I'm not sure why you are so concerned with the run up, whether it's 5 feet or 250 feet. Normandy Invasion set a track record with a run up of only 5 feet, so short run up, long run up, it's not necessarily the case that the longer run up will result in a faster time even if common sense tries to tell us this will be the case.

As for "how they treat the horseplayers," don't you think distance concerns would be more pressing to the trainers and owners than the horseplayers? I'm guessing that the run ups just don't have that much of an impact, few horses are so exact in their distance capabilities.

Quote:
It is early in the meet, but there were times last year when the run up was taking 12 seconds to complete. It was obviously pushing A FULL FURLONG in length. Equibase called them on it and they were embarrassed I'm sure. They were providing run up distances of less than 300 feet and trying to tell us that could take 12 seconds. Equibase stopped listing the run up for the rest of the meet. What possible excuse could there be for running races that long and only giving you the time for 7.5f?
I have no idea. I imagine someone gave a reason for what happened.

Quote:
The biggest joke of the whole thing is that Gulfstream uses Trakus. They know the exact distance of the race. How they can have the nerve to call a distance about is beyond me. It is a lie, a bold faced lie.

Anyway, that is it from me on this. If you can't figure out the issue at this point, I can't help. You don't want to see it.
I'll suggest that it's because it's already entered into Equibase as "about." I know of two tracks who consistently get things wrong. One always lists the wrong purse earnings, and the other always gives the wrong post times on the entries (correct post times are on the results). With both, I'm told they're Equibase issues that they've tried to have corrected multiple times to no avail.

Last edited by Fager Fan; 01-10-2018 at 03:00 PM.
Fager Fan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 02:58 PM   #40
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
You are assuming horsemen are idiots that they don't realize a race that takes 1:40+ to run on a firm course isn't really 7.5f. Possible for some I guess, but most are smarter than that.

Why would there be some mass demand for these races anyway? Most tracks don't even run them.
Why do merchants mark a product at 99 cents rather than a dollar?

I don't think it is an accident that the distance we are talking about straddles the traditional demarcation between a sprint and a route.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 03:02 PM   #41
Fager Fan
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyline View Post
I was responding to "What would be the solutions for this mess".

I like others use figures to handicap which are generated largely from fractional and final times provided from Equibase. If those times and distances reported from tracks are inaccurate and can't be quantified then I simply stop wagering.

I don't need to follow horses onto the next circuit to determine if their speed figures improved or not.

So if a horses speed figures improve that proves what exactly? That Gulfstream has mistimed races? Nonsense!

I've made two points only #1 - stop wagering if you can't verify
nor have confidence of mistimed races. #2 Mis-timed races and whether a horse speed figure improves when he runs at another track are NOT correlated.


I thought that was pretty clear
Is it a problem? Have Beyers, Ragozin, and Thorograph all said it's a problem? If it's a real problem, then surely it's a problem for all of them.
Fager Fan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 03:06 PM   #42
storyline
Registered User
 
storyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
It just depends...if the speed figure maker isn't diligent, there certainly could be some correlation.
haha now you're just reaching.

So if a horse improves his speed figure from Saratoga to Belmont that would imply that Saratoga has timing issues? How about SA to Del Mar?

I could list 20 plus different reasons a horse might improve his speed figures and none have to do with mis-timed races.

The question was "What would be the solutions for this mess' so stop with this narrative / misdirection.

Players that use figures generated from a timing system have only two options imo. #1 apply leverage on tracks to provide accurate times and distances/runups. #2 stop wagering.

There are no other options but I'm all ears.
storyline is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 03:10 PM   #43
storyline
Registered User
 
storyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fager Fan View Post
Is it a problem? Have Beyers, Ragozin, and Thorograph all said it's a problem? If it's a real problem, then surely it's a problem for all of them.
It's a larger problem for the player, they're the ones wagering on inaccurate figs largely unknown to them.
storyline is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 03:12 PM   #44
jay68802
Registered User
 
jay68802's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 15,111
03/10/2014 3:23PM
Andrew Beyer: Run-up distances add nothing but distortion
By Andrew Beyer
Print



When Band of Joy was entered at Gulfstream Park last week, most bettors understood that his stamina was a crucial issue in handicapping the race. The horse’s best performances had come in five-furlong sprints on the grass, and now he would be trying to run a much more challenging distance, 7 1/2 furlongs.

Bettors thought he could do it and made him the 2-1 favorite. Band of Joy dueled around the track with Padilla and wrested command 10 strides from the finish line. But Padilla – a colt with more proven staying power – battled back in the final yards to win by a half-length. It might have seemed a reasonable post-mortem to say that 7 1/2 furlongs was a bit too far for Band of Joy.

Read the rest here:

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer...ing-distortion

Last edited by PaceAdvantage; 01-19-2018 at 12:46 PM. Reason: No full text reproduction of copyrighted material allowed
jay68802 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-10-2018, 03:13 PM   #45
Fager Fan
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyline View Post
It's a larger problem for the player, they're the ones wagering on inaccurate figs largely unknown to them.
I don't know of any figure makers who aren't well aware of problems making their numbers and warning of such.
Fager Fan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.