"About" Time for a Change at Gulfstream Park

[jay68802]

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Gulfstream Park Officially Has Run Out of Time

We’ve been sitting on the sidelines observing but now must jump into the Internet fray: The penny-wise, perception-foolish damage being caused by Gulfstream Park’s timing issues have come to a head in recent weeks and inaction can no longer stand.

The track must hire an experienced clocker, a designated Official Timer, a person indicated as such in the official track program.

Read the rest here:

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/On-T...n-out-of-time/

[classhandicapper]

In a perfect world, Thoroughbred racing would do what every other sport does: Run races at exact distances and time them from the start.

The problem with this hope is that then we'd probably have to start constructing tracks differently or stop running some common distances that start too close to the turn as presently constructed.

Maybe instead of 1M being one of the signature distances we'd have to start running more 1M 40 yard races without a run up.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

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.

The chart is wrong, that is the whole point. In this case you were talking about it being off by 0.02 furlongs. Like I said, splitting hairs, but it is wrong anyway. If I implied (or my editor) that EVERY race was closer to a mile, that was a mistake and I'll fix it. But many are, and some even longer. How do you completely ignore my explanation and say the same thing over again? If you want to show me how I'm wrong, fine (though you can't), but you can't just say it again like it is fact. It isn't.

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

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.

The video I have is crystal clear in HD. I have no idea what you are using. I've never had a problem before and never once have I pointed out a wrong time in a big race and had anyone proved me wrong. A few tried, like Trakus, then went away with their tail between their legs. I've said many times the margin of error for a race is about 0.10 seconds, and that is being conservative. It is probably closer to 0.05.

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

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.

Announcers are experts on pace? Come on. No, they didn't rocket out, but the time still tells me the listed run up distance is bogus. Whether you want to admit it or not I'm about as close to an expert in that area as you will find. Randy Moss is another. I don't know anyone else doing this. If they are out there they don't tell anybody. But I know how long run ups should take. Obviously all fields are different, but using track speed, the pace of the race, and horses, it is pretty easy to get within a fifth of a second. My estimate could be a half second off in this case (I did it very conservatively) and the run up would still be wrong in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

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.

I have no idea what the point of this is. I've never once said timing was wrong because I eyeballed something. Hand timing is terrible for accuracy, so of course trainers and clockers disagree. Most are lucky to get within a second using hand times. Again, I don't, and never have. When it comes to the Pegasus, Randy Moss and I were 0.01 seconds apart using different equipment and different replays. I'm 100% confident we're both within 0.05 at absolute worst. Of course Gulfstream was never going to use our times. They had enough egg on their face already.

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

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.

Well, yes of course. Trakus/Guflstream can and probably do know the exact distance. They just don't give it to us and without access to the track for a few hours nobody can calculate it.

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

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.

You still don't get it. The way Gulfstream times races is with Trakus. There are no about distances. If they want to call them about in the condition book or something, fine, but that info has no business being in the PPs. The distance of the race and the final time should match...they don't in this case. You can't tell customers a race was run and timed for about 7.5f when it was timed for exactly 7.5f.

As for the track record, you don't know much about Gulfstream. First off, the run up is always the same for mile dirt races. So what in the world would that possibly have to do with the track record? There were also timing problems with that race if you've forgotten. A google search will refresh your memory. That race should never have been credited with a track record. But again, completely irrelevant saying he set a track record with a short run up.

There are big problems with how they time the dirt mile races. They can't set up the equipment properly because they don't own the land at the end of the chute. First quarters are often a joke. They also rely on the Equibase chart guy pressing a button when the gate open. Good luck with that being accurate! From experience, it often isn't.

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

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.

I have no idea if it should be "more important" for horsemen. I also don't care. If it is more pressing, they are being lied to as well. But there is no reason not to give bettors correct information.

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I have no idea. I imagine someone gave a reason for what happened.

A reason, no, but PJ made it clear he doesn't give a crap.

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I'll suggest that it's because it's already entered into Equibase as "about." There is one track that always lists the purse amounts different than what they actually are. We inquired as to why this is, and were told by the track that it was an issue with Equibase, that they've tried to correct it. Another track always runs late after the first race. We finally inquired why they never go off on time. We were again told that it was an Equibase issue, that they've submitted different (the correct) post times many times, yet it still lists incorrect post times.

Nope, that isn't it all. Races have the distances changed after PPs are drawn all the time and it isn't a problem. Surely you've seen this a time or hundred before.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I don't know of any figure makers who aren't well aware of problems making their numbers and warning of such.

You think BRIS and Equibase speed figures are accounting for this stuff? I know I don't.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

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 isn't a problem in that we all just do the best we can with the poor data we're given. All I'm saying is we deserve better. I've never said figures can't be made for the races, and I think I do it better than anyone.

[cj]

Originally Posted by storyline

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.

That is a Stretch Armstrong type reach on what I said. There are obviously a ton of reasons a horse's speed figure could drastically change. A wrong one in one of the races is always a possibility, no matter what the reason is that it is wrong. Timing is certainly one of the reasons a figure could be wrong. There is no need to read way more into what I write than what is there.

I already gave an answer as to the solution. And dude, you haven't been around near long enough to be giving anyone an attitude. I've been polite and so was the other guy to whom you gave a snide response. Try it some time.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

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.

Horsemen I know think in terms of one and two turns much more than the exact distance. Gulfstream isn't fulling anyone at this point. Maybe in the beginning they did.

[Tom]

And you are not alone in that opinion!
I will defer to CJ's endless posts offering proof, often in the form of video, to the hot air blather some in the thread area spewing out.

Thanks you to CJ for caring about the customers - something most tracks do not.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The problem with this hope is that then we'd probably have to start constructing tracks differently or stop running some common distances that start too close to the turn as presently constructed.

Maybe instead of 1M being one of the signature distances we'd have to start running more 1M 40 yard races without a run up.

Tracks can call them all mile races, just give us the time for the whole distance and the actual distance of the race. You want to also give the time in the traditional method, fine.

[onefast99]

I just noticed something today in regards to beyer figures, it seems that horses that run on the big race days at tracks end up with higher beyers, why is that?

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by cj

You think BRIS and Equibase speed figures are accounting for this stuff? I know I don't.

Check their figure for Dec 3 Race #10 at Gulf.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Tracks can call them all mile races, just give us the time for the whole distance and the actual distance of the race. You want to also give the time in the traditional method, fine.

I know you are more interested in the accuracy of times.

I was just commenting on keeping things somewhat consistent. The way the tracks are now, they sometimes can't run a 1m race if they stopped using run ups altogether. They'd have to run races at 1m 40yd or 1m 70yd and call them that even though they'd be identical to the races they run now and call 1m.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by onefast99

I just noticed something today in regards to beyer figures, it seems that horses that run on the big race days at tracks end up with higher beyers, why is that?

The cards and horses tend to be of higher quality.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I know you are more interested in the accuracy of times.

I was just commenting on keeping things somewhat consistent. The way the tracks are now, they sometimes can't run a 1m race if they stopped using run ups altogether. They'd have to run races at 1m 40yd or 1m 70yd and call them that even though they'd be identical to the races they run now and call 1m.

Yeah, I think the best answer is to just keep things as is but give extra data...the actual distance and time of the entire race. This really shouldn't be that hard. That way, you don't upset the whole apple cart while giving added benefit.

I'm always mystified at people that tell you what data you do and don't need in this game. Just give us everything you can within reason, we'll figure it out from there.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I know you are more interested in the accuracy of times.

I was just commenting on keeping things somewhat consistent. The way the tracks are now, they sometimes can't run a 1m race if they stopped using run ups altogether. They'd have to run races at 1m 40yd or 1m 70yd and call them that even though they'd be identical to the races they run now and call 1m.

One weird thing about Hollywood Park was that over the last 23 years of its existence, they never carded a mile race on the dirt.

I mean, I personally like the symbolic importance of the distance (and another sport I love, track and field, has definitely been hurt in the US by the switch from 1 mile to 1500 meters because casual fans can't relate to the latter distance as well), but its not as though people were going to Hollywood Park on Friday nights and saying "gee I really miss mile races on the dirt".