Like it or NOT, GPS timing coming to more and more tracks

[cj]

Twitter

[46zilzal]

I watched as the first Trackus came in and the standard timing left at Woodbine. A lot of money was spent, particularly on the turf course, to place the sensor apparatus as exactly the points necessary to get an accurate timing. They had FIVE different sets of sensors (due to the change of circumference when the field ran in lanes 0 1 2 3 4 on the EP Taylor turf course, a maneuver what the stewards told me FEW other courses had). Teletimer is much better TIME wise....

I did backup timing at little Fraser Downs in Surrey British Columbia and knew how it worked: the "beam" would be activated about 15 feet before the lead horse got to it, so that it could not be tripped by debris or weather(birds flying by set it off prematurely several times however so I had the stopwatch in hand). I had a sound signal on the software when the beam was active...IF it somehow did not go on automatically, I had a manual alternative available.

Because the "beam" was so narrow, alignment of the origin signal and the receiver on the other side of the track, had to be close on my computer screen would not show a light. Things often brushed against them so I had an outrider go out and re-align them.

NOTHING but trouble ensued when Trakus started. First they had to set up the electronic grid around the track and there was a significant "hole" over by the standardbred barn (outside the clubhouse turn) and where there were NO electronic poles where the 7 furlong chute met the backstretch...

I found out that the signal, once arriving, had to be transferred all the way to Trakus main office, processed and then sent all the way back to the track to the Trackus tech. That delay and all those multiple transmissions was asking for both delay and corruption ....The Trakus techs had to come back repeatedly all that first season.

Not surprisingly most of our errors were on the TURF where I was not able to understand how this system could account for the circumference changes like the older system had creditably done for years. They employed TWO hand clockers that first year, one the chart caller for Equibase and a second fellow...They told me that the majority of errors were in the opening fractions on the grass almost every race.

Another source of error: the sensor (a little larger than a pack of cigarettes) was placed in a pouch right behind the saddle......IT was my understanding the distance between that source and the nose of each horse was an AVERAGE of that distance, but the we all know the variation on horse size and if the saddle was lose at any time, that added even more problems.

Beaten lengths were a major problem as well. The photo finish software standardized the distance of beaten lengths based upon reference to the winning horse's nose. I called these after each race to the Equibase chart caller and he often laughed and proclaimed: "Do you know what this silly Trackus has for that beaten length segment? I would be so different that a few times he came from the far side of the press box, up to the roof where all my cameras were located just to see what the PHOTO showed as compared to the Trakus data......The major errors seemed to be clustered at the ENDS of the fields (smaller but significant differences between and among the fist 4 finishers) and ENORMOUS differences further back in the field.

Scuttlebutt was that the racing organization was NOT pleased after the first two years of experience and wanted to return to traditional timing, but the ground loss was one factor they liked......

[GMB@BP]

LOL, its already bad enough depending on the current timing situation. Living with this type of poor data seems like a fool hardy approach to beating this game.

[cj]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

LOL, its already bad enough depending on the current timing situation. Living with this type of poor data seems like a fool hardy approach to beating this game.

I think GPS is better than Trakus, but it still isn't very precise. Errors of 0.20 aren't rare at all and that could come at any of the calls. So, a race that the beam system times as 22:00, 45:00 (23:00 second quarter) anywhere between 21.80 to 22.20 and 44.80 to 45.20, leaving the second quarter as anywhere from 23.40 to 22.60. That is quite a spread, and the margin of error I'm using is not even close to unusual. There are some bigger, even twice as big. I'd guess 5 out of 100 times (fractions and final times, just talking individual data points) are at least wrong by 0.20, and 1 out of 100 is wrong by 0.40 or more.

It doesn't sound like much, but they can really make a difference in how a performance looks both overall and from individual pace call perspectives.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

LOL, its already bad enough depending on the current timing situation. Living with this type of poor data seems like a fool hardy approach to beating this game.

I think relying on any timing in general, accurate or not, is a foolhardy way to win in this game. It takes a qualitative approach and not a quantitative approach to handicapp a race. People are chasing dreams if they think a timer is going to open the door to success in horse racing

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

I think relying on any timing in general, accurate or not, is a foolhardy way to win in this game. It takes a qualitative approach and not a quantitative approach to handicapp a race. People are chasing dreams if they think a timer is going to open the door to success in horse racing

If you do not think that betting the horse that CAN be the fastest horse in a race is a bad thing, then you are not thinking. We all know the variables in this sport. Timing of the races is the number one thing that horse racing can improve on.

[Immortal6]

Originally Posted by jay68802

If you do not think that betting the horse that CAN be the fastest horse in a race is a bad thing, then you are not thinking. We all know the variables in this sport. Timing of the races is the number one thing that horse racing can improve on.

Agree 100%. How could accurate timing not be the most important and influential thing racing can improve on from a handicapping stand point? Accurate internal fractions for every horse can paint a vivid picture of pace scenario in each race and allow handicappers to quickly diagnose past performances.

Without accurate timing you would have to watch hundreds or thousands of replays a week to form accurate opinions on these horses, something many people don’t have time to do.

Of course you could always try class handicapping which I think works only to a certain extent, or you could buy sheets and bet based solely on numbers spit out by an algorithm...but really, come on. Accurate timing has got to be THE most important factor when it comes to handicapping races.

[FenceBored]

The Bloodhorse article on the acquisition contains this line from the President of Equibase: "Finally, the technology allows for a more efficient collection of workout data, which we plan to introduce in the future."



That sounds like a good idea. It would help to make sure your technology works with a single horse breezing in the morning before asking us to believe it's working properly for 6-12 horses racing in the afternoon.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

I think relying on any timing in general, accurate or not, is a foolhardy way to win in this game. It takes a qualitative approach and not a quantitative approach to handicapp a race. People are chasing dreams if they think a timer is going to open the door to success in horse racing

I'm on the 50 yard line on this.

There are a lot problems with using times because of all the technical and subjective errors (as we see when major figure makers disagree significantly), but disregarding them opens to door to another set of problems.

My biggest complaint has been when certain people make very strong definitive statements about horses based largely on their favorite set of figures when they could easily be wrong or the result of race development/track issues that are subtle enough to not be fully appreciated.

It's a 100% certainty that there are a LOT OF VERY BAD and misunderstood figures and fractions in the historical record.


At least we have someone trying to improve some of the problems.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm on the 50 yard line on this.

There are a lot problems with using times because of all the technical and subjective errors (as we see when major figure makers disagree significantly), but disregarding them opens to door to another set of problems.

My biggest complaint has been when certain people make very strong definitive statements about horses based largely on their favorite set of figures when they could easily be wrong or the result of race development/track issues that are subtle enough to not be fully appreciated.

It's a 100% certainty that there are a LOT OF VERY BAD and misunderstood figures and fractions in the historical record.


At least we have someone trying to improve some of the problems.

We should strive to give the bettors the most accurate data possible. nothing less, nothing more. How people use it (or don't use it) is 100% up to them. There really isn't much else to say about it.

[cj]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

I think relying on any timing in general, accurate or not, is a foolhardy way to win in this game. It takes a qualitative approach and not a quantitative approach to handicapp a race. People are chasing dreams if they think a timer is going to open the door to success in horse racing

Ditto what I replied to classhandicapper. If you don't want to use accurate data, great. But that should be up to the bettor. What shouldn't be up for debate is that the industry should provide the most accurate data possible.

I mean, it is horse RACING, so few things are more important than the times. That doesn't mean everyone knows how to use the information.

[Jeff P]

The wording below is quoted from a picture of the Preface of the 1973 American Racing Manual that was posted by Suff in another thread:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...0&postcount=59

THE PURPOSE OF THE AMERICAN RACING MANUAL is to provide all facets of the racing industry with complete and authoritive information on all phases of the turf. By universal acclaim that aim long since has been achieved. THE AMERICAN RACING MANUAL has no counterpart in any country where racing is conducted.

It always has been the object of THE AMERICAN RACING MANUAL to make each new edition superior to its predecessor. New information, obtainable nowhere else, has been added from year to year, while many important features are retained and improved if possible.

In my opinion --

The above quoted text speaks volumes about the way the game was managed back then vs. the way the game is managed today.

Not that long ago QUALITY of information presented was deemed important.

For some reason I get a very real sense the decision makers in today's game think mistiming races on a regular basis is somehow okay.

How did racing in this country go from an era where quality was everything to (borrowing a line from an AT&T commercial) 'just ok' is good enough?



-jp

.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

How did racing in this country go from an era where quality was everything to (borrowing a line from an AT&T commercial) 'just ok' is good enough?

Us horseplayers, as a rule, cannot count ourselves among the most "informed" gamblers out there. If it wasn't for Cj...how many of us here would be aware of the game's race-timing difficulties?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

We should strive to give the bettors the most accurate data possible. nothing less, nothing more. How people use it (or don't use it) is 100% up to them. There really isn't much else to say about it.

That should be beyond debate.

But then someone will come to argue that the dispersal of erroneous information benefits the few players who have access to the "accurate" data...whereas the wide dispersal of correct data hurts the smart horseplayer...because it levels the playing field. Speaking for myself...I want everybody to have full access to the most accurate information possible...so the individual player's skill level can be the determining factor in his horseplaying journey.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by jay68802

If you do not think that betting the horse that CAN be the fastest horse in a race is a bad thing, then you are not thinking. We all know the variables in this sport. Timing of the races is the number one thing that horse racing can improve on.

Feels like a lengthy thread that has been debated here many times. I will sit this one out.