Trakus Delta - When does it get your attention?

[StormAgain]

Just curious, what delta gets your attention when looking at Trakus charts?

How many more feet traveled in a race would make you want to look deeper into the race or that horses trip?

8-10? 16-20? 30?

Would you have different values for dirt vs turf?

[cj]

To me it depends on when the ground was lost and how the pace was at that time.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by cj

To me it depends on when the ground was lost and how the pace was at that time.

Great point.

I love it, , when jocks choke the head off of a horse during the ultra 1st half of a 1M dirt route AND then ride hard, while 4-5 wide at the half mile marker IN THE FASTEST QUARTER (3rd quarter) of the race.

Toss those races right out.

Yes, Trakus might point out the ground loss but it's super important to see the context of the ground loss.


I could care less if a horse went an extra 50 feet in a case where there was a top flight of 6 horses battling and then the race collapsed at the 1/2, 7/16. 3/8. A horse with a clear outside run in the slowest part of the race was not hindered by the ground loss, they benefitted/were super compensated by dynamics in that specific case.

It's all about the context, I agree.

[Robert Fischer]

compare horses with 'like running styles'

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by StormAgain

Just curious, what delta gets your attention when looking at Trakus charts?

How many more feet traveled in a race would make you want to look deeper into the race or that horses trip?

8-10? 16-20? 30?

Would you have different values for dirt vs turf?

The strength of the Trakus data for me and my associates is using the data for the construction of the aggregate race curve (run-up to 1-1/2M) at NYRA and this race curve has 4 bars for the comparative measurement of any individual horse’s performance; it is a Godsend.

Yes, turf and dirt performances are separated with their own aggregate race curves.

[AltonKelsey]

How are you inputting the Trackus data, by hand? Last time I checked they were not making it available in a reasonable computer readable format.

I attempted to extract the data but they have a deliberately convoluted html setup that resists same.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

The strength of the Trakus data for me and my associates is using the data for the construction of the aggregate race curve (run-up to 1-1/2M) at NYRA and this race curve has 4 bars for the comparative measurement of any individual horse’s performance; it is a Godsend.

Yes, turf and dirt performances are separated with their own aggregate race curves.

Thanks, but this has nothing to do with the question asked originally.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

compare horses with 'like running styles'

I'm in this camp too.

I like to look for similar trips within a race. If a horse was very wide, he may have been disadvantaged, but if all the horses that finished near the top had a similar trip it may be saying something about how that track was playing or the way that race developed.

I'd rather find a horse that ran against the grain.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

How are you inputting the Trackus data, by hand? Last time I checked they were not making it available in a reasonable computer readable format.

I attempted to extract the data but they have a deliberately convoluted html setup that resists same.

To build our race curve from over 2,000 races of NYRA Trakus data the input was done manually; this is a major shortcoming in acquiring Trakus data.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

Thanks, but this has nothing to do with the question asked originally.

The question: "what delta gets your attention when looking at Trakus charts?"

The answer: None, because an extrapolated race curve is needed; single points are ambiguous and virtually worthless.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm in this camp too.

I like to look for similar trips within a race. If a horse was very wide, he may have been disadvantaged, but if all the horses that finished near the top had a similar trip it may be saying something about how that track was playing or the way that race developed.

I'd rather find a horse that ran against the grain.

Yea.

if someone just looks at the delta for every horse and compares who ran more feet on trakus, then they will get it wrong any time there is an extreme pace situation.

comparing like running styles
EXAMPLE: 2013 Kentucky Derby.

A quick look at the "Race Summary" shows that closers dominated the finish positions of the derby
indicating a bias. The very fast for distance Fractions (yellow) at the top, confirm this.

The trio of closers was then indicated with blue, while the 1 pace horse showing was indicated in red.



Now we have to go to a Pace Call. Here is the 1/2 Mile.
The early pace group is "red", the trio of closers "blue".
Comparisons within like running styles
= Of the Early group, Vyjack lost a ton of ground, and Oxbow saved a ton of ground.
= Of the Late group, Orb lost a good bit of ground,
while Golden Soul and Revolutionary saved a ton of ground.



Finally, we examine the "finish positions".
Of note = Orb ran 80! more feet than the meaningful like running style horses (Golden Soul,Revolutionary).

Oxbow was the only Early Pace horse to finish anywhere near the front.
Also of note from the Early Pace Group, Vyjack ran 50-70 more feet.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Yea.

if someone just looks at the delta for every horse and compares who ran more feet on trakus, then they will get it wrong any time there is an extreme pace situation.

I agree.

Some trips are so complex between all the possible combinations of ground loss, pace, and any possible surface biases (inside/outside or speed/closer), that rather than trying to quantify each component, imo it's better to just look for similar trips and compare how the horses did relative to expectations and each other.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree.

Some trips are so complex between all the possible combinations of ground loss, pace, and any possible surface biases (inside/outside or speed/closer), that rather than trying to quantify each component, imo it's better to just look for similar trips and compare how the horses did relative to expectations and each other.

Yup.
It can get complex fast.
But, was there a dominant factor that most affected the race??

Looking back to the 2013 derby, - it was simply race shape.

Race shape trumped the ground loss there.

I ended up highlighting Orb(ran 80 more feet than the other closers) , Oxbow(only pace horse to finish well), and Vyjack(ran 60 more feet than the other speeds).

ORB , OXBOW , VYJACK

- while those were All good standouts, IF we say "hey race shape was the DOMINANT FACTOR!", then we should also throw in the 2 peak speed horses Palace Malice and Goldencents. Don't they deserve a mulligan for having the absolute worst of race shape??


ORB , OXBOW , VYJACK, PALACE MALICE, GOLDENCENTS

ahhh much better

I probably should have worked that into the example before reposting it.

Hindsight is 20/20

no reason we can't learn from oversights and mistakes.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

To me it depends on when the ground was lost and how the pace was at that time.

Beyer discusses this in one of his books when he talks about the "wide move into a hot pace" That's why going wide on the 1st turn, when the pace is faster, is worse than going wide on the far turn where the horses inside you are tiring and slowing down.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Beyer discusses this in one of his books when he talks about the "wide move into a hot pace" That's why going wide on the 1st turn, when the pace is faster, is worse than going wide on the far turn where the horses inside you are tiring and slowing down.

Yes, and the opposite can be true is well. Losing ground doesn't matter much if the pace is really slow. In the same type race, where the pace was slow but picks up late, losing ground on the second turn is tough to overcome.