Moss Figures

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

You are very late to the party because the study that prove your assertion incorrect was done by Isaac Newton in 1687.

Furthermore, a horserace is no more than a dynamic event to be evaluated by the laws of science and try if you desire, but in the end the laws of science when correctly applied will always prevail over the contemporaneous assertions from the innocuous speed figure methodology.

I never claimed it was my discovery. You said run up has very little effect on final time. I said that isn't always the case. End of story.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

This is what makes it impossible to adjust for run up with a standard adjustment, like .1 seconds per 10 feet or whatever. The effect of the run up is pace dependent. There are times a 200 foot run up won't change the final time much at all if the pace is a canter. If it is hot, different story.

The max acceleration of a racehorse during the run up from the gate is approximately 8.40 meter/square second and the horse will reach its max velocity in about 2.13 seconds.

Typically this max velocity only can be maintained for about 402.5 meters and then deceleration begins.

Therefore final time is a reflection to the continuous rate of motion (pace) over the entire distance of the horserace and the run up impact becomes nebulous to the final time because of distance and the racetrack’s geometry which typically transitions from a straight line to a curve line and back to a straight line during the running of the race.

Racehorses are not machines and they do not have gearboxes of which their jockeys can shift gears.

[EMD4ME]

I am not a scientist and do not wish to go back and forth with you however I do want to say this.

Common sense says that a horse who travels 100 Feet into the 1st beam (starting point) has a better chance (chance is a poor word, more like IS hitting it faster) of hitting the beam at top cruising speed vs. the horse who has 40 feet to hit the 1st beam.

How can a horse who hits the beam at 40 MPH not run a "faster" 6F vs. a horse (assuming all other variables-trip, weight, ability are exactly the same) who is hitting the beam at 25 or 30 MPH (accelerating up to 40 MPH)?

The 2nd horse needs the extra stride or two to get up to his 40 MPH speed because of his race having a short run up.

Am I missing something?

I ask that sincerely...

[Tom]

I am sure that in 1687 run ups had no effect on the final times of horse races.
CJ ,might be late to the party, but he brought the keg!

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I am not a scientist and do not wish to go back and forth with you however I do want to say this.

Common sense says that a horse who travels 100 Feet into the 1st beam (starting point) has a better chance (chance is a poor word, more like IS hitting it faster) of hitting the beam at top cruising speed vs. the horse who has 40 feet to hit the 1st beam.

How can a horse who hits the beam at 40 MPH not run a "faster" 6F vs. a horse (assuming all other variables-trip, weight, ability are exactly the same) who is hitting the beam at 25 or 30 MPH (accelerating up to 40 MPH)?

The 2nd horse needs the extra stride or two to get up to his 40 MPH speed because of his race having a short run up.

Am I missing something?
I ask that sincerely...

You are not missing anything because your post is essentially correct with the exception that your inference is that it is the run up to the start of the race which is the cause of the faster time; which is not true.

A racehorse reaches its max acceleration in about 2.1 seconds and it doesn't make any difference if the weatherhorse is at the starting line or "X" feet behind it.

An easy proof is to plot the curves with one horse at the starting line and the other "X" feet behind. Both would run the exact same race distance (run up distance not included) from the same path.

I believe that the horse at the starting line would probably run faster because of the shorter distance with the curves showing convergence due to the deceleration of both horses.

Also the run up horse if it had run at a velocity equal to or greater than the horse starting from the starting line, it probably would have expended more energy.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by Cratos

You are not missing anything because your post is essentially correct with the exception that your inference is that it is the run up to the start of the race which is the cause of the faster time; which is not true.

A racehorse reaches its max acceleration in about 2.1 seconds and it doesn't make any difference if the weatherhorse is at the starting line or "X" feet behind it.

An easy proof is to plot the curves with one horse at the starting line and the other "X" feet behind. Both would run the exact same race distance (run up distance not included) from the same path.

I believe that the horse at the starting line would probably run faster because of the shorter distance with the curves showing convergence due to the deceleration of both horses.

Also the run up horse if it had run at a velocity equal to or greater than the horse starting from the starting line, it probably would have expended more energy.

The effect of runup on final time may only be a couple of 1/5ths depending on the track, but the effect of runup on the early fractions is absolutely huge. Since this thread is about Moss figures which are more about pace, that's a little more relevant. Though the Moss figures have a final time figure also, but it seems to always line up with the Beyers.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

The effect of runup on final time may only be a couple of 1/5ths depending on the track, but the effect of runup on the early fractions is absolutely huge. Since this thread is about Moss figures which are more about pace, that's a little more relevant. Though the Moss figures have a final time figure also, but it seems to always line up with the Beyers.

I agree with you that run up on the early part of the race (particularly before the turn) will be significant (I don't know how to quantify huge).

For instance at Saratoga where the distance from the start to the turn in 6F is 1,331 feet, a horse would be at top velocity in about 2 seconds and if the horse have great early speed; and can carry it for a 1/4M it would be a fast early quarter, but as the race transitions from linear velocity to angular velocity going into the turn everything changes due to the centrifugal forces and when the horse comes out of the turn and transition back to linear velocity it is a different "horse" and a different race.

This is my argument against the "run up effect" on final time.

I see Moss's argument as arithmetical and non-scientific; which I don't buy.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I agree with you that run up on the early part of the race (particularly before the turn) will be significant (I don't know how to quantify huge).

For instance at Saratoga where the distance from the start to the turn in 6F is 1,331 feet, a horse would be at top velocity in about 2 seconds and if the horse have great early speed; and can carry it for a 1/4M it would be a fast early quarter, but as the race transitions from linear velocity to angular velocity going into the turn everything changes due to the centrifugal forces and when the horse comes out of the turn and transition back to linear velocity it is a different "horse" and a different race.

This is my argument against the "run up effect" on final time.

I see Moss's argument as arithmetical and non-scientific; which I don't buy.

I've found the biggest effects of runup on final times are at tracks like Santa Anita and Delmar in 1mile races with a ridiculously long runup. Quick breakers often hit the beam or official Trakus start point lengths in front sometimes, thus starting the "clock" before any horses officially start the race if you will. When that horse stops the time will be out of whack and making figures very difficult to estimate.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

I've found the biggest effects of runup on final times are at tracks like Santa Anita and Delmar in 1mile races with a ridiculously long runup. Quick breakers often hit the beam or official Trakus start point lengths in front sometimes, thus starting the "clock" before any horses officially start the race if you will. When that horse stops the time will be out of whack and making figures very difficult to estimate.

That is an interesting finding, but since I am a NYRA player I don't follow California racing closely even though all of California's Trakus data is in our data base.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

I've found the biggest effects of runup on final times are at tracks like Santa Anita and Delmar in 1mile races with a ridiculously long runup. Quick breakers often hit the beam or official Trakus start point lengths in front sometimes, thus starting the "clock" before any horses officially start the race if you will. When that horse stops the time will be out of whack and making figures very difficult to estimate.

A similar phenomenon occurs when one horse beats the gate and bolts out to an immediate length or two lead. The clock starts when he crosses the beam but everyone else is a length or two behind and not at the starting line yet.

The list of things like this is almost endless. I learned a new one yesterday from Moss. I didn't think there were any issues I hadn't thought of yet, including the ones I never talk about publicly because I may be able to address them someday. This is why I've moved away from being so literal about figures and more towards degree (the race was very fast for class, fast for class, average for class, slow for class....) You don't lose much if anything but you gain time for other things and don't drive yourself nuts trying to adjust for a million things that are close to impossible to quantify. It may also HELP prices because it keeps you away from thinking like everyone else.

[pandy]

I agree, class, you have to view time, be it final time or incremental time, in the correct context. Yes, it matters, but since track speed, distance, and surfaces present so many variables, time should be viewed as a general performance rating, not a precise one. I don't think you have to bet on the horse that appears to be the fastest in the race. I think you have to avoid betting on horses that aren't fast enough to win the race while focusing on the horses that are.

[Tom]

Class, that is how I set my DB up - there is a normal range of pace times for a certain final time, then a fast and slow range, then a very fast and very slow range. Tied directly to each range is the beaten lengths at that call of the winner, so that reality is always monitored.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

Class, that is how I set my DB up - there is a normal range of pace times for a certain final time, then a fast and slow range, then a very fast and very slow range. Tied directly to each range is the beaten lengths at that call of the winner, so that reality is always monitored.

I've been impressed by a lot of the data you've been willing to share.

My own database is getting better as I write new queries. I appreciate some of the help you and others gave me on that. It's nice to be able to push a button and answer some handicapping questions in an instant.

[cbp]

Originally Posted by pandy

I think you have to avoid betting on horses that aren't fast enough to win the race while focusing on the horses that are.

I have a tough time with what's essentially a catchphrase in the number centric approach to racing. The majority of not-fast-enough horses could probably be eliminated for any number of other reasons, as well. Horses that typically contend are probably fast enough - unless taking huge jump in class. Even if they don't win, they impact the race. I look for horses that run in 'difficult' points of a race. 'Fast' is almost always an indication of having received a lot of help

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by pandy

I agree, class, you have to view time, be it final time or incremental time, in the correct context. Yes, it matters, but since track speed, distance, and surfaces present so many variables, time should be viewed as a general performance rating, not a precise one. I don't think you have to bet on the horse that appears to be the fastest in the race. I think you have to avoid betting on horses that aren't fast enough to win the race while focusing on the horses that are.

Since the horses prior past performances are over several different distances and a number of months, their predicted performance will always be within some range.

... I think you have to avoid betting on horses that aren't fast enough to win the race while focusing on the horses that are.

Very well stated.