How to resolve this conflicting informtion?

[shoeless]

Thanks Mark and Ted

[Mark]

The value of a beaten length in feet depends on the velocity the horse is traveling at. When the gates open the horses jump away and those Early horses that want the lead charge ahead, at the end of the first fraction a horse that covers that quarter mile distance in say 22 seconds is traveling at 60 ft per second while a horse covering the same distance in 22.2 is traveling at 59.46 fps. So in that 1/5 of a second the leader has traveled 12 more ft than the horse running in second place or 6 ft in a 1/10 of a second which races are timed in today.
At the 2nd Call the leader passes the timer beam in 45 seconds so it took him 23 seconds to run the 2nd fraction. Yes the 2nd fraction was completed in 23 second and his average velocity was 57.39 fps but that is totally misleading. If he starts the 2nd fraction at 60 fps and he averages 57.39 fps over that distance his velocity at the 2nd call timer is actually 54.78 fps(assuming linear deceleration). At that rate a beaten length is worth less than 5ft.

The front runner wins the race by a nose in 1:10 flat. So he ran the last quarter mile in 25 seconds or 52.8 fps. over that final fraction. again if he enters the final fraction at 54.78 fps and his average velocity for that pace segment is 52.8 fps that means when he hits the wire he is traveling 50.85 fps(again assuming linear deceleration). So when you see slow horses charging down the center of the track, "looking like he jumped in at the 8th pole" you know why these horses who never travel faster than 55 fps in any of the earlier race segments can nip you at the wire. They decelerate much more slowly than the early speed and although they may be traveling only 52 or 53 fps that last furlong, that's enough. and what it tells you is that a beaten length in that stage of the race is less than 5 ft, much less in some cases.

I don't know who ever came up with 8.33 ft for a beaten length but it is nonsense.

The Doc and Jim Bradshaw figured this out. In think in large part due to Jim's observations of many, many races and the charting by hand of many pacelines(original form in the Red Match Up manual). They needed to find a way to chart acceleration and deceleration and they did it with Calculus and a programmer who knew how to convert a paceline into a vector or curve. That was the beginning of Kgen and Thoromation and it is a testament to their brilliance that we are still using their work 20 or 30 years later as the basis of our programs.

I guess my expectations were completely over the top. But when i found this website and the Hat Check blog and its apparent focus on Matching I really felt that we were going to see some advances in the science of handicapping. Some original investigation and research, after all it has been 3 years since the release of RDSS2. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised when we finally do see it but what I have read thus far is extremely disappointing. But that is not to say that the current version is not the best Matching program I have found, because it is. Its graphics and ease of use are head and shoulders above HTR and Maxvel, the latter i used for 10 years before finding Pace and Cap. In a sense, I guess I have just gotten greedy.

[Mitch44]

The value of a beaten length is dependent on the speed (time) and distance. So it actually does vary, particularly in the last fractions as they vary the most.

Like the Doc said it doesn't make any different what you use as long as all horses are treated the same. 10 foot was used for many years and in Brohammer's book because it made the math easier. The actual length of a horse is closer to 8 foot(average) as some are longer.

To the best of my knowledge Doc was using 2 foot per 1/2 furlong in later programs. As he said mathematically as long as all are treated the same its a mute discussion.
Mitch44

[Mark]

The value of a beaten length is exclusively based on the speed the horse is traveling at the point of call. Time is based on speed and distance. Don't confuse these things.

The horse's energy distribution calculation for all horses not on the lead is based upon speed at all points of call. It is the horses that race off the pace who are impacted most by constant or varying beaten length valuations as they are credited or penalized ground made up or lost in the calculation of their fps ratings. Middle moves and Turn time are significantly impacted just as length gain or loss in the final fraction. Horses are entered into consideration based upon their performance from a unique paceline unless from a tandem race. The value of beaten lengths in that paceline will determine their Total Energy as it will raise or lower their fractional speed. So it is not true that they are all treated by the same measure if that measure rewards or penalizes the individual horse.
It will also distort the ESP of an individual horse in there past performance lines.
After all, it is horses that make moves in their races that are signaling their fitness and ability to overcome the pace of the race. For off pace runners neglected by the Public that we can obtain significant mutuels. Just as it is the hidden Early horses that the Public does not see that also reward those that can. Rewarding this type of runner with greater speed leads to lost wagers.
Additionally, in Thoromation and Kgen which both came on the disk I bought their ESP was determined by the calculation Par Median/FR3. Par Median was 2nd call velocity. Using the number of 1/2 furlongs in the pace segment and their sum at the 2nd call, as well as the number of 1/2 furlongs in the final fraction may have been an initial expedient, later revised to mirror reality. I did not reverse engineer the later programs. But this would not surprise me. However, it provides additional evidence that overstating the value of beaten lengths led to less than optimal results. As Richie P reported the comment from Jim in one of their communications, "I think you give these sustained horses to much credit, Rich!" Horses running on an unpressured lead are not driving and therefore they have reserve energy in the stretch which prevents their deceleration from becoming acute. It is only when the leaders and Pressers have exhausted themselves that an "S" horse can utilize their slower deceleration to reach the front before the wire. Most often they will run second at very good prices.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

So - 4 ft per beaten length per half furlong per segment and Finish, except F3 and Finish in 6.5f, 7f, 7.5f and all distances over 8f - in which distances beaten lengths are valued at 5 ft.

Just to correct my earlier summary re value of beaten lengths used in Validator -

I meant to say: 4 ft per beaten length per 2 furlong segment, except ... (I was agreeing with what Mark introduced in his immediately previous post, just stated the ft per bl wrong). Thus - at F1 call point in sprints (2f distance) = 4 ft, at F1 call point in routes = 8 ft (i.e. 2 x 2f = 4f distance). Etc.

Sorry for the typo

Ted

[Mitch44]

As Ted said in RDSS the Doc and or the program uses 8.3333 for BL. As long as it applies a consistent approach its a mute point. The only way any of this means anything is if you make your own figures, otherwise trust the program.


I've made my own figures (for phase 1) specifically because the value of a beaten length does change depending on the speed of the segment being measured. The reason was to make a better mousetrap and TPR numbers which I accomplished. Even with that I chose 10 feet per length as did the original TPR. It just makes the math easier. 8 foot is closer to the length of a real horse. As long as a consistent number is used for a B L and all horses are treated equal it makes absolutely no difference in a mathematical formula.

Unless your going to make your own figures it really doesn't make any difference or does one need to know what formula is used in RDSS. Although Ted did provide 8.3333 One doesn't need to be a mechanic to drive a car, just drive it.

Enjoy the road trip,
Mitch44

[lone speed]

The "Match-up" of the early pace of race supersedes even the most accurate numbers devised...

Mark,

I can understand a little of your "angst" about the number of lengths used in the calculations....as one who had the privilege to work with speed figures based on energy exertions many years ago based on racing data that were based in fifths...

Back then, these energy exertion numbers were sensitive to one tick or one-fifth....I would questioned the variant in question at times but in reality; it was the "rounding" to the nearest fifths that distorted the energy exertion numbers....

example 1:10 and .59 tenths for a six furlong race would be rounded to 1:10 and 2 fifths.....

Another area where one can have a huge error in calculation even though one has more accurate numbers is the "troubled trip".

One prime example is Nyquist in last year's Breeders Cup Juvenile race. In the paceline of the Daily Racing Form, nowhere is a wide trip "duly" noted.

Nyquist in the first turn out of the starting gate of race was 6 wide going into the first turn and Nyquist stood in the wide path all around most of the race, as Nyquist was also 6 wide going into the far turn and 4 wide going into the stretch run. Thorograph credited Nyquist for the wide trip but their numbers is based on final times so it can be debated in another thread.

Link to video of race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTI5q1Koopc

[Mitch44]

lone speed; your correct about the difference between 1/5 and using timing in hundreds. The timing in hundreds is much more accurate. I've seen as much as 3 lengths difference in a race and when looking at how many races are won by less, its phenomenal. Surprisingly there are also many races with none or little difference when you would think there would be.

When I made my own TPR charts for correct B L (rather than the standard of 1/5 equals 1 length) I did it in hundreds for greater accuracy of numbers and placed them on a sliding scale of 100 for ease of application and understanding.

In later programs the Doc converted fifths to hundreds and it improved the results overall. He simply made 1/5 .20 hundreds. Not as accurate as an actual number of say .26 hundreds but it did improve results. So still a step forward. All races now are recorded in hundreds by segments but they still publish in fifths. Now that's insane. Perhaps one day they will and we'll all be better off. Of course one can overcome this but its tedious. If dedicated to only one track its not that much work.

Trakus is also a future for more accurate figures that will take into account trips etc. The racing game is slow to change. Another tool if you use only certain tracks as not all have trakus yet and are slower than a sloth to adapt.

Mitch44

[Mark]

The technology has been available for years to make the timing and detail of Thoroughbred racing much more precise. But were they to do that we would all be chasing $6.00 horses. So I don't look forward to that. After all the big betting syndicates are getting better and better and the general level of pricing has declined significantly even in the last 10 years. Why turn Thoroughbred racing into harness racing?

But on the other hand, as flawed as the basic data is it seems we don't want to add further inaccuracies to it. There is no thing as a perfect number, I don't delude myself. As a result this puts even more emphasis on contender selection. I review every line in every horses' past performances focusing specifically on POWER MOVES or races in which the horse had demonstrating early speed or was able to run reasonably close to fast sprint paces. I really do not pay much attention to final time. I want to find horses that have the ability to make POWER MOVES against paces similar to today's projected pace RAW, especially younger horses.

[Bill Lyster]

TRAKUS data shows how much farther he ran to win vs the next few finishers. a minus in the right hand column means that horse ran fewer feet than the winner. Exaggerator ran 85 feet less while gaining from 8th to 5th to 4th while Nyquist closed 8-6-1 to the stretch call.