I Didn't Forget

[beyerguy]

Jerry,

If you pull this off, you are truly a man among men!

When you really think about it, the only way to get the info we horseplayers want is to continue to demand it.  Believe me, noone else is going to do it.  The tracks sure don\'t care, and neither do horsemen.  We are the only ones that can pull it off, and having a serious customer like TGJB lead the fight is a start.

What can we do to help?

[TGJB]

I\'m going to be working with Equibase on this, we\'ll see what happens.

I\'m not sure I understand this completely.

Would this help with the problem of horses of different quality finishing at various rates of speed at the end of a race or do they already account for that?

For example, do they accurately capture the difference between top turf and dirt horses when they give us beaten lengths?

Good turf horses routinely run sub 12 second fractions in the last furlong while you rarely see that on dirt. That should somehow be built into the beaten lengths.

Of course if we can get the actual times, then that\'s much better. Good luck with your effort.

[TGJB]

In theory, what they are giving us is actual time of each horse, expressed as \"lengths\". I repeat, in theory. Without having more information, which I may or may not be able to get, it\'s hard to know if they are executing correctly.

In other words-- you may see a race where you are sure a horse gets beat 8 lengths, but because of a slow pace they are coming home very fast, and the chart will show him only getting beat 6 because the elapsed time was only 6 times (fill in time value of a \"length\").

[NoCarolinaTony]

Jerry,

I\'m pretty sure Equibase does actual time  and actual btn lenghts for Harness Racing Already? I know Sports Eyes puts in the Horses Actual Time,Qtr Splits, Btn Lenghts et al. I believe Equibase is also the official data base for Harness as well. Seems strange to me that they can\'t offer same  data for Thoroughbreds as well.

NC Tony

PS How\'s the Golf Game?

[TGJB]

The golf game is nonexistant.

I just got off the phone again with my guy at Equibase. This is going to be a process, but now that they are aware of the questions they are definitely moving on it, and they\'re going to bring me in on it as it moves along.

I did find out the following-- the timing process is far more sophisticated than it used to be even 10 years ago, when there was a moving strip of film. They are doing very high tech timing of each horse and the information and images go directly into a computer. Then that super accurate time data is converted into \"lengths\"-- which is where the problem is.

[BitPlayer]

When you make your figures, do you convert beaten lengths, ground loss, and weight to time, and then use that aggregate adjustment to calculate an adjusted time used in assigning figures?

If so, do you use the same number of seconds per length (I think you mentioned 0.16) at all distances?

My overall impression is that the Equibase/photo-finish-company situation, while not as clean as you would like it or as it should be, doesn\'t represent a significant problem for your figures.  Is that your take as well?

I\'m sure you weary of discussing this topic, but if people use Equibase data for beaten lengths, how would the other guys have blown the beaten lengths in the 2004 Derby?

Respectfully,

BitPlayer

[TGJB]

We convert time, \"lengths\", ground, and weight, into points on our scale. A length has a different value in points at different distances-- about a point per length at 5f, gradually extending to about one point being worth about 2 lengths at 1 1/4 miles.

As I said in an earlier post, based on what we have found out thus far, the degree of \"looseness\" in the figures could be up to about a quarter point at 10 lengths at a mile. By the time the smoke clears on this, everything should very tight.

Ragozin does not deal directly with Equibase. As far as I know they still have a deal with BRIS, which gets the data from Equibase. My guess is that it was a transcription/input error at some point in the process-- somehow they got the 2 length gap between third and fourth in the 04 Derby as 5 lengths. Manual errors  can happen to anybody, and happens to us-- but we don\'t make nearly the number of mistakes or ones of that magnitude in big races, and when we make one we admit it, and correct it.

[SoCalMan2]

\"and when we make one, we admit it and correct it\"  

I can tell all from my personal experience that this statement is true.  That is a big reason that TG deserves credibility. Failure to acknowledge mistakes creates a credibility gap and leaves people relying on information from others at a loss.

[Mall]

The speed figures chapter of Six Secrets, which I read windshield wiper style while waiting for a book club meeting to end, has this interesting & marginally related theory from an anonymous contributor: It isn\'t the accuracy of sheets figures which makes sheets players such strong players, but their absolute belief in the figures\' accuracy, which gives them the needed confidence to pull the trigger when it counts. Not sure I totally agree, but certainly food for thought.

Thks to M3 for bringing this interesting subject to everyone\'s attention. I\'ve tried to think of some way of turning this info into an edge at the windows,at least until it\'s changed or more widely known, but couldn\'t think of one. Anyone else come up with anything?    

[BitPlayer]

Mall -

Tying this back to an earlier thread, one might term that the \"never-in-doubt-often-in-error\" school of handicapping.

[asfufh]

JB Said: \"I did find out the following-- the timing process is far more sophisticated than it used to be even 10 years ago, when there was a moving strip of film. They are doing very high tech timing of each horse and the information and images go directly into a computer. Then that super accurate time data is converted into \"lengths\"-- which is where the problem is.\"

JB, Any progress in getting a definitive answer on the time vs.lengths formula from Equibase etal.
BTW, I assume that the time assigned to lengths in the Equibase charts is the same no matter what the distance of the race. If this is correct, could you explain (probably for the umpteen time) why a TG point is \"worth\" more points the longer the distance of the race. Thanks, Asfufh

[TGJB]

Asfufh-- I don\'t expect there to be any progress on the timing issues for a while-- I\'ll check back in with Equibase after Saratoga.

If you want to get an overview of the points/lengths question, think about the average winning margin in quarter horse races, and in 1 1/2 mile races. The longer the race, the more the horses spread out-- a difference in ability translates into more lengths the farther you run.

[asfufh]

TGJB, Any word from Equibase on the time/beaten lengths issue? Asfufh

[TGJB]

The equibase beaten length issue is going to take a long time. The right guy there is on it, I\'ll ask him again some time after the BC. When I talked to him a couple of weeks ago he did confirm that the differences between the different timing companies were very small, and all very close to what we use. But it should be standardized, and in the end they should be publishing times straight up for each horse.