Beyer talks Trakus

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fastracehorse

Personally, ground lost is one of my bigger weapons

i know u hav your own measurements, and u will probably agree, but 1-wide on a turn is not insignificant ground lost

fffastt

Are you playing Mad Libs or something while posting? Where did 1-wide originate?

[pondman]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about Trakus (other than more accurate beaten lengths at the pace calls).

In the future there doesn't need to be a call. Any short surge should be able to be observed, anytime during a race. This could be very important. If a jockey asks a horse, and it responds, but doesn't follow through it may indicate a problem, even if it's for only 50 yards. For example, many horses run straight well. But for whatever reason the horse doesn't run the turns well and is running in a bull ring, such as Pamona, you'll know it, with precise ft/sec measures on the turns. This will give you an advantage. Trakus has the ability to break out splits at any distance during the race. I think the public should be able to do this.

I'm personally a class handicapper, but if I were a speed handicapper, I'd be alarmed by Trakus.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

In general pace and dynamics of a race has much more affect on what part of the track horses will run.

I hear what you are saying.

For after the fact evaluation I am just way more interested in path biases than ground loss. IMO some biases are so strong they can be the difference between winning in a jog or being up the track (for some horses).

The thing about these inside/outside biases is that most people think in terms of the RAIL. But sometimes it's 2-3 paths that are bad/good, a single path off the rail that's good, a gradual thing where the rail is death, but the 2-3 path is not ideal either. I feel like I have to get that stuff right when it's fairly extreme because if I do, ground loss becomes almost irrelevant.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I hear what you are saying.

For after the fact evaluation I am just way more interested in path biases than ground loss. IMO some biases are so strong they can be the difference between winning in a jog or being up the track (for some horses).

The thing about these inside/outside biases is that most people think in terms of the RAIL. But sometimes it's 2-3 paths that are bad/good, a single path off the rail that's good, a gradual thing where the rail is death, but the 2-3 path is not ideal either. I feel like I have to get that stuff right when it's fairly extreme because if I do, ground loss becomes almost irrelevant.

I'm not going to say path biases don't exist.
They clearly do, and better players than me have exploited path bias for years. You seem to have a good handle of path bias.

For me personally, I have found that the pace of the race has made more difference than ground loss or path bias. I've also found that pace has often explained an apparent case of ground loss or path bias.

Let's assume that that each path is equal, except on the turns where it is better to save ground.

In a speed favoring pace(where the speed is either dominant or allowed to rate slowly on the lead...) = the Speed will tend to win from an inside "path" and the winners will tend to have the least ground loss. In these cases the pace was superordinate to path and ground loss.

In a collapsing pace(where the closers are all dominant or the front-runners go so fast that many tire)= The closers will tend to win running wide late(unless the rail opens but can be ignored for now) with the late runners having to come wide on the turn for home. These closers will have the widest paths and the most ground loss. Again in this case the collapsing pace will be superordinate to the path and ground loss.

Taking a 2nd look at the closer scenario = any horse that lucks out and gets the rail to open, will obviously have an advantage over the same type of closers going 5-wide. However it isn't more of an advantage than regular ground saving. It isn't a true path bias.
Add that closing races and "fair" paces may offer the biggest chances for a horse to save ground in comparison to rivals (where in a speed favoring race the leaders will be 1 or 2 wide at most on the lead).

So if you have some speed favoring races you may think there is a rail bias, when it was a speed bias. Several speed favoring races, and maybe a closer race where the rail opens (think street sense at churchill), and all of a sudden bloggers are talking about a golden rail.

Same with a closer bias, a casual observer will note the outside horse is winning all the duels...

Not saying there aren't concrete examples of path bias, but sharing some of my perspective.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I'm not going to say path biases don't exist.
They clearly do, and better players than me have exploited path bias for years. You seem to have a good handle of path bias.

For me personally, I have found that the pace of the race has made more difference than ground loss or path bias. I've also found that pace has often explained an apparent case of ground loss or path bias.

Let's assume that that each path is equal, except on the turns where it is better to save ground.

In a speed favoring pace(where the speed is either dominant or allowed to rate slowly on the lead...) = the Speed will tend to win from an inside "path" and the winners will tend to have the least ground loss. In these cases the pace was superordinate to path and ground loss.

In a collapsing pace(where the closers are all dominant or the front-runners go so fast that many tire)= The closers will tend to win running wide late(unless the rail opens but can be ignored for now) with the late runners having to come wide on the turn for home. These closers will have the widest paths and the most ground loss. Again in this case the collapsing pace will be superordinate to the path and ground loss.

Taking a 2nd look at the closer scenario = any horse that lucks out and gets the rail to open, will obviously have an advantage over the same type of closers going 5-wide. However it isn't more of an advantage than regular ground saving. It isn't a true path bias.
Add that closing races and "fair" paces may offer the biggest chances for a horse to save ground in comparison to rivals (where in a speed favoring race the leaders will be 1 or 2 wide at most on the lead).

So if you have some speed favoring races you may think there is a rail bias, when it was a speed bias. Several speed favoring races, and maybe a closer race where the rail opens (think street sense at churchill), and all of a sudden bloggers are talking about a golden rail.

Same with a closer bias, a casual observer will note the outside horse is winning all the duels...

Not saying there aren't concrete examples of path bias, but sharing some of my perspective.

I agree with everything you are saying. Pace is also part of my analysis.

IMO that's part of what makes path bias analysis both very difficult and potentially valuable. Determining if there was a bias is dependent on evaluating the horses and trips properly.

If I have reason to think some long shot horse is a lot better than it looks on paper and it goes wire to wire on the rail, someone that doesn't know what I know might start wondering if there was a bias.

On some days there are only a handful of dirt races, there are a lot of FTS, very inconsistent horses etc.. It's tough. So if you do it well, you have an advantage.

Andy Serling is as good a handicapper as there is, but I don't always agree with him on biases. He forms his opinions based on his own views of the horses going in and their trips. Sometime I have insights he doesn't have and vice versa.

[cj]

Ground loss is nice to have. However, I think most will agree that sometimes it is a big factor, other times it isn't. Also, all ground loss is not the same. Rallying wide on the second turn into a race that is falling apart isn't a big deal. Dueling four wide on a hot pace on the first turn of a route is huge.

Personally, I think the best part of Trakus is the ability to give us precise times for all horses at ALL points of call. This is way better than someone watching through binoculars and making an educated guess. Like ground loss, there are times these clockings will have big value, and times they won't, but at least it will be accurate.

Things like path biases are subjective, as is measuring the effect of pace and ground loss. The timing of horses at several points in the race, however, should not be.

[Valuist]

My take on biases:

A neutral track is really a 2 path track.

A track where the 3 path is the best spot is a slight outside track

A track where the 4 paths and out are optimal is a decided outside bias track.

I also believe bias is a bigger factor in sprints than routes. And likewise, in routes, pace trumps bias. Horses are running harder and hitting the ground at a more severe rate in sprints. Sprints are run around only one turn so ground loss isn't as big of a factor. A horse setting a soft pace in a route can overcome not being on the best part of the track.

[Fastracehorse]

Originally Posted by cj

Are you playing Mad Libs or something while posting? Where did 1-wide originate?

meant 2-wide

fffastt

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The thing about these inside/outside biases is that most people think in terms of the RAIL. But sometimes it's 2-3 paths that are bad/good, a single path off the rail that's good, a gradual thing where the rail is death, but the 2-3 path is not ideal either.

Soooooooooooo true. But usually irrelevant at a track like mnr where jocks avoid the rail at all costs. I've even stated (just HALF jokingly) that pro-rail means pro 4-path at mnr. Still, it's important to distinguish between a surface that's merely dead down close to the rail, and one that favors the widest runners.

[speed]

Looking at Woodbine today race 9 the 1 horse's last race replay it's obvious he loses by 4 1/2 or 5 lengths and the pp's show beaten by 3. Checking trakus data they have him beaten 5 lengths. Amazing how inaccurate the data thoroughbred racing supplies really is. I watch more replays daily than most and it is shocking how often and dramatic the errors are. Chart callers have i believe 20 minutes or so after the race to get the info reported. Would think they would be given the time to review the races and ensure a higher level of accuracy. The mistakes get worse the farther back through the field one looks.

[Tom]

If they have Trakus there, what possible reason is there for NOT using it???

God, it this were NYRA......

[BillW]

Originally Posted by Tom

If they have Trakus there, what possible reason is there for NOT using it???

God, it this were NYRA......

Or a photo finish camera :-)

[cj]

Originally Posted by speed

Looking at Woodbine today race 9 the 1 horse's last race replay it's obvious he loses by 4 1/2 or 5 lengths and the pp's show beaten by 3. Checking trakus data they have him beaten 5 lengths. Amazing how inaccurate the data thoroughbred racing supplies really is. I watch more replays daily than most and it is shocking how often and dramatic the errors are. Chart callers have i believe 20 minutes or so after the race to get the info reported. Would think they would be given the time to review the races and ensure a higher level of accuracy. The mistakes get worse the farther back through the field one looks.

Most complaints come in the form of pace calls, not the finish. That is supposed to be accurate. I wonder if it was just a transcribing error. I find these with times now and then, so it makes sense it happens with lengths too.

[speed]

Originally Posted by cj

Most complaints come in the form of pace calls, not the finish. That is supposed to be accurate. I wonder if it was just a transcribing error. I find these with times now and then, so it makes sense it happens with lengths too.

Most times you would be correct. This time though they have the show horse a nose ahead of the 4th horse when he was over 2 lengths clear. Yes pace calls are generally the issues. Amazing the degree of errors in pace calls. Some tracks are consistently good while others, well, lets leave it at that.

[speculus]

Originally Posted by 098poi

......
http://tnetwork.trakus.com/dsi2007/G...ultPage=Finish ........

Thanks for the link 098poi.

I just wish to make one simple point.

If TRAKUS claims the timings are accurate, then the beaten lengths are wrong.

If they say the beaten lengths are accurate, then the times are wrong.

Either way, TRAKUS looks like a complete sham.

Don't take it as Gospel, you will regret it.