Racing and Sports now moderates the Talkback forum to ensure posting guidelines are adhered to.
The views expressed on Talkback are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Racing and Sports. You must be a registered user to write postings or send messages to other users. Click here to register.
Author: Tontonan Timestamp:- 17/7/2012 8:02:13 PM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: Pineapple,
I don't see much of an edge in the implied lengths/second rates because a length is not a fixed unit of measure. The length of a length varies from horse to horse according to how long the horse is and how fast it is running, and those variations easily account for any inconsistency in those implied rates.
Firstly, the official margins are not precise. A good example was Rubitano's Newmarket in 2002. Six horses crossed the line barely a long head apart. Amazing photo. The official margins were 0.1 - 0.2 - 0.3 - 0.3 - 0.4. Had the judge been able to find a margin between Chong Tong and Desert Sky (who dead heated for fourth) he would have had to credit a 0.1 margin and pushed the 6th horse margin to 0.5 - a half length - when the photo clearly showed him to be no more than a long head from the winner.
However beyond a length the official margins are accurate to the clock. If the second horse's nose is at the base of the winners tail on the photo finish print then the margin between them is unquestionably a length - regardless of how long the horse is. Viewed was a longer horse than Bauer. Empire Rose was a longer horse than Natski, but a length is a length regardless of how long the horse is.
The length of a length not only varies with the body of the horse, it also appears to vary in the photo finish according to how fast it runs.
The Judge determines the placings and the margins from the photo finish print, the product of a high speed digital camera that samples lines of micro pixelated data at the rate of up to 10000 frames a second as the horses run by the winning post and compiles these samples as a continuous image. The longer a horse takes to pass the lens of the camera the longer it is sampled by the camera and the longer it appears to be on the print.
An extreme example would be that a horse passing the post at 1 m/sec would appear 16 times longer than a horse passing the post at 16 m/sec. The sausage horse !
Of course that means that the photo is not accurately recording distance all. The camera is accurately recording time... as an image. And it is from this image that the length of a length is determined...
So what is the length of a length ?
The length of a length is the time it takes the winner to pass the winning post from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail.
Author: Pineapple Timestamp:- 15/7/2012 10:40:14 PM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: Tonto,
"The constant is the clock." On this point, we are in complete agreement.
The point that I was trying to make was something slightly different. It only occurred to me today to test my hypotheses using official margins and recorded times for individual runners.
Let me explain by way of a few examples:
1. 16/6/12 Roi D'Jeu-Reigning (2nd-3rd) SR5, 3200m, Heavy 10, Rosehill Margin: 14.75L Time difference: 2.63 sec Implied L/sec: 5.61
As you can see, there is a large discrepancy in the implied L/sec conversion between the four races, which can't simply be explained by differences in track condition or race distance.
Of course it is possible to look-up race times for individual runners and use this information rather than official margins, but that is much more time consuming than simply examining the form guide. The astute punter should be aware that margins are not as precise as most people think. This knowledge could be used to gain a slight edge.
Note: Sectional times can be sourced from TVN and Sky Racing websites.
Author: Tontonan Timestamp:- 14/7/2012 3:44:09 PM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message:
Pineapple,
The proposition that there are 6 lengths to a second on a good track depends on (a) how fast the horses are traveling and (b) the length of a length.
12 seconds to the furlong (200m) is racing gallop on a good track. That's 600m in 36, a half mile in 48 and a mile in 1.36. It's the sort of proportion that Australian clockers are very familiar with.
IF horses are running 12 seconds to the furlong and IF there are six lengths to a second then there are 72 lengths to a furlong and each length measures 2.77m.
It is widely held though that a length only measures 8 feet (2.43m). IF that is true and IF there are 6 lengths to a second then the horse is traveling 14.58m/sec or 175m in 12 seconds - and that is much too slow even for horses at the end of a race. It equates to 600m in 41.15 seconds and a mile rate of 1.49.7 - which is closer to even time (2 minutes to the mile) than a racing gallop.
To make the formula work for those who insist a length is 2.43m there can only be more lengths to a second than six. To get back to 12 seconds to the furlong a 2.43m horse would be required to cover 6.81 lengths a second.
I suppose what I am saying is that you can factor in any values you choose but unless they credibly extrapolate to furlong and mile rates that we are accustomed to they are probably wrong.
6 lengths to the second is a rule of the thumb, nothing more. So is the length of a length. The constant is the clock.
Author: JohnWesleyHarding Timestamp:- 14/7/2012 1:42:18 PM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: "There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don't know."
Author: Pineapple Timestamp:- 13/7/2012 11:31:43 AM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: Hi Tontonan,
Thanks for the response, but I'm not sure we are quite on the same page.
You are correct that margins can be easily judged using the finishing print when the margins are small (e.g. head, neck, length), but this won't be the case when margins are several lengths or more.
As you mentioned in an earlier post, each horse decelerates at a different rate. This means that a horse that was running 4th when the winner crosses the line could end up finishing 2nd or 6th or any other possible position.
Therefore, simply calculating the distance between a horse as it crosses the line and the horse in the next position at that point in time, will only give an accurate measurement of beaten margins if all horses are finishing the race at exactly the same speed.
Isn't it for this reason that 'time elapsed' is the criterion used to calculate beaten margins?
Also, where did you get the figures of 12 sec/200m and 2.78m/L? Were they mentioned somewhere in the handicapping policy? If not, what is your logic for assuming those numbers?
Author: Tontonan Timestamp:- 12/7/2012 11:48:02 PM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: We don't need a conversion rate. We have a photograph.
The figures in the PDF are only accurate for horses if we measure a length as 2.77m and apply it to horses running a furlong in 12 seconds or 16.666 m/sec. In that model a length equals 0.1666 seconds, and a furlong equals 72 lengths at a mile rate of 1.36.0.
Mess with any of those variables and you'll get a different answer.
I don't know if a length averages at 2.777m but it must if there are 6 lengths to a second and they run 12 seconds to the furlong.
Author: Pineapple Timestamp:- 10/7/2012 10:42:07 PM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: We have established that official margins are calculated based on time elapsed, but does anyone know the conversion rate (i.e. lengths per second) that is used in Australia?
The true figure could be reasonably approximated by examining the final 200m sectional time for each horse, but I'm curious about the official conversion rate.
Does it vary across states? Is it conditional on race distance? Is it conditional on track condition?
British racing uses well-publicised conversion rates (link below), but I can't find anything similar for Australia.
Author: Khaptingly Timestamp:- 10/11/2011 8:55:16 PM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: WCF don't tell lies. I did not. You are lying to yourself, just like these fools that pretend to be clients.
At least I know how a margin varies from 7 lengths to 9 lengths. Tufnel does not have the courage to show himself on this thread.
What a fool he is, lucky he does not teach his kids about racing, all these years and he didn't know how a margin was determined. Worse still he poked fun at me when I told him how it was done.
Author: Balciano Timestamp:- 9/11/2011 1:13:27 AM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: Amazing Tonto, never knew that.
Would be interesting to see what effect that has on the margin of some of Black Caviar's recent wins, given she's often pulled up to a canter close to home.
Author: Tontonan Timestamp:- 8/11/2011 11:55:49 PM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: Buzz...buzz...buzz
What's he going on about now ? Is he having a crow about guessing the answer despite himself ?
Khrapper the Fly I'm Khrapper the Fly Straight from the TAB to you Spreading disease with the greatest of ease Straight from the TAB to you I'm bad and mean and mighty unclean Afraid of no one ! Except the man with the can of Accountability Hate that word Accountability
Brrrrrr.....Zzzzzeeeee....
One spray and Khrapper the Fly Apple of his old mother's eye was Khrapper Poor dead Khrapper Khrapper the Fly A victim of Accountability
Author: CountChivas Timestamp:- 8/11/2011 10:26:45 PM Subject: Re: Was the margin really 9 lengths ?
Message: 'I blocked that blowfly years ago'
Calling Krapper a blowfly is a bit unfair.....to blowflys. If every poster here was given the choice of spending an evening with either Krapper or a blowfly, I'd bet London to a brick that the blowfly would be 100% fully booked.
This site is maintained by Racing and Sports (®) Pty Ltd (ABN 093 360 108) ("R&S").
Copyright in all R&S materials is owned by Racing and Sports Pty Ltd (R&S).
Racing and Sports is a Registered Trademark.
R&S takes all care in the preparation of information appearing on the site, but accepts no responsibility nor warrants the accuracy of the information displayed.
This information is provided for entertainment purposes only. All information including race fields and TAB numbers should be checked with an official source.
(RAS-WWW03)
(ADS1)
Post a reply to this message.
