<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#990000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Lindsay, <br>
My opinion is the physical length of the horse is irrelevant when
trying to do this<br>
The margins these days are a function of time as you know, so that
knowing the actual length of a horse is irrelevant in my opinion.<br>
WA will use .16 seconds per lengths(6.25LPS) regardless of going,
distance, speed,......................<br>
SA(from long ago) will use who knows what, but I figured (from
memory) it was anywhere between .15 and .17 seconds per length and
no pattern could I find, to determine why they used which.<br>
Did not know racing.com gave times, but just checked r8 yesterday
and it appeared to be circa 5.7LPS(.175SPL).<br>
<br>
Thus length margins are a pain in the arse, because they mean
different things depending on where.<br>
I spent weeks, years back studying this, looking for a pattern, so
that I could transpose lengths back to times everywhere, but it
was not to be<br>
All because those geniuses at the data repository, had empty
fields for the individual times(yes they had a field but it was
unpopulated, or so I was told by the guy responsible!!)<br>
<br>
Roughly....the shorter the distance then the more metres to a
length.<br>
From WA data only where it is .16spl<br>
1000M a length is about 2.64 metres when related to times<br>
2400 its about 2.44m<br>
the bigger the margin, then the smaller the length per metre
value, except for the small margins <.5 where the errors are
necessarily larger.<br>
<br>
And all because they won't give accurate times, from which they
derive the inaccurate margins.<br>
They seem to think inaccurate margins is all the long suffering
punters deserve!<br>
<br>
SteveB<br>
<br>
On 07/05/2017 12:19 PM, Race Stats wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:HKXPR02MB059823AE4D81A1E0B7671318BBE90@HKXPR02MB0598.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Tony,
There are sites which list the times for all horses in a race, racing.com, rwwa etc.
So you can actually work out if a horse is beaten a length, the time per length including sectionals.
I know you accept that 2.75 metres is the average and industry standard, but the error margin is great when you break it down into age and size.
We're looking at seconds, so it's critical that the horse's length is accurate.
In other words you could use your calculations to get raw figures and then compare them with the times at those sites to see the accuracy.
Maybe you've already done that though ;)
Not criticising your methods, just trying to open the discussion up a bit.
Lindsay.
-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:racing-bounces@ausrace.com">mailto:racing-bounces@ausrace.com</a>] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, 5 May 2017 5:01 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:racing@ausrace.com">racing@ausrace.com</a>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Lengths per second score
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Moffat [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:tonymoffat@bigpond.com">mailto:tonymoffat@bigpond.com</a>]
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 10:01 AM
To: Racing <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:racing-bounces@ausrace.com"><racing-bounces@ausrace.com></a>; Racing <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:racing-bounces@ausrace.com"><racing-bounces@ausrace.com></a>
Subject: Lengths per second score
There has been some queries off the list regarding this.
It was first mentioned in Sydney Cup re-run post.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>