Rabbit for Mine That Bird?

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Right. Rather than just accept that the horse wasn't good enough and wouldn't have won under just about any circumstances:

We assume, that in a race with a few other on the pace types, HS will not only run them off their feet but will be going so fast that BOTH Curlin and the filly will have to move too soon, thus getting run off their feet, as well. And, after all this, HS will have enough to win going 12F.

Yeah

I can't recall where I posted HS should/would/could have won the race. I didn't think he had a chance that day and didn't bet him.. I thought (correctly) it was a race between Rags2Riches and Curlin.
I never really had too much respect for that colt(HS).. but had to acknowledge his efforts in the Derby, Kings Bishop and BCC were all very good.
I do agree that the scenario presented for the Belmont was he best chance of winning... not that it meant he would have won anyway.

Now, please expound on the benefits of Trackus again for us...

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

I can't recall where I posted HS should/would/could have won the race. I didn't think he had a chance that day and didn't bet him.. I thought (correctly) it was a race between Rags2Riches and Curlin.
I never really had too much respect for that colt(HS).. but had to acknowledge his efforts in the Derby, Kings Bishop and BCC were all very good.
I do agree that the scenario presented for the Belmont was he best chance of winning... not that it meant he would have won anyway.

Now, please expound on the benefits of Trackus again for us...

Why would a clueless **** like you, who has zero concept of pace/setup, not want to criticize something that's actually very good for the game, like Trakus? Mentioning Trakus is a good thing; going on and on about horses not being fast enough, which is the norm here, isn't.

I'm just glad you're in the game. You're just not willing to entertain the possibility that others know more about certain facets of it than you do. In this, you're in the majority on this and other forums.

Trust me, reading your **** and most of the other **** that's posted about races is COMICAL. It really is. And most of you ****ers will never get it.

But that's a very good thing.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Why would a clueless **** like you, who has zero concept of pace/setup, not want to criticize something that's actually very good for the game, like Trakus? Mentioning Trakus is a good thing; going on and on about horses not being fast enough, which is the norm here, isn't.

I'm just glad you're in the game. You're just not willing to entertain the possibility that others know more about certain facets of it than you do. In this, you're in the majority on this and other forums.

Trust me, reading your **** and most of the other **** that's posted about races is COMICAL. It really is. And most of you ****ers will never get it.

But that's a very good thing.

Wow.. guess I hit a nerve.

[Antitrust32]

fat man is very correct about Trakus... it is a real nice tool and should be implemented at all tracks, not really sure why it hasnt.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

fat man is very correct about Trakus... it is a real nice tool and should be implemented at all tracks, not really sure why it hasnt.

Sure.. but can't he take a little needling without going off the deep end?

[Suffolk Shippers]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

fat man is very correct about Trakus... it is a real nice tool and should be implemented at all tracks, not really sure why it hasnt.

Same reason anything that makes sense for a track or horse racing in general isn't implemented. Those in charge typically can't see the four inches in front of their face and instead fall back on the "well this is how we have always done things" cliche.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Suffolk Shippers

Same reason anything that makes sense for a track or horse racing in general isn't implemented. Those in charge typically can't see the four inches in front of their face and instead fall back on the "well this is how we have always done things" cliche.

I'm not an apologist for racetracks but it's worth noting that Trakus is very, very expensive.

NT

[Scav]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I'm not an apologist for racetracks but it's worth noting that Trakus is very, very expensive.

NT

I don't know man, given how far advanced GPS is, what I assume what Trackus is based off of, the cost has had to come down over the last four years.

[Bobby Fischer]

while we're on the subject of trackus, Charitable man is listed as losing more ground in the Bluegrass stretch per Trackus than per the Past Performances.

I think the eyes agree with trackus here as usual. It's amazing how much these things can be different.

[Antitrust32]

The question really is what do you trust more... electronics tracking every step or a pair of eyes prone to making mistakes.

The answer is simple.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

The question really is what do you trust more... electronics tracking every step or a pair of eyes prone to making mistakes.

The answer is simple.

It goes way beyond that. It strikes at the foundations of the present game.
It will allow those doing speed/pace figures to accurately (once and for all) compute these figures. As an example: with actual ground covered, you can now have an accurate feet per second number. You can thus actually tell how much ground was covered in a race that was supposed to be, say, 6F. So, rather than having a speed number for a race without any regard to the actual ground covered, and in some cases this could be a difference of 100 ft or so, you can now have an accurate number for the race. Not only for the winner but for all the others. And, you'd clearly see, for the 1st time, that the fastest horse in the race is not always the winner. Which makes the present 'not fast enough' BS, just that.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

It goes way beyond that. It strikes at the foundations of the present game.
It will allow those doing speed/pace figures to accurately (once and for all) compute these figures. As an example: with actual ground covered, you can now have an accurate feet per second number. You can thus actually tell how much ground was covered in a race that was supposed to be, say, 6F. So, rather than having a speed number for a race without any regard to the actual ground covered, and in some cases this could be a difference of 100 ft or so, you can now have an accurate number for the race. Not only for the winner but for all the others. And, you'd clearly see, for the 1st time, that the fastest horse in the race is not always the winner. Which makes the present 'not fast enough' BS, just that.

I'm not really a big bettor... I only really bet when I go to the track or hit up simulcast on big race days.

But I would think every single serious handicapper would benefit greatly from Trakus and would lobby hard for tracks to use it. Its a wonderful tool and its silly to think in this day of age that most tracks are relying on eyes to make charts. There are many times on here where people bring up misleading charts... with Trakus this would not happen.

I'm not sure about the costs of starting Trakus at a racetrack... Isnt it basically a device in the saddle pad or cloth and camera's or timing devices set up at each pole to track the horse?

If it is not insanely expensive I see no reason for every track not to have it. Especially CDI tracks, MAGNA tracks and NYRA.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

Wow.. guess I hit a nerve.

she must be 'spotting'

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

she must be 'spotting'

Post of the year candidate.....

[Lovely Laurel]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Why would a clueless **** like you, who has zero concept of pace/setup, not want to criticize something that's actually very good for the game, like Trakus? Mentioning Trakus is a good thing; going on and on about horses not being fast enough, which is the norm here, isn't.

I'm just glad you're in the game. You're just not willing to entertain the possibility that others know more about certain facets of it than you do. In this, you're in the majority on this and other forums.

Trust me, reading your **** and most of the other **** that's posted about races is COMICAL. It really is. And most of you ****ers will never get it.

But that's a very good thing.

You are a mean spirited, sick fu<k! This site was created with the intention of being fun and informative for all racing fans. Am I right Steve? The members here range from brilliant to clueless (not to say the clueless are mean). Nevertheless you act as if.....you know what, I'm not going to waste my breath. Get a life!

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Lovely Laurel

You are a mean spirited, sick fu<k! This site was created with the intention of being fun and informative for all racing fans. Am I right Steve? The members here range from brilliant to clueless (not to say the clueless are mean). Nevertheless you act as if.....you know what, I'm not going to waste my breath. Get a life!

Where exactly am I out of line here? I patiently went along making my point and someone chose to take a jab at me. I guess it got to where he couldn't come up with anything else. I know it sucks being shown to be off base but if he can't make the argument correctly why bother getting in there in the first place?

I have no problem with anyone who wants to learn. I'm here for informative exchanges. But this appears to be happening less and less. The people I want to hear from don't really post much of substance anymore. Guess they learned the hard way as well. What we really need here is more Hank Goldberg, Kenny Mayne, Nicanor, etc. type posts. Would that do it for you?

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Where exactly am I out of line here? I patiently went along making my point and someone chose to take a jab at me. I guess it got to where he couldn't come up with anything else. I know it sucks being shown to be off base but if he can't make the argument correctly why bother getting in there in the first place?

I have no problem with anyone who wants to learn. I'm here for informative exchanges. But this appears to be happening less and less. The people I want to hear from don't really post much of substance anymore. Guess they learned the hard way as well. What we really need here is more Hank Goldberg, Kenny Mayne, Nicanor, etc. type posts. Would that do it for you?

First of all, You were the one taking the "first jab."

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Right. Rather than just accept that the horse wasn't good enough and wouldn't have won under just about any circumstances:

We assume, that in a race with a few other on the pace types, HS will not only run them off their feet but will be going so fast that BOTH Curlin and the filly will have to move too soon, thus getting run off their feet, as well. And, after all this, HS will have enough to win going 12F.

Yeah

Second, I had chosen to let it go, rather than continue with your false assumptions after I pointed out correctly the misinterpretations you made and added a zing as a tit-for-tat. You couldn't handle it. You really shouldn't let people push you buttons so easily. You have a lot to learn. good luck.