Del Mar - Initial thoughts?

[wigmore]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

The jury is still is out on a lot of things, however, these races are just very ugly.

People tend to forget that the vast majority of the most important races in this country, are run at route distances on the main track.

They ran no such races like that on opening day. Take a look at what happened in the four route races over the polytrack run on todays card. The first four of the meet.

* The first of two 10K claimers for different sexes. The fillies division (Race #1) was won by Zee Topper, who came from 13 lengths off the pace after a half mile, to win going away by almost five lengths. The half mile fraction was 47 1/5, a genuine fraction to indicate it was a truly run horse race.

* In the second race, a 7/1 shot is allowed an uncontested 3.5 length lead, through very comfortable fractions of 48 for the half mile. Over a natural dirt surface, this would be your protypical "once in a lifetime dream trip." Said horse is run down late, through a soft 26.70 final 1/4 mile fraction.

(Pause it) - Jockeys and trainers observe these races...and a light bulb goes on. You can envision them all collectively thinking "must go as slow as possible, much save as much horse as possible."

* Now It's time for the 10K claiming male division. All the jockeys and horseman make their adjustments. A 5/2 favorite is allowed to lead through very soft fractions of 25 flat and 50 flat. He finishes 8th in a field of 9. Meanwhile, the horses racing last and 2nd to last respectively, after a half mile, rally to finish 1st and 2nd at odds of 66/1 and 9/2. They make a $875.60 exacta.

That's right, horses close from 9th and 8th, into the teeth of 25 and 50 fractions, and make a 437/1 shot exacta.

* Now comes the feature, A $75,000 ALW race for older males. In other words, very good horses. A winner comes from mid-pack, the fractions are 25.62 and 50.73. The final time for 8.5 furlongs was 1:46.98

Buy hey, at least they're not pulling around sulkys and racing in single file...

47 1/5 is very fast for polytrack comparing it to the rest of the routes on the card. Most of the sprints on day 1 had comparable 47 and change 4f splits. No wonder the winner rallied form dead last. You have to stop comparing the splits on this track to splits on a normal track saying 47 is soft because it was soft on dirt or 26 change is a soft late fraction because it was soft on dirt.. Compare apples to apples.

in the second race that 48 change split looks fairly swift when compared to other races on the card and that early leader was only beaten a fraction.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by wigmore

47 1/5 is very fast for polytrack comparing it to the rest of the routes on the card. Most of the sprints on day 1 had comparable 47 and change 4f splits. No wonder the winner rallied form dead last. You have to stop comparing the splits on this track to splits on a normal track saying 47 is soft because it was soft on dirt or 26 change is a soft late fraction because it was soft on dirt.. Compare apples to apples.

You, and a few others in this thread need to develop better reading comprehension skills.


I didn't compare the splits on that track to any other track...I compared it with the splits in other route races throughout the day.

I'm seriously done with this.

I'm not going to keep explaining this over and over to people who don't bother to finish reading.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You, and a few others in this thread need to develop better reading comprehension skills.


I didn't compare the splits on that track to any other track...I compared it with the splits in other route races throughout the day.
I'm seriously done with this.

I'm not going to keep explaining this over and over to people who don't bother to finish reading.

What conclusion did you draw from your pace analysis of those races?

You said the races were ugly, I'm curious what that means. I'm being honest when I say that to me, it seems that the races are being called ugly only because your traditonal pace analysis methods do not shed any light on the outcome, that they are the wrong tool. I don't know why that makes the races ugly, it might mean that a different tool is required. no?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

What conclusion did you draw from your pace analysis of those races?

For starters, the 10K claiming race for fillies, the first route race run over Del Mar's polytrack was the race that went 47 1/5ths to the half.

After the second route race had been run, it was quickly appearent to everyone that horses can't use any of their speed early on in route races.

The conclusions are obvious. You can't use your horse early, and you have to make one-run.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You said the races were ugly, I'm curious what that means. I'm being honest when I say that to me, it seems that the races are being called ugly only because your traditonal pace analysis methods do not shed any light on the outcome, that they are the wrong tool.

Basically, these races can't be run like true horse races. Pace doesn't have anything to do with it. Horses are reserved early on in turf races, but they can showcase exciting acceleration through the late stages.

These races are very ugly to watch, only to someone who actually loves watching traditional horse racing.

If you look at yesterdays feature race, a field of very good older males in a 75K ALW race struggled through 8.5 furlongs in 1:47. Basically, horses can't use their exciting natural abilities, and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win.

I don't have a problem with polytrack from a handicappres prospective, however, from a racing fans prospective....it makes horse racing look boring unwatchable.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Basically, these races can't be run like true horse races. Pace doesn't have anything to do with it. Horses are reserved early on in turf races, but they can showcase exciting acceleration through the late stages.

These races are very ugly to watch, only to someone who actually loves watching traditional horse racing.

If you look at yesterdays feature race, a field of very good older males in a 75K ALW race struggled through 8.5 furlongs in 1:47. Basically, horses can't use their exciting natural abilities, and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win.

I don't have a problem with polytrack from a handicappres prospective, however, from a racing fans prospective....it makes horse racing look boring unwatchable.

So if I don't find these races ugly, are you implying that I must not love traditional horse racing?

All I see is the lack of a true speed bias to the same extent that most dirt tracks exhibit. For me there is nothing more boring than seeing a horse zip to the lead on a speed biased track and watching them run around the track in a futile attempt to catch the E horse. I don't know why this is the only thing considered "real" racing.

"and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win"
What is the other approach? Don't dirt races also end up basically with the least tired horse winning the race?

gun the horse balls out and count on the bias against closers to get you across the wire first? this is what I see happening on many dirt tracks.

[Riot]

This is from a handicapping bloggers website, so I can't verify accuracy (looking for stuff published by the track to compare):

Winning Margins on the Arlington Polytrack (May 4 - June 24)
½ length or less 77/267 = 29 percent
¾ to 2 lengths 92/267 = 34 percent
2 ¼ to 4 lengths 63/267 = 24 percent
4 ¼ or more lengths 35/267 = 13 percent

Winner's Odds on the Arlington Polytrack (May 4 - June 24)
Post-time favorites 68/267 = 25 percent
3-1 or less 118/267 = 44 percent
7-2 to 9-1 98/267 = 37 percent
10-1 and up 51/267 = 19 percent

Arlington's Average Exotic Wager Payoffs (May 4 - June 24)
$2 Daily Double -- $114
$2 Exacta -- $109
$1 Trifecta -- $409
$1 Superfecta -- $3,388
$1 Pick 3 -- $562
$1 Pick 4 -- $3,160

Arlington's 2006 average winning payoff in their main track races was $11.24, compared to $15.80 this year on Polytrack.

Arlington's Average Field Size Comparison
'07 Polytrack all -- 8.67 horses per race (through June 27)
'06 Main Track all -- 7.14
'07 Polytrack sprints -- 8.96
'06 Main track sprints - 7.31
'07 Polytrack routes -- 8.21
'06 Races Main track routes -- 6.84

[10 pnt move up]

I agree with Drugs, this stuff is just ugly to watch, not only are the races not being truely run alot of the races end up with 3 or 4 races at the wire which we all know is not a good sign of a great performance but of mediocirty.

The hollywood cushion track is light years better to watch and wager then del mar.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

So if I don't find these races ugly, are you implying that I must not love traditional horse racing?

All I see is the lack of a true speed bias to the same extent that most dirt tracks exhibit. For me there is nothing more boring than seeing a horse zip to the lead on a speed biased track and watching them run around the track in a futile attempt to catch the E horse. I don't know why this is the only thing considered "real" racing.

"and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win"
What is the other approach? Don't dirt races also end up basically with the least tired horse winning the race?

gun the horse balls out and count on the bias against closers to get you across the wire first? this is what I see happening on many dirt tracks.

When I look at the list of what most people consider the greatest races of all time or best races they have seen in person I see a list of races that stand because of how the pace unfolds...an exciting closing finish...a speed horse that keeps pouring it on. Perhaps the track will adjust itself though and the jockeys won't be riding it in such a hesitant manner. I did like what I was seeing at Hollywood better though.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

When I look at the list of what most people consider the greatest races of all time or best races they have seen in person I see a list of races that stand because of how the pace unfolds...an exciting closing finish...a speed horse that keeps pouring it on. Perhaps the track will adjust itself though and the jockeys won't be riding it in such a hesitant manner. I did like what I was seeing at Hollywood better though.

There may be something to that. I will say that i can recall no great races, nothing memorable so far on poly. The bluegrass was entirely forgetable. While i like it for the day to day races, I still want to see the great races, thrilling races, like we had in the TC races this year.

[Riot]

I'm at the computer, but don't have the time now to search it out right now - does anybody have the stats as published in the trade mags regarding Keeneland, Turfway, Arlington? Times/racing styles for their last dirt year vs. first poly year?

[wigmore]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You, and a few others in this thread need to develop better reading comprehension skills.


I didn't compare the splits on that track to any other track...I compared it with the splits in other route races throughout the day.

I'm seriously done with this.

I'm not going to keep explaining this over and over to people who don't bother to finish reading.

I think its you who need to brush up on your reading skills.. What I said was that you were deciding what fractions were slow or not by comparing with those fractions run on a dirt track. You said 47 and change was genuine and 48 change would have been a once in lifetime set up on a dirt track. Who cares what 48 change would mean on a dirt track in this case?

47 change for the 10k claimers was not a "genuine" fraction as you said but in fact lighning fast compared to others on the day (and also the sprints from Day 1) and the horse who was second through those lightening splits was not beaten all that far.

The 2nd race the pace "very comfortable fractions of 48 for the half mile."
Now if that had been a dirt race as you admit it would have been disheartening to see that easly leader lose but this is not dirt and 48 change seems like a farily swift pace compared to other routes on the day. Spanish Bandit who was that pace setter had faded just ad badly on her turf race prior and had faield to last vs much weaker at Pleasanton. Is it a suprise that after moderate (maybe even fast fractions) that he faded yesterday? You could argue that he held on much better today than in either of his prior routes


PS before this arguement gets too heated you should know that you know me from another place

[Riot]

Having strong feelings or heated debate about a particular subject doesn't imply one has those feelings towards the poster debating one side of the issue at all - it just means people hold very strong opinons, and thus it's a subject important to many.

If we all thought alike, we wouldn't have pari-mutual betting

I have great respect for the people here who don't like synthetic surfaces, and I like hearing why they feel that way. Knowing the pluses and minuses benefits us all as handicappers.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by wigmore

47 change for the 10k claimers was not a "genuine" fraction as you said but in fact lighning fast compared to others on the day

What other board do I know you from?

You do realize that that race was THE FIRST ROUTE RACE run over Del Mar's polytrack? Right?

If you look at the way my post was structured, it was CLEARLY done so to show that jockeys and trainers had made a correction from seeing what happened in the first two races.

No **** 47 1/5, for 10K claiming fillies, is fast compared to 50 3/5ths for 75K older males in an allowance race.

Once again, you do realize that ZERO route races over the Del Mar polytrack had been run at the time of the 47 1/5th fraction??

I called it a truly run race because the riders rode the race as though they'd ride the race normally over dirt.

It's remarkable that I need to keep explaining something like this.

[wigmore]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

What other board do I know you from?

You do realize that that race was THE FIRST ROUTE RACE run over Del Mar's polytrack? Right?

If you look at the way my post was structured, it was CLEARLY done so to show that jockeys and trainers had made a correction from seeing what happened in the first two races.

No **** 47 1/5, for 10K claiming fillies, is fast compared to 50 3/5ths for 75K older males in an allowance race.

Once again, you do realize that ZERO route races over the Del Mar polytrack had been run at the time of the 47 1/5th fraction??

I called it a truly run race because the riders rode the race as though they'd ride the race normally over dirt.

It's remarkable that I need to keep explaining something like this.

Even if the jockeys rode that first race way too fast early the pace setter hung on at least as well as he had done in his prior races if not better. Would that horse have hung on as well in a 46 change on the drit?
The same is true of the pace setter in the second race.

Apart from the 7th where the splits very exceptionally slow (and the best horses finished well) pace setters ran ok...

I just dont see that these races look all that ugly if you take away the clock. The times are slower but the sprints have looked fair to me and the routes maybe edging closers but that isnt all that much different from a track like Belmont right?