Zayat is Leaving; Baffert hates it

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Try this link

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/edito...cle.cgi?id=318

in the left section of that page, go to the "At A Glance" tab and pick your track. Hope this is what you were looking for....

yes it's exactly what I was looking for, thanks

[ArlJim78]

through 8/4

Saratoga dirt;
fav win%, fav itm%, ave win payout, %wire sprints, %wire routes
26%, 61%, $6.38, 17%, 25%

DelMar poly;
33%, 66%, $6.39, 30%, 5%


So far we've heard that at Del Mar because of the polytrack it's totally random, you can't make any sense of the outcomes. Like its some topsy turvy world where you can't apply any rules that handicappers normally would use. Well it would seem that somebody is clued in because so far looking at favorites it is more predictable than Saratoga.

Notice also that the statements that people make about speed not holding up well only applies to routes. at sprint distances speed is doing much better than at Saratoga.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

through 8/4

Saratoga dirt;
fav win%, fav itm%, ave win payout, %wire sprints, %wire routes
26%, 61%, $6.38, 17%, 25%

DelMar poly;
33%, 66%, $6.39, 30%, 5%


So far we've heard that at Del Mar because of the polytrack it's totally random, you can't make any sense of the outcomes. Like its some topsy turvy world where you can't apply any rules that handicappers normally would use. Well it would seem that somebody is clued in because so far looking at favorites it is more predictable than Saratoga.

Notice also that the statements that people make about speed not holding up well only applies to routes. at sprint distances speed is doing much better than at Saratoga.

if i would have kept reading, i would have seen my questions answered.

i think the 'cappers that are complaining the most about del mar are those that crunch numbers, and del mar is bringing them a whole new set of numbers, and the number crunchers just don't want to adjust. they want their 22, 45, 110. they don't want to deal with 23, 47, 113. it's all relative. it will all crunch out the same if the proper variants are computed.

[ultracapper]

they're trying to save money on maintenance. cool. how much does it cost to throw some water on it a couple times a card? if they did, they'd still be saving a ton of money, wouldn't they. it's not like watering the track is the only maintenance they are saving by converting.

i play del mar everyday, and i have noticed what i think is massive amounts of surface being kicked up with every stride. i would think they would want to reduce some of that. it looks like debris is being thrown 15 feet into the air.

[cmorioles]

If the only thing that is changed in the game is the surface, eventually we'll breed horses fragile enough to break down on fake dirt as well.

I get tired of hearing how this stuff is so much safer. It is the drugs much more than the surface. Take the blinkers off people. A new surface is fine if it helps, but it won't do the job by itself.

[The Bid]

The legitiment complaint is the fastest horses arent winning. The public will adjust to bad horses with a correct running style once they establish patterns. That will not change lesser horses winning races, and that is a serious problem

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by The Bid

The legitiment complaint is the fastest horses arent winning. The public will adjust to bad horses with a correct running style once they establish patterns. That will not change lesser horses winning races, and that is a serious problem

how do you reach the conclusion that the fastest horses aren't winning?
how about an example?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

through 8/4

Saratoga dirt;
fav win%, fav itm%, ave win payout, %wire sprints, %wire routes
26%, 61%, $6.38, 17%, 25%

DelMar poly;
33%, 66%, $6.39, 30%, 5%


So far we've heard that at Del Mar because of the polytrack it's totally random, you can't make any sense of the outcomes. Like its some topsy turvy world where you can't apply any rules that handicappers normally would use. Well it would seem that somebody is clued in because so far looking at favorites it is more predictable than Saratoga.

Notice also that the statements that people make about speed not holding up well only applies to routes. at sprint distances speed is doing much better than at Saratoga.

It's obvious that the further the race is---the worse speed does on all artifical surfaces so far, polytrack especially.

I certainly don't believe the races are more random because of the surface, I'm not sure many do.

However, the overwhelming majority of major horse races are run beyond the distance of a mile --- and it's those races that are complete eyesores to watch run over polytrack.

That is my only beef with the surface...and as someone who loves top class horse racing, it's a huge beef.

I have many beefs with the way people are going about trying to defend and justify the surface in such a dishonest and naive way....but I agree with you on your point, I don't believe it makes the outcome of the races random.

[Riot]

It's obvious that the further the race is---the worse speed does on all artifical surfaces so far, polytrack especially.

Then what we need to validate that hypothesis is to post here the speed figures (let's take top four speed-rated horses in a race), and see how they perform over the poly routes with the results, compared to their non-poly route results.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Riot

Then what we need to validate that hypothesis is to post here the speed figures (let's take top four speed-rated horses in a race), and see how they perform over the poly routes with the results, compared to their non-poly route results.

Maybe someone with the time can do that.

No matter how painfully slow they make the early pace in those route races, the closers still seem to dominate....and the closers don't look like they are rallying....it's more like the "speed" horses run through the stretch as if a sniper in the grandstand hit them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Maybe someone with the time can do that.

No matter how painfully slow they make the early pace in those route races, the closers still seem to dominate....and the closers don't look like they are rallying....it's more like the "speed" horses run through the stretch as if a sniper in the grandstand hit them.

I agree that pure speed doesn't seem to hold as well on artificial surfaces on routes as on some other particular tracks' dirt surfaces. I had to adjust to that when Keeneland changed over.

Any data we can ferret out about any particular tracks' idiosyncracies helps us beat the general public, no matter the track.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree that pure speed doesn't seem to hold as well on artificial surfaces on routes as on some other particular tracks' dirt surfaces. I had to adjust to that when Keeneland changed over.

Any data we can ferret out about any particular tracks' idiosyncracies helps us beat the general public, no matter the track.

Forget about betting for a moment.

Do you find a race like Sun Boat's win in the San Diego any less enjoyable to watch than say Giacomo's win in the race with similar closing tactics the prior year?

IMO, the faster paced, truly run race, is so much more exciting to watch. This years version over polytrack was like watching a field of good horses all try to go as slow as possible early---and try to win the race by staggering the least through the stretch. It's not easy on the eyes.

Will you concede my point? If you disagree, I'd like to know why.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It's obvious that the further the race is---the worse speed does on all artifical surfaces so far, polytrack especially.

I certainly don't believe the races are more random because of the surface, I'm not sure many do.

However, the overwhelming majority of major horse races are run beyond the distance of a mile --- and it's those races that are complete eyesores to watch run over polytrack.

That is my only beef with the surface...and as someone who loves top class horse racing, it's a huge beef.

I have many beefs with the way people are going about trying to defend and justify the surface in such a dishonest and naive way....but I agree with you on your point, I don't believe it makes the outcome of the races random.

my beef is with arguments that seem to imply that different is bad. turf is different than dirt, is turf racing also an eysore?
calling route races on poly complete eyesores and ugly hardly seems like a real rigorous argument to me. There have not been many chances for top quality horses to train and race on the surface yet.

how do you define top quality horse racing? top quality horses I assume, but what else?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

my beef is with arguments that seem to imply that different is bad. turf is different than dirt, is turf racing also an eysore?
calling route races on poly complete eyesores and ugly hardly seems like a real rigorous argument to me. There have not been many chances for top quality horses to train and race on the surface yet.

how do you define top quality horse racing? top quality horses I assume, but what else?

* Turf racing is NOT an eyesore. Horses are restrained and do run slow early in those races....however, the stretch runs of turf races are very pleasing on the eye. Top class turf horses can acclearate visually, and fly home.

* You deny that route races on poly-track are brutal to watch? Tell me why?

* By "top quality horse racing" I mean graded stakes and occasional allowance races that feature good horses.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

The most unfair tracks are the ones where these horses are breaking down the most.It's not fair to have Baffert's 2 year old stakes horses having their lives ended at Del Mar in August or September.Guys like Baffert and Zayat are responsible for f'n up this breed to begin with.If these damn speed addicts aren't happy,then it's better for the breed (in the long run.) Things happen for a reason,and that's true of the existence of artificial track racing in California.Out here,there was no choice but to do it.Not enough horses could fill the races written.Simple as that.Horses could not stay sound enough on our dirt tracks.The track at Del Mar last year wasn't concrete at all,but the horses were breaking down over that surface too.If less horses die,and less jockeys get hurt (on artificial,) then that's the type of surface to be using.Those who feel otherwise have got some pretty crappy motives involved.If you have a dirt track that's as safe(and horses can stay sound on) then great.We are all a little too tolerant of the word "euthanized."

[SCUDSBROTHER]

And if your horse doesn't like turf or artificial,then that horse needs to live out his life in peace.However,those genes need to start being excluded from this breed.Keep doing that,and you'll have a great thoroughbred breed.

[TitanSooner]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

And if your horse doesn't like turf or artificial,then that horse needs to live out his life in peace.However,those genes need to start being excluded from this breed.Keep doing that,and you'll have a great thoroughbred breed.

Some very good points Scuds.. I just got back from Del Mar and if it wasn't for Santa Rosa, I would have lost my arse..

That being said, it's nice not seeing horses going 21 and 2, 44 flat, and pulling away every 6f race. Might as well handicap the quarters.