BEYER: Poly's Anti-Speed Bias

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by nebrady

Don't remember the exact words, but they weren't kind to the cat. He loses one race and people think hes done. They get mad because they lost money betting on him. When looking at him before the big race, you should have been a little wary of betting him he missed his prep. But just because he lost that race, shouldn't take away what he has done. Hopefully he will recover and come back the horse he was.

This gets to so much of what's wrong with racing these days in that these horses run so selectively that every race is put under the microscope. Of course most horses have bad days, and if you know anything obviously Discreet Cat's Dubai World Cup performance is a complete throwout, but with so much emphasis being put on one day, like the BC, each race becomes enhanced or exagerated.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This gets to so much of what's wrong with racing these days in that these horses run so selectively that every race is put under the microscope. Of course most horses have bad days, and if you know anything obviously Discreet Cat's Dubai World Cup performance is a complete throwout, but with so much emphasis being put on one day, like the BC, each race becomes enhanced or exagerated.

On the topic of Beyers, since that is what this thread was about, as someone who always takes them into consideration, I can't help but feel like Street Sense's descending figures are not a good sign. It could be partially because I feared that he had peaked in the BC Juvenile and that it would be a long time, if ever, before he duplicated that effort. I just don't get terribly excited about a horse whose last three figures are 108/layoff/102/93. That's not a recipe for success on Derby day in my opinion.

NT

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

On the topic of Beyers, since that is what this thread was about, as someone who always takes them into consideration, I can't help but feel like Street Sense's descending figures are not a good sign. It could be partially because I feared that he had peaked in the BC Juvenile and that it would be a long time, if ever, before he duplicated that effort. I just don't get terribly excited about a horse whose last three figures are 108/layoff/102/93. That's not a recipe for success on Derby day in my opinion.

NT

That 93 is the most meaningless figure in the history of Derby preps. The race was run like a turf race so treated like a dirt race it gets a terrible figure. I'd urge anyone to draw a line through that 93 when doing your capping.

[NTamm1215]

I agree the number is probably a bit skewed, but Andy made it clear that Beyer said he thinks the number is right. I think a big part of the problem is that the Polytrack was quite a bit slower on Saturday than it was a week before. 20k claimers went 9 furlongs in just a tad over 1:50 on April 7, while the Blue Grass went in 1:51 and change.

I am not buying that 93 as an absolute certainty, though, and thanks for your insight Sniper.

NT

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I agree the number is probably a bit skewed, but Andy made it clear that Beyer said he thinks the number is right. I think a big part of the problem is that the Polytrack was quite a bit slower on Saturday than it was a week before. 20k claimers went 9 furlongs in just a tad over 1:50 on April 7, while the Blue Grass went in 1:51 and change.

I am not buying that 93 as an absolute certainty, though, and thanks for your insight Sniper.

NT

The number is perfectly correct, that doesn't mean it is a number you want to use considering the pace of the race made it virtually impossible to break a 95 Beyer. The polytrack was blazing as evidenced by the speed the last three furlongs of the race went in.

[10 pnt move up]

races with slow paces are not trustworthy in my opinion, I would use another figure.

I think there is some of that issue with Curlin who has not had to run in a legit paced race yet. Maybe it wont matter but at 3/1 or not sure its something I would overlook.

[parsixfarms]

It seems that a lot of discussion has really gotten away from the fundamental point. A creator of SPEED figures bemoans what he perceives to be a surface that penalizes horses with speed. (I'm not about to wade into the issue of whether his whining about Polytrack is "sour grapes" on his part or not.)

I think a few points bear mentioning. (1) The safety of the horses. Every trainer with whom I have discussed the issue of Polytrack speaks very highly of the surface, and the fact that trainers such as Biancone and O'Neil want to be training on it whenever possible, even during Derby week, speaks volumes. The safety of the horse and the ability to make more starts are paramount. Perceived difficulty handicapping it is NOT a reason to scrap Polytrack. (2) Everyone complains about the lack of sturdiness in today's thoroughbred. If Polytrack and the other artificial surfaces force the breeding industry to reevaluate current breeding (speed and more speed)methods, isn't that a good thing? (3) Almost every handicapper says that they love turf racing, because they have big fields with close finishes. Now Polytrack replicates that kind of racing, and big fields with close finishes are supposed to be a bad thing. I don't get it. (4) People continually complained about speed biases at race tracks, especially at the "old" Keeneland. Polytrack eliminates that bias, and people still complain.

The issue of how the jockeys ride the surface is also something that I think bears mentioning, but I think a lot has to do with the quality of the horses and riders. For example, Beyer says that racing at Turfway is more "normal." I suggest that this is because of cheaper horses with less talented riders. The style of riding at Keeneland is more like "major league turf" racing, where the horses relax better and the riders slow things down to a European-type race.

[saratoga guy]

I am not great supporter of Polytrack -- I think there's been a rush by the industry to synthetic surfaces -- but I don't agree with Beyer here.

He seems upset that this year's Blue Grass can not be used as a barometer of talent for the Derby and he lays the blame on the Poly surface -- but c'mon, last year's Blue Grass was run on good ol' dirt, and that was at least as flukey of a race... Maybe moreso in fact, as the favorite finished fourth, 21 lengths behind the winner. In Saturday's race the favorite lost a head-bob and the top three finishers were certainly among those anyone would have considered as solid contenders in the race. Last year, second-place finisher Storm Treasure might not have been on a lot of tickets -- at 65-1. So it's hard to say that last year's dirt running was more of a barometer than this year's Poly race.

Personally I like the new Keeneland surface as a betting venue. I've done pretty well. But it does take an adjustment. However, if we all know the front-end is not the place to be, then the adjustment against pure speed isn't too difficult.

And, while I don't have complete stats, I did take a quick look at the weekend (Fri-Sun) and found that favorites went 9/25 on the main track. That 36% hit-rate seems to indicate that the betting public has adjusted just fine.

The head-scratcher for me in the Beyer article came after he declared that the Bluegrass would offer no insights into the Derby and he asked, "What's the point of running a rich stakes race when it won't even reveal whether the horses are good or bad, fast or slow?"

Hmmm, I thought the most important reason to run "rich stakes races" was so that people could handicap and bet on them -- and not so they could be used in the PPs to handicap the next race!

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

I am not great supporter of Polytrack -- I think there's been a rush by the industry to synthetic surfaces -- but I don't agree with Beyer here.

He seems upset that this year's Blue Grass can not be used as a barometer of talent for the Derby and he lays the blame on the Poly surface -- but c'mon, last year's Blue Grass was run on good ol' dirt, and that was at least as flukey of a race... Maybe moreso in fact, as the favorite finished fourth, 21 lengths behind the winner. In Saturday's race the favorite lost a head-bob and the top three finishers were certainly among those anyone would have considered as solid contenders in the race. Last year, second-place finisher Storm Treasure might not have been on a lot of tickets -- at 65-1. So it's hard to say that last year's dirt running was more of a barometer than this year's Poly race.

Personally I like the new Keeneland surface as a betting venue. I've done pretty well. But it does take an adjustment. However, if we all know the front-end is not the place to be, then the adjustment against pure speed isn't too difficult.

And, while I don't have complete stats, I did take a quick look at the weekend (Fri-Sun) and found that favorites went 9/25 on the main track. That 36% hit-rate seems to indicate that the betting public has adjusted just fine.

The head-scratcher for me in the Beyer article came after he declared that the Bluegrass would offer no insights into the Derby and he asked, "What's the point of running a rich stakes race when it won't even reveal whether the horses are good or bad, fast or slow?"

Hmmm, I thought the most important reason to run "rich stakes races" was so that people could handicap and bet on them -- and not so they could be used in the PPs to handicap the next race!

I normally prefer the turf only, but I must say that I like the polytrack races much better than dirt.

The biggest reason I stopped playing dirt races altogether was that I hated seeing some horse just get an early lead and walk in. Some tracks it would be so bad that whoever got the break usually won.