Del Mar - Initial thoughts?

[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.

[The Bid]

The stuff is all garbage.

The reason you have such a big difference in dirt routes and poly routes is because the slow grass horses can transition to poly and run route races.

[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.