Zayat is Leaving; Baffert hates it

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by GBBob

AP Through July 22:

Closers- 33%
Stalkers 25%
Pressers: 17%
Speed: 25%

Winning Margin:

1/2 length or less: 30%
3/4-2: 34%
2 1/4- 4: 22%
4 1/2+ 14%

Outside: 54%
Inside: 46%

Chalk: 29%
3-1 or less: 48%
7-2 to 9-1: 34%
10-1 + 18%

Average Payoff
Poly: $15.00
Turf: $13.39

bob, where did you get this info?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

bob, where did you get this info?

No where special....a program from Arlington last Thursday..Page 17

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by GBBob

No where special....a program from Arlington last Thursday..Page 17

aww, that's what I thought.
I was hoping to get the same info for other tracks, to compare.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

aww, that's what I thought.
I was hoping to get the same info for other tracks, to compare.

I'd also like to compare it to AP's dirt numbers same time last year. I'm sure they differ, but maybe not as much as other track's dirt to poly conversions, based on what I've been reading about Delmar and saw at Keeneland

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

aww, that's what I thought.
I was hoping to get the same info for other tracks, to compare.

maybe you can find it somewhere on the racing web sites...

[gamblin4ever]

Since Zayat and Baffert likes speed horses so much, maybe they should move to Charles Town and Mountaineer..

[TitanSooner]

or Monmouth

If you cant adjust to change in today's world, get out. I understand the frustration, but if handle is up... something is working. And I just cant believe the stuff plays totally randomly.

We have a bunch of horses bred for speed and they cost money. That would make me mad if I had invested and spent time in selecting. ANd of course they lost to a so called crappy horse with endurance. Well maybe that horse is not crappy anymore.
We have horses whose worth in the shed might change drastically if more tracks go to artificial. That would make me mad as a breeder.

We have the TC races on dirt, and major tracks in NY and other places still doing dirt... that might get me upset as a handicapper of multiple tracks whose circuits overlap with artificial. Or a long time handicapper whose favorite track just changed surfaces. Make the necessary adjustments. If it is really a crapshoot, stop betting.

But what are you going to do, just cry about it, or adjust. Determining if this is a temporary trend, or a long term thing that will spread to all major tracks including eventually TC races and the BC, is very interesting for the future.

Embrace the change and the uncertanties, or fight the changes to the death because you know they will ruin your all your notions, planning, your sport, your life. What happened to the poor guys that invented Beta tapes... Quit and cry, or keep pace with change.
People on here are using the internet. There are still people who wont get on it, hate it.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

aww, that's what I thought.
I was hoping to get the same info for other tracks, to compare.

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....

[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.

[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.

[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."