AP '08 Dates Announced

[JJP]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I believe that's Hawthorne in your Avatar?

Not to re-ignite the dirt vs Poly discussion, but I wonder what it will be like as these horses re-transition from poly back to dirt after having made the switch earlier this Spring?

There will be many good bets as tiring speedballs from AP will last much, much longer. And any deep closing winner from AP should be strongly downgraded.

[Scav]

Hush right now!!

[ArlJim78]

the horses move from a fair track where early speed horses win at about a 30% clip to a track that rewards early speed to the insane level of 50% winners. count on plenty of boring races as they ride the conveyor belt.

I thought that Poly at Arlington played like a conveyor belt more times than not......

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ex-specialist

I thought that Poly at Arlington played like a conveyor belt more times than not......

Statistically speaking, it was a very EVEN meet, like 29% of favorites won, inside/outside post won at 50% of the time, and closers vs speed split also.

Now, I question these numbers because the last two weeks at Arlington was speed upon speed, on both courses for that matter. Early in the meet you had to be in the back half to have a shot.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by ex-specialist

I thought that Poly at Arlington played like a conveyor belt more times than not......

speed was not disadvantaged there as many claim, but it was nothing like hawthorne.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

speed was not disadvantaged their as many claim, but it was nothing like hawthorne.

Other than Mogadishu, there arent many places like Hawthorne.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

speed was not disadvantaged there as many claim, but it was nothing like hawthorne.

Disadvantaged? Maybe not, but it certainly wasn't like the Arlington dirt track either. It is better than Kee and Dmr, that is for sure.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Disadvantaged? Maybe not, but it certainly wasn't like the Arlington dirt track either. It is better than Kee and Dmr, that is for sure.

why should it be the same as the arlington dirt? was there some magical correctness about how it played? honestly I'm not sure that in the end there was a huge difference in how it played. I'll check when I get home.

Arl plays different than Kee and Dmr because its a longer meet. if you haven't noticed by now when horses that haven't been training or running on poly run on it for the first time they get noticeably tired, especially cheaper horses. but as the meet goes on they adapt and the normal tendencies begin to take shape again, for example the dominance of horses that have good early speed.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by ex-specialist

I thought that Poly at Arlington played like a conveyor belt more times than not......

If the conveyor belt was in the 5th path and carrying closers.....

As for statistics, the 1 1/16 mile races on the AP Poly should be totally tossed out, since in previous years, they basically never ran them (maybe 5 in the previous 15 years combined). These races are basically handed to a speed horse on a silver platter, with the short run to the turn and the finish line at the 1/16th pole for an approxiametely 700 foot stretch run. I noticed that when they'd have a mile race taken off the turf, they'd run one of those goofy 1 1/16 mile races. I believe AP management wanted these, because they knew they would skew their statistics to make the early speed numbers a bit better. If those races were run out of the mile chute like they should've been, no doubt there would have been a noticeable change.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by JJP

If the conveyor belt was in the 5th path and carrying closers.....

As for statistics, the 1 1/16 mile races on the AP Poly should be totally tossed out, since in previous years, they basically never ran them (maybe 5 in the previous 15 years combined). These races are basically handed to a speed horse on a silver platter, with the short run to the turn and the finish line at the 1/16th pole for an approxiametely 700 foot stretch run. I noticed that when they'd have a mile race taken off the turf, they'd run one of those goofy 1 1/16 mile races. I believe AP management wanted these, because they knew they would skew their statistics to make the early speed numbers a bit better. If those races were run out of the mile chute like they should've been, no doubt there would have been a noticeable change.

I know you read my post three back with the running style statistics, but apparently you didn't understand what it meant as it completely refutes what you are contending here. The 1 1/16 races at AP were not handed to speed horses on a silver platter, compared to the mile chute races the running styles faired remarkably similar, in fact they're nearly identical.

Why should the 1 1/6 mile data be thrown out? I didn't compare it to previous years because frankly I don't have that data and am not interested in it. It was a different surface and track configuration so why would it matter? I was interested in comparing this years 1 1/16 races to the mile chute races, and to the 1 1/16 miles races at Hawthorne. That is entirely valid.

Also since it seems you don't like races handed to speed horses on a silver platter, where are your comments about Hawthorne? Did you look at the data. If anyone is trying to skew their numbers towards speed horses its Hawthorne not AP.

I highly doubt that Arlington management went through the trouble of adding a second finish line and carding 1 1/16 mile races to skew the statistics to make early speed numbers look better. If so they failed miserably.
I believe that there was a demand for the distance from horseman who wanted a 2 turn alternative to 1 1/8 miles.

[miraja2]

I was (and to some extent still am) indifferent about the great poly debate. But by any reasonable measure, the decision to go to polytrack at Arlington was a good one. As ArlJim pointed out, the track was very fair. It was certainly a lot more fair than Hawthorne. How biased was Hawthorne this spring? Just ask those people who bet on Cowtown Cat in the Kentucky Derby.
But in addition to the fairness of the track:
Fatal in-race breakdowns declined from 24 to 12.
Attendance was up.
Handle was up.
Field-size was up.
I have said it before, but I guess for some people it bears repeating. I don't think it makes sense any longer to be 100% pro-synthetic or 100% against synthetic. In some places it is working well, and in other places it is not. Each surface is a little different (just like dirt). There are tracks that I think have bad synthetic surfaces (Del Mar) and there are ones with good ones (Arlington), just like there were and are bad dirt tracks (old Keeneland and Hawthorne) and good ones.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I know you read my post three back with the running style statistics, but apparently you didn't understand what it meant as it completely refutes what you are contending here. The 1 1/16 races at AP were not handed to speed horses on a silver platter, compared to the mile chute races the running styles faired remarkably similar, in fact they're nearly identical.

Why should the 1 1/6 mile data be thrown out? I didn't compare it to previous years because frankly I don't have that data and am not interested in it. It was a different surface and track configuration so why would it matter? I was interested in comparing this years 1 1/16 races to the mile chute races, and to the 1 1/16 miles races at Hawthorne. That is entirely valid.

Also since it seems you don't like races handed to speed horses on a silver platter, where are your comments about Hawthorne? Did you look at the data. If anyone is trying to skew their numbers towards speed horses its Hawthorne not AP.

I highly doubt that Arlington management went through the trouble of adding a second finish line and carding 1 1/16 mile races to skew the statistics to make early speed numbers look better. If so they failed miserably.
I believe that there was a demand for the distance from horseman who wanted a 2 turn alternative to 1 1/8 miles.

Maybe you're right. But it does seem odd that they'd take what amounts to, a completely unused distance and start carding many races at it. I saw one day they ran SIX races at 1 1/16. Let me clarify on the running styles at 1 1/16m; speed horses are helped enormously by a short stretch run and short run to the first turn; just check mile races at OP. The fact that AP's result distribution doesn't have a high percentage of w/w winners at 1 1/16 miles is just further evidence of how tiring that track is.

As for Haw, yes speed can carry well, especially on days the rail is great. I also should point out that their spring meets are generally plagued by very small fields, which are less likely to be gapped out big, or have hard 3 way pace battles. I haven't had a chance to see the opening day results; I'm curious to see how the track played.