Zayat is Leaving; Baffert hates it

[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 Bid]

Zayed yesterday at Del Mar. On a conventional track he wins

I dont think Senator Matty compromised him nearly as much as the surface

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

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

An example is the whole Keeneland meet.

[The Bid]

Good example VJ

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Zayed yesterday at Del Mar. On a conventional track he wins

I dont think Senator Matty compromised him nearly as much as the surface

what is your technique for determining in advance which is the fastest horse is in the race?

also,

does the horse you have determined is the fastest always win on dirt tracks?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

An example is the whole Keeneland meet.

just as I suspected, you guys just shoot from the hip with little quips like this, but can never back anything up.

the statement you are defending is that the fastest horses don't win on poly.
where is the data? what brought you to that conclusion?

I have already posted the data that shows that the public is doing a pretty good job at picking the winners at Del Mar. Are you suggesting that the public is suddenly not using speed when determining who to wager on? that they are intentionally bypassing the fastest horses in the race.

[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.

[The Bid]

Jim, are you sure you are watching the races? Any buffoon can open up a form and see the fastest horses arent winning races. When slow grass horses are winning sprints on the maintrack the fastest horses arent winning the races.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Jim, are you sure you are watching the races? Any buffoon can open up a form and see the fastest horses arent winning races. When slow grass horses are winning sprints on the maintrack the fastest horses arent winning the races.

I watch every Del Mar race, and review the pp's before and after, and I can tell you that I have no clue what you are talking about when you say the fastest horses aren't winning.

If it is so easy with dirt, why can't you answer my very simple questions? how do you determine in advance who is the fastest horse in the race? are you going by last race BSF? do you average all beyers? do you go by TG's

whatever method you use can you tell me that on dirt the fastest horse always wins? I would agree if you say that the fastest horse that day wins, but I don't think that is what you are saying.

is it at all possible that you simply are not good at handicapping polytrack?
I ask because you never give any examples, you only speak in wild generalities like "any buffoon can see" blah blah blah. you also seem to handicap using one dimension "who is the fastest horse".

have you really never seen a horse come off the turf and win a main track sprint? really? In general I salivate when I see a quality turf horse shorten up and move to the main track, dirt or poly. maybe you haven't noticed but the end of a turf route is run like a sprint.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

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

How many graded stakes winners on polytrack have went on to repeat the success on dirt? How many have flopped?

It has pluses and minuses, but it is most definitely a third surface. If you have to pick, it is closer to turf than dirt. I am not saying that is good or bad, but it is not what was advertised.

[The Bid]

I sent you a message jim, as opposed to arguing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

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.

I will have to watch the San Diego before commenting specifically, I worked all weekend and didn't see anything other than Sumwon's race.

You are defining a "truely run race" as one that has good honest fractions (please correct me if I am wrong).

I certainly agree that I prefer the horse that can keep faster company, be he closer, stalker, pace-setter, over one that is lesser.

I think the difference in our opinions may lay here: I don't think that most races I have seen run over artificial surfaces fall into a "paceless race", "let's all group up, canter for a while, then sprint the finish" scenario.

Yes, we are seeing more of that on artificial surfaces, however from what I have seen I think that is a "new" phenomenon when these tracks are first opening - it seems to lessen as the meets go on and riders and trainers become more comfortable on the surfaces.

Comment?

[Riot]

It has pluses and minuses, but it is most definitely a third surface. If you have to pick, it is closer to turf than dirt. I am not saying that is good or bad, but it is not what was advertised.

I don't know what you mean when you say, " ... it is not what was advertised."