Some very good points Scuds.. I just got back from Del Mar and if it wasn't for Santa Rosa, I would have lost my arse..

That being said, it's nice not seeing horses going 21 and 2, 44 flat, and pulling away every 6f race. Might as well handicap the quarters.

hard to say the arlington poly is unpredictable when you're getting $8 or less on almost half the winners. alot of bettors are complaining about del mar being unpredictable. anybody know what percentage of 1st, 2nd and 3rd favs are winning? i'll bet not much difference from years past. i think the problems most 'cappers are having at del mar is in their heads. they're psyching themselves out as much as anything.

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.

they're trying to save money on maintenance. cool. how much does it cost to throw some water on it a couple times a card? if they did, they'd still be saving a ton of money, wouldn't they. it's not like watering the track is the only maintenance they are saving by converting.

i play del mar everyday, and i have noticed what i think is massive amounts of surface being kicked up with every stride. i would think they would want to reduce some of that. it looks like debris is being thrown 15 feet into the air.

If the only thing that is changed in the game is the surface, eventually we'll breed horses fragile enough to break down on fake dirt as well.

I get tired of hearing how this stuff is so much safer. It is the drugs much more than the surface. Take the blinkers off people. A new surface is fine if it helps, but it won't do the job by itself.

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?

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

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

An example is the whole Keeneland meet.

Good example VJ

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

* 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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Give us your data!

It was supposed to replace, but behave similarly, to dirt. It does not.

No.

Thanks.

Give us your data!

Then I can't hold the opinion that graded stakes winners on poly are destined to flop on dirt, or have a significan risk of flopping on dirt. My opinion is open to change if anyone posts something here that shows it to be so.

Dominican? All kidding aside, he seems to be somewhat of a poly specialist.

It was also advertised to be an all weather surface yet has tons of problems in extreme heat or cold. The claims of no maintenance proved to be very untrue as well.

Than Pavarotti & Time Squared must be poly freaks.

I don't have the past performances in front of me, but how many of their wins came on artificial surfaces? Weren't all three of Dominican's wins on artificial? I guess he did run OK at Churchill...

I'd love to know how God and Discreet Cat feel about this surface.....oops!, there I go repeating myself again.

Compared to dirt, it most certainly seems to hold up alot better with less problems - Turfway has proved that in the cold, the track was open on freezing days they couldn't possibly have run on the dirt. The Keeneland Poly training track is open virtually every day all summer and winter - a dirt track couldn't be. It's holding up to the 90-degree, high humidity weather in KY today just fine.

We'll see how it holds up to heat in California. So far Hollywood has with Cushion, we'll have to see how Poly does. I read the manufacturer made the Poly in CA a little different than the Poly in KY.

I've never seen the manufacturers claim any of the artificials to be "no" maintenance. The claims I've seen is less maintenance than dirt. That's certainly true.

Naw, we have to wait and see what The Green Monkey decides!

Hoof up? Or hoof down?

(yeah, and I caught the God joke ... <g>)

They had major problems at Turfway on days that they could have raced over the surface at Aqueduct. The poly was balling up and sticking in the horses' hooves plus the kickback got dangerous. Hollywood had problems with the wax melting in the heat although that was cushion track rather than Poly.

I have been to Del Mar and prefer the atmosphere to Saratoga too, but that is as a fan. If I was a horse owner I would have all my horses at Saratoga. He shouldn't decide where to keep his horses based on which "atmosphere" he prefers. I wouldn't put a horse on a new surface until atleast one year after it has been installed and the tweaks worked out.

All I know is that if ever there was a time for PolyTrack to possibly have a success story, it would be Del Mar. They had plenty of time to put it in and weather is not a factor. I would have expected that with the experience they have had in Kentucky and Toronto they would have been able to make the stuff work at Del Mar however they wanted to. If people say it's training ok in the morning but is too loose in the afternoon, then why the hell won't they put some water on it? If you leave most anything in 80 deg full sun all day, it will deteriorate. The stuff is made, after all, of wax. Who the hell would think it would not go bad in the heat?