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.