BEYER: Poly's Anti-Speed Bias

[NTamm1215]

I agree the number is probably a bit skewed, but Andy made it clear that Beyer said he thinks the number is right. I think a big part of the problem is that the Polytrack was quite a bit slower on Saturday than it was a week before. 20k claimers went 9 furlongs in just a tad over 1:50 on April 7, while the Blue Grass went in 1:51 and change.

I am not buying that 93 as an absolute certainty, though, and thanks for your insight Sniper.

NT

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I agree the number is probably a bit skewed, but Andy made it clear that Beyer said he thinks the number is right. I think a big part of the problem is that the Polytrack was quite a bit slower on Saturday than it was a week before. 20k claimers went 9 furlongs in just a tad over 1:50 on April 7, while the Blue Grass went in 1:51 and change.

I am not buying that 93 as an absolute certainty, though, and thanks for your insight Sniper.

NT

The number is perfectly correct, that doesn't mean it is a number you want to use considering the pace of the race made it virtually impossible to break a 95 Beyer. The polytrack was blazing as evidenced by the speed the last three furlongs of the race went in.

[10 pnt move up]

races with slow paces are not trustworthy in my opinion, I would use another figure.

I think there is some of that issue with Curlin who has not had to run in a legit paced race yet. Maybe it wont matter but at 3/1 or not sure its something I would overlook.

[parsixfarms]

It seems that a lot of discussion has really gotten away from the fundamental point. A creator of SPEED figures bemoans what he perceives to be a surface that penalizes horses with speed. (I'm not about to wade into the issue of whether his whining about Polytrack is "sour grapes" on his part or not.)

I think a few points bear mentioning. (1) The safety of the horses. Every trainer with whom I have discussed the issue of Polytrack speaks very highly of the surface, and the fact that trainers such as Biancone and O'Neil want to be training on it whenever possible, even during Derby week, speaks volumes. The safety of the horse and the ability to make more starts are paramount. Perceived difficulty handicapping it is NOT a reason to scrap Polytrack. (2) Everyone complains about the lack of sturdiness in today's thoroughbred. If Polytrack and the other artificial surfaces force the breeding industry to reevaluate current breeding (speed and more speed)methods, isn't that a good thing? (3) Almost every handicapper says that they love turf racing, because they have big fields with close finishes. Now Polytrack replicates that kind of racing, and big fields with close finishes are supposed to be a bad thing. I don't get it. (4) People continually complained about speed biases at race tracks, especially at the "old" Keeneland. Polytrack eliminates that bias, and people still complain.

The issue of how the jockeys ride the surface is also something that I think bears mentioning, but I think a lot has to do with the quality of the horses and riders. For example, Beyer says that racing at Turfway is more "normal." I suggest that this is because of cheaper horses with less talented riders. The style of riding at Keeneland is more like "major league turf" racing, where the horses relax better and the riders slow things down to a European-type race.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

It seems that a lot of discussion has really gotten away from the fundamental point. A creator of SPEED figures bemoans what he perceives to be a surface that penalizes horses with speed. (I'm not about to wade into the issue of whether his whining about Polytrack is "sour grapes" on his part or not.)

I think a few points bear mentioning. (1) The safety of the horses. Every trainer with whom I have discussed the issue of Polytrack speaks very highly of the surface, and the fact that trainers such as Biancone and O'Neil want to be training on it whenever possible, even during Derby week, speaks volumes. The safety of the horse and the ability to make more starts are paramount. Perceived difficulty handicapping it is NOT a reason to scrap Polytrack. (2) Everyone complains about the lack of sturdiness in today's thoroughbred. If Polytrack and the other artificial surfaces force the breeding industry to reevaluate current breeding (speed and more speed)methods, isn't that a good thing? (3) Almost every handicapper says that they love turf racing, because they have big fields with close finishes. Now Polytrack replicates that kind of racing, and big fields with close finishes are supposed to be a bad thing. I don't get it. (4) People continually complained about speed biases at race tracks, especially at the "old" Keeneland. Polytrack eliminates that bias, and people still complain.

The issue of how the jockeys ride the surface is also something that I think bears mentioning, but I think a lot has to do with the quality of the horses and riders. For example, Beyer says that racing at Turfway is more "normal." I suggest that this is because of cheaper horses with less talented riders. The style of riding at Keeneland is more like "major league turf" racing, where the horses relax better and the riders slow things down to a European-type race.

In a perfect world I think that would be really wonderful, but do you really see the sport's top stars making more starts and reversing the trend of early retirements?

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

In a perfect world I think that would be really wonderful, but do you really see the sport's top stars making more starts and reversing the trend of early retirements?

I don't....

Not unless the breeding end of the business is drastically changed.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

In a perfect world I think that would be really wonderful, but do you really see the sport's top stars making more starts and reversing the trend of early retirements?

The top stars, no. But what the top stars are doing really has little to do with the day-in-and day-out game. If Polytrack means that the average horse starts 10 times per year rather than 7, it's good for the owners (more chances to earn $$) and the bettors (bigger fields).

[SniperSB23]

I wonder if the perception of the anti-speed bias has caused the lone speed to go much slower than they would otherwise and made it even more difficult to win on the front end. Seems to me if Teuflesberg went out in 24/48/1:12 he could have opened 10-12 lengths on that field. For them to even be that close they would have had to run much faster than they ran yesterday which would have dulled their kicks somewhat. So now they can maybe only close in 36 instead of 34 and have 10-12 lengths to make up. A good closer can fly at the end of a poly race so I think if you are the lone speed you want to get as much seperation as feasible and make them catch you at the end. Going as slow as possible and leaving them within striking distance and a full tank isn't going to work well on this surface. Maybe if jockeys realize this we'll start seeing some more wire jobs.

[saratoga guy]

I am not great supporter of Polytrack -- I think there's been a rush by the industry to synthetic surfaces -- but I don't agree with Beyer here.

He seems upset that this year's Blue Grass can not be used as a barometer of talent for the Derby and he lays the blame on the Poly surface -- but c'mon, last year's Blue Grass was run on good ol' dirt, and that was at least as flukey of a race... Maybe moreso in fact, as the favorite finished fourth, 21 lengths behind the winner. In Saturday's race the favorite lost a head-bob and the top three finishers were certainly among those anyone would have considered as solid contenders in the race. Last year, second-place finisher Storm Treasure might not have been on a lot of tickets -- at 65-1. So it's hard to say that last year's dirt running was more of a barometer than this year's Poly race.

Personally I like the new Keeneland surface as a betting venue. I've done pretty well. But it does take an adjustment. However, if we all know the front-end is not the place to be, then the adjustment against pure speed isn't too difficult.

And, while I don't have complete stats, I did take a quick look at the weekend (Fri-Sun) and found that favorites went 9/25 on the main track. That 36% hit-rate seems to indicate that the betting public has adjusted just fine.

The head-scratcher for me in the Beyer article came after he declared that the Bluegrass would offer no insights into the Derby and he asked, "What's the point of running a rich stakes race when it won't even reveal whether the horses are good or bad, fast or slow?"

Hmmm, I thought the most important reason to run "rich stakes races" was so that people could handicap and bet on them -- and not so they could be used in the PPs to handicap the next race!

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

I am not great supporter of Polytrack -- I think there's been a rush by the industry to synthetic surfaces -- but I don't agree with Beyer here.

He seems upset that this year's Blue Grass can not be used as a barometer of talent for the Derby and he lays the blame on the Poly surface -- but c'mon, last year's Blue Grass was run on good ol' dirt, and that was at least as flukey of a race... Maybe moreso in fact, as the favorite finished fourth, 21 lengths behind the winner. In Saturday's race the favorite lost a head-bob and the top three finishers were certainly among those anyone would have considered as solid contenders in the race. Last year, second-place finisher Storm Treasure might not have been on a lot of tickets -- at 65-1. So it's hard to say that last year's dirt running was more of a barometer than this year's Poly race.

Personally I like the new Keeneland surface as a betting venue. I've done pretty well. But it does take an adjustment. However, if we all know the front-end is not the place to be, then the adjustment against pure speed isn't too difficult.

And, while I don't have complete stats, I did take a quick look at the weekend (Fri-Sun) and found that favorites went 9/25 on the main track. That 36% hit-rate seems to indicate that the betting public has adjusted just fine.

The head-scratcher for me in the Beyer article came after he declared that the Bluegrass would offer no insights into the Derby and he asked, "What's the point of running a rich stakes race when it won't even reveal whether the horses are good or bad, fast or slow?"

Hmmm, I thought the most important reason to run "rich stakes races" was so that people could handicap and bet on them -- and not so they could be used in the PPs to handicap the next race!

I normally prefer the turf only, but I must say that I like the polytrack races much better than dirt.

The biggest reason I stopped playing dirt races altogether was that I hated seeing some horse just get an early lead and walk in. Some tracks it would be so bad that whoever got the break usually won.

[blackthroatedwind]

If we can't use current races to help predict the future they have no value to any handicapper in the ongoing process.

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

If we can't use current races to help predict the future they have no value to any handicapper in the ongoing process.

I wouldn't dispute that. What I do dispute is that because Race A might not offer any insight into how Race B will be run, then we should question why Race A was run.

Maybe more importantly though -- we don't even know that the Blue Grass won't add some insight. It might be a matter of us -- as handicappers -- adjusting. We probably have to give it four or five years before we know for sure.

For instance, a lot of players feel that a turf-to-dirt move will "wake up" a horse and bring about some improvement. It's not a direct correlation. You can't necessarily rely on the time or the pace or the figures from the turf race -- but there's been a large enough sample over time to know that the move can often lead to an improved effort.

Perhaps after four or five runnings of the Blue Grass on Poly we'll see runners that come out of the race do well in the Derby. We might not be able to make a direct correlation with the times, the pace or the figures of the Blue Grass -- but we'll know that those runners do well, and we can add that info to everything else on the PPs to make a decision.

It's still a very limited sample -- but certainly the move from Poly to Churchill in last year's BC Juvie doesn't seem to indicate that it leads to a particularly chaotic handicapping conundrum.