BEYER: Poly's Anti-Speed Bias

[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.