Rule of Thumb for wagering at Keeneland

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Can someone give me some good examples of older consistent horses that have gone to polytrack and absolutely run terrible just because of the surface? I've seen lots of 2yos move up or down off of it but that is normal for 2yos on any surface. Premium Tap ran a poor race but you can blame Kent D for his troubles more than the surface. The only major difference I have seen with polytrack is that turf horses like it a lot more than they like the dirt.

How about Lawyer Ron? Hes only earned over a mill on dirt. Lemons Forever comes to mind as well, off the board in a 100 grand polycrap race, next out wins the Oaks. Those are pretty good for starters.
If they stayed on poly they'd have been in for a tag after long.

Originally Posted by oracle80

How about Lawyer Ron? Hes only earned over a mill on dirt. Lemons Forever comes to mind as well, off the board in a 100 grand polycrap race, next out wins the Oaks. Those are pretty good for starters.
If they stayed on poly they'd have been in for a tag after long.

One could argue that the Oaks is suspect since Lemons Forever has been pretty much a no show the rest of the year.

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

One could argue that the Oaks is suspect since Lemons Forever has been pretty much a no show the rest of the year.

She still managed to hit the board in grade ones after that.
Bottom line is that she missed the board in a cheap stakes race filled with nobodies and in her next start won the Oaks.
Look, I can see you are pretty good at trying to play devil's advocate with every statement, but people who attempt that don't impress me. Its a very easy thing to do.
You can make up something along those lines for just about every horse can't you?
How about YOU telling us in for oh so infinite wisdom and knowledge about the ones who ran well on Poly and replicated the form on dirt. I promise not to be like you and play Devil's advocate with each one.
Feel free to enlighten us. Thanks!

Originally Posted by oracle80

She still managed to hit the board in grade ones after that.
Bottom line is that she missed the board in a cheap stakes race filled with nobodies and in her next start won the Oaks.
Look, I can see you are pretty good at trying to play devil's advocate with every statement, but people who attempt that don't impress me. Its a very easy thing to do.
You can make up something along those lines for just about every horse can't you?
How about YOU telling us in for oh so infinite wisdom and knowledge about the ones who ran well on Poly and replicated the form on dirt. I promise not to be like you and play Devil's advocate with each one.
Feel free to enlighten us. Thanks!

Go back and watch that race. Lemons Forever was closing very very fast at Turfway. It was a prep for the Oaks and the trainer didnt even have her cranked 100%. Her 3rd place performance at Turfway was a great prep to the Oaks. And since I got to see that race, saw how she worked, saw how pathetic the top horses in the Oaks looked---I benefited from a 40-1 shot winning.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Go back and watch that race. Lemons Forever was closing very very fast at Turfway. It was a prep for the Oaks and the trainer didnt even have her cranked 100%. Her 3rd place performance at Turfway was a great prep to the Oaks. And since I got to see that race, saw how she worked, saw how pathetic the top horses in the Oaks looked---I benefited from a 40-1 shot winning.

Believe me that guy wanted to win that race at Turfway, it's not like he knew that horse was going to win the Oaks, he probably was surprised as anyone...

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Go back and watch that race. Lemons Forever was closing very very fast at Turfway. It was a prep for the Oaks and the trainer didnt even have her cranked 100%. Her 3rd place performance at Turfway was a great prep to the Oaks. And since I got to see that race, saw how she worked, saw how pathetic the top horses in the Oaks looked---I benefited from a 40-1 shot winning.

Funny that those pathetic horses have accounted for 5 grade one wins since then huh?
WRONG. If anything the pace and tough trips accounted for her winning, and I agree that it was fluky.
But you are lying to yourself if you think she was closing at TP. I saw her that day, and she was even paced and inder a drive for a half mile and could make up no ground. If you wanna make a little bet on this I'd be happy to.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Funny that those pathetic horses have accounted for 5 grade one wins since then huh?
WRONG. If anything the pace and tough trips accounted for her winning, and I agree that it was fluky.
But you are lying to yourself if you think she was closing at TP. I saw her that day, and she was even paced and inder a drive for a half mile and could make up no ground. If you wanna make a little bet on this I'd be happy to.

You were at Turfway the day she finished 3rd. That is funny because I was there too. Here is the chart comment from her race. "Bumped foe, nice outside advance for third, one length behind Top Notch Lady" Notice--NICE OUTSIDE ADVANCE FOR THIRD.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

You were at Turfway the day she finished 3rd. That is funny because I was there too. Here is the chart comment from her race. "Bumped foe, nice outside advance for third, one length behind Top Notch Lady" Notice--NICE OUTSIDE ADVANCE FOR THIRD.

I said I saw her, they showed the race on Tv.
She was under a hard drive for a half mile and spinning her wheels, and got beat by two dregs.
WHich part of that do you deny?

We're gonna need Pgardn as well on this Company and I wanna hire him as head of technology.
Pgardn, get back to us asap. We need you to draw up nifty little sketches of how the surface is layed down, what it is, the scientific makeup down to the molecule of both the pillows(pillowcases also), and the feathers.
Then we need you to write up the scientific data as it applies to pressure per square inch and resiliency. Lots of charts and data and figures that noone will understand and is too complicated for them to verify because most folks won't have any idea what you are talking about. And what people don't understand they often label as brilliance instead of bull****. Its a fact.
Now Pgardn, this is your ticket out of the high school to the big time. We'll have you on one of those big Texas ranches like J.R. lived on in Dallas, in no time.

Originally Posted by oracle80

She still managed to hit the board in grade ones after that.
Bottom line is that she missed the board in a cheap stakes race filled with nobodies and in her next start won the Oaks.
Look, I can see you are pretty good at trying to play devil's advocate with every statement, but people who attempt that don't impress me. Its a very easy thing to do.
You can make up something along those lines for just about every horse can't you?
How about YOU telling us in for oh so infinite wisdom and knowledge about the ones who ran well on Poly and replicated the form on dirt. I promise not to be like you and play Devil's advocate with each one.
Feel free to enlighten us. Thanks!

I think i'm going to be like you and question everyone's intelligence, ya ****in prick.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

How about Lawyer Ron? Hes only earned over a mill on dirt. Lemons Forever comes to mind as well, off the board in a 100 grand polycrap race, next out wins the Oaks. Those are pretty good for starters.
If they stayed on poly they'd have been in for a tag after long.

Lawyer Ron only ran on poly as a 2yo before he'd ever run on dirt. If he were to run on it now and struggle I'd give it some credence but because he ran so poorly on it so early he could have just improved in that first dirt race in the slop on the quirky Keeneland surface. His next start on dirt wasn't until December which for a 2yo has little relevance to how they were running 3-4 months prior. His turf races after the first dirt race were 25 points higher than all his turf starts early in his career so there is a lot of evidence that he was just simply a much better horse later in the year.

Lemons ran twice on polytrack, winning once and finishing a fast closing third in the stakes falling a length short of winning. I don't see how that is so inconsistent with her form.

I'm looking for a good example of an established dirt horse not running well. Say Happy Ticket or Spun Sugar really tank. Then I'd give some more credence to the theory that good dirt horses won't like poly. You know what though, I betcha they wind up running 1-2 because they are the best horses in the race and the best horses won't have a problem with poly.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Lawyer Ron only ran on poly as a 2yo before he'd ever run on dirt. If he were to run on it now and struggle I'd give it some credence but because he ran so poorly on it so early he could have just improved in that first dirt race in the slop on the quirky Keeneland surface. His next start on dirt wasn't until December which for a 2yo has little relevance to how they were running 3-4 months prior. His turf races after the first dirt race were 25 points higher than all his turf starts early in his career so there is a lot of evidence that he was just simply a much better horse later in the year.

Lemons ran twice on polytrack, winning once and finishing a fast closing third in the stakes falling a length short of winning. I don't see how that is so inconsistent with her form.

I'm looking for a good example of an established dirt horse not running well. Say Happy Ticket or Spun Sugar really tank. Then I'd give some more credence to the theory that good dirt horses won't like poly. You know what though, I betcha they wind up running 1-2 because they are the best horses in the race and the best horses won't have a problem with poly.

Yeah that loss to Top Notch lady with that "fast closing third place finish" was really powerful.
So she misses the board then she gets beat by Top Notch Lady(anybody seen her after that?) and then wins the Oaks. I definitely see the correlation there

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Yeah that loss to Top Notch lady with that "fast closing third place finish" was really powerful.
So she misses the board then she gets beat by Top Notch Lady(anybody seen her after that?) and then wins the Oaks. I definitely see the correlation there

It's hardly ike she tanked, it was her first Stakes race and she got third. If you want to get this ridiculous with your arguments how about the fact that she moved forward 30 points from her maiden on dirt to her maiden on polytrack. You want polytrack to fail so are trying to find reasons for it. I don't care for polytrack either but I still haven't seen an established dirt horse hate the surface. I don't buy that Barbaro or Bernardini or Discreet Cat wouldn't be great on polytrack. The only major effect I have seen is that turf horses like it a lot more than dirt.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

It's hardly ike she tanked, it was her first Stakes race and she got third. If you want to get this ridiculous with your arguments how about the fact that she moved forward 30 points from her maiden on dirt to her maiden on polytrack. You want polytrack to fail so are trying to find reasons for it. I don't care for polytrack either but I still haven't seen an established dirt horse hate the surface. I don't buy that Barbaro or Bernardini or Discreet Cat wouldn't be great on polytrack. The only major effect I have seen is that turf horses like it a lot more than dirt.

I would say Lawyer Ron qualifies as an established dirt horse and he couldn't break his maiden over the stuff. Seen that longshots have dominated most of the stakes on the main big stakes days at TP in the past year, I'd say there's a number of at least decent dirt horses who didn't care for it.

Turf horse may like it IF they also handle dirt, but you're already talking about a versatile horse then.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by JJP

I would say Lawyer Ron qualifies as an established dirt horse and he couldn't break his maiden over the stuff. Seen that longshots have dominated most of the stakes on the main big stakes days at TP in the past year, I'd say there's a number of at least decent dirt horses who didn't care for it.

Turf horse may like it IF they also handle dirt, but you're already talking about a versatile horse then.

He absolutely sucked on the turf at the beginning of his career as well as on polytrack. He improved and finally tried the dirt. At that point he moved back to the turf and ran two straight 78 Beyers after his first three races on turf were 53-55. So he'd improved 25 points on the turf surface he couldn't break his maiden on as well. What is to say that he wouldn't have improved 25 points if he went back to polytrack or that he wouldn't have been running in the 50s early in his career on dirt.

[LARHAGE]

I think everybody jumping to conclusions and being prophets of doom is premature at least and plain silly at best. I think we should just watch and observe Keeneland this meet and see how a higher caliber of horse performs over it. This silly notion of it changing the evolution of the horses is pure b.s, and if it were in fact true than we should hardly be complaining, I mean do we really need to preserve the sires that are producing fragile, broken down sprinters capable of 5 races in a campaign?

Originally Posted by LARHAGE

I think everybody jumping to conclusions and being prophets of doom is premature at least and plain silly at best. I think we should just watch and observe Keeneland this meet and see how a higher caliber of horse performs over it. This silly notion of it changing the evolution of the horses is pure b.s, and if it were in fact true than we should hardly be complaining, I mean do we really need to preserve the sires that are producing fragile, broken down sprinters capable of 5 races in a campaign?

If I recall Turfway shippers did quite well at Keeneland this spring but that's simply not enough data to say that Polytrack is a winner either. It boggles the mind how the naysayers are so resolute.

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

If I recall Turfway shippers did quite well at Keeneland this spring but that's simply not enough data to say that Polytrack is a winner either. It boggles the mind how the naysayers are so resolute.

Which horses?

Originally Posted by oracle80

Which horses?

I'm not going to take the time to look that up.

Instead i'm going to say I talked to the top trainers but I can't name names and they said their horses did well at Keeneland and they like how their horses transitioned from poly to dirt. They also talked about the season premiere of Lost but that's where I faded out of the convo because I don't watch it.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by LARHAGE

I think everybody jumping to conclusions and being prophets of doom is premature at least and plain silly at best. I think we should just watch and observe Keeneland this meet and see how a higher caliber of horse performs over it. This silly notion of it changing the evolution of the horses is pure b.s, and if it were in fact true than we should hardly be complaining, I mean do we really need to preserve the sires that are producing fragile, broken down sprinters capable of 5 races in a campaign?

Larhage,
Again you speak sense in the midst of "madness".
I'll also watch.