8/28 (SAR): Travers Day

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

This is dumb and beneath you.

NT

What's dumb and beneath me is having to play BIASED tracks on major racing days. Unlike you, and some of the others here, racing for me is about handicapping and trying to make money. So, give me a fair course OR a consistently biased course, and I'll be just fine. It doesn't really matter to me which horse shapes up better historically or which horse is 'faster' on a given surface. Until a system is in place that can accurately measure 'speed', and reconcile it, over the different surfaces, it probably shouldn't matter to you either.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

What's dumb and beneath me is having to play BIASED tracks on major racing days. Unlike you, and some of the others here, racing for me is about handicapping and trying to make money. So, give me a fair course OR a consistently biased course, and I'll be just fine. It doesn't really matter to me which horse shapes up better historically or which horse is 'faster' on a given surface. Until a system is in place that can accurately measure 'speed', and reconcile it, over the different surfaces, it probably shouldn't matter to you either.

How difficult is it to recognize what is going on and adjust your thinking on the fly or take you money and play somewhere else?

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

How difficult is it to recognize what is going on and adjust your thinking on the fly or take you money and play somewhere else?

Oh..you mean like most handicappers do? What is so hard for people to understand about that. Track bias is part of the game. It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to figure out who's going to run the fastest for the final 50 yards on rubber.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Oh..you mean like most handicappers do? What is so hard for people to understand about that. Track bias is part of the game. It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to figure out who's going to run the fastest for the final 50 yards on rubber.

and that is a flaw in tfm's logic. he derides bias on a dirt track, but isn't there a bias on poly? so, it seems the issue for him isn't a bias, he just prefers to bet poly. good for him-perhaps not good for everyone tho.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

What's dumb and beneath me is having to play BIASED tracks on major racing days. Unlike you, and some of the others here, racing for me is about handicapping and trying to make money. So, give me a fair course OR a consistently biased course, and I'll be just fine. It doesn't really matter to me which horse shapes up better historically or which horse is 'faster' on a given surface. Until a system is in place that can accurately measure 'speed', and reconcile it, over the different surfaces, it probably shouldn't matter to you either.

why do you act like dirt tracks are the only ones with bias? Did you play Del Mar at all last weekend? A horse couldn't win on the lead if they had a 100 yard head start.

[cmorioles]

105 Beyer for the Travers.

Discreetly Mine, 93.
Rightly So, 100.
Rapport, 103.
Dynaslew, 99.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

105 Beyer for the Travers.

Discreetly Mine, 93.
Rightly So, 100.
Rapport, 103.
Dynaslew, 99.

So Discreetly Mine regressed 18pts gotcha.. Maybe that 111 is the product of 6.5f Spaland?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by freddymo

So Discreetly Mine regressed 18pts gotcha.. Maybe that 111 is the product of 6.5f Spaland?

I don't think so. Surely the scintillating fractions, which were 180 degrees from his last race, were a big part of it. It does show the bias was absolutely brutal, the closers sucked big time, or both.

I had him running 103 pace, 109 speed last time. This time, if I agree with the 93, it will be 129 pace, 93 speed. Those are actually pretty similar overall, but rare to see the same horse change so much. I think it was the bias. It caused the jockeys to sell out for the front end

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't think so. Surely the scintillating fractions, which were 180 degrees from his last race, were a big part of it. It does show the bias was absolutely brutal, the closers sucked big time, or both.

I had him running 103 pace, 109 speed last time. This time, if I agree with the 93, it will be 129 pace, 93 speed. Those are actually pretty similar overall, but rare to see the same horse change so much. I think it was the bias. It caused the jockeys to sell out for the front end

I agree - I don't think the final time is indicative necessarily of a huge regression. DM's much preferred running style is to stalk, but Todd had to call an audible and change tactics thanks to the track bias. Any horse would be cooked by those fractions, so his closing that slowly doesn't bother me. Had he run his usual stalking race, he wouldn't have been tiring like that. Steve Crist and Andy discussed this on Talking Horses. Everyone knew the race would come up slow in terms of final speed figures, but the pace guys would conclude that DM ran very well.

Unless the colt is dog tired, I hope Todd changes his mind and runs him once more before the BC

[cmorioles]

He will be hard pressed to win a 6f BC in my opinion, unless he had another prep and showed more ability.