Let's talk about mud (SAR 7th)

[Aerocraft67]

If nothing else, it's hard to search the forum for mud threads. With off track at Saratoga today, seems like an opportune time to bring it up.

What do you do about mud? Do you have much faith in mud pedigree? Does demonstrated mud performance become the prevailing handicapping factor? Does mud not make as much difference as the public thinks? Is it an invitation to play the race for total chaos? Do you find a dry track to play instead?

I just took a swing at SAR 7th. Thought the :2: was overlooked at 6/1 and the obvious play. She'd prevailed against the toughest the fastest of all these in the mud, and had pedigree to back it up. She ran with little interest today, despite a notable turf-dirt angle (although not really a "move" with off the turf).

It was easy to toss the three favorites, with humdrum mud performance and pedigree. I bet :2: to win and dutched her over the :9: :10: :13: in the exacta; all those companions had demonstrated mud talent and pedigree over the others, and seemed logical pace companions with :2: . The :13: did place but there was very little to recommend the winner, :3: , mud or otherwise. The co-favorite :6: and :11: were not surprises rounding out the super, but still, what happened to the horses that had mud merits ( :2: :9: :10: and even :4: )? I guess MTO :13: wound up nearly a 4/1 proposition in the place pool, so that's not too shabby, but mainly because the bomb won.

Anyway, mud. What say you?

[thaskalos]

There is nothing definitive that you can say about the mud, IMO. You can't say with certainty that past prowess in the mud is an indication of future success...because not all muddy surfaces are the same. Even at the same racetrack, the wet surfaces vary greatly...and the posted track condition is seldom to be taken at face value.

I have never found anything even remotely reliable to use when handicapping for muddy conditions, so, I stay away from wet surfaces. There are enough questions begging to be answered when handicapping these races; I don't need to also have to deal with the effects of the adverse track condition. With the number of races at my disposal...I can usually find a better spot for my money.

[cj]

There is nothing definitive that you can say about the mud, IMO. You can't say with certainty that past prowess in the mud is an indication of future success...because not all muddy surfaces are the same. Even at the same racetrack, the wet surfaces vary greatly...and the posted track condition is seldom to be taken at face value.

I have never found anything even remotely reliable to use when handicapping for muddy conditions, so, I stay away from wet surfaces. There are enough questions begging to be answered when handicapping these races; I don't need to also have to deal with the effects of the adverse track condition. With the number of races at my disposal...I can usually find a better spot for my money.

This is a sharp post.

[Stillriledup]

There is nothing definitive that you can say about the mud, IMO. You can't say with certainty that past prowess in the mud is an indication of future success...because not all muddy surfaces are the same. Even at the same racetrack, the wet surfaces vary greatly...and the posted track condition is seldom to be taken at face value.

I have never found anything even remotely reliable to use when handicapping for muddy conditions, so, I stay away from wet surfaces. There are enough questions begging to be answered when handicapping these races; I don't need to also have to deal with the effects of the adverse track condition. With the number of races at my disposal...I can usually find a better spot for my money.

I believe ths to be true, I think if you know not all surfaces are the same, you can gain a great edge betting against an over bet horse who's 1 for 1 in the wet when the wet surface seems to be playing differently.

[ronsmac]

If nothing else, it's hard to search the forum for mud threads. With off track at Saratoga today, seems like an opportune time to bring it up.

What do you do about mud? Do you have much faith in mud pedigree? Does demonstrated mud performance become the prevailing handicapping factor? Does mud not make as much difference as the public thinks? Is it an invitation to play the race for total chaos? Do you find a dry track to play instead?

I just took a swing at SAR 7th. Thought the :2: was overlooked at 6/1 and the obvious play. She'd prevailed against the toughest the fastest of all these in the mud, and had pedigree to back it up. She ran with little interest today, despite a notable turf-dirt angle (although not really a "move" with off the turf).

It was easy to toss the three favorites, with humdrum mud performance and pedigree. I bet :2: to win and dutched her over the :9: :10: :13: in the exacta; all those companions had demonstrated mud talent and pedigree over the others, and seemed logical pace companions with :2: . The :13: did place but there was very little to recommend the winner, :3: , mud or otherwise. The co-favorite :6: and :11: were not surprises rounding out the super, but still, what happened to the horses that had mud merits ( :2: :9: :10: and even :4: )? I guess MTO :13: wound up nearly a 4/1 proposition in the place pool, so that's not too shabby, but mainly because the bomb won.

Anyway, mud. What say you?Watch the warm-up closely. Nothing is guaranteed at the track, but once in a while you can spot a horse you think will run poorly and a horse you think will improve. Tread lightly though.

[thaskalos]

I believe ths to be true, I think if you know not all surfaces are the same, you can gain a great edge betting against an over bet horse who's 1 for 1 in the wet when the wet surface seems to be playing differently.
As I said...I can find better spots for my money.

[ReplayRandall]

There is nothing definitive that you can say about the mud, IMO. You can't say with certainty that past prowess in the mud is an indication of future success...because not all muddy surfaces are the same. Even at the same racetrack, the wet surfaces vary greatly...and the posted track condition is seldom to be taken at face value.

I have never found anything even remotely reliable to use when handicapping for muddy conditions, so, I stay away from wet surfaces. There are enough questions begging to be answered when handicapping these races; I don't need to also have to deal with the effects of the adverse track condition. With the number of races at my disposal...I can usually find a better spot for my money.

There are a number of handicappers who think the same way, as evidenced by the many Saratoga on-line tourneys, muddy today, that didn't reach the minimum contestants for a "go"......

[Aerocraft67]

This is a sharp post.
Thank you kindly, thaskalos. Part of the contrarian small-timer in me wants to read this as "where the sharpies step out, consider stepping in," but looks like this is one to take at face value. Unless you can parse out the nuances of varying degrees of "good," "sloppy," and track bias to the umpteenth degree that you and SRU mention, best to focus on more formful scenarios.

As for warm-up watching with ronsmac, that's the subject of a whole 'nuther thread, which I just might start. Thanks again.

[TonyMLake]

I actually found that the Tomlinson ratings really are "pretty good", or, at least, the best predictive measure I've ever seen.

... but to tell you the truth, I never seriously bet on a wet surface. My rule is literally "not even one drop of rain".

[Bennie]

I have a few "favorite" sires that I will look for when tracks come up wet and will sometimes make "action" bets on these. I also use the Tomlinson numbers but usually only for young horses as they can lead you to "who should handle the surface", but not necessarily win over the surface. I also, when they are made available, look for shoe changes. Even with all this info, if a horse is not one I already have in my top 3 or 4 choices I will pass the race. Scheduled for turf but now off turf races get a big X right thru them and move on to the next. I have, more times than I can count, handicapped an entire card and played nothing because of track conditions.

[ronsmac]

Thank you kindly, thaskalos. Part of the contrarian small-timer in me wants to read this as "where the sharpies step out, consider stepping in," but looks like this is one to take at face value. Unless you can parse out the nuances of varying degrees of "good," "sloppy," and track bias to the umpteenth degree that you and SRU mention, best to focus on more formful scenarios.

As for warm-up watching with ronsmac, that's the subject of a whole 'nuther thread, which I just might start. Thanks again.For the record, I usually do poorly in the mud. 2015 was my best year ever on sloppy or muddy tracks though. Oaklawn had more off tracks than I ever rememeberd this year and it was the only track I bet.

[thaskalos]

"When the rains come...I gather my belongings and go home", wrote the inimitable Tom Ainslie some 50 years ago. I thought that I knew better, because I considered Ainslie to be the timid, unadventurous type.

What a fool I was... :)

[ronsmac]

"When the rains come...I gather my belongings and go home", wrote the inimitable Tom Ainslie some 50 years ago. I thought that I knew better, because I considered Ainslie to be the timid, unadventurous type.

What a fool I was... :)Old Tom Ainsle, the guy who said never bet an exacta or dd. A couple decades.later he was selling his exacta picks in the n.y. papers. Gotta love him.

[Cratos]

If nothing else, it's hard to search the forum for mud threads. With off track at Saratoga today, seems like an opportune time to bring it up.

What do you do about mud? Do you have much faith in mud pedigree? Does demonstrated mud performance become the prevailing handicapping factor? Does mud not make as much difference as the public thinks? Is it an invitation to play the race for total chaos? Do you find a dry track to play instead?

I just took a swing at SAR 7th. Thought the :2: was overlooked at 6/1 and the obvious play. She'd prevailed against the toughest the fastest of all these in the mud, and had pedigree to back it up. She ran with little interest today, despite a notable turf-dirt angle (although not really a "move" with off the turf).

It was easy to toss the three favorites, with humdrum mud performance and pedigree. I bet :2: to win and dutched her over the :9: :10: :13: in the exacta; all those companions had demonstrated mud talent and pedigree over the others, and seemed logical pace companions with :2: . The :13: did place but there was very little to recommend the winner, :3: , mud or otherwise. The co-favorite :6: and :11: were not surprises rounding out the super, but still, what happened to the horses that had mud merits ( :2: :9: :10: and even :4: )? I guess MTO :13: wound up nearly a 4/1 proposition in the place pool, so that's not too shabby, but mainly because the bomb won.

Anyway, mud. What say you?
I agree with your assertion that a horse mud performance is in part based on its pedigree.

However I don't subscribe to the notion that an "off-track" surface cannot be reliably assessed or measured and as stated by a very smart man, Neil deGrasse Tyson, "science is correct even if you don't believe it."

Therefore surface resistivy (invariably and erroneously called track variant) can be calculated reliably under all environmental conditions with the application of both the static and kinetic coefficients of friction between the horse's motion and the track's surface.

What science tells us is that it takes more force for a horse to accelerate from the gate (about 3.67x) than it does when the horse is at cruising speed.

On an "off-track" the coefficients will increase and the horse that demonstrates the greater and sustainable increase will be the best off-track performer.

Keep in mind that this is only part of solving the horse's off-track performance; understanding pedigree is the other part.

Also these calculations are quite easily made on Excel without having a strong math or science background.

[cj]

I agree with your assertion that a horse mud performance is in part based on its pedigree.

However I don't subscribe to the notion that an "off-track" surface cannot be reliably assessed or measured and as stated by a very smart man, Neil deGrasse Tyson, "science is correct even if you don't believe it."

Therefore surface resistivy (invariably and erroneously called track variant) can be calculated reliably under all environmental conditions with the application of both the static and kinetic coefficients of friction between the horse's motion and the track's surface.

What science tells us is that it takes more force for a horse to accelerate from the gate (about 3.67x) than it does when the horse is at cruising speed.

On an "off-track" the coefficients will increase and the horse that demonstrates the greater and sustainable increase will be the best off-track performer.

Keep in mind that this is only part of solving the horse's off-track performance; understanding pedigree is the other part.

Also these calculations are quite easily made on Excel without having a strong math or science background.

Let us know when you post your off track selections please.

[Cratos]

Let us know when you post your off track selections please.
I addressed the thesis of the OP's thread which didn't include posting any selections.

By the way, I didn't see that request made before my post.

I find it curious that in an open forum selective points of view are asked to be verified.

The understanding of my post is straightforward and easily applied.

[cj]

I addressed the thesis of the OP's thread which didn't include posting any selections.

By the way, I didn't see that request made before my post.

I find it curious that in an open forum selective points of view are asked to be verified.

The understanding of my post is straightforward and easily applied.

However I don't subscribe to the notion that an "off-track" surface cannot be reliably assessed or measured

Nowhere was that stated in the original post.

Sure, you can measure the track variant or resistance or whatever you want to call it. What is difficult is predicting which horses will run well on today's track which is why many choose not to play. I was hoping you could shed some light on that part of it.

[thaskalos]

Nowhere was that stated in the original post.

Sure, you can measure the track variant or resistance or whatever you want to call it. What is difficult is predicting which horses will run well on today's track which is why many choose not to play. I was hoping you could shed some light on that part of it.
Cj...let's not forget what the renowned horseplayer Neil deGrasse Tyson famously declared:

"Science is correct, even if you don't believe it".

[Tom]

This used to be a problem at FL back in the day when I did my own pace and speed figs. The spring meet was usually deep with DRF variant in the 30-45 range. In the summer, they were in the 10-15 range. Just because there was a good variant didn't mean the horses who thrived on deep going could run on the pavement of July. These are not machines.

[cj]

This used to be a problem at FL back in the day when I did my own pace and speed figs. The spring meet was usually deep with DRF variant in the 30-45 range. In the summer, they were in the 10-15 range. Just because there was a good variant didn't mean the horses who thrived on deep going could run on the pavement of July. These are not machines.

Very true.

And let's not forget, especially on off tracks, the track is constantly changing throughout the day. Sometimes this is due to weather, sometimes it is due to maintenance, and sometimes both.

A "one variant" day is rare on off tracks in my opinion.

[thaskalos]

The notion that this game is just a "math or a physics problem waiting to be solved" is something that I will never be able to accept. These are living, breathing animals...who have their own likes and dislikes...just like us HUMAN animals. There is an ARTISTIC side to this game, which cannot be ignored...IMO. The mathematical approach has its limitations too...regardless of what the academicians among us might think.

[Capper Al]

It's always sunny in California.!

[classhandicapper]

I tend to avoid off tracks when it gets so wet there are puddles on the surface and a lot of horses clearly are not reacting well because the gaps between them at the finish are huge.

Other than that I handicap the same way and just glance at each horse's off track races to see if there's any evidence of general preference. I am also more sensitive to speed and bad rail biases. You can sometimes find a decent play by throwing out some well bet horse that will be against it. Then you don't have to worry so much about picking someone that can handle it. You can just spread against a bad favorite.

The much bigger problem for me is dealing with the horses when they come back after running on an off track.

If you throw those races out, you will sometimes excuse a poor performance on an off track when the off track had nothing to do with the horse running poorly. He simply went off form. You will also sometimes throw out races where the horse legitimately improved and it wasn't that he just happened to like some wet track. You are more or less forced to make the same kind of subjective judgements about the horse's wet track ability we don't feel comfortable with on the day of the races.

[classhandicapper]

The notion that this game is just a "math or a physics problem waiting to be solved" is something that I will never be able to accept. These are living, breathing animals...who have their own likes and dislikes...just like us HUMAN animals. There is an ARTISTIC side to this game, which cannot be ignored...IMO. The mathematical approach has its limitations too...regardless of what the academicians among us might think.

I think stats are good for answering general handicapping questions, but in real life the details of a horse and race are always a little different. You are sometimes forced to intuit some of the key questions in the race.

[Grits]

Watch the warm-up closely. Nothing is guaranteed at the track, but once in a while you can spot a horse you think will run poorly and a horse you think will improve. Tread lightly though.

You're the only poster that has noted this. ;) When sitting in the grandstand, (not at home on TV or computer) watching them come onto, and warm up, on a wet track...this is especially true. The pps have to be noted, in every aspect, but in addition hints can be seen in the horse's movements, their hooves--how they lift them, their head, their ears--pinned, wheeling, or forward, their tail swish. As you say, though, tread lightly. They are, of course, not absolutes, only small indications. It pays to observe.

[Luckycreed]

Yes and part of that artistry is admitting when a race or a day of racing has simply got you beat and you can't get your head around it.

When I was working doing video they used to get us to give a confidence level rating for every race and every raceday on a five point scale five being extremely confident and one meaning the opposite.

You then know that you have to be extremely cautious playing races that involve horses coming out of races or racedays that were tough to get your head around.

Eventually they will make sense, with the wisdom of hindsight you will find out how the form out of those races stacks up and you can then go back and fill in the gaps but for know don't try and manufacture some figures that you know have a high probability of being wrong.

[Bennie]

Grits and Ronsmac - I remember seeing a horse coming out to the track and when he first stepped foot on the mud he hesitated. When prompted by the rider to move he walked like you would if you were walking on broken glass. It reminded me of a cat when they step in water and with each paw that gets wet they stop and shake it. One step, shake, next step shake. The horse was live on the board at about 4-1 but after seeing this I put a big X right thru that horse. Ran up the track and was not comfortable running any part of the race. Unfortunately, unless you are at the track and can see this, sometimes it's hard to pick up signs like this when watching simulcasts.

[Grits]

Grits and Ronsmac - I remember seeing a horse coming out to the track and when he first stepped foot on the mud he hesitated. When prompted by the rider to move he walked like you would if you were walking on broken glass. It reminded me of a cat when they step in water and with each paw that gets wet they stop and shake it. One step, shake, next step shake. The horse was live on the board at about 4-1 but after seeing this I put a big X right thru that horse. Ran up the track and was not comfortable running any part of the race. Unfortunately, unless you are at the track and can see this, sometimes it's hard to pick up signs like this when watching simulcasts.

4RULES, BENNIE!! Hope you've been winning. ;)

This is what I was speaking of...being on track. I've done this often at Saratoga, the first minute the horses step on the track. Like you say, it's sorta like a cat. You get the feeling, they're thinking, "nope, not today, folks".

[Bennie]

Grits - Been doing okay. This time of year I take it slow until Saratoga gets rolling. Always play cautious when meets first start but also catch some nice prices at the same time. Always looking at the 4-rules and L3. I also find certain equipment changes do well when meets start up. These all worked very well when Monmouth was just starting but things seem to have balanced out so have moved to Toga in search of the next buried treasure. Have not been using the figs as much lately, usually just days with multi stakes cards. I really miss all the little extras from the old days. Being able to adjust the days off , bold colored pfs when ran at the same distance as today and things like that. Use to be able to handicap the entire card in about 10 minutes. Now , for me at least, there is just too much information and not any I bother looking at. I almost forgot, fast pace race -best late pace horse. I keep plugging though cause I love the game