DIRT......WHAT A CONCEPT

[NorCalGreg]

Just ranting because I can...feel free to rebut, agree, tell me why DIRT is so GD safe when any studies I've see don't support that, why since your track went back to dirt you're now betting more and winning once again, blah blah blah...


Hope all you "dirt purists" are happy, watching and winning @ Turf Paradise today, after ya 'capped all night.

Wonder why they would shut the place down? Total power malfunction? Active shooter? (don't complain---that's the reality nowadays)

Nope--track shut down because it rained. After 60 years of rain at Turf Paradise--they still shut the mofo down because of rain.

I'll 'cap GGF tonight..spend a good long while at it. Yeah we've finally got rain here of Biblical proportions---doesn't affect our racing any. Our racing officials had the foresight to install a Tapeta All-Weather surface here, years ago.

The numbnuts in Socal & KY actually believed the dirt purists, and removed
their synthetic tracks--and put BACK THE DIRT! Turns out the dirt purists were full of sh*t...handle didn't increase--reason being they've long ago tapped out. Was just convenient to blame their shoddy handicapping, and inability to adapt....on a synthetic surface. Are you kidding me???

Anyway.....here's my take on why racing is in trouble now:

*What young person is going to want to get involved in a wagering sport, that is difficult to comprehend, and not much reason to want to?

*That has an immediate TAKE-OUT of up to 25% right off the top--and more if you win bigger amounts (remember young people are much better educated)

*There is absolutely no "BUZZ" with racing, among young people, it has a low "HIP" factor...it's perceived as an old folks game.

That's enough

-NCG

[Mandrake]

They put back the dirt to get the Breeders Cup. It's not quantum theory.

[azeri98]

I live in Toronto, my home track is Woodbine where it has been poly for many years, now switching to tapeta, I love betting it and we have horrible weather sometimes early and late in the meet and the only time they cancelled was because of lightning, from what I remember Keeneland had much bigger fields with poly than they did with dirt this year, it is harder to handicap the races on synth just because front end speed doesn't hold up that well, whereas a place like Santa Anita its almost impossible for a deep closer to win.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Well, I suck at poly tracks so I was very very happy when Santa Anita and Keeneland went back to dirt. :jump:


Also, I had a pretty good time at the BC this year at Keeneland. They don't get the BC without dirt.

[Mandrake]

I love betting Woodbine. I call it the North Country. It is a shame because so many trainers kept their horses in the US last year because of the Canadian worker law. They had the most 6 and 7 horse fields that I could remember in a long time.

[NorCalGreg]

They put back the dirt to get the Breeders Cup. It's not quantum theory.


Who said Keeneland was given an ultimatum concerning the dirt/poly switch?..unless you were at the meetings-that was never disclosed.

And don't forget---Santa Anita hosted the BC--Synthetic track and all, for a few years.

[Mandrake]

If everything is fine status quo, why make such a large investment to change? Follow the dollars my friend. If SA had poly breeders, they must have known there would be no more poly breeders or why would they change? Personally I would rather bet polys anyway. It levels the playing field and you can actually bet a closer once in a while. Turf Paradise is just a tough track to prove a point with because they probably have 3 dollars in their track maintenance budget.

[ReplayRandall]

NCG, this is the best advice I'll ever give you....QUIT PLAYING TURD PARADISE! Do you really think a handicapper gets a square deal at this armpit of the desert southwest? Also, QUIT PLAYING MVR...what are you there, 0 for 100? Lastly, never play the Penn death trifecta of Penn Nat, Parx or Presque Isle...they're strictly bogus insider tracks. No need to ever thank me, just take my advice and lead a happier handicapping life... ;)

[Mandrake]

That is what is funny. Turf Paradise cancels because it rains in Arizona once in a blue moon. Portland Meadows, another rat track runs in monsoons and probably would cancel when the sun comes out, but they are dirt also.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Who said Keeneland was given an ultimatum concerning the dirt/poly switch?..unless you were at the meetings-that was never disclosed.

And don't forget---Santa Anita hosted the BC--Synthetic track and all, for a few years.

He didn't say Keeneland was given an ultimatum to switch to dirt "or never get the Breeder's Cup". I'm sure that off the record they were told as such, and had to make the switch in order to host the event because of their less than appetizing seating for such a big event.

As for Santa Anita, they have a great venue, great weather, and had hosted the BC prior to 2008 when they ran on Poly. They have received a number of BC bids since then. Anybody really wonder why they dug up the Poly track?

[azeri98]

NCG, this is the best advice I'll ever give you....QUIT PLAYING TURD PARADISE! Do you really think a handicapper gets a square deal at this armpit of the desert southwest? Also, QUIT PLAYING MVR...what are you there, 0 for 100? Lastly, never play the Penn death trifecta of Penn Nat, Parx or Presque Isle...they're strictly bogus insider tracks. No need to ever thank me, just take my advice and lead a happier handicapping life... ;)
I call those tracks dog s**t U.S.A I can't play those tracks, I usually sit out Mon and Tues unless its a holiday of I find something at Parx.

[Mandrake]

It seems very logical LDH, doesn't it? Why do NFL teams make such huge investments in new stadiums? Because they are promised a Super Bowl. It is just hard to fathom that one "super" day can make up for such a huge investment but obviously it does or nobody would be doing it.

[azeri98]

He didn't say Keeneland was given an ultimatum to switch to dirt "or never get the Breeder's Cup". I'm sure that off the record they were told as such, and had to make the switch in order to host the event because of their less than appetizing seating for such a big event.

As for Santa Anita, they have a great venue, great weather, and had hosted the BC prior to 2008 when they ran on Poly. They have received a number of BC bids since then. Anybody really wonder why they dug up the Poly track?
I don't think the trainers liked it all that much, mainly Baffert, is it a coincidence that Santa Anita horses have dominated the Triple Crown races since they returned back to dirt.

[azeri98]

I love betting Woodbine. I call it the North Country. It is a shame because so many trainers kept their horses in the US last year because of the Canadian worker law. They had the most 6 and 7 horse fields that I could remember in a long time.
Yes the fields were a lot smaller than the last few years, but I think its mostly due to the very small foal crops in Ontario, the breeders cut down their operations since the government took away the slots money only 454 in 2014 down 20% from 2013, that's huge.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I don't think the trainers liked it all that much, mainly Baffert, is it a coincidence that Santa Anita horses have dominated the Triple Crown races since they returned back to dirt.

Well.., that is a bit over the top since Santa Anita is the absolute hub of the West Coast/California racing scene.

Not the same when you get East of the Mississippi.

I don't have the numbers handy, but I'd be shocked if Cal-bred horses in Triple Crown races own over 1/3rd of the WPS placings in Triple Crown races since 2008. They have their share of Wins, but the rest can't be all that exceptional, if not downright awful.

[azeri98]

Well.., that is a bit over the top since Santa Anita is the absolute hub of the West Coast/California racing scene.

Not the same when you get East of the Mississippi.

I don't have the numbers handy, but I'd be shocked if Cal-bred horses in Triple Crown races own over 1/3rd of the WPS placings in Triple Crown races since 2008. They have their share of Wins, but the rest can't be all that exceptional, if not downright awful.
I meant horse based there like I'l Have Another, Cali Chrome and the Pharoah.

[ReplayRandall]

I meant horse based there like I'l Have Another, Cali Chrome and the Pharoah.

Don't forget Pharoah's daddy, Pioneerof the Nile, who ran 2nd in the slop, to a bomb named Mine That Bird in 2009.

[Mandrake]

Thanks Az. I wonder why Arlington horses don't ship up after the meet? Any clue. You would think it would be a good move but I really don't remember an AP past performance line in the Woodbine pp's.

[Mandrake]

Yes California is on a roll. But all that "where bred" stuff is kind of ridiculous. I can take a California mare, breed her to a Kentucky stallion, take her home and when the horse drops it is a California bred. Does it really matter? To me it does when a California mare is bred to a California stallion and the horse is truly bred in California.

[therussmeister]

That is what is funny. Turf Paradise cancels because it rains in Arizona once in a blue moon. Portland Meadows, another rat track runs in monsoons and probably would cancel when the sun comes out, but they are dirt also.
Ironically Portland Meadows cancelled twice this week.

[Stillriledup]

Don't forget Pharoah's daddy, Pioneerof the Nile, who ran 2nd in the slop, to a bomb named Mine That Bird in 2009.

And survived an inquiry for crashing into Musket Man at the wire. Oh wait, nevermind, there was no inquiry. :rolleyes:

[Mandrake]

Thx. I guess I should pay more attention. But it's kind of hard when the Oregon Derby runs for a purse of 10 gees.

[NorCalGreg]

Well, I suck at poly tracks so I was very very happy when Santa Anita and Keeneland went back to dirt. :jump:


Also, I had a pretty good time at the BC this year at Keeneland. They don't get the BC without dirt.

Why is it you suck at poly tracks, Husker? Is it because you're a speed player---and you have an impression speed doesn't hold up on poly? Closers can't close? What is it in particular--I'd really like to know---anyone?

[Stillriledup]

Why is it you suck at poly tracks, Husker? Is it because you're a speed player---and you have an impression speed doesn't hold up on poly? Closers can't close? What is it in particular--I'd really like to know---anyone?

I felt my poly suckage came from jocks manipulating running styles due to their beliefs that speed couldn't win. If horses can't run to their natural styles and jocks are getting in their own way, makes it more of a guessing game, at least for me and the way I handicap.

[NorCalGreg]

I felt my poly suckage came from jocks manipulating running styles due to their beliefs that speed couldn't win. If horses can't run to their natural styles and jocks are getting in their own way, makes it more of a guessing game, at least for me and the way I handicap.


LOL that's funny. I think some of you guys give jockeys way too much credit for "comandeering" horses---when, IMO they damn well better ride exactly as they're instructed to, unless the rider can take his pick of mounts.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Why is it you suck at poly tracks, Husker? Is it because you're a speed player---and you have an impression speed doesn't hold up on poly? Closers can't close? What is it in particular--I'd really like to know---anyone?

If anything, I'm a HUGE anti-speed handicapper, and look for anything and everything to close up shop against the speed favs that are overpriced and overbet.

I sucked at Poly because..., I have no excuses. I just sucked. I don't want to make any excuses. I couldn't win, so I quit. Quickly. Why play Poly on 3 or 4 tracks where you are losing, when I can win at 30+ other tracks running on dirt?

[Stillriledup]

LOL that's funny. I think some of you guys give jockeys way too much credit for "comandeering" horses---when, IMO they damn well better ride exactly as they're instructed to, unless the rider can take his pick of mounts.

I'm not doling out credit or criticism, all I care about is if the horse gets ridden exactly he needs to be ridden according to his style, talent, race circumstances and to give him the best shot to win. If they don't ride that way, it messes up my projections on race shape, how fast is the internal pace, etc.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I'm not doling out credit or criticism, all I care about is if the horse gets ridden exactly he needs to be ridden according to his style, talent, race circumstances and to give him the best shot to win. If they don't ride that way, it messes up my projections on race shape, how fast is the internal pace, etc.

So within your analysis the biggest concern you have is the jockey?

[Stillriledup]

So within your analysis the biggest concern you have is the jockey?

Here's an example. If I bet a closer because I think there will be a speed duel, and one jock on one of the speeds grabs a hold and the other guy gets loose, my "projections" go out the window. So, my concern is that the jock not manipulate the natural running style of the horse, if they do, it could cause me to have money on a closer that has no shot to get there due to the pace being too slow.

[NorCalGreg]

Here's an example. If I bet a closer because I think there will be a speed duel, and one jock on one of the speeds grabs a hold and the other guy gets loose, my "projections" go out the window. So, my concern is that the jock not manipulate the natural running style of the horse, if they do, it could cause me to have money on a closer that has no shot to get there due to the pace being too slow.

I can tell you, SRU, with complete certainty...that nothing like the example you speak of-- even occurs to 99% of horseplayers, outside of New York.

As horseplayers...our "projected" pace scenario, one we felt very strongly about, enough so to bet good money on---regularly will blow up in our face. Yeah you look a little silly for a minute, especially if you posted how the pace would set up--but any horseplayer knows that will happen over and over. You only have to be right just a few times--and you're in the black, jack. Don't even worry about the jockeys, let the trainers worry about them.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I always kinda felt the same way as SRU. It's probably just because it happened a handful of times (mainly KEE) and left a bad taste in my mouth when it did to the point that I steered away from poly races, but it always seemed like every race was a snatch fest to the quarter pole. Which, of course, only encouraged me to keep trying to find the horse that would have to be let run and actually try for the lead. And invariably if it did make the lead, it would get backed into the field and turn a nice clear lead into one of six within a neck of one another. I'm sure it's a bad stereotype borne out of limited patience and efforts on my part, since I've seen enough races that I didn't handicap where there seemed to be an actual horse race happening, but it just never seemed to be the case when I donated to the pools.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Here's an example. If I bet a closer because I think there will be a speed duel, and one jock on one of the speeds grabs a hold and the other guy gets loose, my "projections" go out the window. So, my concern is that the jock not manipulate the natural running style of the horse, if they do, it could cause me to have money on a closer that has no shot to get there due to the pace being too slow.

So..., how can you ever bet a horse race?

[arw629]

Some people on here forget trainers give jockeys instructions how to ride the horse...if the trainer says "snatch and grab", "get the lead at all cost", "get cover behind such and such", "don't use the whip".....ppl on here are way to quick to hate on the jockey ...how bout hate the trainer?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Some people on here forget trainers give jockeys instructions how to ride the horse...if the trainer says "snatch and grab", "get the lead at all cost", "get cover behind such and such", "don't use the whip".....ppl on here are way to quick to hate on the jockey ...how bout hate the trainer?

:D

They hate on trainers too. :lol:

[Appy]

At last! The secret is out.
All it takes to be a winning handicapper is simply to blame losses on someone else.
Sounds a lot like politics. And religion. And my wife! :bang: :D

[azeri98]

Thanks Az. I wonder why Arlington horses don't ship up after the meet? Any clue. You would think it would be a good move but I really don't remember an AP past performance line in the Woodbine pp's.
Stidham brings up a few for the stake races but it was too expensive for them to ship up here to race in claiming races and with the difference in the dollar they lose a quarter of the purse to the exchange.

[Tall One]

So..., how can you ever bet a horse race?


What I thought when I read his post.

[raybo]

If your research is track/surface specific (not mixed), and the rest of your game is in good shape, then it shouldn't matter what the surface is made of, unless the surface was recently changed, like Del Mar/Keeneland. It is my suspicion that the vast majority of players don't take into account the way each track they support actually plays, or what the surface is made of, or how long that surface has been in place.

Ignore the obvious at your own peril.

[thaskalos]

I have come to the realization that certain polytrack surfaces are virtually impossible for me to adequately deal with. I don't like the form reversals that I see there...and I have no confidence in handicapping their races. And where there is no confidence...there can be no betting.

As far as I am concerned...treating the polytracks as if they are dirt tracks is the surest way to the poorhouse that a horseplayer can find.

[thaskalos]

I call those tracks dog s**t U.S.A I can't play those tracks, I usually sit out Mon and Tues unless its a holiday of I find something at Parx.

Yeah, Parx. There is a "classy" track right there. :)

[Rex Phinney]

Well.., that is a bit over the top since Santa Anita is the absolute hub of the West Coast/California racing scene.

Not the same when you get East of the Mississippi.

I don't have the numbers handy, but I'd be shocked if Cal-bred horses in Triple Crown races own over 1/3rd of the WPS placings in Triple Crown races since 2008. They have their share of Wins, but the rest can't be all that exceptional, if not downright awful.

I think you missed the point here, regardless of where they were bred, horses training at Santa Anita since the switch back to dirt have cleaned up in TC races. 6 of the last 8 Derby and Preakness winners where training in California. That is an astonishing stat, looking back at the poly era there was basically zero success from horses spending the Spring out here. Looking at Lucky comes to mind, other than that it's few and far between.

As for the Poly vs. dirt stuff, I think the OP has point that polytracks were not really killing handle after all, what more proof do we need than Del Mar? Since switching to dirt their handle has basically nosedived. The handle issues revolve around the sport not the surface.

I think we should be all realistic about the Breeders Cup play in all this, I have ZERO doubt in my mind the switch back to dirt at Santa Anita, Keeneland and Del Mar were all initiated during BC negotiations. After 2017 there will have been 7 straight years of Breeders Cups at tracks that went from synthetic to dirt, 2 of those tracks had never hosted before, do we really want to call that coincidence? Santa Anita did host in 08 and 09 with synthetic and it is my opinion that after that horsemen let the Breeders Cup know that if these events were on synthetic again, the horsemen would not be back. Anyone among us forgotten those euros running down Curlin in the stretch? I assure you the horsemen in California, Kentucky and the east coast haven't.

[cj]

The problem I had with synthetics is from the sport side of horse racing, not the betting side. The races, for the most part, did not identify the best horses at the top levels. A perusal of the G1 winners on synthetic surfaces makes that pretty apparent. Sure, there were a few champions that handled synthetics, but for the most part the winners couldn't run at that level on dirt or grass. It was a "specialty" surface.

I think it is fine at place like Turfway and Woodbine that need it for weather purposes, but I don't want our championship races run on the stuff.

[Stillriledup]

So..., how can you ever bet a horse race?

Stay away from poly.

[azeri98]

I have come to the realization that certain polytrack surfaces are virtually impossible for me to adequately deal with. I don't like the form reversals that I see there...and I have no confidence in handicapping their races. And where there is no confidence...there can be no betting.

As far as I am concerned...treating the polytracks as if they are dirt tracks is the surest way to the poorhouse that a horseplayer can find.
Its no different than betting dirt or turf, if you have horses running on it frequently, like at woodbine you can study it and be able to handicap it just like any other surface, you just have to have enough of a sample size to be .able to do it right. I agree with you that the transfer from dirt to poly is difficult to handicap, like when Keeneland was poly and only ran for 2 months of the year it was hard but Woodbine which runs for 9 months in a row its the same as any other track.

[Mandrake]

I can understand a place like Turfway, which is a winter meet, cold weather place. Other places not as much. California, no way. They were sold a bill of goods based on horse fatality logic, faulty, it can be argued. An overreaction, obviously. Even Woodbine could have stayed dirt, they close the first week of December. I'm sure there are other reasons involved, track maintenance costs, scratches in bad weather, cancelled cards. Obviously New York doesn't care because their inner dirt meet would be a prime candidate for poly and would actually improve the horse population and race quality.

[classhandicapper]

The problem I had with synthetics is from the sport side of horse racing, not the betting side. The races, for the most part, did not identify the best horses at the top levels. A perusal of the G1 winners on synthetic surfaces makes that pretty apparent. Sure, there were a few champions that handled synthetics, but for the most part the winners couldn't run at that level on dirt or grass. It was a "specialty" surface.

I think it is fine at place like Turfway and Woodbine that need it for weather purposes, but I don't want our championship races run on the stuff.

It's kind of the same thing between turf and dirt. Some percentage of horses are capable of crossing over and being just as good on both surfaces, but most are not. However, imagine a game where we only had dirt racing. Then we would miss out on all the incredible turf horses that weren't suited to dirt. They would all look like slugs on dirt and we'd never know.

I thought the synthetic races were somewhere in between. They ranged from the Pro Ride at SA where turf form seemed to hold up especially well at the top of the class spectrum to the Hollywood surface that seemed closer to dirt. So synthetic racing had some horses that made the jump from dirt, others than made the jump from turf, and still others that moved up when they left the traditional surfaces and went to synth.

In the end I thought we got a chance to see a few horses excel on synthetic that we never would have never known had that talent without it because they would have looked like slugs on dirt and turf.

The downside was that it really confused handicappers and figure makers for a few years and complicated breeding values, industry awards etc..

[cj]

It's kind of the same thing between turf and dirt. Some percentage of horses are capable of crossing over and being just as good on both surfaces, but most are not. However, imagine a game where we only had dirt racing. Then we would miss out on all the incredible turf horses that weren't suited to dirt. They would all look like slugs on dirt and we'd never know.

I thought the synthetic races were somewhere in between. They ranged from the Pro Ride at SA where turf form seemed to hold up especially well at the top of the class spectrum to the Hollywood surface that seemed closer to dirt. So synthetic racing had some horses that made the jump from dirt, others than made the jump from turf, and still others that moved up when they left the traditional surfaces and went to synth.

In the end I thought we got a chance to see a few horses excel on synthetic that we never would have never known had that talent without it because they would have looked like slugs on dirt and turf.

The downside was that it really confused handicappers and figure makers for a few years and complicated breeding values, industry awards etc..

The thing with synthetics though, is that there was rarely any beauty to those races in my opinion. Horses just slugged through and grinded to the finish. You rarely ever saw the brilliance you saw on dirt in turf.

[classhandicapper]

The thing with synthetics though, is that there was rarely any beauty to those races in my opinion. Horses just slugged through and grinded to the finish. You rarely ever saw the brilliance you saw on dirt in turf.

A lot of the races on Polytrack were pretty ugly.

[thespaah]

The problem I had with synthetics is from the sport side of horse racing, not the betting side. The races, for the most part, did not identify the best horses at the top levels. A perusal of the G1 winners on synthetic surfaces makes that pretty apparent. Sure, there were a few champions that handled synthetics, but for the most part the winners couldn't run at that level on dirt or grass. It was a "specialty" surface.

I think it is fine at place like Turfway and Woodbine that need it for weather purposes, but I don't want our championship races run on the stuff.
I agree.
In my view, yours are the most likely reasons for Kee, Dmr and SA to go back to real dirt.
I might also throw in that NYRA's natural dirt and that fact there seemed to be( I'm not an insider obviously) zero interest in going to an all weather scenario.

[thespaah]

It's kind of the same thing between turf and dirt. Some percentage of horses are capable of crossing over and being just as good on both surfaces, but most are not. However, imagine a game where we only had dirt racing. Then we would miss out on all the incredible turf horses that weren't suited to dirt. They would all look like slugs on dirt and we'd never know.

I thought the synthetic races were somewhere in between. They ranged from the Pro Ride at SA where turf form seemed to hold up especially well at the top of the class spectrum to the Hollywood surface that seemed closer to dirt. So synthetic racing had some horses that made the jump from dirt, others than made the jump from turf, and still others that moved up when they left the traditional surfaces and went to synth.

In the end I thought we got a chance to see a few horses excel on synthetic that we never would have never known had that talent without it because they would have looked like slugs on dirt and turf.

The downside was that it really confused handicappers and figure makers for a few years and complicated breeding values, industry awards etc..
If I remember correctly, SA had Polytrack. Hollywood had Pro Ride.

[thespaah]

The thing with synthetics though, is that there was rarely any beauty to those races in my opinion. Horses just slugged through and grinded to the finish. You rarely ever saw the brilliance you saw on dirt in turf.
I always viewed races on poly as though the stretch run was contested on a treadmill.

[classhandicapper]

If I remember correctly, SA had Polytrack. Hollywood had Pro Ride.

I think SA was having trouble with their surface and changed a couple of times, but they had Pro Ride for awhile.

[Tom]

SA had no clue what they were doing.
They put everything down form poly to cat liter.
Even had asphalt rising up. Real joke of a track.

[Valuist]

If I remember correctly, SA had Polytrack. Hollywood had Pro Ride.

Hollywood had Cushion Track and SA had Pro Ride, at least part of the time.