Races taken off the turf

[Valuist]

In all the books I've read on horse racing, I've never heard much on this subject. Over the years I've learned there is one thing to do: turn the page and go to the next race. These races have results more random than a field made up entirely of first time starters. I've seen too many races where horses with the best main track form (fast or mud) end up finishing far back. Maybe its about intentions; the horses are MEANT to run on the turf, so even if they have had good previous main track form, the owner or trainer doesn't want to waste a bullet, and the horse is a stiff job, or given a public workout.

[JackS]

Since I don't feel that comfortible with my own abilities in turf racing, I'm always looking forward to those off days when all racing is taken off the turf. Others who do have success on the turf know something I don't.
My feeling is that all horses left after scratchs on off days are probably well meant. Some of these horses may even have been entered on the turf in anticipation of the race being taken off.
This could be especially true of the southern states which experience rains and storms more often than the rest of the country.

[alysheba88]

I LOVE, again LOVE races that get taken off the turf.

And I am one who loves betting turf races.

Bettors wrongly focus on the morning line. When there are multiple scratches and the surface switches they are lost as far as what the fair odds on the contenders should be. They will get lazy and focus on the most recent off the turf race of a particular horse and overbet that horse if its a good line. Off one race.

They cant be bothered scratching horses off their form even, when there are a bunch of scratches since it can be hard to jump around the pages.

With simple breeding info its not too hard to figure out which horses are "pure turfers" and those who are good on both surfaces.

Lastly, some of the real sharp trainers enter horses in advance who will not run on the turf, but anticipate a scratch. Not talking about the Main Track Only entries,something more subtle.

Again, I love these races.

[Valuist]

Alysheba-

Maybe you play different circuits than I do. I've seen plenty of horses with terrible dirt records beat horses with solid dirt past performances. Just completely bizarre results. The advent of the MTOs has helped a bit because those are at least well meant. Maybe part of it is the off track factor, which is often the case. But IMO, nothing can wreck a set of Pic 3s or Pic 4s like a race or two getting taken off the turf.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I try to eliminate the turf specialist horses, then look at off track jockeys if matchups are close.

[JackS]

I think the general public has the preception that when races are taken off the turf ,the race is now for turfers on the dirt.
Their reasoning now may be- "the best turf horse will probably beat the lesser turf horses".
I known this is a pretty general statement and may not be true everytime but is probably true much of the time.

[DJofSD]

One thing I've not seen mentioned when talking about races taken off the turf is whether or not the runners have "the wrong" shoes on for the mud, or if they've been able to get mud caulks on, etc.

DJofSD

[socantra]

I keep a running list of trainers who regularly scratch out of races that ARE run on turf/

socantra...

[JohnGalt1]

If I suspect a race might be taken off the the turf I do a separate worksheet for turf and dirt. On the turf sheet I figure pace and class figures on turf races, and on dirt races dirt figs. When I get to the track I throw away the page I don't need.

You've mentioned some of the advantages like the morning line turf horse may not be the best dirt horse, but payoffs are generally lower because of the scratches.

[Valuist]

Sunday's 4th at CD was an example. Feather Maraine. Not sure where that one came from but she thrashed the 2 heavy chalks.

[cj]

I thought this horse had good form on dirt.

My last dirt figs for the two faves were:

Surf N Sand 83
Unbridled Sidney 77

and the winner:

Feather Maraine 86

The winner had also run a few 90s in the past. Not sure this horse is a good example of a surprise in an off the turf race. This horse had great dirt form relative to the field and wasn't bet. Not always the case, but it happens.

[Valuist]

I don't have the pps in front of me but I believe it had been awhile since the horse was on the dirt. And Surf and Sand had a huge back number; I believe the Beyer was 105. Her last fig wasn't as big but she dueled against a stakes quality classified allowance field. I'm not sure why Unbridled Sidney was getting bet so much.

[cj]

The winner had last two on the turf, but 7 of next 8 were on dirt.

I don't know about Beyers, but I had the 1 with a career best of 100, with the winner a career best of 99, so about a push.

I agree sometimes the results appear very random, but as you name implies, its all about the value. There is value to be had in these races, just not all of them.

[Valuist]

The way the race unfolded was a little strange. The 1 may have not been a lock to win but one would've thought she would've been up near the lead; certainly not behind Feather Maraine. I admit I'm a bit pissed because at the time I thought the race was still on the grass. I made the mistake of checking CD's site and seeing the turf was yielding.

[cj]

I was at Pimlico, I noticed on the screen the had the turf race by race, same as Saturday. I didn't play CD, not trying to redboard or anything, but I do find value in these races from time to time.

I would agree there are some bizarre results sometimes.