GP surface last weekend

[Valuist]

I know this is several days old but I'm surprised nobody mentioned this: on Saturday, with plenty of water visible on the track, GP called their track "good", which was a joke. I think it would've been a stretch to call it "wet-fast"; really it was much closer to sloppy.

[OTM Al]

Yeah, that one made me wonder too. The track I believe said that they weren't sure what to call it because the surface was holding really well, but I thought a track is defined as sloppy if there is standing water on the track, which there certainly was. Equibase had the track listed as sloppy for the whole day BTW

[keilan]

What’s the difference between wet-fast and sloppy?

[OTM Al]

That's actually a pretty good question. Best I can find is that both have standing water, but in the case of wet fast, the base of the track is still intact and solid, whereas when it is sloppy it is giving way. Muddy I've always assumed was like sloppy, just no standing water...and then good fits in here somehow, but like you I can't see how it can be called good with water standing on the track. Wet fast seems to agree with the way GP people were saying the track was before the rains came.

[andicap]

I've always thought the track went from fast to sloppy...and then drying out it went to muddy and then good and then wet-fast.

It was my impression that the base is still solid under a sloppy track (but I could be wrong on this), but not with a muddy track.
Or vice versa.

[Tom]

This is a good reason to keep notes and video replays - all tracks are outright liars when it comes to this information. A guy at FL, who is on track every day, actually takes digital photos of the track, and several if it changes during the day. He also photographs the flag every race. He is retired, makes his own pace and speed figs, and takes copious trip notes.
This guy makes a good supplement to his pension, but more importantly, he is having a very nice, active retirement.
He showed me some photos of "Good" tracks a couple of years ago - you wouldn't believe the range of water! I thought I saw saw withecaps in the dirt in one! :D

[Valuist]

Keilan-

From what I've seen, its the amount of water on the track. Not all tracks use the "wet-fast" designation, but generally its somewhere between sloppy and good.

[keilan]

Valuist

So you’re saying it goes from sloppy - wet-fast – good.

Question – would you handicap the race differently if the track was rated wet-fast vs. sloppy?

[kenwoodallpromos]

For a good LOL, compare DRF track variants to condition designations.

[Valuist]

Keilan-

I wouldn't handicap either (sloppy or wet fast) differently. But I definitely would between a good track and a sloppy track. It seems like wet fast is most often used when the rain has been recent, and there's some water on the surface but it really hasn't sunk in yet. When its drying out, you're more likely to see the surface go from sloppy to muddy to good then fast. Sometimes they skip muddy altogether. If you keep charts, its a good idea to note which days the track was changing during the card.

[keilan]

on Saturday, with plenty of water visible on the track, GP called their track "good", which was a joke. I think it would've been a stretch to call it "wet-fast"; really it was much closer to sloppy.


I was trying to understand your original comments regarding your understanding of the track condition on Saturday. Thanks for your time :)

[John]

I think it is FORMULA 2002 that goes to Gulfstream every day . He might have some insight on how the track is playing.

[hurrikane]

I don't think it's formula. Karlscorner is there every day.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I sense that Wet Fast is more often a Sealed track - wish they'd called it Sealed if that's what it is, since typically Fast is used for Dry.

Normally the track person up in the pressbox looks outside and says "Enhh. I'll start with muddy. I'll change it later on if it looks different". A lot of tracks don't do anything scientific.

Plus, have you ever noticed, at least in Chicago, they don't change the track label anytime near post, (as if it is raining badly, or drying out) but soon after the race is over, they will change it quickly for the next race (say, to Fast). But they normally never go back and change the track condition in the results to reflect what they saw in the race just run - that caused the change in condition. They leave the track condition as how the betting was conducted under.

So if the track was labeled 'Good' for the current race - they watch the race, and see it is dry now and the track should be called 'Fast', - the annoucment comes, and next race gets labeled 'Fast' in the charts, but the earlier race still gets shown in the charts, and PPS, as 'Good'.

[keilan]

Steve

I don’t disagree with anything you have stated

But really any player worth his salt would never rely on the posted or announced condition of the any track they’re playing. That’s why it surprised me that someone would care how they rated the track. I think Tom makes that point very well in his reference to the guy in FL who monitors all elements etc. Maybe a little over-kill, but point taken

[azibuck]

I'm not a pro, but I agree that using your own two or four eyes is the best way to go.

However, I disagree with how wet-fast is used. Whenever I see it, it's usually after a track starts fast, and rain starts. Not a storm, just a steady light rain. So the track is dry (or what some are saying "solid") underneath, but the topcoat is wet (but not standing water that I've ever seen). I can't recall every seeing a track upgraded to wf from anything. Always fast to wf.

I'm almost certain wf by any definition is one step below fast, not a "between sloppy/muddy and good". But it probably differs track to track and like I said, who the hell am I?

[Valuist]

Yeah that's generally the way they do it. Seems like NY uses wet fast the most.

One odd occurrence I see with wet fast tracks is at Hawthorne. If its been sub freezing but the temp gets up to 40 or more, the track starts thawing out and water comes to the surface. Its odd seeing a fast dry track for the first couple races then visible water on the track with no rain later in the card.

[Valuist]

Looking in the DRF Weekly Charts, they did list the GP main track for that day as sloppy.