Seven Reasons - Surface Change

[nobeyerspls]

This is the last of the Seven Reasons. I normally wouldn't have posted this now but I'm leaving here on Sunday and won't return. I was looking for a place where an open exchange of ideas is welcome and this is not that place. In brief, I don't belong here. I will look for that Saturday thread that explains the use of pace figures in handicapping.

Surface Change
This angle has several nuances. One of course is the "horses for courses" thing that most are aware of. Be careful with that one though, a horse's poor performance at one track might be because he had to ship there and left his race in the van.
The change can be both favorable and unfavorable. I sprinter with an outstanding record on the dirt might try the turf and look like a standout. If the breeding says to take a stand against, the returns can be good.
In my experience, horses that run well in the slop hate the turf. The offspring of Lord At War are an exception. So, if a maiden with any turf breeding is working well and then gets beat double-digits on an offtrack, bet him next time on any dry surface.
If you know the physiology of turf preference, please let me know. I told my trainer that it had to do with the hooves. Small pointy hooves go in and out of the slop easily. Large hooves provide better purchase on the grass. He asked me about the few horses that handled both surfaces and wondered if they "changed hooves" depending upon the surface. I couldn't answer.
A thourough knowledge of breeding is important here. The Bloodhorse magazine is helpful but your own experience is more important. I haven't found much value in the Tomlinson numbers. I think they address the sire and not the broodmare sire.
Lastly, dirt biases due to harrowing depth are important. I'm guessing that pace handicappers do very well with this.

There, all done. Flail away.

[Kreed]

Please don't leave. I just read your posts & what a blast of fresh air. That
"Little Guy" is the arrogant one. In fact, TLG ONLY criticizes, never advances
any idea whatsoever. When Giacamo WON the KD, he was so upset, he came
very close to denying that he really did win, belittling his victory, with NO
knowledge that thats how many solid players make huge scores by risking
"small" sums --- exactly what you are saying. So STAY here in PA. At least
take a break, but I want to hear what you've got to say from years of playing.
---Derek

[Bruddah]

This is a good forum run by a fair man. Most on this board are open to other opinions and methods. Just like the real world, there are always the VOCAL MINORITY with other thoughts.

P.S. I am a newbie to this sport. I have been at it since 1965, so I have a long way to go before I am in the expert section. ;) :D

[cj]

Stay or go as you prefer, but the martyr routine is pretty weak.

[NYBred]

"never advances any idea whatsoever"

Really? I beg to differ. Maybe it's all in the reading.

[saratoga guy]

Stay or go as you prefer, but the martyr routine is pretty weak.

Amen to that.

[douglasw32]

Stay...if you want, but just from mho I would rather read your posts about plain old handicapping than any on the ROI of any figures etc.

I do not post much but read everything, every day.

[toetoe]

Hey, I;LL be the martyr around here, got it?

Kreed, when that testicle finally descends, you'll feel better, but you'll regret burning the bridge with little one.

Nobeyers,

If you had to tell your trainer about turf foot, we're in trouble. He probably wouldn't know a camel toe if it bit him.

Proposed title for a film set at a training center, the plot of which sees Laura De Seroux knocking out Sam Scolamieri's dental work: "The Bridge At San Luis Rey Downs."

[nobeyerspls]

Toetoe

My trainer was Mike Pino. I found him when he only had a dozen horses. If you look at the Delaware stats you will see that he's doing well now.

I didn't tell him about turf foot, I gave him my opinion which he easily refuted.

[twindouble]

nobeyerspls;

There's no reason for you to leave this forum regardless of who takes you to task on anything you offer. I've been there, done that and I just end up somewhere else tring to fill the void. Yes, "void". My wife says,"why do you bother", well it's my desire to have contact with the outside world and with people that have something in common with me and that's horse racing. Simple as that! What I do today can't compare with guys like TLG and others that live this sport every minute of the day year round. I've done that to the 10th degree and now I've slowed down, in time they will also. All I can say is as you know, anyone who puts the time in and is dedicated to that degree can get slightly over zellious obout what they do still deserve our respect. ESP if they are good at it, because it's by no means easy.

So, in a way I've passed the torch to those that are fired up about it but there will always be some hot coals left smoldering in this furnace and in yours I'm sure but when the DRF no longer stokes my fire, I'm dead. At my age I don't consider myself lazy, I just can't keep up with the "Pace" any longer or want to delve into new methods of handicapping. I've got in my mind I can pick up the form, hang in with most with less work involved and just enjoy or chew the fat about my experience or experiences. I did print out Drug's list of top 15 two year olds, only because I'm sure they will dominate this forum soon and I don't wager on two year olds to speak of, just fun wagers. Something to do.

Anyway, hang in, you do have experience on both sides and I for one wouldn't discount out of hand your method of handicaping or question your sincerity or honesty. Like me, after so many years we had to learn something worth while.

T.D.

[skate]

hey hey hey,


nobeyers;
don't you venture, without telling me where you are going (private mail).

thanks for the maturity.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Regardless of how minute, there is almost always some surface change either on the same "surface", or switching to another type surface or track. As a route is run on a windy track the surface may be drier when the last race was run. That is science.
Figuring out how much the surface has changes on the fly, and how that change may or may not affect each horse is the art.
Who here has a handle on how to tell by the pp's how a surface affects a specific horse? And which horse is least affected?
Most can tell by the Tomlinson's ratings or by the horse that only wins on muddy tracks, but for all horses it is not an all-or-nothing scenario.
Involved are: Stamina; Early speed; The start; Physical condition and conditioning; The trip preference of horse and rider; and last but not least the acceptable odds considering the surface to name major considerations.
You may ignore the above to a certain/great extent without penalty most of the time, everything else being equal; but if you do not consider some kind of surface chance when things are not otherwise equal you lose!

[GameTheory]

I was looking for a place where an open exchange of ideas is welcome and this is not that place. In brief, I don't belong here.If you find another place where the open exchange of ideas is MORE welcome than here please let us know. Then we can go kick their ass.

Personally, I like your approach. I am a big believer in one-factor handicapping if your goal is to make money. If you really want a comprehensive view of the race it isn't going to do, naturally, but to each his own. I think most people make it a goal to understand what's going on in a race completely, which is admirable, and something my computer has been working on for several years. (I gave it up as a personal goal about a week after I took up handicapping.)

But possibly the easiest way to make money at this game is to find NOT those factors that are "generally predictive", like speed figures, but "boom or bust" predictive -- i.e. factors that point to winners at an above-average rate (15%-20%) but that come in last half the time as well. The public ignores these type of factors because of that "coming in last half the time" unless there is a lot of corroborating evidence to get them to back a horse. Which means they are really ignoring the angle and going with the other evidence. They might look at a certain equipment change from a certain trainer, and think that's good, but they won't bet the horse just for that reason. But it will make them feel better about betting the horse if they come up with more fundamental reasons to bet it. Of course if you want to get the prices you need to bet it those times when those other reasons are absent. For instance, one of my favorite angles is to bet maidens with "classy" pedigrees (at least compared to their rivals in a certain race) but that have run several races already that were all terrible. Seeing NO positives whatsoever in their running lines makes me happy. Now most of these horses lose and lose badly, but they win more than people would think and at monster prices.

I don't know about your particular seven reasons, and I don't think you've advocated to bet them blindly, but I surely have some reasons of my own that are pretty simple and that make a profit. And since they often have to do with obscure things that are often poo-poo'd around here and elsewhere (like unreliable workouts, inaccurate comment lines, etc.) the prices stay steady and you can generally bet on such spot plays without even looking at the odds.

[KirisClown]

I'm leaving here on Sunday and won't return. I was looking for a place where an open exchange of ideas is welcome and this is not that place.

Please don't leave!!!!!

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

[DrugSalvastore]

This is the last of the Seven Reasons. I normally wouldn't have posted this now but I'm leaving here on Sunday and won't return. I was looking for a place where an open exchange of ideas is welcome and this is not that place. In brief, I don't belong here. There, all done. Flail away.

See, they all love ya!! Hang around.

If anyone bothers you just put them on ignore.

[DrugSalvastore]

As for the surface change, I think I can go on for hours on this subject, but I'll save everyone the misery of yet another long dreadful DrugS post.

* I think a surface change from dirt-to-turf can actually wake up an underperforming dirt horse. I have all kinds of examples of this---I'll go with Volponi. He was winless in either four or five starts on dirt--the great veteran trainer P.G Johnson switched him to turf--as I remember he ran in the middle of the pack in four or five consecutive turf stakes. When he resurfaced again on the dirt, he took a Saratoga Alw race by 14 lengths with a 110 Beyer with a final time that was nearly the meet's fastest.

When Volponi, in his 4yo season, missed the board at 2-to-5 odds in a dirt ALW race at Belmont----he was switched back to the turf again---where he ran a handful of nice races in defeat. When Johnson moved him back to the dirt, he ran an alarmingly good 2nd with a tough trip and big figure in the Meadowlands Cup. In his next start, he won the Breeders Cup Classic at 43-to-1 odds by a record margin of victory.

Bettors will often overreact when a dirt horse runs a very poor race on the turf--or vice versa. Sometimes they will be overlooked when they return to their preferred surface.

[classhandicapper]

gametheory,

I think there's a lot of merit to what you are saying.

I think I've mentioned in the past that I have a few friends that focus primarily on trainers and other stats that no one else really pays much attention to. If you asked them to pick the most probable winner in a race or to make an oddsline, I don't think they would do a particularly good job. They would pick plenty of winners, but there would be a whole lot they would not understand about the horses abilities and performances. So I don't think they could profit that way. These guys generate profits by having one or more positive ROI angles going for them in a race or by betting against a favorite that has a few strong ROI negatives.

You can win without having high quality speed, pace, trip, bias, and class infomation to go along with a comprehensive understanding of their relationship and interaction.

I think once you take the more comprehensive approach though, it's extremely difficult to generate profits because you are more or less looking at the same figures, replays, PPs etc... as everyone else. There might be minor differences in one set of figures vs. another, but all the standouts are pretty much captured by everyone's figures and all the rest are close enough to be within the margin of error. The way to profits using a more comprehensive approach is to have more information and a better understanding of how all this information interrelates. Then you have to be wise enough to pass races unless there is clear cut value. Both of those individual level of skils are not easy to attain and it is doubly hard to have both of them.

However, I think it's a lot more fun to look at a horse's PPs and say he ran 110 pace figure and a 110 final time figure, dueling 3 wide on the turn, on a track that was slightly tilted towards inside speed in a race that was a little weak for the class and then compare him to a horse that ran a 108P-113S running in the two path on a day when the inside was a little off, but against a solid group that was two levels higher.

If you are going to take this approach, you better have all the info and understand it fairly well, otherwise it's going to be tough to crack into the profitable level for more than a couple of pennies.

[Fastracehorse]

"like speed figures, but "boom or bust" predictive -- i.e. factors that point to winners at an above-average rate (15%-20%) but that come in last half the time as well. The public ignores these type of factors because of that "coming in last half the time"

====================================

But in my opinion speed figures are most effective when they are "boom or bust".

My derivation of a figure was based on chart work. And what can chart work tell us?? That well beaten horses ( which the public normally doesn't like ) can compete at 'SAID' level.

Of course a speed figure points to chalk many times - but many factors do. Undeniable is undeniable.

And, speed figures are not the 'END-ALL' either - but they are a powerful tool in some circumstances.

fffastt

[nobeyerspls]

DrugS

I credit the blinker change with Volponi's BC win but I do agree that he was better suited to dirt.

I left out the intersting relationship between the Calder and Gulfstream surfaces. Horses working out at Calder and then running at Gulfstream do very well. The Calder surface is holding and a little deeper while GP is fast. Ironically this works for turf horses as well who prep on the Calder dirt surface. Several won on the GP turf course at decent prices and one of them, I think the name was Dr. What, wired the field and paid $108.

[Fastracehorse]

Horses working at Calder and then running well at the Gulf.

Great info ( $108 ) - and best of all it's free :cool:

fffastt

[GameTheory]

But in my opinion speed figures are most effective when they are "boom or bust". I wasn't trying to say anything much about speed figures, just making a distinction between factors where there the typical performance is likely to be close to the mean performance. If we look at the speed figures from all horses who in their previous race ran an 80, some will be higher than 80, some will be lower than 80, but a good chunk of them will be right around 80.

With other types of factors the average is in the middle, but the actual performances making up the averge are at the extremes, with a skew towards losing.

So speed figures are more "reliable" in that way, plus you've generally got figures for every horse, but with spot play situations you're dealing with a factor that probably only applies to one horse in the field. If you've got a factor that only applies sometimes to some horses, and it only picks the winner 1 out of 6 times it appears, the public will ignore it. My point is that there are many such factors where the average price on that 1 of out 6 times it is a winner is greater than 5-1. And in this internet age where we can scan every entry at every track for such situations, you can come up with dozens of plays a day, put in your bets in the morning, and go goof off. Which is why I say such an approach is probably the easiest way to make money at racing. Of course, you need a database to find such plays, got to keep it updated, maintain your records, etc...

[DrugSalvastore]

DrugS

I credit the blinker change with Volponi's BC win but I do agree that he was better suited to dirt.

I just think he got a lot out of those turf races---and was a much more effective dirt horse when he came off the grass.

Another popular example would be with a horse like Thunder Rumble. As I recall, he won three different times on the dirt after exiting turf flops...and his wins all were blowout wins at large odds.

As I recall, he finished dead last in an ALW race on the turf to start his 3yo season--than next time out, he switched to the dirt, and took the Jim Dandy at 25-to-1 odds with a 110 beyer. He followed that up with a blowout Travers win from the extreme outside post at a nice price.

I think if a dirt horse is a tiny bit sour, a race or two over the grass is a good way to turn things around. It's a much more forgiving surface...and you don't have to run as hard early as you do on dirt. But that said, I'm certainly not a believer in betting on horses because they fit some profile or angle.

[GameTheory]

I'm certainly not a believer in betting on horses because they fit some profile or angle.Do you mean you just don't do it personally, or you really don't believe in doing it? If the latter, why not?

[nobeyerspls]

DrugS

Thunder Rumble is a good example but perhaps a higher profile one is Cigar. His very good connections were convinced that the Palace Music gene pool made him a turfer. The left him in one day when the race came off the turf and he won in the slop. The rest, as thay say, is history.

[DrugSalvastore]

DrugS

Thunder Rumble is a good example but perhaps a higher profile one is Cigar. His very good connections were convinced that the Palace Music gene pool made him a turfer. The left him in one day when the race came off the turf and he won in the slop. The rest, as thay say, is history.

Cigar isn't the same thing. He won, like a real future star, in a six furlong maiden race on the dirt, with a 94 Beyer at Hollywood Park---the same week that the Preakness was won with a 98 Beyer. After that big dirt win, he was sent to the turf for 11 straight starts.

Everyone talks about how Cigar won 16 in a row---he actually won 17 straight dirt races--over a span of 3+ years.

I'm sure racing on the turf helped make him a little better dirt horse, but I think it's VERY possible that Cigar was a superior dirt horse all along.

[DrugSalvastore]

Do you mean you just don't do it personally, or you really don't believe in doing it? If the latter, why not?

I just meant that I won't bet on a horse just because he is making some kind of change that fits a positive angle...and for no other reason.

I think a lot of other people would agree---but you still do see people every day who will stab at horses just because they are adding lasix, adding blinkers, taking blinkers off, recieving a positive jock switch, changing surfaces etc etc.

[cj]

Nationally Ranked Salad Tosser!

Dude, are you sure you want that as a tag line? OH MY GOD!

[DrugSalvastore]

Dude, are you sure you want that as a tag line? OH MY GOD!

LOL!!! We live in a freaky age my man!

[PaceAdvantage]

Me thinks DS is getting a little too comfortable....

[Fastracehorse]

"If we look at the speed figures from all horses who in their previous race ran an 80, some will be higher than 80, some will be lower than 80, but a good chunk of them will be right around 80."

==================

Technically you are correct.

However, hand-crafted figures can differ markedly from PUBLISHED FIGURES allowing for over-lays.

The public loves published speed figures - which can make hand-crafted figures - great one-factor bets as well.

fffastt

[GameTheory]

"If we look at the speed figures from all horses who in their previous race ran an 80, some will be higher than 80, some will be lower than 80, but a good chunk of them will be right around 80."

==================

Technically you are correct.

However, hand-crafted figures can differ markedly from PUBLISHED FIGURES allowing for over-lays.

The public loves published speed figures - which can make hand-crafted figures - great one-factor bets as well.
Not disagreeing with you -- I'm was just trying to say that speed figures as a factor are fundamentally different than a factor like "blinkers on", that's all.

[ezpace]

I thought you would credit Volponi's great race to surface change.:)

I credit Calder horses who run good at Gulfstream((usually early meet)) to the conditioning factor. They have been running ,most others have had an extended or a race needed layoff.

[Overlay]

The advice in this thread certainly appears to be borne out by the other thread currently on the board about the 44-1 shot at Belmont with Forty-Niner and Danzig bloodlines which was moving to turf for the first time after apparently showing little on dirt (and which was only 8-1 in the morning line).

[nobeyerspls]

ezpace

The Calder/Gulfstream difference provides a solid dynamic, and I'm guessing that pace handicappers would benefit the most from it. The first ten racing days are most productive as horses that quit badly at Calder keep running at GP. The turf angle, i.e. turfers training on the Calder dirt track, works throughout the entire meeet.

[Fastracehorse]

I didn't think we were in much disagreement - it's just that I think non-figure players underestimate speed figs.

'Blinkers on' is also important to me - as are many factors. I call these 'trainer intent' factors - and the more the better.

Trainer intention is a more abstract concept than a fixed figure - and can lead to some pretty creative handicapping.

The failure of speed figures in some areas has helped me to develop some good anecdotes - some not so good - and some new experimentations.

fffastt