Beyer on Polytrack

[bobphilo]

I have mixed feelings on Andy Beyer for a number of reasons. Yes he is one of the pioneers of explaining speed figures to the general public and his excellent books have been a real boon to handicappers by explaining his methodology. On the other hand, he is one of the worst handicappers in the country and is notorious for his long list of losing Derby picks threw out the years.

His columns are usually insightful and entertaining reading but in his article on Polytrack he has made a perfect ass of himself. He admits that Polytrack is a superior racing surfaced praised by trainers, jockeys (and the horses if they could talk) because it is safer and offers a much fairer surface. The number of serious breakdowns has dropped dramatically at Turfway since it's installation. Unfair post position advantages and dead or live rails are gone and neither closers nor pacesetters have an unfair edge.

Beyer finds this boring and claims it makes it too easy to pick winners. Quite frankly, Andy needs all the help he can get in that area. There will still be plenty of variables left and handicapping will remain a huge intellectual challenge. Mr. Beyer is afraid the game will become boring. Yeah, there’s nothing like seeing horses breakdown in front of your eyes to make the sport exciting, right Andy?



http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=72374&subs=0&arc=0



Bob

[GMB@BP]

I have mixed feelings on Andy Beyer for a number of reasons. Yes he is one of the pioneers of explaining speed figures to the general public and his excellent books have been a real boon to handicappers by explaining his methodology. On the other hand, he is one of the worst handicappers in the country and is notorious for his long list of losing Derby picks threw out the years.

His columns are usually insightful and entertaining reading but in his article on Polytrack he has made a perfect ass of himself. He admits that Polytrack is a superior racing surfaced praised by trainers, jockeys (and the horses if they could talk) because it is safer and offers a much fairer surface. The number of serious breakdowns has dropped dramatically at Turfway since it's installation. Unfair post position advantages and dead or live rails are gone and neither closers nor pacesetters have an unfair edge.

Beyer finds this boring and claims it makes it too easy to pick winners. Quite frankly, Andy needs all the help he can get in that area. There will still be plenty of variables left and handicapping will remain a huge intellectual challenge. Mr. Beyer is afraid the game will become boring. Yeah, there’s nothing like seeing horses breakdown in front of your eyes to make the sport exciting, right Andy?



http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=72374&subs=0&arc=0



Bob

It sounds like you have detailed records on his wagering the past few years, care to share?

I think its fine to bash his opinion written in print, but now you are making statements as if you have facts to support that he is not a successful player, and you support it by using his derby picks, which we all know is one race and one race that is a crap shoot.

[Buddha]

On the other hand, he is one of the worst handicappers in the country and is notorious for his long list of losing Derby picks threw out the years.

How many derby winners have you publicly made throughout the years? Because he may or may not do well on the races he puts in the DRF doenst make him a good or bad handicapper. As for being one of the worst handicappers, do you feel that you are better than him? Do you have proof that he is a bad handicapper, without pointing out the obvious races he may or may not hit in his public columns?

I dont want to sound like I am dead against you, but why bash someone else because you dont agree with him?

Also, on the lines of the polytrack, which is what this post was supposed to be about, what ever happened to the "inhalation" aspect that was first a possible worry after the fall meet at TP? I thought I remember them saying the horses were inhaling a bunch of hte poly. Has that gone away, not much of a problem, anyone know?

[BIG RED]

Buddha , I don't know that anwer. But watching those races at TP, looks like a dustbowl a lot of times. I guess it gets real dry. Horses and jockeys have to breathe that in. Will it cause damage over the long run?

[TravisVOX]

I read that it might look worse than it is, but they are also continually adjusting it...

[delayjf]

I wonder if its possible to install the poly track underneath a dirt track, given the track a dirt fell with the poly track cushion. Anybody know what the favorites winning percentage is?

[bobphilo]

It sounds like you have detailed records on his wagering the past few years, care to share?

I think its fine to bash his opinion written in print, but now you are making statements as if you have facts to support that he is not a successful player, and you support it by using his derby picks, which we all know is one race and one race that is a crap shoot.

My remark that Beyer is "one of the worst handicappers" is a bit of a joke which Andy himself often kids about when refereing to his record in the Derby. His figures are actually pretty good though his use of them is not up to the same standard, IMO.
In any case, the serious point in my post had to do with his irresponsible opposition to Polytrack. Having a fair racing surface and making racing safer for both horse and riders is no joke.

Bob

[bobphilo]

How many derby winners have you publicly made throughout the years? Because he may or may not do well on the races he puts in the DRF doenst make him a good or bad handicapper. As for being one of the worst handicappers, do you feel that you are better than him? Do you have proof that he is a bad handicapper, without pointing out the obvious races he may or may not hit in his public columns?

I dont want to sound like I am dead against you, but why bash someone else because you dont agree with him?

Also, on the lines of the polytrack, which is what this post was supposed to be about, what ever happened to the "inhalation" aspect that was first a possible worry after the fall meet at TP? I thought I remember them saying the horses were inhaling a bunch of hte poly. Has that gone away, not much of a problem, anyone know?

The remark about Beyers handicapping was a joke that Andy himself plays along with.
Yes, Polytrack was the serious issue of my post. Part of the dust issue at Turway has to do with them not watering the track enough. Low maintanence does not mean NO maintanence. Every component in Polytrack meets or excedes EPA standards of safety. It is microscopic things that get into the alveoli and cause lung disease. The silica in Polytrack is wax coated and is safer than the sand on the beach or at Belmont. There is not ab iota of evidence that Polytrack presents any kind of a health risk.
On the other hand, It has been proven to dramatically reduce injuries and breakdowns and therefore and save lives of both horses and riders. I'll take something proven to save lives over vague unfounded speculation anyday.
All I've heard from the horsemen at Turfway is how pleased they are with it.
California has mandated the change to Polyturf because they are sick of all the horses breaking down on those hard California tracks. It's not like they're going to stop breaking down while we delay over every unproven charge against Polyturf.
What's worse is that Beyer believes it's safer and still opposes it just because he finds it "boring" I expected better from the guy.

Bob
The

[GlenninOhio]

As I posted in another thread, poly kickback at Turfway is an issue in progress:

"FYI, there were some issues about kickback at Turfway yesterday (2/25/06). As I understand it, the riders were complaining about carpet fiber particles kicking back after the 8th race, perhaps as a result of the track being harrowed the day before. Post time for the 9th race was actually delayed by about 10 minutes for the tractors to go around the track twice."

I'm not at all anti-poly - just pointing out that the final chapter has not been written on kickback issues.

As to the fairness of the track, Valuist posted the following (with which I agree) in that same thread:

"There still are some biases w/Polytrack, but they aren't the really the old "good rail/dead rail or speed/closer type conventional biases". Tholl had a great post about it in another thread and he talked about dead spots on the track, especially the 2-3 path in the stretch and on the rail on the turn. If you watch Leparoux, he seems to like to either ride the rail or be widest of all in the stretch. Its never really easy to win from between horses in the stretch but it seems unusually bad at TP to be between horses in the stretch."

Again, just a caution that the final chapter has not been written in the "Polytrack - It's a Great Surface for Riders and Horses and It Plays 100% Fair" book.

[taintso]

The original post in this thread is the height of absurdity. Setting aside the inane references to Beyer's handicapping, attempting to make the case that since Polytack seems to have had a positive effect on on-track breakdowns, and Beyer does not support Polytrack, therefore Beyer must be in favor of horses breaking down on track ("to make the sport exciting"), is just too idiotic to comment on...well, almost.

I actually think Beyer's take makes alot of sense. Part of the challenge (and enjoyment) of handicapping comes from the search for that magical series of factors whilch will lead to a winner; let's face it, the surface they race over is part of that. If it's all the same, everywhere, all the time, does that take away from some of the challenge? I think it does. Of course, my last Derby winner was Silver Charm, so I guess my opinion doesn't count...

[bobphilo]

If having a surface that plays more fairly and uniformly and has been proven to prevent injuries is boring, then I'll take boring. As far as reducing the challenge of hadicapping. having a surface other than dirt and grass and seeing how form translates from one surface to the other actually presents a new challenge.

Bob

[andicap]

It's hard to believe that handicappers would be so hard-bitten and selfish that they would sacrifice installing a surface that has reduced jockey injuries and horse breakdowns just because it will make picking horses more difficult?

That to me is the height of absurdity, arrogance and haughtiness.
Yes it's possible the kickback issue might one day prove to be dangerous. So is eating fried foods. But at least the latter has been proven.

What is known is poly saves horses lives and jockey's bones (and their livlihoods since you can't collect a check with broken ribs)

It's funny that some of the same people "worried" about a hypothetical health concern are probably driving gas-guzzling cars that are polluting the environment and could give a rat's ass about the ozone layer and the melting of the icecaps. Face it, you could give a flying **** about the jockey's health -- you're worried about tracks losing their biases and playing "fair."

Well, if tracks become fair you could always switch to trainer handicapping or trips. And besides there's a considerable opinion of some pretty good players that track biases are overrated and overblown anyway.

Moreover pace handicapping won't disappear just because the biases do. It's still pretty damn difficult to figure out which horses are in form and best suited for today's pace match-up and conditions.
And for me that's the name of the game.

[bobphilo]

As I posted in another thread, poly kickback at Turfway is an issue in progress:

"FYI, there were some issues about kickback at Turfway yesterday (2/25/06). As I understand it, the riders were complaining about carpet fiber particles kicking back after the 8th race, perhaps as a result of the track being harrowed the day before. Post time for the 9th race was actually delayed by about 10 minutes for the tractors to go around the track twice."

I'm not at all anti-poly - just pointing out that the final chapter has not been written on kickback issues.

As to the fairness of the track, Valuist posted the following (with which I agree) in that same thread:

"There still are some biases w/Polytrack, but they aren't the really the old "good rail/dead rail or speed/closer type conventional biases". Tholl had a great post about it in another thread and he talked about dead spots on the track, especially the 2-3 path in the stretch and on the rail on the turn. If you watch Leparoux, he seems to like to either ride the rail or be widest of all in the stretch. Its never really easy to win from between horses in the stretch but it seems unusually bad at TP to be between horses in the stretch."

Again, just a caution that the final chapter has not been written in the "Polytrack - It's a Great Surface for Riders and Horses and It Plays 100% Fair" book.
Glenn, I agree that the issue has not been proven 100%. The fact is we have to race on something. We have to go with something that has been proven to prevent injuries over speculation that is unproven. No one is saying that Polytrack is the perfect surface (at least I'm not). however the preponderence of the evidence is that it offers a less biased surface.
Given that it has been in use for years at several tracks in England, where all the horsemen love it (as they do at Turfway), I suspect that the issue at Turfway is one of maintanence (possibly insufficient watering).

[taintso]

Right. I think the point of Beyer's article (did you bother to read it, or did you just see his by-line and decide to start swiping?) is that there is now a bit of clamouring from many other jurisdictions to make the move to Polytrack. Here's a quote, from the first paragraph, no less:

"The California Horse Racing Board last week passed a motion that may portend a radical change in American racing, one that could change the nature of the horse-betting game. The board declared that all major tracks in the state "must install a synthetic surface or Polytrack by Dec. 31, 2007" or else have their racing licenses revoked."

A track or two, or three, racing over Poyltrack presents the challenge you refer to. Beyer's point is obviously quite different. He plainly states, not that he is completely againt Polytrack, but rather "I am wary of a sport filled with Polytrack." Surely you see the difference? It is a substantial one.

[GlenninOhio]

It's hard to believe that handicappers would be so hard-bitten and selfish that they would sacrifice installing a surface that has reduced jockey injuries and horse breakdowns just because it will make picking horses more difficult?

That to me is the height of absurdity, arrogance and haughtiness.
Yes it's possible the kickback issue might one day prove to be dangerous. So is eating fried foods. But at least the latter has been proven.

What is known is poly saves horses lives and jockey's bones (and their livlihoods since you can't collect a check with broken ribs)

It's funny that some of the same people "worried" about a hypothetical health concern are probably driving gas-guzzling cars that are polluting the environment and could give a rat's ass about the ozone layer and the melting of the icecaps. Face it, you could give a flying **** about the jockey's health -- you're worried about tracks losing their biases and playing "fair."

Well, if tracks become fair you could always switch to trainer handicapping or trips. And besides there's a considerable opinion of some pretty good players that track biases are overrated and overblown anyway.

Moreover pace handicapping won't disappear just because the biases do. It's still pretty damn difficult to figure out which horses are in form and best suited for today's pace match-up and conditions.
And for me that's the name of the game.

Hey, Andy.

I'm a newbie and you're obviously not and I know I must tread carefully here, but what's with the name calling?

I also happen to own a horse or two and I happen to care a whole lot about their health (and the health of those who ride them).

And I personally could not care less about track bias, one way or the other.

Perhaps you were not making any reference at all to my post, which basically raised what I felt were some legitimate issues regarding kickback and how the track plays.

What gets me to wondering is the zealousness of those coming down in favor of poly - did you guys have a meeting or something?

Yes, it's safer for the horses (at least for their limbs) and consequently safer for the riders. But does this fact not allow for honest debate about some of its other qualities?

Thanks.

Glenn

[GlenninOhio]

Glenn, I agree that the issue has not been proven 100%. The fact is we have to race on something. We have to go with something that has been proven to prevent injuries over speculation that is unproven. No one is saying that Polytrack is the perfect surface (at least I'm not). however the preponderence of the evidence is that it offers a less biased surface.
Given that it has been in use for years at several tracks in England, where all the horsemen love it (as they do at Turfway), I suspect that the issue at Turfway is one of maintanence (possibly insufficient watering).

Bob -

Agree 100% on the watering point.

I'm told, though, that lack of watering is a winter issue.

[bobphilo]

Right. I think the point of Beyer's article (did you bother to read it, or did you just see his by-line and decide to start swiping?) is that there is now a bit of clamouring from many other jurisdictions to make the move to Polytrack. Here's a quote, from the first paragraph, no less:

"The California Horse Racing Board last week passed a motion that may portend a radical change in American racing, one that could change the nature of the horse-betting game. The board declared that all major tracks in the state "must install a synthetic surface or Polytrack by Dec. 31, 2007" or else have their racing licenses revoked."

A track or two, or three, racing over Poyltrack presents the challenge you refer to. Beyer's point is obviously quite different. He plainly states, not that he is completely againt Polytrack, but rather "I am wary of a sport filled with Polytrack." Surely you see the difference? It is a substantial one.

Contrary to your belief, I did read the enire artricle and if you had read my entire post you would have seen I am usually an admirerer of Beyer's and find "his columns insightful and entertaining". That's why I expected better from the guy. If Polytrack becomes so successful and popular as to become the main racing surface even more lives will be saved and I don't care that some bias players will lose their advantage. Andicap is right on the money in his post there. To admit, as Beyer does with example after example of how it reduces injuries, and to still be wary of it's widespread use as some kind of bad thing is the height of selfish irresponsibilty. Shame on you Andy B.

Bob

[classhandicapper]

Bob,

I think there are two issues here.

One is the safety of the horses and the riders and the other is ability to find an edge at the racetrack in an era where everyone has access to high quality speed figures, trainer data, replays, etc...

IMO, one of the most fertile grounds for finding an edge is track bias. That's because a lot of very bright people don't even believe they exist (except for contour biases). Plus, bias determination and impact are generally highly subjective areas - which makes them dangerous. Many people reject this line of handicapping after awhile.

If polytrack eliminates rail (good and bad) and speed/closer biases it's taking another tool out of the hands of the best players.

I think Beyer was focusing mostly on this second issue and not the safety issue. I doubt he is unconcerned about the safety of the horses and jockeys. I'm sure he is!!

I don't think these two issues have to be linked though.

Perhaps something can be done to improve safety without damaging the game further and turning more of us into Texas Holdem players because that's the only game in town where you can get enough of an edge to make it worthwhile.

[JustRalph]

It's funny that some of the same people "worried" about a hypothetical health concern are probably driving gas-guzzling cars that are polluting the environment and could give a rat's ass about the ozone layer and the melting of the icecaps. Face it, you could give a flying **** about the jockey's health -- you're worried about tracks losing their biases and playing "fair."

Now Andi, come on? You are confusing them with me...... I don't give a flying *** about the ozone layer or ice caps..........get it right! I am not very good at spotting a bias either...............:blush:

Somewhere in a mirrored dimension...........Beyer Andy is posting a note about some guy named philobob who used "threw out" instead of "throughout"
:lol: :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

What is known is poly saves horses lives and jockey's bones (and their livlihoods since you can't collect a check with broken ribs)

Is this known? Where are the statistics? Perhaps this is just a fortunate streak of less breakdowns and injuries that just happens to coincide with the installation of the PolyTrack surface....you never know....

Have they been using PolyTrack at Turfway long enough to justify the statement "it is known that poly saves horses lives and jockey's bones?"

What if the horses drop dead 5 years later from lung cancer due to inhalling this man-made dust? You never know....

My point is that I think it is too early to proclaim that PolyTrack saves horses' lives and jockey's bones.

[Tom]

For my money, give me a fair race track everyday.

[GameTheory]

Is this known? Where are the statistics? Perhaps this is just a fortunate streak of less breakdowns and injuries that just happens to coincide with the installation of the PolyTrack surface....you never know....

Have they been using PolyTrack at Turfway long enough to justify the statement "it is known that poly saves horses lives and jockey's bones?"

What if the horses drop dead 5 years later from lung cancer due to inhalling this man-made dust? You never know....

My point is that I think it is too early to proclaim that PolyTrack saves horses' lives and jockey's bones.It has been in use for many years now in England -- can't seem to find any complainers...

[classhandicapper]

For my money, give me a fair race track everyday.

For the big stakes I agree with you, but other than that you don't know what you are missing. ;)

[andicap]

Glenn,
I wasn't directing the epithets at you at all. I understand you're a horseman and respect your expertise. And I understand that since you have horses who don't like the surface that you might have qualms about installing it all over the country.

I've read that horses in the UK that didn't like it at first eventually got used to the surface but I realize why that's little consolation to you. But I am surprised about your skepticalness considering how well horses have been coming out of races and how much most horsemen love the surface.

I agree that you can't draw final conclusions about polytrack yet. But in world where there are so many things that have been proven harmful to people that are legal and readily available I have a hard time worrying about something about which there is absolutely no evidence that it will harm you. Reminds me of all the frenzy about cell phones causing brain cancer just because a couple of people who used them fell ill. Well I'm sure they ate broccoli too.

I'm all for doing studies of the effects of the kickback on horses and jockey's lungs (that will be the day when the tracks actually fund such research.) but for now we KNOW polytrack is safer than dirt.

[PaceAdvantage]

It has been in use for many years now in England -- can't seem to find any complainers...

Not a fair comparison. English runners primarily race on grass. Many believe a grass runner is less punished and therefore more sound than a dirt runner. Thus, any stats coming from England detailing breakdowns over PolyTrack can't really be used to judge the surface from an American's point of view, in my opinion.

All I'm saying is let's give this thing a year or two before we start proclaiming it a life saver.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Has anybody seen the Beyer figures of winners at TP to compare or check for variance of the figures daily?
I am especially interested in light of Beyer's statements about the degree of difficulty in handicapping (and predictability?).

[Tom]

Glenn,
I'm all for doing studies of the effects of the kickback on horses and jockey's lungs (that will be the day when the tracks actually fund such research.) but for now we KNOW polytrack is safer than dirt.

Do we know that?
Or is it the old dirt track at TP was just plainly unsafe to begin with and the reduciton is due to poly just not beig as bad?
Remember the great weight loss miracle drug phen phen? you tend to lose weight when your kidneys fail fro the drug! I think jumping to conclusion this early is risky. One track, limited months of racing. Is TP breakdown rate comparabe or better than the national average during the same time periods?

[rastajenk]

Without regard to whether Poly is safer or poses a long-term threat, I am puzzled by the notion that having several or many tracks going Poly will make the game more formful and less interesting.

We constantly bemoan the fact that racing can't generate new fans, but in the name of maintaining an edge we'd like to keep some information (a bias) from the casual fan.

We are OK with expanding the "class" description in the pp's, and publishing speed ratings are all right; along with Tomlinson numbers, auction prices, trainer/jockey tendencies of various parameters, and a whole bunch of other stuff that was not widely circulated fifteen years ago. But biases....we need that in order to survive? Makes no sense.

Some information is good to give out, other stuff is best kept for the insiders. Who makes that call?

There will always be early energy used getting position into the first turn, early speed backing up causing traffic, agile horses cutting through the turns on the rail and long-striding types needing a wider berth, and jockeys who make good decisions sometimes and bad ones at other times, and trainers whose intentions shouldn't always be taken a face value. In other words, there will still be plenty of variables to challenge even veteran players. The idea that going Poly will make the game too easy is incredibly far-fetched to me. Can anybody here lend support to Beyer's contention?

[bobphilo]

Hey, Andy.

I'm a newbie and you're obviously not and I know I must tread carefully here, but what's with the name calling?

I also happen to own a horse or two and I happen to care a whole lot about their health (and the health of those who ride them).

And I personally could not care less about track bias, one way or the other.

Perhaps you were not making any reference at all to my post, which basically raised what I felt were some legitimate issues regarding kickback and how the track plays.

What gets me to wondering is the zealousness of those coming down in favor of poly - did you guys have a meeting or something?

Yes, it's safer for the horses (at least for their limbs) and consequently safer for the riders. But does this fact not allow for honest debate about some of its other qualities?

Thanks.

Glenn
Glenn I don't think Andi's remarks were directed at you since you seem to be someone who puts his horses' health and safety first. He was talking about those who wouldn't care if horses had to run through toxic waste if they could cash a bet.
As far as the debate over the relative safety of Polytrack over traditional dirt tracks. A true debate compares real evidence from both sides.The evidence that Polytrack dramatically reduces injuries is overwhelming (even Beyer admits it - read his article). The evidence that it is a health hazzard of any kind is zero. Just Idle speculation with no proof. I have no doubt which surface I'd want my horse to race over.
It's funny that Beyer laments that with the fairer more uniform surface Polytrack offers that bias handicappers would loss their advantage. Funny how he didn't much worry about how people who made speed figures would lose their advantage when the Racing Form paid him to make his figures public. Sounds like he's being pretty hypocritical to me.

Bob

[PaceAdvantage]

The evidence that it is a health hazzard of any kind is zero. Just Idle speculation with no proof.

Really? Didn't GlenninOhio state his horses were sick after initially running on PolyTrack? Perhaps I'm misquoting here....if so, please correct.

[bobphilo]

Without regard to whether Poly is safer or poses a long-term threat, I am puzzled by the notion that having several or many tracks going Poly will make the game more formful and less interesting.

We constantly bemoan the fact that racing can't generate new fans, but in the name of maintaining an edge we'd like to keep some information (a bias) from the casual fan.

We are OK with expanding the "class" description in the pp's, and publishing speed ratings are all right; along with Tomlinson numbers, auction prices, trainer/jockey tendencies of various parameters, and a whole bunch of other stuff that was not widely circulated fifteen years ago. But biases....we need that in order to survive? Makes no sense.

Some information is good to give out, other stuff is best kept for the insiders. Who makes that call?

There will always be early energy used getting position into the first turn, early speed backing up causing traffic, agile horses cutting through the turns on the rail and long-striding types needing a wider berth, and jockeys who make good decisions sometimes and bad ones at other times, and trainers whose intentions shouldn't always be taken a face value. In other words, there will still be plenty of variables to challenge even veteran players. The idea that going Poly will make the game too easy is incredibly far-fetched to me. Can anybody here lend support to Beyer's contention?

Rasta, excellent post. Speaking of getting an edge at the track . It's funny how Beyer didn't mind that speed handicappers lost their edge when he sold his figures to the DRF for all to see. Now he's suddenly concerned with bias handicappers losing their edge because of Polytrack. What a hypocrite.

Bob

[PaceAdvantage]

He's not a hypocrite. He's a columnist, and he's offering his opinion on a racetrack surface.

You're deflecting from the issue here. The issue isn't Andy Beyer. The issue is PolyTrack. I don't know why people take every oppotunity to trash Beyer, yet they won't take equal opportunity to intelligently discuss the topics he brings to the table.

[bobphilo]

Bob,

I think there are two issues here.

One is the safety of the horses and the riders and the other is ability to find an edge at the racetrack in an era where everyone has access to high quality speed figures, trainer data, replays, etc...

IMO, one of the most fertile grounds for finding an edge is track bias. That's because a lot of very bright people don't even believe they exist (except for contour biases). Plus, bias determination and impact are generally highly subjective areas - which makes them dangerous. Many people reject this line of handicapping after awhile.

If polytrack eliminates rail (good and bad) and speed/closer biases it's taking another tool out of the hands of the best players.

I think Beyer was focusing mostly on this second issue and not the safety issue. I doubt he is unconcerned about the safety of the horses and jockeys. I'm sure he is!!

I don't think these two issues have to be linked though.

Perhaps something can be done to improve safety without damaging the game further and turning more of us into Texas Holdem players because that's the only game in town where you can get enough of an edge to make it worthwhile.
Class, the 2 issues are related if the retaining of this dubious track bias advantage comes at the cost of the safety of horses and riders the choice is obvious. I also think that just because the sport becomes fairer on a more uniform surface. A good handicapper cannot find numerous other angles ignored by the public. If not, tough. Safety and a level playing field trump somebody's angle anyday.
Speaking of getting an edge at the track. It's funny how Beyer didn't mind that speed handicappers lost their edge when he sold his figures to the DRF for all to see. Now he's suddenly concerned with track bias handicappers losing their edge because of Polytrack. What a hypocrite.

Bob

Bob

[PaceAdvantage]

Speaking of getting an edge at the track. It's funny how Beyer didn't mind that speed handicappers lost their edge when he sold his figures to the DRF for all to see. Now he's suddenly concerned with track bias handicappers losing their edge because of Polytrack. What a hypocrite.

Why are you repeating yourself? In your first post you say you have mixed feelings about Andy Beyer....I'd hate to be someone you don't like 100%.....

[rastajenk]

Well, I'm the original loyal Beyer disciple, so I think hypocrite is a little harsh, but I think he's wrong on this one. So, from my viewpoint, it's not Beyer-bashing (although I've seen plenty of that), it's an inquisition into the truth of the matter.

There have been all kinds of ways in which race analysis has evolved, yet the winning percentages of post-time favorites and of public handicappers have remained remarkably similar over time. I don't see a move to Poly affecting it that much, either, but I'm willing to be shown where I'm wrong.

[PaceAdvantage]

I just read the Beyer article again, and for the life of me, I don't get why you guys are having a problem with what he wrote. I thought it was a justified opinion, and one explained quite convincingly.

I especially liked his closing paragraph:

But if the Polytrack advocates prevail, and all racetracks are basically the same, the game will lose many of its subtleties. It might suffer the same fate as harness racing - becoming too understandable and predictable, producing too many small payoffs, driving gamblers to other activities that offer more challenge and better opportunities for profit. Though the practicality and safety of synthetic surfaces may make them irresistible, a sport filled with Polytrack sounds boringly homogenized.

The hard and fast data you guys are basing this safety thing on is sixteen versus 3. Sixteen breakdowns last year compared to 3 this year in the same time period. If you've followed horse racing for any length of time, you know that breakdowns tend to come in bunches. This is hardly enough data to come to any meaningful conclusion.

If it does turn out that PolyTrack leads to less breakdowns, then it will certainly be difficult to argue against it's continued adoption by jurisdictions across the country. However, the jury is still way out...and I think the California board is making a big mistake by fast tracking and hard-balling PolyTrack adoption.

[bobphilo]

Why are you repeating yourself? In your first post you say you have mixed feelings about Andy Beyer....I'd hate to be someone you don't like 100%.....
My repetitions were both relevent replies to the posts I was responding to.
I have mixed feelings about Andy Beyer. I have great respect for his speed figures and the way he has educated the public with his books. I used to have great respect for his column, which is why I find this last fiasco of his such a disappointment. One is only disappointed in someone who used to command respect.

Bob

[bobphilo]

I just read the Beyer article again, and for the life of me, I don't get why you guys are having a problem with what he wrote. I thought it was a justified opinion, and one explained quite convincingly.

I especially liked his closing paragraph:



The hard and fast data you guys are basing this safety thing on is sixteen versus 3. Sixteen breakdowns last year compared to 3 this year in the same time period. If you've followed horse racing for any length of time, you know that breakdowns tend to come in bunches. This is hardly enough data to come to any meaningful conclusion.

If it does turn out that PolyTrack leads to less breakdowns, then it will certainly be difficult to argue against it's continued adoption by jurisdictions across the country. However, the jury is still way out...and I think the California board is making a big mistake by fast tracking and hard-balling PolyTrack adoption.
Pace, the example of the dratic reductions in breakdowns at Turfway was just that - an example. The evidence comes from every track the surface was used on in England for years. Not one contradictory result. Statistically, the probability of this being due to chance, or p value would be extremely small.
trainers and jockeys who ride the track are overwhelmingly in favor of it. The only thing in trainers as strong as there desire to keep there horses safe and fit is their conservative reaction to change. That speaks volumes.

Bob

[bobphilo]

Really? Didn't GlenninOhio state his horses were sick after initially running on PolyTrack? Perhaps I'm misquoting here....if so, please correct.
Pace, please be consistent. First you say that one season at Turway is too small a sample to draw conclussions about Polytrack.(actually all British tracks using the surface for years report the same results). Then you cast dispersions on the surface based on a much smaller sample of horses possibly becoming sick for reaons that may have nothing to do with the track.

Bob

[socantra]

If it does turn out that PolyTrack leads to less breakdowns, then it will certainly be difficult to argue against it's continued adoption by jurisdictions across the country. However, the jury is still way out...and I think the California board is making a big mistake by fast tracking and hard-balling PolyTrack adoption.

Agreed. The data is far from in. Turfway's breakdown rate might well have been dramatically reduced by a new dirt track had that option been chosen.

One thing we have not seen is how Polytrak handles long, hot summers. That is part of what finally did in Equitack at Remington Park.

British data is meaningless. Short meets, cooler climate and virtually no dirt track racing make any comparisons pointless.

Right now, polytrak looks good, though there are a few red flags being spotted. With about three years of year round use, we will know if it is a great new surface or just another also ran. Those willing to hail it as a miracle at this point should really be using the phrase "its a slam dunk".

socantra...

[bobphilo]

Bob -

Agree 100% on the watering point.

I'm told, though, that lack of watering is a winter issue.
Glenn, here's a link to an article about Turfway and how they are dealing with any possible problems with the Polyturf track. Hope it answers some questions.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=32344

Bob

[rastajenk]

One thing we have not seen is how Polytrak handles long, hot summers. That is part of what finally did in Equitack at Remington Park.

British data is meaningless. Short meets, cooler climate and virtually no dirt track racing make any comparisons pointless.
Good point....climate and maintenance could be the variables that Beyer desires to keep racing from becoming homogenized. Water tables, humidity/aridity, wind, and budgets are just a few reasons why different venues with Poly might have unique experiences.

[andicap]

Agreed. The data is far from in. Turfway's breakdown rate might well have been dramatically reduced by a new dirt track had that option been chosen.

OK, that's just plain silly. The point is NO ONE HAS come up with a dirt track that has proved safer than Polytrack so far. If someone had invented some such thing I'm sure the tracks would have installed THAT surface -- unless it was cost prohibitive.

That's like saying Salk shouldn't necessarily get credit for the idea of using polio viruses to cure the illness because it might have been cured by some other treatment.

Where is this safe, forgiving dirt track you are referring to that has drastically reduced breakdowns and enabled trainers to reenter their horses with less need for rest?

I am not saying poly is infallible or that something can't still go wrong. It's not as if every single track in the country is installing it tomorrow. Again my biggest gripe is Beyer and others putting aside so easily matters of safety for jockeys and horses and the economics of horsemen who are able to run their charges back sooner than under dirt tracks.

Yes the summers will be a test for polytrack. And if the surface flops in SoCal this summer I'm sure the tracks will remove it and you won't have to worry about it taking the country by storm.

And if there are indeed a number of horses who never get used to poly and can't run on it I'm sure a few tracks will stay with dirt surfaces in order to attract those animals at their parks.

[GMB@BP]

I just read the Beyer article again, and for the life of me, I don't get why you guys are having a problem with what he wrote. I thought it was a justified opinion, and one explained quite convincingly.

I especially liked his closing paragraph:



The hard and fast data you guys are basing this safety thing on is sixteen versus 3. Sixteen breakdowns last year compared to 3 this year in the same time period. If you've followed horse racing for any length of time, you know that breakdowns tend to come in bunches. This is hardly enough data to come to any meaningful conclusion.

If it does turn out that PolyTrack leads to less breakdowns, then it will certainly be difficult to argue against it's continued adoption by jurisdictions across the country. However, the jury is still way out...and I think the California board is making a big mistake by fast tracking and hard-balling PolyTrack adoption.

as you can see from my post early on I did defend unfair criticism of beyer, but reading his paragraph isn't his assertion a complete hypothetical. There is no evidence that bias will not exist, that it will look like harness racing, that the prices will decrease with more winning favorites...beyer can not state any evidence of this, just post his opinion on conjecture that these are possibilities, which is why I disagree at this point with his article. In fact, even if he is right about all that, I highly doubt the prices will be any lower, the fields any smaller, and it be any more boring than it is when so cal is a conveyor belt as it 90% of the time at hollyworst park.

[GlenninOhio]

Bobphilo - Thanks for the Bloodhorse link. Hopefully, others who've been active in this thread will take the opportunity to read it, as it does illustrate the "work in progress" aspect of poly.

Andicap - I'm good with your response and I thank you very much for it.

Pace - Sorry if I may have given the impression in an earlier post that my horses had been sick from the poly. What I did say was that in September a number of horses would come out of races coughing (mine among them), and that this has been much less of an issue in the December meet.

A few other points come to mind, relating much more to Turfway in particular than to poly in general:

1. Though Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati local press has almost as sparse racing coverage as the rest of the nation, I think the poly has generated somewhat of a local buzz and is contributing to increased on track attendance and handle.

2. I can't stress enough in my estimation the importance of lack of card cancellations as far as horsemen are concerned (allows for better planning and worry-free shipping and thus bigger fields) as well as for off-track handle (handicappers not concerned about doing their homework and then getting blown away by a cancellation).

3. Turfway is becoming a viable winter alternative for many Kentucky-based operations who would normally ship south for winter. 1. You can count on the cards being run each day. 2. Turfway has become viable for turf specialists who would otherwise have no choice but to be shipped south for winter racing. Understood that the Fair Grounds situation this year gave an artificial boost, but I think this was just a piece of the puzzle. It also doesn't hurt that Patrick Biancone is keeping a string at Turfway this winter and (I believe) plans to use Turfway as his Kentucky base in the spring because he loves poly for training (also noting he has more turf specialists than your average big name trainer).

[Valuist]

I think the best thing about it is we never have to worry about sloppy or muddy tracks. I believe off tracks produce results far more random than dry tracks and I avoid them whenever possible (except soft turf). It definitely makes sense for TP; but in a climate like California, it does seem puzzling that they'd want to all go to the Polytrack.

[classhandicapper]

>The idea that going Poly will make the game too easy is incredibly far-fetched to me. Can anybody here lend support to Beyer's contention?<

It really has nothing to do with making the game too easy. It has to do with making the betting pools more efficient.

Things like speed figures, trainer stats, enhanced class designations etc.. could be packaged. When they were, the greater access ultimately lowered the value of that information.

Widely available high quality pace figures are next.

Track bias is one of the few areas that can give informed handicappers an edge because it's so subjective it can't easily be packaged and given to the masses or used well unless you know what you are doing. Removing biases may be good for the sport in some ways, but it's certainly a bad thing for gamblers that use it profitably.

[classhandicapper]

BOB,

>Class, the 2 issues are related if the retaining of this dubious track bias advantage comes at the cost of the safety of horses and riders the choice is obvious. <

You are missing the point.

You are assuming that things CAN'T be done to address safety issues unless everyone switches to Polytrack. That's not correct. These are related issues, but they are also seperate issues.

There may be alternatives that would work just as well or better that would keep the game's diversity, not change the breed (because it appears that certain horses prefer or dislike polytrack) and still address safety adequately.

It's the industry's job to search for ways to make the game safer.

Beyer was pointing out both the safety issue and the dowside for gamblers. Very simple and accurate.

[classhandicapper]

There have been all kinds of ways in which race analysis has evolved, yet the winning percentages of post-time favorites and of public handicappers have remained remarkably similar over time. I don't see a move to Poly affecting it that much, either, but I'm willing to be shown where I'm wrong.

Winning percentages among favorites have remained constant, but average payoffs on winners have been falling for years because all the former overlays are being bet down to fairer odds. The pools are WAY more efficient than they used to be. That is a direct result of more information being available and people learning how to use it.

I think Beyer's contention that removing bias from the equation will make the pools even more efficient is almost certainly correct.

We can agree or diagree about whether Polytrack is safer or not, whether it's the only solution to the safety issues, whether tracks are moving too fast or too slow, whether making the game less profitable even matters, but removing bias WILL make the game tougher to beat.

[Valuist]

CH-

But track bias doesn't exist :lol:

Those in charge of track maintenance at Hawthorne must've been on vacation for the opening week. The rail there reminds me of the sidewalk movers you see at the airport.

[classhandicapper]

CH-

But track bias doesn't exist :lol:

Those in charge of track maintenance at Hawthorne must've been on vacation for the opening week. The rail there reminds me of the sidewalk movers you see at the airport.

:lol:

Personally, I'm not sure I understand this discussion beyond the debate over whether there is enough evidence for the long term safety and benefit of Polytrack to make major industrywide moves despite the evidence to date. On that I have no opinion yet, but the initial results and commentary from trainers and jockey's is encouraging.

As someone that has been using bias in his game for 25+ years, I think it's obivious that removing it from the game will make it tougher to beat. (I am assuming here that the reports that there are no or fewer biases are correct and agree with GMB that that may not even be the case).

I just think there's nothing wrong with pointing out this obvious downside for gamblers if there's an industry wide switch. It was something I was thinking about before the Beyer article.

I don't see it as a "values" battle. I think everyone wants safety first (including Beyer). What's wrong with pointing out the costs?

[GameTheory]

Can't simple logic and common sense tell us if the surface is safer? (To ride on, ignoring the ingestion issue.) A simple walk on the surface and some measurements to get a feel for it and it compare its "give" etc with dirt ought to tell us the answer, no? Yes we want to see it backed up with actual results over time (it hasn't failed a test yet), but it isn't as if this is a black box equation and it is a total mystery which types of surfaces are going to be safer.

And as far as being boring, if the surface is fair, that means we have more parity, meaning early types won't have such a big advantage (or any) -- we'll get more photo finishes (also backed up by early results). Doesn't this lead to LESS predictability and BIGGER payoffs? Is the argument here that the reduction of biases actually makes things more predictable? I don't buy it because reducing the bias gives you more legit contenders per race and practically everyone currently assumes an early bias. Post and path biases are a different matter, but I just don't see removing "dead rails" from the equation destroying the game.

I'll check on the Turfway mutuels although one season won't give us much of a conclusion on how the bettors are dealing with it as I think there was a lot of standoffishness (as far as betting) from the experienced players and experimentation from everyone else...

[BillW]

Here's a snapshot of some data I have handy from Turfway.

TP last 9 mos.

# avg Fav. Ave. Ave. Win % by Odds Range
Type Races Field Wins Odds Purse <2:1 2-5 5-10 10-20 >20:1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 874 9.04 33% 5.97 $ 14804 25% 40% 20% 10% 5%
Fast Track 874 9.04 33% 5.97 $ 14804 25% 40% 20% 10% 5%
Dirt-Fast 874 9.04 33% 5.97 $ 14804 25% 40% 20% 10% 5%
Dirt Routes 378 8.86 30% 6.32 $ 16387 22% 42% 21% 11% 5%
Dirt Sprints 496 9.18 36% 5.71 $ 13598 27% 39% 20% 9% 5%
Males 470 9.13 33% 5.71 $ 14402 24% 42% 20% 10% 4%
Females 404 8.94 33% 6.28 $ 15273 25% 38% 22% 10% 5%
2 YO 95 9.76 36% 7.29 $ 18544 31% 41% 11% 9% 8%
3 YO 98 8.70 34% 7.57 $ 17103 28% 35% 22% 9% 7%
3 YO & up 537 9.02 32% 5.64 $ 14330 23% 42% 21% 11% 4%
4 YO & up 144 8.88 35% 5.28 $ 12542 25% 38% 25% 10% 2%
Gr. Stk 5 9.20 40% 8.14 $165000 40% 40% 0% 0% 20%
non-Gr Stk 17 9.53 35% 6.78 $ 55882 29% 35% 18% 6% 12%
Alw 108 7.89 34% 4.20 $ 27030 33% 42% 17% 9% 0%
St Alw 20 8.50 45% 3.30 $ 10460 35% 50% 10% 5% 0%
Claiming 429 9.06 30% 5.84 $ 9405 20% 41% 24% 12% 3%
MSW 85 9.92 38% 5.99 $ 23496 24% 49% 12% 8% 7%
MdnClm 210 9.25 37% 7.29 $ 9541 30% 34% 20% 9% 8%

Prior to 1/1/2005

# avg Fav. Ave. Ave. Win % by Odds Range
Type Races Field Wins Odds Purse <2:1 2-5 5-10 10-20 >20:1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 2307 9.04 35% 5.79 $ 16325 28% 39% 19% 10% 4%
Fast Track 1742 9.03 35% 5.85 $ 16892 28% 39% 18% 10% 5%
Off Track 565 9.08 35% 5.62 $ 14575 27% 39% 20% 10% 4%
Dirt-Fast 1742 9.03 35% 5.85 $ 16892 28% 39% 18% 10% 5%
Dirt-Off 565 9.08 35% 5.62 $ 14575 27% 39% 20% 10% 4%
Dirt Routes 979 8.84 34% 6.12 $ 18544 27% 38% 20% 10% 5%
Dirt Sprints 1328 9.19 35% 5.55 $ 14688 29% 40% 18% 9% 4%
Males 1272 9.11 36% 5.85 $ 16205 28% 38% 19% 11% 4%
Females 1035 8.95 34% 5.73 $ 16472 28% 41% 18% 9% 4%
2 YO 279 9.58 37% 6.94 $ 18584 30% 35% 14% 12% 9%
3 YO 279 8.82 34% 6.23 $ 23675 30% 37% 16% 12% 5%
3 YO & up 1286 8.94 35% 5.43 $ 15114 27% 42% 19% 9% 3%
4 YO & up 463 9.11 35% 5.85 $ 13897 28% 37% 22% 10% 4%
Gr. Stk 17 7.88 29% 7.88 $211765 35% 12% 24% 18% 12%
non-Gr Stk 51 8.33 39% 4.64 $ 63725 41% 31% 18% 6% 4%
Alw 272 7.34 42% 4.71 $ 27966 38% 37% 14% 6% 5%
Opt. Clm 5 6.20 80% 1.30 $ 35260 80% 20% 0% 0% 0%
St Alw 31 7.97 29% 4.18 $ 11190 32% 45% 13% 10% 0%
Claiming 1169 9.01 33% 5.74 $ 10171 24% 43% 21% 10% 3%
MSW 227 9.69 36% 5.51 $ 24949 31% 35% 20% 10% 4%
MdnClm 535 9.88 34% 6.75 $ 9585 27% 37% 17% 12% 7%

It seems that the biggest effect is that polytrack causes the average purses to go down :eek:

[GlenninOhio]

Can't simple logic and common sense tell us if the surface is safer? (To ride on, ignoring the ingestion issue.) A simple walk on the surface and some measurements to get a feel for it and it compare its "give" etc with dirt ought to tell us the answer, no? Yes we want to see it backed up with actual results over time (it hasn't failed a test yet), but it isn't as if this is a black box equation and it is a total mystery which types of surfaces are going to be safer.



GT -

I have walked on the poly and it is quite remarkable - it feels soft underfoot but at the same time it gives you a "spring in your step".

[Sean Rua]

Don't be concerned about Polytrack. It's a fair, safe surface.

In dry climates, the main thing to watch is moisture content. Keeping that right shouldn't be a problem, if the maintenance team is organised properly.

Kickback is no longer a problem, compared to what we had on the old sand tracks in UK. Then the jockeys wore womens' tights over their mouths and noses. They used to finish races looking like they'd been plastered.

On poly they finish clean.

When I've walked on it, it feels like a two inch layer of fresh soft snow on a tarmac road. Good for galloping horses. It's more like turf than hard dirt.
Horses need to be fit to get home on this stuff! It's tiring.

At Wolverhampton, England, there is one helluva bias in favour of those drawn on the inside. This track is flat and oval - based on an American design. Just backing stalls 1, 2, 3, 4 blind in sprints ( 5f and 6f) makes a profit!

The other polytrack course, Lingfield, is different. This a triangular layout with uphill and downhill. I don't think anybody has worked out what's going on here. All I can tell you is that there are plenty of "hard-luck" stories, but, remember, there's plenty of corruption here too, imo!

Btw, favourites tend to win in the same ratio all over the world, be it horse racing or dog racing. 1:3 roughly, whatever the surface. I often wonder why!

Sean Rua.

[classhandicapper]

Gametheory

>Is the argument here that the reduction of biases actually makes things more predictable? <

IMO, no.

The argument is that many otherwise sophisticated handicappers either don't believe in biases (at least non countour biases) or have rejected them based on personal experience using information like that.

However, those of us that have used them successfully contend that the reason people reject them is that its highly subjective and therefore requires a unique skill set to do so properly. If you don't have that skill set and understanding, then obviously you are going to think it's all a bunch of crap because it's not working for you.

That makes it a valuable skill set and source of many overlays for those that use biases well.

Leaving aside the "values issue" when it comes to safety, removing biases simply removes a skill set from the game and makes it more difficult to beat.

It would be approximately equal to saying we are going to stop measuring fractional times for horses and ban all stop watches etc.... Some people don't believe pace is such a big factor either. Those that do would lose a valuable weapon for finding overlays.

IMO, it's a simple gambling point. It's not a value judgement where people are saying to hell with safety I need my track bias edge.

[JackS]

Bob is right if Andy stated that because of Poly Track "picking winners is too easy". If Andy is right, the odds will soon reflect this and favorites will now average the exact same percentage in increase of winning favorites and at the same time provide larger odds on mid priced and longshots. In the end we will still be playing the same game (cashing for less money on the favs and more on everything else).
Hypothetically if the favorite were to increase his chances by 25%, the prevous 33% would now average about 40%. The average old odds of 8/5 would now be around 6/5. A mid -priced horse at 6-1 would now be around 7or 8/1. All prices on horses above this mid-line would also increase respectivley.

[classhandicapper]

I'm not so certain I'd be worried about a higher percentage of winning favorites.

That stat has held up remarkably well over the decades. "I think" that's because everyone recognizes the obvious favorites regardless of whether they are classing (like decades ago), speed handicapping (like now), pace handicapping etc....

In the more evenly matched races the difference in win probability between obvious contenders is not very large. So if the public is weighing one or another method a little more heavily over time, it doesn't change the win percentage of favorites much at all.

That's my theory anyway.

I'd be more worried that the average price of all winners continues falling.

That is, the average price of winning favorites might decline slightly, but more importantly, you wouldn't get $10 on a solid horse that ran against the bias last time because those horses wouldn't exist anymore. They would show their form and pay $8.00 (or whatever) instead.

The terrible longshots might pay more, but they are generally very overbet to bein with and would continue moving in the direction of being more efficiently priced.

[Indulto]

CH,

Isn’t it likely that those with proven bias-detection skills would continue to find any that exist for any track they play? It seems to me that such expertise would be more valuable to track operators interested in eliminating them than to gamblers trying to exploit them; especially if they were caused by unevenness in the surface rather than by the track configuration.

In a CHRB meeting transcript, the contention was made that not having to bank the turns in order to allow drainage would result in less physical stress on the horses. Seems to me that would create a bias jockeys would need to overcome.



Socantra, Rastajenk, Andicap, GIO,

I sure hope someone at the CHRB is reading your comments about the potential heat problems and the possibility that fewer horses might take to the new surface than those that don’t. Wet tracks and races moved from turf to dirt tend to occur at SA, not HOL (or DMR)

I now have to question the wisdom of Del Mar being the guinea pig in So. Cal. (even though a willing one) as it is currently the most successful venue there, and therefore has the most to lose if things don’t go as planned. I know I’m being repetitious, but shouldn’t Hollywood be the testing ground with little to lose and so much to gain?

Can anyone point me to breakdown figures for all California tracks?

[kenwoodallpromos]

"We cannot afford, in my opinion, not to move forward with this," Shapiro said, noting that there had been more than 240 fatalities of California horses at tracks between 2003 and 2005. He said that the board will assist in identifying potential funding souces and help push any legislative support required."
Not to worry aboiut bias- I predict Andy Beyer will soon have a new book out on how to handicap TP!

[classhandicapper]

CH,

Isn’t it likely that those with proven bias-detection skills would continue to find any that exist for any track they play? It seems to me that such expertise would be more valuable to track operators interested in eliminating them than to gamblers trying to exploit them; especially if they were caused by unevenness in the surface rather than by the track configuration.

I think the concern is that if the entire industry moves towards Polytrack and that surface is less likely to produce surface biases, there won't be any surface biases for gamblers or track operators to find. That's probably good for tracks and horseman, but IMO bad for gamblers. As a gambler, that's bad for me. I do want to be clear though that IMO safety comes first.

I'm not sure how most track operators view these things.

In NY, I think they are more sensitive to the issue.

IMO, there are way fewer dead rails at Belmont these days than years ago. Some have suggested that is intentional, but I wouldn't know

The AQU inner dirt has generally been very speed favoring this meet, but that could partly be a contour issue. IMO, there have been fewer positive rails than years ago also.

In any event, no one is going to hire me to find biases for them just because I say that kind of thing adds value to my betting on a message board.:D

[GlenninOhio]

This is an edited version of a print article from their special "2 year old sales" edition and the following quote from Juddmonte Farm manager Garrett O'Rourke is missing from the online version:

"If there were a training center with Polytrack 30 minutes from Aqueduct, I'd be betting on every one of them that had been training over the Polytrack".


http://drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=71770&subs=0&arc=1

[the little guy]

I didn't know Garrett O'Rourke was well known for his betting acumen.

[GMB@BP]

I didn't know Garrett O'Rourke was well known for his betting acumen.

now you do.

[Pace Cap'n]

I didn't know Garrett O'Rourke was well known for his betting acumen.

Think the manager of Juddmonte Farms might know a thing or two about horses?

[the little guy]

Think the manager of Juddmonte Farms might know a thing or two about horses?

And who said he didn't?

I, however, find it highly unlikely that he knows a lot about making money betting horses.

[Pace Cap'n]

And who said he didn't?

I, however, find it highly unlikely that he knows a lot about making money betting horses.

Why?

[the little guy]

In my extensive experience around the racetrack, dealing with people in all facets of the game, I have found that people close to the horses rarely have a sound or solid handicapping opinion. While there are obviously exceptions, the amount of work required to do their jobs hardly leaves anywhere close to the necessary time required to be a good handicapper, even if they were so inclined, which they rarely are. While they may well understand important aspects of racing that horseplayers don't, there is not much overlap, and the " job " requirements and applications are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Just the quote, if actually taken apart, demonstrates that. So, he would bet EVERY horse that was training over Polytrack? Really. So, perhaps he would bet four or five horses in a particular race? Since he's betting EVERY horse, he is just as happy to bet 2:5 shots as 80-1 shots...and clearly he will bet these equally? His statement, taken at fair value, demonstrates as little interest in handicapping as it does knowledge of handicapping.

If he even understood the first thing about handicapping, to be perfectly honest, his quote would have been more in line with " if there was a Polytrack training center 30 miles from Aqueduct, horseplayers would be wise to pay careful attention to those training there ". Or something like that.

[First_Place]

andicap blurted:

"It's funny that some of the same people "worried" about a hypothetical health concern are probably driving gas-guzzling cars that are polluting the environment and could give a rat's ass about the ozone layer and the melting of the icecaps."

You regurgitate environmental extremists' disinformation by blaming the periodic climate changes--normal occurances throughout history--on automobilies. Compared to 1950s-1970s automobiles, today's cars that you refer to as "gas-guzzling," in reality are gas sippers in comparison. By far!

And the collective exhaust emitted by modern "gas-guzzling" cars compared to emissions emitted twenty to thirty years ago by gas-guzzlers of that time period is about 95% less!

What do you drive, a Moped? Or do you prefer to take the au natural route and do your own peddling?

FP

[PaceAdvantage]

Stay on topic.

[Tom]

When Astro Turf first came out, it was hailed as the future of football.

Then the long term injuries and problems started surfacing and stadiums were ripping it out.

It has not been long enough to know if this stuff is the pancea it is claimed to be. If horses start going lame after a season on the stuff, or start developiing lung problems, then is it worth it?

OK, 16 down to 3 sounds good, but how does it compare to Belmont during the same time period? Hollywood? Churchill?

Personally, I like the way the races are playing out and hope this stuff is as good as it looks. Those out there having problmes with no bias can make out thier checks to.......:cool:

[andicap]

You make a valid point about the handicapping abilities of back-stretchers Andy, but I think you're taking O'Rourke's quote far too literally in ripping him.
I think he was engaging in a linguistic device known as "hyperbole" which people have been known to use from time to time in order to make a point. I'm surprised you didn't recognize it as such.

I'm sure if you ask O'Rourke if he would REALLY bet on every horse training on polytrack he would laugh at the naivete of it all. Or are you purposefully taking hold of an obvious exaggeration to make a cheap point?




In my extensive experience around the racetrack, dealing with people in all facets of the game, I have found that people close to the horses rarely have a sound or solid handicapping opinion. While there are obviously exceptions, the amount of work required to do their jobs hardly leaves anywhere close to the necessary time required to be a good handicapper, even if they were so inclined, which they rarely are. While they may well understand important aspects of racing that horseplayers don't, there is not much overlap, and the " job " requirements and applications are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Just the quote, if actually taken apart, demonstrates that. So, he would bet EVERY horse that was training over Polytrack? Really. So, perhaps he would bet four or five horses in a particular race? Since he's betting EVERY horse, he is just as happy to bet 2:5 shots as 80-1 shots...and clearly he will bet these equally? His statement, taken at fair value, demonstrates as little interest in handicapping as it does knowledge of handicapping.

If he even understood the first thing about handicapping, to be perfectly honest, his quote would have been more in line with " if there was a Polytrack training center 30 miles from Aqueduct, horseplayers would be wise to pay careful attention to those training there ". Or something like that.

[the little guy]

I agree that I was absolutely exagerating, but I was basically making the point that using THAT quote from a farm manager shouldn't bolster the case for Polytrack as far as horseplayers are concerned. I think only people truly involved in the handicapping process are even capable of making a sound decision of the kind he was, at least it seems to me, sort of flippantly making.

[rastajenk]

Man, I don't know about that. You tried to make the same point when the topic was jocks' agents, didn't you? The only good handicappers are good handicappers who immerse themselves wholly into the data every day? I think that takes on an arrogance that is not justified, seems to me. As does Beyer's column: We are the Few, the Proud, the Professional Handicapper...You must accommodate our every whim, For We are Never Wrong. Leaves a bad taste.

[the little guy]

I didn't try to make that point about jockey agents, I did make that point about jockey agents, though it was in a different vein.

I'm sorry...are you well aquainted with many jockey agents? I am. How about people working throughout the industry? How many do you know well?

I am not saying everything I say is ultimately absolutely correct...but I speak from experience. Do you?

[delayjf]

With regard to the betting pools becoming more efficient, I think shrinking field size has something to do with it as well. If the poly track has the effect of increasing field size, then prices will go up.

[rastajenk]

Yeah, little guy, I do.

[Valuist]

I think TP is having a problem recently with small fields. It wasn't that way at all in Sept and December but I'm guessing w/Oaklawn being open, Hawthorne just getting going and Mountaineer running, there's just too many places to run.

[the little guy]

Yeah, little guy, I do.

Feel free to enlighten me.

[PaceAdvantage]

Rasta and TLG are in danger of veering off topic....allow me to put up the bumpers...like they use for kiddie bowling....to keep you guys on track....

[rastajenk]

Don't worry, I realize my curricula vitae is not relevant to the topic of Poly. I certainly don't want to get into a Battle of Credentials, on this or any other thread. I humbly submit that my small market experiences are not worthy of engaging the Great Little Guy in such matters.

[socantra]

I'm sure if you ask O'Rourke if he would REALLY bet on every horse training on polytrack he would laugh at the naivete of it all. Or are you purposefully taking hold of an obvious exaggeration to make a cheap point?

Personally, I don't care about O'Rourke's handicapping abilities, but I do think he knows something about the conditioning of horses. I am perfectly willing to accept the benefits of Polytrack as a superior training surface. I think the evidence of British tracks is sufficient for that.

My concerns are whether it is a superior RACING surface, and I don't think there is enough evidence yet under American racing conditions to reach a concluson on that point. The evidence we have is generally good and I don't have any problems at all with handicapping on Polytrack.

I am concerned with breathing of rubber dust and carpet fibres (Is that okay? I drive a small car). I am also concerned about the stuff turning to goo when heavily used in the heat of summer as Equitrack used to. I also have other concerns that will only be addressed by use over time.

In an earlier post, you said I was being silly to think injuries might have also been reduced by a new dirt track. That contention was not in any way based on the idea that dirt track is superior. It has been my experience though that track management does not generally rip up a track that is in good condition just to experiment with a new surface. They probably replaced the old track because it was in terrible condition and that part (note, I said part) of the reduction in injuries might be due to the fact that they replaced an old, bad surface with a new one, regardless of what that new surface might be.

socantra...

[GlenninOhio]

Personally, I don't care about O'Rourke's handicapping abilities, but I do think he knows something about the conditioning of horses. I am perfectly willing to accept the benefits of Polytrack as a superior training surface. I think the evidence of British tracks is sufficient for that.

My concerns are whether it is a superior RACING surface, and I don't think there is enough evidence yet under American racing conditions to reach a concluson on that point. The evidence we have is generally good and I don't have any problems at all with handicapping on Polytrack.

I am concerned with breathing of rubber dust and carpet fibres (Is that okay? I drive a small car). I am also concerned about the stuff turning to goo when heavily used in the heat of summer as Equitrack used to. I also have other concerns that will only be addressed by use over time.

socantra...

Amen - a great frame of some key issues.

Poly for training vs. poly for racing.

A safer surface for horses limbs (very likely a fact) vs. a potentially less safe surface for horses respiratory and other internal systems.

I am not anti-poly - in fact I've put up more positive posts on poly than any that can be interpreted as negative.

But I am anti-"poly has been proven safer for horses so shut up while we mandate poly for every racing surface in the US over the next couple of years and if you don't like this you don't care about the horses".

[the little guy]

Don't worry, I realize my curricula vitae is not relevant to the topic of Poly. I certainly don't want to get into a Battle of Credentials, on this or any other thread. I humbly submit that my small market experiences are not worthy of engaging the Great Little Guy in such matters.

Well, at least you were able to get your parting shot in.

It gets really wearisome.

Perhaps if you would take advantage of the Private Message feature here then we could have found a way to amicably settle this " discussion " without unfairly involving the rest of the board.