Beyer on Synthetic Surface

[karlskorner]

http://www.lcsun-news.com/sports/ci_5675976

[1st time lasix]

I have always respected Keeneland for doing things right. They seem like the only management that "gets it" when promoting their product to the patrons. Big pools, lower takeouts, good purses, etc. However......I told my handicapping buddy that I am drawing a line through the Bluegrass race when analyzing the Derby. In fact I am going to draw a line though all Keenland synthetic races when the horses move on to other venues. Can't learn much from them at all in my opinion. I agree with Beyer on this one.

[SMOO]

In the long run this will be good for the game. Speed not king anymore = more horses bred for endurance. This will create a stronger breed of horse that combined with the new track surfaces will result in fewer breakdowns, a major turn off for many casual fans of the sport. Close finishes and huge lane moves also create more visually appealing races to the public. Sorry if this upsets some people's "capping" but it is the future of horse racing and it is a good thing to see happen. :)

[blind squirrel]

In the long run this will be good for the game. Speed not king anymore = more horses bred for endurance. This will create a stronger breed of horse that combined with the new track surfaces will result in fewer breakdowns, a major turn off for many casual fans of the sport. Close finishes and huge lane moves also create more visually appealing races to the public. Sorry if this upsets some people's "capping" but it is the future of horse racing and it is a good thing to see happen. :)

ah yes,it is good for the horses...but will the "pinheads" lose their mind
and try to send these horses that have been running 51 for a half mile
out in 45 in the derby?......could be a really weird finish!

[karlskorner]

Another opinion on Synthetic Surfaces

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=38275

[46zilzal]

BEST quote from Beyer: "When it was over, many racing fans pondered the outcome and asked what the Blue Grass told us about these horses and about the Kentucky Derby.

The answer is that it told us nothing."

If racing starts to become like the European "let's run 4/5's of the race at a walk, then all run like hell in a blanket" I will become an observer only. Those are all about luck not ability.

[rgustafson]

If racing starts to become like the European "let's run 4/5's of the race at a walk, then all run like hell in a blanket" I will become an observer only. Those are all about luck not ability.[/QUOTE]

Those Europeans sure seem to get real "lucky" every year around Breeders Cup time.:)

[tholl]

rgustafson--I see you're leading the Kee online contest. (congrats). Maybe you should teach Beyer how to handicap the Poly and he'll quit his bitching !!

[thelyingthief]

i can't ever remember laying stress upon the bluegrass for my pre-Derby preparation, lest, of course, one or several upper tier speed figs came from it.


as to Beyer's whining, which has in recent years amounted to a melodrama of sighs and horrors, he seems to ignore that forwardly pitched racing surfaces are NO LESS BIASED; that the horses themselves suffer horribly from running upon speed favoring surfaces; and that the so-called billions spent on developing a speed-gene in thoroughbreds has produced one that cripples them in their third year as well.

the real question for mr. beyer is, how come the louder the mouth the smaller the man? and the more insistent on foisting his opinion on all around him?

Beyer sucks.

next thread.

[thelyingthief]

to that rag--and, after 6 or so years of racing can still walk.

forward speed produces an unappetizing racing product, it alienates bettors and spectators, and it annihilates prices.

hell, any idiot can handicap speed. it's the horse with all the ones. where's my bet button?

[46zilzal]

.

Those Europeans sure seem to get real "lucky" every year around Breeders Cup time.[/QUOTE]
Never said that European Turf racing was inferior to NA, quite the contrary. I just would never wager on luck or I would pull the slot machine handle rather than handicap.

[thelyingthief]

i can think of: the price on favorites will mushroom, and very good horses will give decent prices, for a change. like on turf: where everyone's confused, favorites pay well. (Fabricand!)

[JimG]

I'm normally a fan of most everything Beyer writes about, but in this piece he comes off whining. The last two Keeneland meets have been a gold mine for those willing to adapt to change, because of the many horseplayers who are still playing Keeneland that are unwilling or unable to adapt to change.

Jim

[alysheba88]

I dont see whining. His main point is you wont necessarily be able to predict how the Blue Grass horses will perform in the Derby. I dont see anyone in this thread quibbling with that.

He goes on to add more about his feeling about the surface but main point was in context of the Derby

[ponyplayerdotca]

One thing I've noticed:

At Woodbine, it seems in most races this year, the top 2-3 horses that go to the front and come off the bend on the lead, inevitably finish 1-2-3 in some order. I don't think I've seen many "come-from-behind" types make up any significant ground in the stretch.

At Keeneland, it seems in most races this year, if you're horse is one of the top 3 speed types that go to the front and come off the bend on the lead, inevitably they tire and get sucked up by the field chasing them, usually finishing off the board. Other than the 4 1/2f two-year-old sprints (speed seems to rule mostly), I don't think I've seen many "need-the-lead" types hang around for any significant placings in the stretch.

This begs the question: if the PolyTrack surface is the same at both track (in theory), how is it that each track has such a noticeable difference in racing styles and results?

And as far as the "PolyTrack will keep more horses in training, thereby ENSURING LARGER FIELDS", take a look at most of Woodbine's entries in their races this year. Five and six horse fields, often with a scratch thrown in. In $60k allowance races and over $100k stakes races, they aren't getting these LARGER FIELDS.

I don't think there is any inherent correlation between the two (IMO). It seems to me trainers still aren't going to run their horses in races with more than six horses (especially the low-end claimers) because they want to get paid some purse money guaranteed. NYRA is often afflicted with "several scratch" fields that dwindle down to 5 or 6 horses by post time as well for this same reason. It's a business, and if you don't get paid, you don't get played.

Just my two cents.

[Edward DeVere]

46Ziz - Are you saying that in Europe the favorite doesn't win more races than the second favorite? The second favorite doesn't win more races than the third favorite? The third favorite doesn't win more races than the fourth favorite?

And that all the bookies have gone bust, because they can't make a good line on the relative abilities of the racehorses?

[kenwoodallpromos]

I think early speed advocate Beyer is hearing footsteps behind him- but what is so frustrating for Beyer is that the footsteps he is hearing are many lengths back and muffled by a rubber surface!
I direct your attention to the last decade when the very low odds horses won most of the Kentuky Derby races- that was the 1970's, prior to Beyer's emphasis on speed.
BTW, how many of the 2005 prep races that failed to predict the KY Derby winner were on artificial surface?
Beginning in 1990, 12 of 17 KY Derby winners paid $8.40+.

[46zilzal]

I have no idea what you are talking about as I did not mention wagering on European races once.

[kenwoodallpromos]

12 of 17 had winning odds of 8.40+ since Beyer Speed Figures have dominated racing beginning in 1990!

[alysheba88]

Anyone who thinks Polytrack is about making racing safer is naive. Its addressed superficially at best.

As far as Keeneland I would stop playing the horses too if all the surfaces were like that. Guess that makes me a whiner.

I love turf racing and have done well on it for years. Appreciate the importance of closing kick on that surface. At the same time front runners- especially those setting a moderate to slow pace can and do win. Its virtually impossible at Keeneland now, no matter how slow they go up front.

[46zilzal]

As far as Keeneland I would stop playing the horses too if all the surfaces were like that.
Well it doesn't make you alone..I'd be right there to support that position!

ALysheba had a bad Blue Grass too!

[kenwoodallpromos]

Somebody got it right:
"Bluegrass: The half could well go in :49 and change and may leave 'Sense with too much to do. Much has been written about him having only two starts before the derby, but in my mind winning at nine panels, on a track he does not care for, after one prep is a much more difficult assignment. Perhaps Dominican, who should get first run when Tueflesberg collapses can steal away???"
Congratulations Bluebendboy!!

[Charlie D]

Mmm, just a question, with the Bluegrass being so close to the KD, was there not always a chance it would turn into a "work out" race?


And what was wrong with the Lanes End, seemed a decently run race, with the "best" horse coming out on top


Also, it seems Beyer is selective in picking the quicker run dirt races for comparison

Biz 47
Bel 47
Cow 49
Cur 47
Street 47
Any 48


Scat 46 and change
Great 46 and change
Cir 46 and change
Tiago 46 and chage


Hard 47
Dom 47 and change


Not much in it is there

[alysheba88]

Well it doesn't make you alone..I'd be right there to support that position!

ALysheba had a bad Blue Grass too!

Havent bet race from Keeneland in at least two years. So you are wrong there

[Robert Fischer]

One thing I've noticed:

At Woodbine, it seems in most races this year, the top 2-3 horses that go to the front and come off the bend on the lead, inevitably finish 1-2-3 in some order. I don't think I've seen many "come-from-behind" types make up any significant ground in the stretch.

At Keeneland, it seems in most races this year, if you're horse is one of the top 3 speed types that go to the front and come off the bend on the lead, inevitably they tire and get sucked up by the field chasing them, usually finishing off the board. Other than the 4 1/2f two-year-old sprints (speed seems to rule mostly), I don't think I've seen many "need-the-lead" types hang around for any significant placings in the stretch.

This begs the question: if the PolyTrack surface is the same at both track (in theory), how is it that each track has such a noticeable difference in racing styles and results?



My opinion is that the Keeneland surface is a high quality AWT track. Turfway seems to have been installed with less quality. They have made multiple changes and it has been kind to forwardly placed horses. I am not familiar with the quality of track at Woodbine, but they are somewhat similar to Turfway as far as track weight.

[Robert Fischer]

on Beyer-
This kind of racing is bad for his business. It makes his figure less predictive and less comparitive.

on Polytrack AWT-
I love Keeneland's polytrack and meet. You get un-rateable early speed horses coming off big beyers and they will be underlays. There is advantage to the handicapper who looks at pedigree and running style. I am not a big fan of many other polytrack courses although Hollywood is ok.
I hate the idea of major races on polytrack. A Breeders Cup or a Triple Crown race on AWT would really be a huge turn-off. Yes the betting opportunity would be excellent.
The surface change over is profit motivated.


On the Bluegrass -
I don't toss that race. I am looking at running styles. I am looking at who can carry positive form forward from this. I am looking at surface preference.
Dominican appears to best on a polytrack surface. It was interesting that with the slow pace Dominican rated off the pace and took last run at Street Sense. Dominican's primary goal was to win the Bluegrass and he was given the proper ride. Dominican generally is not a deep closer and usually rates a stalking trip. It will be interesting to see if Dominican will carry his Bluegrass form forward and be 10 lengths off the pace in the Derby or if he will revert to his previous running style and rate a few lengths off the lead. Street Sense who generally rates off the pace and makes a sweeping run on the turn was hurt most by the slow pace and late run of the Bluegrass field. Street Sense ran a race true to his running style which indicates that he can carry his form forward. Tueflesberg is bred to like the poly, and was able to race on the lead while going very slow. Tueflesberg cannot stay 10 furlongs on dirt. Zanjero is also bred to like the polytrack. Zanjero was a bit more forwardly placed in the Bluegrass then his usually style. He saved ground but was about the 4th fastest finisher. Zanjero has been the victim of a middle move in the past and running closer to the pace is not encouraging, although the pace was so slow that no definite running-style conclusions can be made with this horse.

[Light]

SS had a tremendous bias on the rail in the BC at CD. Where's the rap on that? SS loss on Poly is a scapegoat here.

[skate]

In the long run this will be good for the game. Speed not king anymore = more horses bred for endurance. This will create a stronger breed of horse that combined with the new track surfaces will result in fewer breakdowns, a major turn off for many casual fans of the sport. Close finishes and huge lane moves also create more visually appealing races to the public. Sorry if this upsets some people's "capping" but it is the future of horse racing and it is a good thing to see happen. :)

good one Smoo...

[mannyberrios]

I am a big fan of Andy Beyer, but its possible that his speed figures are not so good on this new surface. Of course he is going to cry. His speed figures are worth millions to the D.F.R. It is politics, before he was the little guy, now he is one of the big guys in racing. I guess Mr. Beyer now has to come up with a new set of speed figures. POLYTRACK IS THE NEW WAVE OF RACING.

[bobphilo]

Anyone who thinks Polytrack is about making racing safer is naive. Its addressed superficially at best.

As far as Keeneland I would stop playing the horses too if all the surfaces were like that. Guess that makes me a whiner.



Who cares what the "true motivation" for installing Polytrack is? It saves lives and is a fairer surface.
There are several reasons for the disturbing rate of breakdowns in thoroughbreds, including breeding for speed over soundness and drugs. To believe that the industry will act sooner to change this without if tracks din't install synthetic surfaces is being truly naive. Maybe doctors should stop saving people's lives with by-pass surgery or heart medications because diet and excercise are also factors in heart disease?
The fact that some people are finding the surface harder to handicap is a poor criticism compared to all the benefits of the surface.

Bob

[mannyberrios]

Dominican figured to run a good race after his last victory at Turfway. :ThmbUp:

[bobphilo]

Dominican figured to run a good race after his last victory at Turfway. :ThmbUp:

Right Manny. That race not only showed he was in form but also was the best Poly figure of any horse in the field. Plus the fact that he improved in his 1st start after gelding was an indication that the there was more improvement on the way. I've found that when a horses improve after a change, they tend to show continued improvement in their next start.

Bob

[PaceAdvantage]

I am a big fan of Andy Beyer, but its possible that his speed figures are not so good on this new surface. Of course he is going to cry. His speed figures are worth millions to the D.F.R. It is politics, before he was the little guy, now he is one of the big guys in racing. I guess Mr. Beyer now has to come up with a new set of speed figures.

Where are you getting this from? Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

[PaceAdvantage]

As for Polytrack....lots more breakdowns at Turfway this year compared to last year....

I guess I can conclude from this that Polytrack gets less safe as time goes on....after all, we are SUPPOSED to draw firm conclusions from limited data, right folks? Just like when many out there drew the conclusion that this new surface is a Godsend when it comes to horse safety after only a handful of horses broke down during the first meet at Turfway/Polytrack.

[bigmack]

As for Polytrack....lots more breakdowns at Turfway this year compared to last year....

I guess I can conclude from this that Polytrack gets less safe as time goes on....after all, we are SUPPOSED to draw firm conclusions from limited data, right folks? Just like when many out there drew the conclusion that this new surface is a Godsend when it comes to horse safety after only a handful of horses broke down during the first meet at Turfway/Polytrack.
Let's not jump on the ever growing bandwagon of anti-poly. It will soon be in place at more racing facilities than you'll be able to ignore. The breakdowns are still discernibly less and the speed favoring or lack thereof as seen between TP & KEE appear to be temperature driven.

[PaceAdvantage]

Couldn't you tell I was being facetious...poking fun at those who jumped to conclusions based on Turfway's inaugural Polytrack meet?

Obviously, conclusions can't be drawn after one meeting. Similarly, one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that Polytrack gets more dangerous with age based upon the fact that Turfway suffered more breakdowns this past meeting.

[bigmack]

You & me on the same page? I feel so icky :lol:

[shanta]

SS had a tremendous bias on the rail in the BC at CD. Where's the rap on that? SS loss on Poly is a scapegoat here.

BINGO!

[alysheba88]

As for Polytrack....lots more breakdowns at Turfway this year compared to last year....

I guess I can conclude from this that Polytrack gets less safe as time goes on....after all, we are SUPPOSED to draw firm conclusions from limited data, right folks? Just like when many out there drew the conclusion that this new surface is a Godsend when it comes to horse safety after only a handful of horses broke down during the first meet at Turfway/Polytrack.


Exactly. People say its safer and just repeat it and repeat it. Doesnt make it so

[alysheba88]

Is inhaling rubber safe? Time will tell with that also.

[chickenhead]

It is a mystery why Keeneland has been so aberrant. At other tracks that have installed artificial surfaces (such as Turfway Park and Woodbine), racing has been fairly normal. The early fractions of races have not been unusually slow, and the winners have been a fair mix of front-runners and stretch-runners.

This doesn't sound like a blanket criticism of fake dirt to me. Beyer talked smack about the old Keeneland surface since it was so biased...can't think of why he wouldn't talk smack about the new Keeneland either, being equally biased. I think he's being pretty consistent.

[point given]

It seems pretty clear to me that Keeneland has made their surface more of a Pillow track rather than Poly track. While I do not play Turfway, Woodbine or hollywood, it seems as if those poly surfaces have not had this slowdown/closer bias that Keeneland has. So when I look at a horses record on AW surfaces in the PP's , it is not a slam sunk if a horse liked the poly at woodbine etc. and is running at keeneland today. As we are seeing there is Poly and then there is Poly, just like different dirt surfaces at various tracks.

The thing that few are talking about though is the jocks avoidance of the rail paths all around the track, but mostly on the backstretch. It must be very deep in there for jocks not to save ground and take the overland route. It would seem to be unnatural for jocks to grab and not seek position early. Perhaps this is one reason that turf horses like it and win there. They are more used to being covered up and taken back to come wide late.

What is also interesting is that the stretch plays faster, so the surface has been manipulated to enhance a late cavalry charge of horses to a blanket finish. Remember the ultra fast workouts of the horses going in the keeneland sale ? All the workouts are down the stretch, the souped up portion of the track. Track management/maintenace simply don't want the horses to run fast all the way around the track, only in the stretch. they hope that this will put less stress on them and lessen breakdowns. So it is very interesting that they are in the Poly business, making the product look good , while other tracks poly surfaces have been worked on to be a fair test. I'm sure they also market the idea that if races come off the turf due to rain, that the races are saved from scratches because the turfers run well on the poly, less scratches, more horses, more betting etc. We will likely very rarely see any turf races run there on soft turf, as the races will be switched to poly without a hiccup. A fine kettle of fish !

[Greyfox]

What is also interesting is that the stretch plays faster, so the surface has been manipulated to enhance a late cavalry charge of horses to a blanket finish.

Bingo.
Put me in the conspiracy theory camp here.
My theory is simple. Many race tracks want to bring back "Gamblers."
And I don't mean informed gamblers.
If you set up a track that makes handicapping more difficult,
Joe Gambler, the people now pulling the slot handles, might come back.
In the meanwhile, if you've spent years building your handicapping skills,
c'est le vive. They ain't gonna work.
We need a new paradigm for poly for sure. Otherwise, it's a gambler's surface.

[john del riccio]

It seems pretty clear to me that Keeneland has made their surface more of a Pillow track rather than Poly track. While I do not play Turfway, Woodbine or hollywood, it seems as if those poly surfaces have not had this slowdown/closer bias that Keeneland has. So when I look at a horses record on AW surfaces in the PP's , it is not a slam sunk if a horse liked the poly at woodbine etc. and is running at keeneland today. As we are seeing there is Poly and then there is Poly, just like different dirt surfaces at various tracks.

The thing that few are talking about though is the jocks avoidance of the rail paths all around the track, but mostly on the backstretch. It must be very deep in there for jocks not to save ground and take the overland route. It would seem to be unnatural for jocks to grab and not seek position early. Perhaps this is one reason that turf horses like it and win there. They are more used to being covered up and taken back to come wide late.

What is also interesting is that the stretch plays faster, so the surface has been manipulated to enhance a late cavalry charge of horses to a blanket finish. Remember the ultra fast workouts of the horses going in the keeneland sale ? All the workouts are down the stretch, the souped up portion of the track. Track management/maintenace simply don't want the horses to run fast all the way around the track, only in the stretch. they hope that this will put less stress on them and lessen breakdowns. So it is very interesting that they are in the Poly business, making the product look good , while other tracks poly surfaces have been worked on to be a fair test. I'm sure they also market the idea that if races come off the turf due to rain, that the races are saved from scratches because the turfers run well on the poly, less scratches, more horses, more betting etc. We will likely very rarely see any turf races run there on soft turf, as the races will be switched to poly without a hiccup. A fine kettle of fish !

Point,

You have made several very good observations and I agree with almost everything you stated. Different Poly behave differently; I wasn't assuming anything either way from the get go but it is clear that HOL,WO,TP, and KEE are all very different.

As for the KEE stretch being quicker than other parts of the track, I concur
completely, it has been that way for a while and I didn't want to make a hasty judgement but I beleive you are correct. As to why this is the case, I don't know. It coul dbe track maintenance or it coul dbe sunlight or lack thereof, this isn't easy to quantify.

Good post.

Jjohn

[Tom]

Bingo.
Put me in the conspiracy theory camp here.
My theory is simple. Many race tracks want to bring back "Gamblers."
And I don't mean informed gamblers.
If you set up a track that makes handicapping more difficult,
Joe Gambler, the people now pulling the slot handles, might come back.
In the meanwhile, if you've spent years building your handicapping skills,
c'est le vive. They ain't gonna work.
We need a new paradigm for poly for sure. Otherwise, it's a gambler's surface.

Why would they want them back? It is cheaper to run slots than horses. I don't agree poly is for gamblers - it for people who do thier homework and know their tracks. I am doing far better on poly than I am on dirt. I love the TP tracks, and I am making money at KEE - first time ever. I did ok at HOL, but I was learning - this year, look out...I think I will do well. Woodbine, too early to tell yet. It is not a random mystery.

[kenwoodallpromos]

With every meet and every race at every track on artificial surface the death the base starts for safety comparisons are increasing; SO if you are keeping score, use the totals for all tracks concerned over all meets so far.

[skate]

As for Polytrack....lots more breakdowns at Turfway this year compared to last year....

I guess I can conclude from this that Polytrack gets less safe as time goes on....after all, we are SUPPOSED to draw firm conclusions from limited data, right folks? Just like when many out there drew the conclusion that this new surface is a Godsend when it comes to horse safety after only a handful of horses broke down during the first meet at Turfway/Polytrack.

are you thinking that Polytrack can not be improved, as any other product thats ever hit the market has done, or like any other turf improvments since the Astro Domes artificial turf.

ive not concluded...

[ponyplayerdotca]

bigmack wrote:

"Let's not jump on the ever growing bandwagon of anti-poly. It will soon be in place at more racing facilities than you'll be able to ignore."

===

I find it hard to believe that many dirt race tracks in North America will spend the millions of dollars required to make the surface switch anytime within the next 20 years.

The last 10-15 years, race track managements have been focused on "crying poor" due to increased gaming competition in order to get state/provincial legislators to approve slots licenses in their jurisdiction.

Under the more increasingly false promise of reinvesting the extra revenue from these slots profits back into the horse racing operation (purses, back stretch improvement, horsemen support), the slots revolution has swept across the landscape. Lo and behold, they've now all gotten their hands on a whole new revenue stream that makes their pockets full again.

Outside of a select few "rich" tracks (WOODBINE, KEENELAND, major CALIFORNIA tracks by force), I can't see many track managment directors spending that new found money on artificial surfaces if it cuts out their regained "lost profits". I don't forsee Polytrack ever being installed at such outposts as Hoosier Park, Thistledown, Beulah, Mountaineer, Fonner Park, Fort Erie, Sunland, Turf Paradise, and other tracks across the country that are on a similar competitive level. And many of these tracks are relevant, viable places to wager your money at still (mostly thanks to some of the good ol' reliable biases their dirt surfaces offer).

Again, I believe POLYTRACK is all about finances and less about the "health of the horses" and all the other propaganda being offered as to its inherent benefits over dirt.

I am definitely leaning towards "anti-poly" lobby, as I have been from the outset. Having said that, PA is very right when he says it's too early to make any definitive conclusions on the overall effect POLY has had/will have on the industry as a whole.

[46zilzal]

I am definitely leaning towards "anti-poly" lobby, as I have been from the outset. Having said that, PA is very right when he says it's too early to make any definitive conclusions on the overall effect POLY has had/will have on the industry as a whole.
You are not alone there.

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=ponyplayerdotca]bigmack wrote:

I don't forsee Polytrack ever being installed at such outposts as Hoosier Park, Thistledown, Beulah, Mountaineer, Fonner Park, Fort Erie, Sunland, Turf Paradise, and other tracks across the country that are on a similar competitive level. QUOTE]

You've omitted all of the "A" level tracks.
So the better horses will be running on poly?
The plugs will still do dirt?

p.s. I'm glad you're winning on poly Tom. Any handicapping tips?

[ponyplayerdotca]

Greyfox wrote:

"You've omitted all of the "A" level tracks. So the better horses will be running on poly? The plugs will still do dirt?"

===

Bigmack's original post simply said, "It will soon be in place at more racing facilities than you'll be able to ignore."

He didn't designate at what level of track he meant. My point was the industry as a whole, not just the tracks where "good horses" race is up for debate.

Your two bucks to win is worth the same investment whether it's on the Kentucky Derby bluebloods or the "nickel-never-twos" at the bottom of the claiming ladder. And all "good horses" don't stay good forever. Ergo, they will be running at those "B" tracks soon enough before their careers are over.

I still maintain many "A" tracks will still avoid the investment and continue to offer a high level dirt racing alternative to those in the industry who refuse to simply give in to the pro-POLY lobby. Some "good horses" will always race on dirt, and most major stakes races will stay on dirt for the forseeable future.

So, to reiterate my opinion, POLYTRACK is about finances. If you can afford to play in those circles of consideration, so be it. Just don't expect every horseman to embrace it with any great investment. Again, just my two cents.

[Tom]

[QUOTE=ponyplayerdotca]

p.s. I'm glad you're winning on poly Tom. Any handicapping tips?

Keep a track model and profile. Post, start call, fist and second call postions and beaten lengths, %e or %M, all help point out winners.

PP..Str...1C....2C

4......5.....5....5
6......6.....5....3
5......7.....5....4
8......9.....6....4


These are postions - are you looking an early horse to wire the field?

Also, I find turf lines translate to Poly nicely. check out the KEe program Saturday - look at turf horses coming in to run on poly. Hit a nice exacta, two turf horses with two of the top three Beyers and closer styles.
The track will tell you what it is winning.

[Greyfox]

Thanks for the info Tom.

[bobphilo]

bigmack wrote:

Again, I believe POLYTRACK is all about finances and less about the "health of the horses" and all the other propaganda being offered as to its inherent benefits over dirt.



And again, I maintain that whether the tracks' primary motivation for switching to synthetic surfaces is primarily financial rather than humanitarian is irrelevant. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Should doctors not precribe livesaving drugs to their patients just because drug companies primary motive is financial?
Polytrack has already saved lives and works best when maintained as directed as it has in England for several years. The slight increase in injuries that Turfway has experienced this year (though still much better than than the pre-poly figures) is mainly due to the track's attempts to satisfy the anti-poly whinners and make the track more dirt-like.

Bob

[alysheba88]

Saves lives? You sure about that?

Absolutely sure?

Dont think that other non poly tracks are safe? Many of the breakdowns we were seeing the past few years were at specific tracks.

Lets just argue for a second that polytrack does save a few horses. Again I am not sold on that just yet but lets just assume it does. Does that justify converting all tracks to polytrack whatever the effects on the game? Is saving one life justification for this? Just something to think about. I mean we know there are certain laws we could put in place to safe more lives when it comes to driving or many other every day things. Should anything that "saves lives" automatically be put in place regardless?

[bobphilo]

Saves lives? You sure about that?

Absolutely sure?

Dont think that other non poly tracks are safe? Many of the breakdowns we were seeing the past few years were at specific tracks.

Lets just argue for a second that polytrack does save a few horses. Again I am not sold on that just yet but lets just assume it does. Does that justify converting all tracks to polytrack whatever the effects on the game? Is saving one life justification for this? Just something to think about. I mean we know there are certain laws we could put in place to safe more lives when it comes to driving or many other every day things. Should anything that "saves lives" automatically be put in place regardless?

If you look at the reduction in catastrophic breakdowns at Tutrway alone, you’ll realize that “one” is an absurdly low number. The only way to know whether Poly reduces catastrophic breakdowns is to see what effect the surface change has on the same track. Same season, same general population, same number of horses, etc. Otherwise you don’t know if the change is due to the variable your studying (Poly) or due to other confounding variables. You don’t compare apples to oranges. Poly has drastically reduced fatalities at Turfway, despite the fact the number of horses that raced on Poly actually was higher the year after it was installed, and produced similar results at other tracks. There is plenty of evidence for the improved safety of Poly over dirt to save considerably more than one life. The difference in the numbers is way too big to be due to coincidence.

Furthermore if you look at the biomechanical properties of horses running on the synthetic surfaces you will see that it greatly reduces the jar of impact and converts it in to energy return, in a manner very similar to grass.

Even trainers, who tend to be very conservative, are embracing the surface and track supers are saying how they are all fighting for work-out slots on synthetic tracks.

The argument that it might hurt handle and field size doesn’t work either – just look at the increase in both field size and handle at Keeneland since Poly.


Bob

[PaceAdvantage]

are you thinking that Polytrack can not be improved, as any other product thats ever hit the market has done, or like any other turf improvments since the Astro Domes artificial turf.

ive not concluded...

You need to read my post again....I haven't concluded anything one way or the other.

[GaryG]

[QUOTE=Greyfox]

Keep a track model and profile. Post, start call, fist and second call postions and beaten lengths, %e or %M, all help point out winners.

PP..Str...1C....2C

4......5.....5....5
6......6.....5....3
5......7.....5....4
8......9.....6....4


These are postions - are you looking an early horse to wire the field?

Also, I find turf lines translate to Poly nicely. check out the KEe program Saturday - look at turf horses coming in to run on poly. Hit a nice exacta, two turf horses with two of the top three Beyers and closer styles.
The track will tell you what it is winning.I have had success at this Kee meeting for many of the same reasons. The &E has been very important. It is a completely different game and you just have to watch the races and keep records. Some riders like Leparoux are quicker learners. Looking forward to Arlington.

[Steve 'StatMan']

[QUOTE=ponyplayerdotca]bigmack wrote:

I don't forsee Polytrack ever being installed at such outposts as Hoosier Park, Thistledown, Beulah, Mountaineer, Fonner Park, Fort Erie, Sunland, Turf Paradise, and other tracks across the country that are on a similar competitive level. QUOTE]

You've omitted all of the "A" level tracks.
So the better horses will be running on poly?
The plugs will still do dirt?

p.s. I'm glad you're winning on poly Tom. Any handicapping tips?

Installing an artificial service can be very expensive. Arlington is spending about $8 Million on theirs. I'm hoping it works out for them - racing has struggled in IL the last few years.

To keep the costs in perspective, AP would normally have an All-Sources Handle over 3 days, maybe 2 good weekend days, of around $8 Million.

OTOH, it could take a Turf Paradise, Thistledown, 2-3 weeks to have that kind of handle on their live racing.

Since only a very small fraction of the handle actually goes to pay to run the track, it's far more likely for AP to recover the costs of Polytrack than many of the B and C tracks, and even then, given the current racing business climate in IL, many of us in Chicagoland are holding our collective breaths hoping that it'll pay off for AP.

[ranchwest]

Well it doesn't make you alone..I'd be right there to support that position!

ALysheba had a bad Blue Grass too!

Alysheba had surgery, too.

[Valuist]

I don't see Beyer whining but there's a few who've been whining about Beyer.

[jma]

If you look at the reduction in catastrophic breakdowns at Tutrway alone, you’ll realize that “one” is an absurdly low number.
Bob

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but you conveniently ignored THIS YEAR'S breakdown total, which around 20 breakdowns during training and racing (according to the Lexington Herald-Leader). That number is nothing to brag about. I don't know why you chose to say "1" as the breakdown number and ignore this year's sharp increase, but it casts doubt on the rest of your argument.

[bobphilo]

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but you conveniently ignored THIS YEAR'S breakdown total, which around 20 breakdowns during training and racing (according to the Lexington Herald-Leader). That number is nothing to brag about. I don't know why you chose to say "1" as the breakdown number and ignore this year's sharp increase, but it casts doubt on the rest of your argument.

I appreciate you trying to keep an open mind. I did not "conveniently" fail to mention that there was an increase in injuries this year at Turway. I also said that this was most likely due to them monkeying with the surface to make it more dirt-like. In doing so they brought the injury rate back up to closer to the old dirt rate. In any case, even this number is still better than when they switched to Poly. The Turfway people are now consulting with Keeneland, which didn't change it's original Polytrack and has therefore remained safer.
As for the number "one", you misread my post. If you read the post from alysheba, you will see that I was responding to his odd comment that Polytrack would save only one life. I made it clear that it has saved many more than one life when you compare the pre and post poly numbers.

Bob

[alysheba88]

As for the number "one", you misread my post. If you read the post from alysheba, you will see that I was responding to his odd comment that Polytrack would save only one life. I made it clear that it has saved many more than one life when you compare the pre and post poly numbers.

Bob

You completely misread my comment then. I didnt say it saved one life or just one life or anything like that. I was talking about something larger.

[bobphilo]

You completely misread my comment then. I didnt say it saved one life or just one life or anything like that. I was talking about something larger.

Would you please clarify what you did mean.
You stated "Lets just argue for a second that polytrack does save a few horses. Again I am not sold on that just yet but lets just assume it does. Does that justify converting all tracks to polytrack whatever the effects on the game? Is saving one life justification for this?"
You are clearly implying that Polytrack would save "one life" and is therefore not worth installing.
As I pointed out earlier there is plenty of statistical evidence that it can and has saved many more than one or a few lives. However much you do, or do not value the safety of both horses and riders, one cannot deny they are very important factors to consider. Even if one choses to ignore the safety issue, there are several other advantages to synthetic surfaces as well, including a fairer surface.

Bob

[bobphilo]

For those maintaining on open mind on Polytrack, heres an interesting collection of comments from people in the industry discussing their views on the surface.

Many of them had shared the same reservations with some posters here.

http://www.equidaily.com/bestbet/extras/topic/2007/70222.html

Bob

[alysheba88]

Would you please clarify what you did mean.
You stated "Lets just argue for a second that polytrack does save a few horses. Again I am not sold on that just yet but lets just assume it does. Does that justify converting all tracks to polytrack whatever the effects on the game? Is saving one life justification for this?"
You are clearly implying that Polytrack would save "one life" and is therefore not worth installing.
As I pointed out earlier there is plenty of statistical evidence that it can and has saved many more than one or a few lives. However much you do, or do not value the safety of both horses and riders, one cannot deny they are very important factors to consider. Even if one choses to ignore the safety issue, there are several other advantages to synthetic surfaces as well, including a fairer surface.

Bob

I implied no such thing.

I said I am not sold on the idea of polytrack saving any lives.

I said for arguments sake assume it does.

I said, again for sake of argument does any measure that saves lives mean it should be implemented. What about if its one life. Does a measure that saves one life justify something. Did not mean to imply that poloytrack has saved one life, several lives or any lives. Was arguing the larger issue. Should something that saves lives (which not saying poly does) automatically be implemented despite other effects? Where do we draw the line? Do we have enough information yet to have firm conclusions? Lastly, could we reduce breakdowns and injuries by focusing on other issues as well?

[Robert Fischer]

There is money behind the push for polytrack surfaces, and one of the positives regarding that financial incentive is a true concern to reduce breakdowns.

I never hear any statistical reference to VET SCRATCHES within the breakdown discussion. If vet scratches are about the same as normal or reduced for these new-poly meets, than that is another positive support of the surface at least for training purposes. However, if the number of vet scratches has significantly increased during these meets, than we have more questions. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the new poly tracks were being a little more selective in who they let run, do to the promise of greatly reducing breakdowns as a selling point.

[bobphilo]

I implied no such thing.

I said I am not sold on the idea of polytrack saving any lives.

I said for arguments sake assume it does.

I said, again for sake of argument does any measure that saves lives mean it should be implemented. What about if its one life. Does a measure that saves one life justify something. Did not mean to imply that poloytrack has saved one life, several lives or any lives. Was arguing the larger issue. Should something that saves lives (which not saying poly does) automatically be implemented despite other effects? Where do we draw the line? Do we have enough information yet to have firm conclusions? Lastly, could we reduce breakdowns and injuries by focusing on other issues as well?

There are 2 issues here. One is whether synthetic surfaces have been shown to be safer and the other is how important saving lives should be in deciding to install the surface.

As far as preventing breakdowns, one needs only the slightest knowledge of research methods and statistics to realize that the data confirms this to a high degree of statistical significance. The difference in the results between the pre and post poly populations is too big to be coincidence and too big to be denied. Just look at any statistics text.



Secondly, if something can significantly reduce injuries and fatalities in both horses and riders, it must of course be given high priority in any decision making process simply because of the importance of saving lives – if that much isn’t clear, there’s no point in continuing this discussion. There must be some very compelling evidence that racing on poly will cause some great evil effect to discount its greater safety. I have seen NO evidence that this would be the case. Even if one was not at all concerned with the value of life and was motivated purely by self-interest, the evidence still shows synthetic surfaces are the way to go. I have NEVER said that poly should automatically be installed everywhere strictly because of its better safety profile. This is one of its strong points, but not its only advantage.
Just what are these terrible consequences of poly which makes the saving of lives so secondary, and where is the evidence for this? The original fears of both Keeneland and Turfway before installing Polytrack were that the trainers and betting public would not accept it. Experience and the figures have shown that the reaction was the exact opposite. Horsemen love it and field sizes have increased. The bettors have also accepted it and handle has actually increased.
In looking at all the objections to synthetic surfaces, I find them very weak on evidence supporting their position. It mostly seems to come from bettors who want to continue substituting spotting speed biases for comprehensive handicapping. The sharper handicappers who are able to adapt to the change are doing fine. There is a whole treasure chest of promising angles that could be applied to handicapping on poly. Quinn’s method of incorporating late speed with final times, which works so well on turf, also has promise on synthetic surfaces. This is just one example.

Synthetic surfaces are the wave of the future and the sharper handicappers will profit from it.



Bob

[alysheba88]

To me its not different from stomache stapling. Just enables bad behavior, doesnt change it.

A serious crackdown on drugs and cheating would save far more lives than surface change. But rather than cut down on eating lets get an operation to "solve" the problem.

My biggest issue is the focus on poly only is almost a deliberate diversion from the real problem. The surface of most tracks is fine. Horses are breaking down because of the inhumane way owners and trainers treat their animals. Jockeys are dying and sick because of draconian weight rules. But people are afraid to say it, at least in the mainstream. So polytrack becomes the miracle solution for everything.

Lastly, no evidence yet that it is actually safer. Saying it repeatedly doesnt make it so

[alysheba88]

And I know something about statistics. You have to look at all the variables.

If you look at results from one year and compare to the next do you know all the variables? For instance lets say Track A had less breakdowns in 2006 than 2005. In 2006 they were on poly. That means poly is automatically safer right? Nonsense. Now that may be the result but to just accept it on the surface is not statistics its voodoo. You have to look deeper. Did anything else change? What if in 2006 drug rules were stricter. Would this have an effect. What if the track vet was different? What if the weather was dramatically different? My point is you cant just look at things in complete isolation.

[ponyplayerdotca]

Thank you for the straight talk, Alysheba. Nobody seems to like to read or hear such candor, but it's no less true to the situation.

Also, how does anyone know yet if by "saving lives" in the immediate future, that we aren't inadvertently killing them with the inhalation of the surface by both jockeys and horses? What happens if during these next 10 years, a significant number of both begin to develop respiratory problems or even contract cancer from constant exposure to it?

It took 20-30 years before people concluded that AstroTurf wasn't as good as first believed when it became popular. It will take at least as long for any concrete evidence (good or bad) to be definitively concluded with regard to artificial surfaces.

And, similar to alysheba's post, I posted last year at some point about how drugs were the real problem to ill health in the sport, not track surfaces. But drugs are most trainers "bread and butter", and we can't ever point the finger at them for mistreatment because they are ALL fine upstanding horsemen/horsewomen, right? Many of them certainly are, and don't deserve to be lumped in with the abusers, but like steroid users in baseball, it does happen, and it doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

Meanwhile, the naive will believe the publicity while the producers of this stuff line their pockets with money from "impulsive purchase" buyers who have fallen for it all.

Larger fields? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Blue Grass attract only 7 entrants this year? So did the Wood Memorial. So, track surface doesn't seem to influence that point much yet (in that one small example), does it?

[bobphilo]

And I know something about statistics. You have to look at all the variables.


Well then you must know that one can never know, let alone control for all the variables in a study. All you can do is try to control for as many as possible. I would think that you knew statistics deals with probabilities, not the certainties you are demanding. I suggest you do some further reading on p value - the probability that the observed affect is due to chance or some other variable. It is NEVER zero. Demanding unreasonable criteria is a great way to keep from changing one’s opinion rather than getting at the truth. I would also think that you knew that there is a strong correlation between effect size (the number of reduction in breakdowns) and the probability that the results are not due to chance.

For all the anti-poly propaganda, I have never heard any other change at Turfway or Keeneland cited as the reason for the dramatic reduction in fatal breakdowns. If you have proof of a change in some other significant variable, please share it.

BTW, if you are familiar with statistics, you should also be aware of the concept of replicability – that’s when the data at other tracks show similar results. Poly has reduced injuries wherever it’s been installed, both here and in England.

[bobphilo]

To me its not different from stomache stapling. Just enables bad behavior, doesnt change it.

A serious crackdown on drugs and cheating would save far more lives than surface change. But rather than cut down on eating lets get an operation to "solve" the problem.

My biggest issue is the focus on poly only is almost a deliberate diversion from the real problem. The surface of most tracks is fine. Horses are breaking down because of the inhumane way owners and trainers treat their animals. Jockeys are dying and sick because of draconian weight rules. But people are afraid to say it, at least in the mainstream. So polytrack becomes the miracle solution for everything.

Lastly, no evidence yet that it is actually safer. Saying it repeatedly doesnt make it so

I definetly agree that more must be done to control drug use and that it is a factor in breakdowns. I cannot understand why you think that providing a safer surface for horses to race on and dealing with drug use are mutually exclusive. There should be action on all fronts to protect the horses. Do you really believe that the sterwards will magically do the right thing with drugs or the industry start breeding sounder horses if they don't install Polytrack?
Many heart attacks can be prevented with diet and excersise. Does that mean that mean that doctors should stop prescribing blood pressure and cholesterol medications or performing life saving surgery?
There are several things that can reduce the number of breakdowns. No one alone is a "miracle solution for everything".
There is plenty of evidence that poly is safer. Denying it repeatedly will not change that.

Bob

[bobphilo]

Also, how does anyone know yet if by "saving lives" in the immediate future, that we aren't inadvertently killing them with the inhalation of the surface by both jockeys and horses? What happens if during these next 10 years, a significant number of both begin to develop respiratory problems or even contract cancer from constant exposure to it?


The difference is that we have evidence that Poly saves lives and nothing but misinformed speculation of any long-term negative effects.

Look up any good reference on pulmonary pathology and you will see that lung problems are caused by microscopic substances that can get into the alveoli (air sacs) in the lungs. All the wax-coated components in Poly are macroscopic and, if anything, dirt tracks are more likely to contain microscopic trouble makers (including microbes). That’s also why infection is such a big problem when horses get open fractures on dirt tracks.

[SMOO]

Sounds like a lot of sour grapes from those in love with the old speed tracks.

[bobphilo]

Here’s an interesting article by Steve Haskin in the Bloodhorse on synthetic surfaces. He is actually somewhat critical of Polytack because he doesn’t like the way races are run on the surface but he states that

“…we have indeed seen the beginning of the end of dirt racing as we know it. I must preface that comment with the acknowledgment that synthetic surfaces have proven to be a great deal safer than regular dirt tracks, and certainly better in every way than Keeneland’s old surface. And the safety of the horses takes precedence over anything, so this is not a condemnation of the surface.”



I strongly doubt that Haskin is trying to deceive anyone as to the benefits of Polytrack. A charge made against the tracks that have installed it.



http://tcm.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=38464 (http://tcm.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=38464)



Bob

[alysheba88]

Do I need to point out he is talking about Keeneland's surface? Not all tracks are the same. Because there are alot of breakdowns at say an Arlington Park doesnt mean all track surfaces are unsafe.

Yes replacing a track with an "unsafe" surface with Polytrack will make the track "safer". But it doesnt follow that all track surfaces are unsafe or that other measures could not be made to make racing inherently safer.

Does someone have a list of breakdowns per runners per track? Would be interesting reading.

I know its not an apples to apples comparison but the dark ages for baseball when they tried making all the ballparks the same. Ended up with sterile and uniform but no character. Thank God that day has passed. The old Riverfront and Veteran Stadium relics of the past.

To me tracks playing differently and having different nuances is part of the sport. If all the surfaces are the same and all the winning profiles the same its a boring sport. Which in the end will hurt not help racing.

[DanG]

To me tracks playing differently and having different nuances is part of the sport. If all the surfaces are the same and all the winning profiles the same its a boring sport. Which in the end will hurt not help racing.
So far TP, Kee, Hol and WO ALL have different profiles.

[bobphilo]

So far TP, Kee, Hol and WO ALL have different profiles.

Right Dan,

I, for one, prefer to see races decided by the horses’ class and ability and not some unfair bias. The record handle at Keeneland shows that people like the fast competitive finishes too.

In any case, as Dan points out, not all synthetic tracks are alike and the supers have plenty of wiggle room in putting the track together. The only thing that, fortunately, remains constant is the increased safety and fairness. That can only be good for the sport.



Bob

[alysheba88]

Right Dan,

I, for one, prefer to see races decided by the horses’ class and ability and not some unfair bias. The record handle at Keeneland shows that people like the fast competitive finishes too.

In any case, as Dan points out, not all synthetic tracks are alike and the supers have plenty of wiggle room in putting the track together. The only thing that, fortunately, remains constant is the increased safety and fairness. That can only be good for the sport.



Bob


So the bias at Keeneland is now fair? When a front runner cannnot win no matter how slow the fractions? Thats fair?

Now races are decided by class and ability? Based on what?

Listen I love turf racing and am all for "close" finishes. Personally would prefer a ten lenght win to a close loss but thats another story. But no way you can say Keeneland is now fair. Just traded one bias for another. This one even more pronounced

[bobphilo]

other measures could not be made to make racing inherently safer.

Does someone have a list of breakdowns per runners per track? Would be interesting reading.



Now you're talking. The dramitic reduction in breakdowns (from 24 to 3) at Turfway occured dispite the fact that there were more runners and starts the year after Poly was installed compared to the year before. That makes the stat even more impressive.

Bob

[alysheba88]

Now you're talking. The dramitic reduction in breakdowns (from 24 to 3) at Turfway occured dispite the fact that there were more runners and starts the year after Poly was installed compared to the year before. That makes the stat even more impressive.

Bob

May not have made myself clear. Was looking for the stats for every meet in the country.

[bobphilo]

So the bias at Keeneland is now fair? When a front runner cannnot win no matter how slow the fractions? Thats fair?

Now races are decided by class and ability? Based on what?

Listen I love turf racing and am all for "close" finishes. Personally would prefer a ten lenght win to a close loss but thats another story. But no way you can say Keeneland is now fair. Just traded one bias for another. This one even more pronounced

Hey, I thought you were pro-bias and considered uniform bias-less racing boring. So now you're a Poly fan at Keeneland?
In any case what's happening at Keeneland now is more likely due to how the jocks are riding the races than with the track. One see's these back and forth trends all the time.
If the track is so biased against speed how come Teuflesberg, who didn't figure to finish anywhere near Street Sense was able to be only beaten a neck?
I can see how a typical dirt track with poor traction can make it hard for a closer to acclerate enough at the finish to catch the speed. How do you think the better traction on Poly and turf hurts the front-runners aside from removing that advantage?

Bob

[alysheba88]

Hey, I thought you were pro-bias and considered uniform bias-less racing boring. So now you're a Poly fan at Keeneland?
In any case what's happening at Keeneland now is more likely due to how the jocks are riding the races than with the track. One see's these back and forth trends all the time.
If the track is so biased against speed how come Teuflesberg, who didn't figure to finish anywhere near Street Sense was able to be only beaten a neck?
I can see how a typical dirt track with poor traction can make it hard for a closer to acclerate enough at the finish to catch the speed. How do you think the better traction on Poly and turf hurts the front-runners aside from removing that advantage?

Bob


You are losing me here. Not following. You were the one talking about "fairness" and was just pointing out that they replaced one bias with another. If you want to argue the "safety" issue go ahead. But dont think its logical to say the Keeneland surface is more "fair" when you examine the winning profiles. As far as the specifics of the race, dont kid yourself. The fractions were embarrassingly slow. That was why they were bunched at the finish. The fact that the horse couldnt hold on with those fractions says all you need.

[bobphilo]

May not have made myself clear. Was looking for the stats for every meet in the country.

Feel free to get them from the tracks if you think it will make any difference in the what the research shows. At Turway it only made poly look better. If you have any reason to believe that the reduction in breakdowns was due to less starters, knock yourself out.
So far none of your knocks on poly has stood up. Since no amount of evidence will influence your thinking, ther's no point in taking this any further. I'm just glad the posters had a chance to see the facts.

Bob

[alysheba88]

Feel free to get them from the tracks if you think it will make any difference in the what the research shows. At Turway it only made poly look better. If you have any reason to believe that the reduction in breakdowns was due to less starters, knock yourself out.
So far none of your knocks on poly has stood up. Since no amount of evidence will influence your thinking, ther's no point in taking this any further. I'm just glad the posters had a chance to see the facts.

Bob

Bob you seem to be taking this very personally. I am just looking for information. I am just interested in the breakdown numbers. I guess I could have started another thread asking about it. Wasnt looking for the information to support or oppose anything. I think some surfaces are safer than others and was just interested in what the data said. For a few years. Not sure what knocks you are referring to either. You seem to be deflecting from your fairness comment which is okay. Like I said if you want to focus on safety I think you at least have an argument. Saying Keeneland is more fair now is not necessarily logical to me, as they replaced one bias with another.

And again just repeating something doesnt make it so. "The evidence"

[bobphilo]

Bob you seem to be taking this very personally. I am just looking for information. I am just interested in the breakdown numbers. I guess I could have started another thread asking about it. Wasnt looking for the information to support or oppose anything. I think some surfaces are safer than others and was just interested in what the data said. For a few years. Not sure what knocks you are referring to either. You seem to be deflecting from your fairness comment which is okay. Like I said if you want to focus on safety I think you at least have an argument. Saying Keeneland is more fair now is not necessarily logical to me, as they replaced one bias with another.

And again just repeating something doesnt make it so. "The evidence"

Alysheba, No, just repeating something does not make it so, neither pro nor anti poly, but I am trying to present evidence in a manner you can understand. I am trying to not take this personally but it is very frustrating dealing with multiple criticisms of Polytack with not based on fact or correct methodology.

I don't know what else I can say to make my point, but since you are at least arguing respectfully and are begining to see the evidence for safety I will try to explain my position again. However at this point, I am exhausted from a debate that seems to be going nowhere and must pick it up at a later date. While some unfair criticisms of poly were exposed earlier I don’t want this to become a personal debating contest, so lets give it a rest for now.
I do appreciate that you are seeing the safety benefits of poly and the issue of bias can be continued later.

Peace,

Bob

[Valuist]

I thought the Hollywood meet on Cushion track was very formful and did well. TP has been more difficult. Cheap beasts running on fake dirt
= way too much randomness for me. Kee is just as biased now as it was before. Totally eliminate speed and anything inside. The Bluegrass may have had an exciting final 100 yards but it might've been the most boring first 8.5 furlongs for a Grade 1 in history.

You also never see horses come back after being passed on synthetic. Stormello last December at Hol is the only horse I've ever seen do that on synthetic.

California is way overdoing it. SA never had problems with breakdowns. Why make them change? Let's hope CD, Bel and Sar never get it.

[DanG]

California is way overdoing it. SA never had problems with breakdowns. Why make them change? Let's hope CD, Bel and Sar never get it. This is delusional IMO…

[Southieboy]

SA never had problems with breakdowns.

They did this year

[jonnielu]

You are losing me here. Not following. You were the one talking about "fairness" and was just pointing out that they replaced one bias with another. If you want to argue the "safety" issue go ahead. But dont think its logical to say the Keeneland surface is more "fair" when you examine the winning profiles. As far as the specifics of the race, dont kid yourself. The fractions were embarrassingly slow. That was why they were bunched at the finish. The fact that the horse couldnt hold on with those fractions says all you need.

What if "bias" was a figment of Beyer's imagination?

[alysheba88]

What if "bias" was a figment of Beyer's imagination?

You mean if Beyer does not exist that front runners really did well at Keeneland this year? Not sure I follow. Regardless of what Beyer or any person thinks the results from Keeneland speak for themselves. If someone wants to argue the surface is fair to all running types and there is no bias God bless em

[alysheba88]

Alysheba, No, just repeating something does not make it so, neither pro nor anti poly, but I am trying to present evidence in a manner you can understand. I am trying to not take this personally but it is very frustrating dealing with multiple criticisms of Polytack with not based on fact or correct methodology.

I don't know what else I can say to make my point, but since you are at least arguing respectfully and are begining to see the evidence for safety I will try to explain my position again. However at this point, I am exhausted from a debate that seems to be going nowhere and must pick it up at a later date. While some unfair criticisms of poly were exposed earlier I don’t want this to become a personal debating contest, so lets give it a rest for now.
I do appreciate that you are seeing the safety benefits of poly and the issue of bias can be continued later.

Peace,

Bob



Guess I didnt make myself clear. I am not necessarily "seeing the safety benefits of poly". The jury is still out to me. I don't see the same "evidence" you see and as I explained in a few posts I think more study and analysis is in order before making that leap. What I am saying is if you are going to argue the safety issue I think you can come up with an argument- not saying all or even I would buy it, but its at least defendable. On the other hand saying there is no bias at Keeneland is not really defensible to me. They traded one bias for a stronger one.

PS: No reason not to be respectful- appreciate it in return. We both love the game just coming at it from a different perpsective.

[jma]

Now you're talking. The dramitic reduction in breakdowns (from 24 to 3) at Turfway occured dispite the fact that there were more runners and starts the year after Poly was installed compared to the year before. That makes the stat even more impressive.

Bob

Oh, sorry. You're going with "3" and not "1" for 2005 breakdowns. And then in 2006 it was up to 20. I am also not seeing the PROVEN safety benefits. See, proven is the key. There are positive signs at some meets at some tracks, but no proof yet. Listen, I don't mind betting on Polytrack races because it adds another dimension to racing that people haven't figured out yet. I've done well at Keeneland, so it hasn't hurt me. Still, I'm convinced by this point that you own stock in the product. You're ignored all the breakdowns you don't want to face, and cling to that one good year at Turfway as proof that poly is safe. While whining about the "Anti-Poly lobby", whatever that is, you're ignoring all the money coming from the companies pushing to install their artificial surfaces. That's why we're suddenly seeing them pop up everywhere. Steve Haskin is right, we are going to see it everywhere---for the same reason we saw it in baseball in the 1970s. You might want to do some research about how that turned out...

[Bobzilla]

This thread represents one of the best debates I've seen to date on this topic. In my opinion both sides have made compelling arguments and I wish there had been more of this discussion by the fans/bettors on a national level prior to unilateral decisions by the industry to convert many of the "A" level tracks.

Count me in with the anti-synthetic crowd, for now anyway, as I suspect many of the long term consequences of the decisions to convert are far from being profoundly understood. That would include the issue of safety. I wouldn't have so many concerns at this point if only a handful of tracks had made the move while the major tracks decided to wait for a reasonable amount of time to pass so there would be more data to analyze. This would have been more along the lines of years rather than all at once.

Like some of the handicappes on this board I have enjoyed some success with the past Keeneland fall meet as well as the current. There has been a treasure trove of overlays as many in the wagering public erroneously continue to believe dirt form converts directly to synthetic form. I think most of us here realize that Synthetics are a 3rd surface that, in terms of race dynamics, plays more like turf than dirt, though not exactly like turf. As more tracks make this seemingly inevitable change, these opportunities will cease. I believe the exciting prices we're seeing now at Keeneland are only temporary, but may last for a few more years, serving as a major selling point for synthetics by the powers that be in the industry.

The health and well-being of the horse is not insignificant, I realize that. But neither is the concern that 10 years from now the more erudite of handicappers may feel they can no longer handicap to advantage through their better understanding of track differences, surface changes, varying track speeds and degrees of resistance and how each of these variables effects horses of different conditions, ages, experience levels, form cycles,etc.etc. There is more to track nuances than so-called "speed bises". If sharp players over the years discover that, in the long run, there will be less angles to take advantage of in a world of total synthetic, handle will surely be effected as will the sport. I understand the argument that over time, Synthetic surfaces may actually create more angles than less. This could be true and I'll keep an open mind, but at this time I'm strongly doubting it.

On another front, it's nice to see many of the owners taking a sudden interest in the well-being of their horses who have served them so well over the years, and provided them many a thrill, and in some cases lots of money. Perhaps if this trend continues, they will mandate from their trainers less use of drugs which more than anything, along with the mis-breeding, has contributed to on-track fatalities. Dirt tracks have been unfairly maligned on this issue. Hopefully more owners will track the whereabouts of once owned horses so the horses will never have to suffer the horrors of slaughter.

[46zilzal]

What if "bias" was a figment of Beyer's imagination?
Tons of evidence to say otherwise. I doubted it to until a wiser observer showed me a way to find it when it is there.

[bobphilo]

Oh, sorry. You're going with "3" and not "1" for 2005 breakdowns. And then in 2006 it was up to 20. I am also not seeing the PROVEN safety benefits. .

I think you’re confusing other types of injuries with catastrophic (fatal) breakdowns. Here are the actual statistics:



Turfway had 24 catastrophic breakdowns during its 2004-05 fall-winter meet, its last season on dirt. With Polytrack installed for 2005-06 racing, Turfway there were only three fatal breakdowns, even though the total number of entries increased from 8,925 to 10,208.

From Jan. 1-Feb. 11, 2007 there were four catastrophic breakdowns at Turfway on Polytrack. Last year in January and February, there were none on Polytrack, but in 2005 on the old dirt surface, there were 13 fatal breakdowns the first two months of the year.

There was a slight increase in catastrophic breakdowns early in the second year (mainly due to the tinkering efforts of Turfway to make the track more dirt-like) but they were still significantly lower than on dirt. There were NEVER 20 fatal breakdowns on Poly.


Bob

[rgustafson]

Hope Andy was watching and playing Keeneland today. May want to rewrite his column.

[JPinMaryland]

The health and well-being of the horse is not insignificant, I realize that. But neither is the concern that 10 years from now the more erudite of handicappers may feel they can no longer handicap to advantage through their better understanding of track differences, surface changes, varying track speeds and degrees of resistance and how each of these variables effects horses of different conditions, ages, experience levels, form cycles,etc.etc. There is more to track nuances than so-called "speed bises". If sharp players over the years discover that, in the long run, there will be less angles to take advantage of in a world of total synthetic, handle will surely be effected as will the sport. r.

You know you're arguing that the long term effects of poly may not be well understood and then you're proposing a counter argument that is entirely speculative with respect to the future. There is no evidence that anythign like this has ever happened in the sport.

How on earth could something like that happen where people could no longer handicap? You may as well posit that horses can no longer run or punters could no longer work betting machines :confused:

[john del riccio]

Hope Andy was watching and playing Keeneland today. May want to rewrite his column.

There were several wire to wire winners and the track was blazing fast.

John

[Niko]

It scares me when the track supers can manipulate a track so much. Hey, let's speed it up today, add some more water and bet early. Ok, let's slow it down today and not put as much water on it and bet the closers.

I realize there's experimenting going on to get a good racing surface and fair style for all horses, but the above isn't far fetched.

I really stay away from betting if I can't watch the races live...never know what you're going to get.

[Greyfox]

It scares me when the track supers can manipulate a track so much. Hey, let's speed it up today, add some more water and bet early. Ok, let's slow it down today and not put as much water on it and bet the closers.

.

I don't care if they speed it up or slow it down, just don't do it during a card when Pick 3's and Pick 4's are on the line.

[bobphilo]

There were several wire to wire winners and the track was blazing fast.

John

Considering how fast they blazed the final splits in the Blue Grass, I never had any doubt about the track's speed.

As for the so-called bias against early speed, I just did an analysis of Keeneland using Brisnet’s “speed bias” figure which measures what percentage of winners were either E or E/P types and it was 35% - not even counting today’s results. Since about a third of the horses in a typical field fall into this category, that’s what one would expect on a non-biased track.

The % was higher for sprints and lower for routes, which suggests that biases often attributed to the track are really the result of jockey strategy.

The riders over Polytrack in general, and Keeneland in particular, especially in two-turn races, are overcompensating for the belief that speed will not hold up and are strangling the early pace en-mass. A self-fulfilling prophecy, but the track itself is not biased for or against early speed. Beyer is wrong on this.
There is also going to be day to day variation, which is normal and has nothing to do with bias. one can go crazy chasing these variations.


Bob

[JPinMaryland]

Instead of calling it an anti speed bias, may one describe it as anti pace? I.e. it throws out our conventional notions of pace, pace no longer becomes important does it? I mean its important in a certain sense, but horses performance is not affected negatively when they dont get the pace they like.

[jonnielu]

There were several wire to wire winners and the track was blazing fast.

John

Gee, how could that happen? I mean with that serious bias going on from the polytrack and all.

[jonnielu]

The % was higher for sprints and lower for routes, which suggests that biases often attributed to the track are really the result of jockey strategy.

The riders over Polytrack in general, and Keeneland in particular, especially in two-turn races, are overcompensating for the belief that speed will not hold up and are strangling the early pace en-mass. A self-fulfilling prophecy, but the track itself is not biased for or against early speed. Beyer is wrong on this.
There is also going to be day to day variation, which is normal and has nothing to do with bias. one can go crazy chasing these variations.


Bob

Way to go, Bob. It's good to see that someone is paying attention to what is actually happening on the track. Beyer's concept of track variant has always been a house of cards.

[Tom]

House of cards?
Please, elaborate....

[jonnielu]

Instead of calling it an anti speed bias, may one describe it as anti pace? I.e. it throws out our conventional notions of pace, pace no longer becomes important does it? I mean its important in a certain sense, but horses performance is not affected negatively when they dont get the pace they like.

It would be more accurate to first consider the ability of the horses to run the given distance. And then how those abilities will effect the pace, and then whether or not that pace will effect the outcome. If the lone 100 in a race full of 90's is going to run his one hundred today, there will be no pace factor to consider.

If there is a 100 in the #1 hole, and a 100 in the #6 hole, and a 100 in the #12 hole with a 97 in the #2, #3, or #7 hole, then the pace will be dictated by these factors and it may be fast, or it may be slow depending on how the handlers of #1 see things. Hell, they might not even know that their horse is a 100, and just be there for a 6f workout, #7 might be looking to pay a feed bill and go chasing to stay on his hip, while #12 figures to go hell for leather just to have a shot. While #6, who has been pinned to the rail this whole time, in the middle of the pack by #10 who is hoping that #2 and #7 will wear each other out, suddenly finds himself in contention when #2 and #7 drift out on the turn.

Man, that would be just like a race at Keeneland, on that damned biased track.

[jonnielu]

House of cards?
Please, elaborate....

When a horse does not perform up to your measurement, it is the height of arrogance to assume that it could only be because of the track. It just doubles when you have replaced one fuzzy and wobbly method of performance measure
with one that is at least just as fuzzy and wobbly.

[john del riccio]

Considering how fast they blazed the final splits in the Blue Grass, I never had any doubt about the track's speed.

As for the so-called bias against early speed, I just did an analysis of Keeneland using Brisnet’s “speed bias” figure which measures what percentage of winners were either E or E/P types and it was 35% - not even counting today’s results. Since about a third of the horses in a typical field fall into this category, that’s what one would expect on a non-biased track.

The % was higher for sprints and lower for routes, which suggests that biases often attributed to the track are really the result of jockey strategy.

The riders over Polytrack in general, and Keeneland in particular, especially in two-turn races, are overcompensating for the belief that speed will not hold up and are strangling the early pace en-mass. A self-fulfilling prophecy, but the track itself is not biased for or against early speed. Beyer is wrong on this.
There is also going to be day to day variation, which is normal and has nothing to do with bias. one can go crazy chasing these variations.


Bob

Good call Bob, I agree 100%.

I would add that making figs for sprints is alot more straight forward than routes. The shorter the sprint, the more straight forward. Route races, especially around two turns have a wider dynamic and this makes for a more challenging puzzle to put together. As for turf races, the bizarre slow paces are common, and making figs for turf races must take that into account. Over the Polytrack at KEE recently, we have seen alot of that and again, it must be taken into account. I beleive some figure makers mark slow paces races with a special designation. I personally use my pace figures to asess that aspect.

John

[Tom]

When a horse does not perform up to your measurement, it is the height of arrogance to assume that it could only be because of the track. It just doubles when you have replaced one fuzzy and wobbly method of performance measure
with one that is at least just as fuzzy and wobbly.

What does that have to do with his concept of track variant?

[bobphilo]

What does that have to do with his concept of track variant?

Tom,

I think jonnielu was refering tothe issue of track bias, or pseudo bias, rather than track variant. When a faint-hearted front-runner gets caught by a superior closer, some people are quick to blame in on a anti-speed bias rather than looking at the ability of the 2 horses.
Same thing when a few classy front-runners go wire to wire - the cry of speed bias is heard.
There may be legitimate biases but many are just the result of pace, the horses abilities, and how the races are ridden - somthings not considered enough before declaring a track "biased"
Did I get it right, jonnielu?

Bob

[bobphilo]

Good call Bob, I agree 100%.

I would add that making figs for sprints is alot more straight forward than routes. The shorter the sprint, the more straight forward. Route races, especially around two turns have a wider dynamic and this makes for a more challenging puzzle to put together. As for turf races, the bizarre slow paces are common, and making figs for turf races must take that into account. Over the Polytrack at KEE recently, we have seen alot of that and again, it must be taken into account. I beleive some figure makers mark slow paces races with a special designation. I personally use my pace figures to asess that aspect.

John

Good points, John.
I can definitely understand the difficulty in making figures for slow paced route races. Here’s a portion of a post I wrote speculating what the Blue Grass figure would be like:


“Beyer, and other fig makers, can go 2 ways with this.
1) He can give everyone a poor figure based on the slow final time and the pace handicappers can take this into account and/or adjust for the slow early pace.
2) He can assign figures based on the horses finish relative to each other in relation to their prior figure histories, which would include the affect of the pace, and probably give a better "as is" figure for the race (ala Timeform).

Which will yield the more "accurate" figure will depend on how it is later used.”


It looks like Beyer went with method 1 and you leaned more towards 2.


Bob

[jonnielu]

What does that have to do with his concept of track variant?

If my memory serves me correctly, Beyer predicts a figure, then if the subject does not run that figure, the deviation is due to the track. Granted, maybe Beyer makes figures a little different these days as compared to how he did it in the seventies, but, the fact that he still whines about surfaces suggests that he has made no improvements.

If the track could cause your 115 to run a 110 today, then it may have been the track that made him a 115 in the first place. So, it follows that your 115 could be anything from a 108 to a 120, depending on the track. Which means that the old inaccurate measure of "class" has been replaced with another inaccurate measure of "Beyer". It just seems to me, that if the man could develop some accurate method of measuring a horses ability to run a given distance of ground, then we would be reading "My $150,000 Year at the Races" instead of some sniveling about polytrack.

[jonnielu]

Tom,

I think jonnielu was refering tothe issue of track bias, or pseudo bias, rather than track variant. When a faint-hearted front-runner gets caught by a superior closer, some people are quick to blame in on a anti-speed bias rather than looking at the ability of the 2 horses.
Same thing when a few classy front-runners go wire to wire - the cry of speed bias is heard.
There may be legitimate biases but many are just the result of pace, the horses abilities, and how the races are ridden - somthings not considered enough before declaring a track "biased"
Did I get it right, jonnielu?

Bob

Ability comes first with me, whatever is going on with a track surface, in general, it will affect all entrants. Even if it is a deep outside on the backstretch. Pace does not affect ability, ability dictates pace.

In the Bluegrass, Street Sense did not enjoy an ability advantage that would warrant a 2-5 M/L. Great Hunter, Zanjero, and Teuflesberg were close enough to SS in ability, to make the race unbettable. Unless you might want to take a shot on Zanjero. But you should know when you are taking a shot, that you are taking a shot. Another horse that was barely in this group on the ability scale was, Dominican. The troublesome thing with him was that he may have been able to win the Rushaway 3 weeks previous without having to call on his full measure of ability, as SS did at Tampa. That would have made a shot on Zanjero even more of a shot.

In the Bluegrass, it may have been the jockey's superstitions, or the trainer's fear of losing that produced the slow pace. But, it was the contestants abilities that produced the results.

[john del riccio]

Another horse that was barely in this group on the ability scale was, Dominican..

Dominican was much more than "barely in this group, he was the most likely to a bang up race.

John

[cj]

Good points, John.
I can definitely understand the difficulty in making figures for slow paced route races. Here’s a portion of a post I wrote speculating what the Blue Grass figure would be like:


“Beyer, and other fig makers, can go 2 ways with this.
1) He can give everyone a poor figure based on the slow final time and the pace handicappers can take this into account and/or adjust for the slow early pace.
2) He can assign figures based on the horses finish relative to each other in relation to their prior figure histories, which would include the affect of the pace, and probably give a better "as is" figure for the race (ala Timeform).

Which will yield the more "accurate" figure will depend on how it is later used.”


It looks like Beyer went with method 1 and you leaned more towards 2.


Bob

The problem with #2 is that you are only measuring part of the race. This works fine for some of the horses in the race, but inflates the figures of other, less talented horses. If the pace is so slow that virtually any horse can keep up, then the inferior ones get outrun late but will finish much closer than if the race had been run at a decent pace the whole way around.

I personally like to do #1, and decided for myself the race is probably not a true indicator of the horse's real ability time wise. Assigning "projected" ratings, i.e. trying to guess what the horses would have run in an honest paced race, usually inflates at least a few of the runners, which is something I try to avoid. I'd rather under rate them all and know to look at other races. All of this of course is just my preference, others will disagree.

[Tom]

If my memory serves me correctly, Beyer predicts a figure, then if the subject does not run that figure, the deviation is due to the track. Granted, maybe Beyer makes figures a little different these days as compared to how he did it in the seventies, but, the fact that he still whines about surfaces suggests that he has made no improvements.



And your better way to do it is..........


Seems to me, Beyer has done ok for himself and tens of thousands of horse players over the years. You seem to do more whinning about Beyer than his one article about poly.;)

[JPinMaryland]

Does Beyer incorporate pace into these figs. or not? You know I read his first book and formed that impression but now that I read this recent talk I am not so sure anymore. Is it just a final time modified by a daily track variant or is there something more?

Sorry to be so ignorant I had assumed one thing now I am not so sure..

[alysheba88]

Does Beyer incorporate pace into these figs. or not? You know I read his first book and formed that impression but now that I read this recent talk I am not so sure anymore. Is it just a final time modified by a daily track variant or is there something more?

Sorry to be so ignorant I had assumed one thing now I am not so sure..

First of all its not just "Beyer". There are several people who put together Beyer speed figures. From all over the country.

Beyers are speed figures. Nothing else. So no they dont factor in pace

[cj]

Directly, he does not incorporate pace. Indirectly, he does.

When you get very slow or very fast paces, the final times often don't "make sense" to some of the Beyer figure makers. So, they project a figure that does make sense, ignoring the final time.

[bobphilo]

The problem with #2 is that you are only measuring part of the race. This works fine for some of the horses in the race, but inflates the figures of other, less talented horses. If the pace is so slow that virtually any horse can keep up, then the inferior ones get outrun late but will finish much closer than if the race had been run at a decent pace the whole way around.

I personally like to do #1, and decided for myself the race is probably not a true indicator of the horse's real ability time wise. Assigning "projected" ratings, i.e. trying to guess what the horses would have run in an honest paced race, usually inflates at least a few of the runners, which is something I try to avoid. I'd rather under rate them all and know to look at other races. All of this of course is just my preference, others will disagree.

This is definitely more problematic than usual for figure makers, regardless of which method they use, as well as for the handicapper.
With method 1, the 'capper has to upgrade eveyone, especially the closers, to account for the slow pace.
With method 2, the 'capper has to downgrade the cheap speed which finished much better due to the slow pace. In either case, the figure itself is much less indicative of the horses' abilities than usual. By udgrade or downgrade, I don't mean changung the figure numerically so much as reallizing that it is too high or too low and using other performances to judge the horse's ability. Then again, all figures must be considered in context of the conditions in which they were earned - this is a more extreme case
It's probably clear to the handicapper which method was used and how to take that into account by looking at whether the assigned figure seems high or low for the horses.

Bob

[cj]

It's probably clear to the handicapper which method was used and how to take that into account by looking at whether the assigned figure is high or low for the horses.

Bob

All good points Bob. I would say, however, it is not clear to the majority of those using figures they didn't make themselves without some serious study. It isn't just Beyer. Thorograph is way more likely to break out a race from others do to pace fluctations, which is the biggest issue I have with the numbers.

[bobphilo]

All good points Bob. I would say, however, it is not clear to the majority of those using figures they didn't make themselves without some serious study. It isn't just Beyer. Thorograph is way more likely to break out a race from others do to pace fluctations, which is the biggest issue I have with the numbers.

While I agree that races must often be broken out, I see what you mean that there is a danger that one can actually be looking at a pace variation and considering it a change in track speed - especially if one does not consider pace like TG.

In a related issue; here's one possible way to make figures for races like the Blue Grass. Tentatively give the winner the figure he was expected to run, given his history, and use a beaten lengths formula for 3 furlongs (since that's all they really ran) for the others. Then compare these figures to the projections for each horse to come up with a final figure. This would at least put the respective figures in perspective.
Actually using the 3 furlong beaten length formula might be a good idea, regardless of how one does the winner's figure. Beyer uses the sprint BL formula for turf routes to deal with the close finishes. My method is even more specific to the way the race was run and its effect on the horses' relative figures. Just food for thought.

Bob

[Tom]

I don't agree wtih breaking out races.
What you are doing is admitting the result doesn't make sense, you do not know why, so you choose to ignore it and arbitrarily say the did somehting he might not have done. I would rather have the abberent figure and let the user decide how to interpret it. To say "Old Paint" ran a 3 when in fact, in context of the other races, he ran a 7, to me, is not right. Call a 7 a 7 and let ME decide what it means. Putting up a 3 give me wrong information.

[bobphilo]

I don't agree wtih breaking out races.
What you are doing is admitting the result doesn't make sense, you do not know why, so you choose to ignore it and arbitrarily say the did somehting he might not have done. I would rather have the abberent figure and let the user decide how to interpret it. To say "Old Paint" ran a 3 when in fact, in context of the other races, he ran a 7, to me, is not right. Call a 7 a 7 and let ME decide what it means. Putting up a 3 give me wrong information.

However, tracks can change speeds dramatically from race to race due to maintenance, wind shifts, drying, groundwater changes, temperature, barometer, sunlight, other weather changes, etc. Why do people think that the track speed changes exactly once every 24 hours when conditions can change throughout the day?

If the figure maker does not try to adjust for these, as evidenced by the performances of the horses in that race, we have no way of knowing whether the figure is due to change in track speed or a change in the horse’s form. I’d much rather go with the figure that “makes the most sense” (meaning most probable) for the horses in that specific race.


Of course, the figure maker has to make sure that he’s not confusing the effects of extreme pace, and other factors, with track speed. That’s why the handicapping skills of the figure maker are key here.


Bob

[thelyingthief]

i use several speed figures simultaneously, and trust them where there is agreement, and distrust those where not. the underlying assumption speed theorists make, that performance can be measured in a single figure, is inconsistent with the reality, seems to me. i am vastly more dependent upon arrays and models, and speed figs at best indicate those races on which to focus my attention, quite as often because they are WRONG as otherwise. using my methods, i hit 18 of my last 20 bets (2horse); i have never experienced that consistency utilizing speed figures, singularly or in tandem.

where disagreement is prevalent--~60% of the time--i trust to raw times, as defined, speedwise, by the old DRF sr. if DRF ever stops printing the SR, i'll transfer to a source that does.

[cj]

While I agree that races must often be broken out, I see what you mean that there is a danger that one can actually be looking at a pace variation and considering it a change in track speed - especially if one does not consider pace like TG.

In a related issue; here's one possible way to make figures for races like the Blue Grass. Tentatively give the winner the figure he was expected to run, given his history, and use a beaten lengths formula for 3 furlongs (since that's all they really ran) for the others. Then compare these figures to the projections for each horse to come up with a final figure. This would at least put the respective figures in perspective.
Actually using the 3 furlong beaten length formula might be a good idea, regardless of how one does the winner's figure. Beyer uses the sprint BL formula for turf routes to deal with the close finishes. My method is even more specific to the way the race was run and its effect on the horses' relative figures. Just food for thought.

Bob

Very, very interesting idea. I wish I had thought of it!

[alysheba88]

Directly, he does not incorporate pace. Indirectly, he does.

When you get very slow or very fast paces, the final times often don't "make sense" to some of the Beyer figure makers. So, they project a figure that does make sense, ignoring the final time.

They use the projection method for virtually all their figures. Thats one of the key underpinnings

[alysheba88]

I know of no one who thinks speed figures summarize everything about a horse. I am always surprised in this day and age that people still dont understand Beyer speed figures. They are speed figures nothing else. Not pace figures. Not a summary of a horses past performance. Not a universal #. Just a speed figure. People create a false argument about what they represent and then argue against the falsehood. No one, least of all the people who create them, see them as the end all be all. They are just a tool.

[bobphilo]

I know of no one who thinks speed figures summarize everything about a horse. I am always surprised in this day and age that people still dont understand Beyer speed figures. They are speed figures nothing else. Not pace figures. Not a summary of a horses past performance. Not a universal #. Just a speed figure. People create a false argument about what they represent and then argue against the falsehood. No one, least of all the people who create them, see them as the end all be all. They are just a tool.

Alysheba,

On this issue we are in complete agreement. I don’t think most figure makers even claim that their speed ratings alone will pick out the best horse today. They are merely giving an estimate on how a horse ran his previous races by using his time in relation to track speed – a very good method. That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t look at things that could have affected that figure, such as pace, trip, etc. just as important, One also has to look at what conditions the horse faces today. Speed figures are not meant to be an all-encompassing number of a horse’s ability. Performance ratings, like Timeform, try to do that do that, but again, even they only do that for a horse’s particular past races. One has to handicap to predict a horse’s performance on race day.


LT,
I also try to use several sources of speed figures since each method has their own strengths and weaknesses and I like to compare to see which one seems to point out the most likely estimate of the horses’ abilities for today’s race.
If you’re going to use pure speed ratings you might want to use a good parallel or par times chart, like in Beyer’s book and the one that Tom posted, http://www.angelfire.com/la2/LouisianaRacing/SPRChartsBeyer.html (http://www.angelfire.com/la2/LouisianaRacing/SPRChartsBeyer.html)
since the DRF Speed ratings can be affected by atypical great performances.



Bob

[bobphilo]

Very, very interesting idea. I wish I had thought of it!

Thanks, CJ.

Since I don't have a patent on it, :D you're free to use it. Let me know how it works out if you do.

Bob

[Tom]

However, tracks can change speeds dramatically from race to race due to maintenance, wind shifts, drying, groundwater changes, temperature, barometer, sunlight, other weather changes, etc. Why do people think that the track speed changes exactly once every 24 hours when conditions can change throughout the day? ....



Bob
I agree, but that's not the same thing as breaking out one race. I can see split variants, but in a 9 race card, I doubt you have enough data to say with any confidence the variant changed three times.
I'm talking about the day's variants going 4,4,4,4,4,-9,4,4,4.
Nuh,uh. :cool:

[john del riccio]

I agree, but that's not the same thing as breaking out one race. I can see split variants, but in a 9 race card, I doubt you have enough data to say with any confidence the variant changed three times.
I'm talking about the day's variants going 4,4,4,4,4,-9,4,4,4.
Nuh,uh. :cool:

Tom,

I have seen the variant change 9 times in a 9 race card. I am not kidding.

John

[bobphilo]

I agree, but that's not the same thing as breaking out one race. I can see split variants, but in a 9 race card, I doubt you have enough data to say with any confidence the variant changed three times.
I'm talking about the day's variants going 4,4,4,4,4,-9,4,4,4.
Nuh,uh. :cool:

That all depends in how you’re calculating your variant. If your using class pars and only the winner’s time (not a good method IMO), there is not enough evidence to cut the race loose. However, If I were using projections on most of the field and one race comes out clearly different than the others, and applying the day’s variant to that race gave me figures that were highly unlikely for the horses in that race, and it was not due to pace, I would go with the probability that the track speed had changed for that race.

I basically begin with no assumptions that track speed did or did not change and mainly base my variant on what the performances of the horses in that race tell me.



Bob

[jonnielu]

And your better way to do it is..........


Seems to me, Beyer has done ok for himself and tens of thousands of horse players over the years. You seem to do more whinning about Beyer than his one article about poly.;)

Well... I'm only 52 now, and I can probably get another 25 years out of it for myself as long as Beyer helps to keep the average mutuel up where it has always been.

And, you may be right about how much good it does to whine about Beyer, :bang: maybe I should just point out that he hasn't been able to quit his day job, and move on to the Sartinoligists for awhile :eek:.

[cj]

Kudos to Beyer for getting the track resembling normal. I have no proof of course, but I doubt the track would have changed as it has recently if not for his article.

[the little guy]

And, you may be right about how much good it does to whine about Beyer, :bang: maybe I should just point out that he hasn't been able to quit his day job, and move on to the Sartinoligists for awhile :eek:.

Beyer retired from his " day job " a few years ago.

[jonnielu]

I don't agree wtih breaking out races.
What you are doing is admitting the result doesn't make sense, you do not know why, so you choose to ignore it and arbitrarily say the did somehting he might not have done. I would rather have the abberent figure and let the user decide how to interpret it. To say "Old Paint" ran a 3 when in fact, in context of the other races, he ran a 7, to me, is not right. Call a 7 a 7 and let ME decide what it means. Putting up a 3 give me wrong information.

You are right, Tom. The Bluegrass finishers were relatively equal going into the gate and relatively equal at the wire. To upgrade or downgrade based on a notion that pace helped or hindered would be inaccurate. Relative equality is the conclusion that can be drawn, and this gives us little to work with going into the Derby, except that these four won't get much separation in the Churchill stretch either. Regardless of what numbers they may be assigned for the Bluegrass.

[Tom]

Tom,

I have seen the variant change 9 times in a 9 race card. I am not kidding.

John

I sure as hell wouldn 't use THOSE nubmers!
Sample size = 1???
You might as well use The DRF TV.

[john del riccio]

I sure as hell wouldn 't use THOSE nubmers!
Sample size = 1???
You might as well use The DRF TV.


Tom,

C'mon, how can you say something like that ?

Next time it rains like hell, see if you can notice anything about Belmont Parks
racing surface. If I have the time, I am going to look for one of those days
that I am referring to and show you empircal proof that what I am saying is undisputeable. Of course this is the exception and not the norm and it was in direct response to your statement that the track variant can't be split into as little as three slices during a racing card which is absolutely, positively incorrect.

John

[bobphilo]

I sure as hell wouldn 't use THOSE nubmers!
Sample size = 1???
You might as well use The DRF TV.

Who says you only have to use the winner in your sample? You use all the horses in the race who ran decently.
In any case, including different populations just to increase sample size is poor methodology. Any statistcian would rather have a small but representative sample rather an inflated one of doubtfull representatation of mixed populations thar may have run under different conditions.

Bob

[Valuist]

Kudos to Beyer for getting the track resembling normal. I have no proof of course, but I doubt the track would have changed as it has recently if not for his article.

No doubt about it. I said something similar on Byk's board the other day. Keeneland was hell bent on shedding their image of a concrete highway, which they obviously did. But once guys like Beyer and Crist wrote that the track was a joke, they realized it was time to get rid of the speed killing bias.

[rastajenk]

I still think the pinheads finally woke up and realized there are diminishing returns to going so slow early in a race. The bias is between the ears, not in the track's surface.

[bobphilo]

I still think the pinheads finally woke up and realized there are diminishing returns to going so slow early in a race. The bias is between the ears, not in the track's surface.

Well put. There are such things as normal variations, sometimes wide ones, that have nothing to do with the surface. Jockeys overrect to the slightest changes, like ball players with their superstitions. They then choke back the speed horses and a closer's "bias" is born.

Bob

[Tom]

Who says you only have to use the winner in your sample? You use all the horses in the race who ran decently.
In any case, including different populations just to increase sample size is poor methodology. Any statistcian would rather have a small but representative sample rather an inflated one of doubtfull representatation of mixed populations thar may have run under different conditions.

Bob
I don't agree. What statisitcal evidence do you have that Race 3 is different from Race 4 to begin with?

[bobphilo]

I don't agree. What statisitcal evidence do you have that Race 3 is different from Race 4 to begin with?

The usual evidence used in making any variant - the actual performance of the horses relative to their projected performance in race 3 compared to the same in race 4. You make no assumption that the track speed has or has not changed. You let the horses tell you that.
Even if you begin with the null hypothesis that the track has not changed, the only basis for rejecting or accepting it has to come from seperation and comparison of the 2 or more populations.
My point is to not miss any track changes, since they can effect the varient significantly. What I am describing gives you some basis to say whether or not there has been a change. By just mixing all the races together, there is no way to detect this. By first examining each race (population) seperately, I have an idea as to whether they are similar enough to be combined into one larger sample.

Bob

[46zilzal]

how about night (before Poly) and day (after Poly)????

[kenwoodallpromos]

I don't agree. What statisitcal evidence do you have that Race 3 is different from Race 4 to begin with?
_________________
On Bluegrass day, in how many races were the leaders trying to show early speed? Do you have to have somebody setting decent fractions prior to fading to have a quicksand bias?

[Tom]

At Keenland, I don't thinak anything matters. I never use a KEE line, never, ever, period. I draw a line through every KEE line, good, bad, or ugly. I don't consider them races. Just bizzare events that the horses encountered. It's like what is the opposite of blue? Pizza. Makes as much sense as KEE races.:bang:

[gm10]

BEST quote from Beyer: "When it was over, many racing fans pondered the outcome and asked what the Blue Grass told us about these horses and about the Kentucky Derby.

The answer is that it told us nothing."

If racing starts to become like the European "let's run 4/5's of the race at a walk, then all run like hell in a blanket" I will become an observer only. Those are all about luck not ability.

You should be very happy that changes like this happen. It gives you an opportunity to change your handicapping quicker than the crowd, who are largely relying on those outdated Beyer figures.

[gm10]

I fully agree. Unlike Davidowitz, Beyer has never shown himself to be multi-faceted. He is not creative, and he won't even adapt his handicapping when the circumstances clearly require it. He thinks Keeneland should fall in line so that his Beyers can become useful again.

I think that's BS. All that's required is a simple modification. Whereas Beyers assume that each section of the race has the same influence on the outcome of the race, this is clearly no longer the case @ Keeneland, where you need to give much more importance to the last fraction.

So for example:

Beyer_adapted = 0.3 * Beyer_1 + 0.7 * Beyer_2
where Beyer_1 is just the Beyer for the first half of the racen and Beyer_2 the one for the second half

Any opinions on this?

I'm normally a fan of most everything Beyer writes about, but in this piece he comes off whining. The last two Keeneland meets have been a gold mine for those willing to adapt to change, because of the many horseplayers who are still playing Keeneland that are unwilling or unable to adapt to change.

Jim

[gm10]

And why didn't anybody complain when Sinister Minister ran the highest 3 year-old Beyer in the Bluegrass last year and finished a distant 16th in the derby?



I fully agree. Unlike Davidowitz, Beyer has never shown himself to be multi-faceted. He is not creative, and he won't even adapt his handicapping when the circumstances clearly require it. He thinks Keeneland should fall in line so that his Beyers can become useful again.

I think that's BS. All that's required is a simple modification. Whereas Beyers assume that each section of the race has the same influence on the outcome of the race, this is clearly no longer the case @ Keeneland, where you need to give much more importance to the last fraction.

So for example:

Beyer_adapted = 0.3 * Beyer_1 + 0.7 * Beyer_2
where Beyer_1 is just the Beyer for the first half of the racen and Beyer_2 the one for the second half

Any opinions on this?

[Tom]

I

So for example:

Beyer_adapted = 0.3 * Beyer_1 + 0.7 * Beyer_2
where Beyer_1 is just the Beyer for the first half of the racen and Beyer_2 the one for the second half

Any opinions on this?


Hmmmm.
Sounds interesting....worth some testing, and playing around with the percentage. I like the concept. Your Beyer_2, would that be the final Beyer or a Beyer for the last fractions? A mile would be cool, 4f and 4 f,but 6 furlongs, use 4f and 2f?

[Valuist]

I still think the pinheads finally woke up and realized there are diminishing returns to going so slow early in a race. The bias is between the ears, not in the track's surface.

Are you talking about Keeneland specifically or all tracks? If one doesn't believe in biases, they should watch Mountaineer virtually any night where you can't win if you are running in the three paths closest to the rail.

[gm10]

Well I have a full implementation of this, and I can reassure you that it outperforms the Equibase figures by a considerable margin (I don't have access to Beyers, but I assume they are pretty similar).

I use the following sections:

up to 4.5F: first 2F, and the rest
5 to 7.5F: first 2F, middle 2F, and the rest
1m or higher: first 2F, middle 4F, and the rest

(I suppose you can play around with this, you could mix a late fraction with the final time for example)

It's very useful for tracks like TP, KEE, but also for all turf races, where the last fraction usually counts for so much more than the rest of the race. You can see at a glance which horse has the best late kick.

Hmmmm.
Sounds interesting....worth some testing, and playing around with the percentage. I like the concept. Your Beyer_2, would that be the final Beyer or a Beyer for the last fractions? A mile would be cool, 4f and 4 f,but 6 furlongs, use 4f and 2f?

[rastajenk]

V-

I was referring to the Keeneland meet, the source of much teethgrinding and handwringing.

[cj]

I fully agree. Unlike Davidowitz, Beyer has never shown himself to be multi-faceted. He is not creative, and he won't even adapt his handicapping when the circumstances clearly require it. He thinks Keeneland should fall in line so that his Beyers can become useful again.

How many days have you hung out with Mr. Beyer and bet? Obviously it must be many since you seem to know not only his results, but his betting style as well.

Why do people assume every article he writes is somehow based on his figures and his betting, and usually the lack of success of both? Jealously?

[gm10]

How many days have you hung out with Mr. Beyer and bet? Obviously it must be many since you seem to know not only his results, but his betting style as well.

Why do people assume every article he writes is somehow based on his figures and his betting, and usually the lack of success of both? Jealously?

Well I suppose I may be wrong. Last year however he wrote in DRF that he regretted Keeneland's decision to go to the polytrack, because the early speed bias ensured there was an honest pace and speed figures were reliable.

Maybe mr. Beyer does really rue the way races are run at Keeneland because he finds it less attractive, who can say.

Regardless of why he wrote this, I've never found speed figures to be reliable in the big races. Great horses always find a way to win, they are not really bound by speed ratings.

[rastajenk]

Of course they're not bound by them, but they tend to run back to them with a good deal of reliability. Go look at the DRF Leaderboard. Good horses run good figs. Crazy, I know, but there it is.

[bobphilo]

Of course they're not bound by them, but they tend to run back to them with a good deal of reliability. Go look at the DRF Leaderboard. Good horses run good figs. Crazy, I know, but there it is.

I agree. Speed figures are the single most predictive factor in handicapping, though they are not the only one.
I think there are 2 seperate issues here. One is the value of Beyer's figures, which are pretty good, and the other is Beyer's anti-poly editorializing, which IMO, stinks.

Bob

[gm10]

I agree. Speed figures are the single most predictive factor in handicapping, though they are not the only one.
I think there are 2 seperate issues here. One is the value of Beyer's figures, which are pretty good, and the other is Beyer's anti-poly editorializing, which IMO, stinks.

Bob

Speed figures are crucial, don't get me wrong, I just don't trust them in the big races, when the regional leaders meet each other. It much more a matter of class then imo. Look at Barbaro, you can't say that he ran big numbers before the KD.

[rastajenk]

I'll see your Barbaro and raise you Smarty Jones, War Emblem, and Charismatic. And Funny Cide, too, I'm all in! :jump:

[gm10]

Of course they're not bound by them, but they tend to run back to them with a good deal of reliability. Go look at the DRF Leaderboard. Good horses run good figs. Crazy, I know, but there it is.


Yes they do, I know. But the small differences in numbers which are so useful at a lower level, mean much less at the top level in my experience. The exception would be turf races where possessing a late kick is always crucial (late speed number).

[gm10]

I'll see your Barbaro and raise you Smarty Jones, War Emblem, and Charismatic. And Funny Cide, too, I'm all in! :jump:

I don't have any speed ratings for those so I can't really tell
I do have ratings for Giacomo, though