An amazing yet disgusting stat

[cees with dees]

Of the 8 premier racetracks in the U.S., five of them are polytrack.
And with the Breeders Cup scheduled to be run at Santa Anita, it is the equivalent of the Super Bowl being played on Astro Turf.
It is the players, and only the players that can put a stop to these non-racing minds that are infiltrating the greatest sport in the world.
STOP BETTING POLYTRACK RACES!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the only way to put an end to this nonsense.
As polytrack is single handedly killing this game, we only participate by wagering on races held on this crap.
The only positive to come of this is the rebirth of harness racing which will no doubt, become a big force again if polytrack continues to ruin our game.
If someone told me two years ago that Keeneland, a premier track in the world, would be running on an artificial surface with animated ping pong balls on the simulcast screen interfering with the live race, I'd have laughed intheir faces but it's become a scary reality.
We as bettors control this and a stop of this needs to happen now and the best way is to boycott this years Breeders Cup.
This sport is dead if Poly continues.
Ben

[Pace Cap'n]

Three horses were euthanized on Tuesday morning at Hollywood Park as a result of injuries sustained either galloping or during workouts. Wise Mandate, trained by Mel Stute, broke down shortly after completing a six-furlong drill in 1:13.80. According to Stute's son, Gary, Wise Mandate broke his sesamoids.

www.drf.com/news/article/90945.html (http://www.drf.com/news/article/90945.html)

[boomman]

Of the 8 premier racetracks in the U.S., five of them are polytrack.
And with the Breeders Cup scheduled to be run at Santa Anita, it is the equivalent of the Super Bowl being played on Astro Turf.
It is the players, and only the players that can put a stop to these non-racing minds that are infiltrating the greatest sport in the world.
STOP BETTING POLYTRACK RACES!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the only way to put an end to this nonsense.
As polytrack is single handedly killing this game, we only participate by wagering on races held on this crap.
The only positive to come of this is the rebirth of harness racing which will no doubt, become a big force again if polytrack continues to ruin our game.
If someone told me two years ago that Keeneland, a premier track in the world, would be running on an artificial surface with animated ping pong balls on the simulcast screen interfering with the live race, I'd have laughed intheir faces but it's become a scary reality.
We as bettors control this and a stop of this needs to happen now and the best way is to boycott this years Breeders Cup.
This sport is dead if Poly continues.
Ben

Ben: Even though I am not a big proponent of synthetic surfaces and consider myself to be a traditionalist like you are, let me share some altering views on this subject. First of all, I disagree with you that polytrack itself is killing the game. There are 2 elements that I think are way above poly on the "killing our game" scale and they involve cheating via illegal drugs and wagering security. First, the drug problem in our sport. IMHO the reason that synthetic surfaces were even needed in the first place was because the breed has been so shot full of illegal substances as a whole that they are many times more likely to break down on any kind of surface today. The trainers (and there are many, you know who they are, we've mentioned them specifically on many other threads) that get multiple positives for banned substances should be banned themselves for life from our game. If the public doesn't trust the integrity and drug testing in our game, it will turn into the juice fiasco of Major League Baseball and people will eventually stay away. Secondly, with the exception of companies like Premier Turf Club that installed the RCI security wagering software (something very few racing jurisdictions install due to cost) the recent Fairgrounds fiasco of past posting by a bettor is far more prevalent than people think. The only reason the guys got caught at The Breeders Cup and then got a ridiculous slap on the wrist from the courts was because they were so stupid they got themselves caught by being greedy. The tote company people involved continually insisted that they had done nothing wrong until the facts finally came out. Now the synthetics: I took a close look at these surfaces, and IMHO I feel that the Cushion Track and The Tapeta surface (invented by the well respected Michael Dickinson) closely play to the dirt surfaces they replaced and therefore, could have a future. The polytrack surface is another matter entirely, and should not be "clumped together" (pardon the pun) with Cushion or Tapeta because IMO it is far inferior to those surfaces. The joke that was Del Mar (especially at the beginning of the meet) we all agree was horrible, and even though I support anything that will ultimately make racing safer, the verdict on polytrack even greatly preventing injuries is still out, as several trainers have reported an increase in back end injuries on horses running on Poly.

[David-LV]

Of the 8 premier racetracks in the U.S., five of them are polytrack.
And with the Breeders Cup scheduled to be run at Santa Anita, it is the equivalent of the Super Bowl being played on Astro Turf.
It is the players, and only the players that can put a stop to these non-racing minds that are infiltrating the greatest sport in the world.
STOP BETTING POLYTRACK RACES!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the only way to put an end to this nonsense.
As polytrack is single handedly killing this game, we only participate by wagering on races held on this crap.
The only positive to come of this is the rebirth of harness racing which will no doubt, become a big force again if polytrack continues to ruin our game.
If someone told me two years ago that Keeneland, a premier track in the world, would be running on an artificial surface with animated ping pong balls on the simulcast screen interfering with the live race, I'd have laughed intheir faces but it's become a scary reality.
We as bettors control this and a stop of this needs to happen now and the best way is to boycott this years Breeders Cup.
This sport is dead if Poly continues.
Ben

Ben,

I agree with you 1000%.

These synthetic surfaces are the death nell for the sport of racing.

The stupidity of jumping into anything without years of testing is comical, just as are the people that were sold this bill of goods by the flim flam salemen that are pushing this synthetic garbage.

It is time for the players to take action and to start boycotting the tracks where this garbage is installed.

_________
David

[PaceAdvantage]

Not that it means anything, but a horse just broke down at GG....not a good week for California synths....

[Bobzilla]

I've been saying it all along, if these tracks are safer they are only marginally safer at best. With that quite obviously being the case, was it really worth it to turn North American Racing upside down. Then again this entire movement has more to do with the internationalization of the sport, and the economies that hope to be gained from that, rather than equine safety.

The Bloodhorse magazine dedicated this week's edition to Synthetics. I found it informative, and get this, balanced believe it or not. People in the industry from ownwers such as Maggie Moss, Players such as Ernie Dahlman, and Trainers such as Nick Zito, Dale Romans and Joh Shirrefs felt enough at ease to convey their concerns about the trend. That part I was really surprised over considering the witch hunt within the industry to stifle any objections to synthetics and to immediately short circuit any true and fair debate. And then again there was the usual self-righteous snippiness from Mr. Dickinson himself. I urge all interested, regardless of your position, to read all the articles in this week's Bloodhorse.

[Marshall Bennett]

Keeneland and Turfway Park were ruined by this synthetic crap . Hope New York keeps its distance ... about the only tracks I follow anymore !!!

[Bobzilla]

I beleive Mr. Dickinson's recent decision to concentrate his focus entirely on his Tapeta Footings business is so he can free up more time to aggresively lobby whoever ends up with New York to "get with the program" and replace The Big Sandy's (Belmont) existing surface with one he has publically described as "more suitable and appropriate for thoroughbred racing". Belmont would be a huge project, one that Martin Collins' Polytrack, Cushion track, and Dickinson would all covet I suspect.

[jballscalls]

Not that it means anything, but a horse just broke down at GG....not a good week for California synths....

I know at GGF, i was down there last week and EVERYONE i talked to, from horseman to bettors to the announcer have been raving about the surface. field sizes are up, everyone is happy there.

[bigmack]

If you read that entire Bloodhorse segment you find about 85% of those in the industry adopting a "it's too early to tell, but I'm optimistic" posture. What's more comical; those that rushed to spread it forth or those that are rushing to declare it the death of racing?

Is part of the "death nell" prognostication bigger fields?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/12_13_07_15_39_38.png

[Bristol]

The single biggest thing killing racing is, and always has been, the use of legal and illegal drugs. Racing was great in the 1960's when none of that crap was legal. Now the vets and drug companies are making money and the horses are a bunch of prima donna drug-addled bleeders.
Nowadays there's way too much big business involved....racing needs to go back to being a pure sport, clean from drug interference. That would be a first step.

[Dave Schwartz]

I think when people say that Poly is killing racing, they are referring to the fact that the speed numbers often make no sense.

While the tracks like to see "high prices," when those higher prices are the result of unpredictable races the core racing fans will lose interest. What will be left are the $2 players that only play weekends.

My experience has been that most tracks are still predictable, though not as much as before. The problem is Santa Anita - the numbers just make no sense.

BTW, the lack of predictablity at the other tracks could very much be caused by the "artificial" change in running style requirements.


Dave Schwartz

[Robert Fischer]

The worst thing about synthetics = how much different a "Classic" distance race is on the different synthetic tracks.


The more distance added , the more different the demands on the horses are. Pedigree and Stamina and Running Style have to be suited to the particular synthetic surface at a distance.
I hope to make a lot of money on the 2008 Breeders Cup, in part because of the surface.

However, synthetic surfaces have no place at major tracks. It is inferior quality and aesthetics.

[bigmack]

In terms of times, DMR must have added marshmellows to their blend of poly.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/88.jpg

[Tom]

Death knell for racing?
How so?
Attendence?
Handle?

Because if those two are not being hurt, the game is not being hurt.

How do we know the breakdowns are caused by dirt or poly? How about fragile horses?

[David-LV]

Death knell for racing?
How so?
Attendence?
Handle?

Because if those two are not being hurt, the game is not being hurt.

How do we know the breakdowns are caused by dirt or poly? How about fragile horses?

What attendence are we talking about, those giant crowds on Sat. & Sun. at:

Hollywood--Dec. 8th--6,217, Dec. 9th--5,166
Aqueduct--Dec. 8th--5,677, Dec. 9th--4,579

The surrounding population within a one hour drive of either of these two tracks is well over 20 million people. Where have all the customers gone?

A last place hockey team draws more people then any of our major tracks do daily.

This industry is the only industry that shoots it's self in the foot day after day.

Handle may be higher, but so are gasoline prices.

With inflation the way it is today we can not use handle as a true indicator as to the health of the horse racing industry.

Yes the words "death knell for racing" I think is quite appropriate at this time.

__________
David

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes the words "death knell for racing" I think is quite appropriate at this time.

__________
DavidHardly. In this day of phone, internet and even set-top wagering, attendance isn't the be-all end-all that it once was....

And last place hockey teams don't play home games five nights a week....if they did, there would be a LOT LESS people there every game....

[JustRalph]

Yes the words "death knell for racing" I think is quite appropriate at this time.__________
David


not as long as there still 20-1's winning on the turf @ HOL (or anywhere)

If they have to find me with the damn clicker in my hand on my 200th B-day!!!

[eastie]

I clock feet. I know what I like to see in a mud foot. I know what I like to see in a turf foot. I don't know what to do as far as seeing a poly foot or an astro foot. Can't anyone stop this madness. No wonder Saratoga is so popular. They are the only ones who seem to get it. Don't break balls, give the people what they want and everyone will act accordingly and have a good time and hopefully cash a few tickets. How tough is that to do. It wasn't that long ago that Keenland didn't even have a track announcer, and now they're running on that stuff...what gives ?

[samyn on the green]

Yet another reason why it is vital that NYRA is left in charge of New York. NYRA is the only major track operator in North America with the expertise to maintain quality safe dirt surfaces. Keeneland did not have the know how, Del Mar was break down city and Arlington had the death rate of a mine field. NYRA however has safe and fair dirt surfaces, the envy of the industry and synthetic free.

What the North American racing industry needs is less government corruption in New York so the tradition of quality New York racing can continue. A slot operator with its computer profitability business models and drone like MBAs are going to insist on installing a polytrack at BEL, AQU and SAR . On paper poly promises lower maintenance costs and bigger fields and operationally ignorant non working empty suit MBA types from groups like capital play will fall into the poly-trap. We need NYRA to keep dirt racing alive.

[cees with dees]

I for one couldn't care less about big fields. Especially on artificial surfaces.
I don't use any kind of speed figures so that also doesn't bother me.
What I've found on these poly surfaces is total inconsistency.
On any given day in NY, by the top of the stretch, I can tell you who the likely winner is. On any poly, horses look dead and come to life in the straightaway and thereis just no rhyme or reason in handicapping this new version of lotto.
It is purely, IMO, for the $2 player with no opinon looking to hit their phone numbers and addresses in any form of multi race wager.
Again, nothing against them either. They are our competition.
My point is if we keep pumping money into these races, it's just a matter of time before poly becomes the status quo and to support that is a big mistake.
Ben

[kenwoodallpromos]

In terms of times, DMR must have added marshmellows to their blend of poly.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/88.jpg
Am I supposed to assume that these are average times, not "D" records times after 100+ years of dirt timing? Like DM's 1:07.06?
Should I assume that you have adjusted for the fact that for many decades early speed has been bred for, and that most of the rubber winners have switched surfaces from dirt at some point in training, or that very few racehorses have rubber tracks where they are from foaling to being trained Prior to being based at the track? Should we ignore your times that show 1 ARL sprint is faster for rubber?
Since official workouts are supposed to be 1 sign of a fit horse, did you caculate any average workout times on rubber?
Do you have the times for the first 1/2 miles?
What about your stats for KEE, most meets on rubber, with less than 1.20 seconds slower for all distances other than 10f?

[David-LV]

Am I supposed to assume that these are average times, not "D" records times after 100+ years of dirt timing? Like DM's 1:07.06?
Should I assume that you have adjusted for the fact that for many decades early speed has been bred for, and that most of the rubber winners have switched surfaces from dirt at some point in training, or that very few racehorses have rubber tracks where they are from foaling to being trained Prior to being based at the track? Should we ignore your times that show 1 ARL sprint is faster for rubber?
Since official workouts are supposed to be 1 sign of a fit horse, did you caculate any average workout times on rubber?
Do you have the times for the first 1/2 miles?
What about your stats for KEE, most meets on rubber, with less than 1.20 seconds slower for all distances other than 10f?
Those charts & times come from the Dec. 8, 2007 issue of Bloodhorse Magazine of which I'm linking for you.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/pdf/synthetic_surfaces_special_report_120807.pdf

_________
David

[njcurveball]

That is a great article! Thanks for sharing David! :ThmbUp:

[Dave Schwartz]

I clock feet.

Eastie,

Me, too. It is a basic part of my handicapping. Must be 4-per-horse.


:lol:


(Sorry. Couldn't resist.) ;)


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Greyfox]

1. Del Mar times were so slow we might as well as been playing harness.

2. Slightly lower predictability but that is compensated for by higher payouts.

[toetoe]

cees,

Good point. My ONLY satisfaction with Astrodirt was the increase in field sizes, thanks to the perception of the trainers. However, what good does that do me if I rarely dare to bet on main-track races ? I guess I was thinking overall, not just in terms of my own wagering career.

[njcurveball]

cees,

Good point. My ONLY satisfaction with Astrodirt was the increase in field sizes, thanks to the perception of the trainers. .

IN all of the opinion and hyperbole going back and forth this one sentence pretty much captures the initial attraction to these surfaces. Actually one word, perception.

It is strangley similar to younger generation selecting "Marlboro lights", as if they actually think they will do less damage in the long run.

The biggest problems as brought up by many smarter people than me are running sore horses and working 2 year olds hard in training to sprint a furlong in 11 seconds to be sold at a huge price.

Treat the horse right and they can run on anything and stay sound. :ThmbUp:

[ArlJim78]

I love the synthetic tracks and try to play them exclusively. I think California has abolutely done the right thing and its paying off. Far from killing racing I think it has a positive effect on the sport.

[Spectacular Sid]

In terms of times, DMR must have added marshmellows to their blend of poly.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/88.jpg



It wasn't what was ADDED to Del Mar's Poly, but what was SUBTRACTED. Apparently, a California environmental agency prohibited the inclusion of "jelly cable because of possible runoff from residue of the copper that was previously part of the cable. The result was a formula that may have been more susceptible to the afternoon sun "melting" the wax in the track more than it would have if the jelly cable was there.

Maybe if they sprayed the entire track with Pledge it would get rid of the waxy buildup.

[Kelso]

NYRA is the only major track operator in North America with the expertise to maintain quality safe dirt surfaces. Keeneland did not have the know how, Del Mar was break down city and Arlington had the death rate of a mine field. NYRA however has safe and fair dirt surfaces, the envy of the industry and synthetic free.


This doesn't make sense to me. T'bred racing isn't a new industry. How can it be that only one operator knows the secrets? Why don't the operators of other, long-established tracks know them, too? And if what you write is actually correct ... why doesn't NYRA share the knowledge. Don't they care about the horses and jocks once they head south and west?

[shanta]

Not that it means anything, but a horse just broke down at GG....not a good week for California synths....

Not a good week for the game where breeding drugged horses to drugged horses and it being passed on genetically to their offspring has come home to roost.

Not a good week for trainers putting lame and unsound horses on the track.

Not a good week for randomness relating to injuries and deaths with horses to occur.

[cj]

I love the synthetic tracks and try to play them exclusively. I think California has abolutely done the right thing and its paying off. Far from killing racing I think it has a positive effect on the sport.

How so? Horses aren't breaking down any less frequently. Fields aren't really much bigger. The quality of racing is pretty bad, just check out Wednesday's appetizing menu at Hollywood.

About the only difference I see is horses have to rate a little more to be successful than they did in the past. I don't really call that a positive, just a change.

[46zilzal]

Breed light boned drug masked animals to their counterparts then add Force = (mass) x (acceleration) in other words, heavy horses going fast on lighter and lighter bones with less pain feedback THEN, more breakdowns is what you get no matter the surface on which they run.

[shanta]

Breed light boned drug masked animals to their counterparts then add Force = (mass) x (acceleration) in other words, heavy horses going fast on lighter and lighter bones with less pain feedback THEN, more breakdowns is what you get no matter the surface on which they run.

Bingo! :ThmbUp:

[ArlJim78]

How so? Horses aren't breaking down any less frequently. Fields aren't really much bigger. The quality of racing is pretty bad, just check out Wednesday's appetizing menu at Hollywood.

About the only difference I see is horses have to rate a little more to be successful than they did in the past. I don't really call that a positive, just a change.
mainly the racing is more balanced in terms of run style, early speed is not as much an automatic asset, opens up the races more. Also you can come wide and still have a shot, its basically more exciting, less biased.
I feel it demands more on the stamina side from the horses and I see that as a positive.

fyi, i would disagree with your assertions, the field sizes are larger, and it appears that breakdowns are reduced somewhat.

consistency of the surface is a plus too.

quality on a Wednesday? gimme a break. how can the surface be responsible for the quality of the horses running on a Wed? I can take any track and look at the Tuesday or Wednesday card and most assuredly it will be lacking quality.

my personal opinion is that California is leading the way in offering an exciting and attractive product to wager on, I'm pretty sure their all sources handle bears that out. That is not to say that they are working with the best horses in the country.

[David-LV]

mainly the racing is more balanced in terms of run style, early speed is not as much an automatic asset, opens up the races more. Also you can come wide and still have a shot, its basically more exciting, less biased.
I feel it demands more on the stamina side from the horses and I see that as a positive.

fyi, i would disagree with your assertions, the field sizes are larger, and it appears that breakdowns are reduced somewhat.

consistency of the surface is a plus too.

quality on a Wednesday? gimme a break. how can the surface be responsible for the quality of the horses running on a Wed? I can take any track and look at the Tuesday or Wednesday card and most assuredly it will be lacking quality.

my personal opinion is that California is leading the way in offering an exciting and attractive product to wager on, I'm pretty sure their all sources handle bears that out. That is not to say that they are working with the best horses in the country.
IMPO: Califorina is leading the way to the worst racing & the worst surfaces in the country.
Everything that they have done in California has had a negative effect on the long term survival of racing as we use to know it.

________
David

[Show Me the Wire]

Look at the problems Hawthorne experienced this week. Two cancellations because of an unsafe dirt track.

Regarding fuller fields, yes the fields containing two year olds are fuller. A few more years will tell if the synthetic surfaces will have worked if the races for older horses are fuller.

From what I have observed the surface seems fairer and there is less trouble at the break, i.e. less stumbling, which results in less injuries from accelerating from a standing start. Also, I have noticed individual horses making more starts at the synthetic meets.

So far I see it as a positive.

[kenwoodallpromos]

In terms of times, DMR must have added marshmellows to their blend of poly.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/88.jpg
FYI: Latest Hollywood rubber records:
"6 F 1:07 3/5 Sailors Sunset 3 12/02/06 118
6 1/2 F 1:14:03 Johnny Eves 3 11/25/07 122
7 F 1:20.50 Soul City Slew 4 12/08/07 124
7 1/2 F 1:27 2/5 Soul City Slew 3 12/08/06 120
1 1/16 M 1:40.90 Romance is Diane 3 12/01/07 115
1 1/8 M 1:47.23 Heatseeker 4 12/08/07 115
1 1/4 M 2:01.79 Rocket Legs 3 12/07/07 121"

[Robert Fischer]

On any given day in NY, by the top of the stretch, I can tell you who the likely winner is. On any poly, horses look dead and come to life in the straightaway

This is right on the money.
On a race @ a Mile & 1/8th or greater, on the synthetic tracks, it can actually be a terrible sign for your horse to strike the lead at the top of the stretch!:D

On dirt you are yelling at them on the backstretch to get into position and hang on with that speed. The great races usually come down to the two best horses. I find my handicapping centered around the best or the two best horses for the big race, and deciding to back or bet-against.


On synthetic they line up 7 horses wide across the track at the top of the stretch, and which ever 3 of them fly forward in the last 6 seconds wins the race. I find myself including more horses, with less focus on a top animal.

[Robert Fischer]

FYI: Latest Hollywood rubber records:
"6 F 1:07 3/5 Sailors Sunset 3 12/02/06 118
6 1/2 F 1:14:03 Johnny Eves 3 11/25/07 122
7 F 1:20.50 Soul City Slew 4 12/08/07 124
7 1/2 F 1:27 2/5 Soul City Slew 3 12/08/06 120
1 1/16 M 1:40.90 Romance is Diane 3 12/01/07 115
1 1/8 M 1:47.23 Heatseeker 4 12/08/07 115
1 1/4 M 2:01.79 Rocket Legs 3 12/07/07 121"

Kenwoodallpromos

-
Do you know who has the 1 1/4 10furlong rubber record for Santa Anita ?

[bigmack]

IMPO: Califorina is leading the way to the worst racing & the worst surfaces in the country.
Everything that they have done in California has had a negative effect on the long term survival of racing as we use to know it.
Those terrible people. I say we string em up!

[jotb]

Kenwoodallpromos

-
Do you know who has the 1 1/4 10furlong rubber record for Santa Anita ?


Lava Man. 203.21

[jotb]

Hello Robert:

I made a mistake about Lava Man. That time was at SA on dirt. At OSA they didn't have any 10F races.

Sorry,
Joe

[JohnGalt1]

This is right on the money.
On a race @ a Mile & 1/8th or greater, on the synthetic tracks, it can actually be a terrible sign for your horse to strike the lead at the top of the stretch!:D

On dirt you are yelling at them on the backstretch to get into position and hang on with that speed. The great races usually come down to the two best horses. I find my handicapping centered around the best or the two best horses for the big race, and deciding to back or bet-against.

On synthetic they line up 7 horses wide across the track at the top of the stretch, and which ever 3 of them fly forward in the last 6 seconds wins the race. I find myself including more horses, with less focus on a top animal.

You just described how a turf race is usually run. I love turf racing.

No one said this game is easy.

Look at all the different track types there are, from off tracks to bull rings, from poly to cushion, from Lone Star golf green short grass to Fair Grounds deep grass turf.

(Even if you don't play bull rings--I don't--you see horses who raced there in the pps and you have to rate them.)

This isn't harness racing where every track is similar and every race is the same distance.

I love the variety.

Those of us who adapt sooner will do better than those who don't.

[David-LV]

Those terrible people. I say we string em up!


Now that is a great idea!! :jump:

[Tom]

so what exactly do we have as evidence of the demise of racing?
Lower handle on poly tracks?
A lower rate of winning favorites?

Let's talk specifics, not opinions.

[cj's dad]

I recall that back in the 1970's there was a proliferation of artificial surfaces installed throughout the country at football and baseball stadiums such as the Vet, Riverfront, Three Rivers, Superdome, Astrodome, etc... Recently,many college venues also installed artificial surfaces, for football, lacrosse and soccer. Even my old high school has an art. turf football and soccer field.

My point is that many of these fields have been replaced with natural grass as a result of players complaints re: injury, after effects (knee and joint replacement later in life). Some have not. It has been a case study still in progress. Apparently, some artificial fields are better than others. And the biggest difference is that the athletes (human) were able to respond and voice their concerns, thereby drawing attention to certain fields.

Unfortunately, the race tracks athletes cannot resopnd. The only method for determining suitability to the new surface is injury, which will take years, and at best any such statistics will be subjective due to the general decline in the ability, stamina, and fragility of todays t-breds.

Finally, there was an adjustment period for those h'capping the NFL as games moved on/off of art surfaces and in/ out of domed stadiums. The same adjustment period will be required for those of us playing the races.I have never been able to sucessfully h'cap the SOCal circuit so I don't play there. I stick to NY and Fla. If you don't feel comfortable playing poly or tepeta, then don't. Give it time for numbers/patterns to develop.

[Robert Fischer]

so what exactly do we have as evidence of the demise of racing?
Lower handle on poly tracks?
A lower rate of winning favorites?

Let's talk specifics, not opinions.

Demise is a strong word.

With all the BS in racing they could run the races on crocodiles, and it wouldn't be fair even then to blame a surface.

this isn't demise this is something that cheapens the quality.

Opinions are the most important thing here.

QUALITY.


I absolutely love top class classic distance dirt racing. I also enjoy the preps that go along with them, mainly the 9furlong variety.
My opinion is that racing on the synthetics lowers the quality of these races. Quality is the most important thing to a sportsman.

We could paint the bases orange and place them 80 feet instead of 90feet baseball. Why not?
How about a foot ball field with velcro-turf that detaches when you hit - no more knee injuries!
Why not make the balls in golf go twice as far and simply play on a course twice as big?
Boxing would be better if they just used giant foam gloves...
Nascar should be remote control cars. Enough of the carnage.

Plain and simple, the synthetic surfaces alter the dynamics of the game, and it isn't a good thing. They change the pedigree, running style, and stamina requirements. I don't know a fan of American classic distance racing that would rank synthetics higher than dirt. I also don't know of fan of American or Foreign TURF racing that would rank synthetics higher than turf.

They had this synthetic stuff in europe for years and they do not run big races on it. They do not run their good animals on it.

If we are looking for a dirt alternative OBVIOUSLY the alternative should be TURF.

Why haven't we considered TURF?? Because we are willing to make a sacrafice of QUALITY for less maintanence issues and year round racing than TURF.

In essence we are going from dirt (wherever that ranks) to a surface that ranks lower than turf, while taking on the changes in the dynamics that accompany this.

It is simply a step down in quality for the major tracks who can maintain a nice dirt course.

[Tom]

Again, with all due respect yourr opinion, the only thinkg that matters is results. If handles are not down, apparently no one really cares what your opinon is. Are favorites still winning at the same clip? that means the public as a whole is not finding these tracks hard to bet. For all the gloom and doom, I would like to see something measurable.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Kenwoodallpromos

-
Do you know who has the 1 1/4 10furlong rubber record for Santa Anita ?

SA Cushion records as per their website:
"Smokin Forest 10/25/2007 5 1/2 F 5 124 Martin Pedroza 1:02:31
Switzerland 11/3/2007 6 F 4 119 Michael Baze 1:07:34
Theverythoughof U 10/20/2007 6 1/2F 4 124 Joseph Talamo 1:14:07
Heatseeker 10/8/2007 7 F 4 120 Corey Nakatani 1:20:90
Gregorian Bay 10/21/2007 1 M 3 120 David Flores 1:34:60
Romance Is Diane 11/3/2007 1 1/16 M 3 115 Michael Baze 1:40:38
Tiago 9/29/2007 1 1/8 M 3 121 Mike Smith 1:46:93
****Add Heat 10/18/2007 1 1/4 M 4 120 Joseph Talamo 2:02:14"

[Jeff P]

Q. Are favorites still winning at the same rate?
A. No.

Here are all races in my database run on artificial surfaces during Q1 2006, Q1 2007, Q2 2007, and Q3 2007 broken out by odds rank:

Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Surface: (Artificial) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2007\pl_Complete_History_A.txt


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 59143.80 57783.90 56445.10
Bet -72976.00 -72976.00 -72976.00
Gain -13832.20 -15192.10 -16530.90

Wins 4185 8334 12329
Plays 36488 36488 36488
PCT .1147 .2284 .3379

ROI 0.8105 0.7918 0.7735
Avg Mut 14.13 6.93 4.58

By: Odds Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -1884.70 8602.00 0.7809 1290 4301 .2999 2.6150
2 -1432.90 8314.00 0.8277 844 4157 .2030 1.7702
3 -1522.80 8254.00 0.8155 617 4127 .1495 1.3035
4 -1441.80 8290.00 0.8261 459 4145 .1107 0.9655
5 -1077.70 8236.00 0.8691 361 4118 .0877 0.7643
6 -132.70 7874.00 0.9831 283 3937 .0719 0.6267
7 -2199.00 7056.00 0.6884 138 3528 .0391 0.3410
8 -1414.90 5678.00 0.7508 83 2839 .0292 0.2549
9 -491.30 4178.00 0.8824 60 2089 .0287 0.2504
10 -898.70 3022.00 0.7026 28 1511 .0185 0.1616
11 -582.10 1944.00 0.7006 15 972 .0154 0.1345
12 -404.30 1076.00 0.6243 6 538 .0112 0.0972
13 -187.30 290.00 0.3541 1 145 .0069 0.0601
14 -162.00 162.00 0.0000 0 81 .0000 0.0000
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000


Post time favorites won less than 30 pct of all races on artificial surfaces.

By way of comparison post time favorites won 34.61 pct of all races no matter what the surface during that same time period.

Artificial surfaces DO have an impact on the game... the public is having a harder time picking the winner on artificial surfaces than regular dirt.


-jp

.

[DeanT]

nice post Jeff.

Find anything interesting due to increases in field size? Does it play no, a small, or big part in fave win pcg?

[Show Me the Wire]

Is post time favorites winning less than 30% really a terrible thing? Can this result be attributed to the larger fields racing on the synthetic surfaces? Even if so I guess it is attributable to the impact of synthetic surface itself. I personally, do not see less winning post time favorites as a large negative.

[Tom]

Thanks Jeff - at last. Something measurable.
Now, as SMTW points out, is this a bad thing?
Favs are still winning alomost 65% of the races.
This should have them leaving in droves, no? :rolleyes:

[ArlJim78]

Is post time favorites winning less than 30% really a terrible thing? Can this result be attributed to the larger fields racing on the synthetic surfaces? Even if so I guess it is attributable to the impact of synthetic surface itself. I personally, do not see less winning post time favorites as a large negative.
right, 30 percent vs. 34 percent, and this is ruining racing? if so would racing benefit by a higher success rate for favorites? if 34 percent is better than 30, than I guess 40% would really be a positive for the game?

the public also has trouble picking the winner of the Kentucky Derby, yet that doesn't seem to have diminished its appeal.

[NY BRED]

I've posted this thought several times , will say it again.

The only way to punish the "magicians", is to pull purse money from the
owners after a positive is confirmed.

Try keeping your barn going when an owner loses $$$ and you
truly will deserve the name MAGICIAN:mad:

[Dave Schwartz]

the public also has trouble picking the winner of the Kentucky Derby, yet that doesn't seem to have diminished its appeal.

It is a once-a-year race, with precisely the kind of bettor that WILL ruin racing.

Think of it this way... if YOUR selections on Polytrack make no sense whatsoever, would you continue to play indefinitely?

Racing must be a perceived as a decipherable problem. IMHO, the public perception is moving away from that.



Dave

[Show Me the Wire]

Maybe it makes no sense according to your criteria? How did you come up with your criteria initially? You did research, right? Well there is different criteria that makes the race decipherable, you just have to find it. Well meant class droppers are still winning.

[Jeff P]

Q. Does field size play a part in favorites winning at a reduced rate on artificial surfaces?

A. Here's how the numbers break out during the time period of my study:
AVG Favorite
Surface Field Size Win Pct
------- ---------- --------
ALL 8.19 .3461
DIRT 7.89 .3805
TURF 8.97 .3199
Artificial 8.77 .2999

From the above I think it's clear that differences in win rate of favorites on artificial surfaces vs. other surfaces goes beyond field size alone. Turf races had larger fields on average. Yet favorites won a higher percentage of the time on turf than on artificial surfaces.

Do I think artificial surfaces are ruining racing? No. But I do think racing is a significantly different game on artificial surfaces than on plain dirt or turf.


-jp

.

[rastajenk]

I remember a Beyer column saying that artificial surfaces would reduce biases, which would lead to more predictable results that paid less, much like harness racing, and that that would lead to driving away the big bettors. Now I read that artificial surfaces are reducing predictability, and that that will drive away bettors. It seems opponents of artificial surfaces can't really decide on what they don't like about it, but they are agreed they don't like it. Not a very convincing way to declare that new track surfaces will be the death of racing.

[ArlJim78]

It is a once-a-year race, with precisely the kind of bettor that WILL ruin racing.

Think of it this way... if YOUR selections on Polytrack make no sense whatsoever, would you continue to play indefinitely?

Racing must be a perceived as a decipherable problem. IMHO, the public perception is moving away from that.



Dave
from where do you draw this conclusion? If the public was getting fed up with the indecipherable races on synthetics, wouldn't that show up as decreases in wagering handle? In fact the opposite is true.

It is likely in my view that the percentage will creep up in time. I predict in time the percentage will come in line with other tracks. Why?
These are new entities, everyone is still figuring them out and adjusting (jockeys, trainers, bettors, maintenance crews) and each surface has its own idiosyncracies.
It would stand to reason that the new surfaces, having been thrust into the mix would have a lower initial success rate for winning.

Even if it stays at 30%, I just don't see it having a negative impact. To me it looks more like an opportunity.

[bigmack]

It seems opponents of artificial surfaces can't really decide on what they don't like about it, but they are agreed they don't like it. Not a very convincing way to declare that new track surfaces will be the death of racing.
Well put. Push comes to shove and the synthetics are here. While aesthetically racing could get no worse than the DMR meet some of the surfaces may turn out to be workable when all the kinks have been ironed out.

Believe it not, some people are able to untangle the vagaries of synths and in time, more will find them dopable.

To the doom & gloomers, I cite the words of Heady "That's Headly" Lamar: Gentlemen, rest your sphincters.

[Robert Fischer]

Again, with all due respect yourr opinion, the only thinkg that matters is results. If handles are not down, apparently no one really cares what your opinon is.

you missed the point

If quality is down , no one really cares what the hell the handle is!


If you look back at baseball in the early 90s, do you really think that raising the handle justifies tightening the baseballs during that time period?? Do you think any sportsman would say the game is higher quality for it? Are the aesthetics any better?

Garbage in garbage out.


Quality does matter.

[rastajenk]

I was following along pretty well until that one. A big "Eh??" from this corner. What does baseball in the early 90's have to do with anything?

[Show Me the Wire]

Quality in racing was down before synthetic tracks. Short weak fields for older horses, due to unsoundness, and many young horses going to the sidelines for long periods of time after one taxing race on the dirt.

Hopefully, down the road synthetics will lead to fuller fields for older horses.

[ArlJim78]

I really don't get the quality arguement. How does the surface effect the quality of the horses racing over it? Is quality down compared to the past, yes, I wouldn't argue against that, but what did the surfaces do to bring the quality down?:confused:

[Tom]

you missed the point

If quality is down , no one really cares what the hell the handle is!



That's like saying no goes there anymore - it's too crowded.
:rolleyes::bang::bang:

[Tom]

If you look at Jeff's stats, then turf racing is next to destroy racing.
38% favorites in 5 horse races at Belnont....now THAT will destroy racing.


Yes, the game is changing. This is a GOOD thing.
Nothing like the crap they offerrred at Aquduct today - cheap crap winning by large margins, one horse out in front, the rest 20 lengths of a 113 pace....the ambulence driver blowinghis horn.......yup - real quality racing. Oh, yeah, saw a horse pull up a minute ago....that damn dirt strikes agian. Another breakdown.




:bang:

[Dave Schwartz]

Maybe it makes no sense according to your criteria? How did you come up with your criteria initially? You did research, right? Well there is different criteria that makes the race decipherable, you just have to find it. Well meant class droppers are still winning.

Actually, I am still winning. My personal approach is A.I.-based and it simply adapted.

I was speaking more of the general public.


Dave

[Show Me the Wire]

I understood that, Dave. I used "your" in the same general manner as you did. I did not reference you or to your product specifically.

Yet you bring up a good point. Your A.I. (artificial intelligence ) program adapted so don't you think real intelligence will adapt too?

[Robert Fischer]

I was following along pretty well until that one. A big "Eh??" from this corner. What does baseball in the early 90's have to do with anything?

analogy ... a sport that changed dynamics at the expense of quality for temporary gain ?

or is this a stubborn rhetorical question?

[Robert Fischer]

I really don't get the quality arguement. How does the surface effect the quality of the horses racing over it? Is quality down compared to the past, yes, I wouldn't argue against that, but what did the surfaces do to bring the quality down?:confused:
The races.
The surface does not affect the quality of the ANIMALS. It affects the quality of the RACE.
We could run Secretariat against Man o' War, but if the track were a jello swimming pool it would be a goofy race, even though we just got to witness two of the all time greats.

Ted Williams , Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds could play homerun derby , but if they used tennis balls , it would be only mildly amusing.

The new england patriots could square off vs the 78 Steelers in a game of nurf football ...

[kenwoodallpromos]

I see that the 2nd favs are at 20%, and 3rd favs are at 14+%. How does that compare with the "good oldirt days"?
Seems to me the top 2 hitting at 50% wins is not bad. Maybe I will bet 2nd favs!

[Dave Schwartz]

Yet you bring up a good point. Your A.I. (artificial intelligence ) program adapted so don't you think real intelligence will adapt too?

LOL - The typical player might not.

One thing I have seen at Santa Anita is more reliance on Trainer/Jockey info than at many other tracks, and as you said, class level changes.

I think that for the typical player this is the equivilent of a total paradigm shift to a different approach. I am not sure they will be willing to let go of what they are currently doing so easily.


Dave

[Dave Schwartz]

Seems to me the top 2 hitting at 50% wins is not bad. Maybe I will bet 2nd favs!


Normal is:

32
20
15

[Tom]

So your typical horsey player who hits the track Saturday and Sunday might see a winner or two less a weekend is he stays sober?:rolleyes:

[ArlJim78]

The races.
The surface does not affect the quality of the ANIMALS. It affects the quality of the RACE.
We could run Secretariat against Man o' War, but if the track were a jello swimming pool it would be a goofy race, even though we just got to witness two of the all time greats.

Ted Williams , Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds could play homerun derby , but if they used tennis balls , it would be only mildly amusing.

The new england patriots could square off vs the 78 Steelers in a game of nurf football ...
Your comparisons are absurd.
Do you also discount all turf races as meaningless low quality goofy contests unsuitable for great horses?

[Robert Fischer]

Your comparisons are absurd.
Do you also discount all turf races as meaningless low quality goofy contests unsuitable for great horses?

No.
Entirely the opposite. If a Major Track switches - it should be to real Turf not synthetic.

The debate with Tom and you about whether quality matters had already started on page 4 of this thread. Post #49.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=460098&postcount=49
The whole 2nd half of the post is making a case FOR TURF. I say that Turf is superior to synthetics. I ask why Europe keeps all their nice horses off of synthetic. I infer as to why we would choose an inferior surface to Turf as our dirt replacement surface.





Plain and simple, the synthetic surfaces alter the dynamics of the game, and it isn't a good thing. They change the pedigree, running style, and stamina requirements. I don't know a fan of American classic distance racing that would rank synthetics higher than dirt. I also don't know of fan of American or Foreign TURF racing that would rank synthetics higher than turf.

They had this synthetic stuff in europe for years and they do not run big races on it. They do not run their good animals on it.

If we are looking for a dirt alternative OBVIOUSLY the alternative should be TURF.

Why haven't we considered TURF?? Because we are willing to make a sacrafice of QUALITY for less maintanence issues and year round racing than TURF.

In essence we are going from dirt (wherever that ranks) to a surface that ranks lower than turf, while taking on the changes in the dynamics that accompany this.

It is simply a step down in quality for the major tracks who can maintain a nice dirt course.

[cees with dees]

You just described how a turf race is usually run. I love turf racing.

No one said this game is easy.

Look at all the different track types there are, from off tracks to bull rings, from poly to cushion, from Lone Star golf green short grass to Fair Grounds deep grass turf.

(Even if you don't play bull rings--I don't--you see horses who raced there in the pps and you have to rate them.)

This isn't harness racing where every track is similar and every race is the same distance.

I love the variety.

Those of us who adapt sooner will do better than those who don't.


If you compare turf racing which is mainly a ground saving rate then sprint to the lotto of Polytrack, I don't think you know what you're looking at. They are nothing even close to alike.

[cj]

A few reasons...year round racing, weather, too many races. Turf couldn't stand up to those most places.

[cees with dees]

Why?? they run in swampy bogs overseas on any turf condition every single day.

And the ones who are saying we don't like poly but don't know why, I know why!!! Because it seems purely random and I find the races indecipherable.
Just watch the last Blue Grass stakes at Keeneland. I thought 5 different horses at 10 different points of the race were winning. The winner was a last gasper who managed to come from last off of a 53 half to nail Street Sense who appeared a dead piece at one point.
True handicappers can't find that exciting where as tourists out for a day at the races will get a thrill.
One of the most common misconceptions in racing is the term "good betting race". That is the term used for a race such as a 12 horse field of NW1x going 1/1/16 on the grass with half of the horses making their turf debuts.
I think a good betting race is a 1/2 shot who will be loose on the lead in a 6 horse field and only two of the remaining go forward for the exacta.
A good betting race to me is one I'm likely to cash on. Value is cashing. The real " no value" is ripping tickets.
Ben

[Robert Fischer]

A few reasons...year round racing, weather, too many races. Turf couldn't stand up to those most places.

I agree. Even in California it would be very tough pull off.


In order to replace dirt we have to sacrifice quality for durability.


- Which is a big reason not to replace dirt at a major track! Add that to the change in dynamics and pedigree....

[Pace Cap'n]

Why?? they run in swampy bogs overseas on any turf condition every single day.

Perhaps Andicap can expand on this...my understanding is they have a rather large number of tracks over there, with some "meets" being only for a day or two or three, and then it's off to the next turf course.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

In Australia they will generally run at each major turf course once every 2 weeks. There are some places where they will race at the same course once a week and these places race without problems but are located where the weather is generally good (or the track itself has good drainage)

If you raced more often than once a week on a given turf course it would chop up, be full of bias and turn to dirt before too long. There are 1 or 2 weeks of the year where they will hold major carnival racing at the same track 4 times in a week. Flemington race course will do this each November and generally it has bias problems during this week

In America with the meet style of racing where you race 4 or 5 times a week at the one track for weeks or months on end turf tracks will not stand up to such a pounding so the surface has to be dirt or synthetic

[kenwoodallpromos]

Dec 13th was noted for 3 Hol horses breaking down in the morning- FYI:
Dec 13 4f works show 8 horses working in under 48.0;
Race fractins for sprints showed leaders ran 2f in less that 46, 4f in less than 46.
Brisnet at a glances:
For the meet, favs are winning 32%. For week including Dec
" Distance #
Race %
Wire Best
Style Best
Posts Distance #
Race %
Wire Best
Style Best
Posts
6.0fDirt 11 45% E Rail
6.5fDirt 5 60% E Rail
1 1/16mDirt 11 18% E/P Rail"

Even with AWT tracks can make the main track hard and fast enough to breakdown horses.
Who was complaining about AWT being too slow and unpredictable?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Race fractions for sprints Dec 13 showed leaders ran 2f in less that 23, 4f in less than 46.

[Robert Fischer]

"Extreme Racing" today at Santa Anita.

Wonder if the track plays like this for the Breeders Cup 2008?

Too bad Hard Spun retired. Spun would have run so hard and so fast in the BC Classic that he would burst into flames and melt the track into a giant sneaker :lol:

[Imriledup]

What the racing execs care about isn't the number of injuries, its the TYPE of injuries. (i.e. horses snapping legs in front of young racing fans who are new to the game).


With synthetic, you don't see the leg-snap-fall stuff as often and i think thats all they care about.

From a bettors standpoint, i prefer conventional dirt. I want to bet horses, not surfaces. Today's opening day at Santa Anita was a perfect example of what i DONT want. To my eye, it seemed like horses were spinning their wheels and there weren't too many 'from the back' winners. On a synthetic track, you are supposed to have 6 furlong races going in 113, not 108. These synthetic surfaces are FASTER than normal dirt and i can't figure out why. Santa Anita's surface is NOT 'cushion' like Hollywood's is. The SA surface is some conglomeration that they've been working with in the last few weeks.

I want a fair surface that lets me handicap horses....when i have to start handicapping the bias and betting only speed because closers can't gain an inch, than i'm not interested, i'll find another way to spend my day.

As far as Polytrack goes at Del Mar, that's a meet i won't even follow or wager a dollar on. Time to go out and enjoy my summer and start betting when that's over. No more Del Mar for me. Polytrack is a guessing game, there's no rhyme or reason to how the riders manipulate the on-paper form of the speed horses and it becomes unhandicappable. When you predict speed duels and bet a closer and all the speeds strangle and one guy gets loose, it becomes as random as the lottery. The jocks and the agents and the owners know which speeds are going to be 'sent' and which ones are not....they know while you are guessing. Not for me.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"i prefer conventional dirt. I want to bet horses, not surfaces."
Before I get serious, LOL!! If you want to bet horses, bet Bob and John or Lava Man away from SoCal! To Not be aware of what the surface is doing anywhere on any track is to lose!

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

Nothing is worse than knowing the race is over after a quarter mile because a faint-hearted bum was able to get the lead on a merry go round.

[Tom]

Like Kee and SA and Hol and Dmr dirt tracks used to be?
Lots of dirt tracks are like this.
At FL, the first horse to the padock used to win 50% of the time! :D

[46zilzal]

Nothing is worse than knowing the race is over after a quarter mile because a faint-hearted bum was able to get the lead on a merry go round.
Not if you KNOW the track will allow that. I make the majority of my money on knowing when they aren't going to get caught, or rather where and when.

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

If you can account for a track ridiculously biased toward speed you shouldn't have much problem accounting for a track biased the other way.

[TEJAS KIDD]

Im pretty sure that every horse in every race over POLYTRACK is running over the same track. Just like when 2 football teams play in the same snowstorm.
Some like it, some don't. Figure it out and quit whining.

Pretty much every dirt track in America has a different surface. It's generically called DIRT. Just as every TURF course is different (there are many different kinds of grass in the world) Do you know what kind of grass they run over at each track?
Do you know the different mixtures of sand and dirt and other ingredients at each different racetrack in America?
How do you explain the phrase "HORSE FOR THE COURSE"?
Some horses would run terribly over the Hollywood Dirt track and then run great over the DMR track. How do you explain that? Did anyone ever post that Dmr was ruining the game because horses didnt carry their form over to Dmr?
Right now, we just don't have historical data on Polytrack,Tapeta and Cushion track? In time we will and all will be well.

[Robert Fischer]

hit the malibu exacta and daily double
why didn't i play the tri? :bang:...

but the racing was not good.
Exploiting a bias is great, but eventually even the betting public, trainers and jockeys catch on. The bias never goes away, but the edge is reduced. Then all you are left with is the funny track.

there are seperate parts to the game.
You vs Public (the players)
The rules (wager types and pools)
The Sport (racing,riding,training,owning etc..)
I want to see the racing performing at a high quality. It is a major part of the whole.

[thespaah]

Demise is a strong word.

With all the BS in racing they could run the races on crocodiles, and it wouldn't be fair even then to blame a surface.

this isn't demise this is something that cheapens the quality.

Opinions are the most important thing here.

QUALITY.


I absolutely love top class classic distance dirt racing. I also enjoy the preps that go along with them, mainly the 9furlong variety.
My opinion is that racing on the synthetics lowers the quality of these races. Quality is the most important thing to a sportsman.

We could paint the bases orange and place them 80 feet instead of 90feet baseball. Why not?
How about a foot ball field with velcro-turf that detaches when you hit - no more knee injuries!
Why not make the balls in golf go twice as far and simply play on a course twice as big?
Boxing would be better if they just used giant foam gloves...
Nascar should be remote control cars. Enough of the carnage.

Plain and simple, the synthetic surfaces alter the dynamics of the game, and it isn't a good thing. They change the pedigree, running style, and stamina requirements. I don't know a fan of American classic distance racing that would rank synthetics higher than dirt. I also don't know of fan of American or Foreign TURF racing that would rank synthetics higher than turf.

They had this synthetic stuff in europe for years and they do not run big races on it. They do not run their good animals on it.

If we are looking for a dirt alternative OBVIOUSLY the alternative should be TURF.

Why haven't we considered TURF?? Because we are willing to make a sacrafice of QUALITY for less maintanence issues and year round racing than TURF.

In essence we are going from dirt (wherever that ranks) to a surface that ranks lower than turf, while taking on the changes in the dynamics that accompany this.

It is simply a step down in quality for the major tracks who can maintain a nice dirt course.
We don't do turf here the way the Euros do is because over there, the race meets are much shorter. Turf course can get torn up pretty badly in a very short period of time. Especially in cases where there is copious rainfall.
In Europe a meet lating a week won't have a profound longterm negative effect of the racing surfaces. However in a 40 or 60 day meet., the effecft could be devastating.
I am a proppenent of turf racing. I have more fun betteing on grass races and more success. Plus turf racing is generally better for the animals.
Now I have seen posiitves and neagtives on artificial racing surfaces(ARS). SO far the Polytrack seems to be getting the poorest reviews while Tapeta and Cushion are getting better marks.
Is it not true that while the compounds are the same for each "load " delivered and installed at each track but each track staff is responsible for the upkeep of the surface? Can that mean that each track superintendant has their own way of mainatinng the surface and that causes the inconsistencies?

[46zilzal]

If you can account for a track ridiculously biased toward speed you shouldn't have much problem accounting for a track biased the other way.
Yes I can, but do I care? nope. Closers have multiple problems: the major one of which is traffic, so even if the track favors them, they have to get through the pack to do it.

[rutalkingtome55]

Of the 8 premier racetracks in the U.S., five of them are polytrack.
And with the Breeders Cup scheduled to be run at Santa Anita, it is the equivalent of the Super Bowl being played on Astro Turf.
It is the players, and only the players that can put a stop to these non-racing minds that are infiltrating the greatest sport in the world.
STOP BETTING POLYTRACK RACES!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the only way to put an end to this nonsense.
As polytrack is single handedly killing this game, we only participate by wagering on races held on this crap.
The only positive to come of this is the rebirth of harness racing which will no doubt, become a big force again if polytrack continues to ruin our game.
If someone told me two years ago that Keeneland, a premier track in the world, would be running on an artificial surface with animated ping pong balls on the simulcast screen interfering with the live race, I'd have laughed intheir faces but it's become a scary reality.
We as bettors control this and a stop of this needs to happen now and the best way is to boycott this years Breeders Cup.
This sport is dead if Poly continues.
Ben

So what your saying is that a horse racing gambler in souther california to stop gambling tracks in california. RIGHT. They would bet on shit tracks if they ran on it. :bang:

[Valuist]

The races.
The surface does not affect the quality of the ANIMALS. It affects the quality of the RACE.
We could run Secretariat against Man o' War, but if the track were a jello swimming pool it would be a goofy race, even though we just got to witness two of the all time greats.

Ted Williams , Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds could play homerun derby , but if they used tennis balls , it would be only mildly amusing.

The new england patriots could square off vs the 78 Steelers in a game of nurf football ...

I agree with you 100%. I hit a nice win bet on Dominican in the 2007 Blue Grass but it was one of the most painfully boring races I've ever watched. Randomness is the biggest problem with synthetics. With Arlington opening soon, I expect to be playing more golf this summer and betting Belmont and Monmouth.

[Light]

Seems the main gripe in this thread is that as a handicapper,synthetic is more unpredictable than dirt. That's probably true,but I dont see that as a negative. According to Jeff P's data,fav's are winning 38% on dirt and 30% on synthetic. I would think thats a good thing. Andy Beyer has been saying that since his figs have been distributed publicly,he cant get the prices on his horses he used to get. Artificial surfaces are offering the opportunity to get back some of those prices.Contrary to killing the game as was the premise of this thread,this can only help the majority of players who are value seekers. Even when I've taken newcomers to the track and they ask how much they will get back,when their horse wins and you give them that low favorite amount,you hear that frustrated groan. That person is not coming back, Jack. That cant be good for the game.

The main thing I dont like in artificial surfaces is the potential long term health affects on jockeys and horses from the surface itself.Some of its ingredients are questionable and if those surface materials prove to be asbestos like substances,that will certainly be a disaster for the game. That is a gamble the horseracing industry may lose.

[ryesteve]

Artificial surfaces are offering the opportunity to get back some of those prices.Contrary to killing the game as was the premise of this thread,this can only help the majority of players who are value seekers
Only if the results make sense. Moreso than before, they don't. The other day, Woodbine had back-to-back $100+ winners. Great for stabbers, but in general you're not going to look at horses like these as "value" opportunities... they're just unforseeable aberrations.

[Valuist]

Only if the results make sense. Moreso than before, they don't. The other day, Woodbine had back-to-back $100+ winners. Great for stabbers, but in general you're not going to look at horses like these as "value" opportunities... they're just unforseeable aberrations.

Exactly. The percentages of winning favorites and second choices is less relevant than on real dirt, IMO. Why? Its hard to say. When you see longshots win on real dirt, usually you can find some reason why. Same with grass. Maybe its a back figure; maybe it was a mid race move in last. But with synthetics, I've never seen so many races where afterward I was still scratching my head.

I have said before I expect to see 40% winning favorites on synthetics but OTOH, many of the other 60% of the races will be won by indecipherable longshots. I can't imagine a worse scenario than races dominated by either even money horses, or 25-1 shots who look awful on paper.

[PaceAdvantage]

According to Jeff P's data,fav's are winning 38% on dirt and 30% on synthetic. I would think thats a good thing.Oh, it's a VERY good thing, especially at the recently concluded Keeneland meet....favorites did HORRIBLY there, but for me, Keeneland was a virtual ATM....I'm VERY sorry to see that meet end....

And just in case anyone is wondering, I've been one of the more vocal critics of artificial surfaces, and still am.....

[SmartyMarty]

While the tracks like to see "high prices," when those higher prices are the result of unpredictable races the core racing fans will lose interest. What will be left are the $2 players that only play weekends.

My experience has been that most tracks are still predictable, though not as much as before.


Dave Schwartz

learn how to incorporate " unpredictability " into your bettin style..

it's the wave of the future..

Crist will be writing his next book bout the angle..

[asH]

Keeneland-Kryptonite to whales

[Dave Schwartz]

Keenland is off the "whale board."