Results on traditonal dirt tracks vs artificial dirt tracks

[trying2win]

I would guess by now that handicappers have had a fair chance to evaluate their success or lack therof, on tradtional dirt tracks vs artificial dirt tracks over let's say the last year.

As for me....I've had success at several dirt tracks, but not every one. As for artificial dirt tracks....in every case a failure. My dirt track methods DON'T WORK ON THE ARTIFICIAL SURFACES. Now I know why I avoid the artificial dirt tracks. Anyone else care to mention how they are doing on these two types of tracks the last year? If you're a success on the artificial surfaces...you earned it! Congratulations!


T2W

[trying2win]

Oops! Forgot to leave a rating symbol for my opinion on betting artificial-surface tracks...Here's it is... :ThmbDown:

[gm10]

I personally love them as they allow me to use my late speed figures much more often than on traditional dirt tracks. I would call Keeneland very tricky, but Turfway and especially Golden Gate have been a real goldmine for me.

Santa Anita is OK, though the jockey's went too slowly in March-April. Hollywood Park rides more like a dirt track imo.

[Valuist]

I found the biggest key with synthetic racing is to stick to single race wagers. There's just too much randomness and too many unknowns to play P3s and P4s.