Nonsense and Phony-Baloney Analysis

[Cadillakin]

I can't help but wonder, who are these dirt horses that fail when they come to the Pro-Ride? When they race on dirt for one or two races, are they suddenly not able to move their legs properly when planted on Pro-Ride? Is it so? On Mondays and Tuesdays, when the Western Circuit is not active, I occasionally play Philadelphia Park for small change. I look at their records as I do my handicapping.. I don't know these horses very well.. I'm looking at horses shipping in from other places.. and many of them have wins on both synthetic and dirt surfaces. $5K claimers are winning on both.. So, I'm thinking.. hmmm.. Synthetic horses can run on dirt, and dirt horses can run on synthetic at Philadelphia and Woodbine, but the Eastern dirt horses can't do the same when they come West for the Championship series? Why is that?

The recent Zenyatta discussions got me thinking about the New York Horses. Just which horses from New York were supposed to win at the BC? The over-the-top Curlin? Which others?

In May of 2008, Zenyatta goes to Oaklawn Park and crushes the previous years dirt champion, Ginger Punch. Eight weeks later, Ginger Punch goes back to New York and annihilates a Grade 1 group in the Ogden Phipps - on dirt. Does that suggest Zenyatta is quite good on dirt? Apparently some in this forum think not. A few months later, nearing the end of the year, Ginger Punch comes to California to race in the Breeders Cup Ladies, and again faces Zenyatta - this time on synthetic. And again, Zenyatta dominates her. Is anybody surprised by that? Who would actually give Ginger Pop a chance after seeing Zenyatta ship to meet her on dirt, and crush her?

It's plain as day that Zenyatta is the much better horse, but somehow this horse is included in the 0-23 statistics that Steven Crist and Andrew Beyer use to make their case that synthetic racing unfairly disadvantages horses who last raced over dirt, who then race over synthetic. DUH! Imagine that! Horses who race better on the surface(s) that they train over. That's amazing!

When Groovy, Plugged Nickle and other Eastern horses shipped West and got their heads handed to them, our tracks were too fast and they couldn't handle them. Now, when the NY horses come here and get their heads handed to them, even when they are totally overmatched.. our tracks are not too fast, but rather, they are too plasticky...

Does anybody really think Ginger Punch, Music Note and Cocoa Beach, can beat Zenyatta on any surface? The last two mentioned ran 2-3 in the Ladies Classic of 2008. If not for Zenyatta, they would have been 1-2. Why are they included in the statistics of dirt horses that can't run over the Pro Ride? Also, who is it that suggests those Eastern sprinters who can't outrun our Western speedsters on the front-end can beat Midnight Lute? The horse is a freak.. the best Bob Baffert has ever trained over the sprint distances.. Why are these horses included in the 0-23 stats that Beyer and Crist allude to. Are they kidding? When he smoked them the prior year on the Eastern Surface, what was their excuse that day? Do they really think those horses had a good chance against a sound Midnight Lute?

You can count on one hand the great sprinters in the East who raced well when shipped West. Where is the analysis over the years showing how poorly Eastern horses did when shipped West - on dirt? Any Westerners in this forum? Tell us about the good sprinters and handicappers that came West and dominated our horses on the old dirt tracks.. Give us some great stories from the old days..

It's all nonsense and phony baloney analysis. Send a bunch of mooks out West and use the ol "blame the track" excuse. I've heard that excuse a thousand times in these last 40 years.. Synthetics haven't changed a thing in that regard

[Overlay]

Reminds me of Seattle Slew meeting his first career defeat at the hands (or would that be hooves?) of J.O. Tobin in the Strub Stakes at Hollywood Park in July, 1977 after Slew had won the Triple Crown.

[cj's dad]

, and dirt horses can run on synthetic at Philadelphia and Woodbine,

PP is a dirt course:

from their website-

MAIN TRACK
1 Mile oval with 7 furlong and 1 & 1/4 mile chutes. Surface: sand, clay and loam

[Tom]

It's plain as day that Zenyatta is the much better horse, but somehow this horse is included in the 0-23 statistics that Steven Crist and Andrew Beyer use to make their case that synthetic racing unfairly disadvantages horses who last raced over dirt, who then race over synthetic. DUH! Imagine that! Horses who race better on the surface(s) that they train over. That's amazing!

Not amazing at all. The stat they talked about was prepped on dirt for the BC. Clearly, Zenny did not prep on dirt for BC.

[Tom]

PP is a dirt course:

from their website-

MAIN TRACK
1 Mile oval with 7 furlong and 1 & 1/4 mile chutes. Surface: sand, clay and loam

Was the the phony or the baloney? :lol:

[twindouble]

Was the the phony or the baloney? :lol:

Boy you guys just relish jumping on a misquotes or minor mistakes made by any member except those in your own family of posters. Some of your humor is funny but it doesn't work in every case especially this one. I think Cadillakin made some valid points. Believe it or not, I had no problem adjusting to synthetic tracks, it isn't like track materials, drainage systems or maintenance procedures are the same as they were back in the early 60's.

[cj]

A few things on the original post. Ginger Punch was a solid horse, nothing more. She was the best female during a very weak stretch. I don't think many smart bettors considered her very good at all and expected Zenyatta to beat her on dirt.

It changes nothing about dirt and synthetic being two completely different surfaces. If you believe otherwise, you are living in fantasy land. Zenyatta was a very good horse that handled both well, but her dirt race wasn't all that impressive to me in relation her synthetic races. However, most horses do not. Of course at lower levels of racing horses move between the two and might appear to run "well", but most are still showing differing levels of ability on the different surfaces.

[HUSKER55]

wHEN i WAS A KID, (45 YARS AGO), NEIGHBOR GIRL HAD AN Arabian horse that loved to run. She got the horse to make a Western Show HOrse, it is not racing. But between events the kids got together and you guessed it. They raced their horses.


That horse would take on any horse and would upchuck a lung to win. I worked the summer for a company that provide back up support for the events. (booths, meals, hay and etc.)

Point is, as memory serves, horses that want to win seem to win. Do I think surface makes a difference. I think horses have preferences but I also think a horse that wants to win really does not care.

Maybe I am wrong but unless you see a difference in time enough to attract attention, bet the horse first. Cream comes to the top.


I am just curious and would appreciate your opinion. If you have a turf horse entered in a dirt race and the average time is less than 5 lengths from the top dirt speed in the race do you really throw the horse out?

JMHO and thank you for your opinions. They are appreciated.

[Dahoss9698]

Boy you guys just relish jumping on a misquotes or minor mistakes made by any member except those in your own family of posters. Some of your humor is funny but it doesn't work in every case especially this one. I think Cadillakin made some valid points. Believe it or not, I had no problem adjusting to synthetic tracks, it isn't like track materials, drainage systems or maintenance procedures are the same as they were back in the early 60's.
Quite frankly, the title of this thread more accurately describes the "points" that were made. Exactly which points were valid? Synthetic surfaces are a 3rd surface. I'm not even sure why that is debateable anymore. Do all horses handle turf and dirt? Of course not. So why is it so hard to understand that not all horses handle dirt and synthetic?

First off, Philly is a dirt course as mentioned. Second, who exactly in the Ogden Phipps last year was so good, that it be named a grade 1 group and underlined? Yeah, it was a grade 1, in name only. Talking about a horse beating Golden Velvet and Mistical Plan doesn't bolster your arguement....it hurts it.

Yeah, maybe Curlin was over the top in the Classic last year. I suppose I can agree with that. But when horses like Devil May Care, Seventh Street, D'Funnybone, Pyro, Girolamo all run the way they do. How can you not look to surface? If the Breeders Cup is at Belmont this year, do you think Devil May Care runs 11th in the Juvenile Fillies? Is Seventh Street 8th in the F&M Sprint? D'Funnybone last in the Juvenile? Pyro 10th in the Dirt Mile?

Come on.... Look, I have no problem dealing with the reality that dirt based horses were at a disadvantage these past 2 years. It's the very reason horses like Rachel Alexandra and Fabulous Strike skipped it. The first thing I did in handicapping the last 2 Cups was draw a line through all dirt based horses. But, some pretty good horses ran really bad over that surface.

[twindouble]

A few things on the original post. Ginger Punch was a solid horse, nothing more. She was the best female during a very weak stretch. I don't think many smart bettors considered her very good at all and expected Zenyatta to beat her on dirt.

It changes nothing about dirt and synthetic being two completely different surfaces. If you believe otherwise, you are living in fantasy land. Zenyatta was a very good horse that handled both well, but her dirt race wasn't all that impressive to me in relation her synthetic races. However, most horses do not. Of course at lower levels of racing horses move between the two and might appear to run "well", but most are still showing differing levels of ability on the different surfaces.

Where did I say synthetic tracks isn't different than dirt? All I said was I adjusted to it as a handicapper and I did just as good playing Cal tracks as I've done on the east coast dirt. Any player that can't adjust to changing conditions is their problem for whatever the reason or excuse they use. Changing conditions is part of the game, being aware of it is how we make money. Now tell me that's a fantasy.

[cj]

Here are some actual facts from my database:

Of the 686 synthetic horses that tried dirt stakes, those that had never run on dirt, they won 14% and lost a whopping 32 cents on the dollar.

Of the 653 dirt horses that tried synthetic stakes, those that had never run on rubber, they won 8% and lost a ridiculous 48 cents on the dollar.

Of the 440 turf horses that tried synthetic stakes, those that had never run on rubber, they won 11% and lost a only 7 cents on the dollar.

[cj]

Where did I say synthetic tracks isn't different than dirt? All I said was I adjusted to it as a handicapper and I did just as good playing Cal tracks as I've done on the east coast dirt. Any player that can't adjust to changing conditions is their problem for whatever the reason or excuse they use. Changing conditions is part of the game, being aware of it is how we make money. Now tell me that's a fantasy.

Did you make the original post? That was my first sentence. Reading is fundamental.

For about the 9 millionth time, I've never complained that you can't bet and do well on synthetic tracks. As a gambler, I don't mind them. But as a sport, they are taking a lot away from us in my opinion. It was hard enough getting champions that captured the public's attention, and now we've created yet another subdivision of racing to keep good horses apart.

[Tom]

Boy you guys just relish jumping on a misquotes or minor mistakes made by any member except those in your own family of posters. Some of your humor is funny but it doesn't work in every case especially this one. I think Cadillakin made some valid points. Believe it or not, I had no problem adjusting to synthetic tracks, it isn't like track materials, drainage systems or maintenance procedures are the same as they were back in the early 60's.

I think when you title thread phony and baloney and then call a drit track poly - fair game.

The :lol: says it is not an attack.
But feel free to sulk.

[andymays]

Here are some actual facts from my database:

Of the 686 synthetic horses that tried dirt stakes, those that had never run on dirt, they won 14% and lost a whopping 32 cents on the dollar.

Of the 653 dirt horses that tried synthetic stakes, those that had never run on rubber, they won 8% and lost a ridiculous 48 cents on the dollar.

Of the 440 turf horses that tried synthetic stakes, those that had never run on rubber, they won 11% and lost a only 7 cents on the dollar.


Good Stuff CJ. Although I don't keep records those numbers sound about right. On the last one, turf to synthetic I would be curious to see it broken down by turf to Pro Ride vs. turf to all other synthetics. My guess would be that turf to Pro Ride would be a small profit.

[Bochall]

As i was reading your post it was making me angrier and angrier (i am a NYRA player you see) and i was all ready to post you back and defend my NY horses... but your points are well taken. I am still thinking about how you are wrong about this, but its not coming to me...i guess you are right. Nice points.

[ghostyapper]

A few things on the original post. Ginger Punch was a solid horse, nothing more. She was the best female during a very weak stretch. I don't think many smart bettors considered her very good at all and expected Zenyatta to beat her on dirt.

It changes nothing about dirt and synthetic being two completely different surfaces. If you believe otherwise, you are living in fantasy land. Zenyatta was a very good horse that handled both well, but her dirt race wasn't all that impressive to me in relation her synthetic races. However, most horses do not. Of course at lower levels of racing horses move between the two and might appear to run "well", but most are still showing differing levels of ability on the different surfaces.

Ginger Punch won 6 G1 races, including the bc distaff and an eclipse award. Clearly she is one of the luckiest horses ever to have accomplished that without being "very good at all"

I agree with you that many horses perform different on dirt and synthetic but I don't know how you can say zenyatta's dirt race was not as impressive as many of her synthetic wins.

[Dahoss9698]

Ginger Punch won 6 G1 races, including the bc distaff and an eclipse award. Clearly she is one of the luckiest horses ever to have accomplished that without being "very good at all"

I agree with you that many horses perform different on dirt and synthetic but I don't know how you can say zenyatta's dirt race was not as impressive as many of her synthetic wins.

She's lucky in the sense she came along during an awful time for Distaffers. How many races do you think Ginger Punch would have won against the likes of Rachel Alexandra or Icon Project? We saw how she fared against Zenyatta. If you switch their trips, does she beat Hystericalady in the Distaff? No way. Have you seen some of the fields she beat in those grade 1's?

[Robert Fischer]

Yes there are a some horses who are extreme breeds that simply need turf or dirt under their feet. These are in the minority.

My opinion that most horses "handle" a synthetic or a dirt surface fine.
And that most moderately talented, well-rounded horses can do just fine on synthetic or dirt. Its the different requirements of race dynamics, raw athletic talent, stamina, ability to sit a trip and time a move, etc... that a lot media and horseplayer simplify as "surface".

you get a horse like Quality Road who is mainly just super raw athlete with a high cruise- and he can stretch from his natural 7furlongs to 9(or so) furlongs in most dirt stakes even though his stamina isn't that great. You put him in an environment that requires a well-rounded horse and he simply hasn't been developed to be well-rounded, and he can't just rely on carrying an awesome high cruise instead of real stamina.

Kensei is another one that comes to mind. The had this one pumped and primed to the moon by the time the Travers came around. He was a superstar level athlete in the Travers. However he couldn't even sit a trip and time a move in that or his next race, despite them being on dirt. Another example of a horse that is not well rounded that nearly dominated a couple "big" dirt stakes.

The opposite counter example of one-sided horses would be maybe a lightly raced horse that just ran on synthetic or turf in an allowance or even stakes, and had a perfect trip amid a race that fell apart. Maybe he doesn't have any raw athletic talent(and he doesn't for this example) and so he goes to run in a dirt stakes and finishes up the track in spite of handling the surface just as well as he did in his stakes placing last out.

Zenyatta can do all the things, and she is well-rounded. Her running style almost forces her to sit a trip by default. She is a freaky physical specimen that has the raw athletic talent. And like most decent horses she handles synthetic and dirt just fine. When she races on dirt all she needs is the race to fall apart a little to ensure a fair chance at winning.

[cj]

Ginger Punch won 6 G1 races, including the bc distaff and an eclipse award. Clearly she is one of the luckiest horses ever to have accomplished that without being "very good at all"

I agree with you that many horses perform different on dirt and synthetic but I don't know how you can say zenyatta's dirt race was not as impressive as many of her synthetic wins.

She was. She was winning G1s with high 90 to low 100 Beyer speed figures while getting favorable trips. Beyer isn't the only figure maker that had her that low. She was a solid stakes horse, but a very weak "Champion".

[cj]

Yes there are a some horses who are extreme breeds that simply need turf or dirt under their feet. These are in the minority.



Sounds great in theory, but the numbers don't bear this out.

[Robert Fischer]

Sounds great in theory, but the numbers don't bear this out.

The dirt<->synth surface changes aren't a blind-bet factor, that's for sure.





I also cringe when i use phrases like "under their feet" with horses

[Steve R]

In the last two years, 23 starters in the Derby and Preakness made their last pre-classic race start on an AWS (there were none in the Belmont). They ran 2-4-5-5-6-6-7-7-8-8-9-10-10-12-12-12-13-13-15-15-16-18-20 in those two races. All together there were 64 starters, so 36% were coming in from a synthetic surface. Of the 12 ITM finishers, 11 were dirt horses and 1 was an AWS horse. Randomly, 4 or 5 ITM finishers should have come from an AWS. Sounds a lot like the reverse of this year's BC. Must be a coincidence.

[twindouble]

Did you make the original post? That was my first sentence. Reading is fundamental.

For about the 9 millionth time, I've never complained that you can't bet and do well on synthetic tracks. As a gambler, I don't mind them. But as a sport, they are taking a lot away from us in my opinion. It was hard enough getting champions that captured the public's attention, and now we've created yet another subdivision of racing to keep good horses apart.

I wasn't here for those 9 million comments. There's no question that synthetic tracks threw a wrench in the numbers game, that was good for me. As a matter of fact I should have taken for granted that a player like you that's been in the game for a long time could adjust to synthetic tracks as I did. I understand the conundrum when it comes to who's the best horse in the country, dirt or synthetic, resolving it has nothing to do me as a player. I was just happy that Gio Ponti ran as good as I thought he would on that surface.

I'm not one to take the racing industry by the throat and say this is what you have to do to fix the game when I've never owned, trained or ran a race track. On the other hand from a players perspective only, I feel qualify to give an opinion on many issues facing us. An opinion is just that, an opinion. To out right reject them because they don't fit a mold here isn't to bright, "in my opinion".

Good luck to you, synthetic, turf or dirt.

T.D.

[Bochall]

She was. She was winning G1s with high 90 to low 100 Beyer speed figures while getting favorable trips. Beyer isn't the only figure maker that had her that low. She was a solid stakes horse, but a very weak "Champion".
Ashado is another champ whom I would throw into the mediocre category. People slam me for this, but she never ran that fast...ever. Some just get weak classes of 3yr olds and/or older to run against, and they dont have to be that fast or classy to beat them.

[ghostyapper]

She was. She was winning G1s with high 90 to low 100 Beyer speed figures while getting favorable trips. Beyer isn't the only figure maker that had her that low. She was a solid stakes horse, but a very weak "Champion".

The same could have been said for zenyatta this year before the bc and then she somehow ran a lifetime best speed figure in her final race of her 5 yo season.

No one is saying ginger punch was an all time great but she was a champion whether you and beyer like it or not and zenyatta beat her with ease on a surface that according to you she isn't as good on. Zenyatta's margin of victory over ginger punch was the same on dirt and synthetic.

So how does this help your case that zenyatta is not as good on dirt?

[11cashcall]

Lava Man will be back racing soon......... :D

[Stillriledup]

I can't help but wonder, who are these dirt horses that fail when they come to the Pro-Ride? When they race on dirt for one or two races, are they suddenly not able to move their legs properly when planted on Pro-Ride? Is it so? On Mondays and Tuesdays, when the Western Circuit is not active, I occasionally play Philadelphia Park for small change. I look at their records as I do my handicapping.. I don't know these horses very well.. I'm looking at horses shipping in from other places.. and many of them have wins on both synthetic and dirt surfaces. $5K claimers are winning on both.. So, I'm thinking.. hmmm.. Synthetic horses can run on dirt, and dirt horses can run on synthetic at Philadelphia and Woodbine, but the Eastern dirt horses can't do the same when they come West for the Championship series? Why is that?

The recent Zenyatta discussions got me thinking about the New York Horses. Just which horses from New York were supposed to win at the BC? The over-the-top Curlin? Which others?

In May of 2008, Zenyatta goes to Oaklawn Park and crushes the previous years dirt champion, Ginger Punch. Eight weeks later, Ginger Punch goes back to New York and annihilates a Grade 1 group in the Ogden Phipps - on dirt. Does that suggest Zenyatta is quite good on dirt? Apparently some in this forum think not. A few months later, nearing the end of the year, Ginger Punch comes to California to race in the Breeders Cup Ladies, and again faces Zenyatta - this time on synthetic. And again, Zenyatta dominates her. Is anybody surprised by that? Who would actually give Ginger Pop a chance after seeing Zenyatta ship to meet her on dirt, and crush her?

It's plain as day that Zenyatta is the much better horse, but somehow this horse is included in the 0-23 statistics that Steven Crist and Andrew Beyer use to make their case that synthetic racing unfairly disadvantages horses who last raced over dirt, who then race over synthetic. DUH! Imagine that! Horses who race better on the surface(s) that they train over. That's amazing!

When Groovy, Plugged Nickle and other Eastern horses shipped West and got their heads handed to them, our tracks were too fast and they couldn't handle them. Now, when the NY horses come here and get their heads handed to them, even when they are totally overmatched.. our tracks are not too fast, but rather, they are too plasticky...

Does anybody really think Ginger Punch, Music Note and Cocoa Beach, can beat Zenyatta on any surface? The last two mentioned ran 2-3 in the Ladies Classic of 2008. If not for Zenyatta, they would have been 1-2. Why are they included in the statistics of dirt horses that can't run over the Pro Ride? Also, who is it that suggests those Eastern sprinters who can't outrun our Western speedsters on the front-end can beat Midnight Lute? The horse is a freak.. the best Bob Baffert has ever trained over the sprint distances.. Why are these horses included in the 0-23 stats that Beyer and Crist allude to. Are they kidding? When he smoked them the prior year on the Eastern Surface, what was their excuse that day? Do they really think those horses had a good chance against a sound Midnight Lute?

You can count on one hand the great sprinters in the East who raced well when shipped West. Where is the analysis over the years showing how poorly Eastern horses did when shipped West - on dirt? Any Westerners in this forum? Tell us about the good sprinters and handicappers that came West and dominated our horses on the old dirt tracks.. Give us some great stories from the old days..

It's all nonsense and phony baloney analysis. Send a bunch of mooks out West and use the ol "blame the track" excuse. I've heard that excuse a thousand times in these last 40 years.. Synthetics haven't changed a thing in that regard


Is this a rant on why Rachel should have stayed in training, as a 3 yo filly, to race against older male beasts in the classic? People forget she's three. Three year old fillies are not going to race in the BC Classic too often, its unfair to suggest she should have.

As far as Z being a synthetic horse, the owners had ample time to send her around the country and race on different tracks against males and the choosed not to prove she could handle dirt. One dirt win vs a subpar Ginger Punch doesn't make a synthetic horse a dirt horse.

If you want to say that Jackson denied us to see RA in the BC that is your right, but you also need to say that Moss denied us to see Z tour the country and show up at a different track after each win.

The bottom line remains that Zenyatta was more 'carefully handled' than Rachel was, that's indisputable.

[TurfRuler]

"I'm not a synthetic person. I think it's caused a nightmare for the bettors," Lukas said. "The very lifeblood of our industry is the gambling public, and I think they've been put at such a disadvantage trying to sort this thing out.

"I think it will run its course and maybe in a couple of years they'll dig them all up and get back to natural dirt."

"They have that Gamblers Anonymous for people who have that bad gambling habit. Polytrack will take care of that," Lukas said. "They won't need to worry about that anymore. People will quit gambling."

D. Wayne Lukas, April 30, 2009

[Tom]

Go back three or four years and Street Sense and Hard Spun prepped on poly and ran well on the dirt.

[DeanT]

Go back three or four years and Street Sense and Hard Spun prepped on poly and ran well on the dirt.
This is where I get a little confused in the debate versus capping and doing something decent for the sport. Those two horses are the ones I would most like to see bred to for the terrible 2.2 horses per thousand races that break down. Horses who run well on both are good for our breed imo.

Funny the debate one way or another. I just read this piece from overseas. It is an amazingly polarizing debate!

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/sports/2009/November/sports_November520.xml&section=sports&col=

[andymays]

I think Street Sense and Hard Spun both ran well on synthetic but not near their best. Anyone know about the figures?

[Robert Fischer]

If you want to say that Jackson denied us to see RA in the BC that is your right, but you also need to say that Moss denied us to see Z tour the country and show up at a different track after each win.

The bottom line remains that Zenyatta was more 'carefully handled' than Rachel was, that's indisputable.

two different approaches, and both highly highly successful results.

Rachel raced in some big name grade 1or2s, and Zenyatta raced primarily in some bullshit 1/16th grade3orUngraded level races and then won one of the best races of the year for the continent.

It would have been nice to see Zenyatta tackle big time horses at 9f or longer once or twice more. Rachel had about as full a season as she could handle with borel getting on her in the mornings, then moving to asmussen and being made to run at a higher performance level with all the best stuff they have. Rachel was about 99% sure to be demolished in the Classic, because it would have simply asked her to do things she can't do, although she would have technically handled the surface just fine. The wise thing to do was to sit her out, although it is debatable whether Jess Jackson/Asmussen are thinking along the lines of race dynamics, or whether they have some false impression of the surface due to Albarado's inability to time a move upon Curlin.
Zenyatta would have run a good race in the strongest of Classics on dirt, but she would need the race to fall apart a little on dirt to have a fair chance - as opposed to horses like Rachel/QualityRoad/SummerBird? going 1-2-3 around the track in a speed favoring scenario, whereas on synthetic Zenyatta is all but guaranteed a fair chance to win even with her late running style.

[Robert Fischer]

I think Street Sense and Hard Spun both ran well on synthetic but not near their best. Anyone know about the figures?
Hard Spun particularly relished the turfway synth course. Turfway at that time had terrible kickback and a high cruising speed horse with some turf in his pedigree had an unfair advantage.

Street Sense handled a variety of synthetics fine, his best moments were clearly on dirt. The Bluegrass Synth prep(which he didn't particularly outperform some c level horses), was helpful for him because of how slow the jockeys controlled the race and how fast they finished, provided him a perfect Derby prep.

[cj]

Ashado is another champ whom I would throw into the mediocre category. People slam me for this, but she never ran that fast...ever. Some just get weak classes of 3yr olds and/or older to run against, and they dont have to be that fast or classy to beat them.

No arguments at all about Ashado...never thought much of her. I do think she was better than Ginger Punch though.

[Cat Thief]

Your message makes alot of sense and I too am wondering why this happens. Woodbine is synthetic and Fort Erie is dirt. Horses do go between the two tracks here and win some, lose some. On some thread some person mentioned these New York horses who weren't coming to the Breeders Cup because of the track and I asked them to list who these horses were. I never got a reply to this! I also remember when they said California tracks were too hard on the horses and all horses ran faster in California (well I totally agree with that) I haven't seen too many NY horses running as fast. I am from Canada so I don't have any personal motive to say this but I have played both California tracks and NY tracks for around 15 years. So I too wonder about these statements.

[RichieP]

Here are some actual facts from my database:

Of the 686 synthetic horses that tried dirt stakes, those that had never run on dirt, they won 14% and lost a whopping 32 cents on the dollar.

Of the 653 dirt horses that tried synthetic stakes, those that had never run on rubber, they won 8% and lost a ridiculous 48 cents on the dollar.

Of the 440 turf horses that tried synthetic stakes, those that had never run on rubber, they won 11% and lost a only 7 cents on the dollar.

Wow those are amazing numbers CJ. Thank you for sharing them :ThmbUp:

[cj]

Zenyatta's margin of victory over ginger punch was the same on dirt and synthetic.



That statement alone would be proof she is better on synthetics if you truly understood the surface. What is more impressive, winning a dirt race by 5, or a turf race of equal class by 5?

Zenyatta had exactly 0 races with a respectable pace this year, so of course her figures were low. I have her fastest speed figure race coming at Delmar last year, a race that featured a very fast pace. That is how it works. The pace for the Apple Blossom was above average, and she ran well. Still, she didn't run as fast as she has synthetics under the right circumstances.

Considering that everyone says it is tougher to run big figures on synthetics, and that she ran better on them than I think she ran on dirt, I feel she is better on rubber.

One thing I'm very confident in saying is that her dirt race was not nearly fast enough to beat top males on dirt in the Classic. I'd bet my right arm Summer Bird would have easily beaten her.

[plainolebill]

I agree that Ginger Punch was a weak champion but in all fairness to Zenyatta the Apple Blossom was only her 4th career race and it's entirely possible that she could be much better on the dirt than that race indicated.

I don't have any problem handicapping AW races but I also think that having a third surface really hurts racing as a whole.

[DeanT]

How in the heck do we judge a horse on one race?

She might have scoped a "3" after the race, did not enjoy the ship and had a slight bump in the white count - myriad factors we do not know about where she might have blown the doors of her synth form if 100%. How we can judge a horse's entire career and make a blanket statement on one race? We would never do that with handicapping, why do we do it in this instance?

The Apple Blossom told me one thing only - she can race and do well on dirt. Nothing more, nothing less.

[cj]

The Apple Blossom told me one thing only - she can race and do well on dirt. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly. However, it hasn't stopped many from saying she is as good, or in the case of her trainer, better on dirt. I'm saying there is no proof at all this is true, and my experience watching races for too many years leads me to believe she is better on the synthetics.

As for one race, of course we do it with handicapping. We do it all the time, every day. Of course with the advent of synthetics, we have to do it with no races on some surfaces many times.

[DeanT]

Gotcha.

I am just amazed at some blanket statements on this horse (and others) based primarily on a one off speed figure. Big Brown runs an X in the Belmont and someone might say he can not handle a mile and a half, when later we find out his feet are stinging him and held together with duct tape. Imagine if the race was on poly? My lord. the 67 length loss would have been because of that I am sure.

[twindouble]

I agree that Ginger Punch was a weak champion but in all fairness to Zenyatta the Apple Blossom was only her 4th career race and it's entirely possible that she could be much better on the dirt than that race indicated.

I don't have any problem handicapping AW races but I also think that having a third surface really hurts racing as a whole.

Every track plays different, what's the big deal with another surface? I don't lose any sleep over what horse is better at what track or what surface. To some it's very important, I find their arguments and opinions interesting but it has no effect on how I wager or handicap. When it comes to the classic, to me Zenyatta was the best horse that day. That don't mean down the road she can't get beat in different conditions if she takes on the boys again but I doubt that will happen. I don't know where she's pointed to next but wherever she goes she'll draw a lot of attention. That's good for the game. Maybe those in charge will finely see racing is all about the horse and work on promoting the game with that in mind.

[ghostyapper]

That statement alone would be proof she is better on synthetics if you truly understood the surface. What is more impressive, winning a dirt race by 5, or a turf race of equal class by 5?


I brought this up a couple of days ago how hypocritical some are being in comparing rachel's margins of victory to zenyatta and then saying synthetic plays like turf. Take a look at the pace homepage with "margin of victory" as a criteria.

Didn't hear a peep from you though regarding that. :eek:

[DeanT]

[/b]

Every track plays different

This is a point where we dont hear too much at times, imo, and we should.

SAR put more dirt down and the speed dirt track favored closers in 07 and 08.

GP had a dead nuts hard as rock speed track this year for the Derby. Pletcher complained, but no one else did.

MNR is dead nuts speed. The connections of Mine that Bird nor anyone else spoke of that.

We deal with this every day as handicappers no matter what the surface, imo.

[Pell Mell]

I wonder why the racing Sec. at Haw cards races for horses who have never won on AW tracks.?:confused:

[cj]

I brought this up a couple of days ago how hypocritical some are being in comparing rachel's margins of victory to zenyatta and then saying synthetic plays like turf. Take a look at the pace homepage with "margin of victory" as a criteria.

Didn't hear a peep from you though regarding that. :eek:

I thought I had mentioned it. I am 100% certain you have never heard me mention margin of victory as a reason Rachel should get Horse of the Year.

[cj]

This is a point where we dont hear too much at times, imo, and we should.

SAR put more dirt down and the speed dirt track favored closers in 07 and 08.

GP had a dead nuts hard as rock speed track this year for the Derby. Pletcher complained, but no one else did.

MNR is dead nuts speed. The connections of Mine that Bird nor anyone else spoke of that.

We deal with this every day as handicappers no matter what the surface, imo.

As I've said before, it isn't necessarily a speed vs closers issue. Different type horses win on turf and synthetics than win on dirt, and it isn't all about running style.

[cj]

I wonder why the racing Sec. at Haw cards races for horses who have never won on AW tracks.?:confused:

Does he really do that? I've rarely heard of surface being a factor of race conditions, but it has happened before.

[andymays]

As I've said before, it isn't necessarily a speed vs closers issue. Different type horses win on turf and synthetics than win on dirt, and it isn't all about running style.


It's also about how a Jockey decides to ride during the race on synthetic. In my opinion changes in running style are more successful on synthetic. See Joel Rosario!

The running style changes are on of the big problems I have with synthetics. Maintenance biases (well documented this year) ala Del Mar 2009 are another.

[bisket]

two opinions i have of ginger 1) still can't believe she won a graded race past 1 1/16 mile 2) her 2008 season she just didn't seem to be the same horse as the year before. she ran very evenly through the stretch so an in between type pace usually propelled her to her best races. a 47 half was her sweetspot. she got that in the appleblossom and still couldn't beat zen. i had zen in that race, but thought it would be close. it wasn't.
i think inside these percentages about dirt to poly runners are two types. one type just needs dirt. ginger imop is in that crowd. the other type i believe can handle the track just fine, but needs to adjust how the horse runs the race. dirt allows horses to make a sweeping move through say the beginning of the turn for home and sweep to the front at the head of the stretch. horses are generally able to hold that edge because they can carry speed on dirt. this type is curlin. (incidentally curlin's time for the 2008 classic was his career best time for a 1 1/4 mile race. most people simply aren't aware of this) the problem is a veteran runner like curlin at this point in his career is pretty much running his own race by now. after training and racing on dirt for 2 years this is where he has been asked to run in all his races, and even in his morning works. so at this point in his career 200 yard before entering the turn he starts accelerating. on synthetics this is about an 1/8 of a mile to early. you can't carry speed on the surface so you can't run your best until you reach the stretch!! so i think horses just need a few races over the surface to get aquainted with the best way to run and win on the surface.
i think if you are going from poly to dirt its much easier to ask a horse earlier than you normally would, but for dirt to poly runners its much tougher to restrain a horse thats ready to run.

[andymays]

It's also about how a Jockey decides to ride during the race on synthetic. In my opinion changes in running style are more successful on synthetic. See Joel Rosario!

The running style changes are on of the big problems I have with synthetics. Maintenance biases (well documented this year) ala Del Mar 2009 are another.

I added these just for the "where's the proof" people. ;)

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/equestrian/racing/article_8a99479d-466e-54bb-a08a-b502273421e9.html

Excerpt:

Thumbs down to the Del Mar Polytrack this season. It was too inconsistent. Trainers couldn't wait to leave last week. Let's hope track president Joe Harper finds the fine line between the 2007 version and this year's edition.

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/equestrian/racing/article_76e60435-8242-51d3-9bc9-1a7debc5b864.html

Excerpt:

"Maintenance is the absolute critical thing," said Winstar Farm's Bill Casner, who owns Colonel John, the morning-line favorite in Del Mar's $1 million Pacific Classic on Sunday. "They have tightened up the Del Mar surface this year. The first year, it was slow but safe. It was pretty good last year. This year it sounds like a herd of buffalo down there on the track."

[bisket]

andy i think we're both on the same page. the change in running style is basically my point also.

[illinoisbred]

I wonder why the racing Sec. at Haw cards races for horses who have never won on AW tracks.?:confused:
It is strange. They don't card many,and they are always for the rock-bottom 4,000 claimers. Since Arlington represents 1/2 the racing year, it looks like they are giving the cheapest a chance to earn some purse money before the years over.

[BeatTheChalk]

Reminds me of Seattle Slew meeting his first career defeat at the hands (or would that be hooves?) of J.O. Tobin in the Strub Stakes at Hollywood Park in July, 1977 after Slew had won the Triple Crown.

I vividly recall the race. I couldt get to the track .. so I listened to the
call on Radio. I can hear Harry Henson in my brain ..like it was 10 minutes
ago. As they turned into the stretch .. Harry said ..." Now it's J O Tobin
extending the lead over SS."

[Pell Mell]

Does he really do that? I've rarely heard of surface being a factor of race conditions, but it has happened before.


6½ Furlongs. Clm 4000b Purse $9,500 FOR THREE

Year Olds And Upward That Have Never Won A

Race On A Synthetic Racing Surface. Three Year

Olds, 122 Lbs., Older, 124 Lbs. Non-winners Of A Race Since

October 20 Allowed 2 Lbs. Claiming Price $4,00.

[Robert Fischer]

you don't hear Lukas whining about the real issue to sustaining or growing the gambling public, which happens to be the racing industry and the gov't coming to terms, and the racing industry utilizing the mass media broadcast like any other successful sporting and sports betting industries in recent history.
Noooo... Lukas whines about some tracks like Keeneland going to synth and decreasing the dwindling few successful all or nothing speed types he manages to win with these days. [/rant]

"I'm not a synthetic person. I think it's caused a nightmare for the bettors," Lukas said. "The very lifeblood of our industry is the gambling public, and I think they've been put at such a disadvantage trying to sort this thing out.

"I think it will run its course and maybe in a couple of years they'll dig them all up and get back to natural dirt."

"They have that Gamblers Anonymous for people who have that bad gambling habit. Polytrack will take care of that," Lukas said. "They won't need to worry about that anymore. People will quit gambling."

D. Wayne Lukas, April 30, 2009

[jonnielu]

A few things on the original post. Ginger Punch was a solid horse, nothing more. She was the best female during a very weak stretch. I don't think many smart bettors considered her very good at all and expected Zenyatta to beat her on dirt.

It changes nothing about dirt and synthetic being two completely different surfaces. If you believe otherwise, you are living in fantasy land. Zenyatta was a very good horse that handled both well, but her dirt race wasn't all that impressive to me in relation her synthetic races. However, most horses do not. Of course at lower levels of racing horses move between the two and might appear to run "well", but most are still showing differing levels of ability on the different surfaces.

Looks like a good time to whip out some examples.

jdl

[cj's dad]

Boy you guys just relish jumping on a misquotes or minor mistakes made by any member except those in your own family of posters. Some of your humor is funny but it doesn't work in every case especially this one. I think Cadillakin made some valid points. Believe it or not, I had no problem adjusting to synthetic tracks, it isn't like track materials, drainage systems or maintenance procedures are the same as they were back in the early 60's.

When an OP refers to a track as a synthetic track which Ph.Park is NOT that poster needs to be corrected for the sake of accuracy. Don't like it ?? that's your problem not ours !!!

[Robert Fischer]

at first I thought he meant woodbine shippers running at philly(which i haven't been playing and wouldn't have noticed whether this is prevalent at all) ...

now that i reread it you may have a point

[nijinski]

Reminds me of Seattle Slew meeting his first career defeat at the hands (or would that be hooves?) of J.O. Tobin in the Strub Stakes at Hollywood Park in July, 1977 after Slew had won the Triple Crown.

Owners should have listened to Turner and given him rest . He deserved a break not a long haul. IMO

[nijinski]

Sounds like the turf to dirt angle. ;)

[twindouble]

When an OP refers to a track as a synthetic track which Ph.Park is NOT that poster needs to be corrected for the sake of accuracy. Don't like it ?? that's your problem not ours !!!

I didn't respond to your correction, I responed to Tom; So what's your problem, did I hit a sore spot? Tom has no problem speaking for himself that I know of.

quote Tom;
Was the the phony or the baloney? :lol:

[bisket]

as far as the woodbine shippers at philly park is concerned. about 5 years ago i recall we had a bunch of horses from woodbine ship into laurel during their winter meet. they looked impressive on paper. running and winning 50-60k allowances, but couldn't beat claimers at laurel. i recall being at laurel when one named atom cat was running for a tag, and i remember liking him. i hit him for a win bet, and trifecta box. he was the only one out of all of them that ended up being any good. he developed into a small stakes horse for a year or so. be cautious betting this crowd until you get a good handle on their class in relation to the regular runners at the track.

[twindouble]

as far as the woodbine shippers at philly park is concerned. about 5 years ago i recall we had a bunch of horses from woodbine ship into laurel during their winter meet. they looked impressive on paper. running and winning 50-60k allowances, but couldn't beat claimers at laurel. i recall being at laurel when one named atom cat was running for a tag, and i remember liking him. i hit him for a win bet, and trifecta box. he was the only one out of all of them that ended up being any good. he developed into a small stakes horse for a year or so. be cautious betting this crowd until you get a good handle on their class in relation to the regular runners at the track.

The problem most handicappers have is converting times and the quality of the horses from track to track. The written conditions they run under is far from being a clue as to how good they will run at other track. The figures that are offered up by others like Beyer is no panacea either. Good for you for becoming aware of that problem.

[bisket]

The problem most handicappers have is converting times and the quality of the horses from track to track. The written conditions they run under is far from being a clue as to how good they will run at other track. The figures that are offered up by others like Beyer is no panacea either. Good for you for becoming aware of that problem.
getting a good handle on this truly helps in playing gulfstream at the beginning of their meet. for the first month or so sorting out who's who means great odds, and good plays for the best informed players that don't use speed figs as the basis for their plays. one month away.

[twindouble]

getting a good handle on this truly helps in playing gulfstream at the beginning of their meet. for the first month or so sorting out who's who means great odds, and good plays for the best informed players that don't use speed figs as the basis for their plays. one month away.

Yes, just being aware of that fact will produce some value for you.

Good luck at Gulfstream

[PaceAdvantage]

Believe it or not, I had no problem adjusting to synthetic tracks, it isn't like track materials, drainage systems or maintenance procedures are the same as they were back in the early 60's.Why do you and others continue to throw out this red herring? This "you can't handicap or win at synthetic tracks, which must be the reason you don't care for them."

I don't care for synthetics at all in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't mean I can't handicap them...

I have no problem beating synthetic races. I happen to LOVE the Keeneland and Woodbine meets. Full fields producing plenty of boxcar payoffs...what's not to love for a guy like me who lives for horses paying $16 and higher?

[twindouble]

Why do you and others continue to throw out this red herring? This "you can't handicap or win at synthetic tracks, which must be the reason you don't care for them."

I don't care for synthetics at all in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't mean I can't handicap them...

I have no problem beating synthetic races. I happen to LOVE the Keeneland and Woodbine meets. Full fields producing plenty of boxcar payoffs...what's not to love for a guy like me who lives for horses paying $16 and higher?

I don't have a clue why you packaged me up and tossed me into a group that thinks "synthetic tracks can't be handicapped", I've been saying and said just the opposite. "I had no problem adjusting to synthetic tracks". The last two years I've also did very well with Cal tracks and I did it publicly posting on another forum. I know my opinions don't set well with some here so don't beat around the bush, if I'm not welcomed here just say so.

[cj]

I know my opinions don't set well with some here so don't beat around the bush, if I'm not welcomed here just say so.

Always the martyr td, give it a rest.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by twindouble
I know my opinions don't set well with some here so don't beat around the bush, if I'm not welcomed here just say so.



We're just talking horses. Don't take it personal.
It's not like anything is really important, you know....just talking horses.
;)

[twindouble]

Always the martyr td, give it a rest.

Maybe I get a little cranky in my old age but I'm far from being a martyr. I love racing but I wouldn't sacrifice my life for it or anyone else.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't have a clue why you packaged me up and tossed me into a group that thinks "synthetic tracks can't be handicapped",I didn't. Perhaps you should read my post again.

In case you don't want to read it again, allow me to expound:

When you say this:Believe it or not, I had no problem adjusting to synthetic tracks, it isn't like track materials, drainage systems or maintenance procedures are the same as they were back in the early 60's.You are effectively saying that those who DON'T CARE FOR synthetics = those who CAN'T HANDICAP synthetics.

I'm telling you the two can be mutually exclusive.

[WinterTriangle]

...what's not to love for a guy like me who lives for horses paying $16 and higher?

jeez, Pace, show up in the Selections area sometime and throw us a few bones. ;)

Although, I admit, you freely gave out Gio Ponti and I didn't use him in my exacta. :bang:

[twindouble]

I didn't. Perhaps you should read my post again.

In case you don't want to read it again, allow me to expound:

When you say this:You are effectively saying that those who DON'T CARE FOR synthetics = those who CAN'T HANDICAP synthetics.

I'm telling you the two can be mutually exclusive.

I was taking into consideration the handicappers here that are either struggling with synthetic surfaces or bailed out. I haven't read every post on the topic but it seemed to me even the number guys including Beyer are or have struggled with synthetic surfaces. My 60's comment meant that I'm not dealing with the same dirt surfaces today as I did back then including drainage and maintenance procedures. I had to adjust, no different than dealing with synthetic. To me all those changes opened up opportunity to make money as you pointed out.

Many posters make general statements that have validity to some but not all. The intent in most cases isn't meant to be taken as "mutually inclusive" or exclusive. That's a tight rope to walk in any conversation, for me anyway. Your intelligent enough to know some posters are exceptionally proficient and clever with words, I do respect that when it comes some but others can get under my skin. To them it's a game or an ego thing (see how smart I am). If the criteria for playing the horses was a college education racing would have gone broke a long time ago. The majority of players only had a high school education or less. I was in business sense I was 19 dealing with the public, had no problem communicating with people from all walks of life, one on one or small groups. This medium is a tough nut to crack.


Thanks for the clarification.


T.D.

[DeanT]

When you say this:You are effectively saying that those who DON'T CARE FOR synthetics = those who CAN'T HANDICAP synthetics.

I'm telling you the two can be mutually exclusive.

They can be mutually exclusive, but for a lot of people it is not, imo.

The "if I can not do it then no one can and the tracks must suck" crowd is a big part of this. I don't blame them, as the way they handicapped for so long is changed, especially if it is their home track, but to say that is not a huge part of this is not accurate.

I know everytime I see a NYRA guy on TV, or a DRF guy on TV asked about poly, there will be a diatribe against it because they find the results hard to handicap. As CJ, yourself and many handicappers who show good results on poly know, it is really not that difficult to handicap, but it does not stop them from saying it is.

[cj]

Personally, I think it is harder to handicap and my results back that up with a lower win percentage. But price wise, it is as good or better than dirt. A lot of people care about the higher win percentage and maybe that is where they are coming from with the "harder" argument.

[twindouble]

Personally, I think it is harder to handicap and my results back that up with a lower win percentage. But price wise, it is as good or better than dirt. A lot of people care about the higher win percentage and maybe that is where they are coming from with the "harder" argument.


I suppose if a players handicapping was geared to speed like the tracks played prior to synthetic surfaces, I would say it would be harder to adjust. What I think made it even more difficult was the conditions and the big push to create carryovers. I've been complaining about that for a long time. Passing races and pools I normally bet became the norm for me. The pick 6, 4 and high five was out of my reach for my level of play. I used to invest more than the average player in the pick 6, having a couple partners or going it alone. Being very selective and going for a super wherever I thought I had shot paid off but I went from an average investment of $144 to $320 going deeper primarily because of the conditions. My win percentage today is low compared to what it was years ago but the bottom line is just as good and some years even better and that's due to the wagering menu we have today, not that my handicapping got better, just changed my wagering strategy.

[bisket]

i think the main reason i don't mind poly is because i've always liked stamina types that speed figs don't always give an accurate picture of the horses ability. to get an eye popping speed fig the first 1/2 of a route has to be done in about 46 seconds. if its below that the fig tends to be low. its not a big difference but a suttle one. i think handicappers that don't use speed figs as the primary part of their handicapping regimine, have had an easier adjustment to poly.

[tzipi]

I like how the original post is about someone saying HORSES CAN HANDLE THE POLYTRACK AT PHILADELPHIA PARK SO CAN'T THEY HANDLE IT OUT WEST?

"Polytrack at philadelphia" :rolleyes: