PDA

View Full Version : Phoney-Baloney Data: Part 2


Cadillakin
11-21-2009, 01:06 PM
I haven't the time to spend right now putting this together in a cohesive, comprehensive manner, but I wanted to share what I have learned so far in my preliminary study. I'm finding the books have been cooked, when Beyer and Crist state flatly that dirt horses are 0 for whatever in each of the Breeders Cup run over the Santa Anita surface...

I posted earlier in this thread about Music Note, Ginger Punch, and Cocoa Beach. My clear point on the matter is none of those mares have a chance against Zenyatta on any surface - if she runs her race. And she did. It doesn't matter if they have had their prior races on dirt, turf, synthetics, or prepped on Mars, they will not beat that mare. Neverthleless.. they are part of the statistical data that Beyer and Crist offers to make their point. Without Zenyatta, the so called "dirt horses," Cocoa Beach and Music Note run 1-2 in the 2008 BC Ladies.

It gets interesting.. There is much more.. The first chart I pullled from the 2008 Breeders Cup in this preliminary study was the filly-mare sprint..won by the top-class mare, Ventura. Ok, so what? Ventura is a grass horse, a synthetic horse. She loves that stuff. Let's examine the race and her competition. Were they disadvantaged as Beyer and Crist suggest with their statistical reference because they previously raced on dirt and this race was on the synthetic Pro-Ride?

The first thing I notice is the second finisher in that race is coming off a race at Belmont, so she too is included in the data as a "dirt horse." That second place finisher is in fact, the champion, Indian Blessing. Now, as we know, Indian Blessing has raced on both coasts, so she is not really a "dirt horse." Is she? In fact, over the Santa Anita Pro-Ride, she is 2 for 3, with her only loss being in the aforementioned BC Filly Sprint to Ventura. In the Santa Ynez, as a young 3 year old in 2008, Indian Blessing ran a scorching 7 furlongs in 1:19.4 over the Pro-Ride. Disadvantaged, they say? She is a champion and a Grade 1 winner on both coasts and both surfaces, beaten on the square by another great racing mare. So, a simple question must again be asked; Does she belong in the group of dirt horses that are disadvantaged racing over the synthetic surface?

There is still more in that same race.. I look down the chart a bit for other horses coming out of dirt races and find another one. It's a familar name, Intangaroo. She is coming off a clever win in the Ballerina at Saratoga - on dirt. So, she too is labeled as a dirt horse, and included in Beyer and Crist's numbers. There is of course a problem with including Intangaroo also... and that is the fact that Intangaroo LOVES the Pro Ride surface. She has two wins and two seconds from 4 starts. She shocked the locals over the Pro Ride in January 08 when running huge and winning the Grade 1 Santa Monica. So, the question again; Does Intangaroo belong in a group of dirt horses that are disadvantaged racing over the synthetic surface?

To conclude this part, pertaining and limited to the Filly/Mare Sprint. The other two "dirt horses" in the race were: Zaftig, who finished 3rd, and the 40-1 shot, Miraculous Miss, who finished a good fourth. Both excellent placings behind the great mares, Ventura and Indian Blessing. So, in other words, without fillies/mares of championship quality like Ventura and Indian Blessing, the dirt horses run 1-2.

Anybody noticing a pattern here?

What's most annoying to me is that Beyer and Crist know this stuff.. They know who these "dirt horses" are that they are including in their blanket statements that "dirt horses" can't handle the synthetics. The players and fans are entitled to the whole truth, not statistical data that is skewed for the benefit of Andy and Steven Crist. I find much of what is coming from them in this regard at the very least skewed, and perhaps more than that, purposefully dishonest. All the players know that Andy's figures don't work much on synthetic. He has struggled with that fact.. But instead of just admitting his numbers arent that good on synthetic, he is taking liberties with the truth. By de-legitimizing synthetic race tracks and the horses that race over them, Mr Beyer attempts to bolster and legitimize his questionable numbers over synthetic. His undeniable self-interest shows up clearly in this data...

There is more - and I'm just at the beginning of this study.. like the two "dirt colts" in the 2008 Juvenile at 8.5 furlongs in the next chart I pulled. They were the only two exiting dirt racing. One of them was Munnings. The other was an outsider coming in from Emerald Downs. I mean Emerald Downs is a lovely place, but they don't win many Breeders Cup races. Do they? And Munnings.. Can somebody here vouch for his ability to get 8.5 furlongs at the Grade 1 level? He staggered home in the one-turn Champagne well behind Vineyard Haven preppring for the BC Juvenile, and the following year (this year) he ran a distant third to Rachel Alexandra in the sloppy Haskell.. But really, was he a legit contender for that two turn Breeders Cup Race coming out of the Champagne where he came home in a very slow 26 seconds while sitting well off the pace? Any competent handicapper throws him out on any surface as a horse with very questionable racing credentials - and in pedigree - to stay a route of ground. To further my point that he is essentially a sprinter that occasionally stretches out; His trainer, Todd Pletcher has run Munnings 10 times in his career thus far. 7 of those 10 races have been at 6 or 7 furlongs. Is Pletcher telling us something about Munnings best distance? In the BC Juvenile, Munnings ran well to the top of the stretch (about 7 furlongs) and then gave way.. So, just considering this one race, the BC Juvenile, is it fair to include a Washington-bred and raced colt with a good resume that was a 20-1 longshot, and an Eastern colt who is essentially a sprinter, and then tell us that dirt horses can't run on synthetic? As suggested in the paragraphs above, some horses run very well on both. Munnings doesn't stay a distance of ground well on either.. Surface seems to have little to do with the fact that he doesn't win races at longer distances. Is the data espoused by Beyer and Crist blind, or are they not telling us the whole story?

I think the answer is obvious.. There is more data to cover, but I haven't the time right now.

cj
11-21-2009, 01:16 PM
Anyone can twist things to fit any argument they make. I hope your facts are a little more straight this time.

However, there is no denying dirt horses perform poorly when trying synthetics. I posted cold, hard numbers in the other thread. You can always cherry pick a few here and there that back up your point, but this is reality:

"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."

However, it is actually worse than I originally thought. The above included horses that had raced on turf. I ran the query again, this time using only horses with no starts on anything but dirt in their last 10. When this group ran in rubber track stakes, the results are so bad as to defy belief:

There were 377 such horses and 31 won for an 8% win percentage. A $2 bet on all of these would have cost $754 and returned a pultry $278.50, or a loss of 63% on the dollar.

Clearly, dirt form does not hold up on synthetics with any type of regularity. To pretend it does is just silly. The whole premise that "dirt" horses that lose to "synthetic lovers" aren't proving dirt horses can't handle synthetics may be the most twisted logic I've seen attempted in some time. It is like saying all the dirt horses would do great on turf if the damn turf horses would stop showing up.

DeanT
11-21-2009, 01:59 PM
CJ,

Have you noticed this getting better over the past couple of years? Reason I ask is because some trainers absolutely have no clue what type of horses to enter on poly - especially the speed cowboy type trainers - and one would figure over time they would get better at using their noggin on the surface switch.

cj
11-21-2009, 02:16 PM
CJ,

Have you noticed this getting better over the past couple of years? Reason I ask is because some trainers absolutely have no clue what type of horses to enter on poly - especially the speed cowboy type trainers - and one would figure over time they would get better at using their noggin on the surface switch.

I can check it out. However, the poster seems to be trying to make the point dirt horses can just switch over and there problems aren't surface related, when in my mind there is clearly a difference. You seem to be acknowledging that as well.

Tom
11-21-2009, 04:02 PM
If you read what Crist said, you have nothing to post about.
This is what he really said:

Horses who made their last start on the dirt were 0 for 21 at the Breeders' Cup this year, making the tally 0 for 43 in the two straight Cups on the synthetic track at Oak Tree, with 34 of the 43 inishing worse than third.

Here is record he posted in his blog:

Total 2008-2009 - 43: 0-3-6
.
10 improved
.
3 same
.
30 declined

Robert Fischer
11-21-2009, 04:33 PM
If you read what Crist said, you have nothing to post about.
This is what he really said:



Here is record he posted in his blog:

Total 2008-2009 - 43: 0-3-6
.
10 improved
.
3 same
.
30 declined

Its one of those things that requires a "specific thesis". :blush:

"last start on dirt horses declined switching to pro-ride in breeders cup"
no no revise it more specific
"last start on dirt horses declined in terms of speed figures(or placing or whatever specific measurement) switching to pro-ride in breeders cup"

in my opinion a few of the horses hated the surface switches, but most of the horses ran about just as good in the breeders cup regardless of declining speedfigs pacefigs or placing. How can you run just as good and decline in measurables?? :p

when you ask horses to compete in varying environments "form" includes a greater range of basic required abilities. example "ability to sit a trip, and time a move" might be required of horse&jockey in a high class synthetic route, where as on dirt "raw athletic talent" may be sufficient if there is more margin for error with sitting trips and timing moves...

kenwoodallpromos
11-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Don't sweat it, Steve and Andy; The public gets fooled by "last starts" too! LOL!!

If you read what Crist said, you have nothing to post about.
This is what he really said:



Here is record he posted in his blog:

Total 2008-2009 - 43: 0-3-6
.
10 improved
.
3 same
.
30 declined

bisket
11-21-2009, 06:30 PM
that scorching santa ynez that indian won in 2008 was a race that took place inthe 2 months that the santa anita surface was screwed up. that time for 7 furs on that particular surface at that particular time isn't really as fast as it may seem. it was the first time the surface was submitted to the winter rains, and it didn't hold up all that well. sant anita ended up sealing the surface, and it was pretty much highway 66 for the months of january and february. indian blessing actually was pretty comprimised on all poly surfaces. she didn't like them at all. this also reinforces the point i was making on the beyer thread a few weeks back. indian liked poly in january and feb of 2008, but it hated anytime after that :p

cj
11-21-2009, 08:24 PM
that scorching santa ynez that indian won in 2008 was a race that took place inthe 2 months that the santa anita surface was screwed up. that time for 7 furs on that particular surface at that particular time isn't really as fast as it may seem. it was the first time the surface was submitted to the winter rains, and it didn't hold up all that well. sant anita ended up sealing the surface, and it was pretty much highway 66 for the months of january and february. indian blessing actually was pretty comprimised on all poly surfaces. she didn't like them at all. this also reinforces the point i was making on the beyer thread a few weeks back. indian liked poly in january and feb of 2008, but it hated anytime after that :p

Not exactly true. It was certainly more speed favoring during that time and I've said as much, but there is nothing wrong with her Beyer figure for that race. It was one of her slower ones, a 92.

bisket
11-21-2009, 10:54 PM
Not exactly true. It was certainly more speed favoring during that time and I've said as much, but there is nothing wrong with her Beyer figure for that race. It was one of her slower ones, a 92.
this may be true, but variants did catch it in this one, but what about the horses that didn't race on the track during this time. then raced shortly after the track was slow again? what about there figures.

PaceAdvantage
11-22-2009, 03:37 AM
All the players know that Andy's figures don't work much on synthetic. He has struggled with that fact.. But instead of just admitting his numbers arent that good on synthetic,I take it you missed this thread:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63621&highlight=Beyer

You don't have to go past post #1....

Cadillakin
11-22-2009, 12:53 PM
I have thus far covered the Ladies Classic, the Filly/Mare Sprint, and the Juvenile in the two threads. Let's take a look at the Mile. The claims that Beyer and Crist are making is racing at a synthetic venue unfairly disadvantages "dirt horses". For their purposes, they consider any horse who last ran on the dirt, a "dirt horse." In much the same way, we might consider any person who visits New York and watches a Broadway show, a New Yorker, even if they live and work in California or Louisiana.

The first horse exiting a dirt race I see in the BC Mile is Two Step Salsa. This is another very interesting horse to include in the Beyer/Crist data as a dirt horse.. You know why? Because his entire career til the race preceding the BC Mile, was on synthetic surfaces. In fact, his record on the Santa Anita Pro-Ride was sterling. He was 2 for 2 over the Pro Ride having started his career there. Furthermore, he won the Affirmed Handicap and placed in the Swaps Stakes on the Hollywood Park synthetic surface.. Dirt horse, you say?

But prior to the BC Mile, his Western trainer made an attempt at winning a big purse at Philadelphia Park. Two Step Salsa did not run his race on the Philadelphia dirt. Nevertheless, he was considered a "disadvantaged dirt horse" in the Beyer/Crist data when he came home to California - even though the entirety of his career was on synthetic. No matter what you call Two Step Salsa, "dirt horse", "plastic horse," or whatever, he ran brilliantly in the Mile, running at a pace unmatched in BC Mile History. Breaking on the lead and playing "come catch me," Two Step Salsa ran a scorching six furlong pace in 1:08.3 and gutted it out for a valiant 3rd place finish in the one mile race. On the strength of that mighty effort, Godolphin purchased him, sent him to Dubai, and then, Two Step Salsa, the "synthetic racer, deemed a dirt racer" by Beyer/Crist, wins a major sprint stakes on the Dubai course - on dirt. Hard to keep straight? You bet! Was Two Step Salsa a disadvantaged dirt horse when he raced over the Pro Ride surface after exiting the Philly Park race? No, he was a seasoned synthetic runner who raced once on dirt unsuccessfully.

It is looking like many of these high class horses are handling both surfaces very well.

Let's look at the other top finishers in the Mile. The winner was Albertus Maximus, whose entire career was on synthetic surfaces. He was strictly a Western based horse. A synthetic specialist they say? There was an interesing race a couple of months after the BC Mile in 2008. It was the Donn Handicap run at Gulfstream - on dirt. Guess who showed up for that race? Our own, Albertus Maximus - and he won the race - on dirt. Every horse he faced in that race was a seasoned dirt runner.. and he beat them all. Perhaps he was a good horse.. You think? So, here again, we have another high class horse who acts on both surfaces.

In this race under study, the BC Mile, we have the first and third finishers winning major stakes on dirt AND synthetic. Both spent much of their career on synthetics. Is it fair to say that Two Step Salsa was a dirt horse because he ran one race on the dirt, and also say that Albertus Maximus was a synthetic horse, even though at the time of the BC Mile, he had never set foot on the dirt surfaces? So, the question must be asked again.. "Who are these horses that are included in the Beyer/Crist numbers". Were any of them good enough on the day? Or were they beat by better horses? So far, we have seen in just studying four of the BC races in 2008 that quite a few of the runners under discussion act at the highest level on both surfaces.. but for Beyers and Crists purposes, some are deemed "dirt horses" and others are deemed "synthetic specialists" Is that a fair assesment of Zenyatta, Indian Blessing, Albertus Maximus, Two Step Salsa and the others?

To complete the study of this single race - the BC Mile, the ONLY other horse exiting the BC Mile deemed a dirt horse in the Beyer/Crist data besides Two Step Salsa was My Pal Charlie. He had exited a Lousiana dirt race. Charlie is a good horse, sound, finishes in the money occasionally in good races.. but nowhere near top class. For the record, the "dirt horse", My Pal Charlie finished a good fourth, beaten less than two lengths by Albertus Maximus. A very good performance I would think for a horse who probably doesn't fit in Grade 1 races. And finally, the second place finisher was Rebellion, a tough late running sprinter who benefited from a clever ride at the longer distance and brilliant pace, falling way back, and running on thru the lane. In my reseach, it appears, Rebellion has raced at least one time on the dirt, but most of his career his sprinting on turf and synthetic. By the way, the one dirt race I could find on Rebellion, he won over the Belmont surface in the Steinlen Stakes. Hmmm.. another horse who handles both surfaces.. What's going on?

So, the first three finishers in the BC Mile were stakes winners on both surfaces.. which means what? It may mean that horses that are described as one-or-the-other, "dirt horse" or "synthetic horse," may be neither. They might be more accurately called top class race horses who do their best to adapt to the conditions and environment they are placed in.

In finishing up this post, although I haven't pulled the chart on the BC Sprint of 2008, I remember there being much moaning from the anti-synthetic crowd and the Eastern fans about the Eastern sprinters getting beat. The more preferred Eastern Sprinter - I don't recall his name at the moment, got off a little poorly and was boxed in - not his kind of trip. The other was Fatal Bullet - who ran a monstrous race over the Pro Ride - only to be run down by champion, Midnight Lute, in the final sixteenth. He too was deemed a disadvantaged dirt horse in the Beyer/Crist data as he exited a dirt race. I don't know about you guys, but IMO, getting beat by a champion at the very end of a race is a damn good effort.

But there is more to the Fatal Bullet story..

Just 30 days before this years, 2009 BC Sprint, who do you think showed up in the 250k Phoenix Stakes run over the Keeneland synthetic? Lined up in the gate was the "renowned dirt horse", Fatal Bullet. Was his trainer clueless? Beyer says in the data that he can't run very well on the plastic because he is a "dirt horse". I'm guessing you guys know who won that race.. It was Fatal Bullet in a very gutty performance.

So what do you think? Fatal Bullet? Dirt horse, synthetic horse or race horse? Are we getting the whole picture from the leaders in our industry? (I must say I regret calling Beyer a leader, but he does have his followers.. and Crist, he has ownership of the DRF.. and thus a great soapbox to sermonize from. Although this data/research I'm doing is making them look like they have an ax to grind - a postion to push. It doesn't seem at all fair, nor does it examine some very relevant facts about the horses they include in their 0 - for whatever statistics.

Does it?

cj
11-22-2009, 01:01 PM
As I've said before, anyone can cherry pick a few examples from any sample to try to disprove the other side. However, my data over a much larger sample are conclusive. Horses that have raced on ONLY DIRT, and try synthetics in stakes, are at a huge disadvantage.

Spin it any way you like, the numbers don't lie.

Just for fun, I moved away from stakes and tried all horses using this move. I only ignored maiden races. I looked at horses going off the favorite, meaning they must have exhibited some pretty good dirt form. I found 418 such horses. They won at 28%, much lower than favorites in general, and lost 31 cents on the dollar.

Keep spinning, it doesn't change the facts. They are different surfaces.

cj
11-22-2009, 01:07 PM
In finishing up this post, although I haven't pulled the chart on the BC Sprint of 2008, I remember there being much moaning from the anti-synthetic crowd and the Eastern fans about the Eastern sprinters getting beat. The more preferred Eastern Sprinter - I don't recall his name at the moment, got off a little poorly and was boxed in - not his kind of trip. The other was Fatal Bullet - who ran a monstrous race over the Pro Ride - only to be run down by champion, Midnight Lute, in the final sixteenth. He too was deemed a disadvantaged dirt horse in the Beyer/Crist data as he exited a dirt race. I don't know about you guys, but IMO, getting beat by a champion at the very end of a race is a damn good effort.


For a guy complaining about the twisting of facts, I find it funny you don't twist them, you just make them up. In the first thread, you claimed Philly Park was a synthetic track...WRONG.

In this thread, you claim Fatal Bullet was coming into the 2008 race as a "dirt" horse...WRONG! He had run once on dirt in his last 10, four races back mind you, and was drubbed. He has consistently been drubbed in his dirt tries. Actually, he is example 101 that the surfaces are different and it isn't just about running style.

I do still find it hilarious you point that dirt horses run well, but can't beat synthetic horses as proof the horses switch just fine. That is won for the ages.

Please, enough of the Phoney-Baloney data.

the_fat_man
11-22-2009, 01:08 PM
Spin it any way you like, the numbers don't lie.


Keep spinning, it doesn't change the facts. They are different surfaces.

Like the spin that BEYERS are 'successful' on poly (and in general), like PACE is pushing, using a very limited sample, to say the least? :lol::lol:

What's hard for me to grasp is why someone like you, who clearly is good enough to look beyond the numbers, aligns himself with those who aren't. You should be ENGAGING someone like the original poster, not joining all the usual clueless types in trying to take him down. I thought the idea was to try to encourage interesting exchanges here.

cj
11-22-2009, 01:12 PM
Like the spin that BEYERS are 'successful' on poly (and in general), like PACE is pushing, using a very limited sample, to say the least? :lol::lol:

What's hard for me to grasp is why someone like you, who clearly is good enough to look beyond the numbers, aligns himself with those who aren't. You should be ENGAGING someone like the original poster, not joining all the usual clueless types in trying to take him down. I thought the idea was to try to encourage interesting exchanges here.

You know very well why we posted that stuff...I said as much, I was just having fun with the Beyer haters.

I'm not trying to take down the original poster, I'm trying to make the point that what he points out as phony data is actually true. I agree the methods were a little weak and should have mentioned this, but I used a much bigger sample and found the conclusion holds.

You think it is ok to call others stuff phony while making blatant errors in your argument?

Cadillakin
11-22-2009, 01:20 PM
For a guy complaining about the twisting of facts, I find it funny you don't twist them, you just make them up. In the first thread, you claimed Philly Park was a synthetic track...WRONG.

In this thread, you claim Fatal Bullet was coming into the 2008 race as a "dirt" horse...WRONG! He had run once on dirt in his last 10, four races back mind you, and was drubbed. He has consistently been drubbed in his dirt tries. Actually, he is example 101 that the surfaces are different and it isn't just about running style.

I do still find it hilarious you point that dirt horses run well, but can't beat synthetic horses as proof the horses switch just fine. That is won for the ages.

Please, enough of the Phoney-Baloney data.
I never claimed Philadelphia Park was a synthetic track.. What I wrote was this "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?

I certainly know that Philadelphia Park is dirt and Woodbine is synthetic. Perhaps you should hone your reading skills a bit.. The statement above refers to the interchange between the synthetic track, Woodbine, and the dirt track, Philly Park.And then, in my post prior to this when talking about Two Step Salsa, I specifically said he ran last on the Philadelphia dirt.

You have admin priveldge here so perhaps you should adjust your post.

And yes, I am mistaken about Fatal Bullet.. I had seen him once race at Belmont, so I thought that he was an Eastern horse, normally racing over dirt.. I did not properly research his record and assumed something that is in fact not true. Now that I have looked at it, I admit, I was wrong on his record.

If I could adjust my post now, knowing better, I would.. but there is no changing posts after 10 minutes without admin status.

the_fat_man
11-22-2009, 01:23 PM
You know very well why we posted that stuff...I said as much, I was just having fun with the Beyer haters.

I'm not trying to take down the original poster, I'm trying to make the point that what he points out as phony data is actually true. I agree the methods were a little weak and should have mentioned this, but I used a much bigger sample and found the conclusion holds.

You think it is ok to call others stuff phony while making blatant errors in your argument?

You know enough about this game to realize that:

1) there are horses that are equally adept on dirt and poly
2) that while there's clearly a difference in these surfaces, that trips play a huge role in the results. It's not hard to believe that there are plenty of poly jocks out there that still ride it like dirt. Just watching a few races at WO makes this painfully evident. So, it's not just about the surface.

I could take your data and run with it. In fact, I do just that at WO, as I TOSS EVERY horse coming from the dirt surface at FE. One explanation would be that these are dirt horses and they can't handle the POLY. Another, probably more correct one, would be that they're just cheap horses. Anyone following the CALI tracks and noting how the same horses are able to handle the poly at the main tracks AND the dirt at the fairs might not want to buy into your data wholeheartedly. Know what I mean?

You have a lot more to contribute to this than just posting statistical data.

Zman179
11-22-2009, 01:30 PM
I never claimed Philadelphia Park was a synthetic track.. What I wrote was this "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?

I certainly know that Philadelphia Park is dirt and Woodbine is synthetic. Perhaps you should hone your reading skills a bit.

The way I read your post, you certainly made it seem like you were calling Philadelphia a synthetic track.

Cadillakin
11-22-2009, 01:38 PM
The way I read your post, you certainly made it seem like you were calling Philadelphia a synthetic track.
Amazing stuff here on the board. I spend many hours doing research to bring some heretofore unpublished facts about the horses included in the Beyer/Crist data..

And I come back here, and I see a couple of the posters are questioning if I know Philly Park is dirt and Woodbine is synthetic, misunderstanding the semantics of my sentence.

For the record, I know, and have known that Philly Park is dirt, just as I stated in the post #12, above. Look at it.

cj
11-22-2009, 01:40 PM
Another, probably more correct one, would be that they're just cheap horses.

This is exactly why the data I posted in the other thread was for stakes horses, not cheap ones. Of course at the cheaper levels horses will move between the two and win, but almost always at differing levels of ability.

Dahoss9698
11-22-2009, 01:41 PM
Amazing stuff here on the board. I spend many hours doing research to bring some heretofore unpublished facts about the horses included in the Beyer/Crist data..

And I come back here, and I see a couple of the posters are questioning if I know Philly Park is dirt and Woodbine is synthetic, misunderstanding the semantics of my sentence.

For the record, I know, and have known that Philly Park is dirt, just as I stated in the post #12, above. Look at it.

It still looks like you think Philly Park is a synthetic surface, but whatever.

cj
11-22-2009, 01:42 PM
I never claimed Philadelphia Park was a synthetic track.. What I wrote was this "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?


I'll take you at your word that you know Philly is a dirt track, but that is not what you wrote. Several others thought the same thing I did. The bolded part certainly indicates you believed Philly was rubber. I know how to read. You work on your writing.

cj
11-22-2009, 01:45 PM
Amazing stuff here on the board. I spend many hours doing research to bring some heretofore unpublished facts about the horses included in the Beyer/Crist data..


I certainly countered that and you have yet to respond in either thread. I do agree the way Crist defines "dirt" horses leaves something to be desired, but I have made no such mistake.

This isn't the incestuous Delmar board where everyone loves everyone else. You post bullshit here, it will be called.

JustRalph
11-22-2009, 01:53 PM
You post bullshit here, it will be called.
:ThmbUp: my favorite thing about this board............

Cadillakin
11-22-2009, 02:05 PM
As I've said before, anyone can cherry pick a few examples from any sample to try to disprove the other side. However, my data over a much larger sample are conclusive. Horses that have raced on ONLY DIRT, and try synthetics in stakes, are at a huge disadvantage.

Spin it any way you like, the numbers don't lie.

Just for fun, I moved away from stakes and tried all horses using this move. I only ignored maiden races. I looked at horses going off the favorite, meaning they must have exhibited some pretty good dirt form. I found 418 such horses. They won at 28%, much lower than favorites in general, and lost 31 cents on the dollar.

Keep spinning, it doesn't change the facts. They are different surfaces.
Are you suggesting that favorites moving off their home track to another foreign surface might win at a lesser rate than if they stayed home and ran on their home track? If so, that's certainly no revelation to anybody that I know.

Numbers don't lie? What if I suggested to you that the recent Pro Ride meet had a high percentage of favorites, higher than the norm on dirt? (I'm pretty sure that was the case) Can we thus conclude that synthetic racing is more formful to handicappers? As you said, numbers don't lie.

Or, is there more than just numbers in understanding and predicting performance?

Cadillakin
11-22-2009, 02:17 PM
I certainly countered that and you have yet to respond in either thread.
I don't read much on this board.. Other than Dan, PaceHandicapper and a few others, I don't find it of much value. And that would also be true of Del Mar. I have just a few hundreds posts here at PA, compared to your 15,000 plus.. and at Del Mar, I think I have less than 50 or so. I only came back in to PA and Del Mar for the Zenyatta postings. I've stayed on longer than I should...

I don't read your stuff usually CJ... I don't find you interesting or credible. So, mostly you can say what you want about me, make up stuff like you did in the MY ROI thread.. when you suggested I forged or created the screenshot..

It's your home, obviously.. and I'm just an occasional visitor.

cj
11-22-2009, 02:17 PM
Are you suggesting that favorites moving off their home track to another foreign surface might win at a lesser rate than if they stayed home and ran on their home track? If so, that's certainly no revelation to anybody that I know.

Numbers don't lie? What if I suggested to you that the recent Pro Ride meet had a high percentage of favorites, higher than the norm on dirt? (I'm pretty sure that was the case) Can we thus conclude that synthetic racing is more formful to handicappers? As you said, numbers don't lie.

Or, is there more than just numbers in understanding and predicting performance?

That revelation is probably false, but I've done enough research for you. It certainly doesn't explain the horrible performance of all "dirt only" stakes runners on rubber. It is one of the worst stats I've seen for a specific non-performance related category.

cj
11-22-2009, 07:08 PM
CJ,

Have you noticed this getting better over the past couple of years? Reason I ask is because some trainers absolutely have no clue what type of horses to enter on poly - especially the speed cowboy type trainers - and one would figure over time they would get better at using their noggin on the surface switch.

There were 377 such horses and 31 won for an 8% win percentage. A $2 bet on all of these would have cost $754 and returned a pultry $278.50, or a loss of 63% on the dollar.

I checked it out, and it is not getting better at all. There were 113 such horses in 2009, and they lost 73% on the dollar.

cj's dad
11-22-2009, 07:14 PM
and dirt horses can run on synthetic at Philadelphia and Woodbine


You said it --- live with your erroneous statement - can't we all just get along ?????????

castaway01
11-23-2009, 10:23 AM
and dirt horses can run on synthetic at Philadelphia and Woodbine


You said it --- live with your erroneous statement - can't we all just get along ?????????

I'm sure all of us here will be missing out on a lot of such genius posts from Cadillakin if he leaves, since as he said he gets so little out of this board. While I know we shouldn't waste time mocking him for not knowing Philly runs on dirt, there's nothing else to discuss of substance in his nonsensical posts about dirt and poly being, what, very similar? There's no substance to debate, as CJ's stats proved early on here.

cj
11-23-2009, 10:26 AM
Hopefully, I hope he keeps posting. Discussion is a good thing. If every time I started a thread people agreed, what would be the point?

oddsmaven
11-23-2009, 01:44 PM
Numbers don't lie? What if I suggested to you that the recent Pro Ride meet had a high percentage of favorites, higher than the norm on dirt? (I'm pretty sure that was the case) Can we thus conclude that synthetic racing is more formful to handicappers? .......
I don't know if it's more formful or not, but without researching, I would mainly attribute the high percentage of winning favorites to what I think is their smaller average field sizes.

I'll go along with the premise that Beyer and Crist can be questioned...though an enjoyable listen/read, I've often felt Andy's views were full of exaggeration and as for the glorification of Crist by some over the years IMO, it comes from him catching some big payout exotics...a small number of cashes can really skew overall results when big prices are involved...I used to watch him on the old daily NYRA Harvey Pack show and he may be good for the game, but he would be one of the last guys I'd want to have handicap a winner.

C'kin....I agree with CJ that we hope you continue to post your thought provoking comments here.

Zman179
11-23-2009, 08:38 PM
While I know we shouldn't waste time mocking him for not knowing Philly runs on dirt, there's nothing else to discuss of substance in his nonsensical posts about dirt and poly being, what, very similar? .

My wallet says that dirt and poly are as similar as apples and gasoline. You could take the poly name and change it to dirty turf. The Euros will have nowhere near the success on "dirt" races, or should I say "non-turf" races, next year at Churchill.

CBedo
11-24-2009, 02:38 AM
They are different surfaces.YAHTZEE! lol

I really don't understand why some have such a hard time understanding this basic tenet. If horses have differing abilities when moving from dirt to turf or vice versa, why wouldn't it be the same on synthetics? Just because tracks tried to tell us that they would be the same doesn't mean they are. Why is it so hard to accept that currently in the US we have three distinct surfaces: dirt, turf, & synthetics. And of course, just like the turf at Santa Anita isn't the same as the turf at Saratoga, why would synthetics all be the same? I thnk it was Einstein who said "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." It seems to be applicable to our handicapping of these surfaces.

jonnielu
11-24-2009, 06:23 AM
YAHTZEE! lol

I really don't understand why some have such a hard time understanding this basic tenet. If horses have differing abilities when moving from dirt to turf or vice versa, why wouldn't it be the same on synthetics? Just because tracks tried to tell us that they would be the same doesn't mean they are. Why is it so hard to accept that currently in the US we have three distinct surfaces: dirt, turf, & synthetics. And of course, just like the turf at Santa Anita isn't the same as the turf at Saratoga, why would synthetics all be the same? I thnk it was Einstein who said "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." It seems to be applicable to our handicapping of these surfaces.

Of course, it is obvious that the surfaces are different. But, on the question of how those differences actually impact the ability to run a given distance, the real answers will probably remain much less obvious. Because whatever the actual honest-to-gosh, for sure, and for real differences are, there is the impact on results of what the horsemen believe, and/or, what the horsemen know.

jdl

Valuist
11-24-2009, 08:16 AM
Indian Blessing clearly prefers dirt racing to synthetic. The fact she is 2 for 3 on synthetic is deceptive. In one of those wins, she was all out to win by a nose at odds of 1-10; clearly running well below expectations. On real dirt, she likely would've turned the tables on Ventura last year, and with the soft pace this year, she would've been even tougher.

rwwupl
11-24-2009, 09:01 AM
I don't read much on this board.. Other than Dan, PaceHandicapper and a few others, I don't find it of much value. And that would also be true of Del Mar. I have just a few hundreds posts here at PA, compared to your 15,000 plus.. and at Del Mar, I think I have less than 50 or so. I only came back in to PA and Del Mar for the Zenyatta postings. I've stayed on longer than I should...

I don't read your stuff usually CJ... I don't find you interesting or credible. So, mostly you can say what you want about me, make up stuff like you did in the MY ROI thread.. when you suggested I forged or created the screenshot..

It's your home, obviously.. and I'm just an occasional visitor.


I like and enjoy your posts. I appreciate anyone in this game who makes a sincere effort at finding answers and sharing with others. You ,obviously, have put in your time.

In racing, there will always be those who pick apart anything the other guy does because we are all opinionated, proud and want our work validated and recognized.

If the detractors can not find anything big to pick on, they will sieze on something minor such as spelling or a simple mistake and beat it to death.

Don't take this all too serious. I do not think I am the only one who enjoys your posts and look forward to seeing more. If the truth came out, I think your detractors like to see what you have to say too. It gives them a chance to give their views.

Looking forward to more from an occasional visitor :ThmbUp:

twindouble
11-24-2009, 11:17 AM
This is all interesting to read but we all know a horse is a horse, they will run on any surface. What surface or track they perform well on is a challenge for the trainers and the handicapper. That's nothing new to them or us and it's a matter of economics, if they or we can't make money running on synthetic surfaces look for greener pastures. That's why we pay attention to trainers and their connections. They will be the determining factor weather synthetic tracks are a success or not, even when it comes to safety. I do know this, there's no way Cal tracks can afford to go back to dirt now or in the near future regardless of how much pressure is put on them from players, horsemen or anyone else. They or we can't save a sinking ship by putting more holes in it. The historical history of racing in Cal is worth saving, we have to except the fact the only way racing will survive there is with our support. I would hope to think those on the back side and on the top feel the same way. We have two choices, close our pocketbooks and hasten their demise or bite the bullet and support their recovery. Well some of us will play the horses until we die or racing dies.

There's no question in most cases players get the shitty end of the stick so if the industry continues with that kind of thinking it's their own undoing. Who do you think is going to bailout the Federal and State governments after the huge mess they got us into? We the people, that's who. When in your life time has it been any different?

Call me a die hard but I still think racing can survive. Racing has to get ride of those that created the mess, many here have expressed for a long time heads have to roll to bring about "change". What's been going on in Washington and your home State exacerbated racing's problems but in my opinion they just got hit with the first wave, there's more to come. If we don't clean house on the State and Federal level this time around, like racing they and the people will suffer the results. I'm not making a political statement here, just making the connection when it comes to the economy and racing. New faces in government is what we need and I don't care what there political affiliation is, as long as they do the right thing by us. Political corruption has shown it's ugly head, today we see it everywhere not just in racing. It's a cancer on everything that's good. I can see it now, a genius programmer somewhere will come up with a game for your kids, (Beat The Top Corrupt Politician). Maybe I should copy right that.


T.D.