Santa Anita mulls dirt return

[gm10]

That would be one of the biggest disappointments of the decade. I really hope they find a way to keep the Pro-Ride, it's a million times more interesting when you don't have to watch the same scenario unfold in race after race.

ARCADIA, Calif. - Santa Anita canceled Monday's racing program, citing the synthetic track's inability to drain properly after a day of rain, and track officials acknowledged for the first time that they are considering a return to a dirt track later this year.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/110190.html

[Stillriledup]

this will mess up handicapping totally unless hollywood AND Del mar also go back. How are you going to be able to handicap del mar if all the good horses are coming off a dirt race at Santa Anita?

[illinoisbred]

this will mess up handicapping totally unless hollywood AND Del mar also go back. How are you going to be able to handicap del mar if all the good horses are coming off a dirt race at Santa Anita?
This has been the problem at Hawthorne for the 1st month of their fall meet.

[Spalding No!]

this will mess up handicapping totally unless hollywood AND Del mar also go back. How are you going to be able to handicap del mar if all the good horses are coming off a dirt race at Santa Anita?

Well, they do run at Hollywood before Del Mar (if it stays open).

Regardless, in a perfect world, if the other tracks don't switch, the good dirt horses in CA will run at Saratoga in the summer.

[gm10]

Problem solved - keep it on the proride.

[Valuist]

That would be one of the biggest disappointments of the decade. I really hope they find a way to keep the Pro-Ride, it's a million times more interesting when you don't have to watch the same scenario unfold in race after race.

ARCADIA, Calif. - Santa Anita canceled Monday's racing program, citing the synthetic track's inability to drain properly after a day of rain, and track officials acknowledged for the first time that they are considering a return to a dirt track later this year.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/110190.html

I haven't seen any of the races at their current meet, but from what I've seen in the past, the "same scenario unfolds" race after race on the Proride. The pace setters invariably are gasping for air at the 1/8th pole and get run down by the closers or stalkers.

[proximity]

I haven't seen any of the races at their current meet, but from what I've seen in the past, the "same scenario unfolds" race after race on the Proride......

amen valuist!!

walking to the quarter pole and then sprinting home..... yeah, that displays lots of different elements of equine athleticism.:rolleyes:

[ExoticDancer]

The Proride stuff has been a disaster. California racing needs to go back to dirt now. Can we do it by Friday ?

[Zman179]

Chuck the Proride into the LA River. Maybe all of the excess moisture from the Proride would finally make the river something its never been: wet.

[Mike_412]

Chuck the Proride into the LA River. Maybe all of the excess moisture from the Proride would finally make the river something its never been: wet.

LMAO!!!! That is brilliant man. Well done.

Obviously, the Pro Ride and Cushion Track has been a complete and utter disaster at Santa Anita. It's impossible to argue otherwise. I couldn't care less if it's because of the base or whatever the issue is, it's been horrendous. Rip it out and replace it already. California racing will still kinda suck, but kinda sucking on dirt is much more enjoyable.

[wisconsin]

Millions upon millions of dollars wasted because of the silly knee-jerk reaction to mandate fake dirt to begin with.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

The Pro-Ride has the ability to make even some races with small fields interesting. The Pro-Ride might not be the best surface but it is an interesting surface and a offers a good handicapping challenge as well as offering winning chances to both leaders and closers for owners of horses

And yet most want the Pro-Ride to be gone judging by this thread and others

If most want it gone then it has to go. I know mine is a minority opinion but Pro-Ride is one of the few positives Californian racing has going for it right now

[Spalding No!]

The Pro-Ride has the ability to make even some races with small fields interesting. The Pro-Ride might not be the best surface but it is an interesting surface and a offers a good handicapping challenge as well as offering winning chances to both leaders and closers for owners of horses

And yet most want the Pro-Ride to be gone judging by this thread and others

If most want it gone then it has to go. I know mine is a minority opinion but Pro-Ride is one of the few positives Californian racing has going for it right now

You mean to tell me that your post back in the Monday Card Cancelled thread was suppposed to be serious?

This is almost as interesting as a race with a small field carded for the Pro-Ride (as long as it isn't raining)...

[letswastemoney]

The Pro-Ride has the ability to make even some races with small fields interesting. The Pro-Ride might not be the best surface but it is an interesting surface and a offers a good handicapping challenge as well as offering winning chances to both leaders and closers for owners of horses

And yet most want the Pro-Ride to be gone judging by this thread and others

If most want it gone then it has to go. I know mine is a minority opinion but Pro-Ride is one of the few positives Californian racing has going for it right now
The biggest positive is that handicappers make mistakes because they handicap dirt horses to be the same on pro ride even though they never ran on it.

Then they watch hopelessly as their champion dirt horse that they put so much money on flounders on the fake stuff and finishes out of the money.

ex. Justwhistledixie yesterday. BC the past 2 years.

If you know how to handicap pro ride, a lot of money could be made on other people's mistakes.

[Quackfan]

Millions upon millions of dollars wasted because of the silly knee-jerk reaction to mandate fake dirt to begin with.

It's kind of hard to have a knee jerk reaction to something they MANDATE you to do.

[Spalding No!]

It's kind of hard to have a knee jerk reaction to something they MANDATE you to do.

Ironically, you had a knee-jerk reaction to the post you responded to.

Read it again.

[Quackfan]

Ironically, you had a knee-jerk reaction to the post you responded to.

Read it again.

I did. Maye be I missed something. I am willing to learn Explain it to me?

[Spalding No!]

I did. Maye be I missed something. I am willing to learn Explain it to me?

The knee-jerk reaction came from those who proposed and approved the mandate (ie the California State Legislature and the CHRB), not from the tracks that had to carry it out.

[Quackfan]

The knee-jerk reaction came from those who proposed and approved the mandate (ie the California State Legislature and the CHRB), not from the tracks that had to carry it out.

I totally agree and that was my point. If I miss understood the post that was my fault. :blush:

[Track Collector]

I for one would welcome the return of dirt surfaces to the major California tracks. It will not be the cure-all to California racing woes as it does not address perhaps the biggest problem...............that it is very expensive to race in CA and purses are too small relative to expenses for the average owner.

In contrast, Beulah has large fields running for $3500 to $4000 purses. Sure they have no other place to run, but owners are choosing to run rather than keep them in the barn or get out of the business.

[CincyHorseplayer]

this will mess up handicapping totally unless hollywood AND Del mar also go back. How are you going to be able to handicap del mar if all the good horses are coming off a dirt race at Santa Anita?


What you should have done when they put this stuff in is not bet on it just because it was there.Then you wouldn't have to make these decisions.

There is a lot of talk about being activist and intelligent about things in California.But California players don't have the stones to boycott their own tracks when they make life miserable on them.Unless you're AndyMays.:ThmbUp:

[gm10]

I haven't seen any of the races at their current meet, but from what I've seen in the past, the "same scenario unfolds" race after race on the Proride. The pace setters invariably are gasping for air at the 1/8th pole and get run down by the closers or stalkers.

That clearly isn't the case. You can go wire-to-wire, especially in one-turn races.

[gm10]

The biggest positive is that handicappers make mistakes because they handicap dirt horses to be the same on pro ride even though they never ran on it.

Then they watch hopelessly as their champion dirt horse that they put so much money on flounders on the fake stuff and finishes out of the money.

ex. Justwhistledixie yesterday. BC the past 2 years.

If you know how to handicap pro ride, a lot of money could be made on other people's mistakes.

I think many trainers make the same mistake, too.

[tzipi]

That clearly isn't the case. You can go wire-to-wire, especially in one-turn races.

True you can get a wire to wire but it's mostly closers. That stuff runs exactly like turf. Thats why the Europeans run their turf horses run in the "dirt" races and "dirt" championships. They never did in any of the other BC's like they do now. Rvens Pass's trainer said no way he would've ran against Curlin on dirt. Pretty telling of what that stuff is and how it runs.

[gm10]

In any case, I don't think this will solve any of the area's racing problems. The reason why they are considering replacing it, is because they are afraid of not even being able to offer the product anymore. It's not going to improve field sizes, declining audiences, help horse safety, increase customer friendliness, suddenly turn a losing handicapper into a winning one. It may satisfy a small group of handicappers who never managed to understand that races can be won in a different way than on the dirt, but that doesn't help racing much.

[CincyHorseplayer]

In any case, I don't think this will solve any of the area's racing problems. The reason why they are considering replacing it, is because they are afraid of not even being able to offer the product anymore. It's not going to improve field sizes, declining audiences, help horse safety, increase customer friendliness, suddenly turn a losing handicapper into a winning one. It may satisfy a small group of handicappers who never managed to understand that races can be won in a different way than on the dirt, but that doesn't help racing much.

What group of handicappers do you think your opinion represents?

That small group of handicappers is nearly everybody.I tell ya.You sound like management.Are you in the industry?Does your fate rest with these surfaces?

GM10.GM of BS maybe.

[toussaud]

the fact that justwhistledixie went off as the second choice goes to show how stupid some "handicappers" are. like 0-43 wasn't enough for you to get the point.

[gm10]

True you can get a wire to wire but it's mostly closers. That stuff runs exactly like turf. Thats why the Europeans run their turf horses run in the "dirt" races and "dirt" championships. They never did in any of the other BC's like they do now. Rvens Pass's trainer said no way he would've ran against Curlin on dirt. Pretty telling of what that stuff is and how it runs.


This is absolutely untrue. I posted an analysis of dirt-to-poly and turf-to-poly before the BC. It doesn't run like turf AT ALL.

And the Europeans have been going to the BC (and other races across the globe) for decades.

[gm10]

What group of handicappers do you think your opinion represents?

That small group of handicappers is nearly everybody.I tell ya.You sound like management.Are you in the industry?Does your fate rest with these surfaces?

GM10.GM of BS maybe.


I reckon the opinion on synthetic surfaces is not as bipolar as you claim. There are only small groups of uncompromising fanatics on each side. I love the synthetics but certainly wouldn't want every race to be on it. That would just as boring as having every race on the dirt.

Anyway, your post doesn't warrant much of an answer imo.

[tzipi]

This is absolutely untrue. I posted an analysis of dirt-to-poly and turf-to-poly before the BC. It doesn't run like turf AT ALL.

And the Europeans have been going to the BC (and other races across the globe) for decades.

Oh really? PURE turf horses have skipped the turf classic and other turf races to run in the DIRT BC races and Classics every year going back to the 80's? Can you post all these turf horse loaded fields in previous dirt BC races compared to the last two years? I'd like to see the numbers of PURE turf horses in the Classic the last two years compared to all previous Breeders Cups.
Yup,Gio Ponti runs in the dirt Classic over turf classic if at Belmont :D Suuree.

Anyway,I'll stick with Ravens Pass's trainers thoughts WAY before yours. He said he would not have run in the BC Classic against Curlin if the BC was on a dirt track.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I reckon the opinion on synthetic surfaces is not as bipolar as you claim. There are only small groups of uncompromising fanatics on each side. I love the synthetics but certainly wouldn't want every race to be on it. That would just as boring as having every race on the dirt.

Anyway, your post doesn't warrant much of an answer imo.


Answer my question.What group of handicappers do you think you represent?

Not tracks,not horsemen,not people that know these people.

And if my post doesn't require much of an answer then your thread doesn't have much substance to dare ask a question does it?

Personally,I don't think you know what the f*** you're talking about!!!But hey,that's just me.Toodles;)

[tzipi]

Also whats the win record of dirt horses going dirt to poly in the BC's?

[gm10]

Oh really? PURE turf horses have skipped the turf classic and other turf races to run in the DIRT BC races and Classics every year going back to the 80's? Can you post all these horses in previous BC's compared to the last two years? I'd like to see the numbers of PURE turf horses in the Classic the last two years compared to all previous Breeders Cups.
Yup,Gio Ponti runs in the dirt Classic over turf classic if at Belmont :D Suuree.

Anyway,I'll stick with Ravens Pass's trainers thoughts WAY before yours. He said he would not have run in the BC Classic against Curlin if the BC was on a dirt track.

European turf horses in the Classic on dirt

2007 George Washington
2006 David Junior + George Washington
2005 Starcraft + Oratorio + Jack Sullivan
2003 Hold That Tiger
2002 Hawk Wing
2001 Sakhee + Galileo + Black Minnaloushe
2000 Giants Causeway + Pine Dance

Is that OK for you?

And oh by the by this add nothing to your statement that the turf runs exactly as the synthetic surfaces. The synthetic surfaces are different to both dirt and turf. Some of them are well-suited to dirt horses, some of them are better suited to turf horses. But they are best of all suited to synthetic horses.

[gm10]

Answer my question.What group of handicappers do you think you represent?

Not tracks,not horsemen,not people that know these people.

And if my post doesn't require much of an answer then your thread doesn't have much substance to dare ask a question does it?

Personally,I don't think you know what the f*** you're talking about!!!But hey,that's just me.Toodles;)

Yes I know. You are all intellect.

My point was this will not benefit racing in the area. Why you must go and start insulting me is a mystery to me.

[tzipi]

European turf horses in the Classic on dirt

2007 George Washington
2006 David Junior + George Washington
2005 Starcraft + Oratorio + Jack Sullivan
2003 Hold That Tiger
2002 Hawk Wing
2001 Sakhee + Galileo + Black Minnaloushe
2000 Giants Causeway + Pine Dance

Is that OK for you?

And oh by the by this add nothing to your statement that the turf runs exactly as the synthetic surfaces. The synthetic surfaces are different to both dirt and turf. Some of them are well-suited to dirt horses, some of them are better suited to turf horses. But they are best of all suited to synthetic horses.

And all those horses did what on dirt! :D What have they done the last two years?

Where's all the pure turf horses in ALL the dirt BC since the 80's? Because there's a ton the last two years that were entered in the dirt races

And again I'll stick with trainers opinions that it runs like turf. That it's a deep surface with alot of traction and no kick back.
Last time I checked dirt horses going to poly were 0 for 43 in the BC. Hmm how could that be?

[CincyHorseplayer]

Yes I know. You are all intellect.

My point was this will not benefit racing in the area. Why you must go and start insulting me is a mystery to me.


OK.My bad,I do indeed apologize,but still'


Answer my question.What group of handicappers do you think you represent?

[gm10]

And all those horses did what on dirt! :D What have they done the last two years?

Where's all the pure turf horses in ALL the dirt BC since the 80's? Because there's a ton the last two years that were entered in the dirt races

And again I'll stick with trainers opinions that it runs like turf. That it's a deep surface with alot of traction and no kick back.
Last time I checked dirt horses going to poly were 0 for 43 in the BC. Hmm how could that be?


I was merely answering your own question

"Oh really? PURE turf horses have skipped the turf classic and other turf races to run in the DIRT BC races and Classics every year going back to the 80's? Can you post all these turf horse loaded fields in previous dirt BC races compared to the last two years?"

As I said before, please read before answering, some synthetic surfaces are better suited to dirt horses than others. But best of all suited are horses with proven synthetic form. I think the last BC showed that once again.

To draw the conclusion from this that it runs 'just like the turf' would be mere speculation - if it hadn't already been found to be untrue. I refer you to the topic I created on this before the BC 09 if you want evidence.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62863

Overall conclusion (applies to Pro Ride only):

Dirt routers do well on the poly, not on the turf.
Dirt sprinters don't do well on either.
Turf sprints belong to turf sprinters.
Horse who come off the polytrack do well on the same surface, but let's not get carried away.
The turf-to-poly angle is largely a myth, and an overbet one at that.

[gm10]

OK.My bad,I do indeed apologize,but still'


Answer my question.What group of handicappers do you think you represent?

I think I represent the group of handicappers who just get on with it, who acknowledge that synthetic racing offers just as many opportunities as unanswered questions. We bet and follow every surface because we love the horses and the sport. We know that dirt races are supposed to be more predictable, but we also know (deep down) that we didn't really make a ton of money betting them. Maybe we like a bit of diversity. I think there are many of us.

[tzipi]

I was merely answering your own question

"Oh really? PURE turf horses have skipped the turf classic and other turf races to run in the DIRT BC races and Classics every year going back to the 80's? Can you post all these turf horse loaded fields in previous dirt BC races compared to the last two years?"

As I said before, please read before answering, some synthetic surfaces are better suited to dirt horses than others. But best of all suited are horses with proven synthetic form. I think the last BC showed that once again.

To draw the conclusion from this that it runs 'just like the turf' would be mere speculation - if it hadn't already been found to be untrue. I refer you to the topic I created on this before the BC 09 if you want evidence.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62863

Overall conclusion (applies to Pro Ride only):

Dirt routers do well on the poly, not on the turf.
Dirt sprinters don't do well on either.
Turf sprints belong to turf sprinters.
Horse who come off the polytrack do well on the same surface, but let's not get carried away.
The turf-to-poly angle is largely a myth, and an overbet one at that.


Horses going dirt to poly in the BC.....0-43 hmmmm.
Horses going turf to poly in the BC....Hmm what's their record?

Whats the combined record of the turf horses you listed that ran in the Classics before 2008? Whats the turf horses records since?

[gm10]

Horses going dirt to poly in the BC.....0-43 hmmmm.
Horses going turf to poly in the BC....Hmm what's their record?

Whats the combined record of the turf horses you listed that ran in the Classics before 2008? Whats the turf horses records since?

How on earth does this support your claim that the polytrack suits turf horses???

"That stuff runs exactly like turf."

And why aren't you responding to the list of pure turf horses that made it to the Classic on dirt?

"PURE turf horses have skipped the turf classic and other turf races to run in the DIRT BC races and Classics every year going back to the 80's?"

This was obviously supposed to back your theory. Well it isn't true. Would you care to respond?

[tzipi]

How on earth does this support your claim that the polytrack suits turf horses???

"That stuff runs exactly like turf."

And why aren't you responding to the list of pure turf horses that made it to the Classic on dirt?

"PURE turf horses have skipped the turf classic and other turf races to run in the DIRT BC races and Classics every year going back to the 80's?"

This was obviously supposed to back your theory. Well it isn't true. Would you care to respond?


What's the records of the turf horses you listed that ran in the BC Classic compared to last two years. That's my point. I never said NO turf horse ever ran :D .

Once again I'll take trainers words and Ravens Pass's trainers opinion WAY over yours.

Once again dirt to poly BC horses 0-43! What's the records of turf horses running on the poly in the BC? No answers huh?

[gm10]

What's the records of the turf horses you listed that ran in the BC Classic compared to last two years. That's my point. I never said NO turf horse ever ran :D .

Once again I'll take trainers words and Ravens Pass's trainers opinion WAY over yours.

Once again dirt to poly BC horses 0-43! What's the records of turf horses running on the poly in the BC? No answers huh?

I'm done discussing with you. You just change your own words when it becomes clear they carry no value.

[andymays]

http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2010/01/20/sports/doc4b568b2c676c8570374316.txt

Excerpt:


Santa Anita may ask the California Horse Racing Board for permission to return to a dirt main track.

The CHRB, in one of the great bonehead political decisions of all time, mandated that state tracks install synthetic surfaces.

This mandate - like most similar political commands — should be dropped.

The idea of Santa Anita as a permanent home for the Breeders’ Cup moves forward if it returns to dirt.

That is very big news indeed.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think I represent the group of handicappers who just get on with it, who acknowledge that synthetic racing offers just as many opportunities as unanswered questions. We bet and follow every surface because we love the horses and the sport. We know that dirt races are supposed to be more predictable, but we also know (deep down) that we didn't really make a ton of money betting them. Maybe we like a bit of diversity. I think there are many of us.

I think that a 3rd surface represents hope to players who are unable to beat the game.And it's sour grapes shining through to critique someone who's critiquing these surfaces.

What it essentially does is add back a percentage of unpredictability to the mix.With that comes better win odds.But it doesn't mean the game is more beatable.It offers luck back into the equation.And for hordes of losing players it might seem like a liberating phenomenon.

I like an intriguing puzzle as much as the next guy.But I like to have x amount of predictability to base my game on too.And from an industry perspective they are better off playing to my fancies because all that will happen otherwise is I'll bet less money on their races.I bet next to nothing on the last 2 years joke of Breeder's Cup cards.When it used to be my biggest betting volume day.


As far as you representing "Players who get on with it",what does that mean??That whenever the track takes you out to the woodshed and changes reality wether you like it or not you just get on with it??!!!Sorry but I don't think it's a revolutionary perspective to sit there and take it and interpret it as diversifying,when it's time to stand up and say "No,this is BS".

[gm10]

I think that a 3rd surface represents hope to players who are unable to beat the game.And it's sour grapes shining through to critique someone who's critiquing these surfaces.

What it essentially does is add back a percentage of unpredictability to the mix.With that comes better win odds.But it doesn't mean the game is more beatable.It offers luck back into the equation.And for hordes of losing players it might seem like a liberating phenomenon.

I like an intriguing puzzle as much as the next guy.But I like to have x amount of predictability to base my game on too.And from an industry perspective they are better off playing to my fancies because all that will happen otherwise is I'll bet less money on their races.I bet next to nothing on the last 2 years joke of Breeder's Cup cards.When it used to be my biggest betting volume day.


As far as you representing "Players who get on with it",what does that mean??That whenever the track takes you out to the woodshed and changes reality wether you like it or not you just get on with it??!!!Sorry but I don't think it's a revolutionary perspective to sit there and take it and interpret it as diversifying,when it's time to stand up and say "No,this is BS".

The public's prediction rates are almost exactly the same on the dirt as they are on the synthetics. There is no trace of added randomness anymore. It was a matter of climbing a learning curve, and the public as a whole has mastered it now. It is handicapping the synthetic surface just as well as the dirt now.

If you don't accept this I will gladly re-post the data that proves this.

[Kimsus]

That would be one of the biggest disappointments of the decade. I really hope they find a way to keep the Pro-Ride, it's a million times more interesting when you don't have to watch the same scenario unfold in race after race.

ARCADIA, Calif. - Santa Anita canceled Monday's racing program, citing the synthetic track's inability to drain properly after a day of rain, and track officials acknowledged for the first time that they are considering a return to a dirt track later this year.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/110190.html

I haven't had a chance to look at all the posts in this thread, but I have no problems with synthetic tracks, primarily due to the fairer nature of surface and it being generally less hard on horses. For handicapping purposes it presents a greater challenge in my opinion and that stimulates me as a player. Obviously traditionalists would love to go back to the speed biased dirt tracks, but that is the nature with change, the vast majority resist it. It is human nature to be afraid of change.

[Show Me the Wire]

My prediction. It will be harder to keep young promising horses racing sound.

If all these complainers dissected the races, they would see the 2 year olds and now the 3 year olds are putting up the fastest fractions and final times. A big problem for the figure makers, since traditionlly in making variants the 2 year old Maiden races should be ignored.

They would also, notice how truly pathetic the BSF have become regarding AWS. BSF have rated horses which ran on the same day and ran the same final time, with substantially different figures. Very easy to exploit for wagering purposes.

Could it be that the young horses perform better and continue to perform better, because the surface is kinder and they are staying sounder, after putting forth efforts ? I think so.

[andymays]

My prediction. It will be harder to keep young promising horses racing sound.

If all these complainers dissected the races, they would see the 2 year olds and now the 3 year olds are putting up the fastest fractions and final times. A big problem for the figure makers, since traditionlly in making variants the 2 year old Maiden races should be ignored.

They would also, notice how truly pathetic the BSF have become regarding AWS. BSF have rated horses which ran on the same day and ran the same final time, with substantially different figures. Very easy to exploit for wagering purposes.

Could it be that the young horses perform better and continue to perform better, because the surface is kinder and they are staying sounder, after putting forth efforts ? I think so.


http://horseracing.bloginky.com/2009/10/06/shirreffs-running-on-synthetics-like-running-on-velcro/

Excerpt:

With the Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita Park just one month away and Keeneland’s Fall meet kicking off this Friday, one can bet the already heated debate surrounding the merits of synthetic tracks will be continue to be one of the foremost issues in the racing community.

California-based trainer John Shirreffs, who conditions undefeated champion Zenyatta, has long been a vocal opponent of synthetic tracks and, during a national teleconference today, he detailed why he feels the surface does more harm than good in developing young prospects.

“I personally hate synthetics,” Shirreffs said. “I’m more into developing young horses and I find that young horses really don’t like training on synthetics. I don’t know if you can imagine training on Velcro. When the foot lands, it doesn’t slide, it sticks to the ground. Depending on how synthetic the surface is, the horse can’t rotate the foot into the track and push off.

“Imagine running around flat-footed all the time without getting up on your toes and pushing off,” Shirreffs continued. “That’s probably how it would feel to a human.”

[toussaud]

I can handicap on poly.. I have no problem with that.


so my standpoint has nothing to do as a gambler and everything to do as a horse racing fan


get polytrack out of here


it's ruining horse racing west of the mississippi.

santa anita has not been revelant in the kentucy derby since they went to it. We need santa anita to be revelant on the big stage.

when NBC shows the santa anita derby, damnit it needs to be a big deal. not a 3rd rate race.

Baffert has what...4 legit derby horses right now... and I assure you the best 3 will be shipped out to run on dirt. That's pathetic. that is what polytrack has brought us.


there are no horses left in Santa Anita to run. like it or not, american horse racing revoles aorund dirt and most horses are bred to run on dirt. you aren't going to guilt people into staying and running on surfaces when they can ship out and make more money doing it, running on a surface they can do good on.


the last 2 years is the first time in my lifetime that big time horses had to DEBATE if they were going to the breeders cup or not. that's what polytrack ahs brough us.


i'm sick of it. fans are sick of it.

use it for a training track if you want like they do in Europe... but Americans



you seen this year's bluegrass field? I've seen stronger grade 3's.

NO ONE WANTS TO RUN ON THIS SH!T!



It's like that old movie cool runnings, about the jamacian bobsled team.

they spent all the time copying what the swiss people did beucase they admired the swiss, but at the end... you gotta be you. american fans love dirt.

if you want to bet on polytrack, you need to get up early and get an attheraces account

[Show Me the Wire]

http://horseracing.bloginky.com/2009/10/06/shirreffs-running-on-synthetics-like-running-on-velcro/

Excerpt:

With the Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita Park just one month away and Keeneland’s Fall meet kicking off this Friday, one can bet the already heated debate surrounding the merits of synthetic tracks will be continue to be one of the foremost issues in the racing community.

California-based trainer John Shirreffs, who conditions undefeated champion Zenyatta, has long been a vocal opponent of synthetic tracks and, during a national teleconference today, he detailed why he feels the surface does more harm than good in developing young prospects.

“I personally hate synthetics,” Shirreffs said. “I’m more into developing young horses and I find that young horses really don’t like training on synthetics. I don’t know if you can imagine training on Velcro. When the foot lands, it doesn’t slide, it sticks to the ground. Depending on how synthetic the surface is, the horse can’t rotate the foot into the track and push off.

“Imagine running around flat-footed all the time without getting up on your toes and pushing off,” Shirreffs continued. “That’s probably how it would feel to a human.”

Read my post. The youngest horses have been posting the fastest fractions and fastest final times. Doesn't sound like a developmental issue to me. What I said is easy to verify, go back and check the charts to see which group of horses are performing the best.

[andymays]

Read my post. The youngest horses have been posting the fastest fractions and fastest final times. Doesn't sound like a developmental issue to me. What I said is easy to verify, go back and check the charts to see which group of horses are performing the best.


I didn't say those things John Shirreffs did. I just though it would help.

[Show Me the Wire]

I didn't say those things John Shirreffs did. I just though it would help.


I know he did. You posted his opinion many times. My post wasn't about what trainers thought. I said they will regret returning to dirt, because the young horses seem to be developing very well based on thier performances on the AWS.

On dirt like tracks, the young horses as a group do not outperform the older horses. The owners should demand in-depth research on this phenomena, before letting the track make a knee jerk reaction decision.

[Steve R]

My prediction. It will be harder to keep young promising horses racing sound.

If all these complainers dissected the races, they would see the 2 year olds and now the 3 year olds are putting up the fastest fractions and final times. A big problem for the figure makers, since traditionlly in making variants the 2 year old Maiden races should be ignored.

They would also, notice how truly pathetic the BSF have become regarding AWS. BSF have rated horses which ran on the same day and ran the same final time, with substantially different figures. Very easy to exploit for wagering purposes.

Could it be that the young horses perform better and continue to perform better, because the surface is kinder and they are staying sounder, after putting forth efforts ? I think so.
I have no particular interest in BSFs and I won't speculate on their deficiencies re AWSs. However, my figures, which are not biased against synthetics, argue against the improved performance of 2yos and 3yos on synthetic surfaces. For the following data, it doesn't matter what the number quantifies, only that the more negative the better and that, at middle distances, 4 points equals one length.

These are the average figures for the winners of graded stakes on the AWS at SA, HOL and DMR over the last 3 years: 2yos and 3yos, -34 (sample size 80); older horses, -54 (sample size 155). These are the figures for the previous 3 years on dirt: 2yos and 3yos (sample size 61), -40; older horses (sample size 138), -55.

The older horse average is within a neck difference, or should I say shows no difference between the AWS and dirt. The younger horses were about a length and a half better on dirt, so the gap between younger and older horses has increased on the synthetic surfaces.

Regardless of age, the figures and variants are calculated in exactly the same way using par pace lines at the respective distances.

Please provide any actual data and statistical analysis you have to support your observations. Thanks.

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't rely on averages and I don't care what you think you figures are capable of, especially that they tell you about a horse's physiology. Still waiting for an answer to my question to you about that claim.

On a daily basis, you can look at the charts and see it is usual for the younger horses to run the fastest, (or close to it) final time and the fastest fraction on any given day.

[gm10]

My prediction. It will be harder to keep young promising horses racing sound.

If all these complainers dissected the races, they would see the 2 year olds and now the 3 year olds are putting up the fastest fractions and final times. A big problem for the figure makers, since traditionlly in making variants the 2 year old Maiden races should be ignored.

They would also, notice how truly pathetic the BSF have become regarding AWS. BSF have rated horses which ran on the same day and ran the same final time, with substantially different figures. Very easy to exploit for wagering purposes.

Could it be that the young horses perform better and continue to perform better, because the surface is kinder and they are staying sounder, after putting forth efforts ? I think so.

I think so too. The good performances of the synthetics horses at last year's KD was not a coincidence imo.
Also agree with keeping the 2yo maiden races out of DTV calculations.

Finally, I also agree that Beyers do not work well on AWS. BSF rely on the assumption that an honest pace will be set, otherwise the final times become too variable. However, turf and synthetic surfaces don't give the same advantage to pace horses, so jockey's aren't keen on setting those required speedy fractions.

[gm10]

I have no particular interest in BSFs and I won't speculate on their deficiencies re AWSs. However, my figures, which are not biased against synthetics, argue against the improved performance of 2yos and 3yos on synthetic surfaces. For the following data, it doesn't matter what the number quantifies, only that the more negative the better and that, at middle distances, 4 points equals one length.

These are the average figures for the winners of graded stakes on the AWS at SA, HOL and DMR over the last 3 years: 2yos and 3yos, -34 (sample size 80); older horses, -54 (sample size 155). These are the figures for the previous 3 years on dirt: 2yos and 3yos (sample size 61), -40; older horses (sample size 138), -55.

The older horse average is within a neck difference, or should I say shows no difference between the AWS and dirt. The younger horses were about a length and a half better on dirt, so the gap between younger and older horses has increased on the synthetic surfaces.

Regardless of age, the figures and variants are calculated in exactly the same way using par pace lines at the respective distances.

Please provide any actual data and statistical analysis you have to support your observations. Thanks.

I think it would be interesting to see your data split up wrt distances. One turn vs two turns.

One thing that I am sure of - synthetic surfaces are quicker than the dirt if you just look at final times.

[toussaud]

what the hell are you guys even talking about?

[Steve R]

I don't rely on averages and I don't care what you think you figures are capable of, especially that they tell you about a horse's physiology. Still waiting for an answer to my question to you about that claim.

On a daily basis, you can look at the charts and see it is usual for the younger horses to run the fastest, (or close to it) final time and the fastest fraction on any given day.
Thanks. So in other words you have no real data or any statistical analysis to support your assertion of the improved performance of younger horses on synthetics. Only anecdotal information. I suspected as much.

Also, I don't know which question to which claim you are referring. I generally have you on my ignore list and only remove you when I see one of your outrageous responses to other posters.

[Show Me the Wire]

Steve R.

What ever. I don't need to have a statistical analysis when making my daily variants to see which group of horses are setting the fastest fractions and final times at meets.

Oh you don't remember your answer, to kismus, about how speed figures are more than tools regarding past performance analysis and how speed figures analyze a horse's physiology.

Your quote:

Speed figures are much more than handicapping tools, even if you don't comprehend their purpose. They are designed to measure the speed of a race adjusted for track conditions. That's a huge contribution to understanding Thoroughbred physiology.


Of course you would ignore my question about your claim about speed figures and physiology.

[Robert Goren]

When will Santa Anita run again? Anybody got an over/under?

[toussaud]

next thursday

turf will not run again until sunshine millions

[gm10]

Turf Paradise canceled as well.

[Show Me the Wire]

Turf Paradise canceled as well.


Turf Paradise floods all the time, inadequate drainage.

[Steve R]

I think it would be interesting to see your data split up wrt distances. One turn vs two turns.

One thing that I am sure of - synthetic surfaces are quicker than the dirt if you just look at final times.
No problem. This is a more thorough data output for all non-turf races at DMR, HOL and SA since 2004. The averages are for the winners of graded stakes.

On AWS:
Younger horse sprints, -31
Younger horse routes, -37
Older horse sprints, -61
Older horse routes, -62

On Dirt:
Younger horse sprints, -34
Younger horse routes, -46
Older horse sprints, -61
Older horse routes, -59

There is no difference among older horses in graded stakes either by distance or by surface. The major difference among younger horses is between sprints and routes where the routes appear faster. That is because the younger horses include both 2yo and 3yos and the ratio of routes to sprints is higher for 3yos which are generally faster than 2yos. Overall, though, one doesn't see much narrowing of the gap between younger and older horses in going from dirt to synthetics.

[Pace Cap'n]

Read my post. The youngest horses have been posting the fastest fractions and fastest final times. Doesn't sound like a developmental issue to me. What I said is easy to verify, go back and check the charts to see which group of horses are performing the best.

Have you considered that this might not be a good thing?

[nijinski]

Oh really? PURE turf horses have skipped the turf classic and other turf races to run in the DIRT BC races and Classics every year going back to the 80's? Can you post all these turf horse loaded fields in previous dirt BC races compared to the last two years? I'd like to see the numbers of PURE turf horses in the Classic the last two years compared to all previous Breeders Cups.
Yup,Gio Ponti runs in the dirt Classic over turf classic if at Belmont :D Suuree.

Anyway,I'll stick with Ravens Pass's trainers thoughts WAY before yours. He said he would not have run in the BC Classic against Curlin if the BC was on a dirt track.
Tzipi you are right about that.
John Gosden came into the race and he said he new RP had a very good chance , as rhe track plays to his running style and is alot like turf.

If it comes from someone like Gosden, what more is there to say., we don't need an artificial turf course.
Synth has divided the fans , the last thing we need.
I know many who are keeping their money in their pockets here on the East Coast. That's not good for the sport either.

[Show Me the Wire]

Have you considered that this might not be a good thing?

The only negative would be injuries. So far the horses are returning and repeating their effrots. Some I think are returning too quickly and that may be a downside.

[toussaud]

when turf horses go to run on dirt (or in this case pro ride) you are called a great horse


when a dirt horse goes to run on turf, you get called poor toccet

[PaceAdvantage]

They would also, notice how truly pathetic the BSF have become regarding AWS.Really? Shall we revisit my thread where I redboarded the fortune one could have made using BSF on Breeders' Cup day 2009?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Really? Shall we revisit my thread where I redboarded the fortune one could have made using BSF on Breeders' Cup day 2009?

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to see it again. I can't understand why so many people have so much resentment for Andy Beyer and his figures. Perhaps it's jealousy, just not sure.

[PaceAdvantage]

For you, anything:

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

[gm10]

No problem. This is a more thorough data output for all non-turf races at DMR, HOL and SA since 2004. The averages are for the winners of graded stakes.

On AWS:
Younger horse sprints, -31
Younger horse routes, -37
Older horse sprints, -61
Older horse routes, -62

On Dirt:
Younger horse sprints, -34
Younger horse routes, -46
Older horse sprints, -61
Older horse routes, -59

There is no difference among older horses in graded stakes either by distance or by surface. The major difference among younger horses is between sprints and routes where the routes appear faster. That is because the younger horses include both 2yo and 3yos and the ratio of routes to sprints is higher for 3yos which are generally faster than 2yos. Overall, though, one doesn't see much narrowing of the gap between younger and older horses in going from dirt to synthetics.

So are these numbers only based on final times + DTV?

[cj]

So are these numbers only based on final times + DTV?

I believe they are based on more than that.

http://www.chef-de-race.com/pfs/performance_figures.htm

[Tom]

Is it a fact that dirt is the choice?
I have not really seen that confirmed. Leaving PR and going to Tapeta might be a possibility? Has permission been granted to go to dirt?

[andymays]

Is it a fact that dirt is the choice?
I have not really seen that confirmed. Leaving PR and going to Tapeta might be a possibility? Has permission been granted to go to dirt?


Not definite yet. I'm sure two things are happening.

1. A titanic push for Tapeta.

2. A Deal with the Breeders Cup with Santa Anita as a permanent or semi permanent (every other year) site. Part of the deal is that they would switch to dirt (I hope) to placate the East Coast.

The battle is going on as we speak.

Roger Stein on in 15 minutes or 8:00 am PST.

http://www.am830klaa.com/index.htm

click on the top right of the screen for the audio of the live show!

[cj]

Worthless link, I keep getting "Server full" message. I guess that is a good sign that people are listening.

[andymays]

Worthless link, I keep getting "Server full" message. I guess that is a good sign that people are listening.


Dean just got in but the archives will be up in about an hour at:

He's had interviews so far. Aaron Veracruze (HRTV) and John Sikura of HillandDale farms. Forgive the spelling errors!

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

Doesn't look like he's gonna get into anything substantial on takeout or synthetic surfaces today. Maybe tomorrow?????????????

[cj]

I finally got in, but I'll check out the archives later as well.

[dansan]

golden gate field didnt cancel any days looked liked the track was dry and we got alot of rain up here

[andymays]

Go John Sikura. Great Statement on synthetics. He da man! :ThmbUp:

I wish I could tie people up and play his words over and over again till they get it! ;) :ThmbUp:

[cj]

Go John Sikura. Great Statement on synthetics. He da man! :ThmbUp:

I wish I could tie people up and play his words over and over again till they get it! ;) :ThmbUp:

Good horses ran like tugboats...awesome!

[andymays]

Good horses ran like tugboats...awesome!


I almost choked laughing when he said that. :lol:

The absolute truth!

[cj]

Think about this...we ran our biggest and best races for the last two years on a surface that is being thrown in the trash can...how sad is that?

[andymays]

Think about this...we ran our biggest and best races for the last two years on a surface that is being thrown in the trash can...how sad is that?


I've been trying to tell everyone this for two years. I don't know why they never got it. Pro Ride always belonged in the trash can.

I wish he would have confirmed the dirt.

[illinoisbred]

Think about this...we ran our biggest and best races for the last two years on a surface that is being thrown in the trash can...how sad is that?
Yeah,they will end up being asterisked* events in the years to come.

[Tom]

I can never get in to his live show - no links ever work.
Waste of time.

But, after they throw out the pro-ride, I still get to keep the money, right?;)

[rwwupl]

Not definite yet. I'm sure two things are happening.

1. A titanic push for Tapeta.2. A Deal with the Breeders Cup with Santa Anita as a permanent or semi permanent (every other year) site. Part of the deal is that they would switch to dirt (I hope) to placate the East Coast.

The battle is going on as we speak.

Roger Stein on in 15 minutes or 8:00 am PST.

http://www.am830klaa.com/index.htm

click on the top right of the screen for the audio of the live show!


Good grief! Another push for another fake track? What does it take to get through to people?

Every proposal has their favorite fake track with success somewhere and those that have come to So.Ca. have failed to deliver.

Dirt(with a new base) is safe,cheaper and known procedures to maintain,without upsetting various segments that use it.

No racetrack will put in an unsafe racetrack.

rwwupl

[andymays]

I can never get in to his live show - no links ever work.
Waste of time.

But, after they throw out the pro-ride, I still get to keep the money, right?;)


I sign on 30 minutes before it starts but there are archived shows at:

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

Archives are up about an hour after the live show!

[andymays]

Privmans show is on right after. I'm beginning to like him. He was critical of synthetic surfaces. :D

Go Privman! :ThmbUp:

[Show Me the Wire]

Really? Shall we revisit my thread where I redboarded the fortune one could have made using BSF on Breeders' Cup day 2009?


Please don't take my statement out of context. I specifically qualified my assertion with the following thought; horses, which ran on the same day, same track and ran the same final time are assigned significantly differing BSFs. This in my estimation makes the BSF worthless, leading to wagering opportunities.

My statement does not involve the usefulness of BSFs on B.C. day and horses competing on different tracks on different days. Two totally separate issues, and an exercise of trying to compare apples-to-oranges.

[cj]

Please don't take my statement out of context. I specifically qualified my assertion with the following thought; horses, which ran on the same day, same track and ran the same final time are assigned significantly differing BSFs. This in my estimation makes the BSF worthless, leading to wagering opportunities.


Could you provide a few examples? I'd like to see them and see if I could say why the variant was split. All figure makers will sometimes split variants on all surfaces, and I wouldn't say that makes them all worthless.

I do agree a lot more mistakes are made on synthetics, but again, I'd like to see just a few examples.

[Show Me the Wire]

Could you provide a few examples? I'd like to see them and see if I could say why the variant was split. All figure makers will sometimes split variants on all surfaces, and I wouldn't say that makes them all worthless.

I do agree a lot more mistakes are made on synthetics, but again, I'd like to see just a few examples.

I understand splitting variants. It was my understanding Beyer didn't split variants. I understand TG does and Rags don't.

I rather not point out specific information as I still have an opportunity to exploit the differences. I shared some stuff with you privately and I know you understand the importance of edges or having info others don't.

Feel free to correct me on whether Beyer routinely splits variants or not.

[cj]

There are definitely times on all surfaces where the Beyer group splits the variant out for only one race. There can be a multitude of reasons for it, and sometimes they are just mistakes in my opinion.

One thing that happens more on turf and synthetics, but still occasionally on dirt, is that he'll boost a race with a very slow pace so the winner gets a figure more in line with what the horse is capable of when the pace is normal. There are problems with this however. It makes some horses that run behind the winner look much better than they actually are.

The same thing will occasionally happen when the pace is very fast. The final time won't make sense to the figure maker and the figure will be boosted. This happens most often on dirt. It also has the effect of giving a better representation of ability for some horses, but making others look much better than they are.

Lets say a horse is capable of running 80 pace/ 80 speed and has done so many times recently. Today, he runs 100 pace/ 70 speed and still wins. Sometimes a final time only figure maker will boost the race to an 80 because it makes more sense. However, what if some slow closer sucked up to be beaten a length, one that rarely ever breaks 70? Now this horse is going to get a 78. So, while the 80 assigned probably better represents the overall ability of the winner, the 78 for the runner up is woefully wrong.

Sorry to bore everyone, but this is something I'm passionate about!

[toussaud]

HOLY UNBETTABLE RACE BATMAN!

lmao..

1 week off at sanita anita... you'd think people would be chmumping at the bit to get at the track


4 freaking horses in the first. 4.

[Tom]

Good thing for the "break" or it might have been three!

What a pathetic track....The Great Race Place......yeah, right! :lol:

I wonder, after they drained the track, if they remembered to "jiggle the handle?"

[gm10]

I believe they are based on more than that.

http://www.chef-de-race.com/pfs/performance_figures.htm

OK - I was also alluding to weight and age adjustments.

[gm10]

Not definite yet. I'm sure two things are happening.

1. A titanic push for Tapeta.

2. A Deal with the Breeders Cup with Santa Anita as a permanent or semi permanent (every other year) site. Part of the deal is that they would switch to dirt (I hope) to placate the East Coast.

The battle is going on as we speak.

Roger Stein on in 15 minutes or 8:00 am PST.

http://www.am830klaa.com/index.htm

click on the top right of the screen for the audio of the live show!

Tapeta is a nice surface imo. You see all sorts of running styles winning @ GG/PID. Imo both are fair tracks.

Pls don't let the SA be a permanent host of the BC. Great place, but the BC needs to move around.

[gm10]

I've been trying to tell everyone this for two years. I don't know why they never got it. Pro Ride always belonged in the trash can.

I wish he would have confirmed the dirt.

Good horses run bad on the dirt as well. And the horses who win on the synthetic aren't necessarily bad horses. Ravens Pass was a top European horse. Zenyatta isn't too shabby either.

[Steve R]

There are definitely times on all surfaces where the Beyer group splits the variant out for only one race. There can be a multitude of reasons for it, and sometimes they are just mistakes in my opinion...[snip]
IMO, the issue of variants is far more complicated than most people think. In fact, I'd venture to say that variants affect the accuracy of figures more than any other single factor. Split variants may have a role from time to time, but I've found that variants can be far more dynamic than most figure makers realize. IOW, there are times when the variant can change even from race to race depending on weather conditions, such as during a drying out phase or when it rains. Often a split variant doesn't come close to being right. Here's one example from my data taken from the Fair Grounds on January 26, 2008 when the track was wet throughout the card. The raw figures and the variants are based on my figure system, but it's not the actual numbers that matter. It's the pattern of variant development during the day. These are the race number, the race conditions, the raw performance figures and the variants for the two-turn races:

1-3yo, MdCl50, 8.18f; 3; -22
2-4+, Cl6.25, 8.18f; 25; -17
3-3yof, MSW, 8.00f; 30; 10
4-4+f&m, 8.00f; 51; 29
5-3yo, NW1, 8.00f; 22; 24
9-4+f&m, Stake, 8.50f; 34; 66

The interesting thing about the progression of the variants (22 fast, 17 fast, 10 slow, 29 slow, 24 slow, 66 slow) is that they follow an almost linear pattern from race to race. Linear regression of race number vs race variant affords a line with a correlation coefficient of 0.96 which is very close to a straight line. IOW, the track was slowing down not in groups of races but from one race to the next as the surface characteristics were changing through the day. The final adjusted performance figures were then calculated using the individual race variants derived from the equation describing the best straight line. Those were now 18 fast, 7 fast, 4 slow, 15 slow, 26 slow and 71 slow.

The variant situations are not always this clear. Sometimes the day's variants will follow a polynomial pattern depending on changes in wind. moisture, temperature, etc. Sometimes a simple daily average will be sufficient. The point is that as much analysis must go into determining individual race variants as goes into determining the raw performance figures.

[Steve R]

OK - I was also alluding to weight and age adjustments.
Unlike Ragozin figures, these don't adjust for weight. They are excluded not because I believe weight has no effect but because I don't think a simple formula for the effects of added or lost weight can be constructed at this time. Horses, like humans, have different physical types and most, I believe, will handle changes in weight in their own way. A simple "scale-of-weights" type of approach would simply introduce too much slack into the analysis although a comprehensive computer analysis might simplify things.

Age adjustments are different, however. There already are detailed computerized studies that show, for example, the typical month-by-month development of speed at various distances for three-year-olds. And there are other computer studies that show the speed differences between males and females by distance. These help increase the accuracy of the pars.

No figure system exists that can hope to accurately capture the effects of every possible factor affecting a horse's "true" speed. You do the best you can without oversimplifying and without making questionable assumptions. I don't want to change the topic, but the kind of questionable assumptions I refer to would include, for example, Ragozin's adjustments for wind, weight and ground loss.

[cj]

IMO, the issue of variants is far more complicated than most people think. In fact, I'd venture to say that variants affect the accuracy of figures more than any other single factor.

You will get no argument from me on that front. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. I also laugh when people criticize the Beyer group for "breaking out" races. Nobody will get every race right, but I think they do a pretty decent job.

Making figures isn't even close to as cut and dried as people would like to think it is.

[gm10]

IMO, the issue of variants is far more complicated than most people think. In fact, I'd venture to say that variants affect the accuracy of figures more than any other single factor. Split variants may have a role from time to time, but I've found that variants can be far more dynamic than most figure makers realize. IOW, there are times when the variant can change even from race to race depending on weather conditions, such as during a drying out phase or when it rains. Often a split variant doesn't come close to being right. Here's one example from my data taken from the Fair Grounds on January 26, 2008 when the track was wet throughout the card. The raw figures and the variants are based on my figure system, but it's not the actual numbers that matter. It's the pattern of variant development during the day. These are the race number, the race conditions, the raw performance figures and the variants for the two-turn races:

1-3yo, MdCl50, 8.18f; 3; -22
2-4+, Cl6.25, 8.18f; 25; -17
3-3yof, MSW, 8.00f; 30; 10
4-4+f&m, 8.00f; 51; 29
5-3yo, NW1, 8.00f; 22; 24
9-4+f&m, Stake, 8.50f; 34; 66

The interesting thing about the progression of the variants (22 fast, 17 fast, 10 slow, 29 slow, 24 slow, 66 slow) is that they follow an almost linear pattern from race to race. Linear regression of race number vs race variant affords a line with a correlation coefficient of 0.96 which is very close to a straight line. IOW, the track was slowing down not in groups of races but from one race to the next as the surface characteristics were changing through the day. The final adjusted performance figures were then calculated using the individual race variants derived from the equation describing the best straight line. Those were now 18 fast, 7 fast, 4 slow, 15 slow, 26 slow and 71 slow.

The variant situations are not always this clear. Sometimes the day's variants will follow a polynomial pattern depending on changes in wind. moisture, temperature, etc. Sometimes a simple daily average will be sufficient. The point is that as much analysis must go into determining individual race variants as goes into determining the raw performance figures.

Interesting topic ... I agree with the underlying assertion that DTV's can be dynamic on the same day. My solution has been to calculate the DTV as a weighted average of all races. The races closest to the race under investigation get a higher weight. For example, race 9 would be much less influenced by race 1/2 than by race 7/8 (assuming they're all on the same surface).

[gm10]

Unlike Ragozin figures, these don't adjust for weight. They are excluded not because I believe weight has no effect but because I don't think a simple formula for the effects of added or lost weight can be constructed at this time. Horses, like humans, have different physical types and most, I believe, will handle changes in weight in their own way. A simple "scale-of-weights" type of approach would simply introduce too much slack into the analysis although a comprehensive computer analysis might simplify things.


I agree that you can't fully measure the effect of weight on a horse WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A HORSE RACE. Less weight can lead to tactical advantages, such as a horse being able to accelerate quicker out of the gate when it has less weight on its back. That's something that all bug jocks try to exploit. But it's not something you can easily quantify.

However, this doesn't mean that you should not measure the part that can actually be measured: the effect of an extra pound on an object with a certain mass and velocity. There is a little known book by a guy called Seip that actually uses physics to calculate these adjustments. I use them. They don't have much effect on my strike rate, but they boost my ROI. It makes me pick about the same amount of winners but at better prices.


Age adjustments are different, however. There already are detailed computerized studies that show, for example, the typical month-by-month development of speed at various distances for three-year-olds. And there are other computer studies that show the speed differences between males and females by distance. These help increase the accuracy of the pars.

No figure system exists that can hope to accurately capture the effects of every possible factor affecting a horse's "true" speed. You do the best you can without oversimplifying and without making questionable assumptions. I don't want to change the topic, but the kind of questionable assumptions I refer to would include, for example, Ragozin's adjustments for wind, weight and ground loss.

OK so to sum up your figs don't take these into account and as consequence 2yo's are slower than older horses?

[FenceBored]

There are definitely times on all surfaces where the Beyer group splits the variant out for only one race. There can be a multitude of reasons for it, and sometimes they are just mistakes in my opinion.

One thing that happens more on turf and synthetics, but still occasionally on dirt, is that he'll boost a race with a very slow pace so the winner gets a figure more in line with what the horse is capable of when the pace is normal. There are problems with this however. It makes some horses that run behind the winner look much better than they actually are.

The same thing will occasionally happen when the pace is very fast. The final time won't make sense to the figure maker and the figure will be boosted. This happens most often on dirt. It also has the effect of giving a better representation of ability for some horses, but making others look much better than they are.

Lets say a horse is capable of running 80 pace/ 80 speed and has done so many times recently. Today, he runs 100 pace/ 70 speed and still wins. Sometimes a final time only figure maker will boost the race to an 80 because it makes more sense. However, what if some slow closer sucked up to be beaten a length, one that rarely ever breaks 70? Now this horse is going to get a 78. So, while the 80 assigned probably better represents the overall ability of the winner, the 78 for the runner up is woefully wrong.

Sorry to bore everyone, but this is something I'm passionate about!

The question I have is whether the figures should model the general ability of the horse, or that specific performance. If the latter, as I would think the answer should be, then those figure makers who are 'boosting' the race are undercutting the validity of their own work. As you note, a horse can always throw in a race that appears to be below its ability (in this context a slower final time figure), it's a little harder to throw in a race beyond its ability (though not impossible if the horse's previously demonstrated ability is not up to its actual physical abilities).

[Steve R]

I agree that you can't fully measure the effect of weight on a horse WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A HORSE RACE. Less weight can lead to tactical advantages, such as a horse being able to accelerate quicker out of the gate when it has less weight on its back. That's something that all bug jocks try to exploit. But it's not something you can easily quantify.

However, this doesn't mean that you should not measure the part that can actually be measured: the effect of an extra pound on an object with a certain mass and velocity. There is a little known book by a guy called Seip that actually uses physics to calculate these adjustments. I use them. They don't have much effect on my strike rate, but they boost my ROI. It makes me pick about the same amount of winners but at better prices.



OK so to sum up your figs don't take these into account and as consequence 2yo's are slower than older horses?
By not taking "these" into account I assume you mean wind, weight and ground loss. I don't take wind into account because you can never know the exposed surface area of every horse in the race at every point. Guess work. Weight has already been discussed. Ground loss is important but generally overstated. A few years ago a military engineer named Larry Wellman developed a model for energy output on a turn using many factors including bank angle and even conformation effects. He determined that it is easier for a horse further outside to maintain its rate of speed on the turn than it is for horses closer in. IOW, the actual distance lost and the energy required to cover that distance are not linearly related and depend on where the horse is on the track. He estimated that the real impact of lost ground is about half of what it is generally believed to be. That said, when I see Big Brown four or five wide around both turns in the Derby, I will at least make a mental note that his effort was better than my figure estimates (btw, in reviewing that video, I must say that regardless of what someone may think about the colt, that was a brilliant performance).

Also, I'm not clear about your suggestion that 2yos are slower than older horses as a consequence of not taking those factors into account. I think 2yos are slower than older horses simply because they are not as physically developed. It's the reason why human track records are usually held by runners in their 20s, not their mid-teens. FWIW, these are my average figures for the winners of graded stakes by age (including all distances and surfaces), where the more negative the number the better the performance:

2yos, -27
3yos, -48
Older, -62

[Steve R]

The question I have is whether the figures should model the general ability of the horse, or that specific performance. If the latter, as I would think the answer should be, then those figure makers who are 'boosting' the race are undercutting the validity of their own work. As you note, a horse can always throw in a race that appears to be below its ability (in this context a slower final time figure), it's a little harder to throw in a race beyond its ability (though not impossible if the horse's previously demonstrated ability is not up to its actual physical abilities).
I agree, which is why I find projections a bit iffy. OTOH, if you are trying to generate a figure for the only turf race on the card, for example, you pretty much don't have a choice but to make a projection. Of course the result will be less reliable than one determined from several races.

[gm10]

By not taking "these" into account I assume you mean wind, weight and ground loss. I don't take wind into account because you can never know the exposed surface area of every horse in the race at every point. Guess work. Weight has already been discussed. Ground loss is important but generally overstated. A few years ago a military engineer named Larry Wellman developed a model for energy output on a turn using many factors including bank angle and even conformation effects. He determined that it is easier for a horse further outside to maintain its rate of speed on the turn than it is for horses closer in. IOW, the actual distance lost and the energy required to cover that distance are not linearly related and depend on where the horse is on the track. He estimated that the real impact of lost ground is about half of what it is generally believed to be. That said, when I see Big Brown four or five wide around both turns in the Derby, I will at least make a mental note that his effort was better than my figure estimates (btw, in reviewing that video, I must say that regardless of what someone may think about the colt, that was a brilliant performance).

Also, I'm not clear about your suggestion that 2yos are slower than older horses as a consequence of not taking those factors into account. I think 2yos are slower than older horses simply because they are not as physically developed. It's the reason why human track records are usually held by runners in their 20s, not their mid-teens. FWIW, these are my average figures for the winners of graded stakes by age (including all distances and surfaces), where the more negative the number the better the performance:

2yos, -27
3yos, -48
Older, -62

All I wanted to know was whether the original poster's statement was correct. From your replies and the extra info you provided, it looks like it wasn't.

[bisket]

Good thing for the "break" or it might have been three!

What a pathetic track....The Great Race Place......yeah, right! :lol:

I wonder, after they drained the track, if they remembered to "jiggle the handle?"
floaters are always the last down the chute :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

There are definitely times on all surfaces where the Beyer group splits the variant out for only one race. There can be a multitude of reasons for it, and sometimes they are just mistakes in my opinion.

One thing that happens more on turf and synthetics, but still occasionally on dirt, is that he'll boost a race with a very slow pace so the winner gets a figure more in line with what the horse is capable of when the pace is normal. There are problems with this however. It makes some horses that run behind the winner look much better than they actually are.

The same thing will occasionally happen when the pace is very fast. The final time won't make sense to the figure maker and the figure will be boosted. This happens most often on dirt. It also has the effect of giving a better representation of ability for some horses, but making others look much better than they are.

Lets say a horse is capable of running 80 pace/ 80 speed and has done so many times recently. Today, he runs 100 pace/ 70 speed and still wins. Sometimes a final time only figure maker will boost the race to an 80 because it makes more sense. However, what if some slow closer sucked up to be beaten a length, one that rarely ever breaks 70? Now this horse is going to get a 78. So, while the 80 assigned probably better represents the overall ability of the winner, the 78 for the runner up is woefully wrong.

Sorry to bore everyone, but this is something I'm passionate about!

Thanks cj. I was mistaken about Beyers not splitting variants, the reason for my post. However, it is not a good idea to split variants, based on pace if your speed figures are based on final times, is it?

Even though I didn't give out the specifics about same track and same day, I will give out a day the BSF seemed very innacurate. Oct 2, 2009 OSA, maintrack speed figures.

[cj]

Thanks cj. I was mistaken about Beyers not splitting variants, the reason for my post. However, it is not a good idea to split variants, based on pace if your speed figures are based on final times, is it?


I don't think it is for the reasons I mentioned. It usually helps makes the ratings of some horses a better gauge of ability, but others worse.

I use this example often. Imagine Secretariat ran 1 mile against a 5k claimer, and he basically jogged the first 6f abreast of the claimer in a pedestrian 1:15, then ran home in 22, beating the claimer by 10.

If you use figures on the Beyer scale and assume Secretariat gets a 120 when he runs well and the claimer a 70, what do you do? 10 lengths at a mile is a 20 point difference, so any way you cut it with Beyer's method you are going to be seriously wrong on one of the horses. If you give Sec a 120, the claimer runs a 100. If you give the claimer a 70, Sec runs a 90.

I think the best answer is to vary the value of a beaten length depending on how fast the pace was. In this case, they only really ran 2f so a beaten length should count much more than 2 points, 4 or 5 maybe, but that is just my opinion. This is a huge issue on turf and synthetics. Beyer has made different types of changes to try to fix these issues, but I think he has gone about it the wrong way.

[Show Me the Wire]

The unanswered question is how much is the daily variant influenced by the quality of horses competing on that day.

This is highlighted when the youngest horses run the fastest raw times, splits and final time, something which is happening on the So.Cali circuit. For example On November 25, 2009, the 2 year old ran 22 1/5, 44 4/5, 56 3/5, and 1:09.

The next fastest sprint 3 and up 61/2 furlongs 22 3/5. 45 2/5, 1:09 3/5, and 1:16 1/5.

Both races were won in gate to wire fashion and the 3 and up race was won by a 3 year old.

Is the track playing fast on November 25 or are the younger horses performing to their abilities This is the question some speed figure makers can't answer satisfactorily.

If you follow the young talented horses on the AWS surface you will see, as a group, they are consistently running fast internal fractions and outperforming, on the whole, the older horses. Of course you are not going to see this revealed by some cumbersome db, based on averaging models or flawed speed figures. Being sucessful is taking advantage of what is happening in this specific time frame on the track, and not being mislead through historical statistics.

[gm10]

I don't think it is for the reasons I mentioned. It usually helps makes the ratings of some horses a better gauge of ability, but others worse.

I use this example often. Imagine Secretariat ran 1 mile against a 5k claimer, and he basically jogged the first 6f abreast of the claimer in a pedestrian 1:15, then ran home in 22, beating the claimer by 10.

If you use figures on the Beyer scale and assume Secretariat gets a 120 when he runs well and the claimer a 70, what do you do? 10 lengths at a mile is a 20 point difference, so any way you cut it with Beyer's method you are going to be seriously wrong on one of the horses. If you give Sec a 120, the claimer runs a 100. If you give the claimer a 70, Sec runs a 90.

I think the best answer is to vary the value of a beaten length depending on how fast the pace was. In this case, they only really ran 2f so a beaten length should count much more than 2 points, 4 or 5 maybe, but that is just my opinion. This is a huge issue on turf and synthetics. Beyer has made different types of changes to try to fix these issues, but I think he has gone about it the wrong way.

Agreed. That's how I do it too.

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't think it is for the reasons I mentioned. It usually helps makes the ratings of some horses a better gauge of ability, but others worse.

I use this example often. Imagine Secretariat ran 1 mile against a 5k claimer, and he basically jogged the first 6f abreast of the claimer in a pedestrian 1:15, then ran home in 22, beating the claimer by 10.

If you use figures on the Beyer scale and assume Secretariat gets a 120 when he runs well and the claimer a 70, what do you do? 10 lengths at a mile is a 20 point difference, so any way you cut it with Beyer's method you are going to be seriously wrong on one of the horses. If you give Sec a 120, the claimer runs a 100. If you give the claimer a 70, Sec runs a 90.

I think the best answer is to vary the value of a beaten length depending on how fast the pace was. In this case, they only really ran 2f so a beaten length should count much more than 2 points, 4 or 5 maybe, but that is just my opinion. This is a huge issue on turf and synthetics. Beyer has made different types of changes to try to fix these issues, but I think he has gone about it the wrong way.

I respectfully disagree about being wrong either way. It is wrong to credit the horse for a better performance than it performed.

If Secretariat ran a 90, based on the adjusted final time, that should be the speed figure. Speed figures should reflect the adjusted final time of the race.

[letswastemoney]

I respectfully disagree about being wrong either way. It is wrong to credit the horse for a better performance than it performed.

If Secretariat ran a 90, based on the adjusted final time, that should be the speed figure. Speed figures should reflect the adjusted final time of the race.
I agree with Show Me The Wire.

You shouldn't change the final figure because of the pace. Rather, the handicapper should look the the fractions separately while they are looking at the speed figure, and come to their own conclusion..

[cj]

I respectfully disagree about being wrong either way. It is wrong to credit the horse for a better performance than it performed.

If Secretariat ran a 90, based on the adjusted final time, that should be the speed figure. Speed figures should reflect the adjusted final time of the race.

We don't really disagree, I just didn't say it right. If you are making pure speed figures, I agree with you.

[gm10]

I respectfully disagree about being wrong either way. It is wrong to credit the horse for a better performance than it performed.

If Secretariat ran a 90, based on the adjusted final time, that should be the speed figure. Speed figures should reflect the adjusted final time of the race.

That is true, as well. We shouldn't call them speed figures any more, they are more like performance ratings.

[cj]

A perfect example would be the 8th race at GG on Sunday, Jan 24th. Any figure maker is going to have a tough time with that one and should realize the figure will be meaningless in any case. Beyer gave the race an 82, I gave the race a 47. It is probably the biggest discrepancy I've ever had with his figures.

[Backstretch Pirate]

A perfect example would be the 8th race at GG on Sunday, Jan 24th. Any figure maker is going to have a tough time with that one and should realize the figure will be meaningless in any case. Beyer gave the race an 82, I gave the race a 47. It is probably the biggest discrepancy I've ever had with his figures.

How could Beyer give this race an 82? By my calculations, straight out of his book, it should be a 49.

[Robert Goren]

A perfect example would be the 8th race at GG on Sunday, Jan 24th. Any figure maker is going to have a tough time with that one and should realize the figure will be meaningless in any case. Beyer gave the race an 82, I gave the race a 47. It is probably the biggest discrepancy I've ever had with his figures. That the problem when you use some else's numbers. How do you know when the figure is meaningless and when it is not?

[Kimsus]

Horses going dirt to poly in the BC.....0-43 hmmmm.
Horses going turf to poly in the BC....Hmm what's their record?


Misleading stat, which points to dirt horses never being able to win on poly, I already debunked that theory with the example of Midnight Lute.

Obcourse watching races as from Aqueduct would be preferable, where wire jobs would seem to be reinterated.

[FantasticDan]

Pletcher's Kinsella (a $2.2M yearling in 2007) was euthanized after breaking down on the Pro-Ride:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/55030/kinsella-euthanized-after-workout

[gm10]

A perfect example would be the 8th race at GG on Sunday, Jan 24th. Any figure maker is going to have a tough time with that one and should realize the figure will be meaningless in any case. Beyer gave the race an 82, I gave the race a 47. It is probably the biggest discrepancy I've ever had with his figures.

I gave it a 56. I saw that race - very exceptional.