Vic Zast: Dirt Officially a Four-Letter Word!

[andymays]

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/Zasts-TrackWords/2010-03-28dirt-officially-a-four-letter-word/

Excerpt:

Nevertheless, the wisdom of installing synthetic tracks everywhere is debatable. Predictably, those people whose voice should count the most – aka the horseplayers - are split 50-50 on the issue. Jeff Platt, president of the 1600 member Horseplayers Association of North America, is ambivalent about synthetic tracks. But he disagrees with Dickinson’s claim that man-made surfaces offer consistency. Platt believes that unlike a dirt track, the same synthetic track will create different running styles from day to day. “Even track maintenance men don’t know why,” Platt contended in a telephone interview.

Maury Ezra, one of Platt’s HANA Board colleagues, has a more practical view of the situation. “The bottom line with synthetics is that you can’t love a horse,” he believes. But both Platt and Ezra admit that their biggest payoffs have resulted from betting horses on artificial surfaces. They believe that the competition in the pari-mutuel pool isn’t as stiff because many good handicappers, frustrated with new challenges, are staying away from betting races held on synthetic tracks.

[andymays]

My comments below the article.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Vic, Jeff, and Maury all of you do good work.

HANA is a credit to Horseplayers everywhere and the time and effort that the Board Members put in with no compensation is to be applauded.

When it comes to takeout and signal issues HANA has raised awareness and is causing changes in attitudes that will eventually change things for the better.

I agree with just about everything HANA stands for except giving the benefit of the doubt to artificial surfaces. Keenland/Polytrack/Martin Collins Internation is particularly bad because they are responsible for putting out most of the propaganda about synthetic surfaces and their virtues. In fairness they were installed with good intentions but when Keenland decided to partner with these other companies they did so because they thought every track in America would install Polytrack. Polytrack has proven to be the worst synthetic surface of all.

As far as 50/50 split among Horseplayers :confused: as to their preferences between dirt and sythetic that simply is not true.

In poll after poll it is clear that the majority of Horseplayers prefer dirt.

Even in the HANA survey we have:

41.7% don’t really like wagering on artificial surfaes

31.7% don’t really have a preference

26% like wagering on artificial surfaces

When asked if they want artificial surfaces removed:

34% don’t want artificial surfaces removed.

19.7% don’t care

46.1% would like to have artificial surface removed.

The only question that comes close to 50/50 is whether or not HANA should be working to have artificial surfaces removed.

Maury,you’re dead on when you say “you can’t love a horse”. :ThmbUp:

Jeff, you’re right on about the inconsistency of artificial surfaces. :ThmbUp:

Bottom line is that the only thing that has proven to be true is that they are better in the rain in spite of what happened at Santa Anita.

Other that that artificial surfaces are:

More expensive to maintain.

They wear out with usage, maintenace, and weather.

There are many biases and there were’nt supposed to be any.

In California they said they would help create bigger fields. Another falsehood.

There are more injuries on synthetic but less fatalities overall. I think everyone would agree that there has not been enough time to make a solid evaluation on injuries and fatalites. What everyone should agree on is that synthetic surfaces haven’t lived up to the claims made by the sythetic infomercial. Not by a longshot. LOL

In California even 70% of Trainers want the stuff gone.

P.S. if I made a mistake in adding up the numbers let me know.

[rwwupl]

Love Dirt...is two four letter words.

Synthetics make predictability an ancient word that attacks handicapping... the basis of pari-mutuel wagering.

[Robert Goren]

I know a lot of betters hate synthetic surfaces and I am not very fond of them myself. The next few years will tell the story on them. It will not be about what happens on them, but what happens on dirt. All the numbers aside, the image is the thing. A break down or two in a big race like the Derby will put the pressure on to change. I don't think that most betters realize how close racing is to being force to close their doors in many states. Some favorable law changes are now being held up a coalition of anti gambling forces and animal rights advocates. Both of those groups are gaining in both numbers and power at the state level. Horse racing will not be made illegal per say, but will be allowed to wither on the vine by not being allowed to adapted to today's world. Horse racing does not have many friends these days in the state legislatures and they are getting fewer and fewer with every election.JMO

[Horseplayersbet.com]

It is 50-50, not hate vs. love, but hate vs. don't hate.

[andymays]

It is 50-50, not hate vs. love, but hate vs. don't hate.


What's the old saying? There's a fine line between ........................ :)

[Tom]

Nevertheless, the wisdom of installing synthetic tracks everywhere is debatable.

How many were installed last year in the US?

unlike a dirt track, the same synthetic track will create different running styles from day to day.

Is there data to back this up?

[andymays]

How many were installed last year in the US?



Is there data to back this up?


I didn't make the comments but...................

If you followed Del Mar at all and read the articles on a daily basis you would know this.

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

Excerpt:

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

[Tom]

So, none were installed every place last year, and no data to back up the trainers impressions?

[andymays]

So, none were installed every place last year, and no data to back up the trainers impressions?


Tom, go find the data yourself.

Why do you guys always make absurd comments about synthetic surfaces and then ask other people to back up theirs with data? :rolleyes:

[Jeff P]

Tom,

You should know better <G>...

OF COURSE I have data to back that up... as in every race run at all of the major circuits in North America since synthetics first appeared on the North American scene at Turfway in 2005.

I'm constantly measuring track profiles... inside path vs. outside path... speed favoring vs. speed tiring... large sample distributions of winning horses at individual distances broken down by metrics such like pctE, pctM, run style, etc.

Zast got the gist of what I told him save for a few minor details. I think he mentioned that I had a sample of of 55k horses. What I said was all starters in North America which last year was about 55k races.

If you accumulate the data and study it eventually it hits you:

Synthetic surfaces produce results that "somewhat" mimic results produced by a random number generator.

What do I mean by that?

A data distribution for all starters in races on natural dirt surfaces broken out by something really simple like rank for the horse with the single Best E2 pace fig (using JCapper HDW data) (and with no attempt to break ties) for calendar year 2009 looks like this:
By: SQL-F17 Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -12172.20 88840.00 0.8630 8736 44420 .1967 1.5716
2 -16054.60 86084.00 0.8135 7257 43042 .1686 1.3474
3 -19870.70 85382.00 0.7673 6120 42691 .1434 1.1456
4 -20814.10 84674.00 0.7542 5516 42337 .1303 1.0412
5 -22856.10 82552.00 0.7231 4681 41276 .1134 0.9063
6 -24697.50 76834.00 0.6786 3787 38417 .0986 0.7878
7 -21488.30 63652.00 0.6624 2685 31826 .0844 0.6742
8 -16375.30 46798.00 0.6501 1751 23399 .0748 0.5980
9 -11142.30 31256.00 0.6435 993 15628 .0635 0.5078
10 -7635.50 18414.00 0.5853 496 9207 .0539 0.4305
11 -3039.50 7372.00 0.5877 163 3686 .0442 0.3534
12 -1435.00 3222.00 0.5546 72 1611 .0447 0.3572
13 -240.60 310.00 0.2239 5 155 .0323 0.2578
14 -69.40 106.00 0.3453 3 53 .0566 0.4523
15 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
16 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
17 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
18 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
19 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000

Now here's the same data distribution, all starters in races on synthetic surfaces only broken out by rank for the horse with the Best E2 pace fig (using JCapper HDW data) for calendar year 2009:
By: SQL-F17 Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -2632.00 15242.00 0.8273 1328 7621 .1743 1.3958
2 -2790.90 14810.00 0.8116 1184 7405 .1599 1.2808
3 -2974.30 14640.00 0.7968 1064 7320 .1454 1.1643
4 -3928.30 14504.00 0.7292 910 7252 .1255 1.0051
5 -3100.80 14342.00 0.7838 846 7171 .1180 0.9450
6 -3486.80 12568.00 0.7226 656 6284 .1044 0.8362
7 -2130.10 9990.00 0.7868 474 4995 .0949 0.7601
8 -2124.60 7192.00 0.7046 290 3596 .0806 0.6460
9 -1564.90 4836.00 0.6764 186 2418 .0769 0.6162
10 -969.40 3066.00 0.6838 113 1533 .0737 0.5904
11 -760.60 1816.00 0.5812 46 908 .0507 0.4058
12 -173.40 872.00 0.8011 27 436 .0619 0.4960
13 33.70 256.00 1.1316 6 128 .0469 0.3755
14 -57.90 124.00 0.5331 2 62 .0323 0.2584

Notice that the win rate, impact values, and roi for the top ranked horses on synthetic surfaces suffers when compared to the numbers for the top ranked horses on dirt surfaces.

IMHO, this captures the essence of player frustration with synthetic surfaces.

If E2 pace figs had no effect at all on race outcomes... then the data distribution might look like this one - which is actually the result of using a random number generator to produce a random number between 1 and 100 on the set of all starters on synthetic surfaces for calendar year 2009:
By: RGN

>=Min < Max Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-999.00 5.00 -1102.70 4720.00 0.7664 299 2360 .1267 1.0149
5.00 10.00 -1621.20 5892.00 0.7248 344 2946 .1168 0.9353
10.00 15.00 -1467.30 5714.00 0.7432 354 2857 .1239 0.9925
15.00 20.00 -1531.90 5722.00 0.7323 323 2861 .1129 0.9043
20.00 25.00 -1525.00 5598.00 0.7276 358 2799 .1279 1.0245
25.00 30.00 -1453.00 5660.00 0.7433 340 2830 .1201 0.9624
30.00 35.00 -1359.80 5644.00 0.7591 373 2822 .1322 1.0588
35.00 40.00 -1406.20 5700.00 0.7533 350 2850 .1228 0.9837
40.00 45.00 -1227.30 5702.00 0.7848 387 2851 .1357 1.0873
45.00 50.00 -1777.00 5738.00 0.6903 345 2869 .1203 0.9632
50.00 55.00 -1532.50 5586.00 0.7257 342 2793 .1224 0.9808
55.00 60.00 -882.90 5714.00 0.8455 381 2857 .1334 1.0682
60.00 65.00 -1631.80 5696.00 0.7135 340 2848 .1194 0.9563
65.00 70.00 -1055.00 5708.00 0.8152 370 2854 .1296 1.0385
70.00 75.00 -1246.20 5708.00 0.7817 334 2854 .1170 0.9374
75.00 80.00 -1104.60 5796.00 0.8094 381 2898 .1315 1.0531
80.00 85.00 -1292.60 5666.00 0.7719 352 2833 .1242 0.9953
85.00 90.00 -667.50 5702.00 0.8829 389 2851 .1364 1.0929
90.00 95.00 -1006.50 5652.00 0.8219 360 2826 .1274 1.0204
95.00 999999.00 -1769.30 6940.00 0.7451 410 3470 .1182 0.9465

Take a look at results from the above samples and tell me which set of numbers... those produced by natural dirt... or those produced by synthetics... more closely mimics numbers produced by a random number generator.

Synthetics of course!





Now is this a bad thing?

Depends how you look at it.

If your selection process is married to the idea of using the top ranked horses in terms of <insert name of factor here> only... then you are going to struggle as a player and throw your hands up in disgust... and eventually stop betting synthetics... which is what a lot of players have done.

However, those who adust their selection process to make it more aligned with the way synthetic surfaces alter race outcomes... hint: a willingness to look deeper into a field when identifying contenders helps... so does value based play or pass decision making... players who make adjustments to get the surface working FOR them and not against them... those players can find betting opportunities on synthetic surfaces....

Not easy to do because it takes a fair amount of work... But it absolutely IS doable if you are willing to do the requisite R&D.




-jp

.

[Tom]

Tom, go find the data yourself.

Why do you guys always make absurd comments about synthetic surfaces and then ask other people to back up theirs with data? :rolleyes:

YOU made the statement - I just wanted to see if were talking through your hat or actually had data that YOU had reviewed. You apparently did not.
I KNEW Jeff would , though. Just wanted to see if you had studied it
Btw, when was the last time a dirt track was replaced with poly here in the states?

Thanks, Jeff....I expected no less from you! :ThmbUp:

[andymays]

YOU made the statement - I just wanted to see if were talking through your hat or actually had data that YOU had reviewed. You apparently did not.
I KNEW Jeff would , though. Just wanted to see if you had studied it
Btw, when was the last time a dirt track was replaced with poly here in the states?

Thanks, Jeff....I expected no less from you! :ThmbUp:


So the new standard on the board is to have data to back up everything you say? :lol:

Tom, you made some comments that I would have thought were from someone who never followed racing and you're changing the subject to avoid the emabarrassment of your statements. Keep digging. :lol:

[DJofSD]

Jeff,

I would assume the distribution around the mean value of the impact column would be the criteria used to assert if poly was closer a random sample than dirt. What about skew?

[Jeff P]

Tom,

I see now that you were asking about data related to changes from one day to the next... Yes. I have that too.

Visually, when playing the card at Turfway Park on Fri 3/19/2010, I thought speed was holding pretty well... Here's a data sample for that card broken out by rank for JCapper early Consensus using HDW data...
By: SQL-F20 Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 24.00 24.00 2.0000 4 12 .3333 2.2778
2 -9.60 24.00 0.6000 2 12 .1667 1.1389
3 -13.80 24.00 0.4250 2 12 .1667 1.1389
4 -16.80 24.00 0.3000 1 12 .0833 0.5694
5 -24.00 24.00 0.0000 0 12 .0000 0.0000
6 22.80 20.00 2.1400 3 10 .3000 2.0500
7 -14.00 14.00 0.0000 0 7 .0000 0.0000
8 -8.00 8.00 0.0000 0 4 .0000 0.0000
9 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000

I played the Turfway card the very next day... Sat 3/20/2010. Visually, the reaction of the horses to the surface on that day looked nothing like the reaction of the horses to the surface on the previous day. Here's what that card looked like broken out by JCapper Early Consensus rank...
By: SQL-F20 Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -22.00 22.00 0.0000 0 11 .0000 0.0000
2 -6.80 22.00 0.6909 3 11 .2727 2.0579
3 -8.00 22.00 0.6364 1 11 .0909 0.6860
4 -22.00 22.00 0.0000 0 11 .0000 0.0000
5 -4.80 22.00 0.7818 3 11 .2727 2.0579
6 -11.00 20.00 0.4500 1 10 .1000 0.7545
7 -16.00 16.00 0.0000 0 8 .0000 0.0000
8 41.80 10.00 5.1800 3 5 .6000 4.5273
9 -6.00 6.00 0.0000 0 3 .0000 0.0000
10 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
11 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000


4 for 12 on Friday... 0 for 11 the very next day?

Yes, the same thing can and does happen on dirt surfaces. But I see it happen on synthetics far more often than I do on natural dirt surfaces.


-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

Andrew,

Great work once again!

I feel that one of the reasons serious players don't like synthetic (aka plastic) is because the jockeys manipulate the running styles of horses (especially in sprint races) because they have it in their heads that speed doesn't hold up as well as it does on dirt (right or wrong, its in their heads).

Go take a look at the beginning stages of the 3rd race at Golden Gate (calracing.com) from Sunday March 28th and watch the riders down the backstretch about 15 or 20 seconds into the race. It appears as if none of them realize this is a 6 furlong race. They're riding as if they think its a mile and a half. I think its stuff like this that turns bettors off, the rider 'manipulation' of pace scenarios. This rider manipulation happens more on synthetic than it does on regular dirt. On regular dirt, guys's go. They send their speedy sprinters. If they get into a duel, oh well, that's life, they realize that their horse only has one way of running, he needs to be sent to the lead.

On Synthetic, a race where there are 3 speeds, one speed goes and the other two jocks strangle. On dirt, the 3 speeds GO. This is the difference, it totally messes up all your pace strategy that you've put into your handicap.

Do you know how many horses that got caught behind a slow pace in a sprint race that i have in my stable mail from Golden Gate? Too many. I don't want to be consistently losing money on horses in sprint races because the pace was snail-like and then i see my horse finishing like a rocket for 4th into an 11 and change final eighth. This is the same thing that happened in the Bluegrass a few years ago, it was the bluegrass with Street Sense and that 51 half or whatever it was. Same nonsense. It turned a grade 1 race into a jockeys race, the horses didn't matter, whoever got lucky enough to be in a position turning into the stretch was going to get there, it had not too much to do with actual talent.

[Jeff P]

DJ,

So far as skew... No matter what factor I am researching, almost every data sample that I have ever looked at shows a greater skew (more pronounced effect) for the top ranked horses of <insert name of factor here> vs. the lower ranked horses on natural dirt surfaces than it does on synthetic surfaces.

Meaning?

Things players think of as being handicapping factors... speed figs, pace figs, power ratings, etc., have a general tendency to produce higher win rates for the top ranked horses on natural dirt than they do on synthetics.

I'm not going to do it... but if you were to calculate skew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness for the data samples that I posted, I have very little doubt that skew value for the random results would be closer to the synth results than the natural dirt results.


-jp

.

[andymays]

Andrew,

Great work once again!

I feel that one of the reasons serious players don't like synthetic (aka plastic) is because the jockeys manipulate the running styles of horses (especially in sprint races) because they have it in their heads that speed doesn't hold up as well as it does on dirt (right or wrong, its in their heads).

Go take a look at the beginning stages of the 3rd race at Golden Gate (calracing.com) from Sunday March 28th and watch the riders down the backstretch about 15 or 20 seconds into the race. It appears as if none of them realize this is a 6 furlong race. They're riding as if they think its a mile and a half. I think its stuff like this that turns bettors off, the rider 'manipulation' of pace scenarios. This rider manipulation happens more on synthetic than it does on regular dirt. On regular dirt, guys's go. They send their speedy sprinters. If they get into a duel, oh well, that's life, they realize that their horse only has one way of running, he needs to be sent to the lead.

On Synthetic, a race where there are 3 speeds, one speed goes and the other two jocks strangle. On dirt, the 3 speeds GO. This is the difference, it totally messes up all your pace strategy that you've put into your handicap.

Do you know how many horses that got caught behind a slow pace in a sprint race that i have in my stable mail from Golden Gate? Too many. I don't want to be consistently losing money on horses in sprint races because the pace was snail-like and then i see my horse finishing like a rocket for 4th into an 11 and change final eighth. This is the same thing that happened in the Bluegrass a few years ago, it was the bluegrass with Street Sense and that 51 half or whatever it was. Same nonsense. It turned a grade 1 race into a jockeys race, the horses didn't matter, whoever got lucky enough to be in a position turning into the stretch was going to get there, it had not too much to do with actual talent.


Much of it comes down to the way people handicap the races. Traditionalist like myself read the PP's from the bottom up beginning with workouts since raced and when that is done we watch videos, then workout analysis, and then the post parade and then the odds. I'm sure Crist and many others do it about the same way with some minor differences.

Many of the people who like synthetic surfaces or don't care about the surface handicap using programs or other methods that take other things into consideration. Nothing wrong with that and they are successful for sure handicapping that way.

Anyone who knows me knows I dislike synthetic surfaces with a passion. One of the things I dislike most about them is the dishonest way they were sold to the public. Nobody should be happy when a product they buy fails on so many of the high minded and unrealistic claims.

[classhandicapper]

DJ,

So far as skew... No matter what factor I am researching, almost every data sample that I have ever looked at shows a greater skew (more pronounced effect) for the top ranked horses of <insert name of factor here> vs. the lower ranked horses on natural dirt surfaces than it does on synthetic surfaces.

Meaning?

Things players think of as being handicapping factors... speed figs, pace figs, power ratings, etc., have a general tendency to produce higher win rates for the top ranked horses on natural dirt than they do on synthetics.

I'm not going to do it... but if you were to calculate skew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness for the data samples that I posted, I have very little doubt that skew value for the random results would be closer to the synth results than the natural dirt results.


-jp

.


I don't disagree with what you saying, but some of the studies I have seen suggest that adjusted for field size, odds etc.., favorites do just as well on synthetic. So maybe some handicappers are incorrectly focusing on certain factors that are less powerful on synthetic, but someone is adjusting.

[JohnGalt1]

Jeff,

Great data.

Do the data for All Weather surfaces mimic good/muddy dirt surfaces? And aren't they closer to a slower/good dirt surface than turf?

Because I handicap Poly Track and Tapeta as if they are rated as GOOD dirt tracks even though they are always labeled FAST.

If we expect the same results on a fast Tapeta track as a fast inner sprint at Aquaduct, we will probably be dissappointed.

[Trotman]

I like betting dirt tracks but when tracks like Woodbine offer full fields, that's the hand that's been delt and I will bet my money there. I tend to believe Jeff's data so Andy what you like or dislike need not to be directed at others when you never have any data. You dislike synthetics with a passion, I think there's a few people here that feel the same about you.

[rastajenk]

I remember a Beyer column from when Keeneland went Poly that claimed the elimination of a track bias would lead to the kind of predictability that harness racing produces; and it would follow that big bettors would bail 'cause they could no longer catch decent prices. I guess that's not the case. Maybe Andy should stick to picking Derby winners. ;)

[andymays]

I like betting dirt tracks but when tracks like Woodbine offer full fields, that's the hand that's been delt and I will bet my money there. I tend to believe Jeff's data so Andy what you like or dislike need not to be directed at others when you never have any data. You dislike synthetics with a passion, I think there's a few people here that feel the same about you.


Trotman, get your facts straight before you write something. It would help.

As far as telling me that people here dislike me with a passion I would say that you're the guy that's off base and out of line.

Where's the data on that? :lol:

[Stillriledup]

I like betting dirt tracks but when tracks like Woodbine offer full fields, that's the hand that's been delt and I will bet my money there. I tend to believe Jeff's data so Andy what you like or dislike need not to be directed at others when you never have any data. You dislike synthetics with a passion, I think there's a few people here that feel the same about you.


Everyone who is a fan of the bettor, loves Andy.

:jump:

[andymays]

Everyone who is a fan of the bettor, loves Andy.

:jump:

:lol: This is true except for the people like Trotman who seem to hate me. :D

And Andy loves a dirt surface. :D

[Jeff P]

I don't disagree with what you saying, but some of the studies I have seen suggest that adjusted for field size, odds etc.., favorites do just as well on synthetic. So maybe some handicappers are incorrectly focusing on certain factors that are less powerful on synthetic, but someone is adjusting.
For calendar year 2009 I have post time favorites winning about 34.5% of their races on synthetic surfaces with a flat win bet roi of about 0.84.

For calendar year 2008 I have 32.03% and about 0.81.

I don't have a laptop in front of me with a db on it older than that (I do have the data but it's archived.) but I seem to remember data samples from 2006 and 2007 where the win rate for post time favorites on artificial surfaces barely scratched 30%.

My guess is that money bet has a tendency to become smarter over time. <G>


-jp

.

[andymays]

As the surfaces wear out (or age) they seem to be a little more predictable. For example at the last Santa Anita meet we had close to 50% carryovers. This year it's less. That's one example and the data may be different for other tracks. Of course I don't have the data so sue me. ;)

[Stillriledup]

As the surfaces wear out (or age) they seem to be a little more predictable. For example at the last Santa Anita meet we had close to 50% carryovers. This year it's less. That's one example and the data may be different for other tracks. Of course I don't have the data so sue me. ;)

I remember a few years ago, there used to be quite a few 100K plus carryovers at Golden Gate. To be honest, i can't remember the last time they even had a C/O of over 50 grand. Its been a while.

[fmolf]

i do not wager on any synthetic track races or turf races from tracks whose main oval is synthetic.I have tried in practice handicapping to pick winners on poly and my methods that i have been taught and have nurtured and cultivated just do not seem to work.I think old fashioned paper and pen guys like myself have a hard time switching tacks between the surfaces where as the computer cappers may have an easier time.Excellent posts Jeff you really hit the nail on the head when it comes to my handicapping.

Andy i have found most of your posts to be excellent, from the heart and very passionate keep posting despite the bashing of afew.

[DeanT]

A civil poly-dirt thread! I love it :ThmbUp:

Some excellent points, imo, on computer versus pen and paper capping. In my opinion, if you are not glued to what is winning and how horses are winning on poly by looking above ground with stats, you are going to have a tough time of it.

Jeff and whomever: I can play TP, I can play WOX, I can play KEE. But for the love of god I can not play Del Mar. it is like I am playing chess with Gary Kasparov while blindfolded. Any DMR tips?

[Trotman]

Wrong again Andy, never in my post did I use the word hate, again it's all about facts

[Jeff P]

Jeff,

Great data.

Do the data for All Weather surfaces mimic good/muddy dirt surfaces? And aren't they closer to a slower/good dirt surface than turf?

Because I handicap Poly Track and Tapeta as if they are rated as GOOD dirt tracks even though they are always labeled FAST.

If we expect the same results on a fast Tapeta track as a fast inner sprint at Aquaduct, we will probably be dissappointed.
Interesting idea... handicapping as if they were running on a good surface. :)

Here is calendar year 2009 on natural dirt surfaces in races where the track condition was listed as GD broken out by rank for the horse with the single Best E2 pace fig:
By: SQL-F17 Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -400.50 5158.00 0.9224 519 2579 .2012 1.5805
2 -978.40 5112.00 0.8086 451 2556 .1764 1.3858
3 -818.10 4984.00 0.8359 378 2492 .1517 1.1913
4 -1346.00 4994.00 0.7305 312 2497 .1249 0.9813
5 -1484.00 4816.00 0.6919 253 2408 .1051 0.8252
6 -1236.20 4442.00 0.7217 218 2221 .0982 0.7709
7 -1190.20 3660.00 0.6748 165 1830 .0902 0.7081
8 -465.20 2636.00 0.8235 107 1318 .0812 0.6376
9 -391.70 1708.00 0.7707 50 854 .0585 0.4598
10 -530.30 1114.00 0.5240 28 557 .0503 0.3948
11 -119.30 406.00 0.7062 8 203 .0394 0.3095
12 57.40 168.00 1.3417 6 84 .0714 0.5610
13 2.80 8.00 1.3500 1 4 .2500 1.9634

IMHO, those results are along the lines of what players doing R&D tend to be looking for... and they do not mimic results from synthetics at all.

EDIT: I was curious about MY, SY, HY, etc... Here are calendar year 2009 results broken out by Best E2 for starters on natural dirt when the track condition was listed as MY, SY, or HY...
By: SQL-F17 Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -1180.40 12422.00 0.9050 1288 6211 .2074 1.5992
2 -1886.10 12068.00 0.8437 1069 6034 .1772 1.3662
3 -2170.90 11982.00 0.8188 913 5991 .1524 1.1752
4 -3461.80 11992.00 0.7113 768 5996 .1281 0.9877
5 -3922.30 11416.00 0.6564 627 5708 .1098 0.8471
6 -3080.50 10430.00 0.7047 510 5215 .0978 0.7542
7 -3324.50 8594.00 0.6132 375 4297 .0873 0.6730
8 -2146.00 6044.00 0.6449 216 3022 .0715 0.5512
9 -1629.30 3972.00 0.5898 121 1986 .0609 0.4698
10 -568.80 2238.00 0.7458 70 1119 .0626 0.4824
11 -183.60 788.00 0.7670 18 394 .0457 0.3523
12 -44.40 298.00 0.8510 8 149 .0537 0.4140
13 -28.20 32.00 0.1188 1 16 .0625 0.4820
14 -6.00 6.00 0.0000 0 3 .0000 0.0000
15 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
16 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
17 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
18 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
19 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000

Again, skewed towards the top ranked horses and quite different than samples from synthetics.



All that said, when you say "I handicap Poly Track and Tapeta as if they are rated as GOOD dirt tracks even though they are always labeled FAST"... IMHO, depending on what you do differently you might actually produce some VERY interresting results. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:


-jp

.

[Fager Fan]

Interesting data and discussion, but all you're discussing is how to benefit as a handicapper. As important as the handicapper in racing is the other big gambler -- the owner. How many owners do you suppose want to see the results of races they enter not be about which horse is best in the field that day, but just a random result?

Not to mention that the one thing we have going for us that a roulette table doesn't are the star horses. I'm not big on the idea that the Fagers and Secretariats of racing be relegated to mediocre-status all because some think it's a good idea to run on a surface that doesn't benefit the horses or anyone except the manufacturers and distributors of the stuff.

[andymays]

Wrong again Andy, never in my post did I use the word hate, again it's all about facts


The fact is you don't know what you're talking about. What was it exactly that I disagreed with Jeff about? Do you even know?

Read your prior post again and get back to me.

[Trotman]

Andy Haze you have problems with everyone. You read headlines and then your on it like white on rice. I've read a lot of your postings and there is no rhyme nor reason to who or when you dump on someone, so sad :bang:

[andymays]

Andy Haze you have problems with everyone. You read headlines and then your on it like white on rice. I've read a lot of your postings and there is no rhyme nor reason to who or when you dump on someone, so sad :bang:


I started the thread genius. Read the thread from the start and then make an intelligent comment for once.

I'm still waiting for your answer to my other question.

[Trotman]

Exactly, you start a thread, definition baiting then off you go :lol:

[andymays]

Exactly, you start a thread, definition baiting then off you go :lol:


I got it now. Thanks for explaining. :ThmbUp: :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting for you to explain post #21.

[Jeff P]

Interesting data and discussion, but all you're discussing is how to benefit as a handicapper. As important as the handicapper in racing is the other big gambler -- the owner. How many owners do you suppose want to see the results of races they enter not be about which horse is best in the field that day, but just a random result? Not many I suppose. :lol: :bang:

Just curious, as an owner or a trainer do you make decisions about who rides based on rider effectiveness on synthetics vs. natural dirt?

One of the things I do as a bettor is crank out two essential rider lists... one containing names of those who have proven they know what they are doing on synthetic surfaces (short list) and a second list of those who are... ahem... I'll be kind here... not quite there yet. <G>


-jp

.

[Tom]

Wrong again Andy, never in my post did I use the word hate, again it's all about facts

Funny, HE used the word hate and can't back it up. And you used the F word there! :D

[andymays]

Funny, HE used the word hate and can't back it up. And you used the F word there! :D


Keep rewriting history my "friend". Misleading people seems to be a new thing for you. I'm sorry to see it.

Saying someone hates polytrack isn't the same as using the word when talking about people but that seems to be the implication.

I'm still waiting for your buddy to explain post #21. Or didn't you read it?

Once again anyone can read the thread from the start and get a the truth.

[Tom]

Not many I suppose. :lol: :bang:

Just curious, as an owner or a trainer do you make decisions about who rides based on rider effectiveness on synthetics vs. natural dirt?

One of the things I do as a bettor is crank out two essential rider lists... one containing names of those who have proven they know what they are doing on synthetic surfaces (short list) and a second list of those who are... ahem... I'll be kind here... not quite there yet. <G>


-jp

.

I do pretty well on synthetics, using CJ figures and breeding to know who can run on both surfaces, and use his conversin idea when dirt and synth lines are mixed. I admit it not as formful as dirt, but my biggest lifetime scores have come on AWS tracks. I pay a lot more attention to fitness and foundation than I do on dirt.

[Trotman]

Ok Andy 21 BLACKJACK

[andymays]

Ok Andy 21 BLACKJACK


I'm still waiting for you to explain post #21.

If you want to throw bombs then throw them like a man.

[PaceAdvantage]

I would appreciate the personal shit be eliminated...thanks...

[boogazie]

Data can be easily manipulated to say what you want.

The statement that the data of synthetic tracks resembles a random number generator more that a dirt track is "true".

However, it is a really a skewed comparison because the synthetic tracks doesn't resemble the random number generator by themselves. It's like saying a kiwi most resembles dirt than an apple because it is brown...

Also, I could say instead based on your data: for both synthetic tracks and dirt tracks the top 3 pace figures win consistently more often in that order when compared to one another.

[Jeff P]

Data can be easily manipulated to say what you want.

The statement that the data of synthetic tracks resembles a random number generator more that a dirt track is "true".

However, it is a really a skewed comparison because the synthetic tracks doesn't resemble the random number generator by themselves. It's like saying a kiwi most resembles dirt than an apple because it is brown...

Also, I could say instead based on your data: for both synthetic tracks and dirt tracks the top 3 pace figures win consistently more often in that order when compared to one another.Agreed.

Please understand that I'm not trying to bash the surface.

There's a much bigger issue here... and it's far more important than what one player (me) might think about artificial surfaces.

I posted results from data samples because I'm trying to communicate the way a significant demographic of players sees these surfaces. I'm hoping by doing this that that industry decision makers who lurk here can see where at least some of the player frustration with synthetic surfaces comes from.

When asked about sythetic surfaces in the HANA member survey, here's how our membership responded:
http:www.jcapper.com/hana/synthresults.jpg

It's time to rip out artificial surfaces and go back to dirt:

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
-------- -------- ------- ------- --------
19.1% 14.6% 19.7% 15.2% 30.9%The repsonse to this question tells me that players are divided on the issue of synthetics.

Even divided, if 30% of the customer base thinks it's time to rip out artificial surfaces and go back to dirt... and you're running a meet on an artificial surface you've got a problem... It essentially tells you that at least 30% of your customer base is going to wager less.

Here in California the CHRB essentially forced every track in the state to alienate a significant percentage of its customer base.

IMHO, that mandate has exacted a toll on the entire industry here. Players haven't embraced synthetic surfaces with their handle... eventually forcing tracks to announce purse cuts... leading to horsemen sending strings of horses elsewhere... leading to smaller and smaller fields... leading to further depressed handle... Right now in California we have two tracks in bankruptcy and satellite wagering outlets in need of bailouts just to meet payroll.

IMHO, it time to DO something to break the cycle. It all comes back to the customer. In every economy, businesses that satisfy customer needs and wants are the businesses that thrive. Businesses that fail to satisfy customer needs and wants are the businesses that fail.

Pretty simple actually.

By posting data samples, and from some of the responses in this thread... I'm hoping certain industry decision makers who lurk here can at least begin to understand player frustration when it comes to artificial surfaces.



-jp

.

[rwwupl]

Agreed.

Please understand that I'm not trying to bash the surface.

There's a much bigger issue here... and it's far more important than what one player (me) might think about artificial surfaces.

I posted results from data samples because I'm trying to communicate the way a significant demographic of players sees these surfaces. I'm hoping by doing this that that industry decision makers who lurk here can see where at least some of the player frustration with synthetic surfaces comes from.

When asked about sythetic surfaces in the HANA member survey, here's how our membership responded:
http:www.jcapper.com/hana/synthresults.jpg

It's time to rip out artificial surfaces and go back to dirt:

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
-------- -------- ------- ------- --------
19.1% 14.6% 19.7% 15.2% 30.9%The repsonse to this question tells me that players are divided on the issue of synthetics.

Even divided, if 30% of the customer base thinks it's time to rip out artificial surfaces and go back to dirt... and you're running a meet on an artificial surface you've got a problem... It essentially tells you that at least 30% of your customer base is going to wager less.

Here in California the CHRB essentially forced every track in the state to alienate a significant percentage of its customer base.

IMHO, that mandate has exacted a toll on the entire industry here. Players haven't embraced synthetic surfaces with their handle... eventually forcing tracks to announce purse cuts... leading to horsemen sending strings of horses elsewhere... leading to smaller and smaller fields... leading to further depressed handle... Right now in California we have two tracks in bankruptcy and satellite wagering outlets in need of bailouts just to meet payroll.

IMHO, it time to DO something to break the cycle. It all comes back to the customer. In every economy, businesses that satisfy customer needs and wants are the businesses that thrive. Businesses that fail to satisfy customer needs and wants are the businesses that fail. Pretty simple actually.

By posting data samples, and from some of the responses in this thread... I'm hoping certain industry decision makers who lurk here can at least begin to understand player frustration when it comes to artificial surfaces.

-jp

.


Great post, Jeff

The decision makers in our game are not primarily horseplayers and horseplayers find it difficult to communicate a consensus to them. Your work is most valuable in this regard.

For those who do not know,Jeff has been invited to participate as a consultant, representing HANA in certain matters by the CHRB in the new Legislative Planning Committee created by new Chairman Keith Brackpool.

Jeffs' objectivity and data is a real asset for all of us. :ThmbUp:

[Indulto]

Great post, Jeff

The decision makers in our game are not primarily horseplayers and horseplayers find it difficult to communicate a consensus to them. Your work is most valuable in this regard.

For those who do not know,Jeff has been invited to participate as a consultant, representing HANA in certain matters by the CHRB in the new Legislative Planning Committee created by new Chairman Keith Brackpool.

Jeffs' objectivity and data is a real asset for all of us. :ThmbUp:Very good news. Thanks for sharing it.

[JohnGalt1]

Interesting idea... handicapping as if they were running on a good surface. :)

Here is calendar year 2009 on natural dirt surfaces in races where the track condition was listed as GD broken out by rank for the horse with the single Best E2 pace fig:
By: SQL-F17 Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -400.50 5158.00 0.9224 519 2579 .2012 1.5805
2 -978.40 5112.00 0.8086 451 2556 .1764 1.3858
3 -818.10 4984.00 0.8359 378 2492 .1517 1.1913
4 -1346.00 4994.00 0.7305 312 2497 .1249 0.9813
5 -1484.00 4816.00 0.6919 253 2408 .1051 0.8252
6 -1236.20 4442.00 0.7217 218 2221 .0982 0.7709
7 -1190.20 3660.00 0.6748 165 1830 .0902 0.7081
8 -465.20 2636.00 0.8235 107 1318 .0812 0.6376
9 -391.70 1708.00 0.7707 50 854 .0585 0.4598
10 -530.30 1114.00 0.5240 28 557 .0503 0.3948
11 -119.30 406.00 0.7062 8 203 .0394 0.3095
12 57.40 168.00 1.3417 6 84 .0714 0.5610
13 2.80 8.00 1.3500 1 4 .2500 1.9634

IMHO, those results are along the lines of what players doing R&D tend to be looking for... and they do not mimic results from synthetics at all.

EDIT: I was curious about MY, SY, HY, etc... Here are calendar year 2009 results broken out by Best E2 for starters on natural dirt when the track condition was listed as MY, SY, or HY...
By: SQL-F17 Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -1180.40 12422.00 0.9050 1288 6211 .2074 1.5992
2 -1886.10 12068.00 0.8437 1069 6034 .1772 1.3662
3 -2170.90 11982.00 0.8188 913 5991 .1524 1.1752
4 -3461.80 11992.00 0.7113 768 5996 .1281 0.9877
5 -3922.30 11416.00 0.6564 627 5708 .1098 0.8471
6 -3080.50 10430.00 0.7047 510 5215 .0978 0.7542
7 -3324.50 8594.00 0.6132 375 4297 .0873 0.6730
8 -2146.00 6044.00 0.6449 216 3022 .0715 0.5512
9 -1629.30 3972.00 0.5898 121 1986 .0609 0.4698
10 -568.80 2238.00 0.7458 70 1119 .0626 0.4824
11 -183.60 788.00 0.7670 18 394 .0457 0.3523
12 -44.40 298.00 0.8510 8 149 .0537 0.4140
13 -28.20 32.00 0.1188 1 16 .0625 0.4820
14 -6.00 6.00 0.0000 0 3 .0000 0.0000
15 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
16 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
17 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
18 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
19 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000

Again, skewed towards the top ranked horses and quite different than samples from synthetics.



All that said, when you say "I handicap Poly Track and Tapeta as if they are rated as GOOD dirt tracks even though they are always labeled FAST"... IMHO, depending on what you do differently you might actually produce some VERY interresting results. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:


-jp

.


Thanks for responding.

While I do treat certain synthetics like a good track in deciding which paceline is more representative for todays race, I know all good, or all off tracks are not the same.

One additional factor I make a figure for, is William L. Scott's Performance Class Rating. It reflects how horses run on any surface.

Horses, in form, with one of the top three PCRs, with one of the top three Total Pace Ratings, should be competitive on any surface.