The Great Equalizer?

[mountainman]

I'm an staunch advocate of conventional dirt and am deeply skeptical when any handicapper claims to have synthetics dialed in. It's chaos I SAY!!!! In fairness, however, some questions have recently occured to me. If, for instance, all-weather tracks truly are the kind of equalizer that makes it impossible to 'love' a horse, and turn races into crapshoots, shouldn't they also tend to equalize trainers and riders- at least percentage-wise? Those respective standings are purely a reflection of what happens on the track-surface, right? And shouldn't the advantage of 'class' be muted as well? I mean, chaos is chaos and should make few exceptions for quality. And how about win-streaks? Shouldn't there be fewer of them put together if results are in fact more random on fake-tracks? And shouldn't trainers experience fewer peaks and valleys? On a similar tangent, wouldn't positive tests on winning horses be less common if synthetics are indeed some powerful agent of chaos rendering cheating trainers less dominant or able to pull off miracles? Perhaps these suppositions are indeed the case, but I haven't researched or sought to answer these queries. I wonder if anyone has.

In a sense, the synthetic/dirt debate strikes me as analogous to political ideals. Progressives want a surface that promotes socialism and a sharing of the wealth, these include longshot players who want 'underprivileged' bombs on more tickets and in the winner's circle. Conservatives want excellence readily and consistently rewarded. They are content with the status quo and want racing's rigid hierarchy of horses, jockeys, owners and trainers (and even handicappers) perpetuated. Any thoughts out there?

[Greyfox]

I'm an staunch advocate of conventional dirt and am deeply skeptical when any handicapper claims to have synthetics dialed in. It's chaos I SAY!!!!

Your first premise that it's chaos is flawed.
If you believe that you won't win.
Every poly track has it's own idiosyncrasies.
When you find out what they are, they are very playable.
Some record keeping/ and or astute observation as to what is winning on a given surface and who is winning is required.

[mountainman]

Your first premise that it's chaos is flawed.
If you believe that you won't win.
Every poly track has it's own idiosyncrasies.
When you find out what they are, they are very playable.
Some record keeping/ and or astute observation as to what is winning on a given surface and who is winning is required.

Cool. My post was intended to solicit different points of view.

[ranchwest]

Yeah, but the thought of my politics being analagous to my thoughts on track surfaces is a bit distressing. :blush:

I seem to do okay with handicapping WO, HOL, AP and SA, though my preferred wagering is on dirt over AW. With GG, mixed results. I don't usually play too many other AW tracks.

[Robert Goren]

We need some Chaos or every pool would be negative. If there is anything bitched about more than poly these days, it is all even money or less favorites. The day of the 2/1 favorite has all but disappeared. JMO

[DeanT]

I have been doing some work on different surfaces lately in my spare time. Interestingly enough, for 2010, dirt and synth have mirroring impact values for the top three factors, which can illustrate predictibility.

Chalk predicts winners #1 of all factors on both surfaces, followed by morning line oddsmakers and Bris Prime Power. I have a larger field size on synth, so standardizing the data, they are close. I see very little chaos this year. To me there are three possible reasons we see no chaos the past while: 1) The crowd is getting better 2) trainers are getting better in placing their stock on synth and / or 3) They are learning better track maintenance

Synthetic win percentage and IV's top three items:

Key Factors Rank = 1 sorted by Impact Value Run Date: 4/30/2010 12:28:15 AM
************************************************** **************************************
WIN WIN WIN PLACE PLACE
FACTOR PLAYS WINS PCT IMPACT ROI PLACES PCT ROI
************************************************** **************************************
POST TIME FAVS 1340 462 0.3448 2.6086 0.8245 753 0.5619 0.8621
MORNINGLINE 1292 386 0.2988 2.2606 0.7325 677 0.524 0.821
PRIME 1541 446 0.2894 2.1895 0.8235 770 0.4997 0.8509


Dirt, top three factors in 2010, win percentage/impact value.

************************************************** **************************************
Key Factors Rank = 1 sorted by Impact Value Run Date: 4/30/2010 12:32:13 AM
************************************************** **************************************
WIN WIN WIN PLACE PLACE
FACTOR PLAYS WINS PCT IMPACT ROI PLACES PCT ROI
************************************************** **************************************
POST TIME FAVS 8238 3011 0.3655 2.9569 0.8447 4752 0.5768 0.8873
MORNINGLINE 8078 2622 0.3246 2.626 0.8321 4303 0.5327 0.859
PRIME F30 9028 2859 0.3167 2.5621 0.8597 4705 0.5212 0.8819

[Tom]

Many dirt tacks are great equalizers. :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

Cool. My post was intended to solicit different points of view.

True. But upon further reflection of your post, I think the original comments about "Great Equalizer" and "Chaos" were most likely made "tongue in cheek."
I know that you're too good a handicapper to not notice win streaks (Zenyatta)
and how the same trainers and riders are surfacing like cream.
Good try, but I'm on to you. :ThmbUp:

[mountainman]

True. But upon further reflection of your post, I think the original comments about "Great Equalizer" and "Chaos" were most likely made "tongue in cheek."
I know that you're too good a handicapper to not notice win streaks (Zenyatta)
and how the same trainers and riders are surfacing like cream.
Good try, but I'm on to you. :ThmbUp:

Actually, I have been dismissive of synthetic surfaces, but it recently occured to me that comprehensive proof that they produce chaotic results just may not exist.

[lamboguy]

Actually, I have been dismissive of synthetic surfaces, but it recently occured to me that comprehensive proof that they produce chaotic results just may not exist.
synthetic is the great equalizer, the pro-ride took me for a ride last year with 2 real good 2 yo's. my horses did not have the right type of bottom for synthetic surface and both got synthetic type injury's last year. one of them broke down completely after a synthetic to natural change of surface. the other one was good too, and she never got to run until january, and when she finally ran she won first time out at the bottom in phillly. she seems to be doing better now and moving up the ladder slightly but nothling like we expected of her this time last year.

[46zilzal]

There is no chaos at Woodbine...A great, consistent, often front running course unique in the synthetic environment.

[Tom]

I suspect a lot of it has to do with the track maintenance crew. WO provides a lot of daily information for the bettors, which tells me they are a first class outfit. SA, on the other hand, leaves me with the impression they collectively could not flush a toilet out there. Wait, does Frankeeeeee own SA? :rolleyes::lol: