Let's talk about mud (SAR 7th)
 

If nothing else, it's hard to search the forum for mud threads. With off track at Saratoga today, seems like an opportune time to bring it up.

What do you do about mud? Do you have much faith in mud pedigree? Does demonstrated mud performance become the prevailing handicapping factor? Does mud not make as much difference as the public thinks? Is it an invitation to play the race for total chaos? Do you find a dry track to play instead?

I just took a swing at SAR 7th. Thought the :2: was overlooked at 6/1 and the obvious play. She'd prevailed against the toughest the fastest of all these in the mud, and had pedigree to back it up. She ran with little interest today, despite a notable turf-dirt angle (although not really a "move" with off the turf).

It was easy to toss the three favorites, with humdrum mud performance and pedigree. I bet :2: to win and dutched her over the :9: :10: :13: in the exacta; all those companions had demonstrated mud talent and pedigree over the others, and seemed logical pace companions with :2: . The :13: did place but there was very little to recommend the winner, :3: , mud or otherwise. The co-favorite :6: and :11: were not surprises rounding out the super, but still, what happened to the horses that had mud merits ( :2: :9: :10: and even :4: )? I guess MTO :13: wound up nearly a 4/1 proposition in the place pool, so that's not too shabby, but mainly because the bomb won.

Anyway, mud. What say you?

There is nothing definitive that you can say about the mud, IMO. You can't say with certainty that past prowess in the mud is an indication of future success...because not all muddy surfaces are the same. Even at the same racetrack, the wet surfaces vary greatly...and the posted track condition is seldom to be taken at face value.

I have never found anything even remotely reliable to use when handicapping for muddy conditions, so, I stay away from wet surfaces. There are enough questions begging to be answered when handicapping these races; I don't need to also have to deal with the effects of the adverse track condition. With the number of races at my disposal...I can usually find a better spot for my money.

This is a sharp post.

I believe ths to be true, I think if you know not all surfaces are the same, you can gain a great edge betting against an over bet horse who's 1 for 1 in the wet when the wet surface seems to be playing differently.

Watch the warm-up closely. Nothing is guaranteed at the track, but once in a while you can spot a horse you think will run poorly and a horse you think will improve. Tread lightly though.

As I said...I can find better spots for my money.

There are a number of handicappers who think the same way, as evidenced by the many Saratoga on-line tourneys, muddy today, that didn't reach the minimum contestants for a "go"......

Thank you kindly, thaskalos. Part of the contrarian small-timer in me wants to read this as "where the sharpies step out, consider stepping in," but looks like this is one to take at face value. Unless you can parse out the nuances of varying degrees of "good," "sloppy," and track bias to the umpteenth degree that you and SRU mention, best to focus on more formful scenarios.

As for warm-up watching with ronsmac, that's the subject of a whole 'nuther thread, which I just might start. Thanks again.

I actually found that the Tomlinson ratings really are "pretty good", or, at least, the best predictive measure I've ever seen.

... but to tell you the truth, I never seriously bet on a wet surface. My rule is literally "not even one drop of rain".

I have a few "favorite" sires that I will look for when tracks come up wet and will sometimes make "action" bets on these. I also use the Tomlinson numbers but usually only for young horses as they can lead you to "who should handle the surface", but not necessarily win over the surface. I also, when they are made available, look for shoe changes. Even with all this info, if a horse is not one I already have in my top 3 or 4 choices I will pass the race. Scheduled for turf but now off turf races get a big X right thru them and move on to the next. I have, more times than I can count, handicapped an entire card and played nothing because of track conditions.

For the record, I usually do poorly in the mud. 2015 was my best year ever on sloppy or muddy tracks though. Oaklawn had more off tracks than I ever rememeberd this year and it was the only track I bet.

"When the rains come...I gather my belongings and go home", wrote the inimitable Tom Ainslie some 50 years ago. I thought that I knew better, because I considered Ainslie to be the timid, unadventurous type.

What a fool I was... :)

Old Tom Ainsle, the guy who said never bet an exacta or dd. A couple decades.later he was selling his exacta picks in the n.y. papers. Gotta love him.

I agree with your assertion that a horse mud performance is in part based on its pedigree.

However I don't subscribe to the notion that an "off-track" surface cannot be reliably assessed or measured and as stated by a very smart man, Neil deGrasse Tyson, "science is correct even if you don't believe it."

Therefore surface resistivy (invariably and erroneously called track variant) can be calculated reliably under all environmental conditions with the application of both the static and kinetic coefficients of friction between the horse's motion and the track's surface.

What science tells us is that it takes more force for a horse to accelerate from the gate (about 3.67x) than it does when the horse is at cruising speed.

On an "off-track" the coefficients will increase and the horse that demonstrates the greater and sustainable increase will be the best off-track performer.

Keep in mind that this is only part of solving the horse's off-track performance; understanding pedigree is the other part.

Also these calculations are quite easily made on Excel without having a strong math or science background.

Let us know when you post your off track selections please.