Sythetic surfaces

[Track Phantom]

Is it me or does synthetic racing just produce a bunch of random results? This is the first year I've really focused on Del Mar and I cannot believe how many horses win that appear to be completely random and not based on any legitimate handicapping principles.

Does anyone feel the same way or do you feel there is predictability?

[therussmeister]

I hated Keeneland the first year they had polytrack, but now I like it. The track changed, not me. I did well enough the first few years at Arlington, then things seemed to become unhinged. The track changed, not me. This year I didn't play Arlington at all - until last Saturday, when I needed a substitute for Monmouth. I made a small fortune there, but still there were a few results that seemed to be mysteries. Although I do have a few ideas to on how to solve those mysteries, I need more data.

I haven't played any other synthetics.

[Stillriledup]

I wouldnt say its random as much as its 'different'. What i mean by that is that i feel handicapping the Poly, you need to apply totally different logic than you do handicapping the dirt. So, if you are used to handicapping dirt, the poly can produce 'random' results. If you know how to handicap the poly, these 'random' results can appear predictable.

I think Del Mar has gotten 'easier' over the years to predict and there are less and less 'unexplainable' results imo.

I do agree with you that dirt is more 'predictable' for what most of us do on a daily basis, but on the flip side of things, as a horseplayer, you want the learning curve high and you want it to be extremely hard to pick winners.

The harder it is to select winners the more shot you have to get really lucky and pull down some large cash.

[Track Phantom]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]I wouldnt say its random as much as its 'different'. What i mean by that is that i feel handicapping the Poly, you need to apply totally different logic than you do handicapping the dirt. So, if you are used to handicapping dirt, the poly can produce 'random' results. If you know how to handicap the poly, these 'random' results can appear predictable.
[QUOTE]

Totally different logic meaning....?

[Stillriledup]

[QUOTE=Valento][QUOTE=Stillriledup]I wouldnt say its random as much as its 'different'. What i mean by that is that i feel handicapping the Poly, you need to apply totally different logic than you do handicapping the dirt. So, if you are used to handicapping dirt, the poly can produce 'random' results. If you know how to handicap the poly, these 'random' results can appear predictable.

Totally different logic meaning....?

You just have to learn what wins and what loses. You have to learn biases, how certain jocks ride the track, how important it is for each horse to 'like' the surface and so on. I just meant its a trial and error basis and i've found in my own handicapping, that the way i 'liked to pick em' on dirt didnt translate to plastic. Im sure each handicapper is different, but for me personally, it was a large learning curve.

[jorcus]

I played Woodbine a lot last year but quit because I had a hard time finding value on horses I liked and there was a lot of late money bet downs. A few things I discovered about that track was the importance of trips and the effect of the last race on the horses condition.

The ideal trip at that track was to break clean, settle into a good position in the 2 or 3 path and save as much horse as you can for a grinding drive home. What you don't want to do is make a sudden move on your horse. A quick move early on the turn will tire a horse quickly. You would often see the lesser jockeys out of position early make a quick wide move on the turn only to run out of gas in the stretch. The early fight for position is often the key to the race. You might forgive a horse that had one of those spun wide trips.

The other factor is the effect polytrack seems to have on a horse after a tough race. I call it poly burn. If a horse is in an all out stretch drive they seem to bounce hard off those efforts. Much more so than grass or dirt races. On the other hand if a horse has a nice run down the poly with a solid run out they often do well next time out. This may not be the case at all polytracks but I don't watch much of poly racing anymore.

Originally Posted by Valento

Is it me or does synthetic racing just produce a bunch of random results? This is the first year I've really focused on Del Mar and I cannot believe how many horses win that appear to be completely random and not based on any legitimate handicapping principles.

Does anyone feel the same way or do you feel there is predictability?

[Some_One]

The key to poly is that usually many horses have a chance to win, and not just the 1 or 2 standouts you see on dirt sprints. If you insist on betting only one horse to win, your variance will be much higher. Stop betting the short prices and bet all the price horses that could win (even if it means betting up to 4 or 5 in a large field), works with me with NP.

[toussaud]

i like poly for the reason that people seem to be less unsure, you get alot more 5/2-3-1 favs on poly even in 5-6 horse races.

i approach them exactly like turf races

[Robert Fischer]

Synthetic tracks have to observed to determine whether there is any bias.

Other than that it's pretty straightforward.

[Bruddah]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Synthetic tracks have to observed to determine whether there is any bias.
Other than that it's pretty straightforward.

Quirky-ness would be a more apt term. (JMHO)