Question for CJ on Belmont Track Variant.

[bobphilo]

CJ, making a dirt variant on Belmont day must have been a bear. The Met's final time seemed to indicate the track was lightning fast while the final time for the Brooklyn and Belmont were terrible. Could the first turn in those races be due to a very slow 1st turn or were the horses in those races just that slow?

[classhandicapper]

I haven't looked at the times, but when I got there for the 1st race the track looked kind of dried out to me. Once the races started they were watering it after every race. Some people started questioning how the track was playing. Then they switched to watering twice between races. By the end of the day there was plenty of moisture in the track and it seemed to be playing much more honest.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

CJ, making a dirt variant on Belmont day must have been a bear. The Met's final time seemed to indicate the track was lightning fast while the final time for the Brooklyn and Belmont were terrible. Could the first turn in those races be due to a very slow 1st turn or were the horses in those races just that slow?

I actually didn't have any problem. I used the same variant for every race other than the last race. The biggest issue I had was with the Brooklyn and the Belmont. On paper the Belmont shouldn't have been a second faster, but that is what happened. I went with the same variant and gave the Belmont a 120 and the Brooklyn a 115. Beyer went the other route and split them, 102 and 103.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

I actually didn't have any problem. I used the same variant for every race other than the last race. The biggest issue I had was with the Brooklyn and the Belmont. On paper the Belmont shouldn't have been a second faster, but that is what happened. I went with the same variant and gave the Belmont a 120 and the Brooklyn a 115. Beyer went the other route and split them, 102 and 103.

Hmm. It just seem odd that you used he same variant for the Met Wile, with such a good time, as with the Bklyn and Belmont, with very poor times. I guess that the Met winner was just so much better than the horses in the other 2 races.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Hmm. It just seem odd that you used he same variant for the Met Wile, with such a good time, as with the Bklyn and Belmont, with very poor times. I guess that the Met winner was just so much better than the horses in the other 2 races.

The Met final time figure was actually a 135, just downgraded some overall due to the slow pace. I probably also use a different chart than others, my 12f chart has slowed over the years as the horses have slowed.

The winner of the Met is a very good horse obviously. He ran 132 at Lone Star last out winning a G3. I actually drove the three hours to go see the race in person. He is quite the specimen.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

The Met final time figure was actually a 135, just downgraded some overall due to the slow pace. I probably also use a different chart than others, my 12f chart has slowed over the years as the horses have slowed.

The winner of the Met is a very good horse obviously. He ran 132 at Lone Star last out winning a G3. I actually drove the three hours to go see the race in person. He is quite the specimen.

Got it. Mor Spirit was just that good.

Not sure I agree with the practice of lowering the bar on 12 furlong races because modern horses are not good in those. If they cannot run a distance well shouldn't their figures reflect that? Isn't that rewarding mediocrity.

BTW, am eagerly awaiting your pace figures for the Belmont . I'm going to do a pace analysis based on my deviation from even pace, as discussed in a thread from way back. It expect it will agree pretty closely with your pace figures as it has in the past.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Got it. Mor Spirit was just that good.

Not sure I agree with the practice of lowering the bar on 12 furlong races because modern horses are not good in those. If they cannot run a distance well shouldn't their figures reflect that? Isn't that rewarding mediocrity.

BTW, am eagerly awaiting your pace figures for the Belmont . I'm going to do a pace analysis based on my deviation from even pace, as discussed in a thread from way back. It expect it will agree pretty closely with your pace figures as it has in the past.

The goal of speed figures, at least as I learned it from reading Beyer, is to equate like performances at different distances and use that to figure out how fast the track is on a given day. That is what I'm doing by occasionally adjusting the speed charts. I'm not talking often, like every five years or so.

I think most people are using speed figures for betting, not to make historical comparisons. If you don't do as I do, it also makes it tougher to make speed figures on a daily basis because you are forced to never compare routes and sprints together.

That is why I do it, but I understand your point.

[Bullet Plane]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

CJ, making a dirt variant on Belmont day must have been a bear. The Met's final time seemed to indicate the track was lightning fast while the final time for the Brooklyn and Belmont were terrible. Could the first turn in those races be due to a very slow 1st turn or were the horses in those races just that slow?

I don't know, haven't had a chance to look at all the races.

However, it looks like it might have been a split variant from Beyer.

The Brooklyn, the 3rd, received a 102 for a time of 2:31
The Belmont, the 11th, received a 103 for a time of 2:30 both at 1 1/2


And the Easy Goer, the 2nd, was 1:41.50 received a 99

the 5th, Ogden Phipps, also at a mile and 1/16 received a 97 for 1:42.24

Seems like they should have more spread in the numbers, unless there was a split variant.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Bullet Plane

I don't know, haven't had a chance to look at all the races.

However, it looks like it might have been a split variant from Beyer.

The Brooklyn, the 3rd, received a 102 for a time of 2:31
The Belmont, the 11th, received a 103 for a time of 2:30 both at 1 1/2


And the Easy Goer, the 2nd, was 1:41.50 received a 99

the 5th, Ogden Phipps, also at a mile and 1/16 received a 97 for 1:42.24

Seems like they should have more spread in the numbers, unless there was a split variant.

The track looked very dried out on Friday and seemed to be playing to outside closers. After the first few races Saturday people immediately started speculating it was playing the same way. But like I said, in the middle of the card the maintenance crew started watering it heavier between races. It was a warm sunny day that was probably drying the track out and the crew was trying to keep the track honest and consistent.

This is one of those subjective judgement calls that explain why figure makers disagree all the time. There's no way to prove whether the track changed speeds or not, but I think the amount of moisture in the track was changing.

[cj]

I could have broken out the first two races at 8.5f, or all three 8.5f races, and they would have been slower while the others would have been a little faster. I opted not to do that and may re-visit with more time this week. I try not to over-analyze when doing this stuff but it never hurts to look with fresh eyes a few days later.

That said, I would not split the two 12f races. I just don't see any evidence there is a reason to do so. If anything the track was faster early in the card, not slower. I just think the Brooklyn horses wanted no parts of 12f. War Story looked beaten before re-rallying. I think the others just collapsed.

[classhandicapper]

I have no strong opinion one way or the other. I just wanted to add my observation about what was going on at the track because I have a bias question related to the watering also.

I made the rail bad on Friday and thought the track was playing more to closers. That's why I came into Belmont day thinking the same might be true again after watching the first few races. But it didn't look bad by the middle of the card. So I don't know if the track changed because of the extra watering or it was honest from the start.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I have no strong opinion one way or the other. I just wanted to add my observation about what was going on at the track because I have a bias question related to the watering also.

I made the rail bad on Friday and thought the track was playing more to closers. That's why I came into Belmont day thinking the same might be true again after watching the first few races. But it didn't look bad by the middle of the card. So I don't know if the track changed because of the extra watering or it was honest from the start.

We had the track blue meaning speed had a very tough time of it on Friday.

The reason I played the day straight is because if anything, watering the track speeds it up, doesn't slow it down.

[bobphilo]

After reading CJ's explanation I understand that the variant was not responsible for the Belmont's figure being fairly good for such a poor time on a track that was not that slow. I now see that the figure was based on lowering the bar on 12 furlongs races because modern horses stink a it. As I said before,
this inflates the figure and does not indicate how poor the performance was. If their performances stink, so should their figures. It implies that these horses 12 furlong performances were as good as their performances at other distances -not so.
I think that the Timeform figures throughout the day for all other distances were spot on.