Question for Cali players

[WinterTriangle]

To everyone who responded, thank you so much. I'm really getting a lot out of your replies, explanations, and book materials suggested .

To Mr Fischer:

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Please don't ask for this game to be simplified.

Oh great master, forgive me for asking a question. Surely you're not serious? Where did I ask anyone to "simplify" anything? I asked for information, you know, ways to learn. Insights.

That's the most ungracious snobby reply I've ever received from anyone when asking to learn something.

Great for racing, huh?

FORUMS ARE ABOUT SHARING.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by WinterTriangle

That's the most ungracious snobby reply I've ever received from anyone when asking to learn something.

don't let one jerk's reply spoil it for you

I probably did a poor job of reading your post, and I may have assumed it was another synthetic-basher



the fact that you notice differences is a good start. I'd recommend starting separate from any consideration of surface, with the horses you know are good enough to compete, and the horses who you don't know enough about to eliminate.
Then maybe, maybe 1 horse who was good enough to win anyway will have an EXTREME disadvantage in pedigree or style that he can't win on the track.
In a race like the Goodwood, Mine That Bird isn't good enough to win from the first comparison before considering the surface, and he figure to be one of the favorites, so he is the kind of horse you look to toss...

[WinterTriangle]

thank you robert, you're a stand-up guy.

Nah, I'm not a synth basher, I guess if I was, I wouldn't be interested in learning it.

I'm one of those "adapt or die" persons. So, I'm determined not to avoid it. I strive to be somewhat flexible, have found that to be a *survival skill*

I can decide not to like it, once I understand it. But not liking it just because I don't understand it ......... naw.

[illinoisbred]

Originally Posted by WinterTriangle

thank you robert, you're a stand-up guy.

Nah, I'm not a synth basher, I guess if I was, I wouldn't be interested in learning it.

I'm one of those "adapt or die" persons. So, I'm determined not to avoid it. I strive to be somewhat flexible, have found that to be a *survival skill*

I can decide not to like it, once I understand it. But not liking it just because I don't understand it ......... naw.

excellent philosophy-the sport is dynamic, always changing.

[kitts]

To speak to the question from another loyal horseplayer abour me and early speed-

When I first started having a profitable meet or two, I noticed that the horses that won many races were usually on or near the lead. I then tended to gravitate to this horse. With Synthetic, they no longer dominate like they used to. I am pleased to do well eoungh at GG, DMR, HOL and still do not do well at SA. However, my preferring a presser or a closer at Synthetic tracks seems to help.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by kitts

To speak to the question from another loyal horseplayer abour me and early speed-

When I first started having a profitable meet or two, I noticed that the horses that won many races were usually on or near the lead. I then tended to gravitate to this horse. With Synthetic, they no longer dominate like they used to. I am pleased to do well eoungh at GG, DMR, HOL and still do not do well at SA. However, my preferring a presser or a closer at Synthetic tracks seems to help.

when one of the nations leading trainers(Baffert) who is cal. based says and i am paraphrasing now...synthetic tracks make slow horses faster and fast horses slower thats all i need to know about it!Now as trainer after trainer in california is coming out against it i will never bet a dollar on it...i did not last year at the breeders cup and will not this year.I will watch the races but if i wager it will be on my home circuit...belmont.....Mr. Fischer..is it true that in England that only the slowest least classiest nags run over the poly while all the claasy horses run on turf?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by fmolf

Mr. Fischer..is it true that in England that only the slowest least classiest nags run over the poly while all the claasy horses run on turf?

That is a good point

I think it is true and will be true that all things being equal, with any track that has Turf and Synth/Poly the better horses will be raced on turf and the synthetic/poly(i'll just call it poly from here on) will be for the cheaper horses.

The times that it does not happen like that are when there is an Artificial Purse Structure. In England/Europe the poly was added after classy Turf racing was established. There isn't as much "artificial" influence on the purse structure in England. - It's all artificial but the Turf and Poly relationship is natural and efficient to market, save a few bigger races and events such as the new poly Derby win/in...

In a place like California, you have a MAJOR Artificial Purse effect not based on natural efficient markets. - We literally took the established purse structure of Dirt and Dirt Stakes and transfered them to POLY.
So If a race is for example 300K, or its The SHAM Stakes etc... you have what i'm calling here "artificial purse structure". Even in Cali, and other US racing meets, in cases when the conditions are equal the better turf horses tend to be entered on turf over poly.

I was originally very much against poly tracks AT ALL ever. And I was EXTREMELY bothered by the BC being at poly track ever, and then consecutively .
Some of the same reasons that cause racing to gravitate to Turf or even Dirt rather than Poly - It is aesthetically poor, it has some differences in bias tendency etc... After I learned to trip handicap a little, I at least got some appreciation for Poly, although I wasn't sold on it.

However the one redeeming quality of poly is that 90% of horses can run their race on it (at least some of the better well maintained versions like Pro-ride, cushion track, arlington etc...) This means that the World's best Dirt and Turf runners can compete vs each other. Provided a sufficiently large "artificial" purse structure(and prestige never hurt), Races like the 09,10 BCClassic , the 2010+ Dubai World Cup and probably one or two more will be created, are the new top-class World Championship caliber races.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

That is a good point

I think it is true and will be true that all things being equal, with any track that has Turf and Synth/Poly the better horses will be raced on turf and the synthetic/poly(i'll just call it poly from here on) will be for the cheaper horses.

The times that it does not happen like that are when there is an Artificial Purse Structure. In England/Europe the poly was added after classy Turf racing was established. There isn't as much "artificial" influence on the purse structure in England. - It's all artificial but the Turf and Poly relationship is natural and efficient to market, save a few bigger races and events such as the new poly Derby win/in...

In a place like California, you have a MAJOR Artificial Purse effect not based on natural efficient markets. - We literally took the established purse structure of Dirt and Dirt Stakes and transfered them to POLY.
So If a race is for example 300K, or its The SHAM Stakes etc... you have what i'm calling here "artificial purse structure". Even in Cali, and other US racing meets, in cases when the conditions are equal the better turf horses tend to be entered on turf over poly.

I was originally very much against poly tracks AT ALL ever. And I was EXTREMELY bothered by the BC being at poly track ever, and then consecutively .
Some of the same reasons that cause racing to gravitate to Turf or even Dirt rather than Poly - It is aesthetically poor, it has some differences in bias tendency etc... After I learned to trip handicap a little, I at least got some appreciation for Poly, although I wasn't sold on it.

However the one redeeming quality of poly is that 90% of horses can run their race on it (at least some of the better well maintained versions like Pro-ride, cushion track, arlington etc...) This means that the World's best Dirt and Turf runners can compete vs each other. Provided a sufficiently large "artificial" purse structure(and prestige never hurt), Races like the 09,10 BCClassic , the 2010+ Dubai World Cup and probably one or two more will be created, are the new top-class World Championship caliber races.

I agree with you on most of your points except that dirt and turf horses can compete equally.I feel it is already proven that dirt form does not translate to poly form whatsoever.the evidence is in the poor records of horses who run predominantly over the dirt surfaces on the east coast.West coast horses have a much better poly track record because oftheir experience racing and training over the tracks.Also this year i am sensing a greater reluctance from east coast trainers in regard to shipping west to run on poly.

[WinterTriangle]

Originally Posted by fmolf

feel it is already proven that dirt form does not translate to poly form whatsoever.

Well I must be learning something, as I avoided Swift Temper like the plague in the Spinster yesterday ( and I think she went off as the favorite) for just that reason.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by fmolf

the evidence is in the poor records of horses who run predominantly over the dirt surfaces on the east coast. West coast horses have a much better poly track record because of their experience racing and training over the tracks.

I'd like to see what statistics you are referring to. Anecdotally I haven't found this to be true at all. I know that I made a lot of money in the last Keeneland meet by betting against West Coast shippers. I know one was Stardom Bound, and I think the other was Santa Terrista?. Obviously anecdotal evidence doesn't prove much. Jesus Crist, Einstein went and won the Big Cap, Richard's Kid went out and won the Pacific Classic, and Pioneer of the Nile was sent over and dominated the 3yo season. I don't have stats in front of me but you could say that California was a West Coast state being run East Coasted. California has a few special ones, but on the overall picture the best horses seem to still come from the traditional powerhouses.

Originally Posted by fmolf

I agree with you on most of your points except that dirt and turf horses can compete equally. I feel it is already proven that dirt form does not translate to poly form whatsoever.

Fair enough we can't agree on everything. I want to stress that I look at form by how much running the horse did rather than the result. [/QUOTE]

Also this year i am sensing a greater reluctance from east coast trainers in regard to shipping west to run on poly.

It's really an awkward situation with Jess Jackson, who either has no advisers that have explained to him that Curlin simply ran a BIG race with an inefficient trip vs unforgiving rivals, OR even worse he understands that the trip cost Curlin the chance for a winning try, and would rather have faced the also-rans of the handicap division than take on the worlds best.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I'd like to see what statistics you are referring to. Anecdotally I haven't found this to be true at all. I know that I made a lot of money in the last Keeneland meet by betting against West Coast shippers. I know one was Stardom Bound, and I think the other was Santa Terrista?. Obviously anecdotal evidence doesn't prove much. Jesus Crist, Einstein went and won the Big Cap, Richard's Kid went out and won the Pacific Classic, and Pioneer of the Nile was sent over and dominated the 3yo season. I don't have stats in front of me but you could say that California was a West Coast state being run East Coasted. California has a few special ones, but on the overall picture the best horses seem to still come from the traditional powerhouses.


Fair enough we can't agree on everything. I want to stress that I look at form by how much running the horse did rather than the result.

It's really an awkward situation with Jess Jackson, who either has no advisers that have explained to him that Curlin simply ran a BIG race with an inefficient trip vs unforgiving rivals, OR even worse he understands that the trip cost Curlin the chance for a winning try, and would rather have faced the also-rans of the handicap division than take on the worlds best.[/QUOTE]I should have clarified myself better . i was talking about the breeders cup where a predominant number of the poly races were won by horses who have prepped over the poly tracks ...I do not keep records about other poly tracks because i do not wager on poly races ever.I am sure with due diligence and proper study of running styles and the like i could do as well on poly as i do now on dirt.But why should I?Theirs enough quality dirt and turf racing to go around.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

It's really an awkward situation with Jess Jackson, who either has no advisers that have explained to him that Curlin simply ran a BIG race with an inefficient trip vs unforgiving rivals, OR even worse he understands that the trip cost Curlin the chance for a winning try, and would rather have faced the also-rans of the handicap division than take on the worlds best.

Thought this looked familiar.

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Maybe [Curlin] lost a step but even if the hadn't he wasn't winning with the setup he got. No horse was making one of the earlier moves in that race and holding on to the wire. While the connections came away with a distaste for POLY, for me, it exposed them as just being lazy and ignorant. They obviously didn't do any research into POLY as opposed to dirt setups and sacrificed the horse, expecting him to win with a dirt type run. No reason why, if he were reserved early and came with the last flow, he's not right there at the end. And now we need to pick it up yet again with RA. What's the problem? She has enough speed to be able to sit the absolutely perfect DRAFTING TRIP. Just ask Goldikova. She'll be able to control the race. Suck Up and don't bid till midstretch. And they don't want to run her.

This is almost as bad as the horseplayers who refuse easy money by not playing POLY.

[cj]

It is still completely unfair, and wrong, to expect a horse is able to show the same level of ability on two completely different surfaces. It just doesn't work that way, even before the arrival of rubber.

I'm still not sure how "fair" rubber is. Now, instead of front runners winning more than they might randomly be expected to do, closers do. Hmmm, I thought in a race, speed should be an asset.

I don't buy the whole "the best horse" usually wins...I could make a nearly infinite list of horses that were uncompetitive on dirt and won races on rubber.

I'm not talking about horses that ran well but didn't win because they were compromised by race shape or track biases or kick back or any or mystical power that was inhibiting them. I'm talking about horses that showed little to no talent. It was the surface, period.

This has been going on for years on turf. Nobody sees a horse run a struggling race on turf and assumes they just declined if they were successful on dirt. Why do some insist on doing this with synthetics?

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm still not sure how "fair" rubber is. Now, instead of front runners winning more than they might randomly be expected to do, closers do. Hmmm, I thought in a race, speed should be an asset.

Speed is definitely an asset in races. But these are MATCH races or TIME TRIALS. (Front running) Speed is NOT an asset in cycling, speed skating, auto racing, etc. Those taking the lead in those types of events generally LOSE because the others DRAFT. This is simple physics. This is different from BIASED TRACKS and KICKBACK. Horses that wire on the turf or poly earn it. They have to be clearly best to overcome the advantage of the drafters. Of course, in racing, not all take advantage of this advantage, as the preferred trip is WIDE not INSIDE/BEHIND. Anyone doubting this need only watch a few route races at WO, for example.

I mean, the whole method is warped. You have horses that would naturally RATE, generally, when put behind horses, and GO, when put outside of them. Rather than training/riding them this way, the preferred method is to put them OUTSIDE of horses, with no regard to ground loss or lack of cover, and then FIGHT THEM because they want to go because they're outside. Talk about sending a confusing message to a horse.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by cj

It is still completely unfair, and wrong, to expect a horse is able to show the same level of ability on two completely different surfaces. It just doesn't work that way, even before the arrival of rubber.

I'm still not sure how "fair" rubber is. Now, instead of front runners winning more than they might randomly be expected to do, closers do. Hmmm, I thought in a race, speed should be an asset.

I don't buy the whole "the best horse" usually wins...I could make a nearly infinite list of horses that were uncompetitive on dirt and won races on rubber.

I'm not talking about horses that ran well but didn't win because they were compromised by race shape or track biases or kick back or any or mystical power that was inhibiting them. I'm talking about horses that showed little to no talent. It was the surface, period.

This has been going on for years on turf. Nobody sees a horse run a struggling race on turf and assumes they just declined if they were successful on dirt. Why do some insist on doing this with synthetics?

for someone who uses figures in his handicapping i wonder if you ever realized that curlin ran his CAREER FASTEST RACE AT 1 1/4 MILES IN THE CLASSIC.