Belmont Park is adding a synthetic track for 2024 meet

[Profesor]

Originally Posted by the little guy

What exactly are your credentials to know this? What exactly do you know about any of the executives at NYRA?

The internet is chock full of people making comments with absolutely no actual knowledge of that they are talking about. This is yet another example.

I know more than you think.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Profesor

I know more than you think.

You couldn’t know less, though I’m guessing it’s a photo.

[Tom]

[quote=Profesor;2865872]

Originally Posted by Tom

Yes me and 99% of all horse players.

In God We Trust.



All others, provide data...

[cj]

Originally Posted by $w1fT

When Aqueduct closes, NYRA will essentially go 10 months of the year with almost zero two turn dirt races being run.

Is this really a bad thing? Seems to me one turn routes are inherently more fair contests.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by cj

Is this really a bad thing? Seems to me one turn routes are inherently more fair contests.

I agree. People shy away from bull ring tracks. The opposite is a no turn mile like some of the Brit racing. A one turn mile is fairer than a 2 or 3 turn mile. I imagine it's easier on the horses as well.

[Profesor]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This isn't going to be a popular position but "difficulty of handicapping" doesn't strike me as something tracks should be very concerned about.

Look, the most popular betting race is the Kentucky Derby. It's also incredibly difficult- 20 horses, lightly raced, carrying weight and going a distance they have never gone before, shipping in from various tracks to a track most of them haven't run on. How many had last year's winner?

Meanwhile, 5 horse fields at Santa Anita can be incredibly easy to handicap. Which would you rather bet on?

If synthetics make handicapping harder, you can either pass the race or try to develop an edge. But it's good, not bad, that the races are difficult. (At any rate, I doubt they are any more difficult than a field of 10 first time starter 2 year olds on the turf at Del Mar during the summer.).

Brilliant make a very hard game,even harder,🤣🤣

[ubercapper]

[quote=Profesor;2865872]

Originally Posted by Tom

Yes me and 99% of all horse players.

99% if a pretty broad generalization, don't you think?

I was a big fan of Polytrack at Keeneland, but just like now there was a big backlash against it from notable public personas like Andy Beyer and Sevee Crist. I can't find it now, but I recall around 2005 I wrote an article titled "Get Over It" which I was raked over the coals for, even here on PA. (Note: I searched but couldn't find the reference on this site I was looking for but if anyone does please post or send me a PM).

It's interesting although the makeup of all-weather surfaces has changed significantly since then (thanks to Michael Dickinson), the generalizations "no one likes it" continue while the evidence (via Turfway and Woodbine) suggests that bettors for the most part have no issue with it, and some actually like handicapping on it.

Now that there's decent scale in terms of past performances on the surface, which will only get bigger, and that most all-weather surfaces now have GPS data (velocity, stride length, individual horse times), the quiet majority (IMO) who have found ways to handicap and wager on all-weather are quite happy and will continue to be so.

[classhandicapper]

[quote=ubercapper;2865996]

Originally Posted by Profesor

99% if a pretty broad generalization, don't you think?

I was a big fan of Polytrack at Keeneland, but just like now there was a big backlash against it from notable public personas like Andy Beyer and Sevee Crist. I can't find it now, but I recall around 2005 I wrote an article titled "Get Over It" which I was raked over the coals for, even here on PA.

Again, imo the problem isn’t necessarily the surface.

If a miscellaneous horse that’s been running at WO, TP, GG etc… shows up in a dirt race, you can probably take an educated guess and be comfortable by looking at the horse’s back races, workouts, the trainer’s record, pedigree etc…. If the entire field or even worse an entire card of horses is coming off synthetic races and going to dirt, you have a whole new set of problems. Same in the opposite direction. That’s going to be the case when they make the winter and spring switches.

It’s going to be really tough to handicap, make figures and appraise those horses and performances during those periods.

Same if they run one or two turf races, it pours, and they take the other turf races off and put them on synth. Now you could have races run on 4 different tracks (inner and outer turf, dirt, and synth). There’s virtually no chance of determining bias due to sample size and making figures will often be a guessing game. Even 3 is often problematical.

And this assumes they stay with the current plan for just winter and off the turf. There are going to be horses that love synth and trainers and owners that think it’s safer that are going to be asking for some extra races in spring and fall.

Of course there will be some positives in winter also if they keep and draw some extra horses, but we’ll see how it impacts the gambling.

[$w1fT]

Originally Posted by cj

Is this really a bad thing? Seems to me one turn routes are inherently more fair contests.

I guess it's just a personal preference for me. I like that Aqueduct offers the two turn 9f races, the one turn mile and then the 6-7f sprints.

Just as Saratoga offers similar and now with the mile races out of the chute.

[Cholly]

Originally Posted by cj

Is this really a bad thing?

In Chollyworld…yeah, it’s a bad thing. For fans at the track, the spectacle of a race is greatly enhanced by having the horses start in front of you–instead of some distant locale requiring a telescope to be seen.

Those watching remotely appreciate the added intrigue and strategy involved from having a 2nd turn in the race. Where does the jockey want to be positioned around the clubhouse turn? How will they get there?

Racing two turns on the dirt is the polestar for American horse racing. If one names racing’s most prestigious events, those with the largest purses, generating the most excitement and attendance, the top of the list is dominated by dirt routes that start and end in front of the grandstand. Horses who can run those types of races are what breeders breed for, and what buyers hope they will get when they're shelling out the big bucks at auction.

[the little guy]

Perpective....we might be talking about three races a week.

[Robert Fischer]

Can Forte crush his rivals in the Florida Derby? or will he be handicapped by the wide post draw with that short run to the first turn??

I had 2 coffees instead of one(my limit), and now I'm thinking about this enigma...

is it bad or good? It's just a factor. In this specific race, it makes it more interesting.
Some races it plays no part, or perhaps spoils the race for you by disadvantaging your watch-list bet-back horses draw....

there's a balance somewhere

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Perpective....we might be talking about three races a week.

If you ask trainers like Stidham, Brion, et al based at Fair Hill, which is three hours or less from Belmont, they might well want to send more horses up in winter knowing there is Tapeta (or whatever the all weather surface will be)

The horse population this winter at the Big A was really poor I think we can all agree, this may help with that, especially if there is regular all weather racing trainers can rely on

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by Cholly

In Chollyworld…yeah, it’s a bad thing. For fans at the track, the spectacle of a race is greatly enhanced by having the horses start in front of you–instead of some distant locale requiring a telescope to be seen.

Those watching remotely appreciate the added intrigue and strategy involved from having a 2nd turn in the race. Where does the jockey want to be positioned around the clubhouse turn? How will they get there?

Racing two turns on the dirt is the polestar for American horse racing. If one names racing’s most prestigious events, those with the largest purses, generating the most excitement and attendance, the top of the list is dominated by dirt routes that start and end in front of the grandstand. Horses who can run those types of races are what breeders breed for, and what buyers hope they will get when they're shelling out the big bucks at auction.

It depends on what you want a given race to represent. The real estate next to the rail is prized on turns as it shortens the race. The more turns you have to navigate, the more the race depends on race strategy and less on whether the best horse won. It's the reason the better harness races take place on 7/8 or one mile tracks rather than 5/8 or 1/2 mile tracks. It reduces the number of turns from 4 or 3 down to 2. I'm not knocking race strategy. It's that many people would rather the best horse won. It's just a preference.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Perpective....we might be talking about three races a week.

Are you saying in the winter they are only going to use the synthetic surface 3 times a week?

I was under the impression it was going to be the primary "winter" surface and occasionally used for off the turf races in warmer weather.

If you are saying they are going to use it 3 times a week in winter, there are way fewer issues. But I have to ask why they would bother with the cost of constructing and maintaining a track for such limited use.