Beyer:Change coming for turf Beyers.

[Tom]

I think he read CJ's article a while back.

More power to him if he is trying to improve.
Fortunately, I have his turf numbers in my db, but never use them, so it's not like when he destroyed my artificial surface db a few years ago.

[JohnGalt1]

When I handicap races for dirt, I cross out all turf races in the pp's and vice versa, because I believe the surfaces are almost completely different.

The only way one surface affects my handicapping on the other is conditioning, and if a dirt sprinter can handle a dirt route is if it had already run well in a turf route, for example.

I don't use variants on turf races, except for off courses, because so few are run in a given day, but I do on dirt.

Since Beyer, Bris, etc. incorporate variants in their turf numbers, I find them unreliable.

So I make my own figures for all surfaces.

[classhandicapper]

I "class" horses that are switching back and forth between dirt and turf (and synthetic). That's another way of equalizing them. So I agree that equalizing figures should make them more predictive when horses cross over from one surface to another. I don't know, but I'm sure he tested the new numbers.

That's still an area of weakness for me though.

Some of the best prices I see in my studies are horses that figured well "class" wise but are switching surfaces. The problem is that it's hard to value the extra risk and/or identify the ones that will make the switch. I just know the higher up the class ladder you go the harder it seems to be to make the switch no matter what the pedigree etc..

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by cj

I personally don't think dirt figures are useless on turf and vise versa. I have a huge database that backs this up. I think getting them on the same scale ability wise is a good thing and this is a good move for Beyer.

Agree. My old system adjusted turf to fit in with dirt. My rewrite is moving in a new direction with EuroSpd numbers, a single system for both Euro and North American horses.

[Tom]

OK, after having this new turf Beyer settle in for a while now, it looks to me like he might want to make the same change to the dirt chart. Seems I see plenty of triple digit Beyers in turf races, many more than I do in dirt races.

[fiznow]

I just wanna add this. After comparing running times and records I found out that generally horses don't run faster on dirt. Actually the best times on dirt and turf are almost the same. Here is a list of all Northamerican records on dirt, turf and all weather.
http://www.equibase.com/about/northamericanrecords.cfm

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I "class" horses that are switching back and forth between dirt and turf (and synthetic). That's another way of equalizing them. So I agree that equalizing figures should make them more predictive when horses cross over from one surface to another. I don't know, but I'm sure he tested the new numbers.

That's still an area of weakness for me though.

Some of the best prices I see in my studies are horses that figured well "class" wise but are switching surfaces. The problem is that it's hard to value the extra risk and/or identify the ones that will make the switch. I just know the higher up the class ladder you go the harder it seems to be to make the switch no matter what the pedigree etc..

One thing to look out for in turf racing is that the lowest class of turf racing can be quite a bit higher than the lowest dirt class. Here in Southern California, the lowest turf class is either $25,000 or $32,000. The lowest dirt class is $8,000.

As a result, some of those bottom of the barrel turf races are filled with horses who aren't actually worth anywhere near the claiming price. That matters when they switch to the dirt and "drop", and also matters when they step up-- it's sometimes a huge jump to the next level.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by fiznow

I just wanna add this. After comparing running times and records I found out that generally horses don't run faster on dirt. Actually the best times on dirt and turf are almost the same. Here is a list of all Northamerican records on dirt, turf and all weather.
http://www.equibase.com/about/northamericanrecords.cfm

At shorter distances, the time differences can exist but you may have a point. For instance, Zany Tactics ran 1:06 4/5 on dirt and 1:07 2/5 on turf.

At longer distances, though-- John Henry, who was almost as good on dirt as he was on turf, ran 1 1/2 miles in 2:24 and change on turf and 2:27 and change on turf. Horlicks ran 1 1/2 miles in 2:22 in the Japan Cup-- nobody thinks that made him approximately 10 lengths faster than Secretariat in the Belmont. There's definitely a divergence.

[cj]

Turf is a faster than dirt in general. Of course there are always exceptions.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

One thing to look out for in turf racing is that the lowest class of turf racing can be quite a bit higher than the lowest dirt class. Here in Southern California, the lowest turf class is either $25,000 or $32,000. The lowest dirt class is $8,000.

As a result, some of those bottom of the barrel turf races are filled with horses who aren't actually worth anywhere near the claiming price. That matters when they switch to the dirt and "drop", and also matters when they step up-- it's sometimes a huge jump to the next level.

Great insight.

I even see that sometimes at the very lowest maiden claiming and other lowest class levels on dirt. But your example is excellent.

[classhandicapper]

These turf and dirt comparisons make me feel like my head is going to explode. It's pretty tough to put together a coherent theory that explains all the differences in pace, final time, impact of pace on time, and winning running styles we see between dirt and turf. I haven't been able to find a way to incorporate speed figures, closing times, or relative close into my class figures in an automated way that actually improves the class ratings alone even though I know that in some cases closing times matter a lot. It's very easy for me to combine class and speed on dirt and improve the result over either as a stand alone.

[fiznow]

For me it's not a big problem. I use brisnet speed ratings but I don't think there is much differnce. In turf races I just compare and use turf speed ratings. I never bet first time turf runners. And I don't use speed as the main factor for my selections.

[Robert Goren]

the big difference is in a dirt race, the leader sets pace. Not true in Turf racing. the third or fourth horse from the lead may be real pace setter.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

the big difference is in a dirt race, the leader sets pace. Not true in Turf racing. the third or fourth horse from the lead may be real pace setter.

The "rabbit" phenom is much more prevalent in Euro and Brit racing than here in the states...Robert, do you have any ideas on why the "rabbit" is less used here in north american racing?

[RXB]

Rabbits seem more common in English racing compared to the rest of Europe and I think it's at least partly because Coolmore and the sheikhs pretty much control the racing there and can afford to use a decent horse as nothing more than a rabbit.