Casner on horse safety

[pandy]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...r-bill-casner/

Somebody remind him that a huge group won’t bet it.

This is an extremely effective letter to the editor. There's no question that synthetic tracks are safer than dirt, and there's also no question that the newer synthetic tracks have improved, in particular, Tapeta, which has an outstanding safety record.

As far as the question of how it affects handle, from what I've seen, turf racing is the most popular with bettors. And turf racing is NOT dirt racing. So this idea that you have to race on dirt or you might kill the sport seems a bit premature, especially since synthetic track racing tends to produce larger fields than dirt and larger fields generally get a higher handle.

I have to admit, I was doing extremely well betting So. Cal for several years but when they installed the Cushion Track I struggled to adjust, especially at Santa Anita, which totally screwed up the drainage. The problem at that time was that horses were training very well in the mornings when the weather was cool, then in the afternoon, the higher temperatures and afternoon sun had softened the synthetic particles and horses that were buzzing around quickly in the early morning hours were completely empty during the race. Some of the clockers pointed this out. In my opinion, if you're betting So. California and you want to win, you should be betting a lot of horses that come off layoffs and fresh horses in general, first or second off layoffs. That's the game out there, the weather is good so the horses stay on schedule with their workouts and most of the successful trainers try to bring them back ready to run. But, if the workouts aren't reliable, forget it.

But, the racetracks have learned a lot about maintaining synthetic surfaces since then, and the synthetic surfaces are more consistent than they were years ago.

[sjk]

The way horses go back and forth between surfaces at Gulfstream cause me to bet less on the dirt races (and not at all on the synthetic races).

If you watch some synthetic races (or worse bet them) you can see that it is a totally different game. The difference in slide distance makes a lot of sense if terms of what you see.

All of the learnings of 30 years of dirt handicapping no longer apply. Lets all start over again. Customer friendly?

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by pandy

...As far as the question of how it affects handle, from what I've seen, turf racing is the most popular with bettors. And turf racing is NOT dirt racing. So this idea that you have to race on dirt or you might kill the sport seems a bit premature, especially since synthetic track racing tends to produce larger fields than dirt and larger fields generally get a higher handle...

There has always been a relationship between field size and handle:

1. Handle goes up as field size increases.

2. Handle goes down as field size decreases.

That's the big picture trend.


Gulfstream Park is unique because they are (currently) the only North American track that races on all three surfaces: Natural Dirt, Tapeta, and Turf.

Back in post #3 of this thread I posted the following:

After the call I ran year to date 2023 handle numbers 01-01-2023 to 06-04-2023 for Gulfstream Park and emailed them to the reporter who emailed back thanking me for the info:

Gulfstream Park 2023 YTD 01-01-2023 to 06-04-2023

Handle Per Runner by Surface:
$134,063 Turf
$120,071 Dirt
$102,501 Synth

Handle Per Race by Surface:
$1,214,509 Turf
$835,817 Dirt
$796,307 Synth

Avg Field Size by Surface:
9.06 Turf
7.77 Synth
6.96 Dirt

YTD 2023 handle numbers at Gulfstream Park clearly shows their Tapeta surface underperforming the big picture trend.

Handle Per Race and Handle Per Runner are both higher for Dirt than Synth - despite Synth having higher Field Size than Dirt.

It's something that sticks out when you look at handle data.

I wish The Bloodhorse had not decided to omit this from the article.



-jp
.

[Maximillion]

They are safer during the race....but what about the after effects,and switching back and forth between synthetic and dirt as seen frequently at CD and GP-especially with claiming horses?

[metro]

Originally Posted by Al Gobbi

https://twitter.com/TimSullivan714/s...62979208101889

whether racing wants to address it or not, society is much more sympathetic to animals now unlike the 60s or 70s and if these incidents keep continuing to happen the general public and politicians may decide having racing legal isn't worth it anymore.

Sullivan doesn't really care about horses or horse racing in general. He used to write for the Courier Journal here in Louisville and rarely, if ever, wrote on anything about the horse racing industry, Churchill Downs or the Derby. He's only chiming it because it's something he can bring his negative opinion to.

It would be hard to find a sports columnist with a wetter blanket than his.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

One could expect that some handicapping styles have hidden bias that play differently on one surface versus another. For example, rather than making this a dirt versus synthetic debate, are your handicapping success rates different between turf and dirt?

I know I handicap different between dirt and turf, I would think most people do. I would call myself a pace handicapper, and pace doesn't have the same
effect on races on the contrasting surfaces. How many more times does a horse wire the field on dirt compared to turf? How many times do you see a turf horse set pedestrian fractions and 3/4's of the field pass him at the 1/8th pole? The same race on dirt I am pretty sure the average placing is much higher.


As for the synthetic, I probably haven't bet a synthetic track in 10 years or
more. The only one I tried more than a couples times was Golden Gate when they had a multi day Pick Six carryover. What I do remember is on synthetic
my early pace figures were very slow compared to the Beyer of the race, when you look at dirt tracks. It was closer to how turf races came out than dirt.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by sjk

The way horses go back and forth between surfaces at Gulfstream cause me to bet less on the dirt races (and not at all on the synthetic races).

That's one of my main concerns.

[Michael]

I love synthetic surfaces... they allow me to spend more time doing other things than bet on horses.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Michael

I love synthetic surfaces... they allow me to spend more time doing other things than bet on horses.

Me too!


Long Island, how the hell do you deal with that traffic? It took me over 3 hours to go something like 54 miles from Aqueduct to the ferry that goes to Connecticut. That was the first and only time I have been to the NYC area.
I used to work in East Los Angeles and been in the SF Bay area during rush hour and that was the worst traffic I had ever seen by a country mile.
Nice scenery and small towns but the traffic ruined it.

[VeryOldMan]

I'm in the apparent minority opinion on this one - if Tapeta, e.g., is legitimately safer for the horses, I'm all in. The results from PID v. other PA tracks is on the safer vector.

I'm merely a recreational bettor but am a decades-long fan of the sport - this sport is circling the drain on public opinion. Anything which will help on the breakdown front should be welcomed. Even if it means having to learn how to handicap the synthetic surface.

[Inner Dirt]

Anyone have any data on the average win mutuel on the various surfaces?

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Me too!


Long Island, how the hell do you deal with that traffic? It took me over 3 hours to go something like 54 miles from Aqueduct to the ferry that goes to Connecticut. That was the first and only time I have been to the NYC area.
I used to work in East Los Angeles and been in the SF Bay area during rush hour and that was the worst traffic I had ever seen by a country mile.
Nice scenery and small towns but the traffic ruined it.

HA, that's the Cross Island Parkway. Leaving the Aqueduct after the ninth race is not exactly one of life's joys. Bumper to bumper all the way to the Southern State can take an hour by itself sometimes. Takes me about 2 hours or more to get home. it's even worse if it snows.

The last time I went was cigar mile day a few years back - (which for a long time I believed was "race for race the best day to spend at the track" - It's just a great time of the year... they collect gifts for kids, and it sets the stage for the derby preps heading into the new year)

Nevertheless, I'll likely never go back the Aqueduct. It's my favorite track and I'll 100% miss the turf racing. That traffic isn't worth the time driving down there.

But yeahhh, it's not fun at all... I live in Nassau County (about 25 mins east of Belmont) Traffic's been getting worse here on the Island. That said, I've always enjoyed living here... it def beats living in mid town.

The Irony is Belmont is going synth too.

Hasta La Pasta Belmont

I think I'm personally going to play night tracks and give up on day racing.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Anyone have any data on the average win mutuel on the various surfaces?

For 2023:

Surface	Avg Pay
Dirt	10.83
Synth	11.79
Turf	12.57

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by cj

For 2023:

Surface	Avg Pay
Dirt	10.83
Synth	11.79
Turf	12.57

You figure 90% of that is field size?

[cj]

Originally Posted by castaway01

You figure 90% of that is field size?

Probably, but he didn't ask for field size.