Vic Zast: Dirt Officially a Four-Letter Word!

[andymays]

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog...r-letter-word/

Excerpt:

Nevertheless, the wisdom of installing synthetic tracks everywhere is debatable. Predictably, those people whose voice should count the most – aka the horseplayers - are split 50-50 on the issue. Jeff Platt, president of the 1600 member Horseplayers Association of North America, is ambivalent about synthetic tracks. But he disagrees with Dickinson’s claim that man-made surfaces offer consistency. Platt believes that unlike a dirt track, the same synthetic track will create different running styles from day to day. “Even track maintenance men don’t know why,” Platt contended in a telephone interview.

Maury Ezra, one of Platt’s HANA Board colleagues, has a more practical view of the situation. “The bottom line with synthetics is that you can’t love a horse,” he believes. But both Platt and Ezra admit that their biggest payoffs have resulted from betting horses on artificial surfaces. They believe that the competition in the pari-mutuel pool isn’t as stiff because many good handicappers, frustrated with new challenges, are staying away from betting races held on synthetic tracks.

[andymays]

My comments below the article.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Vic, Jeff, and Maury all of you do good work.

HANA is a credit to Horseplayers everywhere and the time and effort that the Board Members put in with no compensation is to be applauded.

When it comes to takeout and signal issues HANA has raised awareness and is causing changes in attitudes that will eventually change things for the better.

I agree with just about everything HANA stands for except giving the benefit of the doubt to artificial surfaces. Keenland/Polytrack/Martin Collins Internation is particularly bad because they are responsible for putting out most of the propaganda about synthetic surfaces and their virtues. In fairness they were installed with good intentions but when Keenland decided to partner with these other companies they did so because they thought every track in America would install Polytrack. Polytrack has proven to be the worst synthetic surface of all.

As far as 50/50 split among Horseplayers as to their preferences between dirt and sythetic that simply is not true.

In poll after poll it is clear that the majority of Horseplayers prefer dirt.

Even in the HANA survey we have:

41.7% don’t really like wagering on artificial surfaes

31.7% don’t really have a preference

26% like wagering on artificial surfaces

When asked if they want artificial surfaces removed:

34% don’t want artificial surfaces removed.

19.7% don’t care

46.1% would like to have artificial surface removed.

The only question that comes close to 50/50 is whether or not HANA should be working to have artificial surfaces removed.

Maury,you’re dead on when you say “you can’t love a horse”.

Jeff, you’re right on about the inconsistency of artificial surfaces.

Bottom line is that the only thing that has proven to be true is that they are better in the rain in spite of what happened at Santa Anita.

Other that that artificial surfaces are:

More expensive to maintain.

They wear out with usage, maintenace, and weather.

There are many biases and there were’nt supposed to be any.

In California they said they would help create bigger fields. Another falsehood.

There are more injuries on synthetic but less fatalities overall. I think everyone would agree that there has not been enough time to make a solid evaluation on injuries and fatalites. What everyone should agree on is that synthetic surfaces haven’t lived up to the claims made by the sythetic infomercial. Not by a longshot. LOL

In California even 70% of Trainers want the stuff gone.

P.S. if I made a mistake in adding up the numbers let me know.

[rwwupl]

Love Dirt...is two four letter words.

Synthetics make predictability an ancient word that attacks handicapping... the basis of pari-mutuel wagering.

[Robert Goren]

I know a lot of betters hate synthetic surfaces and I am not very fond of them myself. The next few years will tell the story on them. It will not be about what happens on them, but what happens on dirt. All the numbers aside, the image is the thing. A break down or two in a big race like the Derby will put the pressure on to change. I don't think that most betters realize how close racing is to being force to close their doors in many states. Some favorable law changes are now being held up a coalition of anti gambling forces and animal rights advocates. Both of those groups are gaining in both numbers and power at the state level. Horse racing will not be made illegal per say, but will be allowed to wither on the vine by not being allowed to adapted to today's world. Horse racing does not have many friends these days in the state legislatures and they are getting fewer and fewer with every election.JMO

[Horseplayersbet.com]

It is 50-50, not hate vs. love, but hate vs. don't hate.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

It is 50-50, not hate vs. love, but hate vs. don't hate.

What's the old saying? There's a fine line between ........................

[Tom]

Nevertheless, the wisdom of installing synthetic tracks everywhere is debatable.

How many were installed last year in the US?

unlike a dirt track, the same synthetic track will create different running styles from day to day.

Is there data to back this up?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Tom

How many were installed last year in the US?



Is there data to back this up?

I didn't make the comments but...................

If you followed Del Mar at all and read the articles on a daily basis you would know this.

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/equest...2273421e9.html

Excerpt:

-- Thumbs down to the Del Mar Polytrack this season. It was too inconsistent . Trainers couldn't wait to leave last week. Let's hope track president Joe Harper finds the fine line between the 2007 version and this year's edition.

[Tom]

So, none were installed every place last year, and no data to back up the trainers impressions?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Tom

So, none were installed every place last year, and no data to back up the trainers impressions?

Tom, go find the data yourself.

Why do you guys always make absurd comments about synthetic surfaces and then ask other people to back up theirs with data?

[Jeff P]

Tom,

You should know better <G>...

OF COURSE I have data to back that up... as in every race run at all of the major circuits in North America since synthetics first appeared on the North American scene at Turfway in 2005.

I'm constantly measuring track profiles... inside path vs. outside path... speed favoring vs. speed tiring... large sample distributions of winning horses at individual distances broken down by metrics such like pctE, pctM, run style, etc.

Zast got the gist of what I told him save for a few minor details. I think he mentioned that I had a sample of of 55k horses. What I said was all starters in North America which last year was about 55k races.

If you accumulate the data and study it eventually it hits you:

Synthetic surfaces produce results that "somewhat" mimic results produced by a random number generator.

What do I mean by that?

A data distribution for all starters in races on natural dirt surfaces broken out by something really simple like rank for the horse with the single Best E2 pace fig (using JCapper HDW data) (and with no attempt to break ties) for calendar year 2009 looks like this:

By: SQL-F17 Rank

Rank       Gain       Bet       Roi   Wins  Plays     Pct     Impact
   1  -12172.20  88840.00    0.8630   8736  44420   .1967     1.5716  
   2  -16054.60  86084.00    0.8135   7257  43042   .1686     1.3474  
   3  -19870.70  85382.00    0.7673   6120  42691   .1434     1.1456  
   4  -20814.10  84674.00    0.7542   5516  42337   .1303     1.0412  
   5  -22856.10  82552.00    0.7231   4681  41276   .1134     0.9063  
   6  -24697.50  76834.00    0.6786   3787  38417   .0986     0.7878  
   7  -21488.30  63652.00    0.6624   2685  31826   .0844     0.6742  
   8  -16375.30  46798.00    0.6501   1751  23399   .0748     0.5980  
   9  -11142.30  31256.00    0.6435    993  15628   .0635     0.5078  
  10   -7635.50  18414.00    0.5853    496   9207   .0539     0.4305  
  11   -3039.50   7372.00    0.5877    163   3686   .0442     0.3534  
  12   -1435.00   3222.00    0.5546     72   1611   .0447     0.3572  
  13    -240.60    310.00    0.2239      5    155   .0323     0.2578  
  14     -69.40    106.00    0.3453      3     53   .0566     0.4523  
  15      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1   .0000     0.0000  
  16      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1   .0000     0.0000  
  17      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1   .0000     0.0000  
  18      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1   .0000     0.0000  
  19      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1   .0000     0.0000

Now here's the same data distribution, all starters in races on synthetic surfaces only broken out by rank for the horse with the Best E2 pace fig (using JCapper HDW data) for calendar year 2009:

By: SQL-F17 Rank

Rank       Gain       Bet       Roi   Wins  Plays     Pct     Impact
   1   -2632.00  15242.00    0.8273   1328   7621   .1743     1.3958  
   2   -2790.90  14810.00    0.8116   1184   7405   .1599     1.2808  
   3   -2974.30  14640.00    0.7968   1064   7320   .1454     1.1643  
   4   -3928.30  14504.00    0.7292    910   7252   .1255     1.0051  
   5   -3100.80  14342.00    0.7838    846   7171   .1180     0.9450  
   6   -3486.80  12568.00    0.7226    656   6284   .1044     0.8362  
   7   -2130.10   9990.00    0.7868    474   4995   .0949     0.7601  
   8   -2124.60   7192.00    0.7046    290   3596   .0806     0.6460  
   9   -1564.90   4836.00    0.6764    186   2418   .0769     0.6162  
  10    -969.40   3066.00    0.6838    113   1533   .0737     0.5904  
  11    -760.60   1816.00    0.5812     46    908   .0507     0.4058  
  12    -173.40    872.00    0.8011     27    436   .0619     0.4960  
  13      33.70    256.00    1.1316      6    128   .0469     0.3755  
  14     -57.90    124.00    0.5331      2     62   .0323     0.2584

Notice that the win rate, impact values, and roi for the top ranked horses on synthetic surfaces suffers when compared to the numbers for the top ranked horses on dirt surfaces.

IMHO, this captures the essence of player frustration with synthetic surfaces.

If E2 pace figs had no effect at all on race outcomes... then the data distribution might look like this one - which is actually the result of using a random number generator to produce a random number between 1 and 100 on the set of all starters on synthetic surfaces for calendar year 2009:
By: RGN

  >=Min      < Max      Gain       Bet       Roi   Wins  Plays     Pct   Impact
-999.00       5.00  -1102.70   4720.00    0.7664    299   2360   .1267   1.0149
   5.00      10.00  -1621.20   5892.00    0.7248    344   2946   .1168   0.9353
  10.00      15.00  -1467.30   5714.00    0.7432    354   2857   .1239   0.9925
  15.00      20.00  -1531.90   5722.00    0.7323    323   2861   .1129   0.9043
  20.00      25.00  -1525.00   5598.00    0.7276    358   2799   .1279   1.0245
  25.00      30.00  -1453.00   5660.00    0.7433    340   2830   .1201   0.9624
  30.00      35.00  -1359.80   5644.00    0.7591    373   2822   .1322   1.0588
  35.00      40.00  -1406.20   5700.00    0.7533    350   2850   .1228   0.9837
  40.00      45.00  -1227.30   5702.00    0.7848    387   2851   .1357   1.0873
  45.00      50.00  -1777.00   5738.00    0.6903    345   2869   .1203   0.9632
  50.00      55.00  -1532.50   5586.00    0.7257    342   2793   .1224   0.9808
  55.00      60.00   -882.90   5714.00    0.8455    381   2857   .1334   1.0682
  60.00      65.00  -1631.80   5696.00    0.7135    340   2848   .1194   0.9563
  65.00      70.00  -1055.00   5708.00    0.8152    370   2854   .1296   1.0385
  70.00      75.00  -1246.20   5708.00    0.7817    334   2854   .1170   0.9374
  75.00      80.00  -1104.60   5796.00    0.8094    381   2898   .1315   1.0531
  80.00      85.00  -1292.60   5666.00    0.7719    352   2833   .1242   0.9953
  85.00      90.00   -667.50   5702.00    0.8829    389   2851   .1364   1.0929
  90.00      95.00  -1006.50   5652.00    0.8219    360   2826   .1274   1.0204
  95.00  999999.00  -1769.30   6940.00    0.7451    410   3470   .1182   0.9465

Take a look at results from the above samples and tell me which set of numbers... those produced by natural dirt... or those produced by synthetics... more closely mimics numbers produced by a random number generator.

Synthetics of course!





Now is this a bad thing?

Depends how you look at it.

If your selection process is married to the idea of using the top ranked horses in terms of <insert name of factor here> only... then you are going to struggle as a player and throw your hands up in disgust... and eventually stop betting synthetics... which is what a lot of players have done.

However, those who adust their selection process to make it more aligned with the way synthetic surfaces alter race outcomes... hint: a willingness to look deeper into a field when identifying contenders helps... so does value based play or pass decision making... players who make adjustments to get the surface working FOR them and not against them... those players can find betting opportunities on synthetic surfaces....

Not easy to do because it takes a fair amount of work... But it absolutely IS doable if you are willing to do the requisite R&D.




-jp

.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by andymays

Tom, go find the data yourself.

Why do you guys always make absurd comments about synthetic surfaces and then ask other people to back up theirs with data?

YOU made the statement - I just wanted to see if were talking through your hat or actually had data that YOU had reviewed. You apparently did not.
I KNEW Jeff would , though. Just wanted to see if you had studied it
Btw, when was the last time a dirt track was replaced with poly here in the states?

Thanks, Jeff....I expected no less from you!

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Tom

YOU made the statement - I just wanted to see if were talking through your hat or actually had data that YOU had reviewed. You apparently did not.
I KNEW Jeff would , though. Just wanted to see if you had studied it
Btw, when was the last time a dirt track was replaced with poly here in the states?

Thanks, Jeff....I expected no less from you!

So the new standard on the board is to have data to back up everything you say?

Tom, you made some comments that I would have thought were from someone who never followed racing and you're changing the subject to avoid the emabarrassment of your statements. Keep digging.

[DJofSD]

Jeff,

I would assume the distribution around the mean value of the impact column would be the criteria used to assert if poly was closer a random sample than dirt. What about skew?

[Jeff P]

Tom,

I see now that you were asking about data related to changes from one day to the next... Yes. I have that too.

Visually, when playing the card at Turfway Park on Fri 3/19/2010, I thought speed was holding pretty well... Here's a data sample for that card broken out by rank for JCapper early Consensus using HDW data...

By: SQL-F20 Rank

Rank       Gain       Bet       Roi   Wins  Plays     Pct     Impact
   1      24.00     24.00    2.0000      4     12   .3333     2.2778  
   2      -9.60     24.00    0.6000      2     12   .1667     1.1389  
   3     -13.80     24.00    0.4250      2     12   .1667     1.1389  
   4     -16.80     24.00    0.3000      1     12   .0833     0.5694  
   5     -24.00     24.00    0.0000      0     12   .0000     0.0000  
   6      22.80     20.00    2.1400      3     10   .3000     2.0500  
   7     -14.00     14.00    0.0000      0      7   .0000     0.0000  
   8      -8.00      8.00    0.0000      0      4   .0000     0.0000  
   9      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1   .0000     0.0000

I played the Turfway card the very next day... Sat 3/20/2010. Visually, the reaction of the horses to the surface on that day looked nothing like the reaction of the horses to the surface on the previous day. Here's what that card looked like broken out by JCapper Early Consensus rank...

By: SQL-F20 Rank

Rank       Gain       Bet       Roi   Wins  Plays     Pct     Impact
   1     -22.00     22.00    0.0000      0     11   .0000     0.0000  
   2      -6.80     22.00    0.6909      3     11   .2727     2.0579  
   3      -8.00     22.00    0.6364      1     11   .0909     0.6860  
   4     -22.00     22.00    0.0000      0     11   .0000     0.0000  
   5      -4.80     22.00    0.7818      3     11   .2727     2.0579  
   6     -11.00     20.00    0.4500      1     10   .1000     0.7545  
   7     -16.00     16.00    0.0000      0      8   .0000     0.0000  
   8      41.80     10.00    5.1800      3      5   .6000     4.5273  
   9      -6.00      6.00    0.0000      0      3   .0000     0.0000  
  10      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1   .0000     0.0000  
  11      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1   .0000     0.0000

4 for 12 on Friday... 0 for 11 the very next day?

Yes, the same thing can and does happen on dirt surfaces. But I see it happen on synthetics far more often than I do on natural dirt surfaces.


-jp

.