Chicago Barn to Wire Breeders' Cup Handicapping Tournaments
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


October 24, 2014, 06:53:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Del Mar has no chance for cup  (Read 1846 times)
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2012, 05:23:54 PM »

chalks 4/5 or less on artificial
smaller sample size draw your own conclusions

Fld Sz < 5       00038  00021    55% 89% 95%    0.86 0.98 0.95   
Fld Sz 5         00135  00067    50% 79% 88%    0.77 0.90 0.92   
Fld Sz 6         00248  00137    55% 79% 90%    0.87 0.93 0.96   
Fld Sz 7         00181  00082    45% 65% 77%    0.73 0.78 0.84   
Fld Sz 8         00105  00049    47% 68% 84%    0.76 0.84 0.93   
Fld Sz 9         00078  00038    49% 72% 83%    0.79 0.90 0.93     
Fld Sz 10        00046  00017    37% 54% 70%    0.61 0.69 0.78     
Fld Sz 11        00023  00011    48% 65% 83%    0.79 0.88 0.97     
Fld Sz 12+      00014  00008    57% 93% 93%    0.96 1.21 1.08   
Report to moderator   Logged
pamwaggy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8184




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2012, 05:35:16 PM »

I understand the STATE itself is in big trouble....BUT, my point was that there are a LOT of people who have a LOT of money who live in California. I should have clarified that California's thoroughbred handle should be 50 million a day...they should have slots in their racetracks and they should give you the ability to bet racehorses in every convienience store in the state, there's zero reason for you to NOT be able to walk into 7-11 and purchase a lottery ticket (gambling) but you can't walk into 7-11 and INVEST in a thoroughbred racehorse. Every day that goes by, they cost themselves millions by not being able to add 2 and 2.

Gotcha.   I just heard we'll be getting another five and a half million dollars since Zuckerman is selling some facebook stock.  The state, of course.  Or maybe it was fifty million.  That sounds more like it should be.
Report to moderator   Logged
faster horses
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 476




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2012, 09:32:30 PM »

All the whining about artificial surfaces on this forum--particularly by people who seem to know a lot about racing--is so hyperventilated that it's really funny.  I could boil down the comments of the haters out there to the following:  there's a systematic difference between artificial surfaces and dirt or turf, and that difference makes long shots either more likely to win or at least more likely to win at particularly large odds.  If that's true, isn't it what most handicappers call "opportunity?"  I just look at it as one more surface and one more piece of the big handicapping puzzle.  I've caught a few nice winners by figuring out who might like it--same as turf or mud will sometimes produce a nice score.  I have no idea whether I handicap better on artificial surfaces, but at least I don't do badly enough to notice it.

More importantly, from what I can tell, artificial surfaces seem to be somewhat kinder to horses--although you can certainly get a good debate going on that.  At least they seem to be more consistent, and therefore kinder than bad dirt tracks (like pre-poly AP).  The one big exception was the Southern California disaster with poly, but that seems to have been mostly because the poly formula couldn't handle the sharp temperature swings and ultra-hot sun of Santa Anita.  That would seem to be something that could be fixed pretty easily if someone wanted to try. 
And it's not like that asphalt strip at SA before the poly was great for horses.  My own perception, based in part on my own (relatively limited) experience owning horses in training is that major foreleg injuries, especially fractures, are less common on poly, although rear end and soft tissue injuries may be somewhat more common.

Back to the BC, the biggest issue for Belmont is that the weather can absolutely suck there by late October.  The last two BC's I've attended there have been about the coldest days I've ever spent at the races (including some February outings at Fonner Park).  The weather at Saratoga wouldn't be any better, and getting in and out of there is no picnic.  (And I absolutely love Saratoga--just not for the BC.)  I also have my doubts that Del Mar is big enough to handle it, even though I think it's a gorgeous track.
Report to moderator   Logged
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4419




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2012, 10:17:50 PM »

there's a systematic difference between artificial surfaces and dirt or turf, and that difference makes long shots either more likely to win or at least more likely to win at particularly large odds.  If that's true, isn't it what most handicappers call "opportunity?"

Yes...an opportunity to lose your entire bankroll!   doh

I tried for awhile to make sense of these races, and the results generally defy any sort of handicapping techniques with which I am familiar.

There is not only a noticable difference between artificial surfaces and organic surfaces -- there are distinct differences between the different brands of artificial surfaces themselves: Polytrack, Tapeta, Cushion, Pro-Ride.

(Jesus H. Christ! The game wasn't already tough enough? How many MORE different damn variables can a horseplayer be expected to deal with??)

I find Cushion (Hollywood Park) to be the most predictable of the artificial surfaces (and the only one I will play), with Tapeta (Golden Gate and Presque Isle) a rather hit-or-miss product, and Polytrack (AP, Turfway and Woodbine) the absolute LEAST predictable, and totally unplayable. (Santa Anita had Pro-Ride and wisely returned to natural dirt.)

As far as your characterization of some of us as "whining" about artificial surfaces -- look no further than Hall of Fame trainer Bob Baffert for corroboration of my dislike of the fake stuff: he hates it, and the damage it does to his horses.

Even if our reasons for disliking artificial surfaces are different, I know I'm in pretty damn good company from a horse racing perspective if I'm on the same side of an issue as a world class horse trainer such as Baffert. Maybe it's YOU that needs to rethink things.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12612

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2012, 11:30:12 PM »

Even if our reasons for disliking artificial surfaces are different, I know I'm in pretty damn good company from a horse racing perspective if I'm on the same side of an issue as a world class horse trainer such as Baffert. Maybe it's YOU that needs to rethink things.

faster horses is also on the side of world class horse trainers, like Drysdale (?), who said they liked the phony surfaces just fine.

Baffert complains about the fake surfaces because he trains his horses for front end speed, and those surfaces aren't as kind to that. Likewise, I suspect your own complaint is because you have consciously or unconsciously adopted a front end speed bias into your handicapping, and are having trouble adapting to poly handicapping. Your personal difficulties do not make those races random, however, as the numbers that have been presented so far have shown.

There are plenty of other racetracks in the nation. If you have trouble handicapping the fake surface tracks, just don't play them. Other people appear to be willing to pick up the slack.

And by the way, there are tremendous differences from turf track to turf track too.      
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
APCD Dan
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3817




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: February 09, 2012, 12:43:41 AM »

Terry said most of what I was going to say to HV.  I would just add that when the rest of the world decides to go with a non-turf track, it is usually an artificial track and not dirt.
Report to moderator   Logged
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4419




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: February 09, 2012, 06:17:23 AM »

faster horses is also on the side of world class horse trainers, like Drysdale (?), who said they liked the phony surfaces just fine.

Not such a good comparison -- asking Drysdale about fake surfaces is like polling Elton John on his tastes in women.

Sure Drysdale likes the phony stuff, when it acts more like turf than dirt, and his horses run primarily on turf. Also, Drysdale starts about 1/10th of the horses Baffert does.

Baffert complains about the fake surfaces because he trains his horses for front end speed, and those surfaces aren't as kind to that. Likewise, I suspect your own complaint is because you have consciously or unconsciously adopted a front end speed bias into your handicapping, and are having trouble adapting to poly handicapping.

It's not nearly that simple.

I am a pace aficionado, and I assess and assign race shapes as well. I gave up on fake racing because no matter how I tabbed the race and pace scenario (based on the runners entered and their racing style), it always seemed to come out: slow early, deathly slow middle, and kinda slow late...with (maybe) a tiny burst of speed at the very end.

(About halfway through a given poly race, I was switching to The Sand Channel to watch continual footage of assorted  sandstorms, just to stay awake; after a few minutes, I would turn back to HRTV and catch the last 1/4 mile of the plodfest: yep, I could still throw a small rope around the whole field...and I didn't miss nothing.)

In fact, it was this very phenomenon that caused Andy Beyer to throw up his hands and start jigger-rigging his scales for races on artificial surfaces, and I felt his pain: if $10K claimers regularly go 1:12 on dirt but 1:15 on poly, there is simply no way they can make up enough of that lost time on poly in the last quarter to achieve normal $10K class par time for the mile.

So, I wasn't the only handicapper who couldn't "adjust to poly". It's like having to maintain two standards of common sense, when only one should be necessary.

There are plenty of other racetracks in the nation. If you have trouble handicapping the fake surface tracks, just don't play them. Other people appear to be willing to pick up the slack.

You know darn well I have stated REPEATEDLY that I don't bet on artificial. It's only recently that I even bothered with Hollywood, because Cushion acts pretty much like conventional dirt.

I only launch an attack on artificial in response to someone else trying to BS the forum on how "great" the stuff is. Yeah, maybe if you weren't cashing many tickets on the organic surfaces, you might be getting a little more lucky on the fake...but without really knowing why.

And by the way, there are tremendous differences from turf track to turf track too.      

Disagree completely.

There are two basic varieties of turf: "real" turf courses with real grass and a developed root system (AP, Belmont, River Downs, Penn National, Mountaineer, and more), and the "sand and weeds" variety (CD, FG, Lone Star, Hollywood, others). Conventional pace scenarios apply to the former group of tracks, and those scenarios need to be adjusted for (increased) speed over the latter group of turf courses. So simple, even I can do it.  Wink
 
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12612

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: February 09, 2012, 07:04:06 PM »

Not such a good comparison -- asking Drysdale about fake surfaces is like polling Elton John on his tastes in women.

It is exactly as valid as holding up Baffert's opinion as any kind of gospel.

Quote
I am a pace aficionado, and I assess and assign race shapes as well. I gave up on fake racing because no matter how I tabbed the race and pace scenario (based on the runners entered and their racing style), it always seemed to come out: slow early, deathly slow middle, and kinda slow late...with (maybe) a tiny burst of speed at the very end.

Well, then, you admit, the real problem is your inability to handicap these races in the same manner you do dirt tracks, and NOT that the race results are totally random.

Quote
So, I wasn't the only handicapper who couldn't "adjust to poly". It's like having to maintain two standards of common sense, when only one should be necessary.

That's your opinion, and your opinion only. Previously there were two general surface types, and now there are three. Neither number is inherently right or wrong.

Quote
I only launch an attack on artificial in response to someone else trying to BS the forum on how "great" the stuff is. Yeah, maybe if you weren't cashing many tickets on the organic surfaces, you might be getting a little more lucky on the fake...but without really knowing why.

No one tried to BS the forum on how great the fake stuff is. You inserted your personal opinion that the results of poly races are random into this thread for no particular reason, other than others were also dissing it. Go back up to the top and take a look.

Quote
Disagree completely.

There are two basic varieties of turf: "real" turf courses with real grass and a developed root system (AP, Belmont, River Downs, Penn National, Mountaineer, and more), and the "sand and weeds" variety (CD, FG, Lone Star, Hollywood, others). Conventional pace scenarios apply to the former group of tracks, and those scenarios need to be adjusted for (increased) speed over the latter group of turf courses. So simple, even I can do it.  Wink

And I disagree with you. Every turf track is different even if it falls in one of these two types, and you have to make adjustments in your comparisons, just exactly as you have to make adjustments if you're comparing a fake Golden Gate race with a fake Del Mar race. Dirt tracks are different as well, as we all were quite aware back in the day we had three dirt tracks here in Chicago.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
pamwaggy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8184




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: February 09, 2012, 08:10:55 PM »

I've been one of the biggest whiners about "fake" surfaces.  Now here comes Santa Anita, back to dirt, and how good am I handicapping it?  Lousy!  No more whining from me on this subject. 
Report to moderator   Logged
The Turf Monster
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1091




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: February 09, 2012, 08:49:30 PM »

The stats earlier show that picking a winner is only negligebly more difficult on poly than on dirt.  I can see where if you've been playing dirt your entire life, you could have a difficult time with the poly.  I actually find the poly easier to pick high-priced horses on, but you won't find them on days when it's hot and sunny out.  The money still hasn't figured out that early pace is a hinderance when it's cold, wet, and/or cloudy out.  The weather is the most important factor on the poly. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Secretariat
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1728




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: February 09, 2012, 09:47:55 PM »

betting at SA is garbage..

except for the win bet..

the takeout there is just TOO DAM BIG..they take so much out there is nothing to divide up..you cannot make any money there, unless you have the winner , or the place horse in a 6 dollar or less exacta.

only problem is, the 6 dollar exacta hits half the time and pays 8 bucks, and the other half its a 100 dollar exacta, so if you try to get that long shot, and bet more than 6 bets in an exacta; half the time , you will win, yet loose ,becasue your favs won and paid 8 bucks. if the take out was lower there would be more options to try to get that longshot on your ticket and yet make a profit, if any at all out there.
the dime super on the dirt seems to work, bet 7.20 , and hope you got the right 24 to 1 shot in 3 and 4..or perhaps in place.
Report to moderator   Logged

Certified Derbytologist
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4419




Ignore
« Reply #61 on: February 09, 2012, 10:38:55 PM »

It is exactly as valid as holding up Baffert's opinion as any kind of gospel.

Asking a grass trainer like Drysdale about fake surfaces that he doesn't give a fig about is like asking you if Chicago's high gas prices are bothering you when you are in Montana. Baffert runs on artificial surfaces AND IS TRYING TO WIN on them all the time; Drysdale, hardly. One of the comparisons / retorts you've ever offered, and then you try to gloss it over by saying it's "exactly as valid" as me using Baffert's opinion. Exponentially weak. 

That's your opinion, and your opinion only. Previously there were two general surface types, and now there are three.

Nope, there are SIX now. In general terms, turf is turf and dirt is dirt, but...Poly is not at all like Tapeta, and Tapeta is not at all like Pro-Ride, and so on....the four artificial surfaces were concocted and dumped on a largely unwitting betting public, in the name of "horse safety"...which has turned out to be quite a load of crap.

And I disagree with you. Every turf track is different even if it falls in one of these two types, and you have to make adjustments in your comparisons, just exactly as you have to make adjustments if you're comparing a fake Golden Gate race with a fake Del Mar race. Dirt tracks are different as well, as we all were quite aware back in the day we had three dirt tracks here in Chicago.

I think I get where you are coming from on this one.

Maybe YOU have still to make those adjustments. I used to, but the handicapping product I use does a tremendous job of normalizing the differences between turf course X and turf course Y...and the same for dirt courses...because these surfaces are organic, and their differences are discernable and therefore can be analyzed and categorized. But FOUR different types of artificial surfaces, each with their own little quirks and peculiarities...and hardly any way at all of predicting how a given artificial surface will behave from one race to the next? This stuff would befuddle Einstein.

If you were a pace and race shapes guy like me, you would likely agree that the artificial surface races (except Cushion, which plays pretty much the same all the time) produce some ridiculous results, especially in the place and show spots, with horses that wouldn't have a prayer on an organic surface suddenly hitting the ticket at giant odds.

What, you think I can't handicap the fake stuff? 10th by 22 lengths, 8th by 30, 12th by 17, 9th by 25, 10th by 27...no change in class, track, distance, equipment, etc....and today, the f*cker gets up for 2nd at 90-1?

Yeah, you're right -- I can't handicap that kind of nonsense. All for you...and the other 10 fake surface huggers out there. Good luck, but you won't be getting any of MY money.

 
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12612

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: February 10, 2012, 01:49:07 AM »

Asking a grass trainer like Drysdale about fake surfaces that he doesn't give a fig about is like asking you if Chicago's high gas prices are bothering you when you are in Montana. Baffert runs on artificial surfaces AND IS TRYING TO WIN on them all the time; Drysdale, hardly.

Oh please now, get over it. There were plenty of other trainers who said they had no problem at all with the poly in So Cal.

Baffert is a whiner and has always been a whiner, about everything. That's all he is.

Quote
Nope, there are SIX now. In general terms, turf is turf and dirt is dirt

No, there are three - dirt, turf, and fake. That's why all the pps services list just those three. The differences between the fake surfaces are as meaningful, or non-meaningful, as the difference between turf tracks, or the difference between two dirt tracks like Hawthorne and Turf Paradise.

Quote
I think I get where you are coming from on this one.

Maybe YOU have still to make those adjustments. I used to, but the handicapping product I use does a tremendous job of normalizing the differences between turf course X and turf course Y

So you say.

Quote
...and the same for dirt courses...because these surfaces are organic, and their differences are discernable and therefore can be analyzed and categorized. But FOUR different types of artificial surfaces, each with their own little quirks and peculiarities...and hardly any way at all of predicting how a given artificial surface will behave from one race to the next? This stuff would befuddle Einstein.

And yet, all the non-Einsteins out there in the betting world still manage to pick winning favorites on fake tracks at nearly the same clip as they do on dirt, while the various high IQ types using the premium handicapping products complain how the fake stuff is totally unfathomable and produce nothing but random results. Go figure!

Quote
If you were a pace and race shapes guy like me

I am one, though admittedly not "like you".

Quote
you would likely agree that the artificial surface races (except Cushion, which plays pretty much the same all the time) produce some ridiculous results, especially in the place and show spots

Conveniently finishing spots we don't have the stats to refute that claim with, like we demolished those random results for winners.  Roll Eyes

Quote
All for you...and the other 10 fake surface huggers out there. Good luck, but you won't be getting any of MY money.

That's fine with me. You have plenty of other tracks to play.

Hey NYRA, if you're still reading, can you run some figs like you did above, for the odds of horses that finished 2nd and 3rd in various dirt and poly races? I'd be interested to see if this claim of utterly unfathomable place and show horses on poly vs dirt is accurate.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 01:53:05 AM by honest & balanced terry » Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4419




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: February 10, 2012, 06:44:46 AM »

Oh please now, get over it. There were plenty of other trainers who said they had no problem at all with the poly in So Cal.

Baffert is a whiner and has always been a whiner, about everything. That's all he is.

I have nothing to "get over" -- you booted this one.

"Plenty of other trainers"? Name some. Name ONE.

Baffert is a whiner? Baloney -- Baffert is a WINNER...the losers whine. If a guy who wins as much as a Hall of Fame trainer like Baffert is complaining about fake surfaces, you can safely bet the industry is listening...but you now have to discredit him with all of your being, lest anyone really see what a terrible comparison you made here.

(Neil Drysdale? Hell, the racing public probably knows YOU better.)

Give me the name of a trainer that runs on the stuff and is WINNING, and says that he or she really likes the fake surfaces, and I'll change my tune. I really can't remember any such trainers.

No, there are three - dirt, turf, and fake. That's why all the pps services list just those three.

Sorry, it doesn't follow. The pps services list what they please and / or what is expedient. As an example, they make an attempt to break out dirt races, don't they? Sure, fast or wet. Turf is rated firm, good, yielding, soft...ugh, too many, so we'll just skip it (and just as likely, too little in the way of meaningful data).

Whatever the reason is for breaking out dirt races but not turf is likely to be driving the decision to not break out data for the many fake surfaces, but it doesn't mean their reasoning then drives the kinds of surfaces or their sub-categories in existence. (By the way, is that wet track win over a "good" surface...or muddy, or sloppy?)

Your myopic view of track surfaces reminds me of the scene in The Blues Brothers, where Jake walks into Bob's Country Bunker and asks the lady bartender what kind of music they have there. She says, "Oh, we have *both* kinds -- country AND western!"

Lastly, if there was a large hue and cry from the bettors, the pps services MIGHT provide the breakout, but half of the goofs in the grandstand still can't even name the different KINDS of fake track.  

The differences between the fake surfaces are as meaningful, or non-meaningful, as the difference between turf tracks, or the difference between two dirt tracks like Hawthorne and Turf Paradise.

Obiter dictum. And silly: the differences in surfaces within category move in lockstep with one another?

I was going to tear you apart on this, but...it just dawned on me what's wrong here, Terry: you read a lot, but you don't gamble on horses much, at least not anymore. You're book smart, and you talk a good game...but some of the things you write (like the above) seem to clearly tag you as a handicapping theorist. Which is OK: not everybody can play frequently, or wants to...but you can't slide meaningless comments that make it sound like you know what you are talking about past folks who handicap and bet almost every day.

And yet, all the non-Einsteins out there in the betting world still manage to pick winning favorites on fake tracks at nearly the same clip as they do on dirt, while the various high IQ types using the premium handicapping products complain how the fake stuff is totally unfathomable and produce nothing but random results. Go figure!

Huh? You think it's the dullards out there that are picking the favorites at whatever the current percentages are, and all the Sheets guys are losing their asses? Nice fantasy.

You ARE pretty disconnected from day-to-day racing and gambling, aren't you?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 07:38:00 AM by ImLockedOut » Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12612

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #64 on: February 10, 2012, 11:59:06 AM »

I have nothing to "get over" -- you booted this one.

Supporting your personal claim about the impossibility of handicapping poly with Bob Baffert's personal dislike for poly as a trainer was the "boot".

Quote
Huh? You think it's the dullards out there that are picking the favorites at whatever the current percentages are, and all the Sheets guys are losing their asses? Nice fantasy.

No, I don't think that about all the Sheets guys. Many (if not most) of the ones I know still play the poly tracks regularly, and do not complain of randomness. What I think is that you personally have difficulty handicapping poly, and have tried to make your personal difficulty into some sort of universal.

Quote
You ARE pretty disconnected from day-to-day racing and gambling, aren't you?

I'm looking fwd to NYRA's next set if numbers when, if what I suspect is true really is true, your new claim of "oh, well, it's really place and show that are random" is also shown to be nonsense.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12612

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2012, 04:13:05 PM »

I'm looking fwd to NYRA's next set if numbers when, if what I suspect is true really is true, your new claim of "oh, well, it's really place and show that are random" is also shown to be nonsense.

Actually, it turns out NYRA already gave us some pretty good numbers to look at in regard to this new theory that it's the place and show horses that are utterly random on the fake surfaces.

If I'm reading these correctly, these sets of numbers here give the three finish positions WPS for the various odds ranges he picked out, and for the life of me, I can't see where the percentages for 2nd and 3rd on poly are all that much different than dirt, much less "random". Once again, the handicapper nation as a whole doesn't seem to be having quite so much trouble making sense of these.

I saw the Bat signal, wrong superhero but that's all I've got.
I'm taking requests.
I saw a DMR request.
I'm  using what's in the laptop I'm  on now so it will cover only 1 DMR meet.

Artificial surface only ROI to $1.00

 0.1-1.4         00096  00039    41% 60% 78%    0.77 0.83 0.91     
1.5-3.4          00335  00081    24% 47% 67%    0.82 0.91 0.97         
3.5-5.9          00284  00054    19% 37% 48%    1.03 0.94 0.87         
6.0-7.9          00191  00020    10% 21% 36%    0.83 0.69 0.77         
8.0-9.9          00149  00009    06% 19% 32%    0.61 0.77 0.75       
10.0-14.9       00261  00017    07% 15% 28%    0.85 0.74 0.75         
15.0-19.9       00125  00002    02% 06% 13%    0.27 0.39 0.45         
20.0 UP          00501  00012    02% 07% 12%    0.94 0.79 0.59         

about 11 months of data

Dirt only

 0.1-1.4         19272  08598    45% 67% 79%    0.84 0.90 0.92   
1.5-3.4          46326  11407    25% 46% 62%    0.82 0.84 0.89       
3.5-5.9          43099  06153    14% 31% 48%    0.79 0.79 0.84       
6.0-7.9          24254  02473    10% 24% 39%    0.80 0.78 0.81         
8.0-9.9          18900  01535    08% 20% 34%    0.80 0.78 0.81         
10.0-14.9       31754  01790    06% 15% 28%    0.74 0.74 0.76       
15.0-19.9       19777  00762    04% 11% 21%    0.70 0.73 0.72       
20.0 UP          67252  01219    02% 06% 12%    0.61 0.62 0.58     
 
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
Mick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1151




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: February 10, 2012, 06:28:24 PM »

If that's true, isn't it what most handicappers call "opportunity?" 

More importantly, from what I can tell, artificial surfaces seem to be somewhat kinder to horses--although you can certainly get a good debate going on that.  At least they seem to be more consistent, and therefore kinder than bad dirt tracks (like pre-poly AP). 

I like your thinking faster horses.   The only caveat is they need to improve the poly/tapeta/used condoms and make sure it is safer for the horses physically.   The safer the tracks are for the stars of the show "The horses" the better.   You may see good horses running at 4, 5 and 6 years old on a safer track.   With more horses running you need to sharpen your handicapping pencil but the odds increase and if you are good at handicapping your opportunity to find value horses and make some money improves.

Running horses on hard dirt or any surface that increases injuries makes for smaller fields that anyone (including me) could handicap so little to no value.

Report to moderator   Logged

I may not always be right, but I am never wrong.  Sam "The Genius" Lewin
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12612

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2012, 11:58:50 AM »

I ran a query for average winning odds (2007-2010) on poly out of Del Mar's online polycap spreadsheet, and came up with 5.94-1. Then I ran the same query against Santa Anita's dirt races so far this meet, and came up with 5.53-1. One would think if poly results truly were random except for those odds-on horses that enny fool kin plainly see, that there's be a much bigger difference, but for some reason there isn't.

Unfortunately the Dmr data does not include the place and show horses.

 
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
Mick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1151




Ignore
« Reply #68 on: February 11, 2012, 05:12:39 PM »

I ran a query for average winning odds (2007-2010) on poly out of Del Mar's online polycap spreadsheet, and came up with 5.94-1. Then I ran the same query against Santa Anita's dirt races so far this meet, and came up with 5.53-1. One would think if poly results truly were random except for those odds-on horses that enny fool kin plainly see, that there's be a much bigger difference, but for some reason there isn't.

Unfortunately the Dmr data does not include the place and show horses.

 
Terry

I can't dispute facts like yours but I recall maybe 8 years ago when BTW participated in a Pace contest that you told me all the Santa Anita races were chalky and you couldn't make money on them.   As I recall, those were the days when the track was hard and any sprinter who could go two turns was blistering the track and winning races. 

Perhaps the new dirt is different than the old dirt.  Some say that I am older than dirt and different than most.     

I think you'd have to compare many factors, not just SA versus DMR.  Maybe one track before and after Poly changed things.   A good one would be SA with the old dirt, the poly and now the new dirt.   I'm not certain the information is available.   To my mind, whichever surface is safest for the athletes (horse and jockey) is the one I favor.   I will figure out (or die trying) how to handicap that surface.
Report to moderator   Logged

I may not always be right, but I am never wrong.  Sam "The Genius" Lewin
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12612

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2012, 05:20:24 PM »

Terry

I can't dispute facts like yours but I recall maybe 8 years ago when BTW participated in a Pace contest that you told me all the Santa Anita races were chalky and you couldn't make money on them.   As I recall, those were the days when the track was hard and any sprinter who could go two turns was blistering the track and winning races. 

I don't really recall saying that, and I also recall ending up as one of the top scorers for our team. However, that old SA dirt track did play a lot chalkier IIRC.

Quote
I think you'd have to compare many factors, not just SA versus DMR.

I agree with that, but I think NYRA792 already did it for us. Just not using average win price.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.632 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy