My only consistent impression is just like Kee and Arlington, but I only watched half the day: "fit" horses finish well, no matter their style. Speed doesn't carry by a gifted rock-hard rail, it had better be "true" turn of foot, and the horse had better be fit for the distance, too. It seems like horses tire on it more quickly, to my eyes, if they are questionable.
Race 1 - 1 turn mile: 1st and 2nd chalkfest - 1st was a deep closer (from last in the field to first) but this is that horses known running style, it was third off a layoff after 2 sprints, and clearly stood out over this field speed- and class-wise as the favorite and 2nd favorite.
Race 2 - another chalkfest. 1 mile, maiden 40K claimers - speed (7-1) led through most of the race, just nipped at the wire by (2-1) stalker, then 3rd was 7-5 and fourth 9-2.
Race 3 - 1 1/16 miles, 10K claimers. Surprise! 65-1 shot with lower speed figure (but a strong finish figure) wins. I couldn't see that coming
but this is 10K maiden claimers ... Speed didn't hold over 2 turns. I think second place was 9/2, then third 5-1 and fourth 7-1. Talmos speedy front-runner collapsed, if I recall correctly.
Race 4 - 5 1/2 furlong sprint, 100K maiden claimers. Nakatani brings home my stalker for a nice finish to my day. I didn't see the rest of the card.
I have no problems with artificial surfaces. They are not all the same from track to track (like dirt, like turf), but they maintain a bit more similarity day to day at a particular track vs dirt (my impression). It's just another track idiosyncrasy to learn. I was thinking today, that if you closed your eyes, you wouldn't know if it were a dirt or synthetic surface race. I like it - bigger fields, bigger handle, bigger payoffs if you find the overlooked horse.
I suspect my opinion is the minority
