Quote:
|
Originally Posted by oracle80
I agree, the old stuff had a pronounced speed bias.
But its about more than that. Horses with no talent whatsoever are beating horses miles better than they are on a daily and consistent basis.
Its not poly I am opposed to per say.
Its the fact that its being marketed as a dirt replacement.
If tracks had room for a poly course, dirt, and turf, that would be fine.
But eliminating the dirt entirely is wrong. let the cripples run on poly all they want.
|
fair enough, i was just wondering as i'm jumping into all of these conversations a bit late coming over finally from the espn boards after not enjoying myself there anymore.
i've found, in the days that i've handicapped and watched the races (about 2/3 of them) that most of the longshot horses who are winning aren't horses with "no talent" but more horses that are taking to the surface a bit better than others. most, and i use that term "most" very carefully, have run races in the past that would show them as capable of winning the races they are entered in -- just some examples off the top of my head: Connections from this past Sunday. He's not consistent, but he's capable of running the sort of race it would take to win it. His style suited the profile of the course perfectly -- and he paid about $61. Add to that the Malibu Mint/Hide and Chic exacta from Saturday -- based on how the track was playing, the first horse I threw out was Behaving Badly, and she got bet down hard.
Dirt substitute? No, I don't think it should be one either. But at the same time, I think that alot of people should stop pretending that it's impossible to handicap or bull**** to handicap and that they are somehow above it. It's been easy easy easy easy, RIDICULOUSLY easy money lately. I haven't done so well at the racetrack in months.
That's my two cents.