Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > Main Forum > The Paddock
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-14-2007, 10:47 AM
pgardn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I find it very hard to believe that synth. is totally random surface.
One of the main problems is the belief that fast horses are better. Or horses with a high cruising rate are better. It might just be this surface plays to endurance in a very diff. way that grass. And the horses you think or thought were crap (for whatever reason; its usually price or level run at on dirt), are actually tough animals in a war of attrition on a tiring surface. Or maybe they have a hoovestrike and stride that works well on the surface under certain conditions.

There has to be a way to cap it. It may be People are going to have to change notions and old habits drastically. I just have a hard time labeling a horse as crap when he/she has just beaten 9 other horses just because I lost a bet.

Hell maybe its just a matter of a horse relaxing and not battling the surface. Especially if they have been bred for, and trained on dirt.

I am glad it is here. And I am glad it adds some confusion. Because that leaves openings for folks willing to try and figure it out. I have seen many more horses in each race on the stuff, and larger payouts. I dont see what is wrong with that unless you are stuck on old methods that dont work anymore.

Now after stating all this betting stuff. I would much rather watch a horse run on dirt because its beautiful the way the horses can stride out on it. It really makes the horses look like the great athletes they are.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-14-2007, 10:55 AM
ArlJim78 ArlJim78 is offline
Newmarket
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
I find it very hard to believe that synth. is totally random surface.
it isn't anywhere close to random. i would like to know how people are coming to this conclusion. where is the data? frankly I find it less random than dirt.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-14-2007, 11:04 AM
pgardn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
it isn't anywhere close to random. i would like to know how people are coming to this conclusion. where is the data? frankly I find it less random than dirt.
I will admit syn. is more confusing for me, but I really have not had time to look at it closely. So I will defer to the more resourceful, flexible, everyday cappers.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.