Del Mar - Initial thoughts?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by TitanSooner

once he's said the same thing 412 times, we'll lay into him too.

by my count we're at 405 so it won't be long now.

[wigmore]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You, and a few others in this thread need to develop better reading comprehension skills.


I didn't compare the splits on that track to any other track...I compared it with the splits in other route races throughout the day.

I'm seriously done with this.

I'm not going to keep explaining this over and over to people who don't bother to finish reading.

I think its you who need to brush up on your reading skills.. What I said was that you were deciding what fractions were slow or not by comparing with those fractions run on a dirt track. You said 47 and change was genuine and 48 change would have been a once in lifetime set up on a dirt track. Who cares what 48 change would mean on a dirt track in this case?

47 change for the 10k claimers was not a "genuine" fraction as you said but in fact lighning fast compared to others on the day (and also the sprints from Day 1) and the horse who was second through those lightening splits was not beaten all that far.

The 2nd race the pace "very comfortable fractions of 48 for the half mile."
Now if that had been a dirt race as you admit it would have been disheartening to see that easly leader lose but this is not dirt and 48 change seems like a farily swift pace compared to other routes on the day. Spanish Bandit who was that pace setter had faded just ad badly on her turf race prior and had faield to last vs much weaker at Pleasanton. Is it a suprise that after moderate (maybe even fast fractions) that he faded yesterday? You could argue that he held on much better today than in either of his prior routes


PS before this arguement gets too heated you should know that you know me from another place

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

What conclusion did you draw from your pace analysis of those races?

For starters, the 10K claiming race for fillies, the first route race run over Del Mar's polytrack was the race that went 47 1/5ths to the half.

After the second route race had been run, it was quickly appearent to everyone that horses can't use any of their speed early on in route races.

The conclusions are obvious. You can't use your horse early, and you have to make one-run.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You said the races were ugly, I'm curious what that means. I'm being honest when I say that to me, it seems that the races are being called ugly only because your traditonal pace analysis methods do not shed any light on the outcome, that they are the wrong tool.

Basically, these races can't be run like true horse races. Pace doesn't have anything to do with it. Horses are reserved early on in turf races, but they can showcase exciting acceleration through the late stages.

These races are very ugly to watch, only to someone who actually loves watching traditional horse racing.

If you look at yesterdays feature race, a field of very good older males in a 75K ALW race struggled through 8.5 furlongs in 1:47. Basically, horses can't use their exciting natural abilities, and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win.

I don't have a problem with polytrack from a handicappres prospective, however, from a racing fans prospective....it makes horse racing look boring unwatchable.

[Riot]

Having strong feelings or heated debate about a particular subject doesn't imply one has those feelings towards the poster debating one side of the issue at all - it just means people hold very strong opinons, and thus it's a subject important to many.

If we all thought alike, we wouldn't have pari-mutual betting

I have great respect for the people here who don't like synthetic surfaces, and I like hearing why they feel that way. Knowing the pluses and minuses benefits us all as handicappers.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by wigmore

47 change for the 10k claimers was not a "genuine" fraction as you said but in fact lighning fast compared to others on the day

What other board do I know you from?

You do realize that that race was THE FIRST ROUTE RACE run over Del Mar's polytrack? Right?

If you look at the way my post was structured, it was CLEARLY done so to show that jockeys and trainers had made a correction from seeing what happened in the first two races.

No **** 47 1/5, for 10K claiming fillies, is fast compared to 50 3/5ths for 75K older males in an allowance race.

Once again, you do realize that ZERO route races over the Del Mar polytrack had been run at the time of the 47 1/5th fraction??

I called it a truly run race because the riders rode the race as though they'd ride the race normally over dirt.

It's remarkable that I need to keep explaining something like this.

[wigmore]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

What other board do I know you from?

You do realize that that race was THE FIRST ROUTE RACE run over Del Mar's polytrack? Right?

If you look at the way my post was structured, it was CLEARLY done so to show that jockeys and trainers had made a correction from seeing what happened in the first two races.

No **** 47 1/5, for 10K claiming fillies, is fast compared to 50 3/5ths for 75K older males in an allowance race.

Once again, you do realize that ZERO route races over the Del Mar polytrack had been run at the time of the 47 1/5th fraction??

I called it a truly run race because the riders rode the race as though they'd ride the race normally over dirt.

It's remarkable that I need to keep explaining something like this.

Even if the jockeys rode that first race way too fast early the pace setter hung on at least as well as he had done in his prior races if not better. Would that horse have hung on as well in a 46 change on the drit?
The same is true of the pace setter in the second race.

Apart from the 7th where the splits very exceptionally slow (and the best horses finished well) pace setters ran ok...

I just dont see that these races look all that ugly if you take away the clock. The times are slower but the sprints have looked fair to me and the routes maybe edging closers but that isnt all that much different from a track like Belmont right?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Basically, these races can't be run like true horse races. Pace doesn't have anything to do with it. Horses are reserved early on in turf races, but they can showcase exciting acceleration through the late stages.

These races are very ugly to watch, only to someone who actually loves watching traditional horse racing.

If you look at yesterdays feature race, a field of very good older males in a 75K ALW race struggled through 8.5 furlongs in 1:47. Basically, horses can't use their exciting natural abilities, and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win.

I don't have a problem with polytrack from a handicappres prospective, however, from a racing fans prospective....it makes horse racing look boring unwatchable.

So if I don't find these races ugly, are you implying that I must not love traditional horse racing?

All I see is the lack of a true speed bias to the same extent that most dirt tracks exhibit. For me there is nothing more boring than seeing a horse zip to the lead on a speed biased track and watching them run around the track in a futile attempt to catch the E horse. I don't know why this is the only thing considered "real" racing.

"and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win"
What is the other approach? Don't dirt races also end up basically with the least tired horse winning the race?

gun the horse balls out and count on the bias against closers to get you across the wire first? this is what I see happening on many dirt tracks.

[Riot]

This is from a handicapping bloggers website, so I can't verify accuracy (looking for stuff published by the track to compare):

Winning Margins on the Arlington Polytrack (May 4 - June 24)
½ length or less 77/267 = 29 percent
¾ to 2 lengths 92/267 = 34 percent
2 ¼ to 4 lengths 63/267 = 24 percent
4 ¼ or more lengths 35/267 = 13 percent

Winner's Odds on the Arlington Polytrack (May 4 - June 24)
Post-time favorites 68/267 = 25 percent
3-1 or less 118/267 = 44 percent
7-2 to 9-1 98/267 = 37 percent
10-1 and up 51/267 = 19 percent

Arlington's Average Exotic Wager Payoffs (May 4 - June 24)
$2 Daily Double -- $114
$2 Exacta -- $109
$1 Trifecta -- $409
$1 Superfecta -- $3,388
$1 Pick 3 -- $562
$1 Pick 4 -- $3,160

Arlington's 2006 average winning payoff in their main track races was $11.24, compared to $15.80 this year on Polytrack.

Arlington's Average Field Size Comparison
'07 Polytrack all -- 8.67 horses per race (through June 27)
'06 Main Track all -- 7.14
'07 Polytrack sprints -- 8.96
'06 Main track sprints - 7.31
'07 Polytrack routes -- 8.21
'06 Races Main track routes -- 6.84

[10 pnt move up]

I agree with Drugs, this stuff is just ugly to watch, not only are the races not being truely run alot of the races end up with 3 or 4 races at the wire which we all know is not a good sign of a great performance but of mediocirty.

The hollywood cushion track is light years better to watch and wager then del mar.

[The Bid]

The stuff is all garbage.

The reason you have such a big difference in dirt routes and poly routes is because the slow grass horses can transition to poly and run route races.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

So if I don't find these races ugly, are you implying that I must not love traditional horse racing?

All I see is the lack of a true speed bias to the same extent that most dirt tracks exhibit. For me there is nothing more boring than seeing a horse zip to the lead on a speed biased track and watching them run around the track in a futile attempt to catch the E horse. I don't know why this is the only thing considered "real" racing.

"and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win"
What is the other approach? Don't dirt races also end up basically with the least tired horse winning the race?

gun the horse balls out and count on the bias against closers to get you across the wire first? this is what I see happening on many dirt tracks.

When I look at the list of what most people consider the greatest races of all time or best races they have seen in person I see a list of races that stand because of how the pace unfolds...an exciting closing finish...a speed horse that keeps pouring it on. Perhaps the track will adjust itself though and the jockeys won't be riding it in such a hesitant manner. I did like what I was seeing at Hollywood better though.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

When I look at the list of what most people consider the greatest races of all time or best races they have seen in person I see a list of races that stand because of how the pace unfolds...an exciting closing finish...a speed horse that keeps pouring it on. Perhaps the track will adjust itself though and the jockeys won't be riding it in such a hesitant manner. I did like what I was seeing at Hollywood better though.

There may be something to that. I will say that i can recall no great races, nothing memorable so far on poly. The bluegrass was entirely forgetable. While i like it for the day to day races, I still want to see the great races, thrilling races, like we had in the TC races this year.

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by Riot

I am very excited about next year's Triple Crown trail.

How will the cream of the California crop, filtered via synthetic surfaces, perform when they come east?

They should have a stronger bottom and if they take to the dirt they will be hard to beat.

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

All this thread is missing is oracle and eurobounce.

Mike would say if it anit dirt it aint racing and that all I have to say about that.

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by philcski

I don't see any rhyme or reason in the winners whatsoever. Unfortunately, pace handicapping on this stuff now belongs on the musty shelf with the "Slide-o-Matic" and the other crap they sell in the back of the DRF.

The winners appear to be cutting back in distance and have a stronger foundation. Understand that these horses have not been training over this track and it is different that Cushion track at Hollywood Park. The trainers that stayed at Santa Anita didn't do well at all when they raced at Hollywood and I expect the same with the change to Poly track at Del Mar. I will start looking for form reversals from second time out horses at Del Mar plus the cut back in distance and just add the class = winners.

[onebadbeast]

Del Mar Is Still Feeding Us Chalk, Chalk And Chalk. Exactas Are Small, But Money Is Made On The End. Jumps From 10 Bucks To 100+ And More On The Super. You Dont Need To Handicap, Just Circle Morning Lines From The Program And Go From There. Then Add Bombs On The End. You Will Make Money In The Long Run.

[Riot]

Did anybody else hear Hammer's and Mig's comments on poly on Steve's show today? Maybe Steve can recap their comments.

[ultracapper]

drugs, i don't think these horses are coming back tired. the races look ugly, and look like everybody is tiring, and the times look like every horse is tired, but the trainers are saying that their horses aren't coming out of these races as tired as they came out of the dirt races. the times are slower, but i bet it has more to do with footing than being tired. the track maintenance will work this out, as they did at hollywood, and the times will quicken. hollywood, albeit a different surface, started playing very well this spring. i thought just like "honest dirt", not like a super highway that is meant to give every 3yo optional claimer a chance to run 108 and change.