This will be our first chance to see how a horse that ran well in the Lousiana Derby does.
Vicarge didn\'t really look like a horse that wanted to stretch out in distance going into the LA Derby despite having some good figures.
The leaders went 1, 2, 3 around the track in a pace that looked moderate visually on a track that might have been speed or inside speed favoring. Depending on how Vicarage runs in this race, he could give us some evidence about the quality of High Limit\'s performance that day.
Post Edited (04-01-05 17:29)
CH,
I agree with you oin this. It will give us an indication as to how good Frankels horse is.. How do you bet into this race if at all?
I see exacta opportinities with BB Best with 4 others. (Noble Causeway, Vicarage, High Fly, Wal Street Scndle). And perhapsd tris.
NC Tony
Yeesh. There is plenty of evidence available already about the quality of High Limit\'s performance in the LA Derby, and none of it has or will have anything to do with how Vicarage runs in the Florida Derby. HP
I\'m pretty unlikely to bet any of the following horses:
High Fly - Deserves to be the favorite, but I think he will be an underlay.
Noble Causaway - I\'m a lot higher on his chances that TG, but I think he will be an underlay.
Vicarage - I didn\'t like his chances of getting the route in the LA Derby, but he ran very well. I\'m not sure if he ran well because I underestimated his stamina, he\'s trained by TP, or a biased track/moderate pace carried him. I\'m waiting for some of the horses from that day run back so I can come to some conclusion on if there was a bias that day. If I was confident in either direction, I would take a stand on this horse either way. However, similar to the discussion about prepping for the Derby, they don\'t force you to make a bet if you aren\'t sure what the correct value is. So why be a stubborn fool and guess? If you have a strong opinion though, this is probably a good horse to key on one way or the other.
I don\'t like PAB and EM as much as the remainder.
My guess is that I\'m going to just watch the race because I don\'t dislike HF enough to get excited about betting against him. He deserves favoritism.
By the way, A huge effort out of WallStreet Scandal might also tell us something about if there was a front running/inside bias that day.
Post Edited (04-02-05 12:39)
\"So if Vicarage draws off by 3 after dueling BB into submission and resisiting a bid by High Fly you won\'t be slightly more confident in the quality of High Limit\'s performance?\"
No. For clarity\'s sake, High Limit has run lights out every time he\'s set foot on the track. The figures are pretty strong, to say the least. Nothing Vicarage does today means anything in terms of my evaluation of High Limit.
\"On the flip side, if many of the outside closers from that day suddenly run a little better than expected and Vicarage finishes up the track you won\'t perk up a little and follow the situation a little closer before backing High Limit?\"
If Vicarage finishes up the track I may attribute it to the fact that he\'s backed up off of significant efforts before. As for the \"outside closers,\" I guess it depends on which ones and how they run. I really can\'t imagine a scenario where, say, Wall Street Scandal runs well and I\'ll say, \"wow, I\'m off High Limit now.\"
I guess you will form your \"non-silly\" opinion later on based on how this race turns out in terms of your analysis of the impact of the speed or inside speed favoring bias you may have seen at the Fair Grounds on LA Derby day.
Gotta go. Good luck.
HP
Tossing High Fly in top three slots, he\'s sitting on an 0-2-X and the fever he spiked can only hurt the situation.
Wallstreet just plowed thru his 2yo top and will go off at more than his morning line of 12-1 and he\'ll run well.
Mighty M might be any kind, but short rest.
Vicarage will be the wise guy horse and will split HF and Noble as 2nd fav in betting. Wall/Vic in the exotics up and down.
Good luck!
>No. For clarity\'s sake, High Limit has run lights out every time he\'s set foot on the track. The figures are pretty strong, to say the least. <
I believe a fast sprint and a slow paced loose lead route against garbage cans in Delaware combined with a fast race where he was on a loose lead in a moderate pace on a track that might have been biased tells me that the horse is good. It doesn\'t tell me if he\'s as good as his figures indicate or how he will run when a real Grade I horse hooks him. I\'d first like to determine if there was a bias that day.
>If Vicarage finishes up the track I may attribute it to the fact that he\'s backed up off of significant efforts before. As for the \"outside closers,\" I guess it depends on which ones and how they run. I really can\'t imagine a scenario where, say, Wall Street Scandal runs well and I\'ll say, \"wow, I\'m off High Limit now.\" >
I agree with everything you say. No one subsequent performance from that day will be proof. I am looking for evidence and it starts accumulating today.
Post Edited (04-02-05 12:02)
going back the the LD Derby, I know that High Limit got a lone f trip and the track was extrememly biased, but he did set very fast pace fractions, so its entirely possible that he is legit. I would be more skeptical about the rest of that fields chances of reproducing the form.
classhandicapper wrote:
> >No. For clarity\'s sake, High Limit has run lights out every
> time he\'s set foot on the track. The figures are pretty strong,
> to say the least. <
>
> I believe a fast sprint and a slow paced loose lead route
> against garbage cans in Delaware combined with a fast race
> where he was on a loose lead in a moderate pace on a track that
> might have been biased tells me that the horse is good. It
> doesn\'t tell me if he\'s as good as his figures indicate or how
> he will run when a real Grade I horse hooks him.
>
> >If Vicarage finishes up the track I may attribute it to the
> fact that he\'s backed up off of significant efforts before. As
> for the \"outside closers,\" I guess it depends on which ones and
> how they run. I really can\'t imagine a scenario where, say,
> Wall Street Scandal runs well and I\'ll say, \"wow, I\'m off High
> Limit now.\" >
>
> I agree with everything you say. No one subsequent performance
> from that day will be proof. I am looking for evidence and it
> starts accumulating today.
saddle,
I don\'t think High Limit is bad. I think he is obviously good. I am just trying to figure out \"how good\" he is. Plus, I don\'t know that that track was obviously biased. There may have been no bias at all. It\'s certainly not clear to me.
He was assigned a pretty good pace figure for that race, but visually it didn\'t look like he was running very hard early and the race development gave me a similar impression.
We\'ll see how High Limit does when someone goes with him. Thus far noone has looked him in the eye, he just might crumble. But, maybe not, LOL
CH-- this is getting seriously annoying. First of all, aside from the highly questionable THEORIES you present about speed biases, etc., without any EVIDENCE (and I\'m NOT looking for this to turn into a debate about whether those biases exist in general, and won\'t allow this discussion to become that), I provided absolute evidence that neither a rail or speed bias existed on that day at FG. I posted the sheets, along with an explanation making it clear that the numbers for those 3 races could not have held up better, once you factored in weight and ground. You simply never responded to those points, as you often do not, and have now brought your theory up again as if I never shot it down. There is absolutely NO chance there was a bias for those races, WHATEVER Vicarage, High Limit or anyone else does going forward. And anyone who wants to know why can hit the search engine on this site with \"High Limit\" and \"Bias\" to see the string and sheets with numbers they ran.
In the broader sense, the basis for a lot of what we do here is the use of patterns, which involves the premise (which is proved by the Thoro-Patterns, by the way) that horses do not perform at the same level every time, independent of outside influences like pace and bias possibly affecting their form (and think about that statement carefully before you take a shot at it). That being the case, the fact that a horse runs worse following a big number doesn\'t necessarily mean anything. If a GROUP does that could mean something, and a GOOD figure which pairs up can mean something-- but not some vague \"good effort\" to the untrained eye.
Finally, aside from your annoying habit of not dealing with actual evidence or arguments that contradict your position, there is the chutzpah of your overall behavior. This is a TG site, frequented to a large degree by those who use our data and want to know more about how others use it. When I put something out here it is backed up by a tremendous amount of research and by my record, and when necessary by evidence I supply, as with the FG races, or Chris did with the 2 Derby prep stuff. You have some unsupported theories, period. You spout them incessantly, without backing them up with evidence, or addressing evidence or arguments of others. And, as one of the PROFESSIONAL horseplayers who frequents this site said to me on the phone this week, you \"keep dressing the same pig up in different clothes\".
You seem to think that there are two positions-- yours, and everyone else\'s-- and that they are entitled to equal time, no matter who the other person is, or what the evidence is, or what the forum is. Which is not to say you don\'t sometimes have something useful to contribute-- you do. But recognize where you are, and what\'s going on around you.
I\'ll take Papi Chuillo to win with Mighty Mecke, Wallstreet Scandel and Noble Causeway rounding out the bottom.
Sort it Out to win the Sunland Park Derby
Ole Faunty to win the Skip Away
Deputy Lad to win the Pan American
xichibanx
TGJB,
If I express my view about a race or horse, it\'s sort of necessary for me to say what \"I think\". That usually means I have to move beyond the figures and patterns into things \"I think\" impact the figures.
I understand that you disagree with some of my general and specific views/theories and are certain you are right. I didn\'t think the requirement was that I agree with you every time or prove my theories in order to post my opinions here.
If this forum is just for people that use TG figures, want to get better at using them, and believe in them to the same extent you do, you should have thrown me out of here a long time ago. I use your figures, but I obviously supplement them with other information and ideas.
Seriously, I don\'t like these conversations to get circular or repetitive either. It wastes my time too.
Sometimes someone responds to me in a way that makes me think they didn\'t understand what I was saying. I guess I don\'t communicate well. So I respond. Sometimes I get a series of responses or a comment from you that I think misunderstands me or is taking something I say as an attack on the product and off we go. That\'s not what I want. I obviously love talking horses. I want to post my opinion and thinking, read what others have to say, maybe pick up a way of thinking about it that will advance me, maybe discuss a result, and go away.
i don\'t have much to add, but
NC - expecting a move forward to the \"3\" lvl. should get the perfect trip under prado from post 1. zito didn\'t crank up TCE for last year\'s fla derby, and the horse came in third despite being at least five lengths faster than the rest. i\'m not sure NC will be completely cranked for this, thus the risk for a late running second or third. still, top two finish predicted.
BB - will get perfect trip. was all out last. not expecting much improvement. \"5\" maybe?
PAB - not looking for a forward move going 9f. wait until he cuts back.
HF - low odds contender based on # power and expected good trip. can\'t toss.
vicarage - rean very well last out. i get the sense that the horse was completely cranked though. pletcher probably wanted another week to prepare, but when bandini got hurt, he had to try this spot. expecting a small backwards move. i will try and beat the brilliant pletcher/jr team.
MM - maybe, but comes in on short rest. not for me.
PC - just don\'t see a reason why he will improve today. no thanks.
WS - \"6\" or \"7\" maybe? might have used with a better post. no.
EM - i posted on this guy in the sapling, one of my biggest hits last year. the colt is a 6f sprinter though. no.
i\'m stuck with two of the three favs. flat HF/NC exacta, maybe get 4-1 or 5-1 on my play ......... see, told you, not much to add.
CH-- once again, you have failed to address the points I have made. Do it again and your post will get deleted.
An example of making your point while addressing someone else\'s points and evidence would be, \"despite all the evidence indicating otherwise, I still believe that there may have been a speed bias on La. Derby day\".
SORT IT OUT 3-1 is my throw out special today for low price horses. Sad thing is I don\'t really have a major key hoss, but I will play something on DOVER DERE 5-1. My best bet of today is of all places Sam Houston race 8....PANCHO TAM 8-1.
PC - just don\'t see a reason why he will improve today. no thanks.
Micheal.. I think \'richie\', or someone here that operates close with GP, mentioned after the FOY that Papi was nearly lame as late as Thursday before the race... I hear now that he\'s 100% for the first time in a long time.. I\'m not into him today, but if there\'s a reason that he improves, it could be the aforementioned..
thanks kasept - i guess PC could improve a touch. had a bit of trouble last, and the pattern is going in the right direction (barely). i posted on him before the sham stks, and he ran pretty well at 9-1. even if he does improve though, his connection say he will be closer to the pace here, and with three horses with some speed drawn inside of him, he might lose some ground. another tough call in a bad betting race.
i\'ll take a 7-1 hit in a tough betting race like that.
.......
strange move by prado. a bit of patience and he runs right up the rail and wins. NC still might have run by if he hadn\'t shied away from HF and lost a bit of momentum at the 1/16 pole. the \'05 wise guy horse will be NC.
Post Edited (04-02-05 18:10)
Michael D,
You called it exactaly right even 4-1 on the exacta. I tried to split them with BB to get some value as track was playing to speed some. But BB can\'t get more than 1 1/16, couldn\'t settle for 4-1 on the exacta today. With hindsight it probaly was the only play on the race. Didn\'t bet much so didn\'t get hurt.
Vicarage is still running I think.
NC Tony
tony,
vicarage wasn\'t ready for a test like this. he only ran cause bandini got hurt. look at the timing and his #\'s: four month layoff - \"2\", two week rest - \"7.75\", five week rest - \"2\", three week rest - \"bounce!\". that is why pletcher and zito are in favor of a major prep five weeks before the derby. some horses need the rest.... i thought the exacta would pay 4-1 or 5-1. i was happy with $16.80. PC, BB and especially vicarage (only $22 behind HF!) took more money in the exactas than i thought they would.
Post Edited (04-02-05 19:17)
MD..
A wholly unpleasant experience for VIC today.. He whacked the starting gate and then was well wide early.. Was anxious as can be on the backstretch and said \"Enough\" heading into the turn...
Park Ave. ran a credible race today.. Did you see Charlie Hesse and Buzz Chace after the race? They went behind Nick at one point and looked pleased.. I bet they show up at Churchill. He\'s got the cake to reserve a spot...
Kas,
sorry, no post raced excuses for vicarage accepted. he drew outside of BB and HF, i figured he would lose ground around around the first turn. competely empty in the stretch. when i saw 7-1, i figured the dogwood/pletcher crew didn\'t have all that much confidence.
......
PAB did run OK. he will be tough when he cuts back to 7f or 1m.
Post Edited (04-02-05 18:50)
I\'m so used to $2.00 exacta\'s(went brain dead). Got $8.4-1 for the exacata even better. Good value in low value race.
make room for me please....didnt even notice it was $1 dollar payout till you posted.Man was i upset over the payoff..lost money on saver till you enlightened me
thanx,
PARTYpokerON
TGJB -
I\'m trying to understand your position regarding the Louisiana Derby and High Limit.
To me, everything in Vicarage\'s past performances before and after the Louisiana Derby suggests a horse with distance limitations, yet he somehow paired his sprint top going 8.5 furlongs in the Louisiana Derby on a day when horses running close to the pace did very well. The sheets you posted show those frontrunners all either pairing or exceeding their previous tops, which would be consistent with a track playing hospitably to speed (or horses with distance limitations).
I understand that many explanations for all of this are possible. For example, Vicarage was third-off-a-layoff and first-time-two-turns-on-dirt in Louisiana, and then got riled when he hit the gate yesterday. One feasible explanation, however, is that something was favoring Vicarage that day and could also have been favoring High Limit.
Fast-forward to a loaded Blue Grass in two weeks. Would you take that possibility into account when you evaluate High Limit\'s chances in that race?
The point of posting the sheets for all 3 stakes on Louisiana Derby day was to show that running style and path made no difference in the way ANY horses ran relative to their previous ability. It wasn\'t just that race, and it wasn\'t just the frontrunners, who happened to be High Limit, Summerly and Badge of Silver (the favorites, and ones with the best figures going in). If you look at everyone from Kansas City Boy to Limehouse, you\'ll see that a very high percentage of horses with ALL running styles and getting ALL trips ran their race or close to it-- but the RESULTS (not the figures) were biased, by ground loss. If you don\'t use ground loss in your figures you can\'t know how well KCB, Limehouse, Pollards Vision and many others ran.
In point of fact, the only frontrunner I can remember giving a new top to was BOS-- and that was a 1/2 point new top. Several who were NOT on the lead paired tops or ran slight new tops-- but they were not as good horses, and traveled further, in some cases, so they did not appear to \"run well\".
I suggest that everyone with an opinion on this question (or who really wants to understand it) look at these sheets. They contain the number run that day, and if you look upper left of the page, the paths the horse ran in, and comments about where he was during the running.
As for High Limit in the Blue Grass- the questions to me in handicapping that race will include whether Frankel\'s horses are running well at Keenland, and who draws where. If his horses are firing, I would expect HL to run as well as his last, or better.
http://www.thorograph.com/hold/fg031205.pdf
I\'m looking not only at the winners, but also at those right behind them. For example, Carlea, by Carson City, who followed Summerly around and finished 2d at 29/1, exceeded her previous top (earned sprinting) by a point.
If I understand your position regarding pace correctly, when it has an effect (not often in your view), it affects only the TG figures of those running close to the pace. That being the case, wouldn\'t you also expect the same of a speed-favoring track? On a speed-kindly track, the speed horses run close to their tops (presumably also earned under favorable conditions). On a tiring track, they run \"Off\" or \"X\" races. The closers run their race regardless. If that is correct, then when all the horses run their races, the track is on the speed-favoring side of the spectrum.
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of putting words in your mouth here, and I apologize if I\'ve done your views injustice. The words \"absolutely no chance\" in your response to CH triggered me to think about whether an alternative explanation of the sheets you posted would make sense.
My position is that when there is an extremely FAST pace, the effects of that pace, if any, will only be on the figures of the ones who run extremely fast early. I don\'t correlate that in any way to \"speed favoring\" tracks, because I don\'t think such a thing exists. There are speed favoring layouts (short stretches), there are tracks which the jockeys think are speed favoring, where it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy (they use their horses much more early, and a 6 furlong race becomes a 4f race-- nobody changes position late). There are times at certain tracks where certain paths are better or worse (Keenland?), and frontrunners have an advantage in getting to that path. But I have never seen a \"Speed bias\" reflected in the FIGURES, as opposed to the results. Doesn\'t mean it hasn\'t happened, but I haven\'t noticed it.
It seems to me that your question relies on the premise that there is such a thing as a \"speed bias\", rather than examining whether it exists. But I may not understand the question.
It also seems to assume that frontrunners are at a disadvantage-- they may or may not run their races , but others always will. As a practical matter, this is clearly wrong-- frontrunners do very well in American racing, out of all proportion.
JB,
Many sharp racing people feel the FG track favored inside speed on the day in question.I totally agree that the runners subsequent race does not confirm bias. It seems that because all the runners performed in their normal range(i.e.TG figs), you have concluded there was no bias.
Just because a bias exist on a day, that does NOT mean that runners who are \"with\" the bias run faster.It does mean that horses against the bias run slower.
It means that the track \"played\" a certain way.I have studied bias for 20 years(mainly in NY) and have not seen BIAS aided horses necessarily run faster than their norm but I have seen horses against a bias run much slower.
What methodology/science are you using to pronounce that there was no bias.To say that the figs bear out \"no bias\" is not something I can remotely understand if you mean the closers/wide runners performed to their norm.
TGJB -
You are right; the question is really whether such a thing as a \"speed bias\" exists. (Maybe I\'ve been watching too much TVG.) I can\'t think of a good physical explanation for why it should, but it\'s certainly a staple of handicapping jargon. For instance, I don\'t think I\'ve read a single story about this year\'s San Felipe that didn\'t include a reference to the fact that closers weren\'t winning that day at Santa Anita. And Frankel told Bailey to send Badge of Silver based on his belief that the front end was the place to be on Louisiana Derby Day.
I\'m also not sure what evidence of a speed bias would look like in the figures. Perhaps horses running on or near the pace would earn a disproportionate number of new or paired tops, but that would be difficult to measure on a statistically reliable basis.
Thanks for your time. It\'s been informative as always.
Miff-- the methodology I am using is to say that horses who ran in different paths and with different styles turned out to be no more or less likely to run good figures-- look at the sheets. Which, as I said, does not mean more or less likely to win or run in the money-- that\'s why I said that running style (and specifically ground loss) didn\'t bias the performances, but did bias the results.
When there is a bias that makes frontrunning types lose, those are the ones I want to know about. This is much easier to identify and profit from in the future. Unfortunately, this is VERY rare in the US.
I understand your methodology and that seems reasonable and correct to me.As to your comments about bias in general, let me add this. On many occasions at the track you will hear some people yelling \'speed bias\" after a couple of much the best runners (going in) wire the field.
I completely agree with you that on most of those occasions, there was no speed bias at all.I have noted and recorded many days at NYRA tracks where there was PRONOUNCED speed biases or dead rails.
On one or two obvious bias days at Belmont, I questioned the lack of an X(dead rail) on your sheets.You replied, for example, that on May5th at Belmont (deadest of all dead rails days)that several horses got tops racing down inside and therefore there was no dead rail.What you should have concluded is that several horses running inside ran new tops IN SPITE of the dead rail( a major difference)
Figs alone will never tell it all about this game and a computer program is not going to catch every dead rail.
BEYERGUY,
If you follow Belmont and it plays like it normally does, you will find speed horses that fall apart on dead rail days only to come back to score at big baloons on an honest surface.
Bad news for bias players. I hear that the new track superintendent at NYRA tracks is great at keeping surfaces even(no bias). Lets see how he does with BIG SANDY this summer.
No doubt miff, I do follow Belmont. It is one of the few tracks where this occurs, and one of my most profitable.
I sure wish there was a site that tracked the bias, and while I know its subjective, it would help. I mean I track my circuit, but certainly play others.
All my humble opinion if anyone cares.
1. The speed figure assigned to a race can be influenced to some degree by the interpretation of the result by the figure maker. So if he goes into the process thinking/not thinking there was a bias etc... there could be some small interpretative differences that would impact the figures and still allow both sets to make sense based on prior performances. One which includes bias and one that doesn\'t. The same is true of pace.
2. I have never met or heard of anyone that could quantify biases exactly, but everyone I know that believes they exist tends to look at the subsequent performances of the key horses of the day to see if they (as a group) confirm or negate the initial suspicion.
3. IMHO, there are speed biases.
4. IMHO, speed biases are more related to stamina than running styles. It just so happens that most horses with stamina issues are front runners.
Some tracks are more or less tiring on some days.
Personally, I doubt a speed bias would help Dr. Fager run faster at 7F. He didn\'t have a stamina issue. However, it might make allow him sustain his normal figure or run a little faster at 10F if he dueled with a rabbit.
A tiring track is not going to stop him at 7F, but it might get him beat at 10F without a rabbit.
(In other words if you are looking for a one size fits all formula for all horses on the same day, I haven\'t found it yet nor have I ever met anyone that had anything even tempting as a theory).
5. Because no one can quantify this stuff, it is impossible to prove - hence the constant differences of opinion. I think it is best to observe this stuff and form an opinion based on your results.
6. Vic\'s performance yesterday proved nothing one way or the other. There are a lot of reasons he might have lost.
Post Edited (04-04-05 17:45)
TGJB -
I may betray my ignorance of figure making here, but please bear with me. CH\'s post seems to be consistent with a common handicapping theory: that speed is most likely to hold up when the track is least tiring. The press coverage of San Felipe day exemplifies the prevalence of that theory.
If the theory is correct, there would presumably be some correlation between your \"variant\" and the success and/or speed figures of frontrunners. Is that something that you have tested for or (in the absence of formal statistical analysis) noticed to be true or noticed not to be true? Thanks for your help.
This one is a very good question, not just in substance but in form (for all the old Racing Times guys out there). Several things--
1-- For years I have downgraded frontrunners on soft grass because experience has told me that they are less likely to run their race, and while it may or may not be related, fewer races in Europe, where the courses are generally slower, are won on the front end (I think. How\'s that for qualification).
2-- I actually had a conversation about this years ago with George, don\'t know if he remembers. One possibility is that a \"faster\" track, and resultant faster time, makes the race shorter-- they run for less time-- and thereby helps frontrunners. I have absolutely no idea if that is true. I do know that muscle fibers are either slow twitch or fast twitch, (aerobic or anaerobic, don\'t know which is which), meaning they either rely on stored oxygen or don\'t, and that stored oxygen runs out in a horse in about a minute under extreme exertion, or about five furlongs. The percentage of each type of fiber determines how far a horse will run well (also whether a human will be better at lifting weights or running a marathon). Don\'t know whether this is useful, but I suspect it may be relevent.
3-- The difference in final time between a fast dirt track and one which is not, in percentage and real time terms, is very small (as opposed to the difference between a firm grass course and a soft one, which can be pretty extreme).
4-- Don\'t know how we we test this, but if someone (Chris?)can figure out the right question to ask, we\'ll have George do a run (and in fact I can hear the wheels turning in his head as he reads this, and he\'s in rural Pennsylvania).
TGJB,
Yes, this is a great question, and one I\'ve checked into in the past.
I did not find any difference in races at Turfway, one of the more extreme tracks you will find final time wise. In other words, front runners and up close types won the same percentage of races whether the variant rated the track very slow or very fast, at 4 very common distances, 6, 6.5, 8, and 8.5 furlongs.
I checked a few other places as well and couldn\'t find anything to back up this very plausible sounding theory on dirt. I\'ve never tried on turf, just too tough to find enough races under similar conditions for me.
I have seen very fast surfaces where early speed did NOT hold well and very dull surfaces where speed did hold well.
From all of my research on this, I did not find that speed held \"better\" just because the surface was very fast.The one exception I noticed was on wet fast tracks where speed is usually dominant.