If we take the dead rail designations for Friday and Saturday as accurate, I have to say this is a disgraceful job by the Churchill Downs track crew. That would be 4 straight big racing days where they couldn\'t produce a fair track. Last year\'s Breeder\'s Cup day on Friday and Saturday and now both Oaks and Derby day have all had dead rails.
Pretty shitty job.
I\'d rather have a dead rail than a gold rail. With closers and wide sweepers being in the right spots on the track, you can certainly get your fair share of prices. Gold rails usually produce heavy favorites getting the lead and not looking back. Give me the dead rail anyday.
How about a normal rail? Too much to ask for?
Here\'s the tricky thing about a \'normal rail\'. A normal rail to me, means that the rail is exactly the same \'going\' as the outer lanes. If that\'s the case, than a normal rail means gold rail since whoever in saving ground will probably win since the fastest distance between two points is a straight line. A good question for the panel here would be this. Can a gold rail sometimes be confused as a \'gold rail\' when in reality its a \'normal rail\' and the horses on the inside are just winning because they\'ve saved ground and not necessarily because the inside lane is \'tighter\' than the outer lanes?
I would imagine that a \'normal rail\' is really hard to attain for the track super. I think his job is to just make sure its not a gold rail because when the rail is gold, more people scream about that than when the rail is dead.
I jump for joy when i see inside speed collapsing and wide sweepers doing well, especially if the tote board doesnt immediately echo that bias.
Bias data indicates Saturday worse than Friday re negative speed, possible dead rail.
Plasticman,
Please. Players on this board can differentiate between a \"golden rail\" and just the fact that the inside is the shortest path from point A to point B.
If we are playing with figures that we think are the best, and we view ourselves as good handicappers, then you don\'t want other variables like a dead rail to be part of your handicapping decision. A great case in point would be Thorograph users having to make a call in the BC races last year on Big Drama and Quality Road. Both drew the rail, both were speed and both were the most likely winners based on TG figures. By the time each ran, the whole world knew the rail was dead. Trying to guess that one would go wire to wire from the 4 path despite breaking from the rail, while the other would get stuck down inside, was just a guessing game.
WHile I am piling on Churchill Downs, anybody know what idiot is responsible for naming the turf condition?
Every single jockey that got interviewed after a turf race on Friday and Saturday said the turf course was yielding or soft with a ton of give. Looking at the fractions and final times that HAD TO BE TRUE. Yet, they called the course firm, which has the potential to throw off a lot of handicappers.
Very poor job.
That happens all the time on big days. Sloppy tracks get a fast designation once the sun peeks out from the clouds and soft turf courses get the good or firm status. They probably think trainers will scratch if the track comes up off. Why they would think trainers would believe them is another story..
Another thing you will have to adjust for.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A great case in point would be
> Thorograph users having to make a call in the BC
> races last year on Big Drama and Quality Road.
> Both drew the rail, both were speed and both were
> the most likely winners based on TG figures. By
> the time each ran, the whole world knew the rail
> was dead. Trying to guess that one would go wire
> to wire from the 4 path despite breaking from the
> rail, while the other would get stuck down inside,
> was just a guessing game.
There were other factors in play for not playing QR. The dead rail was a small reason for not betting that horse.
As for BD, speed horses in a sprint don\'t always hug the rail, especially if the dead rail is well known, which it probably was to most jockeys not named Borel.
Most likely winner?? Well, if you think a number can be replicated from a 1 turn mile at Belmont Park, or a glib GP surface, then I guess he was the most likely winner. His previous 1 1/4 races left a lot to be desired.
Lastly, if you are going to get on another player with this comment:
\"Plasticman,
Please. Players on this board can differentiate between a \"golden rail\" and just the fact that the inside is the shortest path from point A to point B.\"
Then you should also differentiate how these most likely winner numbers are achieved and put them in context.
Umm...his previous 10f starts were a 1.25 at the Spa at 3, a MINUS 3.75 at Big Sandy at 3. To say those two races left \"a lot to be desired\" is just empirically wrong in the face of the evidence...ie THE NUMBERS.
He was the fastest horse in the race. That is inarguable. The rail screwed him. And it was the LARGEST reason to worry if you played him.
Now if you want to have a discussion about how his numbers were tailing off throughout the season, fine. That\'s quite a legitimate debate to have. But you cannot try and contend that he was not the fastest horse.
It has nothing to do with trying to fool the trainers into keeping their horse in a race AND everything to do with simulcasting dollars wagered into the pools..the tracks themselves feel that if their product is NOT designated as FAST/FIRM... the wagering public, in the racebooks, homes etc. will wager elsewhere, or pass entirely, and then they (the tracks) lose all of that handle that pays the bills...How many of the once a year types that tune in and wager on derby day were following the workouts, reading about all of the rain during training, trying to figure out how the turf course was going play since it hadn\'t been run on all week...only those of US that take this game seriously
P-Dub,
This is a pretty dumb post. If your point was that my comment to Plasticman was harsh, OK. Maybe.
But I posted that the Churchill Downs track crew has now done a lousy job on 4 straight major days of racing in that there was a dead rail and therefore not a standard track.
Do you disagree with that? Or you just felt like lecturing somebody?
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub,
>
> This is a pretty dumb post. If your point was
> that my comment to Plasticman was harsh, OK.
> Maybe.
>
> But I posted that the Churchill Downs track crew
> has now done a lousy job on 4 straight major days
> of racing in that there was a dead rail and
> therefore not a standard track.
>
> Do you disagree with that? Or you just felt like
> lecturing somebody?
Nobody is lecturing anybody. I disagreed with your post, stated why. You weren\'t \"maybe\" harsh, you were condescending. You want dumb?? Calling QR the most likely winner based on TG figures.
I never disagreed about the rail. Read it again. I said there were other factors involved.
As for phil23:
\"Umm...his previous 10f starts were a 1.25 at the Spa at 3, a MINUS 3.75 at Big Sandy at 3. To say those two races left \"a lot to be desired\" is just empirically wrong in the face of the evidence...ie THE NUMBERS.
He was the fastest horse in the race. That is inarguable. The rail screwed him. And it was the LARGEST reason to worry if you played him.
Now if you want to have a discussion about how his numbers were tailing off throughout the season, fine. That\'s quite a legitimate debate to have. But you cannot try and contend that he was not the fastest horse.\"
Umm....a 1.25 is what exactly?? The MINUS 3.75??? That was achieved over a sloppy track. These are the 2 numbers you hold in high regard?? This is the evidence you present as \"empirically\" correct?? As Miff would say....Brilliant!!!
Here\'s the issue with the \"fastest horse\" comment, about most likely winner statements. You don\'t care about track condition, where the race was run, form cycle, etc... Its wow, what a fast number.
If you think the rail \"screwed him\", I won\'t disagree. It surely didn\'t help. It also didn\'t help that he didn\'t get the lead, and he was pinned in by 3 horses. It was pace pressure, as well as the rail, as well as the fact that his pattern IMO wasn\'t what I want to see. Declining numbers in every start after that huge -7.5. He finished DFL. At 6/1. You\'re telling me you looked at Blame\'s sheet, adding the fact that this horse loves CD, saw he was 5/1......and then looked at QR sheet and saw he was 6/1...and you\'re telling you would take QR?? The declining numbers were just as much, if not more, of a reason for his demise. The bad rail was just one of many reasons.
Enough about a race from 6 months ago.
I bet him much earlier on in the year ante-post. But I agree with you, what\'s done is done, let\'s focus on this year.