ROTW

[bobphilo]

Thanks for the ROTW and analysis but there is an error in the intro.
It is correct to say that there is a positive correlation between grass and poly, in that the better a horse does on grass, the better he can be predicted to run on poly. However, it is not correct that there is a negative correlation between dirt and poly. That would mean that the better a horse does on poly the worse he would be expected to do on dirt and vice versa.
It would be accurate to say there is a low or correlation between dirt and poly. That means that a horse's dirt performance is not a good predictor of poly performance and vice versa. That's very different than a negative correlation.

Bob

[davidrex]

yeah,Whats\' the big idea!

[TGAB]

Bob

Point taken--low correlation.

[davidrex]

super box:1567

[elkurzhal]

From the limited sample I\'vve recorded Peaks and Valleys get is about 2 points faster on poly than dirt, and about 4 points faster then on dirt.  High Expectations gets in light, trainer gets 28% tops 3rd off, and has strong move up poly breeding.  Strong play at 15-1 ML.

[cubfan0316]

IF DRUGS DONT PLAY A MAJOR PART IN THIS CROOKED BUSINESS, EXPLAIN FIRES HORSE RUNNING OUT OF HIS SHOES AT 60-1? I HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE BOSTON MARATHON THAN THIS CRIPPLED NAG HAS AT WINNING A MAIDEN RACE.

[miff]

Cubfan,


It\'s just another absurd polyquack chaotic result, watched them carrying out the suckers on stretchers.Polyquack, hee, hee!


Mike

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I don\'t see any reason to wager Polyscam unless its a major race. Maybe NC Tony had it.

Funny thing is that post race I checked the TFigs and the 160 dollar winner had run a career top two back that figured to win the race. Granted it was sprinting, but here he was one turn again and Connections was a scratch.

Lewis Michael was just coming off matching a career top, a situation he reacted to the last two times he ran that fast.

Uninvolved hindsight is golden, but he sure looked like a horse that should be considered at 80-1.

  miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cubfan,
>
>
> It\'s just another absurd polyquack chaotic result,
> watched them carrying out the suckers on
> stretchers.Polyquack, hee, hee!
>
>
> Mike

[basket777]

he ran a zero one race back nuff said  oh 11000 10cent super  are you kidding

also look at the 12 in the last at churchill. score.  had to spread to get it but wow.  2 come in second it would have been even better.

thanks tgraph fo a great weekend already

[elkurzhal]

Are you guys still lumping the poly efforts in with dirt for the sire TGI figs?  Seems like not the best idea if there is a low correlation.  

Is there a big enough sample yet to add a poly TGI line to the sire data?

[TGAB]

We are in the process of generating synthetic sire stats to incorporate in the sire profiles which will include making the appropriate adjaustments to the dirt sire stats. It\'s coming just can\'t say exactly when yet.

[fkach]

>It\'s just another absurd polyquack chaotic result, watched them carrying out the suckers on stretchers.Polyquack, hee, hee! <

I tend to agree with you so far.

I have no expertise on the subject at all, but from my casual observation the race results don\'t get all that much more logical even after Polytrack form has been established.

After over 30 years of handicapping I have a pretty good feel for when a result makes sense even when I didn\'t foresee the race development or answers to relevant questions before the race.  

Even when I look at a race where everyone has recent Poly form, I still see way more races where I just shake my head and say to myself \"I couldn\'t have come up with this one no matter how I viewed this race\".  In many ways the races are run like turf races. The form seems to transfer reasonable well too. So you would think similar handicapping styles would work and you would get similar results. That does not seem to be the case.

Has anyone been tracking the win percentage and ROI for favorites on Poly and other artifical surfaces?

If they are poor, playing this surface may be as easy as throwing out the favorite, identifying the horses that have shown any ability, and spreading around on the longest prices.

[bobphilo]

Ah the anti-poly squad is at it again. A horse wins at 80-1 despite having run a 0 on poly 2 races back. I guess they feel so bad they missed it that they have to bad-mouth the surface again. Face it guys, your inability to handicap the surface properly is NOT an indictment on the surface. You might want to look to your handicapping instead of whining about the surface. I'm not the only one doing better than ever betting poly.
It seems like some would prefer to lose so they can libel the surface and win their point while losing bets, rather than adjust to reality.
Feel free to continue chasing your dirt biases on synthetics and increase my profits.
Funny how the poly challenged, not content with bad mouthing the surface itself have taken to calling those, like themselves, that cannot deal with it, poly-quackers. Sounds like a perfect name for the poly-whiners. I'm sure Donald Duck squawking about his poly losses is the perfect image.

Bob

[SoCalMan2]

bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah the anti-poly squad is at it again. A horse
> wins at 80-1 despite having run a 0 on poly 2
> races back. I guess they feel so bad they missed
> it that they have to bad-mouth the surface again.
> Face it guys, your inability to handicap the
> surface properly is NOT an indictment on the
> surface. You might want to look to your
> handicapping instead of whining about the surface.
> I'm not the only one doing better than ever
> betting poly.
> It seems like some would prefer to lose so they
> can libel the surface and win their point while
> losing bets, rather than adjust to reality.
> Feel free to continue chasing your dirt biases on
> synthetics and increase my profits.
> Funny how the poly challenged, not content with
> bad mouthing the surface itself have taken to
> calling those, like themselves, that cannot deal
> with it, poly-quackers. Sounds like a perfect name
> for the poly-whiners. I'm sure Donald Duck
> squawking about his poly losses is the perfect
> image.
>
> Bob


Without getting into the overall argument, where do you see that this horse ran a zero on poly?  As far as I can tell, that zero was run on normal dirt at Oaklawn Park.  Also, as far as I can tell, the horse ran on Poly once and has run nine races better than its figure on Poly.  Again, I did not handicap the race and am not interested in getting into the argument that is going on here, but I think it is not right to say that this winner ran a zero on poly two races back.

[miff]

Bob,

You can\'t be talking about me and polyquack. Only suckers gamble on it, I\'m not one of them.Since you are doing better than ever with poly, I\'m sure the board would like to hear your pre race poly selections.Maybe we can learn from you.
Talking polyquack, not Cali cushion.

Mike