Synth surfaces

[Michael D.]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/pdf/synthetic_surfaces_special_report_120807.pdf


a good article to put the debate in perspective. with field size and handle up, injuries and maintenance costs down, and few complaints from the breeders, the early results are positive.

the main complaints are that the synth surfaces are not as great as promised. other types of injuries are popping up (soft-tissue, hind-end), and maintenance is still a challenge.

did anybody really think this stuff was going to be perfect?

either way, synth surfaces have taken me out of the handicapping game for the most part. as a weekend player who hasn\'t had the time to learn the different surfaces, I\'m at a pretty big disadvantage ......

[sighthound]

You know, it\'s just another surface, and like dirt, and like turf, they are not all the same track to track.
 
Why don\'t you spend a weekend not betting, and treat it like you would treat any other unfamiliar dirt track you are going to start betting - watch the track and how it runs, check out who the good trainers and jockeys are at that location, watch race replays, figure out what types of times are winning for what level there, read comments from the local handicapper, etc.

I greatly respect Andy Beyer, but he really came off as a dinosaur in that Blood-Horse article.  Why go there with him?

[fkach]

I don\'t play synthetic surfaces at all. High quality speed figures will always have strong predictive value because the best horses tend to run the fastest final times no matter how the races develop. However, IMO, separating horses that seem very similar on speed figures also requires understanding the subtleties of the racetrack surface, how the races tend to develop, and what types of horses usually win. I have very limited knowledge of this type of thing on all the artificial surfaces. Plus, they seem to be different anyway. Dirt surfaces are more consistent.

The major problem for me is one that I already experience from time to time when horses switch from dirt to turf and vice versa. I\'ve seen loads of stats on how horses that have been earning good figures on turf do on dirt etc.... I\'ve also studied those horses when they have back form on the other surface. I even looked at some breeding stats. However, I still find the results rather random. Some horse are very versatile, others have strong preferences, and others have mild preferences. So I tend to avoid races where there are a lot of horses switching surface unless the evidence about their preference is very clear. When you throw artificial surfaces into the mix, there are WAAAY more situations like that and it becomes twice as complex. Unless you have a reasonably reliable way of telling how a horse is going to run, any attempt at line making becomes half ass guess work. When I look at races at the artificial tracks, I often wind up just turning the page because I have no idea how several of the contenders are going to run and am not in the business of throwing money around for fun. I don\'t think that\'s going to change much any time soon. I\'m not expecting to make any bets on the BC 2008 races other than the turf races and even then only on the assumption that there aren\'t a lot of surface switches from artificial to turf.