Various -- Artificial Surface question and IRS question

[SoCalMan2]

Two things recently came to my attention and am curious if others have views on these --

1)  In dealing with artificial surfaces, there seem to be three main kinds (cushion, poly, tapeta) but also others (whatever they run on at Santa Anita, wood chips, etc). I am still struggling quite a bit to get a grip on all these different surfaces and how different horses react to each.  One of the things I was wondering was whether it made sense to make different designations on the sheet for each type of surface rather than one catchall for artificial surfaces -- maybe something like a copyright sign for cushion and then similar circle with a letter inside for the poly and the tapeta.  Do others agree that such designations would help handicapping?  

2)  I recently hit a dime super three times.  The payoff per dime was $269.75.  The online betting service said that this was a reportable payoff and wrote up W-2Gs for each dime super (at $269.75 each).  Has anybody had this experience before?  This is the first time this year I have hit a dime super of this magnitude on multiple tickets, but, in previous years, such a result would not have given rise to a signer. Has anybody experienced similar?  This does not seem right to me.  If you bet a $1 trifecta that pays $550, that is not a signer.  If you hit it 10 times, it is still not a signer (or used to not be a signer).  Why should a dime be treated differently? Maybe i am off in right field, but this is really a pain.  The IRS rules are terrible enough as it is, this seems to be making matters worse.  

The new horseracing lobbying group that is out there, does anybody know if it plans to lobby to change the federal signer policy?  What about state signer policies?  Beware to anybody who ventures to a track in New Jersey or Maryland -- if you hit a large enough signer there, you need to file a state tax return even if you were only in the state one day for a trip to the track (look out Preakness goers, hitting the superfecta in the Preakness can be bad for your fiscal condition).  Also, these states will not let you deduct your losses from other states against your in-state winnings, so even if you are an overall loser on the year but have one big winner on one day in one of those states, you have to pay taxes in that state as if you are a major winning gambler.  Apologies to New Jersey and Maryland if they have since changed there laws since they screwed me over.

[BitPlayer]

SoCal –

I would agree that all synthetic surfaces are not the same, but I\'m not sure breaking them down by supplier would help.  The PolyTrack at Del Mar was not the same as the PolyTrack elsewhere, probably because jelly cable was omitted at Del Mar to prevent copper runoff into the Pacific Ocean.  I\'m guessing that yet another formulation will be in place at Del Mar this summer, to speed the track up.  The Cushion Track at Santa Anita (pre-Pro Ride) was a different formulation than the one used at Hollywood.

Even when the formulation remains the same, other factors can cause the surface to play differently.  At Del Mar, the track was, by most accounts, not the same in the afternoon sun as it was in the cool morning hours.

I think you just have to stay aware of how each individual track plays, much as you must with dirt tracks.

[SoCalMan2]

Dear Bit,

Thanks for the response.  I was afraid that the answer would be something like that.  It seems like a highly evolved sense of \"horses for certain types of courses\" is necessary to successfully navigate what is out there.  Anybody know of any good resource for knowing (or at least trying to get a grip on) which tracks behave alike and which ones behave differently?  

Separate but related, I have noticed sometimes that certain horses run considerably better or worse at night (or, perhaps, \"under the lights\" I should say).  However, not all tracks that offer night racing doing it consistently all the time.  For example, CT runs during the day on Sunday but at night most other times whereas Hollywood runs during the day most times but at night on Fridays -- I think Turfway is probably a relatively even mix of night and day.  Always wondered whether it would be possible to get a designation showing whether or not a particular race was run under artificial lights.  Why should artificial ground be significant but artificial light not significant?  Anybody agree with me that an \"under the lights\" designation would be helpful?  I know some baseball players have very different stats between ninth and day (and people on this site like to draw analogies between baseball and horseracing on occasion).

SCM2

[miff]

SC,

One common thread for just about all the synthetic tracks is that front runners do not win with the same regularity as one would find on dirt tracks.It is also apparent that turf horses are far more effective going from turf to synthetic than from turf to dirt.Lots of \"pure\" turf horses winning big races on synthetic that they would probably not win on dirt.


Mike

[BitPlayer]

SoCal -

There was a thread a while ago that talked about some of your tax  issues.  Here\'s a link to Mall\'s post in that thread, which seems to touch on a couple of your issues (and include an amusing anecdote):

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,38413,40094#msg-40094

Lobbying seems to be directed primarily at the withholding rules, not the reporting rules.

[BitPlayer]

SoCal -

I think that\'s a cool idea.  I\'m not sure whether it\'s the lights (or maybe shadows?) or the time of day that\'s important.  If there are morning people and night people, why wouldn\'t there also be day horses and night horses?

The issue actually came up for me in this week\'s ROTW.  Indy Wind had run his isolated top under the lights at the Meadowlands.  I confess that (at 15/1) I bit anyway.

[elkurzhal]

I still do not understand why we don\'t push the interpretation of the 300-1 rule.  If I make a 4 horse trifecta box with a total cost of $48, I \"wager\"ed $48, not $2.  Anything under $14,400 (300 * 48) should not require a W2-G.

[richiebee]

Comrade SoCal:

I think the \"under the lights designation\" would be helpful.

That being said I also remember late 70s early 80s a lot of NY horses,
especially top notch stakes horses, who had no experience training or racing
under the lights, having a good deal of success at the Meadowlands.

[Mall]

I could not possible agree more with your logic elkurzhal, but unfortunately logic and fairness have very little to do with the tax code. Without going into all of the details, the bottom line reason for not pushing to change the 300-1 rule is that there\'s literally zero chance of success. At the same time, the chances of changing the $5k withholding rule are reasonably good, due in large part to some remarkably good work by the woman I mentioned in my previous post. Finally, belated congrats on your victory in the Tour kick-off contest.

SCM2: If you check your email in a couple of minutes, you\'ll find the name/site of an ADW which does not \"aggregate\" bets so that non-signers turn into signers.