P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are great betting opportunities on all
> surfaces, synthetics included. I love me some
> turf racing as much as anybody, but
> Hollywood/Arlington/Woodbine, etc... can yield
> some tremendous prices that are very gettable.
P, what you say is tempting and very fair as usual.
I guess I am a purist at best and a pointy stickler at worst. But I am never so hardcore or close-minded that I can’t be persuaded.
I have watched races on synthetic. The horses, to me, just look different running. I don’t think they stride out the same. I didn’t enjoy it at all. (And where is mjellish?!? He has a great eye. I would love to hear what he thinks about synthetics.)
I admire those who can watch multiple tracks and surfaces. I would have to change my whole methodology to do that and it would take more time than I now have. And it would require significant additional pre-race investment. Given my personal methodology for handicapping, I can barely make the time to study 3 or 4 races a day. I can spend an hour or more handicapping one race, horse by horse. With turf, I can at least study a race and figure out who will be around in the end. I stick to 1M to 1 1/8M for the most part. The bigger the field the better. I prefer 1 1/6 to 1 1/18. If I look at 3 or 4 races a day, if they are available at my tracks, I may only feel good about 1 or 2. So my opportunities are very self-limited. Too many strange things happen on dirt, and I am not a 6f ‘capper for the most part. I follow a certain circuit, Belmont in spring and fall, Gulfstream in the winter. By concentrating on one circuit, I get to know a lot about the trainers and jocks and those nuances pay off. Hence, Saratoga is so tough for me because there are so many trainers and jocks from all over coming to that meet. But it is a must-watch meet. This year I watched Churchill in the spring. Had really good success there.
So far, I just don’t believe that synthetics are as much the answer as they are promoted to be. There are other trade-offs that don’t get equal and fair attention. And synthetic surfaces are very easy to manipulate for speed or no speed, good lanes, bad. I would think being the manager of a track crew with a synthetic surface is more nerve racking than that of a dirt one. I say that because a synthetic track must stay consistent to prove its worthiness. And yes, I know, dirt can be manipulated too, but synthetics more easily - from what I understand- and I acknowledge I am no expert but neither do I have a vested interest.
But, if anything these days could persuade me to bet synthetics, it would be this weather!! Massive green blobs everyday moving up the east coast...sigh. This darn weather is beating me more than anything. Hmmm....
As always, thanks P.
(Sorry Miff, but I hope JB is paying you by the word!)
