|
|
HANDICAPPING FEATURE JUNE 21, 2007 The New Arlington: Something New or Same as the Old? by Steve Zacks After 5 1/2 weeks of the 2007 Arlington meeting, we took a look at a week's racing over the new Polytrack surface to see if we could come up with any significant differences and find a few hints for future play. We examined five racing days from Sunday, June 10, through Sunday, June 17. There were 10 races carded each day, but since we were interested in exploring the new Polytrack surface, we eliminated the seven turf races. Thus there were 43 races run on the new Polytrack surface. To better place several of the statistics in proper context, note that 15 of the races were for maidens, five of which were won by first-time starters. The punters fared quite well suggesting that they had a good grip on what was going on over the new surface. There were 14 winning favorites, right on the 33 percent mark. Twelve winners paid less than $6, another nine between that and $10. Fourteen winners paid more than $10 but less than $20; another five paid between $20 and $50. There were two bombs during the week, one paying more than $80 and the other just over $100. These payouts fit a relatively normal skew of a typical week at most tracks. Interestingly enough the $84 and the $100 winners both shared the common characteristics of the general profile of winning horses. The two dominating statistics show that, as is the case with most human beings, a horse also does things better the second time around. Firstly, 42 of the 43 winners had worked on Polytrack, mostly at Arlington. While many of these came prior to the most recent race, several were found farther back in the past performances. We purposefully waited until several weeks into the meet, to get a better gauge of the significance of a start on Polytrack. Thirty-three of the 38 winners that had made at least one career start had raced on Polytrack somewhere. While horses often either like a particular surface or do not, a definite edge goes to those with some experience. We then examined the most recent race for signs of "current condition." Our definition of current form is this: two or more up-close calls within two lengths of the lead and/or an in-the-money finish. On surfaces which allow deep closers to perform effectively, a lot of closers get close to the lead only at the final call. Thirty of the eligible 38 runners had two or more up-close calls. Nineteen finished on the board in their most recent start. There were only five which failed to meet this definition of current form; however two had moved into new stables either off a claim or a trainer switch, and two were dropping from graded stakes company into more likely spots; the other ran an even race last time without ever getting close. There were nine repeat winners; seven ran last on Polytrack, one on dirt and one on turf. Eight horses ran second in their previous start, six of them on Polytrack and two on other surfaces. Two horses earned the show money in their last start on Polytrack. This only enhances the conventional wisdom that a good last race on today's surface is a valuable qualifier when looking at live prospects for today's race. Normally shipping in from one track to another is a sign of serious intent especially when it involves long-distance travel or a move away from a circuit which is currently racing. There were eight victorious shippers, seven of which were switching to Poly for today's race. Many of these had experience on Poly -- some of it very promising -- and the connections were likely seeking a change back to that surface. Of the victorious first-time starters, two were two-year-olds and three were older runners. All five showed recent works on Polytrack, and a recent gate work; four of the five worked five furlongs or longer, four of the five had a fast (even :12s or better) work. None wore blinkers, all five used Lasix; two were favored. There was the typical array of other handicapping factors influencing the performance of a horse, but nothing out of the ordinary that would draw one's attention to Arlington as being different this year from any other year. Claims and trainer switches, distance, equipment and medication changes, and class drops all appeared in the profiles of the winners. Our conclusion is that if you normally pay attention to distance and surface in your handicapping, you should have no major difficulties in handling Arlington's new Polytrack surface. We also compared the track bias profile from similar dates this year and last and, while we are not trained as statisticians, found only minor differences in positional, post or beaten lengths; at least not enough to make us think that we had to make major changes in our approach to these races. We have several thoughts of our own which you might consider when addressing a new surface at a new track now or in the future. Del Mar is next up. The horse itself can be the key. If the horse shows that he likes the Polytrack with a wake-up performance, pay attention next time out. This is the same as a horse waking up with the switch to turf. There have been generously priced repeaters here and at other tracks. The Trainer Factor: There is most likely a difference in style when training a horse to run over a synthetic surface, just as there is a difference in training a horse to run over turf. Look for trainers whose percentages at the current meeting are better than their norm. Avoid trainers whose performance is worse than usual until they show that they are starting to win. Pay particular attention to a change in work patterns, distances or speed. If the price is right, you can always take a flyer on a horse who is signaling that he likes the new surface, but if everybody else is on the same bandwagon, it may make sense to sit it out and learn. Rare is the day when a jockey wins a race without the best horse -- unless of course another jockey has caused the best horse to lose. However, some riders seem to do better than others. Patient riders appear to fare well on this surface. Keep on top of the top riders and heed a switch to one of them (there is nothing new in this, though it might have greater significance here). Riders also spot a trend and try to do the same thing; you will, or have already lost a race or two because six riders are waiting to get through on the inside and there is no room. Riders can create the bias if they all adopt the same style. The track itself seems to be fair to us. We have seen the same rider come from behind in one race on the inside and then go wire to wire several paths out. We are very old school when evaluating track bias and only see it as a factor when the track itself (i.e. one path or style) controls the outcome with multiple longshots that did not figure. Most tracks have their own tendencies under varying weather conditions, but rare is the day when the track itself determines the outcome. In spite of the high kickback, the come-from-behinders seem to do well here. The better the quality of the horse, the less the effect of the bias. We now believe that cheap speed and pressured speed can be difficult to sustain over this Polytrack surface, but that is really no different from what is normal elsewhere. Some pressers also fade, but they may have done too much too soon and are not good enough. A horse's conformation may have a lot to do with how a horse handles this newer surface. As with turf, some long-striding horses seem to fare better on Poly, while the short-coupled bulky sprint types may not fare as well. Some of this may have to do with a horse's confidence level in his footing. A horse who feels more secure when he plants his foot will run more honestly. There may be an advantage in employing the BRIS Speed and Pace figures a little differently! While we are not able to specifically quantify this, we have observed that paying particular attention to the spread between the second pace call number and the final number may have greater impact on Polytrack. Look for horses who have shown the ability to run negative spreads (final number higher than the 2nd pace number) recently or at least show a decline in the positive spread; call this a tightening spread. Of course the horse must be able to compete with the pace of the race, but do anticipate an improved performance following these tightening or reversal patterns; they seem to be as effective on Polytrack as the patterns are on turf. A change in trainer, jockey, equipment, medication, and particularly longer and slower works can or will lead to a tightening of or a reversal in the spread. This is really about the way that the horses distribute their energy and those with the ability to sustain it longer seem to have an edge on the synthetic surfaces. Some horses will only run their race from a certain position. The need-to-lead type is the most common. There is the horse which runs to a certain pace and will be positioned according to the pace of the race. Then there is the horse which is very tractable and responds to the rider. In the first instance, you will see a lot of 1s early in the running line followed by a quick drop off if the lead is not maintained. They do not pass others. In the second instance, you will be able to correlate the position to the pace of the race: 1s if the pace is slow; 2s, 3s and 4s when it is faster. When they are comfortable with the pace, they will pass others. The latter group will run from anywhere and pass horses at various points of time during the race. On the synthetic surfaces, we are still very creative in our approach. The two things we have done so far is to downgrade all of the early-only types unless they show a clear superiority in pace and speed; we also upgrade the chances of the tractable late closers if they fit the race. The higher the class of the race, the more we demand an even or negative spread in the pace and final numbers. A positive reason is needed to play a horse first time over the new surface. All that said, the race is still won by the best horse, if he is properly prepared and if he gets a reasonable trip. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Good luck.
 Send this article to a friend
|
|
