Keeneland

[Kasept]

For all the enlightened pro and con commentary here regarding the KEE surface prior and present, I don't think I've seen anyone bring the CHANGE IN BANKING AND CONFIGURATION into the discussion.

While the surface is certainly exerting an enormous influence on the results, couldn't the new shape of the turns and MUCH long homestretch be responsible for the demise of the speedsters?

I think we're making too much of the surface and not enough of a stretch now longer than Churchill's.. (At least according to Rogers Beasley...)

Originally Posted by NoCarolinaTony

Oracle

I may not be in the business like you are, but I am considered a good judge of horse flesh. Your entitled to your opinions as am I. I as a handicapper believe that horse players are missing out on a period where a lot of money can be made due to predjudices and bad handicappers aut their participating in the KEE Mutual pools.

Do I love Poly? It's a surface which seems viable. It has it's own idiosyncracies. Kee Turf races has been win by favorites over 40%.They usually card 3 a day.

I completely disagree with you that the best horse is not winning the races simply because of the surface. We shall see when it happens, we already have evidence of horses coming off of the surface and winning at Oak Tree or Ellis & Saratoga from Turfway. Steve Crist's opinion does not mean much to me.

NC Tony

Steve Crist's opinion always matters to me.
I consider him to be the most astute writer/media guy in the business in my lifetime.
Hes been involved with all aspects of the game from writing to management, and has made nice scores on the track, and in propelling the DRF to the heights it as at today, chock full of info and stats that noone would ever have dreamed possible 10 years ago.
I don't always agree with everything he says, but when he talks I wanna listen and consider what hes saying.

Originally Posted by Kasept

For all the enlightened pro and con commentary here regarding the KEE surface prior and present, I don't think I've seen anyone bring the CHANGE IN BANKING AND CONFIGURATION into the discussion.

While the surface is certainly exerting an enormous influence on the results, couldn't the new shape of the turns and MUCH long homestretch be responsible for the demise of the speedsters?

I think we're making too much of the surface and not enough of a stretch now longer than Churchill's.. (At least according to Rogers Beasley...)

Come on Steve, have you been watching? The speed doesn't EVEN MAKE IT TO THE STRETCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pedigree Ann]

I am an observer and a statistician by training. When one designs an experiment for testing, one must do so without assuming a particular outcome; you are experimenting in order to find the outcome. As the data accumulates, you can begin to form theories about it. Racing on polytrack is an experiment, and we are accumulating data from racing at Turfway, Woodbine, and Keeneland. The preconceived notions I wrote of are those in which you assume that races on Poly should be run exactly as they are on speed-biased dirt. One adjusts one's handicapping for mud, or slop, soft or yielding turf, does one not?

[The Bid]

Tony, who considers you a good judge of horseflesh. Ann, are you a consultant for Keenelands public relations department?

Fact is fact fellas, the best horses simply arent winning races at Keeneland.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Steven Crist wrote a column in today's DRF about Kee and poly.
Love his quote at the end(inferring that Kee's form won't translate to anywhere else), like the Vegas ads, its highly likely that what happens at Keeneland, stays at Keeneland.

but people used to say that anyway because of the extreme speed bias (UM...sinister minister?) so how is dismissing poly form at Keeneland any different?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Kasept

For all the enlightened pro and con commentary here regarding the KEE surface prior and present, I don't think I've seen anyone bring the CHANGE IN BANKING AND CONFIGURATION into the discussion.

While the surface is certainly exerting an enormous influence on the results, couldn't the new shape of the turns and MUCH long homestretch be responsible for the demise of the speedsters?

I think we're making too much of the surface and not enough of a stretch now longer than Churchill's.. (At least according to Rogers Beasley...)

I agree that is definitely a major factor but at the same time I think 3 for 50 is a little low. I do see a lot of pacesetters holding on for second though, and a lot of stalkers winning so I don't think the problem is as bad as the 3 for 50 makes it sound.

I guess the real question is how many times has the best horse in the race been alone on the lead and able to set reasonable fractions and lost the race? I'd guess not many, if any. I hate cheap speed winning races so I love the racing on the polytrack so far even though I was extremely skeptical going into the meet. I'll take a good polytrack race over a snoozer like the Meadowlands race the other day where they all ran the same order the whole way.

[NoCarolinaTony]

Bid

People I know, or who know me. I don't know you. You don't know me.

And Steve's point is quite valid on how the configuration probably more so than the distance (in my opinion) has made it a less biased track towards early speed. The prior configuration was egg shaped and had a very tight and sharp turns. Jockeys were saying that they used to cut the corner (ie 2-3 path on the turn back to the rail itself - horses on the outside paths had quite a bit to overcome) coming down the homestretch in if you had the inside path the old configuration you were pretty much won the race.

Finally a few of you know it all guys should lighten up and consider that there are people out there who just might know at least as much as you, although you just can't accept it. Anyone who is so closed minded never learns anything new.

NC Tony

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I think we're making too much of the surface and not enough of a stretch now longer than Churchill's.. (At least according to Rogers Beasley...)

AND the stretch is no longer DOWNHILL...

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

AND the stretch is no longer DOWNHILL...

Well the old track was ridiculous and 50% frontrunners was just plain wrong. I think if we are truly looking for an unbiased surface then frontrunners winning at a 15% (maybe 20%) clip should be about right. 3 for 50 is probably significant enough to say it is biased against frontrunners, at least to a small degree.

[NoCarolinaTony]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

AND the stretch is no longer DOWNHILL...

Excellent Point!! The track itself didn't realize that you were running uphill on the backside and downhill down the stretch until they used GPS and regraded the surface.

NC Tony

[NoCarolinaTony]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Well the old track was ridiculous and 50% frontrunners was just plain wrong. I think if we are truly looking for an unbiased surface then frontrunners winning at a 15% (maybe 20%) clip should be about right. 3 for 50 is probably significant enough to say it is biased against frontrunners, at least to a small degree.

I was there the first three days, and I would say that the jockeys rode a little tentatively on the surface the first few races trying to get a feel. In the very first race no one wanted the lead. Was run like a turf race.

NC Tony

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Well the old track was ridiculous and 50% frontrunners was just plain wrong. I think if we are truly looking for an unbiased surface then frontrunners winning at a 15% (maybe 20%) clip should be about right. 3 for 50 is probably significant enough to say it is biased against frontrunners, at least to a small degree.

I agree that the bias has switched to closers but I stilll think that as the track gets used and the maitenance crew works it the numbers will even out.
plus tony makes a good point that the jocks may have been playing it differently trying to figure it out.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I agree that the bias has switched to closers but I stilll think that as the track gets used and the maitenance crew works it the numbers will even out.
plus tony makes a good point that the jocks may have been playing it differently trying to figure it out.

Not to mention as word of the bias gets out there may be trainers shipping their good frontrunners out rather than running them on a track with a perceived bias.

[pba1817]

Why was Kenneland the greatest place when it was a 100% inside speed biased track, but now the place sucks since it has changed to a different type of track bias?!?!?!?!?

It seems to me that the people who are struggling to figure the new Keeneland out have no idea how to handicap for anything but early speed.