Syn to Dirt Beyer Converter

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

You wont be getting a Christmas card from Randy Moss with comments like that.

That is because nobody has figured out how to read his figures yet.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

While I agree moisture has a lot to do with where winners come from (front or back) on synthetics, it has nothing to do with the figures. Even on wet synthetic tracks dominated by frontrunners, the figures come back "tighter" than they do on dirt tracks. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but just the way it is.

Interesting. Thanks for that.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

While I agree moisture has a lot to do with where winners come from (front or back) on synthetics, it has nothing to do with the figures. Even on wet synthetic tracks dominated by frontrunners, the figures come back "tighter" than they do on dirt tracks. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but just the way it is.

One thing I find funny in these discussions is the way some people act like a front runner has never won on turf.

one thing i love to see is a front end theft in a turf route, especially against a tough field. its like a thing of beauty when they pull it off.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

one thing i love to see is a front end theft in a turf route, especially against a tough field. its like a thing of beauty when they pull it off.

I think part of the reason we see less of the front end thefts are jockies of today are not of the same quality we have had in years gone past, Gary Stevens was just about the best rider at doing this, you could always adjust your handicapping accordingly if you foresaw a paceless race with him in a race. You see what some would term as top riders riding at SA right now and you are quickly reminded just how great a rider he truly was.

[rgustafson]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

one thing i love to see is a front end theft in a turf route, especially against a tough field. its like a thing of beauty when they pull it off.

Yes and especially the turf marathons, one and a half miles. There was a big gray horse that Pincay rode years ago out in SoCal. He'd send him right to the front and lope along. Any time a horse came to him, he would just let out another notch. He won quite a few races this way. Can't remember the horses name though.

[joeydb]

Apparently 79 is the break even point: 79 Beyer = 79 Dirt equivalent Beyer. Go lower than that and the dirt numbers are actually lower. I believe this is because the program uses a linear relationship, and 79 is where the two lines intersect.

[letswastemoney]

Originally Posted by rgustafson

Yes and especially the turf marathons, one and a half miles. There was a big gray horse that Pincay rode years ago out in SoCal. He'd send him right to the front and lope along. Any time a horse came to him, he would just let out another notch. He won quite a few races this way. Can't remember the horses name though.

Fly Till Dawn?

[rgustafson]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

Fly Till Dawn?

Yes!!!! I loved to watch that horse run. The last two starts of his career he won two grade I races wire to wire, the San Luis Rey at a mile and one half and the San Juan Capistrano at a mile and 3/4. On the lead the whole way and widening the margin in the stretch. Valenzuela was up for the San Juan, but Pincay rode him in most of his wins. He was one tough customer. Darrell Vienna trained him. Thanks for jogging my memory

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Apparently 79 is the break even point: 79 Beyer = 79 Dirt equivalent Beyer. Go lower than that and the dirt numbers are actually lower. I believe this is because the program uses a linear relationship, and 79 is where the two lines intersect.

It is actually 80.

[chucklestheclown]

Close enough! Thanks for the info, that's the only true method I've seen yet. Keeneland has a very complicated excel document on poly racing. Has anyone here looked at it?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by chucklestheclown

Close enough! Thanks for the info, that's the only true method I've seen yet. Keeneland has a very complicated excel document on poly racing. Has anyone here looked at it?

i've done some work on it. what do you want to know?

[letswastemoney]

Why would you want to convert syn figures to dirt? Wouldn't that be meaningless? You wouldn't do the same for turf figures...

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Handicap tracks like Mountaineer and observe all these Woodbine shippers appearing in the cheap races with towering figures and you'll get a better idea why.

Personally ... I ignore speed figures in turf races. I don't even look at them. I don't bet very many races run over synthetic tracks ... but I don't totally ignore figures in synthetic track races because I think the variants can be trusted for both pace and final time.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

Why would you want to convert syn figures to dirt? Wouldn't that be meaningless? You wouldn't do the same for turf figures...

The field is too bunched at the end of synthetic races to consistently produce big figures like you see on the dirt so it essentially brings bad horses up and good horses down on the figures. By adjusting for that on the assumption that a beaten length on synthetic is more significant than a beaten length on dirt you can at least get some sort of idea as to whether the synthetic horses would be fast enough to compete if they could replicate their synthetic performance on the dirt. From what the numbers at the start of the thread show, only The Pamplemousse was fast enough so the other synthetic horses will have to actually improve on the dirt to contend.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Can be found at CM Oreo's site pacefigures.com

The converter basically accounts for the value of a beaten length being more significant on synthetic tracks. Using it for Derby preps for example...

Pioneer of the Nile's '09 Beyers of 95, 90, and 96 become 100, 93, and 101.

Papa Clem's 94 in the San Felipe becomes a 99

Chocolate Candy's last two numbers of 91 and 94 become 95 and 99

General Quarters 95 in the Blue Grass becomes a 100

I Want Revenge's 92 in the Bob Lewis becomes a 96.

The Pampelmousse's 103 in the Sham stakes becomes a 111


Anyone who bets on races at cheaper tracks knows that synthetic track numbers are greatly inflated when slow horses are involved. The opposite of what happens with the fastest horses. A 45 on synthetic is equal to only a 33 dirt.

Thanks for posting this. Ashamed to admit I wasn't aware of pacefigures.com. Looking at the conversion values, it's clear that any Beyer speed fig on synthetic can be converted to the dirt equivalent by:

DirtFig = SynFig + (SynFig - 80)/3

Using The Pamplemousse's 103 in the Sham as an example, you'd have:

DirtFig = 103 + (103-80)/3, or

DirtFig = 103 + 7.67 = 110.67, which rounds to 111.

It works for Beyer "SynFigs" below 80, too.

--Dunbar

[letswastemoney]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

The field is too bunched at the end of synthetic races to consistently produce big figures like you see on the dirt so it essentially brings bad horses up and good horses down on the figures. By adjusting for that on the assumption that a beaten length on synthetic is more significant than a beaten length on dirt you can at least get some sort of idea as to whether the synthetic horses would be fast enough to compete if they could replicate their synthetic performance on the dirt. From what the numbers at the start of the thread show, only The Pamplemousse was fast enough so the other synthetic horses will have to actually improve on the dirt to contend.

So this is assuming they have the same ability on both surfaces. I was thinking, even if you could convert Woodbine figures for those who are shipping into Mountaineer, isn't it a guess as to whether the Woodbine shipper even likes real dirt?

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Personally ... I ignore speed figures in turf races. I don't even look at them. I don't bet very many races run over synthetic tracks ... but I don't totally ignore figures in synthetic track races because I think the variants can be trusted for both pace and final time.

Speed figures were intended for dirt races; in other words, for SIMPLE races. Turf races, and poly, are COMPLICATED. This is quickly proven by looking at charts for races on the different surfaces. If you have a speed favoring, bull ring type of track, then put your speed figures to use.

And, I don't really think there's much difference in the type of artificial surface. I've found it depends more on the number of horses in the race than anything else. So, GG, for example, has relatively SIMPLE races. But they also have very small fields. When the field is larger, result is then typically COMPLEX.

Why anyone would try to compare races over the different surfaces using numeric abstractions, in the case of turf and poly FLAWED ones at that, is beyond me. The race TYPES, the shapes, are typically different for these surfaces. Or, a bit weaker point: they indicate differences in degree, and kind, between the different surfaces.

As for the bolded section: typically POLY's biggest critics don't really seem to be those that actually play these courses regularly.

[chucklestheclown]

Originally Posted by philcski

i've done some work on it. what do you want to know?

The Derby super.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by chucklestheclown

The Derby super.

Me too!

The poly database was pretty eye-opening. Got rid of a lot of the stigmas in my mind about this stuff.

[joeydb]

I don't dispute that there is a difference or an adjustment needed to some figures, but is there an article or finding that shows how much the speeds are off? I mean, do we all agree that this "Synthetic to Dirt Conversion Program" is implementing it in the right way?