Weaver, yes they are more reliable over jumps.....in general.
One would think they have a chance of falling - every jumper does, and consequently interfered with if not the faller.

But they just win more races, albeit at shorter odds.

As to the track condition debate....

Fast - 32.42% S/R, 10.11% LOT
Good - 31.61% S/R, 12.66% LOT
Dead - 29.94% S/R, 15.33% LOT
Slow - 28.70% S/R, 15.33% LOT
Heavy - 29.46% S/R, 13.31% LOT

No real reason to bet on Dead or Slow but not Heavy.
That's raw data on favourites, chuck in a filter or two and Heavy gets a big promotion ;)

I think in the UK they take far more notice of bloodlines and Sire lines than we do here. The buyers at the sales yards concentrate on sires and bloodlines, but in general the punters only look at the career stats.

If we knew about certain horses, we could make a fortune laying them.
There is a Group 1 horse running in the Doncaster, that will not fire on anything worse than Good, the owner told me this info, and there is another that is running that has been recovering from injury, they don't expect to fire either. Over about 200 races, his consortium has 100% success rate and he's sharing his info with me. Not one winner, and all layable odds.
It's who and what you know that makes money.
They are buying up horses all over the place to lay for profit, it's becoming a very large organisation.
Nothing untoward, they simply lay the info, and stay away from horses with a good chance.
It started out to recoup expenses and grew like massively.
If only I were part of it, but I'm sure we'll all here more.

why was my post re sydney wet tracks deleted??

it was "from another forum"

As you posted that "this place is weird" have a three day suspension to contemplate your future activity here.
Moderator

There was a post claiming to have copied information from another forum. So that post was deleted and additional posts about it.

Moderator.

STIX....Cheers for the email......

I think there are a couple of things to think about when it comes to wet tracks.

Firstly, I have to say I don't mind wet tracks, as long as I know for certain that's what we've got. If I know it's a genuine wet track, and it isn't going to change dramatically, then I'll bet. Nothing worse than working out all the form for a heavy track and it improves sharply during the day to be dead or something. Or working out all the form for a dead track and it rains throughout the day and gets to heavy.

As Stix pointed out, a lot of horses get scratched because of the wet, or their form shows you that they just can't handle it. However, one thing that makes it tough is that not all horses have had experience in the wet. Basically every horse has had experience on good tracks, but there are quite a number of runners at every meeting which haven't even seen a wet track. So, you have no idea if they can handle it or not. Their breeding can be a clue, but no guarantee.

Look at Brisbane last Sat. I did the form carefully for 'dead 3' and a row of ducks get up at double digit odds and big form reversals [5 of them, all born in a pond]. Only later after hearing about Jockies comments about 'slow' track and looking at the times, did I realizes I wasted not only $'s but a lot of form study effort.

Sportz

Yep, there are NO guarantees in racing, but sometimes you have to work with the information you have. A lot of people still bet on 2YO and 3YO race and first starters because of breeding (you hear things liek "Flying Spur progeny or David Hayes's 2YO's are flying at the moment"), and they have little to no exposed form and generally that is on the better surfaces.


Crash

Think this could be turned around and used the other way as well, in terms of track upgrades. Often when there is a track up/down grade there is only a slight difference in track condition, only where there is torrential rain would you have an accelarated track down grade and therefore lose confidence in the work you had done?


There are little idiosyncrasies and variables that can and cannot be factored into a method, system, handicap style etc.

In my obsevations over the years wet races also seem to have less runners than other races (Stand to be corrected) due to the scratchings. Surely this make the task easier, with less horses to assess?

Thanks for you post guys, but I've resigned to the fact that the wet tracks (avoid them at all costs) mystery and why wet tracks affect peoples selection styles/methods so much will continue to be a mystery and perpetuate through time.


All The Best