The sky is falling.... Throw your hands up in the air...
 

The get out the darts call when a track is Wet is the biggest Phurphy in racing. Why?

Some horses that "perfer" the better going are often scratched from races because of the track being soft and not their ideal surface

Conversley there are horses that are scrathched or threatened to be scratched when the track is firm and fear of jarring up because it is not their ideal surface.

Some horses get through the heavy going better than others as some run better on top of the ground than others.

There appear to be a lot of people who use logic and (rating/handicap)methods when assessing races, but throw their hands up in the air when the tracks are wet.........why?! Why doesn't the same "logical" methods not apply to assessing selection on Wet tracks? Are the methods actually flawed?

Some people on this forum and the Horse Racing Forum say "NEVER bet on wet tracks". Is it because their method/stats/research doesn't stack up when the track is worse than dead..... Things like the following are offered up:
"Knew I shouldn't have bothered posting becasue of Wet Tracks"
"Bring out the darts, its a wet track"
"I go fishing/golf when it rains"

I must admit my method works in any condition (keeping detailed records since 2000). I'm not here to promote my method or record, just wondering why it is...

So I ask again..... are they biased against Wet track because their method doesn't stack up on slow-heavy tracks.... think the answer is YES!

Hi Stix, I prefer wet tracks and always bet more. "The wetter, the better".

Stix.

I must confess I was one of the Believers AGAINST too until Marcel Plante from trb gave me very nice letter explaing the ins and outs of wet track betting

Cheers.
darky.

Thing about this thread....oh, and thanks Darky and Mark for your thoughts (positive or otherwise)...... is that I can bet my bottom dollar (it's a long way down), that the people that are - not so much aimed at - but will find themselves in this category - HAVE READ THE THREAD and "bothered" not to reply or post..... which is validation in a way.

Winter must be like hell for their missuses !!!

Not my missus old sun, believe it or not, she picked 6 winners from 8 races in Melb. the week before last. I was floored! She seems to have developed an uncanny ability for form-line form study. She's leaving me for dead lately, that's for sure.

I fail to see why posters are apparently annoyed that nobody has come forth to challenge the “bet in the wet” theory. If something works for those of you that DO bet on rain affected tracks, GREAT JOB! I don’t bet in the wet for a number of statistical reasons but in the end it also boils down to my belief that it adds an additional risk to a bet and is a risk that can be eliminated. Minimising the risk factors are the key to making a profit as is the self discipline required to stick to your guns. That is simply MY view and I don’t want to force anybody to agree with me.

It is also a matter of personal preference. We all have our idiosyncrasies. Some won’t bet at Moonee Valley. Some swear against betting on the footy. Others steer clear of apprentice jockeys or horses resuming from a spell. Whatever it is, it is a choice and does not require a detailed interrogation or explanation.

For some weird reason , I have found Fast tracks produced less profit for me according to my computerised stats using my own selections.
The SR is the same, its just the average price drops away.

I found most of my systems worked just as well on Wet tracks & produced greater profit.
I found horses that have never run on a wet track before , perform just as well as horses who have had successful wet track experience.
I feel Horses with wet track exposure & failed ,have to treated with suspiscion.

I agree with Privateer, a lot does come down to ones comfort level & past experiences.
I find the more highly tuned horses produce a number of form reversals on wet tracks & one will often hear a commentator say , "it appears the horse did not appreciate the going".

I guess one has to go over ones personal past stats, involving wet tracks & maybe make a discission from there.

Cheers.

My original (and subsequent) post come did not come accross as intended (sorry )...... Didn't mean for it to be so confronting and/or challenging........ so, lets try again with out the attitude!

Why is it that only ONE FACTOR (i.e. Track being wet ) can throw a well performing (not necessarily profitable) rating/selection methods and punters into a such a complete case of chaos?

How can ONE VARIABLE have such a negative impact? People assess for Dead or better, what changes so dramatically when the track is Dead or worse? As I stated ealier: When it's good going, some horses go well "on top of the ground", whilst others struggle and vise versa....... so why is a wet track a no go?

You are right Stix. Maybe people stay away from rain because the rain effects the horses mood. Just how people change their mood when it rains so does horses.

Now the 'challenge' has gone I'll give my opinion as far as I see it anyway.

When tracks become slow or heavy, there is not only '1 variable' that changes. There are heaps. If you talked to any track manager about what happens to his track when it gets excess water, He won't stop talking for an hour while he describes every inch of it and the variables involved around the track surface that can affect the outcome of a race. On top of that all tracks respond differently to excess water as will the runners on any particular wet day and depending on the track their racing on. A win in the heavy at Eagle Farm doesn't translate to being a good thing at Ipswich in the heavy. All tracks are different when slow or heavy.

"A win in the heavy at Eagle Farm doesn't translate to being a good thing at Ipswich in the heavy. All tracks are different when slow or heavy."

But remember I'm talking about really only one variable and when assessing a horses ability, the track that it races on would certainly be a consideration and I wouldn't expect a winner at EF to race well at Ipswich if it was (for arguments sake) 0 from 5 starts at the track.

There is a saying horses for courses. Some tracks suit some horses - be it long straight, tight home turn..... and these would still be considered when using one's selection method regardless of track condition, would it not?

Agree that the track does respond differently in different section - seen may meets called off becauise of one small section being not up to racing standard.

But what is it about Wet tracks that overide all the other factors a punter considers important and viable, not viable when the track is rain affected. What stops the logic in it's tracks?

I don't know the answer. It just doesn't make sense to me. I can only go on my results and the actual track condition - not the performace of the horse in a particular going - has no bearing on my results.

Just can't find a logical answer as to why most ratings/methods perform at their worst when they are used on rain affected tracks.

People often do their form based on a track being dead or better, why not when dead or worse?

......... who know's what the answer is.

Stix and Bhagwan are on the right track.

It is mindset, theory and imbedded wives tales that cements these ideas.
Therefore when a track is heavy, and the punter has a bad day, they assign it to "****** wet tracks, I'll never bet them again" and have the attitude that the folklore must be right.

If you'd backed topweight in a welter - you'd lose heavily.
If you stayed away from wide barriers, you'd miss a lot of value.
If you never bet on a horse second up, you'd miss more winners than avoided.
If you never bet wet tracks, you'd also be missing a premium strike rate.

Inevitably, a lot of "rules" have been pushed by bookies to ensure you miss value and only bet on very poor value. Those that haven't are purely punters excuses to the missus or themselves.

The statistics show that the heavier the track condition, the more accurate the prices, in fact a Fast track is the worst betting proposition, followed by transitional surfaces being Dead or Slow.
Good or Heavy being the optimum of accuracy and strike rate.

It comes down to superstition versus reality, afterall, every odds on favourite that gets rolled is not "pulled".

Another big problem with slow and heavy tracks is that most of the horses have little or no wet track form especially 2 and 3yr. olds and even 4yr. olds. Trying to line-up form in these circumstances is often almost betting blind [throwing darts].

Wet tracks? Bookies [and Betfair layers] love 'em!

The 'more accurate prices' seem to have only been in Melb.

Double figure odds winners and track condt. last Sat.

Eagle Farm [dead 5 bordering on slow going by the times and some Jockies]
MAJESTIC SIGHT 33.70
SONG OF HOPE 33.90
CARDIO 16.40
NUCLEAR MEDICINE 12.40
FABIARNA 13.90
OUR JANGLES 14.40

Rosehill [Heavy]
NUCLEAR SKY 11.30
BOOK OF KELLS 56.40
ESKIMO QUEEN 18.00
VALEDICTUM 11.10

Caulfield [good 3]
Nil

Repeat: Bookies love wet tracks.

Saw you revised your inital post to point out the younger horses, but.....

Wouldn't breeding give you a lead as to a horses chances in a particular going? So you wouldn't be totally blind..... perhaps partially.... but again it's only one variable.

With regard to "lining up form"............so do we disregard good racing form on good tracks when it is wet? I would suspect that recent racing is one of the most important considerations when people do ratings/form. But wet tracks, it doesn't apply....?

Agree unexposed form on wet tracks is an important aspect to consider, but there are ways of assessing a runners chances.

You often hear that this breed or that breed likes it firm or likes the sting out of the ground and it's all based on breeding, bit like assessing if a horse will run out a solid 1600m or not, a good pointer is it's breeding. How do you assess a 2, 3 or 4 yo on running 1600m+ if it's every only run upto 1200m? I think looking at the breeding would give you an indication....

Agree or otherwise?

This is the whole point.... why are punters so inept in the wet?

Is it that their selection method/logic etc skewed in one direction (dead or better)? why is it so hard for the method when it's dead or worse?

Yeah, breeding is a clue but how many punters know what are good or bad wet track sires? Even then it doesn't always apply [Tarzan's bother drowned in the bath]. It certainly never helped the average punter much on Sat. and where does Chrome's wet = 'more accurate prices' kick in? Only on the 'good'
at Caulfield strangely enough.

Posts deleted. We do not condone copying posts from other forums.

Moderator.

Very heavy tracks.
 

There is quite a variation in wet tracks, and over the past months there have been some rated as "Heavy 10", and some of these have, during the course of the day, been abandoned, probably because the track has been little better than a quagmire, so this would be a good reason for not betting.

For the small punter like myself, trying to formulate the perfect system without too much effort, and using old papers for the form guide, this is the one aspect which is often neglected, so find it OK to bet despite the conditions, except for Heavy 8 to 10.

The thinking of the 'Naysayers' is that a slippery uneven track introduces an extra risk factor. When a horse momentarily loses its footing on a slippery section of the track, it can take several lengths to recover. The same people won't bet on jumps races but don't the stats say that favourites over jumps are more reliable than favourites on the flat?

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