[quote]
On 2003-06-23 00:05, thekey wrote:
How do you deal with wet tracks.

Do you not bet them or do you have a method for rating them. I personally use time only as a minor factor and only on good/dead tracks. This suits me as I rarely bet in the wet anyway.

My time assessment is based on the horses ability to run fast over the distance and is a bonus factor in my ratings rather than the basis for the whole thing.
***************************

La Mer: Personally I never bet on slow or heavy tracks for reasons such as the ability of horses to handle the conditions ‘on the day’, unpredictable track biases and other reasons.

This does not mean that performances can’t be compared and conclusions made, i.e. at the Rosehill 1200m there is a difference of approximately three seconds between a good and heavy track standard time.

However, there are some inherent issues that require addressing with the creation of standard times for wet tracks, such as the relative lack of data available and the variance in the spread of racetimes (from which it can be concluded that some wet tracks are far worse than others even if the official track condition are the same).

You mentioned that you use time only as a minor factor based on a horses ability to run fast over the distance, but IMO it goes beyond that – a horse not only has to have the inherent ability to run fast enough to win BUT also has to be in a position at the turn/400m to do so. Pace assessments will give you this added edge, time (speed) ratings won’t, but can assist in making the assessment more accurate.