"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
.......Giddy Up..... !!

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".

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

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?

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!

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?

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!

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.

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?