Update on Polytrack #2
Just finished putting in another four days worth of results from Keeneland. As of today I have nine total days worth of results from Keeneland and five from Belmont. Once I get some time I’ll add some more from Belmont or some other track to have a bigger sample size. However, those nine days encompass 45 races so it is not an insignificant sample.
WIth the latest results in from Keeneland, it looks like this, summarized:
              Races    Wins  Beat Ordinal
Nonpoly     45        12         17
Poly            84        11         29                                         Â
With this new data, it is even more compelling that speed is not hampered by the polytrack surface. E-ponies top speed score is actually outrunning his ordinal position more often on Polytrack than over the Belmont surface. Winners still lag, but there is certainly insufficient data to state (as Mr Beyer did) that the Polytrack surface shows any favoritism towards early or late speed.Â
I’m not saying that the Polytrack surface actually works completely opposite to what Mr. Beyer suggests (that it favors speed). I’m just saying that there is no conclusion to be made at all. It would be purely conjecture to say anything about it at all. The data says there is no case for it, which is what I suspected all along. Â
November 1st, 2006 at 2:43 am
I agree that it’s too early to say with certainty that the surface is responsible for a smaller than expected percentage of winners from the pace dictator. One possibility is more late running types were present in the fields, that is to say perhaps trainers were targeting the Keeneland meet for their late runners (the turf to poly switch seemed highly represented, for example) essentially making the closers’ bias that has been reported a self-fulfilling prophecy