In the Forum today, I mentioned that there seems to be many more turf races than there are dirt races. I've noticed this tendancy quite often in the past.
As I said, over the four week period of weeks 27-30, there are 56 turf races and only 27 on dirt. This is not just an aberration, this turf/dirt ratio has strongly favored turf surfaces for the past several seasons.
My hypothesis was, it must be harder for dirt horses to win purses because they are operating in larger fields. It makes sense. Fewer races, hence larger fields.
I checked all 43 races that we have run at Otsego Farms in 2009. Here is what I found:
TURF RACES - 21
AVG FIELD SIZE - 8.43
DIRT RACES - 22
AVG FIELD SIZE - 11.37
Because almost half of my string prefers dirt, I have actually run more dirt races in spite of their relative scarcity. Not surprisingly, the dirt fields are substantially larger, just as I suspected they would be.
Of those 43 races, I have collected a check on 29 occasions. The breakdown is as follows:
TOTAL RACES - 43
EARNED PURSE ON TURF - 17
EARNED PURSE ON DIRT - 12
So, I have earned a purse in a turf race 81% of the time. I have earned a purse in a dirt race 55% of the time.
Seems like I am right on target with my thinking. Because of the plethora of turf races, the fields are smaller and the purses are easier to come by.
There are obviously many other possible explanations for the way my numbers look. It's possible that another stable may have substantially different results with their horses. But the idea seems logical to me so I'm going to assume that this phenomenon is accurate.
Superstar horses are going to win their money regardless of whether they shine on turf or dirt. But if you have a middle-of-the-road talent....it's better if he's a turfer.
As I said, over the four week period of weeks 27-30, there are 56 turf races and only 27 on dirt. This is not just an aberration, this turf/dirt ratio has strongly favored turf surfaces for the past several seasons.
My hypothesis was, it must be harder for dirt horses to win purses because they are operating in larger fields. It makes sense. Fewer races, hence larger fields.
I checked all 43 races that we have run at Otsego Farms in 2009. Here is what I found:
TURF RACES - 21
AVG FIELD SIZE - 8.43
DIRT RACES - 22
AVG FIELD SIZE - 11.37
Because almost half of my string prefers dirt, I have actually run more dirt races in spite of their relative scarcity. Not surprisingly, the dirt fields are substantially larger, just as I suspected they would be.
Of those 43 races, I have collected a check on 29 occasions. The breakdown is as follows:
TOTAL RACES - 43
EARNED PURSE ON TURF - 17
EARNED PURSE ON DIRT - 12
So, I have earned a purse in a turf race 81% of the time. I have earned a purse in a dirt race 55% of the time.
Seems like I am right on target with my thinking. Because of the plethora of turf races, the fields are smaller and the purses are easier to come by.
There are obviously many other possible explanations for the way my numbers look. It's possible that another stable may have substantially different results with their horses. But the idea seems logical to me so I'm going to assume that this phenomenon is accurate.
Superstar horses are going to win their money regardless of whether they shine on turf or dirt. But if you have a middle-of-the-road talent....it's better if he's a turfer.
1 comment:
Very interesting reading - esp as I have a tendency to breed Turf horses (mainly coz thats what I know!)
Well done as always (even if i did have to use the dictionary a lot - so many big words for my little brain!)
Looking forward to the next instalment.
Post a Comment