Because pace and speed are very different from turf to dirt, it is important to develop a more specialized approach to turf handicapping. The following principles should go a long way toward making you more successful as a turf player

1. In graded races, class is critical. To put it another way, Grade I horses beat Grade II horses, and Grade II horses beat Grade III horses. I have a fairly simple method of assessing class level. A horse must have finished first or second in a respective Graded race where at least a third of the runners would qualify at that grade level. So in a nine horse, Grade I field, at least three of the runners should have Grade I credentials. The exception to this rule is the rapidly improving three year old. A three year old that has steadily and impressively moved through his conditions should be given every consideration once he enters a graded race.
2. Once a turf runner gets into shape, he tends to stay there for a while. In fact, it is not unusual to see a turf horse run the same figure over and over for five or six races in a row. As a general rule, once a turf horse establishes an ability level during the season, it is obvious and predictable. As I noted above, since turf racing is less destructive physically on a horse, it is easier to maintain a regular training and racing regimen.
3. Monitor where the inner rail is set on the turf course. Tracks regularly move the inner rail to prevent the turf course from wearing down on the interior lanes. For example, the inner turf rail at Saratoga was set at nine feet the second weekend of the 2010 meeting and 18 feet the third weekend. This change obviously makes comparing times more difficult. On a turf course of one mile, moving the rail out nine feet means horses will have to run about 30 additional feet. This translates to about three and a half lengths or seven tenths of a second. More than that, the extended rail exacerbates the advantage the inside or fast-breaking horses have.
4. Turf races are run at a much different pace than dirt races. High-octane speed horses such as Presious Passion are the exception on the turf. Turf runners are much better at relaxing during the race, generally making their moves in the last three-eighths of a mile, which is why it is common for turf races to finish with most of the field within a few lengths of each other. Most handicappers look for horses with the ability to run impressively in the final three-eighths. This is important, but you have to be careful not to overrate this statistic. It may not matter if a horse can run a final three-eighths in 30 seconds if you believe he will have 10 lengths to make up at that point. Determine how the race is likely to be run and assess each respectively horse accordingly. Don’t let ability to run a fast final fraction wholly drive a betting decision.
5. Ratable lone speed is even more dangerous on the turf, regardless of the distance. In fact, the longer the race, the bigger the advantage. Presious Passion was a freak in the 2009 Breeder’s Cup turf, but a good example of how speed can change a race. I’ve caught some great prices on horses who establish a three length lead on a 1:15 pace on a firm turf and stubbornly keep the closers at bay.
6. When you are considering an experienced dirt horse starting for the first time on the turf AT SIX FURLONGS OR LESS, don’t worry about turf breeding as long as the horse has shown quality front-running ability on the dirt. There are three reasons for this. First, most dirt races have a faster pace than most turf races, so the front running dirt horse has that advantage. Second, turf sprints are just too short to have the differences between the dirt and turf surfaces be as significant. By the time the advantages of breeding kick in, the race is over. Finally, as I previously mentioned, horses will hold their speed longer on the turf.
7. Anyone who spent time around New York racing has heard the phrase “Samyn on the Green.” This was a reference to long time rider Jean Luc Samyn’s attributed skill riding the turf. I’m not knocking Samyn’s riding ability, but I do have a suspicion that if his name had been Jean Luc Picard he would not have garnered quite the same reputation. In horseracing, if reputation gets a jockey some better mounts, more power to him, but handicappers should maintain a healthy skepticism about living on legend. In any case, I do believe that a jockey is important in turf racing, but neither horses, jockeys, nor trainers should get extra points because their name rhymes with turf, lawn, sod, green, or grass.

A good jockey creates one specific advantage: he knows how to keep his horse clear of trouble when it is time to move. Remember I mentioned how turf horses will often race under cover? Mediocre riders will turn that into a horse being blocked while premier jockeys always find a lane. But whether talking about the turf or the dirt, the best jockeys usually get the best horses and wind up with the best statistics.

While this is not an exhaustive survey I checked jockey statistics for the 2013 Saratoga meeting. The table below generally underscores that good jockeys are good jockeys whether the surface is turf or dirt, although Javier Castellano and Jose Lezcano did seem to find the turf especially to their liking, but then again they seemed to be the choice of the top trainers. One thing seems to reinforce the other. The bottom line—feel good if you have a competent rider on your horse, but start with believing the horse is a likely winner.

8. There is a great story told about Elston Howard, a catcher for the Yankees in the 50’s and 60’s. In 1963 he was having an MVP season. He credited hitting coach Wally Moses with his success. When pressed about that he said, “Wally don’t make you hit like him. He makes you hit like you.” In the same way, a good trainer figures out how to get the most out of each of his runners by using the horse’s natural abilities to their greatest advantage.

Great trainers are great trainers regardless of surface, but there are definitely trainers who specialize. In California, Neil Drysdale and the late Bobby Frankel were well known for having stables loaded with turf runners. On the east coast, Bill Mott, Jonathan Sheppard and Christophe Clement garner most of their wins in turf races. Do these trainers have an advantage? Sure. If you own a good turf horse it makes a lot of sense to give the horse to a turf specialist. They get good turf horses because they have good reputations and they have good reputations because they get good turf horses.

While there is temptation to overvalue a horse trained by a turf specialist, my advice is always to assess the horse first, then the trainer, then the jockey. And never feel bad about favoring a first rate turfer with a first rate trainer, even if that trainer isn’t a so-called turf specialist.

Up above I mentioned a trainer angle I look for based on the knowledge that grass racing is physically easier on a horse. Sometimes trainers with sore-legged dirt runners will move them to the turf for a few races. They have no interest in permanently switching surfaces, but this move will keep the horses in condition while giving them a chance to heal. When they move the horse back to the dirt, don’t ignore them just because there are a few clunkers on an unfavored surface in their past performances.

In America, turf racing has long been secondary to dirt racing. Consider the following facts:

• Of the 111 listed Grade I races in 2014, just 33 are run on the turf. That’s about 30%.
• Just about all American turf courses do not have proper drainage systems. Whereas in Europe turf races are run in all conditions, a soaking rain causes most turf races in America to be moved to the main track, inevitably causing a slew of scratches and a ridiculous ploy to fill the field by including “Main Track Only” runners. It is very frustrating for trainers to map out a turf season only to have the weather too often intervene.
• The American breeding industry focuses on producing runners with a focus on speed (see my blog on whether route races are going the way of the dodo). In the same respect, the most promoted races are invariably on dirt (or synthetic). Ask the average racing fan to name the ten top races of the year (other than the Breeder’s Cup) and it is unlikely there will be a turf race included.
• It is well known that the best turf horses are better off racing in Europe where the purses and prestige are much greater. Conversely, many European horses that come to America do so for softer competition, not to mention the availability of Lasix and the lighter weights American runners carry.

I haven’t seen a survey on this, but based on my experience, handicappers who have a preference for turf racing would be ecstatic if the daily numbers of dirt versus turf races were reversed. Why? It isn’t that turf races are more predictable or easier to handicap. I think it is the inherent idiosyncrasies of turf racing. For handicappers, uncertainty leads to value, and the idiosyncrasies of turf racing create enough uncertainty that prices still abound. I believe the same factors that make turf racing America’s racing step-child also create opportunity

The Difference Between Turf and Dirt 

Grass is a better surface for horses. Period. The reason is that ON DIRT OR SYNTHETICS HORSES TEND TO SLIDE. The surface on the dirt track is fairly loose, and when the horse’s foot hits the ground it skids forward. This skidding, subtle as it may look during a race, places additional stress on the ligaments and joints in the leg, inevitably leading to soreness and injury. On the firm turf, on the other hand, the horse’s foot will start to slide but will quickly be stopped by the roots of the grass, giving the horse a solid hold and reducing the strain on the leg. In my next blog piece I will tell you how some trainers use this difference when dealing with some sore-legged dirt horses.

A second difference is that turf courses have multiple (and sometimes strange) configurations, and certain horses demonstrate a clear liking for those configurations. There is no better example than the six and a half furlong turf course at Santa Anita with its downhill run, right hand turn and stretch that crosses the main track. Horses that have demonstrated success on that course have a decided advantage. Tracks can also change the circumference of the course by moving the inner rail in and out. That NEVER happens on a dirt oval.

Some tracks (Saratoga and Belmont come to mind) also have inner turf courses. These configurations with their tighter turns give a decided advantage to horses that can gain position on the first turn.

A third difference is that turf runners do not have to suffer clods of dirt pelting them in the face throughout the race. This is critical because it allows runners to travel closer to their rivals. In fact, the ideal turf trip is to “cover up,” drafting behind horses much like harness horses do and then looking for a lane for the stretch run. Dirt horses either back off the front runners to avoid the bombardment of dirt, or simply look for clear lanes in which to run. How often have you watched a turf race where all the runners are bunched? It only happens because it is not uncomfortable to be in close quarters on the turf.

Finally, turf courses do not have “lanes, ” and thus biases. The turf tends to be far more even than the dirt from rail to rail. A horse that is clear in the lane will win or lose based on running ability, not whether he found the golden part of the track.

The Turf Horse

Everybody recognizes that certain sires produce superior turf runners. Horses such as Dynaformer, City Zip, El Prado, and Giant’s Causeway are well known as superior turf sires. This fact is critically important—once or maybe twice. Once a horse has proven turf ability, it doesn’t matter if it has a 221 Tomlinson number or is by Mr. Ed out of My Friend Flicka. As Groucho Marx once quipped, “Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?”

Trainers do not all agree on the characteristics that make certain horses take to the turf, but the two most often discussed are stride and foot size. Horses with a higher action (an up and down stride as opposed to a longer, sweeping stride) are favored by many trainers. Horses with this high stride are often thought to be “skipping” over the turf (sensible live, but a strange visual to imagine). Many years ago I heard an even simpler explanation, which I’m not sure is true but certainly sounds good—horses with a higher stride avoid dragging their foot through the grass, thus expending less energy. That very efficient long, sweeping stride on the dirt is a major disadvantage on the turf.

Foot size is a bit more difficult to evaluate, but there is a still a pervasive belief that horses with larger feet run better on the grass or wet surfaces. This may be because the larger feet create better stability for the horse, or perhaps because they better absorb the shock of each stride. Regardless of these interesting differences, it is still most important to remember that once a horse has proven its ability, Tomlinson numbers, stride or foot size are of far reduced importance.

Finally, faint-hearted horses on the dirt will often forget to stop on the turf. My general rule of thumb is that horses can usually coax an extra furlong of speed going from dirt to turf.

The next blog will talk about factors that will help your turf handicapping.

Are you thinking about betting the second at Belmont today? If so, you have the choice of win, place, show, exacta, quinella, trifecta, superfecta, pick-3, pick-4, AND a double. That’s 10 separate pools into which you can spread your money. If that isn’t enough, you can get into the pick-5 in race 1, the pick-6 in race 5 or perhaps the coolest bet in racing, the Grand Slam in race 6. I guess the theory is that all those choices cover every type of bettor who might show up,  and for large tracks with large handles it may work, but at smaller tracks it’s a bad idea all the way around.

And remember. Most people don’t have a computer program identifying pool inefficiencies. The vast majority of the race day crowd relies on habit or experience to get into a pool.

When Arapahoe Park reopened in 1992 after an eight year hiatus they made a great decision when they decided to drop the quinella and instead offer a $1 exacta box. Same two dollar bet and a collection as long as your horses finished first and second in either order, and it accomplished something important. It made the exacta pool larger than it would have been otherwise, and at smaller tracks pool size is critical. At that time dog racing in Colorado was king, and the king of dog racing bets was the quinella. People were literally flummoxed by the absence of the quinella, complaining to the point where Arapahoe was forced to eventually bring it back. It’s been downhill from there.

As someone once said, you can’t save people from themselves.

Even if you couldn’t make a $1 exacta bet, quinellas shouldn’t be offered. How many times have you seen the longer shot win the race and have the quinella pay $20 and the exacta $60? The point is that when the longer shot wins, you want a premium for your combination bet. With a single first/second pool, you have a much better chance at getting a fair pay. Plus you don’t have to go through the mind numbing exercise of checking the payoffs in two pools to figure out where the inefficiencies are (assuming you don’t have some software doing that for you). The last point is that at the smaller tracks, too much of the action happens in the last five minutes and the pools can be highly volatile as bettors search for the overlays. At least if there is only one pool there is a chance the pool might stabilize a little sooner and you’ll come closer to getting the payoff you expected when you bet.

Frankly, the quinella should go the way of the horse and buggy. Tracks should weather the storm and eventually people will forget the quinella.

The next bet they should get rid of is the show bet. The show bet caters to two segments of the betting public: people who go to the track with $20 and want to come home with $20 and the big dollar bettors who are happy to take 5% on their money. It’s a 19th century bet, which makes little sense considering we are well into the 21st century. You want to make the stingy bettors happy? Have a win pool and a combined place/show pool like you see in venues outside the United States. Again, at the smaller tracks, this can only help stabilize pools.

Other bets can be offered based on track handle.  Saratoga, Belmont, and Santa Anita can pretty much offer as many bets as they please, even though they still dilute pools unnecessarily. Still, remember that most of the super-exotic pools are dominated by the rebate sharks, and most of the betting public is simply donating to their cause. I would argue all day long that one gigantic exacta pool benefits big and small bettor alike.

The larger tracks have a built in dilemma when it comes to which bettor to cater to. The small player has a much better chance at hitting the easier combinations – doubles, exactas, maybe even trifectas. But as you get to the more exotic bets such as the superfecta or picks-4,5,6, small bettors are most often just donating money to the pool. For every “small guy hits pick-6 with $32 ticket” story, there are a hundred where some whale investing $15,000 hits it. There are 5,040 combinations in a 10-horse race superfecta. Even if half of them are improbable, who has the bankroll to cover 2,520 combinations, even at 10 cents a ticket?  This problem is exacerbated at the small tracks.

At Arapahoe Park yesterday, the total handle was around $68,000 for 11 races.  That’s not $68,000 a race. That’s $68,000 total. The superfecta in race 11 paid $627.60 for a 7-3-ALL-ALL ticket of which there was exactly one $2 (or two $1) ticket holder. Arapahoe doesn’t have 10 cent superfectas because, as they discovered, the total pool would be about $200. This also means if  you had the 7-3-5-ALL or the 7-3-5-4 you  would have collected…that’s right, $627.60. How much money should you put into a pool where you will collect $627.60 if you snag the whole thing? Arapahoe offers superfectas because everybody else does, but frankly they would have been better off  just building the trifecta or exacta pools.

I know this is unkind, but I have pretty much never run into an ardent racegoer who doesn’t complain that management may understand the actual operation of a track, but precious few actually understand the pari-mutuel aspect. The standard answer to any question is, because that is what the fans/owners/trainers ask for. They are helpless against the onslaught of those who demand 10 betting pools a race.

Offering a ridiculous number of pools is not in the interest of the average bettor. The only time they prosper is when the favorites come in. Otherwise most bettors are just feeding the anti-Robin Hoods – stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

Ray Paulick quoted Charles Cella, Oaklawn Park track owner in 1988 opining that exotic wagering was the worst thing in the world. That’s a silly opinion, but the larger point is well taken. Too many bets pull money away from the pools where the average bettor may have success. I’d challenge the larger tracks to undertake an experiment. Take a Wednesday and have win and place/show betting, exactas, and trifectas on every race, three pick-3’s, one pick-4, two daily doubles, two superfectas and a pick-6.

Check out this great blog on exotic betting by Ray Paulick

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/exotic-bets-are-racetracks-headed-down-the-wrong-path/