[For The Lead]

Hello Mick,

I gave some thought to how I wanted to write this and as I am writing it I, still, am not sure the best way to say what I want to say.

First of all, you have to applaud anyone who makes an effort to gain information, which you are clearly doing.
Next, making your efforts public for all those who might be interested deserves yet another pat on the back.
Having said that, let me move on to making my point.

Based on the work you have done to this point, it seems that it does not matter if the races are on turf or dirt (artificial).
It also suggests that it does not matter if the races were for males or females.
And it also suggests that distance does not matter.
So, no matter what, your conclusions are what they are.

Many years ago, at a Sartin seminar at Saratoga, I had the opportunity to speak, one on one, with Tom Brohamer. Although we talked about various things, one of the topics I wanted to cover was “models” and “profiles”.
His suggestion was that I should break these things down by surface, distance and sex. In fact, he took it a step further. Understand he was a west coast guy. Also understand that this was before the internet and on line betting. He said he would like to be able to play the east coast tracks. When I asked him the reason for that he said, because west coast racing was boring. Everything was pure vanilla. On the east coast there were so many more race conditions that would offer good betting opportunities. When I asked him how that would affect his models and profiles, he said he would break them down further to include the various race conditions. I took his suggestion and made it a part of my routine and I was never sorry that I did.

So, I am doing nothing more than offering you that which Tom Brohamer offered me.
Surface
Distance
Sex
Race condition

By the way, in keeping with the original question of this thread, I would PASS any track offering a short meet.
When taking the above into consideration, the reason becomes obvious.

Best of luck to you.