>When you say you weight the figures less does this mean you use them as less of a basis for making your selection then wager. Please explain.<

Yes, exactly. I weight speed figures less on turf than dirt.

I often come to the conclusion that a horse that has been running slightly slower figures is actually the better horse.

IMO, the paces of turf races are generally slower and less demanding than what you see on dirt. Because of that, there's often a spirited sprint home during the last 2-3 furlongs (sub 12 second 1/8 miles).

If the superior horses are a few lengths off the lead at the top of the stretch in a slow paced race, they simply aren't going to blow their generally weaker rivals away and earn their best possible figures. There are limits to how much faster you can run than another fresh horse within 2-3 furlongs. There are also limits to how fast you can run late.

As a result, there are many more very close finishes between multiple horses on turf. You don't see nearly as many huge wins or blow outs on turf as on dirt.

IMO, that means that the speed figures they are earning are impacted by the pace much more often.

What I am generally doing is looking to the figures to isolate the contenders. Then I am trying to seperate close contenders based on demonstrated late brilliance, the quality of the company they have been keeping and how consistently they have been performing well (especially winning) etc... I might also upgrade a figure if it was earned under an especially difficult pace scenario etc...

For the record, my results on turf aren't nearly as good as they are on dirt, but I don't believe that has anything to do with what I am saying above. I lost money betting on turf races for years before I started understanding some of the differences. Now I am at least in the game. :-)