The #1 post on dirt at Belmont

[PhantomOnTour]

Has only 6% wins since Jun 19.

4 for 71, with two of those winners being less than even money. Also, two of those winners came on July 3rd - one in a 5 horse field and the other in a 6 horse off the turfer - which means for the last 14 racing days (excluding July 3) we saw only two winners from the rail on dirt:
R4 on June 22 where the 2nd betting choice rolled by 5 lengths
R2 on July 7 in a four horse field won by the heavy chalk

June 26-June 29 was particularly bad for the #1 post - only managed one top two finish in 19 races, and that was a 2nd place in a four horse field.
The #1 hole was 1-38 in terms of exacta finishes during those 4 days.

The rail had been holding at about 13% for sprints and over 15% for routes up until June 19.

[Valuist]

May have some betbacks when Sar opens.

[cj]

Which horses ran worse than expected from the rail? I would guess the expected amount of winners from the 1 post over 71 races is around 9 (I haven't checked all the field sizes), so 4 isn't really terrible over that small number.

I'm not saying it isn't worth investigating, but I'd study the efforts of horses that took some money first.

[PhantomOnTour]

Which horses ran worse than expected from the rail? I would guess the expected amount of winners from the 1 post over 71 races is around 9 (I haven't checked all the field sizes), so 4 isn't really terrible over that small number.

I'm not saying it isn't worth investigating, but I'd study the efforts of horses that took some money first.
The 19 races from Jun26-June 29 had four favorites and five second choices that failed from the rail.
There were also a few helpless bombs in the #1 hole

[PhantomOnTour]

Since June 1 the #1 post in dirt routes is 3 for 49

[cj]

Since June 1 the #1 post in dirt routes is 3 for 49

Good stuff. The rail usually isn't a good post for chute races in my opinion, but that is a very generalized statement.

[Stillriledup]

Keep Me Informed, in yesterday's 7th at Belmont, was a victim of this bad post. When you have the 1, you have to either go to the front, or drop way back and come around....he did neither and this cost him any shot, this is a perfect replay to watch to see why the 1 post loses so many races.

[Ocala Mike]

Good stuff. The rail usually isn't a good post for chute races in my opinion, but that is a very generalized statement.

Agree with this. Sometimes geometry trumps everything.

Used to have a rule of thumb playing the Aqueduct main track years ago. Move the outside posts up at a mile or 7f, and move the rail posts up at 1-1/8.

[Stillriledup]

In the 3rd race at Belmont on July 5th, the winning horse, Villanesca, essentially got the trip that a horse from post 1 might normally get. The post 1 horse set the pace while Villanesca sat buried on the rail behind the leader. She was luckily able to slip out in the stretch due to it being a small field and one horse who stopped and created a gap for her to angle into, so in an odd way, you can say that she was a "winner from Post 1" as her trip resembled a trip that Post 1 horses usually get.

I think this all depends on where on the track the horse from post 1 ends up landing, the ones who go to the front or drop out the back are going to be more effective than the horses who are in tight, down on the fence, with the entire pack of horses around them the entire race.

But, since many post 1 horses have enough speed to keep up, they get that 'dreaded' trip and that's a large part as to why Post 1 stats suck at most tracks.

[Robert Goren]

I read a number of years ago that as the season goes along and after several off tracks the rail gets deeper on most race tracks.( I wish I could remember where). I found this generally to be true. If you watch the inside front runner, you can tell when this is happening. At the beginning of the meet, the jockeys at least try to guard the rail. When the rail is dead, the leader is out in the 3-4 path daring some body to come up the rail. I haven't been watching all the races at Belmont the last few weeks so I don't whether that is case this year or not, but it has been in the past.

[Overlay]

Since June 1 the #1 post in dirt routes is 3 for 49
What are the figures on sprints of six furlongs or less?

[PhantomOnTour]

What are the figures on sprints of six furlongs or less?
from Jun19 the #1 hole is 3-47 in sprints (includes 6.5 & 7f) with two of those rail wins coming July 3...one was a big chalk in a 5 horse field, and the other an off the turf sprint where almost half the field scratched...6 horses ran in that one.

Not surprisingly - no baby races were won from the rail, but there were only about three of those during this period of study, so it didn't skew the numbers much.

EDIT: my error - there were six baby races during this time period so it does skew the sprint numbers a bit

[Stillriledup]

from Jun19 the #1 hole is 3-47 in sprints (includes 6.5 & 7f) with two of those rail wins coming July 3...one was a big chalk in a 5 horse field, and the other an off the turf sprint where almost half the field scratched...6 horses ran in that one.

Not surprisingly - no baby races were won from the rail, but there were only about three of those during this period of study, so it didn't skew the numbers much.

EDIT: my error - there were six baby races during this time period so it does skew the sprint numbers a bit

The 1 post is super tough in those 5F baby races, that turn comes up REALLY quick, unless you 'beat the gate' you might be in a rough go of it from that spot.

[PhantomOnTour]

The 1 post is super tough in those 5F baby races, that turn comes up REALLY quick, unless you 'beat the gate' you might be in a rough go of it from that spot.
Also, the baby races this time of year are almost entirely first time starters, and the rail just ain't the place to be for a debuting 2yr old.

[cj]

The 1 post is super tough in those 5F baby races, that turn comes up REALLY quick, unless you 'beat the gate' you might be in a rough go of it from that spot.

That is the opposite of reality in my opinion. The closer the turn is to the start, the farther inside you want to be. Every study I've ever done proves this. With baby races, speed almost always wins, and the inside is a definite advantage.

[Ocala Mike]

The closer the turn is to the start, the farther inside you want to be.



Again, it's geometry. I mostly agree with cj. The "wild card," of course, is the fact that we're talking about babies who will unpredictably swerve at the start of races. Seems like the green rail post horse makes a left turn out of the gate more often than not, while the green extreme outside post horse makes a right.

[cj]

This is what I have for winning 5f races at BEL since 2004:

Post / Winners
1 20
2 16
3 20
4 21
5 17
6 13
7 3
8 5
These are the field sizes:

FieldSize / Races
4 5
5 23
6 33
7 29
8 25

Impact Value:

1: 1.07
2: 0.86
3: 1.07
4: 1.13
5: 1.21
6: 1.52
7: 0.41
8: 1.60

A little tough with the small sample size to draw many conclusions, but I would say the rail is at no real disadvantage. If you group the posts, 1-2-3 are average, 4-5-6 are better, and 7-8 are below average.

[PhantomOnTour]

Maybe it's just another old (and semi true) racetrack axiom - but I was always taught that debuters on the rail are not good bets.

[Robert Fischer]

the geometry definitely comes into play.

It's good to ask/think about if your horse's post calls for any special ability, and if that post penalizes any specific running style.

The same post could be a help or a hindrance for different horses, and different competition.