Do extreme bias aided winners ever win back?

[Stillriledup]

It seems like horses who benefit from extreme biases have a really hard time winning back. They seem to not only have a hard time winning back, they seem to not "run a lick" quite often.

Is it just my imagination or do these winners who take advantage of crushing biases rarely duplicate that effort if they show up on an unbiased track?

[speed]

NSS

[CincyHorseplayer]

Off the top of my head I can't think of a name but there are plenty of instances where horses run into another favorable pace scenario and win after a bias aided performance.If it's not or it's normal or unfavorable definitely double down bet againsts.

[classhandicapper]

They win all the time, but IMO there are ways of recognizing those that have a very good chance of running well next out and those that don't.

[Valuist]

They do win sometimes. But the problem is that their races look better on paper than they were in reality, so they win at overbet odds.

[speed]

Certainly looking at the previous races leading up to the bias aided performance would give you an idea of what the horse is capable of in future races.

[CincyHorseplayer]

They win all the time, but IMO there are ways of recognizing those that have a very good chance of running well next out and those that don't.

Piggybacking off your comment,we see speed horses round into form and reel off wins simply because they find the lead and roll uncontested,bias or no bias.

[Elliott Sidewater]

Yes, they do win back, but IMO you're better off looking for value elsewhere. Handicapping questions calling for an answer of never or always will usually elicit a different answer, namely, "it depends". Horses that overcome a bias to win in fast time can be the best bets in racing, or the worst, depending on what the effort takes out of them. Again, it depends.

Sorry if that wasn't the answer you were looking for, but I think it's correct. Advice is free, lessons are expensive.

[Robert Goren]

Early Speed horses that normally quit bad that are propelled to a victory by a strong front runner bias sometimes keep their keep their new found courage for a few starts, but I have never seen it become permanent.

[traynor]

Piggybacking off your comment,we see speed horses round into form and reel off wins simply because they find the lead and roll uncontested,bias or no bias.

Which leads to the question of how one knows that a win was aided by an extreme bias or was simply a normal event. I understand the concepts and the theories--it is not a facetious question.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Which leads to the question of how one knows that a win was aided by an extreme bias or was simply a normal event. I understand the concepts and the theories--it is not a facetious question.

I'm definitely one of the hardest scrutinizers of the bias concept.I don't believe they exist very often at all.Knowing a race shape beforehand or something even simpler,like every horse in a race or sequence of races that is contentious,each contender has 5 or more speed points,there is no speed bias in almost any scenario,but the lengths behind at 1st/2nd call on the winners would make some assume such.I can't think of any racetrack I've seen favoring closers undeniably this year but the biggest speed bias I have seen in a long time was the speed bias on Pimlico's turf course on Preakness day.I jumped on that wagon quickly and because it was on turf it made for ripe opportunities.

[traynor]

I'm definitely one of the hardest scrutinizers of the bias concept.I don't believe they exist very often at all.Knowing a race shape beforehand or something even simpler,like every horse in a race or sequence of races that is contentious,each contender has 5 or more speed points,there is no speed bias in almost any scenario,but the lengths behind at 1st/2nd call on the winners would make some assume such.I can't think of any racetrack I've seen favoring closers undeniably this year but the biggest speed bias I have seen in a long time was the speed bias on Pimlico's turf course on Preakness day.I jumped on that wagon quickly and because it was on turf it made for ripe opportunities.

I have seen two (what I consider to be real) "extreme track biases." One was the pounded down track at TuP when the Zany Tactics-Zaboleta debacle happened (and Zany Tactics set a six furlong world record). The other was an inside post bias at Finger Lakes long ago, that lasted until a sports writer for the local paper blabbed that 25% of the winners in routes were from PP1. Track maintenance promptly "corrected" the situation.

Occasional (milder) biases exist. I don't dispute that. However, I think it is far more frequent that biases are assumed than it is that they actually exist. Especially when the existence (or disappearance) of a bias is used as an excuse for why a given race did not go as predicted. The problem may be in the predictions, rather than in the (real or imagined) biases.

[MJC922]

I have seen two (what I consider to be real) "extreme track biases." One was the pounded down track at TuP when the Zany Tactics-Zaboleta debacle happened (and Zany Tactics set a six furlong world record). The other was an inside post bias at Finger Lakes long ago, that lasted until a sports writer for the local paper blabbed that 25% of the winners in routes were from PP1. Track maintenance promptly "corrected" the situation.

Occasional (milder) biases exist. I don't dispute that. However, I think it is far more frequent that biases are assumed than it is that they actually exist. Especially when the existence (or disappearance) of a bias is used as an excuse for why a given race did not go as predicted. The problem may be in the predictions, rather than in the (real or imagined) biases.

Agree 100%. Summer of 88 at FL, that rail was killer and made for easy money while it lasted. That was in my early years of serious play and I was a firm believer in bias at that point. Fast forward a decade or so on the same track (resurfaced) and just the opposite happened when Grabowski grabbed several riding titles by hanging out in the magic 8 path, the latter bias never made me a dime unfortunately. These days I barely even look for it anywhere I play. Sure I know it exists, it's undeniable having seen it first hand but I also strongly suspect that more than 9 out of 10 times it's probably a mirage.

[Valuist]

We will see over the next few weeks when all these recent golden rail winners from Belmont return. If the track evens out, there's going to be some chalk taking a beating.

[traynor]

Agree 100%. Summer of 88 at FL, that rail was killer and made for easy money while it lasted. That was in my early years of serious play and I was a firm believer in bias at that point. Fast forward a decade or so on the same track (resurfaced) and just the opposite happened when Grabowski grabbed several riding titles by hanging out in the magic 8 path, the latter bias never made me a dime unfortunately. These days I barely even look for it anywhere I play. Sure I know it exists, it's undeniable having seen it first hand but I also strongly suspect that more than 9 out of 10 times it's probably a mirage.

That was a VERY good year at Finger Lakes. It made up for the beating I took at the winter meet at Aqueduct. Horses going off at 10-1 and running like Secretariat, and the crowd chanting, "Oscar! Oscar! Oscar!" as they neared the wire.

[CincyHorseplayer]

River Downs was under water for about 6 weeks in the spring of 1997.It was closer favoring til nearly June!Talk about an extreme bias!

[classhandicapper]

Which leads to the question of how one knows that a win was aided by an extreme bias or was simply a normal event. I understand the concepts and the theories--it is not a facetious question.

IMO, the reason there is still value in biases is because it's so hard to determine when there is one.

In order to recognize biases well, you have to have a fairly accurate opinion of the horses and the impact the race development had on the race to begin with. Since even experienced handicappers often disagree about the relative merits of some horses and their trips, you will get a wide range of opinions on biases also. But this is also why I love looking for biases. I know that if I have a good opinion, there's a good chance there will be value.

All that said, IMO there are way more people looking for biases (that are good at) than I would have guessed years ago. It's not uncommon for me to be waiting for a horse that I think ran better than it looks only to see the horse get pounded on the board when he comes back.

[Valuist]

Its funny how the opinion of a bias has changed over the years. It used to be, is the inside good, or is the rail dead? Now so many players only refer to a track being speed favoring (often mistakenly). In this age of synthetic, which often punishes speed, we hear outside, closer friendly tracks described as neutral, and a normal track as speed biased. Turn on TVG and you see a deep closer winning down the middle of the track at Keeneland and the announcers will rush to say, "see its a fair track. You can win from anywhere". Funny how they don't say that after a wire to wire win.

[classhandicapper]

Its funny how the opinion of a bias has changed over the years. It used to be, is the inside good, or is the rail dead? Now so many players only refer to a track being speed favoring (often mistakenly). In this age of synthetic, which often punishes speed, we hear outside, closer friendly tracks described as neutral, and a normal track as speed biased. Turn on TVG and you see a deep closer winning down the middle of the track at Keeneland and the announcers will rush to say, "see its a fair track. You can win from anywhere". Funny how they don't say that after a wire to wire win.

You are describing one of the major issues with recognizing a bias.

You need an objective standard to describe what "fair" is across all tracks. Only then can you describe the track as biased in relation to that standard.

The inside has been pretty good at Belmont lately, but compared to what?

Compared to what's typical of Belmont?

Compared to what's typical of Keeneland?

Compared to what's typical of the Inner Dirt at Aqueduct?

A lot of time people don't have that objective standard defined. So their definition of bias kind of shifts around from track to track etc...

[Valuist]

You are describing one of the major issues with recognizing a bias.

You need an objective standard to describe what "fair" is across all tracks. Only then can you describe the track as biased in relation to that standard.

The inside has been pretty good at Belmont lately, but compared to what?

Compared to what's typical of Belmont?

Compared to what's typical of Keeneland?

Compared to what's typical of the Inner Dirt at Aqueduct?

A lot of time people don't have that objective standard defined. So their definition of bias kind of shifts around from track to track etc...

And to take it a step further, is what is "typical" even really relevant? A track can have a mixture of good inside days, dead rail days, and many when there's no discernible bias. We hear handicappers talk in generalizations (xxx is ALWAYS a speed track), yet the real key is knowing when the track changed.

And many handicappers don't understand the difference between a good rail/inside and a speed track, although they can sometimes be the same thing.