Selections for All Venues 15 March Session 1

[backandlay]

Philadelphia R2 No5 Max Jones
Philadelphia R3 No2 Megara
Beulah R1 No2 Hometown Charm
Gulfstream R1 No7 Proven Honor
Philadelphia R4 No9 Movinlikawinner
Beulah R3 No4 Snow Fortune
Hawthorne R1 No4 If Six Were Nine
Beulah R5 No4 Torrent Of Song
Beulah R6 No3 Zayla's Fire
Gulfstream R6 No1 And Thats My Story
Beulah R8 No6 George M
Philadelphia R10 No1 Cherie's Digger
Ocala R1 No12 Intrueflight
Turf Paradise R4 No1 Miss Rancho Vista

A 2nd session may be posted soon

[FirstTimeLasix]

nice work, backandlay.
thanks for sharing your strategy and picks.

[Zaf]

I think the sprint strategy has a lot of validity. IMHO the shorter races are more predictable when there is only one or two clear cut early speed horses.

ZAFONIC

[backandlay]

Zafonic, nice nickname sir champion.

I think hi9s son Xaar is going to be a sensation at stud.

His 1st crop of 2yo's are on the ground in Australia now and performing well. I do think though they will make better classic type 3yo's then early running 2yo's.

Xaar's Dosage figures also suggest the same.

I have a yearling filly by Xaar out of a Housebuster mare. Her 3rd dam is the smart Miss Tidal Wave who is the dam of 10 to race for 9 winners including Sea Regent who is itself the dam of stakes winners Wave Wise, Duckpower, Spinnakers Flying, Desert Waves, Search The Sea and is also the dam of Play The Hornpipe. Sea Regent was the 1995 Canadian broodmare of the year.

A very nice cross and the dosage reports I have done suggest it is going to be suited to 9furlongs to 12furlongs which really excites me as it could become a real classic type of filly. I have decided to name it Xaar Xaar Gabor or Xaar Xaar Blacksheep. Do you like the name??

I know Xaar won the Group 1 Dewhurst Stakes in The UK by an amazing 7 lengths as a 2yo, the same margin recorded by his father Zafonic in the same event.

Also a pity about the recent passing of Zafonic. A turf sire for mine and it will be interesting to see if Xaar can continue flying the flag of his smart father at stud after his untimely death.

Cheers

[backandlay]

Hawthorne R7 No1 Roarin Brittney
Ocala R2 No3 Golden Gator
Turf Paradise R5 No8 Free And Lucky
Hawthorne R8 No6 Miss Outrageous
Ocala R3 No5 Vision In Flight
Turf Paradise R6 No2 Tendollaryo
Portland R4 No2 Questionable Road
Turf Paradise R8 No5 Little Bit Sandy
Mountaineer R2 No7 Are You Blue
Portland R8 No4 Soup N' Crackers
Mountaineer R3 No5 Patti's Pro
Mountaineer R7 No6 Dream Of Wealth
Mountaineer R8 No3 Editiorial
Mountaineer R9 No10 Tricksand

No more selections to be added.

[Suffolk OTB]

Thanks for your selections....love your thoughts on sprint races.

Why do you not consider bias at all? Is it because you don't believe in it, or you don't have time to follow the bias at all tracks? As a NY player, I see many biases, especially on the recently completed inner track.

[backandlay]

I will answer this question in some detail exploring a few different realms.

1. I have no doubt bias exists and is extreme but I do feel people pay too much attention to it and this has a few benifits and negatives.

A. It creates value around some runners being underbet and creates no value around other favourites when it is over emphasized. At the end of the day I feel horses with a distinct edge on their opposition can overcome these factors.

Liken it to Nostradamus and his predictions, much can read into it and people will read what they want into the findings of bias.

The inner track at Aqueduct is one that tends to throw up a lot of big dividends but I put this down to people over emphasizing the effect of bias and hence creating a value aspect about some wagers there especially.

Baffert made a good point the other day when talking about Unbridled. Both his losses came on the same track, a pure dirt track with no sand base mixed in. Then again this can be over emphasized aswell. In Australia the belief exists that North American sires are purely dirt sires and this is a load of hogwash. I have looked at racing from countries such as UK, Japan, South Africa, Australia, USA, New Zealand, and many other countries. See my other posts on Indian racingf for instance. I believe horses can go on all types of ground with a few lengths of their optimum perforamnce level on one surface or another.

A few years back in Australia they put a new turf inner track in at Randwick in Sydney and over the 1st few meetings there horses racing right on pace were winning 90% of the races. The press turned around and bagged the heirachy saying that this track was very much leader biased making for unfair racing. Hogwash. All it did was create value.

Jockeys then got a minset about them that they had to be leading or right on pace no matter the distance when riding at this track. This made for big speed battles infront creating excellent value around finding class runners that would be flattered by sitting off pace and clsing over the top of leaders. I landed numerous 20/1 and 30/1 plunges when assessing racing from the Randwick Inner during this period of time.

Now this track stats show it has even out over 2 or 3 years of racing.

I find it hard to pay relevance to a small sample of statistics ovewr a few meets that suggest a huge bias exists in one form or another.

Statistics in general are very relevant but only when a very large sample of data is available.

I think the actual pace and mapping work associated to seeing how a race will be run is much more important than the bias it may create or that exists in general.

Another point. If you walked onto an Australian race track 20 years ago and talked of bias you would be laughed off the track. But now bias is heavily discussed and given relevance even over here. Once again look at it and find what has been over emphasized and find the value.

A term i will use now is fluked and flattered. By this I refer to horses that race off the pace and fly late to winm by a big margin making them look better than they actually are. A horse comes from well back and wins by 6l with a leg in the air. The press turn around and say " We have a champion on our hands" The effect of the win is over emphasized. Next start it comes out and starts 2/1 instead of its true 5/1 quoe creating an excellent value aspect when next start their may only be one or two leaders engaged instead of 4 or 5 as their was at its previous start. The paramount ingredient to success here is reading the pace and race mapping to see what will pan out today.

The simple fact for mine is that runners coming from offpace in srpints have a much harder job than those close to the pace and many of those back markers can be fluked and flattered by big margins when the on pace runner that got caught in a speed battle with 4 others is the merit run of the race after battling the pace early and kicking in the stretch to be beaten into 2nd a few lengths whilst the other leaders dropped out and failed. This is the run that has upside and a lot of hidden merit. Find these runners and you will consistently get ovewrs about them when the pace of the race finally suits them next time out.

What to make of the fast lane 3 or 4 out from the rail. OK, 1st 3 races of the day see horses sweep 3 and 4 wide after furious paces are set and then win from midfield. All of a sudden the commentators are saying the track today is playing against leaders. In the 4th event jockeys take notice and no one wants to lead. The midfield runners are overbet and you find a horse get a soft lead and kick to win in the stretch by a widening 5 lengths at 6/1 instead of its true 3/1 quote. The value aspect appears again.

At the end of the day bias creates value in positive and negative ways and yes it does exist to a degree but I feel there is more merit in finding the runner that can win under the pace scenario and is suited than by paying too much attention to bias. The actual pace make up of a race is much more important to me then trying to work out how the bias will effect runners.

Horses of better class than their opposition can tend to overcome adversity and win. This does not mean champion horses. Merely those that have a class edge on their opposition under the makeup of that said event.

An old saying my grandfather used to justify his big playing of greyhounds instead of horses back in his day carries merit here. "I would rather back a flea on a dogs back than a jockey on a horses back". In essence people think too much about what if this happens and what if that happens instead of looking at the facts. Jockeys get too caught up in this bais factor and hence ride their mounts against their natural winning style. Take my example of the Randwick inner above.

Look these are just my thoughts but they have worked for me over time and have always given me a value edge. Read into it what you will but my position stands. Bias is overemphasized for mine.

Cheers

[shanta]

Originally posted by backandlay
I will answer this question in some detail exploring a few different realms.

1. I have no doubt bias exists and is extreme but I do feel people pay too much attention to it and this has a few benifits and negatives.

A. It creates value around some runners being underbet and creates no value around other favourites when it is over emphasized. At the end of the day I feel horses with a distinct edge on their opposition can overcome these factors.

Liken it to Nostradamus and his predictions, much can read into it and people will read what they want into the findings of bias.

The inner track at Aqueduct is one that tends to throw up a lot of big dividends but I put this down to people over emphasizing the effect of bias and hence creating a value aspect about some wagers there especially.

Baffert made a good point the other day when talking about Unbridled. Both his losses came on the same track, a pure dirt track with no sand base mixed in. Then again this can be over emphasized aswell. In Australia the belief exists that North American sires are purely dirt sires and this is a load of hogwash. I have looked at racing from countries such as UK, Japan, South Africa, Australia, USA, New Zealand, and many other countries. See my other posts on Indian racingf for instance. I believe horses can go on all types of ground with a few lengths of their optimum perforamnce level on one surface or another.

A few years back in Australia they put a new turf inner track in at Randwick in Sydney and over the 1st few meetings there horses racing right on pace were winning 90% of the races. The press turned around and bagged the heirachy saying that this track was very much leader biased making for unfair racing. Hogwash. All it did was create value.

Jockeys then got a minset about them that they had to be leading or right on pace no matter the distance when riding at this track. This made for big speed battles infront creating excellent value around finding class runners that would be flattered by sitting off pace and clsing over the top of leaders. I landed numerous 20/1 and 30/1 plunges when assessing racing from the Randwick Inner during this period of time.

Now this track stats show it has even out over 2 or 3 years of racing.

I find it hard to pay relevance to a small sample of statistics ovewr a few meets that suggest a huge bias exists in one form or another.

Statistics in general are very relevant but only when a very large sample of data is available.

I think the actual pace and mapping work associated to seeing how a race will be run is much more important than the bias it may create or that exists in general.

Another point. If you walked onto an Australian race track 20 years ago and talked of bias you would be laughed off the track. But now bias is heavily discussed and given relevance even over here. Once again look at it and find what has been over emphasized and find the value.

A term i will use now is fluked and flattered. By this I refer to horses that race off the pace and fly late to winm by a big margin making them look better than they actually are. A horse comes from well back and wins by 6l with a leg in the air. The press turn around and say " We have a champion on our hands" The effect of the win is over emphasized. Next start it comes out and starts 2/1 instead of its true 5/1 quoe creating an excellent value aspect when next start their may only be one or two leaders engaged instead of 4 or 5 as their was at its previous start. The paramount ingredient to success here is reading the pace and race mapping to see what will pan out today.

The simple fact for mine is that runners coming from offpace in srpints have a much harder job than those close to the pace and many of those back markers can be fluked and flattered by big margins when the on pace runner that got caught in a speed battle with 4 others is the merit run of the race after battling the pace early and kicking in the stretch to be beaten into 2nd a few lengths whilst the other leaders dropped out and failed. This is the run that has upside and a lot of hidden merit. Find these runners and you will consistently get ovewrs about them when the pace of the race finally suits them next time out.

What to make of the fast lane 3 or 4 out from the rail. OK, 1st 3 races of the day see horses sweep 3 and 4 wide after furious paces are set and then win from midfield. All of a sudden the commentators are saying the track today is playing against leaders. In the 4th event jockeys take notice and no one wants to lead. The midfield runners are overbet and you find a horse get a soft lead and kick to win in the stretch by a widening 5 lengths at 6/1 instead of its true 3/1 quote. The value aspect appears again.

At the end of the day bias creates value in positive and negative ways and yes it does exist to a degree but I feel there is more merit in finding the runner that can win under the pace scenario and is suited than by paying too much attention to bias. The actual pace make up of a race is much more important to me then trying to work out how the bias will effect runners.

Horses of better class than their opposition can tend to overcome adversity and win. This does not mean champion horses. Merely those that have a class edge on their opposition under the makeup of that said event.

An old saying my grandfather used to justify his big playing of greyhounds instead of horses back in his day carries merit here. "I would rather back a flea on a dogs back than a jockey on a horses back". In essence people think too much about what if this happens and what if that happens instead of looking at the facts. Jockeys get too caught up in this bais factor and hence ride their mounts against their natural winning style. Take my example of the Randwick inner above.

Look these are just my thoughts but they have worked for me over time and have always given me a value edge. Read into it what you will but my position stands. Bias is overemphasized for mine.

Cheers


that was a tremendous post Backandlay. for myself probably one of the best i have read on this board. Thank you!
Richie