Closers have no shot

[depalma113]

Santa Anita is a joke.

[shouldacoulda]

I didn't have the :12: either. I wish that woman would stop yelling into the mic or hold it further away. Her voice is going right through my head even with the volume lowered.

[JustRalph]

I didn't have the :12: either. I wish that woman would stop yelling into the mic or hold it further away. Her voice is going right through my head even with the volume lowered.

sounded like shit. On a crappy mic or something. breaking up etc........

terrible........ or as Charles Barkley would say......... TRRBBLL ......

Caton Bredar?

[Augenj]

Santa Anita is a joke.
It's been a joke all season. One carryover after another, let alone the speed bias.

[shouldacoulda]

This is a joke. I' think i'd do better throwing a dart at the form.

[depalma113]

Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!!!!

Give me a freaking break!

[Quagmire]

Ridiculous

[shouldacoulda]

Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!!!!

Give me a freaking break!
Play the :4: , Charity :lol:

[JustRalph]

all you had to do was bet the top 3 early horses...... I just paid for my whole weekend............. :ThmbUp:

But, you're right......... it does kind of suck. Everybody will be all over this in a minute.

[menifee]

This is ridiculous - find the horse that will be up 110 yards out and you have a winner. Might as well be betting quarter horse racing.

[pandy]

If this keeps up for both days I hope the Breeders Cup committee does the right thing and stops running it at Santa Anita, at least for several years until they can figure out out to take care of a racing surface.

[olddaddy]

Im just glad there are enough grass races coming up today.

[precocity]

better re think some of those BC picks speed is carrying :confused:

[olddaddy]

The tracks a travesty.

[precocity]

JUSTRALPH give me a dam pick! :rolleyes: :(

[Robert Fischer]

If this keeps up for both days I hope the Breeders Cup committee does the right thing and stops running it at Santa Anita, at least for several years until they can figure out out to take care of a racing surface.

I'm far from dismissing the track for the reasons stated in this thread, but I would prefer the BC have a true, fair rotation of venue.

There are things about unique courses that horseplayers may really appreciate.

Belmont with it's 1 1/2 course.

Woodbine (I know ability to hold a large event could be an issue, but I give them a reasonable shot at it) = With their wonderful Turf Course (1 1/2 and Outside the dirt).

Keeneland


Churchill Downs :ThmbUp:

Santa Anita



We have a variety of unique courses, and just of the ones I've listed (and there are more), lots of quality and variety.

[Robert Goren]

The dirt looks to be favoring the outside posts.

[Augenj]

If this keeps up for both days I hope the Breeders Cup committee does the right thing and stops running it at Santa Anita, at least for several years until they can figure out out to take care of a racing surface.
Seems as though it favors Game On Dude and Baffert. You don't think... do you? ;)

[Stillriledup]

PPs mean zero, beyer figs mean zero, its just a random crapshoot at this point.

Knowing which jock are going to "Send" is what you need to know...and the only people who know that are the jocks and the insiders.

[depalma113]

The inside rail closing bias on the turf has returned now that they have removed the temp rail.

[Quagmire]

Seems as though it favors Game On Dude and Baffert. You don't think... do you? ;)

Beholder as well

[precocity]

The dirt looks to be favoring the outside posts.


agreed very weird.

[JustRalph]

if you are not following CJ on twitter, you should be.

he is posting some numbers that reveal how speed favoring the dirt is.

two longshot winners improved their figures over 20 pts......... amazing.

[Quagmire]

if you are not following CJ on twitter, you should be.

he is posting some numbers that reveal how speed favoring the dirt is.

two longshot winners improved their figures over 20 pts......... amazing.

TFUS Pace projector had the winner and runner up on the lead in the 4th. 84.60 exacta

[cj]

if you are not following CJ on twitter, you should be.

he is posting some numbers that reveal how speed favoring the dirt is.

two longshot winners improved their figures over 20 pts......... amazing.

Those are raw figures and will be adjusted by the track variant, but they do show two things. First, they show how blazing fast the track is, and second, they show the "shape" of the race. All the dirt races have a fast early, slow late shape but have been won on or near the lead.

[cj]

TFUS Pace projector had the winner and runner up on the lead in the 4th. 84.60 exacta

Also had the huge priced winner of the 2nd right on the lead with one other.

I mentioned on Twitter before yesterday's racing that 4 of the last 5 race days at Santa Anita were speed favoring, and after today it will be 6 of 7 barring a major shift.

[DRIVEWAY]

NBC Sports is saying that the dirt kickback is really stinging the horses. Closers are avoiding running into it.

Horses on the lead and E/P on the outside are affected the least.

Don't know if track maintenance can mitigate this problem. Trainers are certainly screaming at the Breeders Cup officials and consequently to the track.

Santa Anita must respond or this will start to kill the handle.

[Tom]

SA has been clueless about its surface for a decade now.
Strictly a minor league track. You can put all the pint on the buildings you want, but the surface stinks.

[RunForTheRoses]

if you are not following CJ on twitter, you should be.

he is posting some numbers that reveal how speed favoring the dirt is.

two longshot winners improved their figures over 20 pts......... amazing.

What is the url?

[JustRalph]

What is the url?

https://twitter.com/timeformusfigs

[RunForTheRoses]

https://twitter.com/timeformusfigs

Thanks JR, CJ, interesting to see raw, first impressions.

[kingfin66]

Also had the huge priced winner of the 2nd right on the lead with one other.

I mentioned on Twitter before yesterday's racing that 4 of the last 5 race days at Santa Anita were speed favoring, and after today it will be 6 of 7 barring a major shift.

Not true. Pace projector had the 12 in race 2 dead last at the first call.

[cj]

I wouldn't put much stock in the Marathon. Our horses can't go 10f, let alone another half mile.

[depalma113]

This is complete f'n garbage. 22 flat and he wins for fun. I'm done betting Santa Anita dirt. Golden Ticket should have rolled past him.

[camourous]

track playing speed and inside paths, Castellano on Hymn Book was about 6 wide at least throughout from post 3, he might be the only person on the planet who doesn't see the bias...

[Tom]

When the tracks is more important than the horses, you can't call them championships. Jokes, yes,

[Robert Fischer]

Goldencents was much the best.

Hard to judge the track when a much the best horse wins on the front, bias aided or not.

[Robert Goren]

When the tracks is more important than the horses, you can't call them championships. Jokes, yes,Track Biases are always more important than horses. Never bet a track that it was not true and I think I have bet them all at one time or another. There is no such a thing as a fair track.

[depalma113]

Goldencents was looking for a place to lie down in the stretch.

[cj]

Goldencents was much the best.

Hard to judge the track when a much the best horse wins on the front, bias aided or not.

Fortunately, it wasn't the only race run today.

[JustRalph]

Goldencents was looking for a place to lie down in the stretch.

exactly what I thought too. I had the 2 ......i thought he was going to get there, for about 5 seconds :lol:

[dansan]

Thats why theycall it gambling stop crying lol I think heard the same thing last year

[precocity]

Goldencents was looking for a place to lie down in the stretch.
:lol: he made the :6: then the :2: his *&%&^$!! HA!

[Maximillion]

Track Biases are always more important than horses. Never bet a track that it was not true and I think I have bet them all at one time or another. There is no such a thing as a fair track.

Gonna have to respectfully disagree......I dont find this to be the case at all,and I bet a lot of tracks.

[precocity]

Track Biases are always more important than horses. Never bet a track that it was not true and I think I have bet them all at one time or another. There is no such a thing as a fair track.

yes i'm a goldie fan and mr goren you said outside post looked like it had an advantage? but goldie put the 6 to sleep and set crazy fractions and held on to win from the far outside? and the horses he ran against? c'mon he was the best.

[RunForTheRoses]

Thread Title should be Non-California horses (except Turf)
have no shot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NydruDXwVOg

[raybo]

Well, Day 1 was miserable (had a couple 2nds and 3rds) until the Distaff. I hit the exacta and trifecta cold and almost had the super cold also, the 4th finisher was my 5th ranked horse.

So, with no favorites winning all day, and finally getting going in the 10th, maybe tomorrow will be big! :ThmbUp:

[turninforhome10]

Close Hatches is the only East Coast horse to finish better than 3rd today, including the Arabians. Just sayin.

[GMB@BP]

Close Hatches is the only East Coast horse to finish better than 3rd today, including the Arabians. Just sayin.

Most the riders out east are used to grabbing off a 24 and change opening quarter, they surely are not going to do so well when you actually have to ride out of the gate.

[ronsmac]

I was laughing how it took 4 or 5 races before Kurt Hoover would acknowledge a speed bias. Speeds been good for a couple weeks, dominate yesterday, bombs on the lead today early and he was still making excuses for the speed. This guy may be the worst ever.

[raybo]

SA might have been fast today, but the pre-race early horses only won a couple of races today. Only 3 horses won after having the lead at the 1/2m, and 1 of those 3 was a sustained/late horse. Very weird racing!

[JustRalph]

they will all be gunning tomorrow............

[precocity]

they will all be gunning tomorrow............

clicked your link and was laughing my azz off! thought it was you handicapping!!! :lol:

[shouldacoulda]

they will all be gunning tomorrow............

Wonder if the track will play different tomorrow.
clicked your link and was laughing my azz off! thought it was you handicapping!!!
I think that's a little of all of us handicapping. :D

[appistappis]

I made one bet today.....it was guessing, not handicapping.

[Bill Cullen]

What's wrong with having a speed bias?

Why are so many folks upset?

I'd rather have a speed bias than heavy rains, small fields and off-the-turf races.

Then again, horse racing wouldn't be horse racing without the rail birds yakking it up!

Good luck to everyone!

Be Happy.

Bill Cullen

[Stillriledup]

What's wrong with having a speed bias?

Why are so many folks upset?

I'd rather have a speed bias than heavy rains, small fields and off-the-turf races.

Then again, horse racing wouldn't be horse racing without the rail birds yakking it up!

Good luck to everyone!

Be Happy.

Bill Cullen

Because people want to bet on 6F races, 7F races and 1 Mile races and not 2 furlong races.

Also, you want to see the best horse win, the 2nd best horse 2nd and so on and so forth....that wasnt happening today. The track being like it was today is equivalent to a sporting event that is decided by the officials and not the players.

[WJ47]

Well, Day 1 was miserable (had a couple 2nds and 3rds) until the Distaff. I hit the exacta and trifecta cold and almost had the super cold also, the 4th finisher was my 5th ranked horse.

So, with no favorites winning all day, and finally getting going in the 10th, maybe tomorrow will be big! :ThmbUp:

I kept losing all day too. Thankfully, I cashed a good win bet on Beholder in the Distaff which put me $5 ahead for the day. :) Then I blew the profit on the Arabian race.

I'm hoping tomorrow will be better :D .

[Quagmire]

Not true. Pace projector had the 12 in race 2 dead last at the first call.

That's true it was actually the winner of the 3rd the :9: that the pace projector had up on the lead. It paid 96.00 to win!

[senortout]

Look, the whole day was a case of hype and over-thinking, not only by the fans, but by the trainers and jocks. How often have I heard it said lately that Royal Delta, for instance, didn't need to be on the lead, and so on and so forth. Then, a 500,000 marathon race, where you could find being run better at 50,000 claiming....the field would be quite similar, and on and on....the races for Breeder's Cup are almost sure to upset a certain faction of the betting public.

As far as a speed bias.....goes......if all the speed horses were allowed to send, you'd sure as hell find closers on this decent Santa Anita strip. I been playing this week with confidence and not doing all that well, but could certainly see where I went wrong, in most cases.

[Speed Figure]

Because people want to bet on 6F races, 7F races and 1 Mile races and not 2 furlong races.

Also, you want to see the best horse win, the 2nd best horse 2nd and so on and so forth....that wasnt happening today. The track being like it was today is equivalent to a sporting event that is decided by the officials and not the players.
I didn't really have a problem with what happen today. The only horse that really I didn't see on the dirt was :12: Heir Of Storm in the 2nd race. Never could see that horse going gate to wire. It's really a no win situation! if closers were winning than people would say speed can't hold! closers don't win and people hate the speed bias. For the most part the BC always has crazy results.

[big frank]

Everybody was crying that speed would never hold on poly tracks .... And they would never bet poly again , people were on here saying remember the good old days when speed was king...... you have to adapt my friends or don't play and stop crying... What about using live longshots with speed on saturday.. .Race 6 # 6 Ismene 20-1 will be gunning with Smith and has a legit shot , and in the big one Mucho Macho Man - should get a perfect trip with everyone winging to get the lead and Stevens will get 1st run on the closers...

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't get why people are complaining. If you KNOW speed is the way to go, then you have yourself an EDGE, do you not?

BE HAPPY you have identified how a particular track is playing. Isn't that an ADVANTAGE?!?!? Isn't that something most PACE HANDICAPPERS look for!!?!?!?

Damn man...stop complaining and start adjusting and start cashing!

[depalma113]

I don't get why people are complaining. If you KNOW speed is the way to go, then you have yourself an EDGE, do you not?

BE HAPPY you have identified how a particular track is playing. Isn't that an ADVANTAGE?!?!? Isn't that something most PACE HANDICAPPERS look for!!?!?!?

Damn man...stop complaining and start adjusting and start cashing!

I think you are missing the big picture. I like full fields in the Breeders Cup. When for the second year in a row the track has been dismal to closers, it will have consequences. They are bringing the event back to Santa Anita next year. If today is anything like yesterday, they are all but guaranteeing, smaller weaker fields.

The connections of Princess of Sylmar probably lost the championship because they did the sporting thing and ran her in a race where, based on the track, she had absolutely no shot to win, no shot to hit the board. For the gambler, I guess that's great right now, but for an event billed as a championship, that's a disgrace.

The Breeders Cup is the only time during the year that these connections can't dodge each other, but now I'm not so sure I can blame them if they do.

[Some_One]

Maybe the closers wen't good enough. The track is fast, but of the 3 dirt races, I didn't see a horse that should have won that didn't because of the track.

[TheEdge07]

Belmont all fall had a.huge bias..

Parx had a huge bias on there biggest day of racing..

[Some_One]

I think you are missing the big picture. I like full fields in the Breeders Cup. When for the second year in a row the track has been dismal to closers, it will have consequences. They are bringing the event back to Santa Anita next year. If today is anything like yesterday, they are all but guaranteeing, smaller weaker fields.

The connections of Princess of Sylmar probably lost the championship because they did the sporting thing and ran her in a race where, based on the track, she had absolutely no shot to win, no shot to hit the board. For the gambler, I guess that's great right now, but for an event billed as a championship, that's a disgrace.

The Breeders Cup is the only time during the year that these connections can't dodge each other, but now I'm not so sure I can blame them if they do.

Really, the 'bias' caused her to lose by 16 lengths?

[TheEdge07]

I think you are missing the big picture. I like full fields in the Breeders Cup. When for the second year in a row the track has been dismal to closers, it will have consequences. They are bringing the event back to Santa Anita next year. If today is anything like yesterday, they are all but guaranteeing, smaller weaker fields.

The connections of Princess of Sylmar probably lost the championship because they did the sporting thing and ran her in a race where, based on the track, she had absolutely no shot to win, no shot to hit the board. For the gambler, I guess that's great right now, but for an event billed as a championship, that's a disgrace.

The Breeders Cup is the only time during the year that these connections can't dodge each other, but now I'm not so sure I can blame them if they do.

Bias didnt help Sylmar...she.threw i in a clunker her loss had more to.do that then making excuses for her...

[depalma113]

Bias didnt help Sylmar...she.threw i in a clunker her loss had more to.do that then making excuses for her...

I'm not making excuses, I left her off all of my tickets. She had no chance. In case you missed it, the title of the thread is "Closers have no shot".

Zenyatta on this track would not have hit the board.

[TheEdge07]

I'm not making excuses, I left her off all of my tickets. She had no chance. In case you missed it, the title of the thread is "Closers have no shot".

Zenyatta on this track would not have hit the board.


Wrong

They wouldve scratch Zenyatta..

[depalma113]

Wrong

They wouldve scratch Zenyatta..

True

[burnsy]

I don't get why people are complaining. If you KNOW speed is the way to go, then you have yourself an EDGE, do you not?

BE HAPPY you have identified how a particular track is playing. Isn't that an ADVANTAGE?!?!? Isn't that something most PACE HANDICAPPERS look for!!?!?!?

Damn man...stop complaining and start adjusting and start cashing!

Bingo. I didn't like Goldencents until after i saw a few races. They knew what they were doing stretching him out and due to the Pletcher horse being chalked out as usual.....it was easy money. But there is something to be said about having an "even" track on a day like this. As a seasoned horse player i'm not impressed every time they tell us "new track record"....give me a break. Running at the same track every year is not good for the game, especially when they are selling this speed garbage. First, two years of poly crap...now this. How about an everyday normal track? People are saying that other tracks have been like this. Really? Was every first quarter run in 22 and change? And most of them hold on and win by daylight.

[Robert Goren]

I still say the outside was the place to be yesterday on the dirt. Having some early speed didn't though. There were no rail huggers that won yesterday and even the jockeys were moving out. I had a nice winner in a Breeders Cup race which is one more than I usually get. Throw in the $18 winner in one of the early races and I had a nice day.

[Robert Goren]

I don't get why people are complaining. If you KNOW speed is the way to go, then you have yourself an EDGE, do you not?

BE HAPPY you have identified how a particular track is playing. Isn't that an ADVANTAGE?!?!? Isn't that something most PACE HANDICAPPERS look for!!?!?!?

Damn man...stop complaining and start adjusting and start cashing!You tell 'em, Boss.

[turninforhome10]

Just wondering how this is any different than the way Churchill cranks the track for Derby week and Pimlico for the Preakness or really any track when the big horses come to town. Should we not expect it by now? When your stud colt or your best filly win the big race in record time, makes for a nice sale price or catalog page. This is what the handicapper faces most of the time on big days.

[pandy]

I think you are missing the big picture. I like full fields in the Breeders Cup. When for the second year in a row the track has been dismal to closers, it will have consequences. They are bringing the event back to Santa Anita next year. If today is anything like yesterday, they are all but guaranteeing, smaller weaker fields.

The connections of Princess of Sylmar probably lost the championship because they did the sporting thing and ran her in a race where, based on the track, she had absolutely no shot to win, no shot to hit the board. For the gambler, I guess that's great right now, but for an event billed as a championship, that's a disgrace.

The Breeders Cup is the only time during the year that these connections can't dodge each other, but now I'm not so sure I can blame them if they do.


Well put. The track is a disgrace. Yes tracks do get biased sometimes and from a betting perspective we make adjustments, and yes, sometimes it may even work in our favor. But now for the second year in a row on the biggest racing event of the year we get this speed bias which has a substantial impact on how competitive, and entertaining, the races are. For big race days, you always want to have as fair a surface as possible.

If you think a speed bias doesn't hurt the sport, you're wrong. Harness Races used to be fair and many closers won when they raced in the wooden sulkies. Since the introduction of the steel sulky in 1977, the sulkies have evolved and the racing has become very speed favoring. This has severely damaged the handle because the favorites zoom to the lead and are gone, boring racing. A fair bias simply creates a more entertaining product.

Horseracing is a form of entertainment. The NFL has always gotten this and that's why they have an entire set of rules to ensure parity and close, competitive games where there are a lot of upsets.

Santa Anita is ruining the Breeders Cup. Fortunately, we do have the turf races but the turf course is nothing to brag about either, it looks more like a putting tee than a turf course.

[pandy]

Mike Watchmaker had this (below) in his notes, which I was glad to see. The press let Santa Anita get away easy last year, they should have been more critical.

Anyway, here's hoping for a more even main track for Saturday, although I'm not sure what can be done between now and then to make that happen short of dumping 10 tons of sand on it. It's just a pity that championships will be riding on a main track that so favors horses of one particular running style.

In the comments under Mike's column, some guy wrote,

Spare us the "intensely speed favoring" crap. It's only intensely speed favoring when the best horse is on the front.

Some people are so clueless. I guess those $77 and $97 wire to wire winners yesterday were the "best horse."

[ten2oneormore]

If this keeps up for both days I hope the Breeders Cup committee does the right thing and stops running it at Santa Anita, at least for several years until they can figure out out to take care of a racing surface.

The BC Chairman stepped down to joined the Stronach Group.Supposedly he isn't going to be a part of naming future venues but I would think there are still ties within the committee.I hope I'm wrong but the only way I see them moving it from SA is if Gulfstream becomes a viable alternative.

[SandyW]

Some people are so clueless. I guess those $77 and $97 wire to wire winners yesterday were the "best horse."

The answer is, if you collected a bet on these horses then they were the best horses.

[Bennie]

Turf races are a staple of my diet but the turf course at Santa Anita is not best for such a grand stage of racing. Up and down hill with a large patch of dirt thrown in just where horses are starting to make their sweeping moves near the top of the stretch. Have seen more horses not handle that change over in racing surface than I can count.

[Augenj]

Turf races are a staple of my diet but the turf course at Santa Anita is not best for such a grand stage of racing. Up and down hill with a large patch of dirt thrown in just where horses are starting to make their sweeping moves near the top of the stretch. Have seen more horses not handle that change over in racing surface than I can count.
I'll never forget the time my horse was leading the race (not always the best place) and tried to leap over that dirt strip. It broke his rhythm and the others poured past him. :)

[pandy]

I'll never forget the time my horse was leading the race (not always the best place) and tried to leap over that dirt strip. It broke his rhythm and the others poured past him. :)


That's happened plenty of times over the years, and you also see a lot of horses slip and lose their traction as they cut the corner and hit the dirt. I'm surprised there haven't been more accidents. I have no problem with the hill itself, but the dirt strip, I agree, it's stupid.

[Exotic1]

I don't get why people are complaining. If you KNOW speed is the way to go, then you have yourself an EDGE, do you not?

BE HAPPY you have identified how a particular track is playing. Isn't that an ADVANTAGE?!?!? Isn't that something most PACE HANDICAPPERS look for!!?!?!?

Damn man...stop complaining and start adjusting and start cashing!

Thank You. Simply put and Brilliant.

[BlueShoe]

Favorites went 0 for 11 yesterday, and there is a 891k carryover in the Pick-5. That is certainly proof that form pretty much took a holiday Friday at Santa Anita. Perhaps overlooked because of the BC, but things were pretty erratic in the rest of the country too. Just about everybody else off the turf, slop, many scratches, form reversals, and so on, made Friday a day to forget.

[Robert Goren]

Favorites went 0 for 11 yesterday, and there is a 891k carryover in the Pick-5. That is certainly proof that form pretty much took a holiday Friday at Santa Anita. Perhaps overlooked because of the BC, but things were pretty erratic in the rest of the country too. Just about everybody else off the turf, slop, many scratches, form reversals, and so on, made Friday a day to forget.Form always takes a holiday in the breeder's cup. Anybody that bets the favorite in a breeders cup race hasn't been pay attention to past breeder's cups. Too many unknowns to take a short payoff.

[genecr]

Isnt this what handicapping should be....pick your picks but adjust when something funny is happening on track. Dont you do the same when it rains....pick the horses that do well in the muck. So since you know its speedball heaven...isnt this the time to go hunting for speedballs at a price. I would think those that do this more often than once a year should be able to identify those horses that can run to the front better than other people who are just hear for the day or two. Use your knowledge to your advantage.

[Relwob Owner]

Ive heard that one of the biggest issues is the kickback of the dirt and that is what the jocks are complaining about the most and if there is a speed bias, this makes it even worse I imagine for the horses in back.

Like Pace said, though, why complain about it and rip on the track when you can just factor it in and handicap based on it? This beats the slop any day IMO

[pandy]

Isnt this what handicapping should be....pick your picks but adjust when something funny is happening on track. Dont you do the same when it rains....pick the horses that do well in the muck. So since you know its speedball heaven...isnt this the time to go hunting for speedballs at a price. I would think those that do this more often than once a year should be able to identify those horses that can run to the front better than other people who are just hear for the day or two. Use your knowledge to your advantage.

From a handicapping perspective, I agree you can make adjustments. But a day of championship racing and million dollar purses is not a typical day at the races. This is a big day to showcase the stars of the sport, the horses, and you don't want horses to be compromised by a severe track bias.

As for handicapping, a speed bias certainly screws up handicapping. Look at the Juvenile today. Havana appears to be the fastest horse and will be the favorite. But, since he has a bad post and there's speed inside (especially the 12 horse, who appears hard to hold and should blast), logic would tell you that Havana is a good horse to bet against. The race seems to set up for a closer. But, if the track is like yesterday, Havana may be used hard to get the lead, set blazing fractions the way Goldencents did and then the bias will hold off the closers for him and he'll stagger home a winner.

Goldencents is a good sprinter/miler, definitely one of the best in the country, but he was not as impressive as it seems yesterday. The bias helped him tremendously. He came home slow but no one could gain. Some people will say that is because he was so good, but he actually was lucky. On a track that was playing fairly he would not have won from that post.

Oh and by the way, handle last year was almost 10% lower than it was at Churchill Downs two years ago, and yesterday's handle was disappointing.

[big frank]

I agree about the slop - Does anyone have a strong opinion on the Tapeta Surface ?? It is my favorite surface to play.... I feel it is very honest with not much bias and the speed figs seem to hold up well and they are consistent

[big frank]

i agree Pandy.... What are your thoughts on Tapeta ??

[pandy]

Tapeta is a good surface. Yesterday's races certainly would have been much better on Tapeta, but then again, they would have been better at Aqueduct, Belmont, Churchill, Arlington, Woodbine, and many other tracks. Santa Anita's a joke.

[RXB]

I agree about the slop - Does anyone have a strong opinion on the Tapeta Surface ?? It is my favorite surface to play.... I feel it is very honest with not much bias and the speed figs seem to hold up well and they are consistent

Tapeta is excellent. The safest and most consistent surface that there is.

Meanwhile... back on good ol' dirt, in the biggest dirt mile race of the year, on a surface producing quick times, the frontrunner crawled the final furlong in 13.5 seconds under strong urging and still won by 2.5 lengths. Think about that. He finished like some mediocre claimer and yet no one even mildly threatened in the late stages. :ThmbDown:

[big frank]

It is good to see other good players like Tapeta..... I feel it is best surface and wish more tracks would go to it.....

[DRIVEWAY]

From a handicapping perspective, I agree you can make adjustments. But a day of championship racing and million dollar purses is not a typical day at the races. This is a big day to showcase the stars of the sport, the horses, and you don't want horses to be compromised by a severe track bias.

As for handicapping, a speed bias certainly screws up handicapping. Look at the Juvenile today. Havana appears to be the fastest horse and will be the favorite. But, since he has a bad post and there's speed inside (especially the 12 horse, who appears hard to hold and should blast), logic would tell you that Havana is a good horse to bet against. The race seems to set up for a closer. But, if the track is like yesterday, Havana may be used hard to get the lead, set blazing fractions the way Goldencents did and then the bias will hold off the closers for him and he'll stagger home a winner.

Goldencents is a good sprinter/miler, definitely one of the best in the country, but he was not as impressive as it seems yesterday. The bias helped him tremendously. He came home slow but no one could gain. Some people will say that is because he was so good, but he actually was lucky. On a track that was playing fairly he would not have won from that post.

The Jockeys and Trainers all know the track condition. They may be in a situation where your damned if you send hard or damned if you don't.
Havana has never gone 2 turns and has not worked at Santa Anita. Havana's breeding at the distance is the worst in the field. Havana is a vulnerable favorite and a logical toss.

Goldencents was at the top of his game. A winner at the track at the distance. Working like at champ. Made the decision to send hard and never looked back. Goldencents was both good and lucky with a trainer/jockey combo that made the hard decision from post 12.

We handicappers must read the minds of the connections and judge the ability of the horses. Given the current track conditions everyone must adjust there decision making. Lukas and Rosario will send Strong Mandate(Post 14) to secure early & clear on the outside stalking position. Strong Mandate worked solid at Santa Anita and has the breeding to get the job done. If Havana goes then Strong Mandate can ride his shoulder to early position.

I agree with you that the decision making here is both difficult and frustrating. But I believe the added dimension of track bias also makes it even more exciting. While many handicappers become overloaded and make poor decisions, the handicappers that define the problem and layout the options will prosper. Pandy you've been in similar situations. Now's a perfect time to take advantage.

Good Luck.

[RunForTheRoses]

Hoping for continued speed bias in race 2, #5 wire to wire!

[raybo]

SA dirt is fast, always has been. The problem I had was that the horses that were supposed to get the early lead, didn't for the most part. When your method relies on projecting the early leaders, by running styles and early speed points/fractional velocities, at least in part (eliminations only, for me), then you can expect things to go south when that doesn't happen. "Deal with it and move on" seems to be the thing to do.

[SharpCat]

Hoping for continued speed bias in race 2, #5 wire to wire!


Negative. The top 2 came from next to last and last.

[BIG49010]

Negative. The top 2 came from next to last and last.

Also the two best horses in race, The Little Guy gave out the winner on the BC simulcast.

[RunForTheRoses]

Negative. The top 2 came from next to last and last.

At least it wasn't the 1, alive in P5 and P3 with 10 12 13

[Quagmire]

At least it wasn't the 1, alive in P5 and P3 with 10 12 13

1 12 and 13 here Good Luck

[Cratos]

Breeders' Cup Juvenile

Strong Mandate – This is all about I don’t believe he was bad as his performance in the Champagne and he will rebound to his Hopeful performance; after all he is a Tiznow progeny and he has the “Master,” D, Wayne Lukas guiding the his ship.

Breeders' Cup Turf

Big Blue Kitten - Chad Brown made a believer out of me at Saratoga and I think he will confirm my belief here.
Little Mike – What is there not to like about this hard knocking veteran, but I think Big Blue Kitten is just a little bit better.

Breeders' Cup Mile

Wise Dan – I am not strong on this choice, but his record speaks for its self.
Obviously (IRE) – He can upset this race and he and Wise Dan should put on a good show because both are very accomplished at this distance on the turf.

Breeders' Cup Classic

Palace Malice – This horse is very, very good and getting better. If you go to the Trakus T-Charts at Belmont for the JCGC and do an in-depth analysis, you will see that he ran faster than Ron The Greek (the winner) for the 1 ¼ mile distance. Also if you compare his adjusted time against Game On Dude’s time in the Pacific Classic at Del Mar they are very close.

Paynter – I don’t know where he is in his physical recovery, but his last race showed that he might be back and if he is, he will be a very tough hombre in this race.

Game On Dude – A hard knocking gelding, but I not sure about his innate class. He has primarily been a West Coaster.

[rgustafson]

Tapeta is a good surface. Yesterday's races certainly would have been much better on Tapeta, but then again, they would have been better at Aqueduct, Belmont, Churchill, Arlington, Woodbine, and many other tracks. Santa Anita's a joke.

What, no comment today about Santa Anita being a joke. The track played very fair today. They had a day, Friday, where the track was biased to early speed and in spite of that the races deemed to be part of the Breeders Cup had no unfathomable results with only Princess of Sylmar badly disadvantaged. Think you went just a tad overboard in your comments. Those races on the undercard yesterday were races that would be an entirely different mix of type of races and the horses involved depending on where the BC was held. There were only two horses that had not made their last start in California and they raced on the turf.

[JustRalph]

What, no comment today about Santa Anita being a joke. The track played very fair today. They had a day, Friday, where the track was biased to early speed and in spite of that the races deemed to be part of the Breeders Cup had no unfathomable results with only Princess of Sylmar badly disadvantaged. Think you went just a tad overboard in your comments. Those races on the undercard yesterday were races that would be an entirely different mix of type of races and the horses involved depending on where the BC was held. There were only two horses that had not made their last start in California and they raced on the turf.

That track was a speedway yesterday. I agree it was different today. They did something to it, or it dried out, or something. But either way, I agree you have to adjust. But there were horses staying on lots longer than they should on paper, and it did make a difference. Think about the exotics? Those do matter you know?

I think when they are setting record times and such (the turf was fast too) on these big days, it's really not fair to the fans, the connections of the previous record holders etc. But they do it almost everywhere on big days. Par for the course, literally.

[NJ Stinks]

Just wondering how this is any different than the way Churchill cranks the track for Derby week and Pimlico for the Preakness or really any track when the big horses come to town. Should we not expect it by now? When your stud colt or your best filly win the big race in record time, makes for a nice sale price or catalog page. This is what the handicapper faces most of the time on big days.

Pimlico is one of the fairest dirt tracks in the country IMO.

[turninforhome10]

Pimlico is one of the fairest dirt tracks in the country IMO.
Pimlico does seem to favor speed IMO.

[pandy]

What, no comment today about Santa Anita being a joke. The track played very fair today. They had a day, Friday, where the track was biased to early speed and in spite of that the races deemed to be part of the Breeders Cup had no unfathomable results with only Princess of Sylmar badly disadvantaged. Think you went just a tad overboard in your comments. Those races on the undercard yesterday were races that would be an entirely different mix of type of races and the horses involved depending on where the BC was held. There were only two horses that had not made their last start in California and they raced on the turf.


It was definitely better today, but that makes it extremely speed favoring 3 of the 4 days over the last two years. They should do a lot better for this type of racing. But today's card was fun to watch, much better races than yesterday and both days last year.

[raybo]

I didn't/don't have a problem with a track being fast, even ultra fast, but there were horses taking the early lead Friday that have never taken the lead early, or even pressed the lead for that matter. That threw me way off! Running styles is good portion of what I use for determining the way a race might run, and I use it for eliminations also, so I was pretty much screwed because of that. Why would multiple horses all of a sudden completely change their running style? I can see it happening maybe after a few races show that the track is ultra fast, maybe a trainer or two tell their jocks to give it a try, but it was from the get go Friday, and it was more than one horse doing it. Very strange indeed!

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it was necessarily the track that caused the problems, but rather horses running differently than they have even run before. Obviously there were way more people having that same problem than there should have been, if it was just a fast track, people will adjust to that usually, but it stayed that way much of the day.

[depalma113]

What, no comment today about Santa Anita being a joke. The track played very fair today.


Santa Anita management got the message.

[pandy]

The comments by racing fans that were left on DRF were overwhelmingly negative about the speed bias after Friday's races. And a few writers like Watchmaker, Paulick, wrote about it, a lot of people on here complained about it. So perhaps Santa Anita did something to change the track, or they just got lucky.

[pandy]

I would still give sustained types that gained good ground Friday or Saturday a lot of credit. Even yesterday. on a different track that's kinder to sustained types, Will Take Charge probably gets up. But Mucho Macho Man's stalking style was the preferred trip, and he raced gamely, don't want to discredit him.

[classhandicapper]

It was definitely better today, but that makes it extremely speed favoring 3 of the 4 days over the last two years. They should do a lot better for this type of racing. But today's card was fun to watch, much better races than yesterday and both days last year.

I thought I was going to be a minority opinion because so many horses came off the pace to win yesterday, but I thought the track was still mildly biased yesterday.

It was nowhere near as biased as Friday and that was part of the reason closers did better. But I think the jockeys went into the day thinking it was still biased and rode very aggressively yesterday in almost all the dirt races. So the combination of the aggressive competitive races and only a mild bias produced fairly honest results.

Quite a few horses that were used really hard early hung around OK late even if they didn't win. I think at least a few would have been off the board or at least finished worse if that track was truly honest.

This kind of thing is tricky because most people are looking at running styles, but it gets more complex and a lot of the time it's hard to be sure.

It gets even trickier when it comes to making pace figures.

When all the riders are getting aggressive and running faster than average fractions because of the track, you don't necessarily want to adjust the fractions and normalize them via a separate variant. The horses actually DID run that fast. It just had less of an impact than usual.

[pandy]

I totally agree with you. Although looking at the result charts would tend to give the view that there was no bias, the track was still pretty kind to speed yesterday. She's A Tiger, a 2yo filly, was used setting fast fractions and was right there to the wire and it looked to me that sustained types were still spinning their wheels a bit in the stretch, but not as bad as Friday.

[PaceAdvantage]

Speed is a NATURAL bias in dirt racing. This has been known since the beginning of time.

Could it be that what we saw on Friday was nothing more than a coincidence and not due to an inherent track bias?

What I mean is, this is the Breeders' Cup. Most of these horses are NOT that FAR OFF in terms of ability, especially the top contenders. Thus, if you have races where one of the top contenders has speed, isn't it only natural to assume you are going to see those horses run well?

I haven't done any in-depth analysis, but if you go over the two cards, can we say with absolute certainty that Friday was without a doubt the result of the actual TRACK ITSELF being the cause of the results? And not just the nature of dirt racing in general?

I find it hard to believe that the track can be altered that much in less than 24 hours given no significant weather events...

[pandy]

I guess anything's possible but if the track wasn't biased Friday then just about every expert writer, tv analyst and professional handicapper, plus the majority of racing fans were 100% wrong because almost everyone said that the track was extremely speed biased. Personally I thought the Friday track was extremely speed favoring. And last year, also at Santa Anita, it was speed favoring both days.

I really don't think it's the horses. Classy sustained types normally do quite well in high class races, especially when there's a fast pace. They have run the Breeders Cup at many other racetracks and I didn't see the speed hold up nearly as well at Churchill Downs, Belmont, Oaklawn, Fair Grounds, and other tracks. The speed didn't even hold up that well when Monmouth was sloppy. In fact, if memory serves me correct, the only speed favoring tracks I can recall for the Breeders Cup have all been at Santa Anita.

[PaceAdvantage]

Let's go through the races Friday, shall we?

Race 2 - Wire-to-Wire winner - Horse went off at 38-1 - however, the horse the winner dueled with early (whose odds were 5-1), finished DEAD LAST. The horse that tracked those two a length behind ended up sixth at 4-1.

Race 3 - Almost a wire-to-wire winner - Horse went off at 47-1 - the other horse the winner dueled with early? Again finished DEAD LAST at 65-1. The horse that tracked those two (at 12-1) finished a well beaten seventh.

Race 4 - Winner (8-1) tracked early pace in 3rd most of the trip.

Marathon - Closer won

Dirt Mile - Wire-to-Wire - Horse went off at 7/2

Distaff - 5/2 winner sat third early on in a six horse field. And did I mention she was 5/2?

Arabian Race Finale - Won from way off the pace.

After reviewing the above, I'm not sure where these claims of OUTRAGEOUS BIAS get their foundation. Knee-jerkers, yes, I can see why they might "go off" when they witness a couple of huge prices running well on/near the front end...but when you dig deeper, you would have figured an OUTRAGEOUS BIAS would have also carried some of the other early types racing with them.

[Grits]

Are you serious? You may be the only guy, anywhere, saying this. Did you not read the TUS track profile of the last seven days prior to Friday? Or where the winners were at the first and second calls?

A closer won going 1 3/4? Well, that ain't no surprise.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you serious? You may be the only guy, anywhere, saying this. Did you not read the TUS track profile of the last seven days prior to Friday? Or where the winners were at the first and second calls?

A closer won going 1 3/4? Well, that ain't no surprise.Oh, I'm serious.

It's dirt racing. It's Southern Californian dirt racing. How are the results above so OUTRAGEOUSLY DIFFERENT then what would be expected going into the BC?

PLUS, you have Saturday, which somehow MAGICALLY people are saying was MORE FAIR. Did they dump tons of sand on the track? What did they do exactly?

With all the eyes roving around Santa Anita for the BC, surely SOMEONE must have seen all these ABNORMAL operations being performed by the track maintenance people to "get the track more fair" for Saturday's card.

I missed those reports of people working through the night Friday on the track surface...surely these eye-witness accounts must be lurking somewhere on the interwebs...point the way!

[cj]

Let's go through the races Friday, shall we?

Race 2 - Wire-to-Wire winner - Horse went off at 38-1 - however, the horse the winner dueled with early (whose odds were 5-1), finished DEAD LAST. The horse that tracked those two a length behind ended up sixth at 4-1.

Race 3 - Almost a wire-to-wire winner - Horse went off at 47-1 - the other horse the winner dueled with early? Again finished DEAD LAST at 65-1. The horse that tracked those two (at 12-1) finished a well beaten seventh.

Race 4 - Winner (8-1) tracked early pace in 3rd most of the trip.

Marathon - Closer won

Dirt Mile - Wire-to-Wire - Horse went off at 7/2

Distaff - 5/2 winner sat third early on in a six horse field. And did I mention she was 5/2?

Arabian Race Finale - Won from way off the pace.

After reviewing the above, I'm not sure where these claims of OUTRAGEOUS BIAS get their foundation. Knee-jerkers, yes, I can see why they might "go off" when they witness a couple of huge prices running well on/near the front end...but when you dig deeper, you would have figured an OUTRAGEOUS BIAS would have also carried some of the other early types racing with them.

Don't you think the odds in the last few races were effected a lot by the results of the earlier races? It isn't just winners and the times, it was the fractions that were being set in conjunction with slow closing times. And yet, horses were drawing away. Drawing away while visibly staggering home.

Yesterday, it could be argued that speed had very little chance. Only won wire to wire winner who was DQed for tiring noticeably and drifting into the closer, a no brainer DQ in my opinion. My personal opinion is the track on Saturday was fair and fast paces contributed to the results more than any "closer bias".

[PaceAdvantage]

Don't you think the odds in the last few races were effected a lot by the results of the earlier races?A lot? No. Especially on a day filled with the best horses available and filled with a decent amount of money in the pools from people who aren't everyday bettors.

[cj]

Oh, I'm serious...


I missed those reports of people working through the night Friday on the track surface...surely these eye-witness accounts must be lurking somewhere on the interwebs...point the way!

Check the Santa Anita website. They actually posted the maintenance they were doing.

Santa Anita’s main track is fast and the turf course is firm (Rail set at 0 feet). Main track conditioners are set at 3.5 inches. The current moisture in the main track is 19% by volume and will be closely monitored throughout the day by track consultant Dr. Mick Peterson. Watering schedules will be adjusted to keep the moisture content at optimum levels per Dr. Peterson.

[PaceAdvantage]

Check the Santa Anita website. They actually posted the maintenance they were doing.So posting maintenance info is abnormal for them?

How is this different from what they do every other day?

Not trying to be an argumentative prick, or sound like a dummy. But if I'm doing either, don't be afraid to tell me.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Good catch CJ - I've never seen a track post such precise info about moisture in the track - of course, I don't think I've searched for it either.

[Grits]

I'm not going to argue about this--as you're the only person I've read who believes the track was fair. I asked you if you read the track profile of several days. You didn't answer.

Cj was tweeting all day Friday, including the raw TUS figures. He seemed suspicious, to say the least. Andy was with HRTV on Friday and Saturday, etc. Instead of me, talk with the two of them and get their opinions. Of course, we're all entitled to our own.

I don't have a direct line to the track super, but apparently, some others who don't, might disagree with you, too.

[cj]

A lot? No. Especially on a day filled with the best horses available and filled with a decent amount of money in the pools from people who aren't everyday bettors.

I can't believe you threw the Marathon and the Arabian race in there. That is just silly.

Maybe "a lot" was too much, but I'm sure it had an effect. Everyone was talking about all over the interwebs. Yes, you get people betting that aren't every day bettors, but this isn't the Kentucky Derby. People betting on the Breeder's Cup generally know the game.

I thought Doug Salvatore made an interesting observation about biases. He said people get too hung up on position when talking biases, it is more about the track enabling horses to carry speed farther than they normally could.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not going to argue about this--as you're the only person I've read who believes the track was fair. I asked you if you read the track profile of several days. You didn't answer.

Cj was tweeting all day Friday, including the raw TUS figures. He seemed suspicious, to say the least. Andy was with HRTV on Friday and Saturday, etc. Instead of me, talk with the two of them and get their opinions. Of course, we're all entitled to our own.

I don't have a direct line to the track super, but apparently, some others who don't, might disagree with you, too.I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS FAIR!!!

:lol: :faint: :bang:

[cj]

So posting maintenance info is abnormal for them?

How is this different from what they do every other day?

Not trying to be an argumentative prick, or sound like a dummy. But if I'm doing either, don't be afraid to tell me.

I don't mind discussing anything.

Do you really think they are measuring water content to the % on a normal racing day? There was no such mention on Friday, just that the dirt was fast, turf firm, and rail settings. This was clearly a response to all the complaining. Trainers were reporting that jockeys said the kickback was actually very painful on Friday, like getting hit with rocks. That is not normal, and surely could lead to closers not wanting to run.

I do agree with you that dirt tracks aren't inherently fair. I don't even know what "fair" is to be honest. Shouldn't the fastest horses be the best? But this track was abnormal. Horses were running WAY faster than they were finishing, way above normal, and still winning.

[PaceAdvantage]

I can't believe you threw the Marathon and the Arabian race in there. That is just silly.Yes, you're right. They weren't horses and they weren't racing on the same surface.

Look. You all are talking about an OUTRAGEOUS BIAS, are you not?

I don't see one.

And apparently, people are misunderstanding me, because Grits actually accused me of stating THE TRACK WAS FAIR on Friday...unreal...

It is EXPECTED that when you race on dirt in Southern California, speed will have an inherent advantage.

[FantasticDan]

PLUS, you have Saturday, which somehow MAGICALLY people are saying was MORE FAIR. Did they dump tons of sand on the track? What did they do exactly?

With all the eyes roving around Santa Anita for the BC, surely SOMEONE must have seen all these ABNORMAL operations being performed by the track maintenance people to "get the track more fair" for Saturday's card.

I missed those reports of people working through the night Friday on the track surface...surely these eye-witness accounts must be lurking somewhere on the interwebs...point the way!Maybe you should ask the little guy, since he was actually there, and tweeted this after the races Saturday:

Hats off the Track Super and his crew for really turning things around with the Santa Anita dirt surface. They heard our complaints.https://twitter.com/andyserling

[RXB]

I thought the track on Friday played quite similar to Santa Anita Derby day. On/near the lead and (different to most frontrunner tracks) off the rail seemed the best place to be. Goldencents had relatively similar trips on both of those days. His race on Friday is the stellar example of how tough it was to make up ground; I mean, he was absolutely crawling all through the stretch and still wasn't threatened at all.

I've seen tracks that were even more speed-biased than SA Friday. Usually there also has to be a favourable rail to make it a total frontrunners' paradise and that wasn't the case.

[Grits]

You're damn near implying it. You STILL haven't answered my question???

The track profile of days....

[pandy]

Last year the track was speed favoring but the marathon was won by a closer. That race is different because of the longer distance.

[cj]

Yes, you're right. They weren't horses and they weren't racing on the same surface.

Look. You all are talking about an OUTRAGEOUS BIAS, are you not?

I don't see one.

And apparently, people are misunderstanding me, because Grits actually accused me of stating THE TRACK WAS FAIR on Friday...unreal...

Well, our horses aren't really bred to go 14f. That was painfully obvious. The winner was some European also ran that even the Brits dismissed. Looks again at the PPs of the favorites. The horse that finished third, I believe, had been run at Fresno of all places.

Arabians? I don't know a lot about them, but I know enough not to compare them to thoroughbreds.

[RunForTheRoses]

As someone posted elsewhere, could a horse like Zenyatta have won? I doubt it. Race after race logical horses who weren't on the lead (and not just extreme closers) didn't get involved. It is subjective to a great degree, I will agree to that. My vote is for a speed bias.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes, you're right. They weren't horses and they weren't racing on the same surface.

Look. You all are talking about an OUTRAGEOUS BIAS, are you not?

I don't see one.

And apparently, people are misunderstanding me, because Grits actually accused me of stating THE TRACK WAS FAIR on Friday...unreal...

She's just reading post 113 in this thread.

"Could it be that what we saw on Friday was nothing more than a coincidence and not due to an inherent track bias?"

You aren't intimating "the track was fair" by this statement?

[PaceAdvantage]

You're damn near implying it.That's on you then. But that's not what I actually wrote.

[PaceAdvantage]

Arabians? I don't know a lot about them, but I know enough not to compare them to thoroughbreds.On the face of it, this sounds ridiculous to me...probably about as ridiculous as I sound to you.

Do Arabian races never go wire-to-wire? :lol:

[pandy]

As someone posted elsewhere, could a horse like Zenyatta have won? I doubt it. Race after race logical horses who weren't on the lead (and not just extreme closers) didn't get involved. It is subjective to a great degree, I will agree to that. My vote is for a speed bias.


I agree, on Friday Zenyatta would not have threatened at all and she was quite possibly the most powerful closer in the history of the sport.

[PaceAdvantage]

She's just reading post 113 in this thread.

"Could it be that what we saw on Friday was nothing more than a coincidence and not due to an inherent track bias?"

You aren't intimating "the track was fair" by this statement?OK, my apologies. I should have stated "not due to what we NORMALLY expect at a Southern California DIRT TRACK"

My bad. Please go easy with the flogger.

[PaceAdvantage]

You're damn near implying it. You STILL haven't answered my question???

The track profile of days....No I didn't read it.

Would any of the posts I've made here today have changed if I did? What does it matter?

I took a look at Friday's races, and I don't see an OUTRAGEOUS BIAS that had people all over racing jumping up and down. That's all I did.

I offered my perspective, as flawed as it may be in everyone else's eyes.

[Saratoga_Mike]

OK, my apologies. I should have stated "not due to what we NORMALLY expect at a Southern California DIRT TRACK"

My bad. Please go easy with the flogger.

Ok, we won't need to waterboard you this time.

[cj]

On the face of it, this sounds ridiculous to me...probably about as ridiculous as I sound to you.

Do Arabian races never go wire-to-wire? :lol:

I know enough about Arabians to know that they went WAY, WAY, too fast early and bias or not they were going to collapse.

[Grits]

No I didn't read it.
Would any of the posts I've made here today have changed if I did? What does it matter?

Probably so. But you can be stubborn.

Now? Nothing.

I rest my case. :lol:

Thank heaven Cj weighed in. I didn't follow those tweets for nothing. As for Andy...I don't know if his plane's landed yet.

[PaceAdvantage]

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I use cj's numbers and have nothing but the highest respect for him, both as a handicapper and a human being...what he knows about racing, betting and handicapping would blow me away 100x over...and I truly mean that.

But sometimes I'm a stubborn prick and will defend one of my statements until I'm small enough to be playing handball against the curb...

If this is such a case, then so be it... :lol:

[cj]

No I didn't read it.

Would any of the posts I've made here today have changed if I did? What does it matter?

I took a look at Friday's races, and I don't see an OUTRAGEOUS BIAS that had people all over racing jumping up and down. That's all I did.

I offered my perspective, as flawed as it may be in everyone else's eyes.

Here is the short version...before Thursday's racing I tweeted that Santa Anita had been extremely speed favoring 4 of the last 5 racing days. I was comparing that to a normal Santa Anita dirt track, so much more so than NORMAL. Thursday was again extremely speed favoring BY SANTA ANITA DIRT standards, not other tracks or surfaces. I talked about it during the card and again before Friday.

Friday changed a little after the first few dirt races. It was pretty clear the track was like a paved highway. The track crew went to work. As somebody that does figures for nearly every track every day, I don't need maintenance reports. I can see numerically when a track changes, and it did during the Friday card.

It noticeably slowed, and while still above average on the "speed favoring" scale, it was better. The same thing happened yesterday. The track was playing differently to start the day, and after three dirt races, it changed again dramatically for the last three. There is no doubt in my mind that things were done to slow it down.

There are lots of reasons tracks get really fast. And, not all very fast tracks are speed biased, but most are. For me, the numbers and times didn't lie. The track was biased and the maintenance crew worked to change it, and over time was successful.

[PaceAdvantage]

See reply 143

[raybo]

Well, heck, I guess nobody read any of my comments about this "extreme speed bias" thing everybody is hollering about, because I completely agree with Mike(PA). Santa Anita dirt is known to be extremely fast and I would expect speed to be a major factor there, on almost any day, especially when you look at what the previous 3 or 4 days there showed. Yes, it was very fast, but that's not unusual for SA. I expected it to be very fast and prepared myself for that. However, when late horses, several of them, run early all of a sudden, something else seems to be going on, because fast tracks don't cause a late runner to run early, normally, unless the trainer/jockey decide to run differently than what the horse normally runs. I'm talking primarily about Friday here, on Saturday early horses were running early and late horses were running late, generally. The changes in running styles was what gave me fits, not the speed of the track.

Now, if someone can prove to me that fast surfaces cause late runners to run early, then I'll throw in with you and start hollering extreme speed bias too.

[PaceAdvantage]

There are so many factors at play in this discussion, and as I previously stated, cj has me over a barrel when it comes to the science and numbers involved.

Time to find me a curb...

[Grits]

Time to find me a curb...

No! Absolutely not!

Another bus will be by in 15 minutes. You could get hurt. :lol:

Football's on. Drink a few beers. :lol:

[mountainman]

It's takes a fine eye or objective evidence to conclude that a track changed-barring wet or drying cycles-during a race-card. It's more often an excuse used to rationalize losing picks or premature conclusions concerning the grain. On a big day like yesterday, though, when subject to so much high-profile scrutiny, the maintenance crew may well have done transformative work during the telecast.

I am, however, a tad skeptical of knee-jerk generalizations about the intrinsic nature of stigmatized surfaces such as Santa Anita's. It's been a while since so cal was part of my betting docket, so I'm curious: what are the baseline stats on various running styles there?

One problem, of course, with any discussion about built-in bias is that good handicappers (and their d-bases) tend to set divergent parameters-and checkpoints- on running styles.

So, can somebody prove, as a foundation for debate, that Santa Anita is an unusually speed-favoring track, as seems to be the assumption here?

[PaceAdvantage]

BTW cj, the TFUS pace projector labeled four of the five dirt races on Friday (not including the Marathon) as FAST PACE races, which is pretty unusual, wouldn't you agree? This is before any bias is taken into account.

But even given that, your data shows the track was playing much faster than normal. Interesting...

[cj]

The pace projector uses running styles and early ability of the horses. There was lots of speed entered, and most of the paces were actually fast, but the speed or the horses close to it were winning anyway. That is unusual in G1 races. Saturday was.much more representative of what usually happens in those scenarios, as were the turf races on both days.

[outofthebox]

What in the world happened to the track between the BC Juvenile filly and the Juvenile colts race Filly race off 12:07 they run 1:43 02 and get a 81 Beyer . 2 hours later the boys run 1:43 52 and the winner is credited with a 88. I'd like to hear their explanation of this..

[raybo]

SA Friday 1/1/2013

Race 1 - winner 8 P1 - pace setters 5 E5 and 2 P5 (5 and 2 finished next to last and last)

Race 2 - winner 12 S2 - pace setters 12 S2, 2 E4, and 13 P3 (12 S2 wired the field , 2 E4 finished last, and 13 P3 finished 3rd)

Race 3 - winner 9 P5 - pace setters 5 E6, 9 P5, and 4 E3 (5 E6 finished last, 9 P5 took the lead before the 1/2m and won the race, 4 E3 finished 7th)

Race 4 - winner 10 E6 - pace setters 6 E4, 9 P6, and 10 E6 (6 E4 finished 4th, 9 P6 finished 2nd, and 10 E6 wo the race coming from 3rd early)

Race 5 - winner 5 S1 - pace setters 6 S0, 8 E4, and 10 S2 (6 S0 finished 4th after leading through the stretch call, 8 E4 finished 9th after being 2nd through the stretch call, and 10 S2 finished 3rd after being 3rd throughout)

Race 6 - winner 7 N3 - pace setters 3 E4, 4 N1, and 8 E3 (3 E4 finished 8th fading, 4 N1 finished last fading badly, and 8 E3 finished 2nd taking the lead at the 1 1/2m)

Race 7 - winner 4 N5, pace setters 5 E2, 1 P2, 2 N5 (5 E2 finished 3rd losing the lead in the stretch, 1 P2 finished last fading badly, 2 N5 finished 2nd coming from just off the pace)

Race 8 - winner 12 E/P3, pace setters 12 E/P3, 6 P2, and 11 P2 (12 E/P3 wired the field, 6 P2 finished 9th fading badly in the stretch, and 11 P2 finished 7th fading steadily late)

Race 9 - winner 8 N4, pace setters 1 E4, 11 S3, and 14 S2 (1 E4 finished 10th fading badly late, 11 S3 finished 6th fading late, and 14 S2 finished 4th fading late)

Race 10 - winner 5 E3, pace setters 2 E/P2, 4 E/P3, and 5 E3 (2 E/P2 finished 3rd fading late, 4 E/P3 finished 4th fading mid and late, and 5 E3 wo the race coming from just offthe pace.

So, in 10 races we had only 2 E winners and 1 E/P winner, while we had 1 P winner, 2 S winners, and 3 N winners. Now if the pace was extremely fast wouldn't you expect more than 2 E types and 1 E/P type winning in 10 races? I would. Would you expect all the others to be Ps, Ss, and Ns? I wouldn't.

By the way, these running styles and early speed points are from JCapper data files. "N" means those horses have not established a running style yet.

[iceknight]

What in the world happened to the track between the BC Juvenile filly and the Juvenile colts race Filly race off 12:07 they run 1:43 02 and get a 81 Beyer . 2 hours later the boys run 1:43 52 and the winner is credited with a 88. I'd like to hear their explanation of this.. Ignore these numbers. I think it's high time they run all horses together instead of this filly/colt division segregation. :)

[GMB@BP]

Check the Santa Anita website. They actually posted the maintenance they were doing.

CJ, do you know if this was a big variation from the previous days posting? I have never looked at this before.

[RXB]

SA Friday 1/1/2013

So, in 10 races we had only 2 E winners and 1 E/P winner, while we had 1 P winner, 2 S winners, and 3 N winners. Now if the pace was extremely fast wouldn't you expect more than 2 E types and 1 E/P type winning in 10 races? I would. Would you expect all the others to be Ps, Ss, and Ns? I wouldn't.


You're including the grass races??

[raybo]

You're including the grass races??

I clearly stated 10 races, so yes that includes the turf races. The turf was said to be fast also. Es and E/Ps are recognized as advantaged on the grass also.

[RXB]

I clearly stated 10 races, so yes that includes the turf races. The turf was said to be fast also.

I don't what to say.

[cj]

What in the world happened to the track between the BC Juvenile filly and the Juvenile colts race Filly race off 12:07 they run 1:43 02 and get a 81 Beyer . 2 hours later the boys run 1:43 52 and the winner is credited with a 88. I'd like to hear their explanation of this..

I mentioned a few times already that the track DEFINITELY changed between the first three races and the last three. I use a program to do the grunt work, including rough projections of track speed. I use that as a starting point to establish the track variant(s). Here is what the dirt races looked like on my projections:

R2: 23 fast
R4: 22 fast
R6: 20 fast
R8: 14 fast
R10: 14 fast
R12: 15 fast

I don't see any way NOT to split the variant, and I could even argue it was gradually slowing before Race 8 when it "settled in"...in other words use a different variant for races 2/4, 6, and then group 8/10/12.

[cj]

I don't what to say.

Me either...how can you try to determine if a course is biased by looking at grass and turf?

[raybo]

Ok CJ, I'll defer to you. The Santa Anita day 1 surface was definitely more speed favoring than it normally is. So, Mike, you're the only one in the world that thinks otherwise. :eek: I'll just admit I know nothing, and go along with everyone else. :bang:

[cj]

CJ, do you know if this was a big variation from the previous days posting? I have never looked at this before.

They are not usually specific like that at Santa Anita, just general stuff. I think it was because of Friday they made sure to give details.

Woodbine does a great job with this stuff. Anybody that has trouble making Woodbine figures would do well to consult their maintenance information, it answers a lot of questions. Some of the other synthetic tracks do this as well.

[JustRalph]

In jcapper you can do a track weight calculation. I have no idea how Jeff programmed it, but it's pretty basic. Before the cup on Friday I ran it using just one card at a time, multiple cards from the last few days at Santa Anita prior to the cup and the whole meet etc.

It jives perfectly with what CJ is saying about the track going speed favoring just prior to the weekend.

My only question was whether or not they would do something to it Thursday night. When I saw that first Longshot on Friday.......I knew it was going to be speed favoring at least Friday.

[cj]

Ok CJ, I'll defer to you. The Santa Anita day 1 surface was definitely more speed favoring than it normally is. So, Mike, you're the only one in the world that thinks otherwise. :eek: I'll just admit I know nothing, and go along with everyone else. :bang:

We are all free to have our own opinions and say what we like. But when talking about the dirt track being biased, I don't see how including turf races in the analysis makes much sense.

I guess we'll see how the speed horses from Friday and the closers from Friday do when they return.

[thaskalos]

We are all free to have our own opinions and say what we like. But when talking about the dirt track being biased, I don't see how including turf races in the analysis makes much sense.

I guess we'll see how the speed horses from Friday and the closers from Friday do when they return.
I never knew that the front-runners were advantaged in route turf races when the grass is firm. Is that true, CJ?

Maybe that's why my turf play has been subpar lately...

[GMB@BP]

They are not usually specific like that at Santa Anita, just general stuff. I think it was because of Friday they made sure to give details.

Woodbine does a great job with this stuff. Anybody that has trouble making Woodbine figures would do well to consult their maintenance information, it answers a lot of questions. Some of the other synthetic tracks do this as well.

Sure sounds like useful information the tracks should provide.

[cj]

I never knew that the front-runners were advantaged in route turf races when the grass is firm. Is that true, CJ?

Maybe that's why my turf play has been subpar lately...

Sometimes good bets, sure, but not advantaged by the track.

[outofthebox]

I mentioned a few times already that the track DEFINITELY changed between the first three races and the last three. I use a program to do the grunt work, including rough projections of track speed. I use that as a starting point to establish the track variant(s). Here is what the dirt races looked like on my projections:

R2: 23 fast
R4: 22 fast
R6: 20 fast
R8: 14 fast
R10: 14 fast
R12: 15 fast

I don't see any way NOT to split the variant, and I could even argue it was gradually slowing before Race 8 when it "settled in"...in other words use a different variant for races 2/4, 6, and then group 8/10/12.
Thanks for the reply CJ.

[classhandicapper]

I think this topic is extremely complicated.

I've been saying this for 20 years.

The very sharpest jockeys, trainers, and owners are just as good at recognizing biases as the best handicappers and adjust their riding style to suit the track. Some riders may even be better at it than handicappers because they get a chance to work horses over the track and look for the best paths before the races. The rest eventually catch on. I try to watch what the smartest riders are doing because sometimes it will be a clue to what they think.

Everyone sort of picked up on this when racing switched to synthetic and all the jockeys started backing down the paces to such an extreme it became obvious. But it happens all the time in subtler ways (and always has) even during the middle of a card.

When jockeys adjust to a bias (especially mid card) IMO it also wreaks havoc (at least on me).

It makes it harder to make figures (especially pace figures) because the normal relationships for that track change, harder to evaluate if there was a bias because the change in riding tactics can often offset the bias, harder to make plays based on the bias because the pace may turn out way different than the race looks on paper etc...

Some horse goes out in 43 4/5.

Did he run that fast because of wind, track speed on the backstretch, or because the jockey knew there was a bias and gunned him a way he never would have on an honest track?

Did he run a great race because because he won and ran his normal speed figure even after running an extremely fast pace?

Did he benefit from the bias and be downgraded?

Did the bias and pace approximately offset each other?

If all the races are run in their typical fashion during the card it's hard enough, but when jockeys are changing tactics mid day as they see what's going on, performance and track evaluation can get pretty messy.

That's why I think Saturday is not as clear cut as some people think.

IMO the track was clearly not as biased on Saturday as Friday. If there was a bias it was mild. But there was some very aggressive riding on Saturday. At least one rider even said on TV he was aggressive because of the track. So what appears to be a very honest race track given that so many closers won, may be a little tougher to evaluate when you consider the tactics and the fact that a few horses held up quite well despite setting or contesting some very solid paces.

[cj]

IMO the track was clearly not as biased on Saturday as Friday. If there was a bias it was mild. But there was some very aggressive riding on Saturday and at least one rider even said on TV he was aggressive because of the track. So what appears to be a very honest race track given that so many closers won, may be a little tougher to evaluate when you consider the tactics and you notice a few horses that held up quite well despite setting or contesting some very solid paces.

For Saturday, if anything, people could argue the track was biased towards closers...certainly not speed. I don't think it was, more the aggressive riding to which you allude. But when speed wins one race (and gets DQed), hard to argue it was a speed bias.

[iceknight]

For Saturday, if anything, people could argue the track was biased towards closers...certainly not speed. I don't think it was, more the aggressive riding to which you allude. But when speed wins one race (and gets DQed), hard to argue it was a speed bias.sounds funny. that is just a fair track.

[Tom]

I clearly stated 10 races, so yes that includes the turf races. The turf was said to be fast also. Es and E/Ps are recognized as advantaged on the grass also.

Forget what the RS was going in to the race- how did the winner run?
Was an S horse out in front all the way?
Was a P a wire-to-wire winner?
What RS did each winner display that day? Or is what you are saying?

[raybo]

Forget what the RS was going in to the race- how did the winner run?
Was an S horse out in front all the way?
Was a P a wire-to-wire winner?
What RS did each winner display that day? Or is what you are saying?

I'm saying that multiple horses ran drastically different running styles Friday, things they had never done before, at least in their last 10 races. Does a speed bias cause that? No, unless the connections decide that before the race and decide to take their horse out of its normal game. I said before that the speed of the track isn't what gave me fits, it was horses going against their preferred running style. That screws things up big time, for me anyway. If you ignore running styles then all you had to do was assume the pace would be hot, from whatever horse(s) and adjust for it. My point was that, for me, the changes in running styles sealed my fate Friday, not the speed of the track, I expected a fast track, as I always do at SA.

Saturday, I went 9 for 11 in wins, 1 for 10 on Friday. Saturday, horses ran more normally, according to their preferred running styles, and I did well as a result. I still expected a fast track Saturday, and assumed paces would be on the fast side, even when the times were not as fast as Friday it made little difference to my game, as the results showed. When races run similar to how I think they will, I do well, when they don't, I don't do well. I can't predict when a trainer/jockey will run a horse away from its normal style, so I don't even try to do that, I assume horses will at least try to run the style they prefer.

[jerry-g]

I have a question about something that may have contributed to a change
in RS for some of the horses. I heard them announce on Friday that the
dirt was being sprinkled with a special dust in an effort to firm it up. I was
thinking that the holes normally left behind for the back horses to contend
with may have not been a problem as usual or perhaps they were of less
depth. Some holes can be almost 2 inches deep. Does anyone think this had
anything to do whatsoever with the RS of the back horses?

[Valuist]

No speed favoring bias on Saturday:

Zeewat came from 5 back to win
Ria Antonia came from 7 back to win.
Groupie Doll came from 3.25 back to win.
New Years Day came from 8 lengths back to win
Secret Circle came from 3 lengths back to win
Mucho Macho Man came from 2 lengths back to win.

[Grits]

I heard them announce on Friday that the
dirt was being sprinkled with a special dust in an effort to firm it up.

Winged fairies handling track maintenance now? JerryG, I'm not sure, though, I did hear those fairies were spreading and rolling asphalt on Thursday evening.

[Cholly]

Here is the short version...before Thursday's racing I tweeted that Santa Anita had been extremely speed favoring 4 of the last 5 racing days. I was comparing that to a normal Santa Anita dirt track, so much more so than NORMAL. Thursday was again extremely speed favoring BY SANTA ANITA DIRT standards, not other tracks or surfaces. I talked about it during the card and again before Friday.

Friday changed a little after the first few dirt races. It was pretty clear the track was like a paved highway. The track crew went to work. As somebody that does figures for nearly every track every day, I don't need maintenance reports. I can see numerically when a track changes, and it did during the Friday card.

It noticeably slowed, and while still above average on the "speed favoring" scale, it was better. The same thing happened yesterday. The track was playing differently to start the day, and after three dirt races, it changed again dramatically for the last three. There is no doubt in my mind that things were done to slow it down.

There are lots of reasons tracks get really fast. And, not all very fast tracks are speed biased, but most are. For me, the numbers and times didn't lie. The track was biased and the maintenance crew worked to change it, and over time was successful.

Drape of NY Times reported:
"Racetracks, too, have a responsibility to make their venues safe for human and equine athletes. Three other horses sustained similar injuries on the racetrack here, prompting complaints that the surface was not properly maintained and was too hard. The Breeders’ Cup Sprint contender Points Offthebench broke a leg while training earlier in the week and was euthanized. Centralinteligence was pulled up and taken off after the Dirt Mile Friday; he had surgery on his injured right foreleg.

Afterward, Breeders’ Cup officials told executives at Santa Anita that they were concerned about the condition of the track, prompting an overtime effort from its ground crews to water and soften the track for Saturday, according to a Breeders’ Cup official who spoken on condition of anonymity because the person did not have the authority to comment publicly."

[mountainman]

Drape of NY Times reported:
"Racetracks, too, have a responsibility to make their venues safe for human and equine athletes. Three other horses sustained similar injuries on the racetrack here, prompting complaints that the surface was not properly maintained and was too hard. The Breeders’ Cup Sprint contender Points Offthebench broke a leg while training earlier in the week and was euthanized. Centralinteligence was pulled up and taken off after the Dirt Mile Friday; he had surgery on his injured right foreleg.

Afterward, Breeders’ Cup officials told executives at Santa Anita that they were concerned about the condition of the track, prompting an overtime effort from its ground crews to water and soften the track for Saturday, according to a Breeders’ Cup official who spoken on condition of anonymity because the person did not have the authority to comment publicly."

In many cases, putting water on a lightning track is akin to throwing gas on a fire. My guess is they set the harrowers good and deep, and also may have pushed in some material from out past the crown. Those measures would have the double effect of slowing the teletimer and negating a pro-speed trend.

[JustRalph]

Drape of NY Times reported:
"Racetracks, too, have a responsibility to make their venues safe for human and equine athletes. Three other horses sustained similar injuries on the racetrack here, prompting complaints that the surface was not properly maintained and was too hard. The Breeders’ Cup Sprint contender Points Offthebench broke a leg while training earlier in the week and was euthanized. Centralinteligence was pulled up and taken off after the Dirt Mile Friday; he had surgery on his injured right foreleg.

Afterward, Breeders’ Cup officials told executives at Santa Anita that they were concerned about the condition of the track, prompting an overtime effort from its ground crews to water and soften the track for Saturday, according to a Breeders’ Cup official who spoken on condition of anonymity because the person did not have the authority to comment publicly."

If this is true, why wasn't this made public? This is scandalous beyond the norm if kept secret

[pandy]

As I posted in this form after Friday's races, Santa Anita is a joke. If the reporting in the Times is accurate, the Breeders Cup officials were smart to pressure Santa Anita. However, since the track was biased both days last year, they should have told Santa Anita to get its act together prior to the races this year. And now they've already committed to next year.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I don't see what the problem is.On plenty of big days we see say a dead rail on BC day at CD(or good rail I can't remember offhand),Pimilco's turf course on Preakness day,or get a mud puddle like at Monmouth's BC,or get bogged out turf courses Belmont Day 11.Plus if you see a bias and don't adjust your handicapping,well why the hell not?

And let's be clear about things that run.If you you get near the front you avoid ground loss usually and traffic trouble because you are not forced to have to make up lengths behind.Those are virtues of things that run,not biases and on days when the best opposition is up against each other,many good horses are speed horses.If anything a track that gives closers more of an advantage is a far worse of a biased track because it gives horses an advantage that naturally always put themselves at a disadvantage.

[pandy]

I disagree. First of all, on big days the tracks that are hosting have to try to produce a safe surface that plays fairly so that the racing is exciting. People who are saying, hey, just bet the speed, are missing the point. These are championship races and millions of people are watching. On Breeders Cup Day, it's not just about the betting, the sport matters. To have a bias where horses that are natural sustained types have no shot is ridiculous and very bad for the sport.

Think of the owners. Imagine if have invested a ton of money into the game as an owner or breeder and now comes your big day in the B.Cup and you have two horses entered, both are sustained horses that have legitimate chances to win, but then the track comes up as it did on Friday. How would you feel?

As for a bias that is kind to closers, that is rarely as bad as intense speed bias as there was on Friday, for several reasons. For one, front runners will get away with softer fractions and usually a good horse can overcome a closer's bias, we saw that in the Preakness this year when Oxbow was able to rate his own pace because the riders knew the track was tiring.

Also, a track that is biased against speed will usually produce exciting finishes. The problem with a strong speed bias like Friday's, because the closers don't get into the race, you don't get those exciting finishes with three or four horses battling down to the wire.

It is a sport and sport is a form of entertainment, so the more competitive the race, the better. A speed bias makes it less competitive, and therefore, less entertaining. This is the reason why the NFL has done everything in its power, salary caps, top draft choices go to the worst team, etc., to create close games that are exciting. 50% of all NFL games are decided in the last possession. That's why they make billions of dollars in profit.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I disagree. First of all, on big days the tracks that are hosting have to try to produce a safe surface that plays fairly so that the racing is exciting. People who are saying, hey, just bet the speed, are missing the point. These are championship races and millions of people are watching. On Breeders Cup Day, it's not just about the betting, the sport matters. To have a bias where horses that are natural sustained types have no shot is ridiculous and very bad for the sport.

Think of the owners. Imagine if have invested a ton of money into the game as an owner or breeder and now comes your big day in the B.Cup and you have two horses entered, both are sustained horses that have legitimate chances to win, but then the track comes up as it did on Friday. How would you feel?

As for a bias that is kind to closers, that is rarely as bad as intense speed bias as there was on Friday, for several reasons. For one, front runners will get away with softer fractions and usually a good horse can overcome a closer's bias, we saw that in the Preakness this year when Oxbow was able to rate his own pace because the riders knew the track was tiring.

Also, a track that is biased against speed will usually produce exciting finishes. The problem with a strong speed bias like Friday's, because the closers don't get into the race, you don't get those exciting finishes with three or four horses battling down to the wire.

It is a sport and sport is a form of entertainment, so the more competitive the race, the better. A speed bias makes it less competitive, and therefore, less entertaining. This is the reason why the NFL has done everything in its power, salary caps, top draft choices go to the worst team, etc., to create close games that are exciting. 50% of all NFL games are decided in the last possession. That's why they make billions of dollars in profit.

And that's what I was saying.In every BC I can think of at different venues over the last 4-5 locations there was some kind of either bias or mess of a racing surface.Good rail,bad rail,speed,slop,boggy turf course.I can't think of one that was run under these Shangri La circumstances,ever.

[pandy]

No offense, but let's keep in mind here that thousands of people complained about the track bias Friday and many complained about the track last year. The days you're talking about, NO ONE complained. So I think the speed bias on Friday was a bit more severe than the days you mentioned.

On my handicappingwinners website I've been giving my own track bias info for NYRA and So. Cal and I only call a track bias when it is certain. Friday was a definitely very strong speed bias. The days you mentioned, not.

[cj's dad]

JUSTRALPH give me a dam pick! :rolleyes: :(He is a pick monster !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlaX7BuFEfs

[JustRalph]

That was a great day! Cold but fun!

[CincyHorseplayer]

No offense, but let's keep in mind here that thousands of people complained about the track bias Friday and many complained about the track last year. The days you're talking about, NO ONE complained. So I think the speed bias on Friday was a bit more severe than the days you mentioned.

On my handicappingwinners website I've been giving my own track bias info for NYRA and So. Cal and I only call a track bias when it is certain. Friday was a definitely very strong speed bias. The days you mentioned, not.

Why complain?About the only thing that gets me upset is when I spend a good deal of time handicapping a card and 70% of the winners are 2-1 or less.If a track is biased and you know it and favorites aren't winning race after race,why does that get player's shorts in a wad?I just don't get it.

And thousands of complaints justify the outrage?Pandy I know you are a winner,why does this bother you so much?I thought the torrid list of complaints was just a staple of those who can't win.In my play I bet 2/3rds to 1/3 turf to dirt simply because so many dirt races are won by favorites.If I get prices on dirt I sure am not complaining.

Of the 2 BC races run on dirt Friday,not including the Marathon,Goldcents won as 2nd choice when only pressed for half a mile.Not exactly a tough trip.And Beholder sat off 2 dueling leaders and ran by at the head of the stretch.Another ideal trip for a good filly.I get that she was less than 2 lengths behind at the half mile and I get the GC ran through fast fractions but were not talking 5k claimers here either.Usually better horses have speed and tracks that stay relatively dry are not going to help at all deep closers,so unless a player is a masochist he should not turn his back on common sense and bet deep closers.Deep closers are handicapped by their running style more than anything and thousands of complaints by those who lose by not willfully taking good prices being offered for a situation they recognize,to me,just isn't very smart or justified.

[Tom]

The fact that they were able to change the track so much overnight tells me that they could have had a fairer track Friday and just didn't care.
Maybe some local trainers/owners preferred it like that and were given a wink and a nod?

SA is bush -league IHMO.

[pandy]

Cincy, I care about this because it is important for the sport, as I explained. Racing is unique in that the industry has to do a good job in two areas, one pertains to betting, the other is entertainment.

I read the comments by people on this board and comments left on blogs on drf.com and there is no doubt that a lot of racing fans, and people who are involved in the industry, did not like the bias on Friday. A speed bias is bad for the sport because it makes for less competitive races.

Charles Hayward, former CEO of NYRA, got this. As soon as he took over he fired the track super and told the new guy that he did not want the dead rail at Belmont, and the speed biases at Saratoga and over the Aqu. inner track. Now of course there are some biased days, but during Hayward's reign, the New York tracks played fairly and had less severe bias days than any major racing jurisdictions in North America.

Saratoga is a great example of how to maintain a track. Years ago when Cordero ruled the track had a golden rail and a strong speed bias. The past several years the track played fairly and outside closers actually do quite well, which results in a lot of exciting races. The Big A inner track also went from inside speed favoring to a track where closers do quite well.

[Valuist]

Cincy, I care about this because it is important for the sport, as I explained. Racing is unique in that the industry has to do a good job in two areas, one pertains to betting, the other is entertainment.

I read the comments by people on this board and comments left on blogs on drf.com and there is no doubt that a lot of racing fans, and people who are involved in the industry, did not like the bias on Friday. A speed bias is bad for the sport because it makes for less competitive races.

Charles Hayward, former CEO of NYRA, got this. As soon as he took over he fired the track super and told the new guy that he did not want the dead rail at Belmont, and the speed biases at Saratoga and over the Aqu. inner track. Now of course there are some biased days, but during Hayward's reign, the New York tracks played fairly and had less severe bias days than any major racing jurisdictions in North America.

Saratoga is a great example of how to maintain a track. Years ago when Cordero ruled the track had a golden rail and a strong speed bias. The past several years the track played fairly and outside closers actually do quite well, which results in a lot of exciting races. The Big A inner track also went from inside speed favoring to a track where closers do quite well.

So a speed favoring (and usually a good rail) bias is worse than a dead rail, outside closer friendly track? A track that plays fairly isn't necessarily kind to outside closers. They are still losing ground from racing wide.

The guys on TVG always talk about how Kee is playing "fairly" after a deep outside closer wins. Its not really playing fairly if that is a frequent occurrence.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I hear you Pandy but towards the end of the Saratoga meet there were definitely biases ruling both the dirt and turf courses,it happens,and it's usually not because of manipulation.Dry weather.And as I have stated that is not what creates the bias,it bows down to the laws of things that run where saving ground,avoiding traffic,and not having to make up lengths are virtues.In fact,more moisture,added dirt,and aiding horses who put themselves at a disadvantage is more about manipulation than the fact of it not raining.The other phenomenon I have noticed happening more and more these days and at the top levels of the game is the deliberate avoidance of duels and "saving something in the tank for the stretch" that basically end up in near walkovers to any decent horses with high speed,reference last year Trinniberg and Fort Larned,and this year Goldcents.

To me unless I see total quitters keep wiring race after race or a horses running on a rail be passed and rerally or loose horses die repeatedly I don't indulge the bias concept.Fast tracks and dry weather favor the inherent virtues of all things that can run quickly.That in itself is NOT a bias.When chronic losers start winning wire to wire that's a bias.Name the chronic losers we saw win in any of the BC races on dirt the last 2 years and I'll believe you.Not the early or late races either or we can include the Marathon and Arabian races on Friday that were won by closers.

And Pandy this is not personal for me.I barely even bet dirt anymore.I just do not believe the rationale I'm hearing.



Cincy, I care about this because it is important for the sport, as I explained. Racing is unique in that the industry has to do a good job in two areas, one pertains to betting, the other is entertainment.

I read the comments by people on this board and comments left on blogs on drf.com and there is no doubt that a lot of racing fans, and people who are involved in the industry, did not like the bias on Friday. A speed bias is bad for the sport because it makes for less competitive races.

Charles Hayward, former CEO of NYRA, got this. As soon as he took over he fired the track super and told the new guy that he did not want the dead rail at Belmont, and the speed biases at Saratoga and over the Aqu. inner track. Now of course there are some biased days, but during Hayward's reign, the New York tracks played fairly and had less severe bias days than any major racing jurisdictions in North America.

Saratoga is a great example of how to maintain a track. Years ago when Cordero ruled the track had a golden rail and a strong speed bias. The past several years the track played fairly and outside closers actually do quite well, which results in a lot of exciting races. The Big A inner track also went from inside speed favoring to a track where closers do quite well.

[pandy]

I prefer to see a track as fair as possible, especially for big days, but generally speaking I do feel that tracks that favor speed are worse for the sport as a whole when compared to a track that favors closers.

Harness racing proves this every day. The four top tracks in terms of handle in North America are Meadowlands, Mohawk, Woodbine, and Balmoral. These are all 2-turn tracks. Meadowlands, Balmoral and Mohawk are the only tracks in harness racing that favor closers. The speed favoring harness tracks have seen steadily declining handle for years, the tracks that favor closers have seen their handle go up in the past few years.

The thing is, if you look at days when the rail is dead, such as it was at Pimlico on Preakness day, speed is still dangerous. Gary Stevens knew the rail was dead and closers were winning but he had a speed horse so he simply raced Oxbow off the rail and was able to set his own pace. Again, a dead rail closers track is not ideal, but does not damage the sport as a form of entertainment as does a speed bias. A closers track often makes for very exciting finishes. Again, the Meadowlands is a classic example of this. It is a rarity, a harness track that favors closers, and the handle at the Meadowlands dwarfs the other tracks. In the winter you'll see races with 5 or 6 horses in a blanket photo finish and four of them rallied from off the pace, very exciting racing.

Another thing, when a track is kind to sustained types, the classiest horses do well. A strong speed bias often helps cheap horses go wire to wire, which is not good. Handicapping has to be about, which is the best horse. Once it becomes, "who is going to get the lead," it is ruined. This is what killed harness racing, it became too speed favoring because of the advancement in sulkies.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Again that's my whole point,tracks that favor speed are not biased.Tracks that favor quitters I understand.Tracks that favor closers are biased.Closers by virtue of their running style put themselves at a disadvantage.

If were talking "Exciting finishes" then were talking entertainment.Might as well embrace the dumbness of tracks emphasizing family and fun and being beerdrunk than betting.If we want to be entertained go watch college or pro football.If were talking about making money then taking solid prices on what you think is a bias is the wise course of action.If you want a game that more naturally favors closer bet turf.

Anyway the shifting logic here is suspect IMO.First it's about the uproar of a suspected bias,the definition of what is fair is muddy because the nature of running itself does not come into play,then handicappers are even going to go so far as to say it's not even about taking the fair price,then go even further to say it's all about exciting finishes.In one sustained argument one has turned their back on everything about being a player and has embraced what most track management think the sport is all about.Like I said I do not get it at all.

Again in any of the Breeders Cup races on dirt over the last 2 years,name me the stone cold quitter that won?

[pandy]

Let's look at Saturday's races. Obviously Santa Anita, under pressure from fans, the media, and the Breeders Cup, harrowed the track or did something to alleviate the bias. But say they didn't, and Saturday was as biased as Friday. The racing would not have been as good, and, several of the horses, including Groupie Doll, would not have won. Look at Friday's results. Two monster longshots paying $77 and $96 went wire to wire in races 2 and 3. Cheap speed, both of them. These horses were not even close to being the best horses in the race, they got lucky. That is not good racing. Handicapping is supposed to be trying to find the best horse, not the horse that gets the early lead.

And those of you who say, "Hey, just bet the speed, what's the big deal," know full well that when a track is speed biased it's often very difficult to figure out which horse is going to break on top. Certainly not too many bettors figured it out in races 2 and 3 because the average win odds on those two ridiculous races was $86.50!

[CincyHorseplayer]

Name me the BREEEDERS CUP races on dirt that were won by quitters the last 2 years?

If were hand selecting races on Friday this year closers won the 6th and 12th.You can't hand pick your races then denounce mine all the while saying a bias unfairly influenced the BC itself without actually addressing the BC races.

First it's about the bias,then it's not about that and it's not about profit,it's about fair while ignoring that closers by the nature of their running style hinder themselves,so it has to be about exciting finishes,now it's about 2 races on the front end of the Friday card while ignoring 2 other races,and the fact that both the Distaff and Classic were won by identical trips sitting off the speed.

Like I said Pandy this isn't personal.We both believe in our opinions.I'm not convincing you and vice versa.I've said all I'm going to say about this.

[pandy]

I know it's not personal, I don't mind debating you. I just know from my harness racing experience that speed biased tracks are bad for the sport, in general. Although some bettors like a speed bias, overall if you have speed biased tracks the attendance and handle will drop, as it did in harness racing.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I know it's not personal, I don't mind debating you. I just know from my harness racing experience that speed biased tracks are bad for the sport, in general. Although some bettors like a speed bias, overall if you have speed biased tracks the attendance and handle will drop, as it did in harness racing.

That's cool.I do understand for the most part what you are implying.I certainly don't want it to get beyond a debate.We share many views and have said as much elsewhere.Were not convincing each other at all here!:D

[barn32]

Back in the 90s I was at Del Mar with Dick Mitchell and Tom Brohamer. We were talking about the previous days races, and I asked them how they had the winner in the fifth race.

They started talking about how yesterday the first three races were won on the front end and then a closer won the fourth race.

Tom: That's why I had so and so in the fifth

Dick: Yup

Me: You had that closer in the fifth race because the fourth race ran different than the first three?

Them: Yup, the track changed

Me: You're kidding

[Jeff P]

I'll make the counter argument that deliberate efforts by track management to "deaden" the surface or otherwise lessen the chances of horses blessed with early speed is equally bad for the game.

At it's core level, racing is (or used to be) about finding out who has the fastest horse.

Anyone besides me recall the ridiculous outside closing bias (the slower your horse went to the 6f point and the wider your rider happened to be on the turn the better) in route races during the first couple of years they raced on Polytrack at Turfway?

When you have surfaces that (more often than not) result in crawling fractions with all of the horses under stout restraint...

In my opinion not only have you gotten completely away from finding out who truly has the fastest horse - but now you're letting the surface create some pretty ugly racing in its own right.



-jp

.

[Tall One]

Most the riders out east are used to grabbing off a 24 and change opening quarter, they surely are not going to do so well when you actually have to ride out of the gate.



And on the other side of that, left coast jocks are used to 21-22 opening & 43 or 44 halfs.

Frankly, I don't buy into the "speed bias!1111!!!" that the human anchor Jerry freaking Bailey was spewing. Nobody remembers how frustrating Keeneland was before the Poly was installed? If you're further than 3 lengths off, you're not gonna close on a Wednesday let alone BC Day 1 or 2.

[pandy]

I agree. That's why track management should make sure that they do everything they can to have a fair surface. Santa Anita did not. On my track bias report that I list on my website, I had Santa Anita as being speed favoring for 7 straight days leading up to Friday's card. So they should have known that they had a problem but apparently either didn't realize it, or didn't care. Either way it makes track management look bad.

[Ocala Mike]

OK; what about geometric biases? Running races out of a long chute always tends to favor outside post positions, while running two-turn races with a short run to the first turn always tends to favor inside post positions.

Should tracks be mindful of the fact that they are hurting the sport by carding such races? Should we build more "Widener Chutes", i.e., 6f straightaways running diagonally across the infield with starting gates in the next town?

I understand that track biases may be detrimental at times, but as a handicapper, I have to be aware of their existence and play accordingly.

PS: I "bombed" Friday on the BC, and made money Saturday.

[pandy]

And on the other side of that, left coast jocks are used to 21-22 opening & 43 or 44 halfs.

Frankly, I don't buy into the "speed bias!1111!!!" that the human anchor Jerry freaking Bailey was spewing. Nobody remembers how frustrating Keeneland was before the Poly was installed? If you're further than 3 lengths off, you're not gonna close on a Wednesday let alone BC Day 1 or 2.

Yeah, Keeneland may have been the most inside speed favoring track of all time. Because it was a short meet and a beautiful track, they got away with it. If they had raced there all year the handle would have declined.

[mountainman]

At the tracks I play and am familiar with, a dead rail is often the culprit when speed is underachieving. Some dead rail surfaces, however, are still conducive to speed that fits a certain profile...drawn middle or wide..likely to be buffered out from the inside, not quick enough to clear, drop over, and in turn be passed on the right..gritty enough to mix it up for a few furlongs and still finish.

Thus with potential biases (and various pace-scenarios) in mind, I find it useful to make distinctions by sub-categorizing frontrunners as "swift" or "strong."

I have found, overall, that pro-speed and pro-rail trends, once detected, lend themselves to predictable race-results, whereas a negative-rail or pro-closers bias often yields chaotic outcomes. It just stands to reason, after all, that a track penalizing the most potent weapon in racing (early speed), not to mention gutsy, ground-saving rides, or the kind of aggressive interior moves that often put american dirt races to bed, would stymie the general public.


I do think a mistake commonly made is to watch, for instance, one speed, one stalker and two closers win and conclude that the track is "fair." Speed is the universal bias.

[elhelmete]

Back in the 90s I was at Del Mar with Dick Mitchell and Tom Brohamer. We were talking about the previous days races, and I asked them how they had the winner in the fifth race.

They started talking about how yesterday the first three races were won on the front end and then a closer won the fourth race.

Tom: That's why I had so and so in the fifth

Dick: Yup

Me: You had that closer in the fifth race because the fourth race ran different than the first three?

Them: Yup, the track changed

Me: You're kidding

This, in a nutshell, is why I've very very conservative when considering whether a bias exists or not.

I've always found it suspect to declare a bias on or off after just one or two races. I'm also very skeptical of biases appearing or disappearing within a race card barring significant weather changes. Just simply not enough valid data using two or three races to declare. That said, the weather at Del Mar between morning and afternoon in the early dark days of polytrack would be one example where a track could change in the span of a few hours.

[Tall One]

If they had raced there all year the handle would have declined.





Agreed 100%. Best part about that meet ending, was finding the horses running at Chruchill, or shipperd too Belmont, that managed to gain some ground on Keeneland's treadmill.

I'm not not taking a stance against a bias this past week-end. It's just the way I've always handicapped racing out there, and like my example above, Keeneland pre-poly. You're off more than 3-4 lengths from the front, and you're toast.


~~Great thread, and comments going here guys~~

[RXB]

I'll make the counter argument that deliberate efforts by track management to "deaden" the surface or otherwise lessen the chances of horses blessed with early speed is equally bad for the game.

At it's core level, racing is (or used to be) about finding out who has the fastest horse.

Anyone besides me recall the ridiculous outside closing bias (the slower your horse went to the 6f point and the wider your rider happened to be on the turn the better) in route races during the first couple of years they raced on Polytrack at Turfway?

When you have surfaces that (more often than not) result in crawling fractions with all of the horses under stout restraint...

In my opinion not only have you gotten completely away from finding out who truly has the fastest horse - but now you're letting the surface create some pretty ugly racing in its own right.


I thought the fastest horse thing was for quarter horse racing. Thoroughbred racing, at least in my opinion, is about combining speed and stamina. If it's just about who gets out of the gate the fastest, I don't find it very entertaining. And not very profitable anymore, either, since early speed is bet far more heavily than it was a dozen or so years ago.

[Jeff P]

Don't get me wrong... What I'm advocating for is NOT doctoring the surface too much one way or the other. (I've seen too many instances where efforts to deaden a surface swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.)

But if you ARE going to doctor a track surface then at least be transparent about it.

This write up on the HANA Blog captures that sentiment...

Not Providing Timely Track Information Impacts Horseplayers (and Others):
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2013/11/not-providing-timely-track-information.html



-jp

.

[classhandicapper]

No speed favoring bias on Saturday:

Zeewat came from 5 back to win
Ria Antonia came from 7 back to win.
Groupie Doll came from 3.25 back to win.
New Years Day came from 8 lengths back to win
Secret Circle came from 3 lengths back to win
Mucho Macho Man came from 2 lengths back to win.

Where the winners came from does not always tell you what the bias was.

Let's just pretend my assumptions are accurate to illustrate the point I was making above.

We have 3 horses.

A and B are both 100 speed horses.
C is a 95 mid pack horse
There is a mild speed bias.

The rider of A and B know there is a bias also. So instead of running a 100 pace and 100 final time, they blaze out in a 120 pace. But that's so extreme, even thou they don't totally collapse because of the bias, it slows them down enough that they only run a 94 final time. C wins with his 95.

Just because the mid pack horse won, that does not mean the speed bias went away.

If there was no speed bias, they wouldn't have run a 120 pace to begin with. And if they did, they wouldn't have run a 94 final time, they might have run in the 80s or one might have been eased.

Once the riders know (or at least think) there is a bias, running styles can become become irrelevant to bias determination because the jocks adjust their aggressiveness in a way that offsets the bias or even more.

What's worse than that is the assumption that biases impact all horse equally. IMO it's simply not true. A speed bias is not going to make Dr Fager run a mile any faster, but it might make some faint hearted 10K claimer run a lot faster.

That's what makes bias determination so tricky.

What you have to look at is how well the speeds held up relative to their ability and expectations given the paces they were running. Even if they were losing, if they were holding up better than expected off their fast paces, it was still a speed favoring track.

In the first year on Keeneland's Poly, it was almost impossible to wire that first week. But eventually the jockeys realized that. So they slowed the paces down so much, horses started wiring again. It was still a closer's track, but the race developments had shifted so far away from the norms, it changed the running styles that were winning a little (not the track).

That's what makes this all so tricky. It's tough to define it all when jockeys are adjusting.

[Cratos]

And on the other side of that, left coast jocks are used to 21-22 opening & 43 or 44 halfs.

Frankly, I don't buy into the "speed bias!1111!!!" that the human anchor Jerry freaking Bailey was spewing. Nobody remembers how frustrating Keeneland was before the Poly was installed? If you're further than 3 lengths off, you're not gonna close on a Wednesday let alone BC Day 1 or 2.

This is where I agree with you; I don’t buy into this track bias crap either because each and every day there is a “bias” to the racing surface (dirt, poly, or turf) due to maintenance, usage, environmental conditions or some combination of those factors.

Furthermore to measure this so-call “bias” you can’t use antidotal evidence of horses running around the racetrack because your data would not be representative of repeatability.

From a statistical analysis and that is what is needed and I believe posters like Trifecta Mike, Delta Lover, or Magister Ludi would better be qualified to enlighten this forum than those who has posted thus far within this thread.

Additionally, a poster earlier in this thread brought up geometric biases which were a good recognition because of the side forces on the turns on the racetrack.

Also what about air resistance, wind force impact (not wind speed) and the inherent distribution of the horses’ energy as it relates to pace and distance.

This is a non-trivia problem and to evaluate it with a one-dimensional parameter of surface bias would be wrong IMHO.

[classhandicapper]

Furthermore to measure this so-call “bias” you can’t use antidotal evidence of horses running around the racetrack because your data would not be representative of repeatability.

From a statistical analysis and that is what is needed and I believe posters like Trifecta Mike, Delta Lover, or Magister Ludi would better be qualified to enlighten this forum than those who has posted thus far within this thread.

Additionally, a poster earlier in this thread brought up geometric biases which were a good recognition because of the side forces on the turns on the racetrack.

Also what about air resistance, wind force impact (not wind speed) and the inherent distribution of the horses’ energy as it relates to pace and distance.

This is a non-trivia problem and to evaluate it with a one-dimensional parameter of surface bias would be wrong IMHO.

Cratos,

Let's say in race #1 you have a older speed horse that normally runs final time figures in the 95-100 range.

Occasionally he shakes looks and does a little better and occasionally he gets caught in a duel and does a little worse.

On this one day he goes out really hard with another well known and very fast speed horse. They open up 5 lengths on the field, run a pace figure of 120, but on this day instead of backing up like he always does off a duel like this, he records a 100 final time figure anyway.

Something unusual happened here.

Either this older horse ran a new lifetime best performance or the normal relationship between pace and final time was altered.

In race #2 we have another speed horse. This horse is well known to have blinding early speed, but he rarely lasts past 4F-5F and often backs up badly before then. His lifetime top figure of 80 was earned on a day he shook loose in a slow pace against much cheaper horses, but he typically runs final time figures in 60s coming off pace figures in the 80s.

On this day he goes out very hard and fast, repulses a series of challenges, wires the field and earns a figure of 80 off a pace figure of 85.

This result is a lot like the 1st race. Another horse has either run better than he ever has before or something has altered his normal relationship of pace to final time and carried his speed further.

When you see this kind of thing repeatedly on a given day, you are welcome to think whatever you want about the causes. The causes may even be different depending on which track, which distance, and which day we are talking about.

But if you are pretty good at measuring the ability of horses, the pace of races, the normal relationships between pace and final time etc.. you will find that you can do a pretty good job of identifying performances that are unlikely to be duplicated under more average conditions.

On some days, it's not as clear.

But just knowing that there may have been a bias brings some conservatism into your wagering until you see how horses are running back off that track and get verification one way or the other.

[Valuist]

And on the other side of that, left coast jocks are used to 21-22 opening & 43 or 44 halfs.

Frankly, I don't buy into the "speed bias!1111!!!" that the human anchor Jerry freaking Bailey was spewing. Nobody remembers how frustrating Keeneland was before the Poly was installed? If you're further than 3 lengths off, you're not gonna close on a Wednesday let alone BC Day 1 or 2.

Keeneland was never more frustrating than in 2006, when they softened the turns and put in Polytrack. I have never seen more inexplainable results.

[JustRalph]

if you couldn't see what was going on Friday.......... shame on you.

I thought it was easy to spot. I was expecting it and tracking it for a few days prior to.......... but it was pretty obvious I thought.

I admit, it's not always easy to see. But if there is a reason to watch for it, it can be beneficial.

I have only really taken advantage of it one other time. At Belmont once while attending in person. it was raining.

Turfway used to get a huge front runners Bias back when it was wet and real dirt. But seemed to never last.

[pandy]

Keeneland was never more frustrating than in 2006, when they softened the turns and put in Polytrack. I have never seen more inexplainable results.

It was like quicksand, one of the most bizarre tracks surfaces ever.

[Jeff P]

Precisely what I meant when I mentioned efforts by track management to reduce the likelihood of a speed bias going awry.

-jp

.

[Ocala Mike]

I have only really taken advantage of it one other time. At Belmont once while attending in person. it was raining.



And at Belmont once upon a time (don't think it's too prevalent any more), on certain clear, cold, and windy days with the wind out of the NW front-runners had no shot. All closers from the outside with what were then called "balcony moves." Come to think of it, I haven't heard that phrase in years.

[pandy]

When Charles Hayward took over at CEO he hired a new track super and told him that he didn't want any more dead rails at Belmont. That was the end of the Balcony move. The Balcony Move days where usually during a dry stretch in the summer, the rail would get dead. Hayward also put an end to the golden rail speed bias on the inner track and at Saratoga. The NYRA tracks are among the fairest to all racing styles.

[Cratos]

Cratos,

Let's say in race #1 you have a older speed horse that normally runs final time figures in the 95-100 range.

Occasionally he shakes looks and does a little better and occasionally he gets caught in a duel and does a little worse.

On this one day he goes out really hard with another well known and very fast speed horse. They open up 5 lengths on the field, run a pace figure of 120, but on this day instead of backing up like he always does off a duel like this, he records a 100 final time figure anyway.

Something unusual happened here.

Either this older horse ran a new lifetime best performance or the normal relationship between pace and final time was altered.

In race #2 we have another speed horse. This horse is well known to have blinding early speed, but he rarely lasts past 4F-5F and often backs up badly before then. His lifetime top figure of 80 was earned on a day he shook loose in a slow pace against much cheaper horses, but he typically runs final time figures in 60s coming off pace figures in the 80s.

On this day he goes out very hard and fast, repulses a series of challenges, wires the field and earns a figure of 80 off a pace figure of 85.

This result is a lot like the 1st race. Another horse has either run better than he ever has before or something has altered his normal relationship of pace to final time and carried his speed further.

When you see this kind of thing repeatedly on a given day, you are welcome to think whatever you want about the causes. The causes may even be different depending on which track, which distance, and which day we are talking about.

But if you are pretty good at measuring the ability of horses, the pace of races, the normal relationships between pace and final time etc.. you will find that you can do a pretty good job of identifying performances that are unlikely to be duplicated under more average conditions.

On some days, it's not as clear.

But just knowing that there may have been a bias brings some conservatism into your wagering until you see how horses are running back off that track and get verification one way or the other.

Hi Class,

I appreciate your response, but contextually it is embedded in the Speed Figure methodology which in itself extrapolates a bias to the reader if he/she is not a speed figure advocate; which I am not.

My point in my earlier post was not to say that one handicapping method was better than another, but I do believe each horseplayer should go with the method that works the best for them.

However I do stand by my assertion that it is supercilious to claim that a bias and particularly a surface bias existed at the BC races on Friday with such minute information to support such a claim.

Not once did I read in the posts of the supporters about a “bias” that the surface resistivity to speed was measured/calculated and how it differed from the historical benchmark.

My contention is that it might have been the surface resistivity (which I don’t believe), but there should be quantifiable evidence of such phenomena and not that “it is true because I said that it is” which I have gleamed from some respondents.

Therefore in my opinion a horserace is just a set of objects (namely horses) moving through space over a surface at a predetermined distance with the objective of the horseplayer being to determine which object (horse) gets to the end of that predetermined distance first.

This is not rocket science and horses are not machines, but there are as I mentioned in my prior post, many influences (air and surface resistivity, track layout, etc.) that gives one horse(s) an advantage over another and it is those influences that is sometimes very obvious and other times very tenuous and give us the horseplayers wrong signals and sometimes the correct signals about choosing which horse will be first to the finish line.

In the two examples given in your post there is not enough evidence to conclude what determined the change in performance by either horse. Yes, if you are a speed figure enthusiast you might draw your suggested conclusion, but in my opinion that is no more substantial than flipping a coin.

[Saratoga_Mike]

1) My point in my earlier post was not to say that one handicapping method was better than another, but I do believe each horseplayer should go with the method that works the best for them.

2) Not once did I read in the posts of the supporters about a “bias” that the surface resistivity to speed was measured/calculated and how it differed from the historical benchmark.



1) Please stop. You obviously think your approach is better.

2) Please see post #120 in this thread - the Santa Anita website contained various track measurements during the day.

[classhandicapper]

Hi Class,

I appreciate your response, but contextually it is embedded in the Speed Figure methodology which in itself extrapolates a bias to the reader if he/she is not a speed figure advocate; which I am not.

My point in my earlier post was not to say that one handicapping method was better than another, but I do believe each horseplayer should go with the method that works the best for them.

However I do stand by my assertion that it is supercilious to claim that a bias and particularly a surface bias existed at the BC races on Friday with such minute information to support such a claim.

Not once did I read in the posts of the supporters about a “bias” that the surface resistivity to speed was measured/calculated and how it differed from the historical benchmark.

My contention is that it might have been the surface resistivity (which I don’t believe), but there should be quantifiable evidence of such phenomena and not that “it is true because I said that it is” which I have gleamed from some respondents.

Therefore in my opinion a horserace is just a set of objects (namely horses) moving through space over a surface at a predetermined distance with the objective of the horseplayer being to determine which object (horse) gets to the end of that predetermined distance first.

This is not rocket science and horses are not machines, but there are as I mentioned in my prior post, many influences (air and surface resistivity, track layout, etc.) that gives one horse(s) an advantage over another and it is those influences that is sometimes very obvious and other times very tenuous and give us the horseplayers wrong signals and sometimes the correct signals about choosing which horse will be first to the finish line.

In the two examples given in your post there is not enough evidence to conclude what determined the change in performance by either horse. Yes, if you are a speed figure enthusiast you might draw your suggested conclusion, but in my opinion that is no more substantial than flipping a coin.

The fact that I used pace and speed figures to express how one can tell if there's bias is irrelevant. I chose that path because it's usually easier to explain things in terms of numbers than complicated comparative trip and form handicapping. But in either case, the conclusions will usually be the same. One reinforces the other. You could easily use a 3rd or even 4th method if you have a sound one.

In my opinion, it usually makes sense to look at the evidence that IS available and not dismiss things out of hand because we lack all the information we might want.

The skill is in knowing when there is enough evidence for it to make sense to change your views on the horses performances relative to what they look like "on paper" (no matter what method you are using) and then possibly adjusting those views further as new evidence comes in.

To me, anyone that doesn't think that Friday's track was biased relative to the norms of dirt racing is either using a flawed model for measuring bias, does not understand trips and pace very well, does not measure ability and performance very well, or has standards of evidence/proof that will prove to be costly over the long term. I want as many of those people betting against me for the rest of my life as possible.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Eloquently said Class

[Cratos]

The fact that I used pace and speed figures to express how one can tell if there's bias is irrelevant. I chose that path because it's usually easier to explain things in terms of numbers than complicated comparative trip and form handicapping. But in either case, the conclusions will usually be the same. One reinforces the other. You could easily use a 3rd or even 4th method if you have a sound one.

In my opinion, it usually makes sense to look at the evidence that IS available and not dismiss things out of hand because we lack all the information we might want.

The skill is in knowing when there is enough evidence for it to make sense to change your views on the horses performances relative to what they look like "on paper" (no matter what method you are using) and then possibly adjusting those views further as new evidence comes in.

To me, anyone that doesn't think that Friday's track was biased relative to the norms of dirt racing is either using a flawed model for measuring bias, does not understand trips and pace very well, does not measure ability and performance very well, or has standards of evidence/proof that will prove to be costly over the long term. I want as many of those people betting against me for the rest of my life as possible.

“The fact that I used pace and speed figures to express how one can tell if there's bias is irrelevant.” This is not true and therefore your discourse is disjointed because it that premise that set in motion your argument and for the conclusions to your thesis to be true there should be verifiable connectivity to support that premise.

“To me, anyone that doesn't think that Friday's track was biased relative to the norms of dirt racing is either using a flawed model for measuring bias, does not understand trips and pace very well, does not measure ability and performance very well, or has standards of evidence/proof that will prove to be costly over the long term. I want as many of those people betting against me for the rest of my life as possible”

You are wholly entitled to your opinion and I wholeheartedly support your right to express it, but it is what it is; an opinion.

I never said that the surface wasn’t different, but I did say that the historical evidence wasn’t given to support that difference.

It is incredulous to me for you to state: “either using a flawed model for measuring bias, does not understand trips and pace very well, does not measure ability and performance very well, or has standards of evidence/proof that will prove to be costly over the long term.”

This is a signature response when there is a difference of opinion on many Internet racing forums, the hollowed acrimonious reply follows.

Because you have many years handicapping and wagering on racehorses, you don’t get a license to make outlandish comments as though you wrote the elucidated thesis ever on the handicapping of racehorses.

You must understand (and I believe that you do) that this is pari-mutuel wagering on horseracing where bettors come together to wager with different ideas, opinions, and methods. Through that exchange which is the tote board there are winners and losers.

We disagree and that is okay by me; it should be okay by you.

[classhandicapper]

Cratos,


>“The fact that I used pace and speed figures to express how one can tell if there's bias is irrelevant.”

This is not true and therefore your discourse is disjointed because it that premise that set in motion your argument and for the conclusions to your thesis to be true there should be verifiable connectivity to support that premise. <

I laid out an argument in a way I thought would best explain how one could recognize biases in general. When you rejected it because you don't use pace and speed figures, I simply stated why I chose to use figures to illustrate the point, but that I could just as easily have laid out the same case using a more comparative method of trip, running styles, class etc... Like I said, there are probably other valid ways to do it also.

>>It is incredulous to me for you to state: “either using a flawed model for measuring bias, does not understand trips and pace very well, does not measure ability and performance very well, or has standards of evidence/proof that will prove to be costly over the long term.”

This is a signature response when there is a difference of opinion on many Internet racing forums, the hollowed acrimonious reply follows.<<

I stand by that statement.

Every once in awhile, a bias appears so strong, that if your method rejects it or deems there to be insufficient evidence to act upon it, I think it is probably flawed and will cost you money over the long haul.

I say that knowing full well that on occasion, subsequent race results prove me wrong about certain days.

However, I know that bias plays are one of the few remaining sources of profits for me. I also know that I am more confident of some days than others (like Friday). So I know that if I had a method that rejected a bias on Friday for insufficient evidence etc... it would cost me (and anyone else) money over the long term because there would be many more days like it where I would be right than wrong and subsequently underrate some horses and overrate others.

What I am suggesting to you is that sometimes it's OK to NOT hold things to some scientific standard of precision and certainty. In fact, it's sometimes better if you don't and just go with the preponderance of evidence even though you will occasionally be wrong.

[sammy the sage]

Hayward also put an end to the golden rail speed bias on the inner track and at Saratoga. The NYRA tracks are among the fairest to all racing styles.

Well except for TWO weeks THIS summer at "Toga"...the rail WAS GOLDEN on the Turf!!!

[classhandicapper]

Well except for TWO weeks THIS summer at "Toga"...the rail WAS GOLDEN on the Turf!!!

IMO, rail biases are pretty rare on turf relative to dirt.

It would seem to me that with rails set in different locations from day to day and with some tracks having 2 courses, if a rail bias existed it would be short lived and only on 1 course.

I've seen dead rails on turf courses from time to time after rain.

I've seen speed and closer biases impact 2 courses at the same track.

I've seen inner turf courses tend to be more speed favoring (or less closer favoring) than outer courses because of sharper turns.

But I've never seen 2 courses at the same track have the same rail bias. If one existed then I misdiagnosed it as a speed bias.

[Ocala Mike]

Well except for TWO weeks THIS summer at "Toga"...the rail WAS GOLDEN on the Turf!!!

Wasn't it more of a speed bias than a rail bias? Of course, front-runners on the grass will naturally gravitate towards the rail, all things being equal, to avoid losing ground.

I also seem to remember a lot of outside PP's figuring in the turf sprints up there this season, but I don't have the stats on that.

[Cratos]

Cratos,


>“The fact that I used pace and speed figures to express how one can tell if there's bias is irrelevant.”

This is not true and therefore your discourse is disjointed because it that premise that set in motion your argument and for the conclusions to your thesis to be true there should be verifiable connectivity to support that premise. <

I laid out an argument in a way I thought would best explain how one could recognize biases in general. When you rejected it because you don't use pace and speed figures, I simply stated why I chose to use figures to illustrate the point, but that I could just as easily have laid out the same case using a more comparative method of trip, running styles, class etc... Like I said, there are probably other valid ways to do it also.

>>It is incredulous to me for you to state: “either using a flawed model for measuring bias, does not understand trips and pace very well, does not measure ability and performance very well, or has standards of evidence/proof that will prove to be costly over the long term.”

This is a signature response when there is a difference of opinion on many Internet racing forums, the hollowed acrimonious reply follows.<<

I stand by that statement.

Every once in awhile, a bias appears so strong, that if your method rejects it or deems there to be insufficient evidence to act upon it, I think it is probably flawed and will cost you money over the long haul.

I say that knowing full well that on occasion, subsequent race results prove me wrong about certain days.

However, I know that bias plays are one of the few remaining sources of profits for me. I also know that I am more confident of some days than others (like Friday). So I know that if I had a method that rejected a bias on Friday for insufficient evidence etc... it would cost me (and anyone else) money over the long term because there would be many more days like it where I would be right than wrong and subsequently underrate some horses and overrate others.

What I am suggesting to you is that sometimes it's OK to NOT hold things to some scientific standard of precision and certainty. In fact, it's sometimes better if you don't and just go with the preponderance of evidence even though you will occasionally be wrong.

Class,

As I said in my earlier post, I support your right to your opinion even though we disagree and there will be posters and visitors on this website which will accept either side or neither side; I will not have any more to say about this subject.

[classhandicapper]

Wasn't it more of a speed bias than a rail bias? Of course, front-runners on the grass will naturally gravitate towards the rail, all things being equal, to avoid losing ground.

I also seem to remember a lot of outside PP's figuring in the turf sprints up there this season, but I don't have the stats on that.

Andy Serling also thought it was a rail bias.

At the time, I thought it was a speed bias. When Andy kept referring to it as a rail bias, I went back over the charts for all the days I had marked as biased again. I came away from it thinking that more horses had moved inside than usual (especially on the inner course), but I kept my notes the same.

I feel that saving ground and getting cover inside etc.. is generally a good thing on turf anyway (especially on the inner where the turns are sharper).

Speed and inside biases are often tough to distinguish because speed horses tend to get to the rail/2 path and even on speed favoring track, closers often clunk up for minor awards.

[classhandicapper]

Class,

As I said in my earlier post, I support your right to your opinion even though we disagree and there will be posters and visitors on this website which will accept either side or neither side; I will not have any more to say about this subject.

My intention wasn't to be critical. This game is very tough to beat, but bias related plays are one area where I still have an edge. So I thought by offering some insights into what actually works and how I make these determinations, I was being helpful. No one has to listen to me. If I was smart, I'd keep my mouth shut anyway. :lol:

[CincyHorseplayer]

Andy Serling also thought it was a rail bias.

At the time, I thought it was a speed bias. When Andy kept referring to it as a rail bias, I went back over the charts for all the days I had marked as biased again. I came away from it thinking that more horses had moved inside than usual (especially on the inner course), but I kept my notes the same.

I feel that saving ground and getting cover inside etc.. is generally a good thing on turf anyway (especially on the inner where the turns are sharper).

Speed and inside biases are often tough to distinguish because speed horses tend to get to the rail/2 path and even on speed favoring track, closers often clunk up for minor awards.

Yeah there were bigtime closers literally losing 8-10 lengths going wide on the turns and that has worked very well at Toga the 2 years prior when I've played.I was stunned how pronounced it was.Although there were spots of heatwaves this summer it was dry as toast.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Tendencies and extreme bias.As Jeff Platt said it really is hard to gauge wether a course is speed favoring simply because it is a natural virtue to possess speed.I definitely notice the subtleties of courses that tend to help speed along or make it work inordinately hard and looking at a prerace pace picture really makes one hesitant to make any rash pronouncements when you know how races should run.If,as happens on big days like this,every entrant has 5 Quirin point guess what?A closer can't win!To me only when quitters and 1 run closers win is there truly a bias.

[JustRalph]

Saw on Twitter the track Superintendent was fired

Found this

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/82108/moore-named-santa-anita-track-superintendent

[pandy]

This is a smart move. The racing surface at Santa Anita is a disgrace.