DeoVolente
03-24-2004, 02:27 PM
A couple of 8-5 shots go wire to wire and you hear those words. Speed is good at Aqueduct!! How silly to think there is a bias based on a few races. I won't let this affect my thinking unless it becomes so obvious that even I can't disregard it.
Bias.... there are some tracks that do have a perm bias simply
because of the laws of physics and the track's layout. There are
times when drainage plays a factor - for the instance drainage on
the entire Laurel property is so bad that there's a parking lot across
from the first turn that is actually under 2-3 inches of water if there
are really heavy rains. So what does that tell you about the turn
itself? You're gonna say something like they will have built the track
up and put in proper drainage and blah blah blah aren't you?
WRONG! Not that it matters much anymore because they
supposedly are going to start rebuilding Laurel's track the minute it
closes and not have racing there at all in the summer to finish it.
But it's a great example of a bias created by a weather
circumstance. That property is actually wetlands, as in swampy.
So that corner of the track gets swampy. It has a really bad effect
on front runners in routes, when it's a bog over there they work
harder earlier and almost never are there at the finish. Thing is, to
be sure this bias will be a factor you have to go look at the parking
lot and see how much water is there. So it's of virtually no use to an
off track player. And if they do the job right this time it will disappear
anyway. One can hope....
There are also tracks that dry unevenly, creating good and bad
paths. But if they are continuing to dry then those paths will
disappear right? Some tracks drain towards the rail and so when
they are wet the rail is a bad place to be.
There are nights when a bias will appear at CT that is so strong no
horse could possibly win without having the lead. And that bias will
disappear just as quickly as it arrives. But it really is real, and it will
carry the damnedest longshots imaginable to victory. They may
stand in the winners circle on rubbery legs, but they got the check.
So I do believe in biases. And some are very predictable year after
year because of track layout. Others are mysterious and
unpredictable. It is definitely worth watching horses that lost
because of them when they come back - if you can be sure that
they did lose because of a bias. I do keep a list of horses who I've
seen close to be in the money at CT on nights when 7 or more
races were won wire to wire - and I have seen it happen that 10 or
10 were won wire to wire more than a few times.
But the unfortunate fact is that the info isn't always very good
because a lot of the horses at CT are so far down the class scale
and/or have physical problems or whatever and they simply could
not turn in 2 good performances in a row if their life depended on it.
Or they turn in 3 good races and then a dozen bad ones. A good
example of this is a horse called Bill The Banker. When Bill's right
he runs some fantastic races. Last summer he was even running in
ungraded stakes. Weekend before last he was in for a $5K tag
(remember, bottom rung here is $2500, and they even have a
$3500 class.) He's completely unreliable. I think Amy Albright
(trainer) just plain got tired of fooling with him. The most amazing
thing is that nobody claimed him! And he ran a decent race, led
until midstretch with really blazing fractions early, and then half the
field passed him (and when you offer like $22,000 purses to $5000
claimers you ALWAYS get full fields.) He just plain went way too
fast early, but he still was only beat a total of about 4 lengths. So
did he run his race and has nothing left in the tank? Yep. And
they're still stuck with him, knowing that all they can do is watch him
keep losing or offer to sell him for even less. They've more than
made their money with the horse, so I think they will drop him again
to try to get out from under him because he's become a liability.
Somebody who can take him a rest him and fix him up may still do
decent with him though.
Bias.... there are some tracks that do have a perm bias simply
because of the laws of physics and the track's layout. There are
times when drainage plays a factor - for the instance drainage on
the entire Laurel property is so bad that there's a parking lot across
from the first turn that is actually under 2-3 inches of water if there
are really heavy rains. So what does that tell you about the turn
itself? You're gonna say something like they will have built the track
up and put in proper drainage and blah blah blah aren't you?
WRONG! Not that it matters much anymore because they
supposedly are going to start rebuilding Laurel's track the minute it
closes and not have racing there at all in the summer to finish it.
But it's a great example of a bias created by a weather
circumstance. That property is actually wetlands, as in swampy.
So that corner of the track gets swampy. It has a really bad effect
on front runners in routes, when it's a bog over there they work
harder earlier and almost never are there at the finish. Thing is, to
be sure this bias will be a factor you have to go look at the parking
lot and see how much water is there. So it's of virtually no use to an
off track player. And if they do the job right this time it will disappear
anyway. One can hope....
There are also tracks that dry unevenly, creating good and bad
paths. But if they are continuing to dry then those paths will
disappear right? Some tracks drain towards the rail and so when
they are wet the rail is a bad place to be.
There are nights when a bias will appear at CT that is so strong no
horse could possibly win without having the lead. And that bias will
disappear just as quickly as it arrives. But it really is real, and it will
carry the damnedest longshots imaginable to victory. They may
stand in the winners circle on rubbery legs, but they got the check.
So I do believe in biases. And some are very predictable year after
year because of track layout. Others are mysterious and
unpredictable. It is definitely worth watching horses that lost
because of them when they come back - if you can be sure that
they did lose because of a bias. I do keep a list of horses who I've
seen close to be in the money at CT on nights when 7 or more
races were won wire to wire - and I have seen it happen that 10 or
10 were won wire to wire more than a few times.
But the unfortunate fact is that the info isn't always very good
because a lot of the horses at CT are so far down the class scale
and/or have physical problems or whatever and they simply could
not turn in 2 good performances in a row if their life depended on it.
Or they turn in 3 good races and then a dozen bad ones. A good
example of this is a horse called Bill The Banker. When Bill's right
he runs some fantastic races. Last summer he was even running in
ungraded stakes. Weekend before last he was in for a $5K tag
(remember, bottom rung here is $2500, and they even have a
$3500 class.) He's completely unreliable. I think Amy Albright
(trainer) just plain got tired of fooling with him. The most amazing
thing is that nobody claimed him! And he ran a decent race, led
until midstretch with really blazing fractions early, and then half the
field passed him (and when you offer like $22,000 purses to $5000
claimers you ALWAYS get full fields.) He just plain went way too
fast early, but he still was only beat a total of about 4 lengths. So
did he run his race and has nothing left in the tank? Yep. And
they're still stuck with him, knowing that all they can do is watch him
keep losing or offer to sell him for even less. They've more than
made their money with the horse, so I think they will drop him again
to try to get out from under him because he's become a liability.
Somebody who can take him a rest him and fix him up may still do
decent with him though.