AQU track bias

[SG4]

From what I've seen I believe we're on day 3 of an inside speed bias at AQU, not a crazy bias, but a noticeable one at least. My question is how many days in a row will it take before more than 1 jockey from the colony notices & rides accordingly? Between agents, trainers, etc is there really nobody advising to try & hustle a horse from the start? People have got to be seeing this right? The passiveness on the rides so far through the Saturday card is disgusting far as I'm concerned, it really makes me wonder what's going on through the heads of these jockeys. Heck even Leparoux put 2 usual closers on the lead at GP today already and wired both races!! If he can be aggressive, there is no excuse for any jockey.

Sorry for another NY jockey colony bashing thread (the intention is not for this to become a conspiracy thread), but this needs to be brought up. At least it's a good heads up for horses to watch that were against the bias these last few days.

[RunDustyRun]

Gryder must have read your post...50-1 shot on the inside in R6...hope you hit it..figures it's a Cali rider who figures it out...

[EMD4ME]

Gryder must have read your post...50-1 shot on the inside in R6...hope you hit it..figures it's a Cali rider who figures it out...

Something tells me the other jocks in that race, had Gryder as well :D

[EMD4ME]

From what I've seen I believe we're on day 3 of an inside speed bias at AQU, not a crazy bias, but a noticeable one at least. My question is how many days in a row will it take before more than 1 jockey from the colony notices & rides accordingly? Between agents, trainers, etc is there really nobody advising to try & hustle a horse from the start? People have got to be seeing this right? The passiveness on the rides so far through the Saturday card is disgusting far as I'm concerned, it really makes me wonder what's going on through the heads of these jockeys. Heck even Leparoux put 2 usual closers on the lead at GP today already and wired both races!! If he can be aggressive, there is no excuse for any jockey.

Sorry for another NY jockey colony bashing thread (the intention is not for this to become a conspiracy thread), but this needs to be brought up. At least it's a good heads up for horses to watch that were against the bias these last few days.


SG4, extremely valid questions......so allow me to ask you.

Why do you NOT see jocks pumping left and right out of the gate?

[Tom]

It's Aquegrab.
Why gun your horse when you can grab him instead.

[EMD4ME]

It's Aquegrab.
Why gun your horse when you can grab him instead.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The jocks are grabbing more than just their horses Tom ;)

[pandy]

The track has been very fair. I haven't had it speed favoring since Jan. 10. But, definitely a strong speed bias today, which is surprising. I normally don't have a problem with the way the NY jocks ride because the tracks are sustained, but I agree that today they could have been more aggressive.

Timeform's Pace Projector had 6 profiles in first 8 races (none for two of the maiden races) and the winner of all six races was projected to be either on the lead or sitting second, so excellent job there.

[Tall One]

nfm

[SG4]

The track has been very fair. I haven't had it speed favoring since Jan. 10. But, definitely a strong speed bias today.

Today's bias has hit extreme levels, I thought the winners of the earlier races were clearly superior horses so didn't think much of them going wire to wire, although aided by a bias, but the results of the 2nd half of the card have shown there's simply one place to be if you wanted to win today.

The AQU track had been generally pretty fair this winter, I would suggest re-watching Thur & Fri as I thought a bias could be found to some degree, but if your opinion differs that's what makes the game go round

[SG4]

SG4, extremely valid questions......so allow me to ask you.

Why do you NOT see jocks pumping left and right out of the gate?

This is a question I really can't answer as I continue to hope there's more to it than nefarious reasons, which I assume you're looking to imply? I've tried to come up with something logically & admittedly it is hard at times.

[Stillriledup]

I saw the way the horses were traveling over the surface and I pulled the plug and made no wagers.

[EMD4ME]

This is a question I really can't answer as I continue to hope there's more to it than nefarious reasons, which I assume you're looking to imply? I've tried to come up with something logically & admittedly it is hard at times.

All I can say, my NYRA handle is down, way down since Dec 1st.

If I wanted to bet on the WWE, I would. I don't.


Allow me to ask you this....as well....

Please rewatch race 2. Head on and pan. Please tell me why the jock looked back 3 x at the gate, pulled the reigns and steered wide (to make room for the 6) RIGHT AFTER THE ONLY OTHER SPEED STUMBLED AND BROKE SLOW/LAST AT THE GATE.

[Alwaysonpoint36]

Had it. Not complaining :lol:

[mannyberrios]

The track has been very fair. I haven't had it speed favoring since Jan. 10. But, definitely a strong speed bias today, which is surprising. I normally don't have a problem with the way the NY jocks ride because the tracks are sustained, but I agree that today they could have been more aggressive.

Timeform's Pace Projector had 6 profiles in first 8 races (none for two of the maiden races) and the winner of all six races was projected to be either on the lead or sitting second, so excellent job there.
Time form US is on the money

[NorCalGreg]

All I can say, my NYRA handle is down, way down since Dec 1st.

If I wanted to bet on the WWE, I would. I don't.


Allow me to ask you this....as well....

Please rewatch race 2. Head on and pan. Please tell me why the jock looked back 3 x at the gate, pulled the reigns and steered wide (to make room for the 6) RIGHT AFTER THE ONLY OTHER SPEED STUMBLED AND BROKE SLOW/LAST AT THE GATE.

hahahahaha.......didn't someone say----right at the beginning of this thread---they were NOT going to go "THERE"?

Andy yet---"THERE" we are! God luv ya :D

[EMD4ME]

hahahahaha.......didn't someone say----right at the beginning of this thread---they were NOT going to go "THERE"?

Andy yet---"THERE" we are! God luv ya :D

I wasn't AT the beginning of the thread :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nevertheless, I think I was being polite :p

[the little guy]

Timeform's Pace Projector had 6 profiles in first 8 races (none for two of the maiden races) and the winner of all six races was projected to be either on the lead or sitting second, so excellent job there.

This is not true. The hady Bensational ( 4th race ) predicted to be in the back of the pack early. Not being critical, as I love the pace projector, and found that race to be a little surprising, but that pace projector was nowhere close. Of course, it didn't help that Jose Ortiz rated the lone speed.

[EMD4ME]

This is not true. The hady Bensational ( 4th race ) predicted to be in the back of the pack early. Not being critical, as I love the pace projector, and found that race to be a little surprising, but that pace projector was nowhere close. Of course, it didn't help that Jose Ortiz rated the lone speed.

That's a first, An ORTIZ rating a lone speed! :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :bang: :bang:

[pandy]

This is not true. The hady Bensational ( 4th race ) predicted to be in the back of the pack early. Not being critical, as I love the pace projector, and found that race to be a little surprising, but that pace projector was nowhere close. Of course, it didn't help that Jose Ortiz rated the lone speed.

My mistake, I thought he was ranked 2nd.

[NorCalGreg]

Do you gentlemen realize.....your concept of "TRACK BIAS" is considered by some top handicappers in the game --to be a bunch of BS? It's the "gambler's fallacy" ----of horse racing. Every race is a separate event, an entity to itself---one has no correlation with the next. Like, if you flipped a coin--and it came up TAILS 8 times....would you call that a TAILS BIAS? The next flip is a separate event--what happened the previous flips have no bearing on THIS flip? Where can a bias be? Is it the Dirt? The dirt is biased?

There is certainly a "speed" bias---but no such thing as a TRACK BIAS.

Okay, I'm done---put your monocles back in, pick up your walking sticks--and get the shocked look off your faces---LOL

This is just an opinion I happen to share with other, more accomplished horseplayers.


✨NCG

[classhandicapper]

I'm probably in the minority, but I love gambling on days like yesterday. I was throwing out more than half the field every race without much risk of being wrong. Of course, the public is sharp and was adjusting the odds a bit, but no way whatsoever were the odds as efficient yesterday as they normally are. If it were to become a daily event everyone would catch on, but an obviously very strong bias here or there is a good thing for your bankroll if you have experience playing on them. IMO, it's way easier to find value.

[EMD4ME]

I'm probably in the minority, but I love gambling on days like yesterday. I was throwing out more than half the field every race without much risk of being wrong. Of course, the public is sharp and was adjusting the odds a bit, but no way whatsoever were the odds as efficient yesterday as they normally are. If it were to become a daily event everyone would catch on, but an obviously very strong bias here or there is a good thing for your bankroll if you have experience playing on them. IMO, it's way easier to find value.

That makes sense anywhere but at NYRA. IMHO.

Those riders know more than anyone when there is a bias and want us to think they don't know there is one.

[castaway01]

Do you gentlemen realize.....your concept of "TRACK BIAS" is considered by some top handicappers in the game --to be a bunch of BS? It's the "gambler's fallacy" ----of horse racing. Every race is a separate event, an entity to itself---one has no correlation with the next. Like, if you flipped a coin--and it came up TAILS 8 times....would you call that a TAILS BIAS? The next flip is a separate event--what happened the previous flips have no bearing on THIS flip? Where can a bias be? Is it the Dirt? The dirt is biased?

There is certainly a "speed" bias---but no such thing as a TRACK BIAS.

Okay, I'm done---put your monocles back in, pick up your walking sticks--and get the shocked look off your faces---LOL

This is just an opinion I happen to share with other, more accomplished horseplayers.


✨NCG

Not sure if you're trolling or trying to be a comedian, but if we race on the beach and I run near the water and you run 50 feet away from the shoreline, you'll find out that a surface can have slower paths. I know that's simplistic, but then so was your post.

[pandy]

Do you gentlemen realize.....your concept of "TRACK BIAS" is considered by some top handicappers in the game --to be a bunch of BS? It's the "gambler's fallacy" ----of horse racing. Every race is a separate event, an entity to itself---one has no correlation with the next. Like, if you flipped a coin--and it came up TAILS 8 times....would you call that a TAILS BIAS? The next flip is a separate event--what happened the previous flips have no bearing on THIS flip? Where can a bias be? Is it the Dirt? The dirt is biased?

There is certainly a "speed" bias---but no such thing as a TRACK BIAS.

Okay, I'm done---put your monocles back in, pick up your walking sticks--and get the shocked look off your faces---LOL

This is just an opinion I happen to share with other, more accomplished horseplayers.


✨NCG

I don't get the "no track bias" crowd. Mike Maloney is one professional horseplayer I can think of who has said that Track Bias is his most important handicapping angle. I know it has helped me tremendously, especially when a horse sets the pace on a dead rail against a closer's bias and doesn't tire that badly -- This is my favorite "trip" horse to bet back.

[bello]

For those who play Sam Houston the last 3 weeks. Not to give away any secrets, but if you are not in a certain lane on the main track you simply have no shot.

BTW. I love the beach analogy. And very true.

[the little guy]

Those riders know more than anyone when there is a bias and want us to think they don't know there is one.


You are really wrong about this. Just wrong.

[EMD4ME]

You are really wrong about this. Just wrong.

I would prefer this in a PM my friend but....since you say I am wrong....

Please watch the Jan 3rd, 2016 4th race at AQU and tell me what Jose and Irad were doing.....

(Besides waiting for their unofficial cousin who broke slow from the rail. JOSE looked back twice, IMHO, to make sure Cancel was catching up. He sure as heck wasn't looking back inside with the INTENT of crossing over)

To build the background......

Jan 2nd was chalky but extremely PRO speed and super close up.

Jan 3rd saw wire to wire winners in the first 5 races and it was an INTENSE speed bias. So, when race 4 came up, you wanted to be on the lead. Irad and Jose broke great and refused to move in, they in fact made sure they stayed wide early.

To put it super nicely, Irad didn't give his horse the best chance to win.

To validate that, Irad's mount won by a pole next out with a 92 beyer figure.

[NorCalGreg]

Not sure if you're trolling or trying to be a comedian, but if we race on the beach and I run near the water and you run 50 feet away from the shoreline, you'll find out that a surface can have slower paths. I know that's simplistic, but then so was your post.


I'm not sure if you're trolling, castaway. If ....due to random forces...the guy running near the water started winning for a couple days--then --as the laws of nature, physics, etc will ALWAYS dictate....just didn't win for awhile---then that wetter surfaced suddenly became BIASED?
That's actually comical--but some horseplayers are so consumed with finding SOME REASON for randomness-- being consistent occasionally,just as the flipping of a coin can be consistent temporarily-- they invent explanations that have no bearing in fact.
You and the rest of the believers in the "gambler's fallacy" (look it up and actually read it) --will continue to believe what's been embedded in your brain--and scoff at this.

Good luck with your BIASED DIRT...I'll continue believing randomness is sometimes consistent--and 9 horse races in a day---are each a separate event--not a sequential part of a whole.
One having NOTHING to do with the next--just like the flip of a coin.

have a good day

-NCG

[EMD4ME]

Forgot 1 MAJOR point....

The MAIN point....

Irad rode Storied Lady 25 minutes earlier in race 3. We all know Irad is a passive jock, doesn't move too early and doesn't go all out from the gate. In race 3, he rode the hair off Storied Lady super early. It was obvious he was in tune with the speed bias. He even almost ran over a peer at the 1/2 in an attempt to get closer to the leader.

Jose rode the first 3 races of that card as well.

There is ZERO doubt in my mind that they knew the track was playing inside speed (to a super HIGH level of bias).

They broke 1-2. Were 3 plus lengths in front of Cancel in that 4th race, kept their mounts wide and Jose kept looking inward, waiting for Cancel to catch up early on the backstretch.

[Cratos]

Do you gentlemen realize.....your concept of "TRACK BIAS" is considered by some top handicappers in the game --to be a bunch of BS? It's the "gambler's fallacy" ----of horse racing. Every race is a separate event, an entity to itself---one has no correlation with the next. Like, if you flipped a coin--and it came up TAILS 8 times....would you call that a TAILS BIAS? The next flip is a separate event--what happened the previous flips have no bearing on THIS flip? Where can a bias be? Is it the Dirt? The dirt is biased?

There is certainly a "speed" bias---but no such thing as a TRACK BIAS.

Okay, I'm done---put your monocles back in, pick up your walking sticks--and get the shocked look off your faces---LOL

This is just an opinion I happen to share with other, more accomplished horseplayers.


✨NCG

You are correct and the "speed bias" is from the resistance of the SAWRA force and the normal force which affects each horse differently; hence each race is an independent and random event.

[EMD4ME]

After that compliment........NCG, NorCalCratos is YOUR new NAME :)

[pandy]

I'm not sure if you're trolling, castaway. If ....due to random forces...the guy running near the water started winning for a couple days--then --as the laws of nature, physics, etc will ALWAYS dictate....just didn't win for awhile---then that wetter surfaced suddenly became BIASED?
That's actually comical--but some horseplayers are so consumed with finding SOME REASON for randomness-- being consistent occasionally,just as the flipping of a coin can be consistent temporarily-- they invent explanations that have no bearing in fact.
You and the rest of the believers in the "gambler's fallacy" (look it up and actually read it) --will continue to believe what's been embedded in your brain--and scoff at this.

Good luck with your BIASED DIRT...I'll continue believing randomness is sometimes consistent--and 9 horse races in a day---are each a separate event--not a sequential part of a whole.
One having NOTHING to do with the next--just like the flip of a coin.

have a good day

-NCG

I don't understand. You're saying that a dirt track can't be biased? I understand randomness in gambling, but a racetrack is not a roulette wheel. A racetrack is affected by nature.

Years ago before NYRA fired their track super, the Belmont track would often have a dead rail, especially when there was a drought. There were many days were every race was won from off the pace by a horse rallying wide on the final turn, the old "balcony" move. So, yes, the dirt was biased because on the inside paths the cushion was deeper or softer. Hall of Fame rider Angel Cordero would walk the track in the morning and he could actually tell if a certain part of the track was deeper just by the way his feet dug into the surface. Other jockeys have done the same. Gary Stevens certainly believes in track bias, as does Migliore, and probably every top rider that ever lived.

[SG4]

Please rewatch race 2. Head on and pan. Please tell me why the jock looked back 3 x at the gate, pulled the reigns and steered wide (to make room for the 6) RIGHT AFTER THE ONLY OTHER SPEED STUMBLED AND BROKE SLOW/LAST AT THE GATE.

I thought it was quite obvious Irad did this to avoid bothering another horse right out of the break, isn't it nice of him to finally listen to your complaints! :)

Having keyed on the 6 that race I'm not going to inquire too deeply into the matter, but I do feel like someone handed me a gift by the time they reached the first turn. Too often this winter I've felt like I'm on the other end of curious rides, so glad to finally be the recipient on the correct side.

[Cratos]

After that compliment........NCG, NorCalCratos is YOUR new NAME :)
Wow! Your tongue-in-cheek sarcasm is inferring that there cannot be agreement in posts.

Horserace handicapping is littered with anecdotal rhetoric that will never stand up against empirical scrutiny.

[NorCalGreg]

I don't understand. You're saying that a dirt track can't be biased? I understand randomness in gambling, but a racetrack is not a roulette wheel. A racetrack is affected by nature.

Years ago before NYRA fired their track super, the Belmont track would often have a dead rail, especially when there was a drought. There were many days were every race was won from off the pace by a horse rallying wide on the final turn, the old "balcony" move. So, yes, the dirt was biased because on the inside paths the cushion was deeper or softer. Hall of Fame rider Angel Cordero would walk the track in the morning and he could actually tell if a certain part of the track was deeper just by the way his feet dug into the surface. Other jockeys have done the same. Gary Stevens certainly believes in track bias, as does Migliore, and probably every top rider that ever lived.

What you're attributing to TRACK BIAS...are simply racing patterns. Some jockeys do walk the track--and some can't be bothered. Jockeys are human--of course they'll believe in a track bias---especially if the great Angel Cordero, Gary Stevens, etc, say it's so. You will always hear about track bias ..with something about the rain, wind, or lack of rain--as you just mentioned. The only track surface with a noticeable BIAS...are wet turf tracks. Cordero and the rest, started walking turf surfaces---they were proclaimed very astute and professional---so they started walking dirt tracks as well. I can just picture a top jock, in Kentucky, walking the track ...tv cameras all around, hands on hips---declaring the track feels a "little soft around the 8th pole".
Let me just say this---then I'm done. Jockeys are a close-knit group---they
do talk amongst themselves...the word gets passed around--coming into the stretch, you want to angle out toward the grandstand--because yes, the going is bad inside-- there is a bias toward the rail.
All of a sudden, with jockeys now angling out--2 or 3 horses out of the 9 or 10 hole, win. Yep, there's a bias allright. All the clever horseplayers have figured this out, gone on the internet, tipsters are suddenly "in the know"

A couple days later--no change in the weather, track maintenance workers have changed nothing--everything is as it was, when the BIAS, TREND, RUMOR, MOJO--first started.

In the 5th race of the day--a jockey out of PP #1 takes his mount INSIDE --FROM THE RAIL--ALL THE WAY..WINS BY DAYLIGHT...and the inside bias is proclaimed OVER. It's done, no more bias....right in the middle of the racing card--this BIAS that never existed in the first place---mysteriously has disappeared! Now the whispers begin about an OUTSIDE BIAS.

You are correct in one way, pandy-man...Race Tracks are Not Roulette Wheels----because ROULETTE WHEELS CAN BE BIASED. But if the green zeros-double zeros --come up 5 times in the next ten spins--that is not a bias, my friend.

-NCG

[EMD4ME]

Wow! Your tongue-in-cheek sarcasm is inferring that there cannot be agreement in posts.

Horserace handicapping is littered with anecdotal rhetoric that will never stand up against empirical scrutiny.

Cratos,

No sarcasm sir. I was being serious. I rarely use sarcasm on here. If I do, it's pretty obvious. It was meant as a compliment.

Be well,

EMD4ME

[pandy]

What you're attributing to TRACK BIAS...are simply racing patterns. Some jockeys do walk the track--and some can't be bothered. Jockeys are human--of course they'll believe in a track bias---especially if the great Angel Cordero, Gary Stevens, etc, say it's so. You will always hear about track bias ..with something about the rain, wind, or lack of rain--as you just mentioned. The only track surface with a noticeable BIAS...are wet turf tracks. Cordero and the rest, started walking turf surfaces---they were proclaimed very astute and professional---so they started walking dirt tracks as well. I can just picture a top jock, in Kentucky, walking the track ...tv cameras all around, hands on hips---declaring the track feels a "little soft around the 8th pole".
Let me just say this---then I'm done. Jockeys are a close-knit group---they
do talk amongst themselves...the word gets passed around--coming into the stretch, you want to angle out toward the grandstand--because yes, the going is bad inside-- there is a bias toward the rail.
All of a sudden, with jockeys now angling out--2 or 3 horses out of the 9 or 10 hole, win. Yep, there's a bias allright. All the clever horseplayers have figured this out, gone on the internet, tipsters are suddenly "in the know"

A couple days later--no change in the weather, track maintenance workers have changed nothing--everything is as it was, when the BIAS, TREND, RUMOR, MOJO--first started.

In the 5th race of the day--a jockey out of PP #1 takes his mount INSIDE --FROM THE RAIL--ALL THE WAY..WINS BY DAYLIGHT...and the inside bias is proclaimed OVER. It's done, no more bias....right in the middle of the racing card--this BIAS that never existed in the first place---mysteriously has disappeared! Now the whispers begin about an OUTSIDE BIAS.

You are correct in one way, pandy-man...Race Tracks are Not Roulette Wheels----because ROULETTE WHEELS CAN BE BIASED. But if the green zeros-double zeros --come up 5 times in the next ten spins--that is not a bias, my friend.

-NCG


Sure, sometimes there isn't really a bias, just that all of the jockeys think there's one (which you see at Parx), and sometimes almost every winner goes wire to wire because the jockeys had the best horse and just went to the lead. But, track bias does exist and a track can have a bias that last for weeks. And this isn't a theory, it's a fact.

A good fairly recent example was Oxbow's upset win at 15-1 in the Preakness a few years go. Gary Stevens knew the rail was dead, no one wanted the lead so Stevens, using his experience, smarts, and talent, put Oxbow on the lead in the four path, kept him there and stole the race.

Both Breeders Cup days in 2012 (Santa Anita) and the Friday card in 2013 were speed favoring and after that card the track was besieged with thousands of complaints from owners, trainers, jockeys, fans, and the racing media. They worked on the track all night and Saturday's surface was fairer.

[no breathalyzer]

Sure, sometimes there isn't really a bias, just that all of the jockeys think there's one (which you see at Parx), and sometimes almost every winner goes wire to wire because the jockeys had the best horse and just went to the lead. But, track bias does exist and a track can have a bias that last for weeks. And this isn't a theory, it's a fact.

A good fairly recent example was Oxbow's upset win at 15-1 in the Preakness a few years go. Gary Stevens knew the rail was dead, no one wanted the lead so Stevens, using his experience, smarts, and talent, put Oxbow on the lead in the four path, kept him there and stole the race.

Both Breeders Cup days in 2012 (Santa Anita) and the Friday card in 2013 were speed favoring and after that card the track was besieged with thousands of complaints from owners, trainers, jockeys, fans, and the racing media. They worked on the track all night and Saturday's surface was fairer.


Correct and that was a good day :ThmbUp:

[pandy]

Correct and that was a good day :ThmbUp:

It sure was, Oxbow was my Best Bet and my biggest score of the year...the Pace Shape Method from my book Pace Handicapping Longshots tabbed Oxbow as the only play in the race, and it also had Palace Malice at $29.60 in the Belmont.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Sure, sometimes there isn't really a bias, just that all of the jockeys think there's one (which you see at Parx), and sometimes almost every winner goes wire to wire because the jockeys had the best horse and just went to the lead. But, track bias does exist and a track can have a bias that last for weeks. And this isn't a theory, it's a fact.

A good fairly recent example was Oxbow's upset win at 15-1 in the Preakness a few years go. Gary Stevens knew the rail was dead, no one wanted the lead so Stevens, using his experience, smarts, and talent, put Oxbow on the lead in the four path, kept him there and stole the race.

Both Breeders Cup days in 2012 (Santa Anita) and the Friday card in 2013 were speed favoring and after that card the track was besieged with thousands of complaints from owners, trainers, jockeys, fans, and the racing media. They worked on the track all night and Saturday's surface was fairer.

Absolutely. I see the same thing at Gulfstream on turf when the rail is good and it kills closers but it's not a speed bias so determining winners by any means is difficult. And the jockeys know it and there is a position scramble while not necessarily a battle for the lead. Races tend to be run erratically like this as the real ability of the entrants is muddied. Plus there will be races where the probable race shape is extreme and sets up a closer perfectly and he cuts a ground saving trip blows by to win openly. Or there is just a monster horse on late speed or simply is faster than it's opposition and they appear to be "defying" a bias. But it does exist. Most of it's true strength as we know is only measured by follow up efforts. Pandy I know you are finely tuned into assessing probable pace as it is one of the greatest factors in the game. Races don't always run the way you think but this focus, when things truly are out of whack and it does not correspond to any of the multitude of compound rankings we have all created, there is usually a bias at work. Doing due diligence over years to know the pace tendencies intricately before a race is the only thing that will give you the ability to sense it. And like yourself I don't know how players take a hard line on it because it does exist. And it requires a different playing mindset as Class mentioned. I personally like it too. It does make the handicapping process easier. Anything that can truly eliminate horses fast enough to win the race is a good thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

What you're attributing to TRACK BIAS...are simply racing patterns. Some jockeys do walk the track--and some can't be bothered. Jockeys are human--of course they'll believe in a track bias---especially if the great Angel Cordero, Gary Stevens, etc, say it's so. You will always hear about track bias ..with something about the rain, wind, or lack of rain--as you just mentioned. The only track surface with a noticeable BIAS...are wet turf tracks. Cordero and the rest, started walking turf surfaces---they were proclaimed very astute and professional---so they started walking dirt tracks as well. I can just picture a top jock, in Kentucky, walking the track ...tv cameras all around, hands on hips---declaring the track feels a "little soft around the 8th pole".
Let me just say this---then I'm done. Jockeys are a close-knit group---they
do talk amongst themselves...the word gets passed around--coming into the stretch, you want to angle out toward the grandstand--because yes, the going is bad inside-- there is a bias toward the rail.
All of a sudden, with jockeys now angling out--2 or 3 horses out of the 9 or 10 hole, win. Yep, there's a bias allright. All the clever horseplayers have figured this out, gone on the internet, tipsters are suddenly "in the know"

A couple days later--no change in the weather, track maintenance workers have changed nothing--everything is as it was, when the BIAS, TREND, RUMOR, MOJO--first started.

In the 5th race of the day--a jockey out of PP #1 takes his mount INSIDE --FROM THE RAIL--ALL THE WAY..WINS BY DAYLIGHT...and the inside bias is proclaimed OVER. It's done, no more bias....right in the middle of the racing card--this BIAS that never existed in the first place---mysteriously has disappeared! Now the whispers begin about an OUTSIDE BIAS.

You are correct in one way, pandy-man...Race Tracks are Not Roulette Wheels----because ROULETTE WHEELS CAN BE BIASED. But if the green zeros-double zeros --come up 5 times in the next ten spins--that is not a bias, my friend.

-NCGIf you're claiming track bias is a myth...that the way a dirt course or a turf course is maintained...how the weather plays a role...or a myriad of other influences...DOES NOT EVER create a situation where certain running styles can hold a distinct and dramatic advantage SOLELY due to the track surface...well sir...you are SEVERELY and remarkably mistaken and quite frankly, staggeringly ignorant.

Nothing personal, and please don't take offense. But I have to call it as I see it.

[Cice]

A good fairly recent example was Oxbow's upset win at 15-1 in the Preakness a few years go. Gary Stevens knew the rail was dead, no one wanted the lead so Stevens, using his experience, smarts, and talent, put Oxbow on the lead in the four path, kept him there and stole the race.



In fact, they did a spot on Gary S after and he actually went to the track and picked up the dirt from the inside and out, to show how different it was. The inside was much more worst than the outside, which played into his strategy.

[classhandicapper]

That makes sense anywhere but at NYRA. IMHO.

Those riders know more than anyone when there is a bias and want us to think they don't know there is one.

I'm sure you know the riders a lot better than I do. For better or worse, I pay very little attention to riders except on days like Saturday. I'm certainly more sane for not paying attention. ;)

For example, Grydar was pretty aggressive in the 6th race when he wired with a 52.50-1 shot. So by the time the 9th race came up, I felt better about him "going" with Laoban from the rail than I might have been otherwise. A friend and I discussed that before the race. I figured he almost had to know that being aggressive was the right move when he was on a horse that could go. But no matter what, you are going to be wrong a lot.

[aaron]

I'm sure you know the riders a lot better than I do. For better or worse, I pay very little attention to riders except on days like Saturday. I'm certainly more sane for not paying attention. ;)

For example, Grydar was pretty aggressive in the 6th race when he wired with a 52.50-1 shot. So by the time the 9th race came up, I felt better about him "going" with Laoban from the rail than I might have been otherwise. A friend and I discussed that before the race. I figured he almost had to know that being aggressive was the right move when he was on a horse that could go. But no matter what, you are going to be wrong a lot.
I was sure Laoban was going to go. They rated him last race,and now they have the rail and with Grader riding,it was a no brainer. In all fairness,I have been wrong on many of my no brainers. This race didn't look like it had much speed and I do consider Gryder one of the more aggressive riders on the circuit. Too bad,he got caught by the favorite,but all all it worked out well. I wish I could have one horse a day at those odds and circumstances.

[EMD4ME]

I'm sure you know the riders a lot better than I do. For better or worse, I pay very little attention to riders except on days like Saturday. I'm certainly more sane for not paying attention. ;)

For example, Grydar was pretty aggressive in the 6th race when he wired with a 52.50-1 shot. So by the time the 9th race came up, I felt better about him "going" with Laoban from the rail than I might have been otherwise. A friend and I discussed that before the race. I figured he almost had to know that being aggressive was the right move when he was on a horse that could go. But no matter what, you are going to be wrong a lot.

Hey Class. That is a unique example of consistency, here's why:

People will call me psycho but here is the truth:

The Gotham was an honest race. It was for $400K and for derby points. If it was for $20,000 ($10,000 claimer), the confidence level of Aaron going, would be near zero.

IMSO (In My Sick Opinion) Aaron was the chosen one in race 6. He went to the whip while every other jockey sat still (in the 1st strides of race 6) except for Jose who sent to get the pocket-not the lead).

All I will say is: it was very interesting how Irad, on a stretchout sprinter WITH LOADS of speed, decided to rate, FULL WELL KNOWING an intense inside speed bias was in effect.

Winning jock's purse: $1,620

Mutuel Pool:$395,983
Exacta Pool: $283,228
Tri Pool: $165,480
Super Pool: $86,264
DD Pools (5&6) $44,736 (AMAZING HOW $14.40 (race 5 winner) and $107.00 turns into a DD payoff of $291....

A Parlay of $770.40 came back $291.00 BOY those NY players are SO Sharp...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



You fill in the rest.

[NorCalGreg]

Hey Class. That is a unique example of consistency, here's why:

People will call me psycho but here is the truth:

The Gotham was an honest race. It was for $400K and for derby points. If it was for $20,000 ($10,000 claimer), the confidence level of Aaron going, would be near zero.

IMSO (In My Sick Opinion) Aaron was the chosen one in race 6. He went to the whip while every other jockey sat still (in the 1st strides of race 6) except for Jose who sent to get the pocket-not the lead).

All I will say is: it was very interesting how Irad, on a stretchout sprinter WITH LOADS of speed, decided to rate, FULL WELL KNOWING an intense inside speed bias was in effect.

Winning jock's purse: $1,620

Mutuel Pool:$395,983
Exacta Pool: $283,228
Tri Pool: $165,480
Super Pool: $86,264
DD Pools (5&6) $44,736 (AMAZING HOW $14.40 (race 5 winner) and $107.00 turns into a DD payoff of $291....

A Parlay of $770.40 came back $291.00 BOY those NY players are SO Sharp...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



You fill in the rest.



"Psycho" sounds so...harsh. Remember, we're trying to have a more civil, respectful board (I just read that in another thread)

"Delusional" sound so much more civil. Now the obligatory, respectful smiley face :)

Have a good evening

-NCG☮

[EMD4ME]

"Psycho" sounds so...harsh. Remember, we're trying to have a more civil, respectful board (I just read that in another thread)

"Delusional" sound so much more civil. Now the obligatory, respectful smiley face :)

Have a good evening

-NCG☮

:D :D :D

It takes a delusional nut to know one :D

AQU is not Chucktown where a $14 horse and a $107 horse, pays $291 in the small pool DD.

5th choice of 7 and 7th choice of 8 should never pay $291.

Especially in NY.

[no breathalyzer]

I use to burn a lot of $$$ when i was younger being stubborn thinking track bias was bs... Thinking there is no such thing is extremely foolish. I will say People are too quick too label a track bias.. but when there is one it is pretty obvious at least to me.. there are many times i don't agree where it seems a majority of horse players do on particular days.

[classhandicapper]

I use to burn a lot of $$$ when i was younger being stubborn thinking track bias was bs... Thinking there is no such thing is extremely foolish. I will say People are too quick too label a track bias.. but when there is one it is pretty obvious at least to me.. there are many times i don't agree where it seems a majority of horse players do on particular days.

The problem is that it’s very difficult to determine if there’s a bias unless it’s extreme. The really extreme ones don’t come up very often. What about all the milder ones?

1. Some mild biases may only be costing horses a few lengths or a position or two. That's also within the range of normal form fluctuations. So was it a form change or the track?

2. There are times when maybe the rail is better or worse than the outside paths, but maybe only in certain areas of the track. For example, maybe being inside is a huge advantage on the turn, but once you get to the stretch, horses are successfully spinning out off the rail and closing. Maybe the opposite is true where being inside is fine until you get to the stretch. The idea that the track has to be uniform is flawed.

3. There are days where it appears that the inside is fine, but horses that are racing 3 or 4 wide don’t seem to be any kind of disadvantage from the ground loss.

4. With the popularity of turf racing growing, you often only have 4-5 dirt races to analyze (some of which may be for very lightly raced or inconsistent horses whose form could be all over the place).

5. There are a lot of races where most of the horses spend some time inside and some time outside. So there is less evidence to draw on and the impacts may be even milder.


6. It can tricky to tell whether a track is favoring speed or there is an inside bias because most speed horses get to the rail.

7. There is no rule that says that biases impact all horses equally. In fact, I think there's some evidence that horses are impacted differently depending on their individual qualities.

8. Your conclusion about whether there was a bias or not is dependent on your view of the horses going into the race. If you handicapping view was flawed, your bias analysis will be flawed.

The good news is that because it's so tough, that presents an opportunity.

[no breathalyzer]

The problem is that it’s very difficult to determine if there’s a bias unless it’s extreme. The really extreme ones don’t come up very often. What about all the milder ones?

1. Some mild biases may only be costing horses a few lengths or a position or two. That's also within the range of normal form fluctuations. So was it a form change or the track?

2. There are times when maybe the rail is better or worse than the outside paths, but maybe only in certain areas of the track. For example, maybe being inside is a huge advantage on the turn, but once you get to the stretch, horses are successfully spinning out off the rail and closing. Maybe the opposite is true where being inside is fine until you get to the stretch. The idea that the track has to be uniform is flawed.

3. There are days where it appears that the inside is fine, but horses that are racing 3 or 4 wide don’t seem to be any kind of disadvantage from the ground loss.

4. With the popularity of turf racing growing, you often only have 4-5 dirt races to analyze (some of which may be for very lightly raced or inconsistent horses whose form could be all over the place).

5. There are a lot of races where most of the horses spend some time inside and some time outside. So there is less evidence to draw on and the impacts may be even milder.


6. It can tricky to tell whether a track is favoring speed or there is an inside bias because most speed horses get to the rail.

7. There is no rule that says that biases impact all horses equally. In fact, I think there's some evidence that horses are impacted differently depending on their individual qualities.

8. Your conclusion about whether there was a bias or not is dependent on your view of the horses going into the race. If you handicapping view was flawed, your bias analysis will be flawed.

The good news is that because it's so tough, that presents an opportunity.


This is why i like to follow a circuit religiously .. the more info i have the better.. I want to think my opinion is superior and makes the little things easier to catch. I have not figure out exactly how i want to do it yet but i'm working on sort of my own class rating for horses at NYRA.. also for the past 6 months or so i take note of each horses appearance in the paddock and in the warm up leading up the the race along with shoe info.. I saved quite a bit of $$$ knowing a horse looked off a certain day.. betting ahead of time i would never catch or just playing off of form alone. I like to make my bets with less then a min to post .. i wait so long some times i get shut out sometimes. As you know NYRA don't mess around 1 min to post means 1 min to post! sometimes 30 seconds

[cj]

Article about Saturday card.
http://timeformusblog.com/2016/03/08/players-point-of-view-the-golden-rail-gotham-day-at-aqueduct/

[NorCalGreg]

Article about Saturday card.
http://timeformusblog.com/2016/03/08/players-point-of-view-the-golden-rail-gotham-day-at-aqueduct/

Good article...I'm now a David Aragona fan. He said what I was trying to say, a little more clearly--but he contends SURFACE BIASES do exist, just not on the ridiculous scale some horseplayers attribute--most times it's simply the golden/dead rail.

My main beef is with the proclamations of a bias beginning, or ending, MID-CARD. Or the "3 path" bias, or other non-sensical fairyland crap.

So, I'll admit I learned something, and am not completely rigid in my points of view.

Thanks for posting.

-NCG

[Valuist]

Good article...I'm now a David Aragona fan. He said what I was trying to say, a little more clearly--but he contends SURFACE BIASES do exist, just not on the ridiculous scale some horseplayers attribute--most times it's simply the golden/dead rail.

My main beef is with the proclamations of a bias beginning, or ending, MID-CARD. Or the "3 path" bias, or other non-sensical fairyland crap.

So, I'll admit I learned something, and am not completely rigid in my points of view.

Thanks for posting.

-NCG

The cold weather tracks tend to be the most biased. No, I'm not talking "Bay area cold" but Chicago cold or Inner Dirt cold. The maintenance crew at Hawthorne used to load the track with chemicals in December. Often times, not just the rail but the inside 3-4 paths were so deep, a trip there guaranteed an out of the exacta finish. The old Keeneland was the antithesis of that. I miss seeing the old severe biases. They made for great betback situations. Maintenance crews are a lot smarter than they were in the good old days.

[pandy]

The cold weather tracks tend to be the most biased. No, I'm not talking "Bay area cold" but Chicago cold or Inner Dirt cold. The maintenance crew at Hawthorne used to load the track with chemicals in December. Often times, not just the rail but the inside 3-4 paths were so deep, a trip there guaranteed an out of the exacta finish. The old Keeneland was the antithesis of that. I miss seeing the old severe biases. They made for great betback situations. Maintenance crews are a lot smarter than they were in the good old days.


Keeneland was the most speed favoring track gold rail I've ever seen. I agree, track maintenance has improved. Personally, I think that NYRA may have had a lot to do with it. When Charles Hayward took over as CEO years ago, one of the first thing's he did was fire the track super and hire a new team, and he told them that he did not want biased tracks, and he was precise, he said he did not want the dead rail Belmont track, or the speed favoring Aqueduct inner track and Saratoga speed bias, and they went away. This made NYRA's racing product even better.

I also agree that these severe biased tracks can provide good betting opportunities, but overall they're very bad for racing and handle because they screw up the class structure of the horses in the race. Show me a track that has long meets and a speed bias and I'll show you a track that will go out of business. Keeneland got away with it because they only raced two weeks and it was beautiful.

[no breathalyzer]

The cold weather tracks tend to be the most biased. No, I'm not talking "Bay area cold" but Chicago cold or Inner Dirt cold. The maintenance crew at Hawthorne used to load the track with chemicals in December. Often times, not just the rail but the inside 3-4 paths were so deep, a trip there guaranteed an out of the exacta finish. The old Keeneland was the antithesis of that. I miss seeing the old severe biases. They made for great betback situations. Maintenance crews are a lot smarter than they were in the good old days.



why did they stop doing this.. i really miss them wide sweeping finishes on juicy longshots

[Hard2Like]

There is certainly a "speed" bias---but no such thing as a TRACK BIAS.

Okay, I'm done---put your monocles back in, pick up your walking sticks--and get the shocked look off your faces---LOL

This is just an opinion I happen to share with other, more accomplished horseplayers


✨NCG


It is the opinion of this OTHER,LESS ACCOMPLISHED horseplayer that result charts, the eyeball test and differing weather conditions all help point me to a different conclusion.

[bello]

This is why i like to follow a circuit religiously .. the more info i have the better.. I want to think my opinion is superior and makes the little things easier to catch. I have not figure out exactly how i want to do it yet but i'm working on sort of my own class rating for horses at NYRA.. also for the past 6 months or so i take note of each horses appearance in the paddock and in the warm up leading up the the race along with shoe info.. I saved quite a bit of $$$ knowing a horse looked off a certain day.. betting ahead of time i would never catch or just playing off of form alone. I like to make my bets with less then a min to post .. i wait so long some times i get shut out sometimes. As you know NYRA don't mess around 1 min to post means 1 min to post! sometimes 30 seconds

This really is the ideal. There is no way anyone can follow multiple tracks and figure out the bias day to day.
And some tracks have very distinct personalities almost all of the time. Finger Lakes and Sam Houston for instance. If you were caught 3 wide or further on the main for the entire trip, you simply were history for that race, and a good bet back potentially. If you got to the rail on made an inside out move in the lane you were ok. One can only determine this by yur own trip notes. Also certain jockeys excelled at riding the bias. Cabrera, Reisenhoover, Diego, and the last couple of weeks of the meet, usually mediocre Sigala figured it out for some nice priced longshots.

One can only reach these conclusions and spot playbacks or tosses in subsequent races by the visuals, note taking and paying careful attention.

NYRA, especially once they get off the inner becomes tougher, If there is a bias it will change often. But I have noticed I will play the Big A outer the first few days they move there as there is an awesome bias the first few days of the move.

[NorCalGreg]

It is the opinion of this OTHER,LESS ACCOMPLISHED horseplayer that result charts, the eyeball test and differing weather conditions all help point me to a different conclusion.

Perhaps it's your "different conclusions" that keep you in the ranks of the OTHER,LESS ACCOMPLISHED horseplayers.

Good luck


-NCG☮

[pandy]

Yesterday's races are hard to put a finger on. It appeared that the sprints were speed favoring but not the routes. This isn't that unusual on windy days and it was breezy yesterday. However, I had to go out and I forgot to record TVG. Watching the replays on the NYRA site, they don't show the flag so I can't see the wind direction from yesterday. If speed holds up better in sprints than routes, that could be an indication of a headwind.

[rastajenk]

Maintenance crews are a lot smarter than they were in the good old days.I know some track maintenance people, and if this statement is true, it sure speaks poorly of "the good old days."