Post Position Bias?

[MONEY]

Woodbine results beginning in race 7 04/23/16


04/23
R7. 1, $21.80
R8. 2, $58.80
R9. 4, $15.60
R10. 4, $10.60

04/24
R1. 2, $5.30
R2. 1, 4.20
R3. 4, $7.10
R4. 1, $47.80
R5. 2, $17.10
R6. 1, $10.20
R7. 3, $16.60
R8. 1, $9.90
R9. 4, $6.80
R10. 1, $156.70

[VigorsTheGrey]

Very interesting results....might as well bet the inside until things change huh?

[MONEY]

Woodbine took 4 days off & nothing has changed.

Results 04/29
R1. 3, $38.90
R2. 3, $9.30
R3. 3, $8.20
R4. 5, $7.40 Look for this one to win again.
R5. 3, $12.30
R6. 1, $5.00
R7. 3, $4.50
R8. 1, $2.80
R9. 1, $12.10

[whodoyoulike]

Woodbine took 4 days off & nothing has changed.

Results 04/29
R1. 3, $38.90
R2. 3, $9.30
R3. 3, $8.20
R4. 5, $7.40 Look for this one to win again.
R5. 3, $12.30
R6. 1, $5.00
R7. 3, $4.50
R8. 1, $2.80
R9. 1, $12.10


Should we be looking for the horse or the post position to win again?

[MONEY]

Should we be looking for the horse or the post position to win again?
The horse of course, Villageofvibank was the only horse to win in 2½ days that didn't come out of post positions 1, 2, 3 or 4.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Results 4/30/16
Woodbine

Race Program Number Odds Post #
R1: 6, 2.90 Post 6
R2: 6, 2.50 Post 6
R3: 6, 7.25 Post 6
R4: 2, 5.40 Post 1
R5: 4, 9.00 Post 4
R6: 4, 0.95 Post 4
R7: 3, 6.50 Post 3
R8: 1, 1.10 Post 1
R9: 7, 1.75 Post 6
R10: 6, 2.40 Post 6

[MONEY]

Results 4/30/16
Woodbine

Race Program Number Odds Post #
R1: 6, 2.90 Post 6
R2: 6, 2.50 Post 6
R3: 6, 7.25 Post 6
R4: 2, 5.40 Post 1
R5: 4, 9.00 Post 4
R6: 4, 0.95 Post 4
R7: 3, 6.50 Post 3
R8: 1, 1.10 Post 1
R9: 7, 1.75 Post 6
R10: 6, 2.40 Post 6
I was a little late to the party but, in each race I placed $2.00 to win on the two of the four horses nearest the rail with the longest odds. In race 4 I used 2 & 3 because the #1 was in post 11. It cost me $40.00 and I cashed $47.80. I won't do it again because it looks like the inside bias is gone.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I was a little late to the party but, in each race I placed $2.00 to win on the two of the four horses nearest the rail with the longest odds. In race 4 I used 2 & 3 because the #1 was in post 11. It cost me $40.00 and I cashed $47.80. I won't do it again because it looks like the inside bias is gone.

I wouldn't give up on it yet....although a buddies first question to me was, "I wonder how long before the track maint. guys tear it up inside trying to make an adjustment" Wonder if they do such things? Have my doubts...

And the inside doesn't have to win all the time...it could come in 6/1234/1234 or something along those lines...I made the mistake of not playing an outside horse today and boxing the inside in the 2nd and 3rd holes....stuff like that can still work...

[cj]

Short term post biases are dubious in my opinion. The sample size is too small and don't take into account the running style and ability of the horses. For example, the 5 post horse that won and was touted as a likely next out winner actually ran in the two path all the way around the track.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Short term post biases are dubious in my opinion. The sample size is too small and don't take into account the running style and ability of the horses. For example, the 5 post horse that won and was touted as a likely next out winner actually ran in the two path all the way around the track.

And yet, it is in the short term bias where the edges are found....jockeys get hot...then then average out...same with trainers...the 5 post horse that ran in the two path shows the continuance of the inside bias...if an outside post horse can make it to the inside to either send or close from there....the bias may still persist, you are right, so we have to look at the replays to see where the riders are taking their mounts...

[cj]

And yet, it is in the short term bias where the edges are found....jockeys get hot...then then average out...same with trainers...the 5 post horse that ran in the two path shows the continuance of the inside bias...if an outside post horse can make it to the inside to either send or close from there....the bias may still persist, you are right, so we have to look at the replays to see where the riders are taking their mounts...

I agree about the short term biases. My point, and you seem to agree, is that it was more an inside/speed bias than post position.

[DeltaLover]

And yet, it is in the short term bias where the edges are found.....

This is a perfect description of what is called Gambler's Fallacy.

The patterns that you are identifying in the short term are random combinations that deceive the unsophisticated gambler to believe that he has discovered a systemetic anomaly. This of course is completely wrong and this is why these types of gamblers are two buck bettors.

[VigorsTheGrey]

This is a perfect description of what is called Gambler's Fallacy.

The patterns that you are identifying in the short term are random combinations that deceive the unsophisticated gambler to believe that he has discovered a systemetic anomaly. This of course is completely wrong and this is why these types of gamblers are two buck bettors.

So why do handicappers bother with which running styles and post positions are doing better than others? Right now I think Belmont turf favors speed that may change as the turf gets worked up as the races progess...why do jockeys try to find where the best running is?

[VigorsTheGrey]

I think the problem is that anyone who claims that such and such, may favor such and such, has the obligation to prove that such and such is indeed the case. In horse racing that is very difficult...is is easy to go into default mode and say that no bias exists and that everything is just statistical anomalies...

[Lemon Drop Husker]

So why do handicappers bother with which running styles and post positions are doing better than others? Right now I think Belmont turf favors speed that may change as the turf gets worked up as the races progess...why do jockeys try to find where the best running is?

Not sure I'd say the Belmont turf course is favoring speed.

The 8th and featured race yesterday, the top 2 finishers were 7th and 9th at the 1st call in a 9 horse field.

While the track itself is ridiculously fast, it isn't necessarily favoring front end speed. 5 of the 12 in the money spots in the 4 turf races yesterday went to horses that were 6th or worse at the 1st call. Outside of the 5th race (a 6F sprint) which the top 3 went around the track 1-2-3 the entire way, off the pace horses are faring very well on this supposed "speed" biased turf track.

EDIT: Oops. Forgot about the 9th. That makes 7 of the 15 ITM spots that went to horses that were 6th or worse at the first call.

[WP1981]

Nice thread. Followed for shits and gigs this morning. Boxed up longest three in Exactas from posts 1-4.

2/3 so far around $200 per.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Not sure I'd say the Belmont turf course is favoring speed.

The 8th and featured race yesterday, the top 2 finishers were 7th and 9th at the 1st call in a 9 horse field.

While the track itself is ridiculously fast, it isn't necessarily favoring front end speed. 5 of the 12 in the money spots in the 4 turf races yesterday went to horses that were 6th or worse at the 1st call. Outside of the 5th race (a 6F sprint) which the top 3 went around the track 1-2-3 the entire way, off the pace horses are faring very well on this supposed "speed" biased turf track.

EDIT: Oops. Forgot about the 9th. That makes 7 of the 15 ITM spots that went to horses that were 6th or worse at the first call.

Thanks for clearing that up...I thought the turf course looked fast...I guess because of that new course record for 8.5 furlongs...and equated that with front end speed....so thanks.

What was that thread called where it was discussed DFR pace icons?
Florida derby show paces extremely favored closers yet Nyquist wires the field...then Bluegrass stakes shows same extremely favored closers and Brody's Cause closes great guns...Does that just show you how much better Nyquists race was from Brody's?

[VigorsTheGrey]

I agree about the short term biases. My point, and you seem to agree, is that it was more an inside/speed bias than post position.

Yes, that is right, I agree with that.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Woodbine 5/1/2016

Race Program # Odds Post #
R1: 3 13.7 Post 3
R2: 4 5.3 Post 3
R3: 2 20.3 Post 2
R4: 5 5.8 Post 5
R5: 8 2.6 Post 8
R6: 4 1.0 Post 4
R7: 1 5.5 Post 1
R8: 6 6.4 Post 6
R9: 6 2.6 Post 6
R10: 5 14.2 Post 5

[MONEY]

I wouldn't give up on it yet....
You were right, had I done the same today as yesterday I would have made a $32.10 profit on my $40.00 investment.

[DeltaLover]

So why do handicappers bother with which running styles and post positions are doing better than others? Right now I think Belmont turf favors speed that may change as the turf gets worked up as the races progess...why do jockeys try to find where the best running is?


What handicappers or jockeys are doing or thinking, does not suggest that they are correct and their views are based on facts.

Quite the opposite.

The game exists and is so competitive and unpredictable, just because of the diametrically contradicting opinions that are held by all of its participants.


Your success as a bettor lies in your ability to discover the most dominant fallacies that dictate the formation of the betting pools and try to capitalize betting against them.

As far as track and post position biases are going, both are overvalued by the betting crowd.

Of course, I am not suggesting that this kind of anomalies do not exist at all.

Yes, there might be some extreme cases where post position can indeed affect the outcome of a race. Still, assuming that we are approaching the game from the bettor's perspective, it can very well be the case to bet AGAINST the bias, if it is obvious to the point of creating terrible overlays in the horses who supposedly are favored by it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

What handicappers or jockeys are doing or thinking, does not suggest that they are correct and their views are based on facts.

Quite the opposite.

The game exists and is so competitive and unpredictable, just because of the diametrically contradicting opinions that are held by all of its participants.


Your success as a bettor lies in your ability to discover the most dominant fallacies that dictate the formation of the betting pools and try to capitalize betting against them.

As far as track and post position biases are going, both are overvalued by the betting crowd.

Of course, I am not suggesting that this kind of anomalies do not exist at all.

Yes, there might be some extreme cases where post position can indeed affect the outcome of a race. Still, assuming that we are approaching the game from the bettor's perspective, it can very well be the case to bet AGAINST the bias, if it is obvious to the point of creating terrible overlays in the horses who supposedly are favored by it.


I see your points, and 'Your success as a bettor lies in your ability to discover the most dominant fallacies that dictate the formation of the betting pools and try to capitalize betting against them.', is quite an interesting thought.....

I was reading posts by a fellow no longer posting here at PA named alyingthief. Quite an interesting guy with some remarkable posts.

He brought up the idea of "negative correlation" and betting multiple horses based on whether the race stayed logical and was won by one of the top 2 betting choices or if the race broke down, went chaotic, and a non-public choice came in.

So the first was a hedge to the second which in turn made the long term profit possible. I think what he was doing was handicapping to find the better of the two favs, then handicapping to find one of the rest of the field.

Do you have any ideas on "negative correlation" and also examples of how a race breaks down other than the obvious one of speed collapsing?

[DeltaLover]

I see your points, and 'Your success as a bettor lies in your ability to discover the most dominant fallacies that dictate the formation of the betting pools and try to capitalize betting against them.', is quite an interesting thought.....

I was reading posts by a fellow no longer posting here at PA named
alyingthief. Quite an interesting guy with some remarkable posts.

He brought up the idea of "negative correlation" and betting multiple horses
based on whether the race stayed logical and was won by one of the top 2
betting choices or if the race broke down, went chaotic, and a non-public
choice came in.

So the first was a hedge to the second which in turn made the long term profit
possible. I think what he was doing was handicapping to find the better of
the two favs, then handicapping to find one of the rest of the field.

Do you have any ideas on "negative correlation" and also examples of how a race
breaks down other than the obvious one of speed collapsing?

I am very skeptic about betting more than one horses on the top spot.

Hedging is the number one reason of getting broke. Setting aside the fact that it is impossible to know in advance your payoffs, I am also a firm believer that the best betting strategy should be tight and aggressive, meaning that we should pass a lot and bet enthusiastically when we feel that we have an edge, primarily trying to maximize the ROI of the particular bet and secondary the absolute size of our potential
win.

The strategy you are describing here, looks more suitable for recreational bettors who are trying to extend the duration of their bankroll over a lot of action bets.

A recent example of what I am trying to say, can be seen a race that I have bet a couple of days before.

You can see the past performances, including my custom speed figures in the following document:

http://23.92.19.129/GPX_3_2016_04_31.pdf

The most influential figure is the one in bold blue.

As you can see the #6 Whisper Onthe Wind has a 111 which is vastly superior than anyone else, go through all the starters in
the race to see how much better he is.

This is a situation where the rubber band needs to be taken off the bankroll, as something like this does not
occure very often (maybe once a week I would say). I am not going to over-think this race, trying to narrow it
down to contenders for the second and third spot trying to elevate my price. I simply send it in as big as I
can, convinced that this type of horses win at least 50% of their races.

Here you can see a better view of how this horse looked in my past performances:

http://i63.tinypic.com/fu1jjt.png

I was lucky enough to be in the "good" 50% and the $8.60 win prize was enough for me to make a couple of grand without having to think and risk too much... For the rest of the day, I have made a total of eight bets (betting four tracks) cashing the two of them. All of my bets were to WIN of course. Interesting though that I also came second three times.

http://i66.tinypic.com/7qk8.png

[VigorsTheGrey]

DeltaLover,

"The strategy you are describing here, looks more suitable for recreational bettors who are trying to extend the duration of their bankroll over a lot of action bets. "

That pretty much describes me....I stuck in a transition phase between going broke and loving the betting action...I know it's a losing proposition...It is clear to me that most successful players limit their plays drastically, passing often, maybe 80%-90% or 1 race a card. Plus it is a FULL TIME OCCUPATION still! Even though they only bet a few races....That is discipline indeed...and from what I gather what some of the good players do....I'd have to be a single guy in a favorable and secure financial position to pull that one off...I am neither. So I guess for the time being I'll just keep doing my recreational handicapping. I am trying to shift to just win betting, though....

[DeltaLover]

DeltaLover,

"The strategy you are describing here, looks more suitable for recreational bettors who are trying to extend the duration of their bankroll over a lot of action bets. "

That pretty much describes me....I stuck in a transition phase between going broke and loving the betting action...I know it's a losing proposition...It is clear to me that most successful players limit their plays drastically, passing often, maybe 80%-90% or 1 race a card. Plus it is a FULL TIME OCCUPATION still! Even though they only bet a few races....That is discipline indeed...and from what I gather what some of the good players do....I'd have to be a single guy in a favorable and secure financial position to pull that one off...I am neither. So I guess for the time being I'll just keep doing my recreational handicapping. I am trying to shift to just win betting, though....

You have to remember that been a short order cook for 20 years will never transform you to a Chef. Repeating the same routine every day will never provide you the capacity of separating you from the crowd (who by the way is committing the same mistake). The beauty of this game is that although it seems easy to handicap and very corrupt to risk your money betting on its outcome, it really represents an extremely deep and sophisticated type of gambling that you certainly need to work
very hard if you want to really master it.

Some of the directions you need to work on are the following:

- Understand the deeper the dynamics of handicapping.

- Improve your betting strategy, learning to balance your risk - reward ratio and realize where your profits might come from.

- Boost your self-confidence to the point of feeling comfortable going against the tide.

- Work on your psychology to gain the ability to stay out of a lot of races.

- Improve your understanding of how the crowd is betting and what its most frequent mistakes are.

[DeltaLover]

I stuck in a transition phase between going broke and loving the betting action...


There is no horse bettor who has never gone broke (multiple times indeed). Despite what some of us might claim, losing your bankroll is part of the game. Still, if your starting bankroll is small, going broke is certainly not a catastrophic event as you can easily replace it in a matter of a few weeks. Of course losing a larger bankroll might have more serious consequences and take a long time until you rebuild it and this is why you need to be more respectful to it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

There is no horse bettor who has never gone broke (multiple times indeed). Despite what some of us might claim, losing your bankroll is part of the game. Still, if your starting bankroll is small, going broke is certainly not a catastrophic event as you can easily replace it in a matter of a few weeks. Of course losing a larger bankroll might have more serious consequences and take a long time until you rebuild it and this is why you need to be more respectful to it.

Thanks for your replies....I do work with a small bank roll...$100 to $200 is all I am comfortable and can afford risking in any one day to be honest with you.

But I suspect that low of a bankroll is not enough to make any headway no matter what I do....those 50 tris and dime supers end up being nothing but churn...I am the King of Churn!

I think that maybe if I had software like yours I could scan through hundreds of races looking for those "blue number plays" and then send in my win only bets...that maybe where I go next....I guess I just like going to the OTB to watch in real time....I find following just 1 track to be limiting as far as the fun goes, but I know that I must do this...

...thinking Keeneland, Saratoga, Belmont, Gulfstream, Tampa Bay and other HANA top rated tracks....I don't like California programs

[DeltaLover]

Thanks for your replies....I do work with a small bank roll...$100 to $200 is all I am comfortable and can afford risking in any one day to be honest with you.

But I suspect that low of a bankroll is not enough to make any headway no matter what I do....those 50 tris and dime supers end up being nothing but churn...I am the King of Churn!

I think that maybe if I had software like yours I could scan through hundreds of races looking for those "blue number plays" and then send in my win only bets...that maybe where I go next....I guess I just like going to the OTB to watch in real time....I find following just 1 track to be limiting as far as the fun goes, but I know that I must do this...

...thinking Keeneland, Saratoga, Belmont, Gulfstream, Tampa Bay and other HANA top rated tracks....I don't like California programs

What you need to remember though is that the fundamental rules are the same regardless of whether you are betting several thousands or a few hundred. Tight and aggressive is the name of the game.

Your best investment as a handicapper, is to start building a historical data base, the tools are available as open source software and for a small amount you can start downloading all the races conducted in North America and start your studies.

Think hard about the game and try to build your own models to answer questions and verify conjectures.

Do not believe anything that your track buddies are telling you or anything your read in handicapping books or forums until you put it to the test of hard data and statistical metrics.

The game is extremely difficult and exactly this is what makes it both attractive and profitable as well; if it was easy there should not be any money to be made out of it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

What you need to remember though is that the fundamental rules are the same regardless of whether you are betting several thousands or a few hundred. Tight and aggressive is the name of the game.

Your best investment as a handicapper, is to start building a historical data base, the tools are available as open source software and for a small amount you can start downloading all the races conducted in North America and start your studies.

Think hard about the game and try to build your own models to answer questions and verify conjectures.

Do not believe anything that your track buddies are telling you or anything your read in handicapping books or forums until you put it to the test of hard data and statistical metrics.

The game is extremely difficult and exactly this is what makes it both attractive and profitable as well; if it was easy there should not be any money to be made out of it.

I sense the wisdom in your words. Tight and aggressive is the name of the game. I see that now...it is the wagering equivalent of the inside Borel / Lanerie ride...wait for the opportunity, then once it arrives, bet confidently... Be selective....let the opportunity come to you....don't chase the opportunity, which is what I do a lot now....everything feels so rushed...