PDA

View Full Version : How to determine a track bias


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Jeff P
09-06-2016, 03:57 PM
A good thread to start is how to determine a track bias.....

For me is to see where the first 2 horses at the 1st quarter end up...
and look at the qtr time
and then compare to other races

mike


The above quote is from the Saratoga dirt bias ? thread - link here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124633


I thought such a thread might provoke some interesting comments - so I decided to get the ball rolling.

More to come...


-jp

.

DeltaLover
09-06-2016, 04:14 PM
The obvious questions that need an answer in regards to track bias are the following:

(1) What do we mean by it? (Definition of atomic statement is needed)

(2) How it is detected? (Description of neceessary data processing to detect it)

(3) Why it exists? (not essential thus we should not care about)

So, if we want to have a productive conversation about this topic, we need at least to address the (1) amd (2), what is a track bias and how track bias it is detected ? Any ideas??

cj
09-06-2016, 04:21 PM
Along the lines of Delta, I think you have to have a baseline for what is a fair track before you can determine one that isn't.

rsetup
09-06-2016, 04:23 PM
What oft [is] thought, but ne'er so well expressed.

Jeff P
09-06-2016, 04:57 PM
I'm actually going through withdrawal pangs right now as I type this... because closing day at Saratoga was yesterday.

All kidding aside... Hell, who am I kidding? I actually AM going through withdrawal pangs.... :) :)

----------

I thought the Saratoga dirt surface had a unique (sometimes significant) bias for most of the 2016 meet.

I came to this conclusion pretty early on in the meet.

Part of what got me there is numbers based... The other part of what got me there was watching EVERY race over the course of the meet live... And then watching replays of every race over the course of the meet many times over. (Shout out to EMD4ME for the suggestion.)

I saw the meet as (mostly) speed favoring with a negative or dead rail.

Visually - In my opinion for sprint races at all distances: Horses sent from the gate by their riders (generally) had an edge over those whose riders ahem... shall we say did something other than send.

Visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances - so far as bias determining race outcomes: Being sent from the gate was only PART of it.

In my opinion - The OTHER part of it - so far as bias determining race outcomes had everything to do with WHERE on the turn said sent horses ended up.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders were content with taking the shortest way around the track:

MOST OF THOSE horses were stopping about the time they hit the top of the stretch.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders AVOIDED taking the shortest way around the track... either by tipping out at the first opportunity on backstretch... or who tipped out at some point on the turn... or who were handed ideal positioning because some other rider aboard a primary pace foe purposely glued his horse to the rail:

MOST OF THOSE horses were full of run when the field hit the top of the stretch.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The WORST position seemed to be setting the pace - while through some subtle herding by the horses just to your outside - you found yourself pinned against the rail on the turn.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The IDEAL position seemed to be pressing the pace while just to the outside of the leader - who through some subtle herding - was pinned against the rail on the turn.

That's what I saw visually in race after race.

I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not Jose Ortiz or his agent were aware of this pattern...

But after watching replays of enough races I began to suspect that he was.

If he wasn't aware - I firmly believe he is the one rider who benefited the most from this pattern - simply because of his style.

Still speaking visually, I saw this same pattern unfold not just on the dirt - but on BOTH turf courses.

Comment to Cratos: I did read the position paper you posted about awhile back. I'd be interested in your thoughts about whether or not your group noticed this pattern too and what you think about the possibility of there being a physical cause behind it, etc.

This post is already a bit too long winded (apologies for that.)

I did run some database queries - and the query results suggest (at least to me) that the pattern (or bias) mentioned above was real - or at the very least a deviation from a big picture look at all tracks everywhere.

I'll come back later and provide those db results in a separate post.



-jp

.

EMD4ME
09-06-2016, 06:54 PM
I'm actually going through withdrawal pangs right now as I type this... because closing day at Saratoga was yesterday.

All kidding aside... Hell, who am I kidding? I actually AM going through withdrawal pangs.... :) :)

----------

I thought the Saratoga dirt surface had a unique (sometimes significant) bias for most of the 2016 meet.

I came to this conclusion pretty early on in the meet.

Part of what got me there is numbers based... The other part of what got me there was watching EVERY race over the course of the meet live... And then watching replays of every race over the course of the meet many times over. (Shout out to EMD4ME for the suggestion.)

I saw the meet as (mostly) speed favoring with a negative or dead rail.

Visually - In my opinion for sprint races at all distances: Horses sent from the gate by their riders (generally) had an edge over those whose riders ahem... shall we say did something other than send.

Visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances - so far as bias determining race outcomes: Being sent from the gate was only PART of it.

In my opinion - The OTHER part of it - so far as bias determining race outcomes had everything to do with WHERE on the turn said sent horses ended up.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders were content with taking the shortest way around the track:

MOST OF THOSE horses were stopping about the time they hit the top of the stretch.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders AVOIDED taking the shortest way around the track... either by tipping out at the first opportunity on backstretch... or who tipped out at some point on the turn... or who were handed ideal positioning because some other rider aboard a primary pace foe purposely glued his horse to the rail:

MOST OF THOSE horses were full of run when the field hit the top of the stretch.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The WORST position seemed to be setting the pace - while through some subtle herding by the horses just to your outside - you found yourself pinned against the rail on the turn.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The IDEAL position seemed to be pressing the pace while just to the outside of the leader - who through some subtle herding - was pinned against the rail on the turn.

That's what I saw visually in race after race.

I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not Jose Ortiz or his agent were aware of this pattern...

But after watching replays of enough races I began to suspect that he was.

If he wasn't aware - I firmly believe he is the one rider who benefited the most from this pattern - simply because of his style.

Still speaking visually, I saw this same pattern unfold not just on the dirt - but on BOTH turf courses.

Comment to Cratos: I did read the position paper you posted about awhile back. I'd be interested in your thoughts about whether or not your group noticed this pattern too and what you think about the possibility of there being a physical cause behind it, etc.

This post is already a bit too long winded (apologies for that.)

I did run some database queries - and the query results suggest (at least to me) that the pattern (or bias) mentioned above was real - or at the very least a deviation from a big picture look at all tracks everywhere.

I'll come back later and provide those db results in a separate post.



-jp

.

JP, this post wasn't long winded, you leave one wanting more. Great stuff!

EMD4ME
09-06-2016, 07:04 PM
The obvious questions that need an answer in regards to track bias are the following:

(1) What do we mean by it? (Definition of atomic statement is needed)

(2) How it is detected? (Description of neceessary data processing to detect it)

(3) Why it exists? (not essential thus we should not care about)

So, if we want to have a productive conversation about this topic, we need at least to address the (1) amd (2), what is a track bias and how track bias it is detected ? Any ideas??

Deltalover :) 1) I miss talking horses with you. I'll see you in November, hopefully on opening day at the BIG A.

2) I'll skip to #2 if you don't mind. To me, 90% of track biases can not be detected if someone doesn't know each horse (that is running on a day/night)almost inside out. Without knowing each horse's talent, expected performance etc. it is super hard to trust what one sees in terms of a bias.

Back to question #1. To me a track bias is a race track that (talking dirt only now), because of it's physical make up, lends itself to deterring/slowing down a certain type of racing style or path. A bias assists a horse in running it's super A race and deters a solid horse from running their A race. That is 1 (of a dozen) ways that I would describe a bias.

On to question #3: You're talking to me so please expect a crazy answer. I would think mother nature causes many biases (wet rail as a track dries out from rain-changes in weather etc.) but I also think either intended or unintended, certain track maintenance causes a track bias.


For me, all I care about is #2, obviously. It is detected by knowing all horses inside out. If you see a ragin in form speed horse who overcame pace dyamics and a bias in their last 2 starts, jogging on a loose lead but quitting for no reason, the question should arise. Was it the track? Maybe the vitamins were not in today? One should check the horse's next start for some verification as well. Was that dead speed/dead rail performance a trend for the day?

All initial thoughts that come to mind my friend.

Cratos
09-06-2016, 07:05 PM
I'm actually going through withdrawal pangs right now as I type this... because closing day at Saratoga was yesterday.

All kidding aside... Hell, who am I kidding? I actually AM going through withdrawal pangs.... :) :)

----------

I thought the Saratoga dirt surface had a unique (sometimes significant) bias for most of the 2016 meet.

I came to this conclusion pretty early on in the meet.

Part of what got me there is numbers based... The other part of what got me there was watching EVERY race over the course of the meet live... And then watching replays of every race over the course of the meet many times over. (Shout out to EMD4ME for the suggestion.)

I saw the meet as (mostly) speed favoring with a negative or dead rail.

Visually - In my opinion for sprint races at all distances: Horses sent from the gate by their riders (generally) had an edge over those whose riders ahem... shall we say did something other than send.

Visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances - so far as bias determining race outcomes: Being sent from the gate was only PART of it.

In my opinion - The OTHER part of it - so far as bias determining race outcomes had everything to do with WHERE on the turn said sent horses ended up.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders were content with taking the shortest way around the track:

MOST OF THOSE horses were stopping about the time they hit the top of the stretch.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders AVOIDED taking the shortest way around the track... either by tipping out at the first opportunity on backstretch... or who tipped out at some point on the turn... or who were handed ideal positioning because some other rider aboard a primary pace foe purposely glued his horse to the rail:

MOST OF THOSE horses were full of run when the field hit the top of the stretch.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The WORST position seemed to be setting the pace - while through some subtle herding by the horses just to your outside - you found yourself pinned against the rail on the turn.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The IDEAL position seemed to be pressing the pace while just to the outside of the leader - who through some subtle herding - was pinned against the rail on the turn.

That's what I saw visually in race after race.

I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not Jose Ortiz or his agent were aware of this pattern...

But after watching replays of enough races I began to suspect that he was.

If he wasn't aware - I firmly believe he is the one rider who benefited the most from this pattern - simply because of his style.

Still speaking visually, I saw this same pattern unfold not just on the dirt - but on BOTH turf courses.

Comment to Cratos: I did read the position paper you posted about awhile back. I'd be interested in your thoughts about whether or not your group noticed this pattern too and what you think about the possibility of there being a physical cause behind it, etc.

This post is already a bit too long winded (apologies for that.)

I did run some database queries - and the query results suggest (at least to me) that the pattern (or bias) mentioned above was real - or at the very least a deviation from a big picture look at all tracks everywhere.

I'll come back later and provide those db results in a separate post.



-jp

.
What is a track bias?

Correctly stated a track bias is “Surface Resistance” if we are speaking solely of the racing surface and it is the friction resistance between two surfaces. In horse racing the two surfaces are the shoes on the racehorse and the surface of the track.

Friction is a force that is created whenever the horse’s hooves with its shoes move across the track surface.

This friction always opposes the motion or attempted motion of the horse across the race track surface and is dependent on the texture of the shoes on the horse and the track surface; and the friction is also dependent on the amount of contact force (horse’s weight) pushing the two surfaces together (i.e., the normal force).

Now to answer the second question:

How track bias is detected?

I suppose you could design some sophisticated equipment to do some measurements, but that would take resources that most of us don’t have.
However, we do have sufficient data from the various data providers to do a good estimate that will be sufficient for our handicapping.

To begin we must “clean” the race time data of other biases. Namely of air resistance, turn impact, and wind resistance because we want to understand the track surface bias impact only.

An example (Frosted 2016 Whitney) using Trakus data:

Deceleration = Rate of Travel/ Time of travel = 17.07/107.42 = .158487 m/s

Force to decelerate = 578.04 * .158487 = 91.61 N

Maximum Stopping Force = 578.4*9.8 = 5664.79 N

Surface deceleration force of 91.61 N caused Frosted to lose .10396 ft/one-fifth sec

Frosted actual race velocity was 11.199 ft/one-fifth second

Frosted race velocity adjusted surface resistance (track bias) = 11.1994+.104 =11.303*5 = 56.52 ft/sec

Adjusted time = 6032 ft(actual distance in feet)/56.52 (air resistance, wind resistance, and turn impact not considered) =1:46.73

classhandicapper
09-06-2016, 07:11 PM
JP, this post wasn't long winded, you leave one wanting more. Great stuff!

It was very a good post.

Here's the flip side of what Jeff P was alluding to.

If all the smartest riders are avoiding the rail, it can create a bit of problem for bias analysis on some days. To know whether the rail was actually bad or not, you need a decent enough sample size of in form horses to have actually raced on it, preferably some consistent horses while doing some serious running.

If only a handful of horses raced on the rail, it's hard to make that determination. My notes are peppered with days where I noted that riders were avoiding the rail, but I didn't have enough evidence to make a call.

EMD4ME
09-06-2016, 07:35 PM
It was very a good post.

Here's the flip side of what Jeff P was alluding to.

If all the smartest riders are avoiding the rail, it can create a bit of problem for bias analysis on some days. To know whether the rail was actually bad or not, you need a decent enough sample size of in form horses to have actually raced on it, preferably some consistent horses while doing some serious running.

If only a handful of horses raced on the rail, it's hard to make that determination. My notes are peppered with days where I noted that riders were avoiding the rail, but I didn't have enough evidence to make a call.

I agree. Many times you can't make the call as not enough were on the rail. Great point Class.

EMD4ME
09-06-2016, 07:42 PM
Sep 2nd, 2016. I made the rail really negative for race 1 and at least negative for the other races.

I emplore anyone who reads this thread, to rewatch the 4 and 1 in race 1.

The 4 is on a pedestrian (even for NYRA) pace, is off the rail on the backstretch but the jock folds over to the rail into the far turn. This horse should NOT be laboring as he ran a joke of a 1st quarter and was in the middle of a JOKE of a 2nd quarter.

Also watch the 1 horse. The 1 is laboring when on the rail, angles out and rallies every well into a "fast late" end.

Back to the 4. The 4 worked hard on the dead rail on the far turn but was able to find paths off the rail into the lane, which allowed to horse to dig in for the win.

This is the perfect race, if you're a newbie and want to learn about track bias.

The 5 was a dressed up bomb to me who rode a slow pace and "off the rail" trip to a placing. He will be overbet next time and is a bet against.

EMD4ME
09-06-2016, 07:53 PM
Forgot to add...My prior post was in addition to Jeff's excellent comments. It's about how the rail might've been really poor around the far turn (or more) on certain days.

johnhannibalsmith
09-06-2016, 08:07 PM
I generally stick to one track for most of my wagering and my rule of thumb has evolved into: If I am looking for a track bias, I'm probably going to torture myself with a theory one way or the other. If I'm not looking for a bias and one seems to be presenting itself, I'm interested. And I usually stop betting because I'm just not able to convince myself that after watching two or three races that I've stumbled upon something profound and now can simply not only adjust my handicapping, but also (in the case of path bias) make predictions about which horse will be where and when. I tried for years and just can't get to where I can put much faith in the idea of betting into biases as they are happening unless it is something that is ever present like old Keeneland.

So bias for me is strictly a factor in evaluating a performance that has already happened and augmenting my opinion of the performance with that in mind when the horse runs again in what I assume to be a 'fair' track. At the track that I usually play, these biases are almost always detectable after weather (drying out wet track, extreme sun/wind, etc.) or after significant off-day maintenance (adding surface, deeper rip/harrow, etc). In other words, I pretty well limit myself to what I can consider reasonably high probability cases of legitimate bias and not my own bias projecting bias.

In the case of this track, most of my bias interest revolves around path biases as opposed to the more common generalization of the entire surface as being 'fast' or 'dead' or 'speed favoring' or what have you. The track is considered 'fair' when it has its usual 'speed' bias and more often than not if it is playing absurdly far in favor of speed or suddenly seems to be producing an inordinate amount of rally/closers that didn't look utterly likely anyway or given the eventual pace, it isn't merely as simple as favoring speed or favoring rally/closers. Usually it's a little more nuanced than that, with closers that suddenly win in bunches all seemingly out near the crown of a drying track. Try to save ground with that move and run behind the pace and the bias seems to vanish. Sweep out to the middle of the track in the turn and run in the middle of the course and you are on pavement while the pace down in the inside is spinning its wheels. That sort of thing.

I'm not sure where I'm headed with all of this other than just imparting my skeptical interest in bias. I guess trying to play along with DeltaLover's post in some way. I'll add this part for the hell of it: Though I claim that I rarely try to incorporate an active perceived bias into my handicapping, there is one exception to this rule that might be useful to someone, somewhere, sometime. Again, it is most prominent after weather with a drying track and now and then on a sealed track that has had some races run over it. At this particular track, they run a mixed meet with quarter horses. Quarter horses run early in the card - the first couple or few races. If the conditions are such that reason exists to suspect a bias is looming, quarter horse races often give some great insight into what is to come for the remainder of the thoroughbred card. If horses are going to struggle over a particular part and/or breeze through another, there's nothing like observing quarter horses running straight along the strip eight to ten abreast to sniff out who is gliding with ease and who is really fighting to slog through it.

I'm not a bias guy like EMD so I guess this is the best I can offer.

Tom
09-06-2016, 08:21 PM
So we have a bias that affects the flow of the horses, favoring speed, hindering speed.

Then we have post bias, ie, dead rail, golden rail.

Do the same factors cause both types, or are there other things at play?

Is there a third type?

rsetup
09-06-2016, 08:22 PM
Horse races aren't time trials and they don't run in assigned lanes. Races thus are determined by the events that occur during their running. Races fall into categories based on these events. These categories have distinct 'shapes' and contain many subcategories. These categories transcend precise numeric representation; with all due respect to the figuremakers. In fact, I believe, and will test in the near future, they would be a challenging machine learning categorization problem. You can spot biases by, of course, watching races AND looking for horses that get setups that typically result in wins but invariably fall apart.

BCOURTNEY
09-06-2016, 08:42 PM
So we have a bias that affects the flow of the horses, favoring speed, hindering speed.

Then we have post bias, ie, dead rail, golden rail.

Do the same factors cause both types, or are there other things at play?

Is there a third type?

There are hundreds of types, some human determinable, some only computer detectable, probably makes sense to qualify which subset this thread will focus on. I already see about 15 or so biases mentioned so far.

DRF:
TRACK BIAS- A racing surface that favors a particular running style or position; horses that run on the lead or on the rail.

This seems to combine energy conservation and expenditure and physical positioning. The question is if those all belong together, especially if they can occur independently.

Cratos
09-06-2016, 10:57 PM
There are hundreds of types, some human determinable, some only computer detectable, probably makes sense to qualify which subset this thread will focus on. I already see about 15 or so biases mentioned so far.

DRF:
TRACK BIAS- A racing surface that favors a particular running style or position; horses that run on the lead or on the rail.

This seems to combine energy conservation and expenditure and physical positioning. The question is if those all belong together, especially if they can occur independently.
I don’t disagree that there are n-number of biases that affects a horse’s race performance, but the 4 major measurable biases that invariably affects a horse performance during a race and ranked in terms of impact when they occur are:

• Aerodynamic drag (air resistance) – this is a biggie because the racehorse has a longitudinal drag coefficient of about .60 with the aerodynamic abilities of the horse measured using the horse’s coefficient of drag.

• Wind Resistance is the next adverse force confronting the horse’s performance, but its impact is inconsistent due to the weather changes.

• Turn Impact can change a race very quickly; particularly when the air resistance is added in.

• Lastly the surface resistance will have an impact; especially when the track surface is soft (turf or dirt) and deforming when under pressure. This also increased the resistance to motion.

Tom
09-06-2016, 11:00 PM
I would say pace more often than not is the main cause of a single race bias.

ReplayRandall
09-06-2016, 11:10 PM
I would say pace more often than not is the main cause of a single race bias.

Pace = bias??.:ThmbDown:....Pace = a wrongly perceived bias..:ThmbUp:

rsetup
09-06-2016, 11:16 PM
Pace = bias??.:ThmbDown:....Pace = a wrongly perceived bias..:ThmbUp:You'd bet a horse that ran well against a bias. Wouldn't you also bet a horse that ran well against the pace or flow of the race? I certainly would.

thaskalos
09-06-2016, 11:28 PM
You'd bet a horse that ran well against a bias. Wouldn't you also bet a horse that ran well against the pace or flow of the race ? I certainly would.

Pace and race flow are totally different entities.

ReplayRandall
09-06-2016, 11:35 PM
You'd bet a horse that ran well against a bias. Wouldn't you also bet a horse that ran well against the pace or flow of the race? I certainly would.

I think the purpose of this thread(maybe I'm wrong), is HOW to determine a track bias. What I may think is conclusive proof of an existing bias, may be seen totally different from another handicapper. Bottom-line, there are more errors made by bettors on "perceived" biases, there just isn't a consistency of analysis for a conclusive edge to be found for most players. Obvious dead-rail biases are almost always apparent, sometimes during the race-card, but mostly after the completion of the card, in retrospect only......Who truly knows what the bias of any track will be, if at all, BEFORE the card has run?

VigorsTheGrey
09-06-2016, 11:40 PM
Track bias and horse confirmation must be linked...the shape of the body, the weight of the animal, the shape of the hoof, how the horse carries himself throughout the race...all of the above coupled with the composition of the racing surface, wind, etc...

HuggingTheRail
09-06-2016, 11:46 PM
At what point can you determine a bias is present? After one race? three races? (usable the same day) or is it the next day (using the data for future wagers / bet againsts)

thaskalos
09-06-2016, 11:55 PM
When race after race in a day's card is won by the front-runners, but the last race finds the closers running 1-2...what "track bias" assessment do we make?

rsetup
09-06-2016, 11:57 PM
Pace and race flow are totally different entities.Exactly. Numeric pace doesn't completely capture race setups

Elliott Sidewater
09-07-2016, 12:12 AM
Tom, in my mind an unbalanced pace is the principal cause of the single race bias, either too much or too little speed in the field. You're an ex-Sartin guy; think match-up.

Bye and large, I think track biases are caused by track maintenance, lack of same, and weather. It doesn't matter much what the cause is, the meat of the matter is to separate the real thing from the mirage of a bias. Evaluation of track biases has been a specialty (or fetish, take your pick) of mine for over 30 years.

Because everyone has become familiar or obsessed with pace handicapping, I have more or less been forced to rely on soft skills like bias identification and evaluation, body language, and pre-race warmup evaluation to stay competitive at the windows. Come to think of it, (proper application of) form cycle evaluation still creates value at times, but is really hard to do well consistently, because it demands time and focused concentration.

Tom
09-07-2016, 08:01 AM
When race after race in a day's card is won by the front-runners, but the last race finds the closers running 1-2...what "track bias" assessment do we make?

Fast pace - meltdown?
Cheap early horses?

Tom
09-07-2016, 08:04 AM
Pace = bias??.:ThmbDown:....Pace = a wrongly perceived bias..:ThmbUp:

I said a single race bias.
If you get a pace meltdown, do you suppose the track bias favored closers?
As CJ said, you have to know what a normal track is. Extreme pace races should then be left out of the track bias evaluation. You need to strip out results you can explain first.

Tom
09-07-2016, 08:13 AM
Pace and race flow are totally different entities.

Question-
What do you consider Race Flow to mean?

classhandicapper
09-07-2016, 08:54 AM
I think people get confused by certain types of biases.

1. There are biases where the entire surface is more or less tiring than usual.

2. There are biases where certain paths may be faster than others.

3. There are biases where certain paths may be more or less tiring than others.

The distinction between #2 and #3 is significant when trying to understand what's going on with horses running on the rail. It's sometimes why it appears there is conflicting evidence when there actually isn't.

classhandicapper
09-07-2016, 09:13 AM
When race after race in a day's card is won by the front-runners, but the last race finds the closers running 1-2...what "track bias" assessment do we make?

The pattern I see most often is that the riders pick up on a bias and get either more or less aggressive to suit the track. That's not a change in bias. It's a change in tactics that produces a more neutral result despite the track bias. My notes will say "speed favoring" for the day. At the race level I will make a specific note about riding tactics offsetting the bias.

I also do not discount the possibility that track biases can change during the card. We know they change speeds. So why not at the bias level too?

Maintenance crews add water, allow water to evaporate, the temperature and humidity changes etc... All that stuff could theoretically change a bias.

The problem of course is that it's hard to pin down a bias (or a bias change) off a single race. That is one reason my notes are starting to get way more "race flow" oriented at the single race level.

It's hard to pin down the individual impacts of pace, bias, competitive development on a race. It's easier to simply look at the race and see what happened as a whole and not worry how much each piece contributed to the result.

The case I am making here is similar to the one we've had debating the correct way to make a track variant. There are loads od reasons races can come up faster or slower. You can try to measure each component (like Cratos attempts) or you can simply say these horses figured to run 1:10 and they ran 1:11 instead so the race was 1 second slow.

Cratos
09-07-2016, 10:33 AM
The pattern I see most often is that the riders pick up on a bias and get either more or less aggressive to suit the track. That's not a change in bias. It's a change in tactics that produces a more neutral result despite the track bias. My notes will say "speed favoring" for the day. At the race level I will make a specific note about riding tactics offsetting the bias.

I also do not discount the possibility that track biases can change during the card. We know they change speeds. So why not at the bias level too?

Maintenance crews add water, allow water to evaporate, the temperature and humidity changes etc... All that stuff could theoretically change a bias.

The problem of course is that it's hard to pin down a bias (or a bias change) off a single race. That is one reason my notes are starting to get way more "race flow" oriented at the single race level.

It's hard to pin down the individual impacts of pace, bias, competitive development on a race. It's easier to simply look at the race and see what happened as a whole and not worry how much each piece contributed to the result.

The case I am making here is similar to the one we've had debating the correct way to make a track variant. There are loads od reasons races can come up faster or slower. You can try to measure each component (like Cratos attempts) or you can simply say these horses figured to run 1:10 and they ran 1:11 instead so the race was 1 second slow.

You appear to be addressing the bias "what" and not the bias "why."

Robert Fischer
09-07-2016, 03:17 PM
:1:Understand the physical track layout

:2:Look at basic stats

:3:Apply accurate handicapping, race interpretation, and an awareness of jockey behavior to race watching
(or pre-race apply accurate handicapping and projection of pace and flow)

Everyone can do the first two. The third method requires a higher degree of skill to get the correct answers. Anyone can become proficient at all three with the proper instruction and study.

dnlgfnk
09-07-2016, 03:19 PM
We're now well into the revolution, whereby computer modeling has eclipsed the image of the handicapper of the past. For that reason, I have never understood the grounds for lodging a claim of "bias!" among intelligent players when tracks don't schedule 500 to 1000 races a day. That was the criteria for Benter to compile enough data for testing factors, and he only related to track bias in terms of post position..

https://www.scribd.com/doc/166556276/Benter

It seems contradictory for computer handicappers to be debating such small samples as a day, or even weeks of race results. I suspect Benter was onto something I discovered after years of compiling a mental database by comparing results of races with the expected outcomes based on public odds. That is, there exists universally a subtle favoring of outside horses on straights (moisture inevitably draining to the inside, the desire for many inside PP jockeys not to get "trapped", etc.?) and, of course a mathematical inside advantage on the turns. Two tracks in one, the great difficulty of handicapping.

The inherent "bias" in racing isn't a dead rail in June at Belmont Park or a golden rail at Pimlico in the spring. It's the built in percentages that public odds establish. That is, for a favorite who loses this race 65% of the time, drawing the rail after previous sexy looking outside trips has explanatory power (along with any other negatives) for finding delicious overlays, as well as a myriad of other scenarios.

DeltaLover
09-07-2016, 03:28 PM
https://www.scribd.com/doc/166556276/Benter


Breaking news!!! (only a few decades old!)

Tom
09-07-2016, 03:46 PM
The inherent "bias" in racing isn't a dead rail in June at Belmont Park or a golden rail at Pimlico in the spring.


No one is talking about inherent bias. We are calling that the norm.
Benter missed a lot of it as far as "bias" goes.

dnlgfnk
09-07-2016, 03:52 PM
Breaking news!!! (only a few decades old!)

Thanks, Delta, but you missed the point.

I wasn't unveiling Benter to the uninitiated, but asking "Why is the criteria for computer modeling (large data samples) suddenly abandoned when it comes to especially daily, but even weekly track biases?"

dnlgfnk
09-07-2016, 03:58 PM
No one is talking about inherent bias. We are calling that the norm.
Benter missed a lot of it as far as "bias" goes.

Perhaps. But Alan Woods didn't...

"We chat about barrier numbers, and Alan tells me about the time in November 1995 when the computer model stopped working for a month or two. Eventually Alan worked out that the last turn at Happy Valley had been re-cambered – which means the track is shaped to slope upwards from the inside rail – creating a disadvantage for inside horses as the outside horses shifted in. His team adjusted the coefficients relating to barrier position and immediately resumed their winning ways."...

https://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-tony-wilson-mr-huge-alan-woods-and-his-amazing-computer-nags-riches-story-149

DeltaLover
09-07-2016, 04:06 PM
I wasn't unveiling Benter to the uninitiated, but asking "Why is the criteria for computer modeling (large data samples) suddenly abandoned when it comes to especially daily, but even weekly track biases?"


Good question!

I think the reason why we cannot model short term biases lies in very limited data to use (meaning that in a daily basis we might have as little as a couple of races to detect the existence of bias or not).

Overall I am very skeptic to any opinion that is based more in personal observation as opposed to quantitative data.

I do not disagree in the fact that biases can be developed but I also believe that this concept is greatly overemphasized and is way more infrequent than what is believed by the majority of the bettors.

AltonKelsey
09-07-2016, 04:09 PM
I guess no one here watches MNR

Very hard to model bias with a computer, and at the very least you'd have to input path info on your own. Post position bias is influenced by track bias where one exists, and can be modeled , but without track bias info, how can you model it reliably?

Better to just play the top consensus pick .

Robert Fischer
09-07-2016, 04:09 PM
Perhaps. But Alan Woods didn't...

"We chat about barrier numbers, and Alan tells me about the time in November 1995 when the computer model stopped working for a month or two. Eventually Alan worked out that the last turn at Happy Valley had been re-cambered – which means the track is shaped to slope upwards from the inside rail – creating a disadvantage for inside horses as the outside horses shifted in. His team adjusted the coefficients relating to barrier position and immediately resumed their winning ways."...

https://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-tony-wilson-mr-huge-alan-woods-and-his-amazing-computer-nags-riches-story-149

very cool

DeltaLover
09-07-2016, 04:10 PM
I guess no one here watches MNR

Your guess is very reasonable I think

rsetup
09-07-2016, 04:18 PM
Overall I am very skeptic to any opinion that is based more in personal observation as opposed to quantitative data.


Where might this data come from?

DeltaLover
09-07-2016, 04:39 PM
Where might this data come from?

bris?

Robert Fischer
09-07-2016, 04:41 PM
small samples aren't going to be 'statistically significant'


that doesn't mean that a skilled player shouldn't use them

classhandicapper
09-07-2016, 04:47 PM
I wasn't unveiling Benter to the uninitiated, but asking "Why is the criteria for computer modeling (large data samples) suddenly abandoned when it comes to especially daily, but even weekly track biases?"

I think the answer is that the bigger the sample, the greater the probability of being correct. But to ignore smaller samples that indicate a bias would be to ignore information that might add value despite occasionally being wrong.

What it comes down to is personal skill at identifying actual biases.

The better you are as a handicapper, the better your techniques for identifying biases, and the better your visual skills, the more often you will be right.

It is not entirely unusual for me to adjust my play slightly after watching one or two races. I may not overhaul my bets completely on such a small sample, but when you've been watching races for 40 years you sometimes see something so unnatural about the way the race developed and how the horses responded when switching paths you know something is amiss.

Robert Fischer
09-07-2016, 05:35 PM
1. Skillful observation notes a change in the model itself. Maybe you noticed the pouring rain and high winds? Maybe you noticed the tractor or report 'seal the track'? Maybe you noticed the jocks riding unusually wide? - Then you have to think, "Hey, I should consider how to weight the 'old' model information into my decision process!".

2. You notice some negative events that were unusual enough to possibly be the makings of a 'trend'. Maybe you have a particular play that uses a trainer or a trainer angle, and that barn's last 2 plays and his recent entries have been ice cold - Then you think in terms of whether 'passing' a particular wager opportunity makes sense. Passing a possible negative trend is a lot safer than betting possible positive trends. You don't risk losing your bankroll, you only risk 'opportunity cost'.

BCOURTNEY
09-07-2016, 07:07 PM
Perhaps. But Alan Woods didn't...

"We chat about barrier numbers, and Alan tells me about the time in November 1995 when the computer model stopped working for a month or two. Eventually Alan worked out that the last turn at Happy Valley had been re-cambered – which means the track is shaped to slope upwards from the inside rail – creating a disadvantage for inside horses as the outside horses shifted in. His team adjusted the coefficients relating to barrier position and immediately resumed their winning ways."...

https://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-tony-wilson-mr-huge-alan-woods-and-his-amazing-computer-nags-riches-story-149

Alan has prior posts on this board regarding bias.

BCOURTNEY
09-07-2016, 07:08 PM
I guess no one here watches MNR

Very hard to model bias with a computer, and at the very least you'd have to input path info on your own. Post position bias is influenced by track bias where one exists, and can be modeled , but without track bias info, how can you model it reliably?

Better to just play the top consensus pick .

Modeling and detecting bias is simple.
Calibration for it is hard.

classhandicapper
09-07-2016, 07:17 PM
Modeling and detecting bias is simple.
Calibration for it is hard.

The thing that makes it difficult is that most people assume that racing with or against a bias on a particular day will impact all the horses on the card equally. That is often false.

If the rail is more tiring than usual (as opposed to slower than the other paths), how much it impacts each horse will be dependent on how much stamina it has and how it distributed it's energy. The result will be different for each horse, but the trend will be negative.

pandy
09-07-2016, 07:57 PM
I post track bias info for NYRA on my website, my own observations, and there certainly are some days that are hard to gauge, especially when there are a lot of turf races. Another thing I look for, say that speed appears to be collapsing, I take a look at the horses that quit. If several horses that looked like strong contenders stopped, that's a good sign that the track was tiring. The same thing when speed holds up, if four odds on horses go wire to wire it doesn't mean that the track was speed biased.

As was mentioned here, one of the trickiest things is when the rider's are avoiding the rail and a few horses go wire to wire in the three path. Do you call that a closer's bias? In that case, if you are sure that the rail was dead, you still have to make a note of it because chances are a few horses did show speed along the inside that day and they may be good bet backs.

Cratos
09-07-2016, 08:22 PM
The thing that makes it difficult is that most people assume that racing with or against a bias on a particular day will impact all the horses on the card equally. That is often false.

If the rail is more tiring than usual (as opposed to slower than the other paths), how much it impacts each horse will be dependent on how much stamina it has and how it distributed it's energy. The result will be different for each horse, but the trend will be negative.
Using Trakus data, you can independently check each horse race performance and I would think that you would calculate “work” done by the horse to understand how its energy was distributed.

rsetup
09-07-2016, 08:24 PM
bris?ummm, No

DeltaLover
09-07-2016, 08:26 PM
ummm, No

astrology maybe?

BCOURTNEY
09-07-2016, 08:32 PM
Using Trakus data, you can independently check each horse race performance and I would think that you would calculate “work” done by the horse to understand how its energy was distributed.

Cratos how do you gather the horses weight data?

Magister Ludi
09-07-2016, 08:55 PM
Cratos how do you gather the horses weight data?

Obviously, I can't speak for Mr. Cratos. However, accurate remote non-contact weighing can be performed with machine vision.

cj
09-07-2016, 09:09 PM
Obviously, I can't speak for Mr. Cratos. However, accurate remote non-contact weighing can be performed with machine vision.

Yeah, I'm sure that is how he is doing it. :lol:

rsetup
09-07-2016, 09:24 PM
Yeah, I'm sure that is how he is doing it. :lol:The answer to all your data issues: write some Python code to pull data from videos.

bobphilo
09-07-2016, 09:33 PM
When someone takes into account the factors such as whether the horses with the early lead are the ones that figured to win or whether they are taking advantage of a slow pace,or whether the rail was dead or fast not, then these so-called track speed biases disappear.

The silliest question I've heard is asking how the track is playing on the basis of the 1st 3 races where the winners went wire to wire without taking all these factors into consideration.

I'm still waiting to hear a reasonable explanation as to how the track surface can magically distinguish the difference between the hooves of front-runners and closers and favor one over the other.

DeltaLover
09-07-2016, 09:35 PM
Obviously, I can't speak for Mr. Cratos. However, accurate remote non-contact weighing can be performed with machine vision.

http://i67.tinypic.com/14t8vuo.jpg

DeltaLover
09-07-2016, 09:36 PM
The answer to all your data issues: write some Python code to pull data from videos.

http://i67.tinypic.com/14t8vuo.jpg

DeltaLover
09-07-2016, 09:38 PM
Using Trakus data, you can independently check each horse race performance and I would think that you would calculate “work” done by the horse to understand how its energy was distributed.

http://i67.tinypic.com/14t8vuo.jpg

rsetup
09-07-2016, 09:39 PM
:http://i67.tinypic.com/14t8vuo.jpg

Visual Basic or bust?

DeltaLover
09-07-2016, 09:41 PM
:

Visual Basic or bust?

What do you mean ??

bobphilo
09-07-2016, 09:48 PM
I think people get confused by certain types of biases.

1. There are biases where the entire surface is more or less tiring than usual.

2. There are biases where certain paths may be faster than others.

3. There are biases where certain paths may be more or less tiring than others.

The distinction between #2 and #3 is significant when trying to understand what's going on with horses running on the rail. It's sometimes why it appears there is conflicting evidence when there actually isn't.
Exactly these are not speed or closer biases but path biases.

BCOURTNEY
09-07-2016, 10:29 PM
Obviously, I can't speak for Mr. Cratos. However, accurate remote non-contact weighing can be performed with machine vision.

(Heart Girth^2 x Body Length) ÷ 330

I'll give it a spin. I'm more interested in other video analytics which are much more telling of performance expectations.

BCOURTNEY
09-07-2016, 10:31 PM
What do you mean ??

He means Visual Basic ... forever.

NorCalGreg
09-07-2016, 10:36 PM
Exactly these are not speed or closer biases but path biases.


Why don't any of the "PATH-BIAS" detectives ever post up a selection--with your carefully-gleaned info on such a horse being a "PATH-BIAS" victim last out-and sure to run better today?

There is absolutely no value in guessing at a bias.....

This is this just mental chewing gum--with no actual real-world value

Oh well...makes interesting fodder for horse forums I suppose.

EMD4ME
09-07-2016, 10:46 PM
Are you kidding or just validating the use of your software (which obviously wants to deter anyone from believing that paths or biases matter)???

You seriously must be joking. Have you ever watched a race from the mountain? Do you any idea how the inside paths have been total quicksand most of this summer?

Of course you do. You can't be that naive but you want your purchasers to be ......

And yes I have made many picks off dead path trips.

No value? Are you kidding? That is where immense value comes!

I can't read you. Not sure if its selfish intent or denial or a combination.

Tom
09-07-2016, 10:47 PM
If you base everything on a long term computer model you will never spot the aberrant days, where the opportunity to capitalize hide out.
Like being able to judge horses who were aided by a golden rail, or compromised by a dead one. Isn't that what knowing if there was a bias or not?

And it has nothing to do with work or weight or anything like that.

BCOURTNEY
09-07-2016, 10:49 PM
Using Trakus data, you can independently check each horse race performance and I would think that you would calculate “work” done by the horse to understand how its energy was distributed.

I haven't tested this at all. However, I can see where joules is a great unit to use to describe energy, and most track bias discussions seem to center around it's conservation, distribution and expenditure. It would be interesting to model energy ravines for path biases for example - to measure what others are qualitatively in a quantitative way. Thread discussed the need for a yardstick to measure bias, joules is a valid candidate. We also need a control data set to evaluate or detect bias. Others have added useful information about the types of biases being observed. I don't use joules in my models but seems very interesting.

EMD4ME
09-07-2016, 10:54 PM
When someone takes into account the factors such as whether the horses with the early lead are the ones that figured to win or whether they are taking advantage of a slow pace,or whether the rail was dead or fast not, then these so-called track speed biases disappear.

The silliest question I've heard is asking how the track is playing on the basis of the 1st 3 races where the winners went wire to wire without taking all these factors into consideration.

I'm still waiting to hear a reasonable explanation as to how the track surface can magically distinguish the difference between the hooves of front-runners and closers and favor one over the other.

The track surface does not magically distinguish between a front runners hooves and a closers hooves. However, if there was overnight or morning rain, for example, the inner paths on a turn might retain more water, which can cause horses who are leading (to spend more energy working through that part of the track). Which then gives the 1st over presser / dueler an obviously easier trip. This creates more race flow which brings more closers into the race (in the better -outside paths)

Just one example.

NorCalGreg
09-07-2016, 10:57 PM
Are you kidding or just validating the use of your software (which obviously wants to deter anyone from believing that paths or biases matter)???

You seriously must be joking. Have you ever watched a race from the mountain? Do you any idea how the inside paths have been total quicksand most of this summer?

Of course you do. You can't be that naive but you want your purchasers to be ......

And yes I have made many picks off dead path trips.

No value? Are you kidding? That is where immense value comes!

I can't read you. Not sure if its selfish intent or denial or a combination.


I'm going to disregard your post since you can't get past the fact I sell software... and everything I post you turn it around towards that end.

You seriously must be joking if you're gonna continue to red-board about past wins. I have my opinions---and if you had any cajones you would stand by yours--in the real world of today.

If you're going to discuss an issue--try to stay on point.

Have a good evening.

EMD4ME
09-07-2016, 11:02 PM
I'm going to disregard your post since you can't get past the fact I sell software... and everything I post you turn it around towards that end.

You seriously must be joking if you're gonna continue to red-board about past wins. I have my opinions---and if you had any cajones you would stand by yours--in the real world of today.

If you're going to discuss an issue--try to stay on point.

Have a good evening.

Greg, I couldn't care less about your software or anything to do with your software.

The reason I brought it up is SOLELY because you knocked the existance of track/path biases. I am SO STUPIFIED that you would feel that way, so I searched for any reason why you might feel that way.

I didn't need to search very far. The answer is extremely obvious.

Don't hate the messenger. Hate the message and please don't misplace your guilt on me (deflection).

Nevertheless, we're cool. I thought I made that clear but if you make statements in a bias thread that are ridiculous, I will call you out on it.

Good luck betting inside speeds, :lol: , on dead inside path nights at the Mountain. Let me know how that works out for you. I'm sure each loss will be an isolated event. :lol:

You have a good night too :ThmbUp:

P.S. As far as I know, one POSTER in this entire BOARD, has had the guts to post ADW stats REPEATEDLY. I don't need to prove jacks hit to anyone here.

EMD4ME
09-07-2016, 11:07 PM
If you base everything on a long term computer model you will never spot the aberrant days, where the opportunity to capitalize hide out.
Like being able to judge horses who were aided by a golden rail, or compromised by a dead one. Isn't that what knowing if there was a bias or not?

And it has nothing to do with work or weight or anything like that.

This is exactly what following so closely does. It gives you short term hidden info that others may not have. Also, knowing a speed horse ran entirely on a dead rail, might skew pace figs for that horse and obviously Beyer FIGS.

Great point Tom.

rsetup
09-07-2016, 11:12 PM
Any number of reasons why a horse might be doing more work at a given point in the race. Who cares if I have that data? It's not a time trial, it's an event involving other factors. To use the work data, my program needs to be able to identify all the different race types. And pace splits or figures don't do this. Though they'd complement nicely once the types are identified. Random Forest probably would be very hard pressed to do it.

NorCalGreg
09-07-2016, 11:16 PM
Greg, I couldn't care less about your software or anything to do with your software.

The reason I brought it up is SOLELY because you knocked the existance of track/path biases. I am SO STUPIFIED that you would feel that way, so I searched for any reason why you might feel that way.

I didn't need to search very far. The answer is extremely obvious.

Don't hate the messenger. Hate the message and please don't misplace your guilt on me (deflection).

Nevertheless, we're cool. I thought I made that clear but if you make statements in a bias thread that are ridiculous, I will call you out on it.

Good luck betting inside speeds, :lol: , on dead inside path nights at the Mountain. Let me know how that works out for you. I'm sure each loss will be an isolated event. :lol:

You have a good night too :ThmbUp:

P.S. As far as I know, one POSTER in this entire BOARD, has had the guts to post ADW stats REPEATEDLY. I don't need to prove jacks hit to anyone here.


As far as I know...only ONE POSTER has posted 100 consecutive selections---BEFORE THE RACES WERE RUN...and shown a flat bet profit.

ADW statements can be easily faked....selections the night before can't.

Spare me your excuses why you can't do something that simple.

EMD4ME
09-07-2016, 11:29 PM
As far as I know...only ONE POSTER has posted 100 consecutive selections---BEFORE THE RACES WERE RUN...and shown a flat bet profit.

ADW statements can be easily faked....selections the night before can't.

Spare me your excuses why you can't do something that simple.

You said good night, I said good night. And now you want to continue?

How about this? I'm sure you think Class Handicapper is a credible poster. I'll show him my stats when I see him. He can answer your credibility question.


On a seperate note. Let me answer your other question.

1) I post on here in between family time, study time, leisure time. When I am working (at the track and handling $10,000, $15,000 in a day) I don't have the yearning to come on here to impress some blank off. I don't need the distractions. I am not betting $5 to win on 100 computer generated selections. I am taking detailed trip notes, rewatching replays, studying the track, looking at the horse in the paddock. If I make 1 MISTAKE, it can cost me my year. Let's see, what's more important? My year or impressing NCG? I think you come up a bit short. However, as you remember in your horses to watch thread. I did chime in time to time with a healthy ROI.


2) I have a luxury. I don't need to pick the night before like public handicappers do. So, even if I chose to make time to impress someone like you, I would make pics throughout the day as I A) Do care to see how horses are being wagered upon B) I do care to see how the track is playing and C) how the horse looks in the paddock.

I know you are committed to Software generated pics, so you don't care about looking at the horses in the paddock, the tote and more importantly track bias.

Now I stayed out of your thread for a long while. You posted in a thread I am passionate about. Again, don't get irked for me answering your post. The truth is the truth. Don't hate me please. If you don't like the truth, change it pal.

Have a good night again NCG.

rsetup
09-07-2016, 11:38 PM
Greg

You're playing angles, fully dependent on BRIS. If they shut down, you go on superdupernumber tilt. You look for extreme mismatches, typically on smaller tracks, and you win when they come up. Your knowledge as to the nuances of the sport is right up there with Cratos. He has Newton and you have BRIS.
And both of you are extremely transparent.
Suggestion: watch a few races. It's actually an interesting game.

BCOURTNEY
09-07-2016, 11:40 PM
The track surface does not magically distinguish between a front runners hooves and a closers hooves. However, if there was overnight or morning rain, for example, the inner paths on a turn might retain more water, which can cause horses who are leading (to spend more energy working through that part of the track). Which then gives the 1st over presser / dueler an obviously easier trip. This creates more race flow which brings more closers into the race (in the better -outside paths)

Just one example.

How are you recording these observations/measurements? Do you assign numbers to them or modify or reconsider certain data because of them?

EMD4ME
09-07-2016, 11:46 PM
How are you recording these observations/measurements? Do you assign numbers to them or modify or reconsider certain data because of them?

Formulator. Been using it since 2007. Every single thought I have on the track, each horses trip and the race's flow is noted.

Not just via numbers but via my own language of adjectives.

I also learned by copying Litfin. I keep a notebook with each day's races written out. I mark where each winner, 2nd finisher and 3rd finisher ran (3 path backstretch, 4-2 path far turn, 3 then 4 then 6 path lane). I also document if it was a mad scramble for the lead, was the weakest speed on the outside the last pace survivor etc. So as I dissect the day's races, trends pop out.

Paints a picture for how the day went.

Plus, if you take the time to write it out, for me, it drives the information into my brain. To each his own.

Hope that answers your questions and makes sense. If you need me to clarify, let me know. Was typing fast as the bed is calling :D :sleeping:

Robert Fischer
09-07-2016, 11:48 PM
will you bums stick to horses and stop have your little social BS in every thread?

Not just you guys specifically, but half of the damn threads have personal BS lately

cut it out

EMD4ME
09-07-2016, 11:55 PM
will you bums stick to horses and stop have your little social BS in every thread?

Not just you guys specifically, but half of the damn threads have personal BS lately

cut it out

My apologies Robert. Wasn't intended to be that way.

thaskalos
09-08-2016, 12:13 AM
IMO...there are 19 mirages for every one true "track bias" that we see.

NorCalGreg
09-08-2016, 12:23 AM
IMO...there are 19 mirages for every one true "track bias" that we see.

I'm more forgiving--I would have guessed 9 out of 10

Tom
09-08-2016, 07:28 AM
IMO...there are 19 mirages for every one true "track bias" that we see.

Probably pretty close to that.

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 07:59 AM
IMO...there are 19 mirages for every one true "track bias" that we see.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 08:08 AM
Greg

You're playing angles, fully dependent on BRIS. If they shut down, you go on superdupernumber tilt. You look for extreme mismatches, typically on smaller tracks, and you win when they come up. Your knowledge as to the nuances of the sport is right up there with Cratos. He has Newton and you have BRIS.
And both of you are extremely transparent.
Suggestion: watch a few races. It's actually an interesting game.

The problem though is that we are not talking about a few but thousands of races per year..

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 08:25 AM
IMO...there are 19 mirages for every one true "track bias" that we see.

That can be true if someone doesn't know what they are looking at.

Example: Joe bloe might think that there were a total 19 race days that were "unfair or pro closer biased" at the Emerald Downs 2016 meet. Joe Bloe doesn't keep detailed trip notes on every single horse that ran at Emerald in 2016. Joe Bloe didn't analyze race flows, paces and otherwise during the meet BUT Joe insisted that 19 days had a closers bias because on those days at least 40% of the races were won off the pace.

What Joe didn't know was in those 68 races out of 171 (19 x 9), the closers were just the best animals, in best form vs. Weak speeds.

The mirage is in Joe Blows mind.

The sharp player knows (almost exactly) when there is a bias and when there isn't.

2) there were tons of dead rail days at Emerald this year. They produced 1st over press biases. What is that? In those races, the outside pressing speed would inherent the lead from the dead rail speed and keep going if they stayed off the rail. That's monster information.

Those thinking that a bias is a mirage , miss out on carrying that wave and scratch their heads at many results.

Way back when I thought a bias was voodoo. Bullshit created by losing players . Through experience and time spent studying the track looking to convince myself that biases don't exist, I found that they do exist.

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 08:30 AM
After reading the last few posts, I'm glad. As Delta would always tell me, SHUT UP :lol:

Keep the information to yourself / us and let's cash.

For those willing to ignore the impact of the track, by all means let's agree to disagree!

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 08:38 AM
After reading the last few posts, I'm glad. As Delta would always tell me, SHUT UP :lol:

Keep the information to yourself / us and let's cash.

For those willing to ignore the impact of the track, by all means let's agree to disagree!

Finally!

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 08:54 AM
2) there were tons of dead rail days at Emerald this year. They produced 1st over press biases. What is that? In those races, the outside pressing speed would inherent the lead from the dead rail speed and keep going if they stayed off the rail. That's monster information.

Those thinking that a bias is a mirage , miss out on carrying that wave and scratch their heads at many results.

Way back when I thought a bias was voodoo. Bullshit created by losing players . Through experience and time spent studying the track looking to convince myself that biases don't exist, I found that they do exist.

Here are the PP stats for EMD. They do not reveal any bias although of course the data can be improved by watching the races and marking down the rail horse. Do you have this kind of improved data so we can verify them?

http://i63.tinypic.com/33cohnn.jpg

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 09:17 AM
Exactly these are not speed or closer biases but path biases.

This is the super advanced bias lesson not explained in any book. ;)

Certain paths can be faster or slower than others and certain paths can be more or less tiring than others also. There is a mild correlation between the two (slower tracks tend to be more tiring and vice versa), but it's not a perfect correlation. They are different things and different types of biases.

If all the paths are equally fast or slow, that's not a bias. All horses will be impacted equally.

If all paths are not equally fast, that's a path bias. Horses running on the faster paths will have an advantage.

If all paths are equally more tiring than usual (or vice versa), that's not a path bias, but it's a bias that will impact horses based on how they distribute their energy.

If all paths are not equally tiring, that's a path bias that will impact horses based on how they distributed their energy and which path they were on.

Now for the really crazy part.

Surfaces can be both slower and more tiring or slower and not more tiring (including for just certain paths).

Surfaces can be faster and less tiring or faster and not less tiring (including for just certain paths).

etc...

Every combination is possible.

The way you tell what's going on is to not just look at which path a horse was running on, but also his style. Sometimes every horse on the rail seems to be struggling. That's telling you one thing. Sometimes only speed horses and horses making huge brilliant moves along the rail seem to be tiring. That's telling you something else.

The assumption that all biases are the same or that all horses that raced with/against it will be impacted equally is false on many levels. That's what makes it so hard. When you are working with small samples you can sometimes see that there's a bias but not even be sure exactly what type and who is being impacted most.

Sometimes my notes say BR (which means bad rail for all) and sometimes my notes say TR (which means tiring rail that impacted horses that were used hard while racing on it but may not have impacted more even paced performances). I have more notations than the standard BR, GR, S, and CL to describe what seemed to be going on and how individual horses may have impacted differently.

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 09:17 AM
IMO...there are 19 mirages for every one true "track bias" that we see.

Fortunately one true track bias pays much better than 19-1, these are not single plays, so that is why they are interesting and worthy of pursuit.

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 09:25 AM
The track surface does not magically distinguish between a front runners hooves and a closers hooves. However, if there was overnight or morning rain, for example, the inner paths on a turn might retain more water, which can cause horses who are leading (to spend more energy working through that part of the track). Which then gives the 1st over presser / dueler an obviously easier trip. This creates more race flow which brings more closers into the race (in the better -outside paths)

Just one example.
Right. This is not a speed or closer bias as much as a path bias masquerading as a magical closer or speed bias.

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 09:52 AM
For those willing to ignore the impact of the track, by all means let's agree to disagree!


I learned this lesson rather late because I used to focus most of my attention on just NY racing. But imo the best way to learn about biases is to watch races from a lot of different tracks. The general differences will quickly explode into your consciousness. You'll see that what's normal at track A on most days is close to impossible on track B on most days. Once you see that those extremes can exist, you start redefining and clarifying normal in your head.

thaskalos
09-08-2016, 10:27 AM
Question-
What do you consider Race Flow to mean?
"Race flow" means the way the early part of the race was run, and how the early part supposedly impacted the rest of the race...INDEPENDENT of what the pace figures are telling us. "Pure" pace flow is what these new indicators in the DRF are supposedly pointing out to us. These new indicators often show that a race favored the closers...even though the opening fractions of the race were on the slowish side. "Pace flow" determinations are made as a result of contested or uncontested early stages...instead of the actual CLOCKINGS of those early portions of the race.

cj
09-08-2016, 10:31 AM
"Race flow" means the way the early part of the race was run, and how the early part supposedly impacted the rest of the race...INDEPENDENT of what the pace figures are telling us. "Pure" pace flow is what these new indicators in the DRF are supposedly pointing out to us. These new indicators often show that a race favored the closers...even though the opening fractions of the race are on the slowish side. "Pace flow" determinations are made as a result of contested or uncontested early stages...instead of the actual timings of those early portions of the race.

For the most part, couldn't those situations (often show that a race favored the closers...even though the opening fractions of the race are on the slowish side) just be saying the closers were the best horses in the race rather than they were favored by the run?

Seems like a slippery slope on that one to me.

So, for example, are we actually upgrading the frontrunners in the example you mentioned?

thaskalos
09-08-2016, 10:35 AM
For the most part, couldn't those situations (often show that a race favored the closers...even though the opening fractions of the race are on the slowish side) just be saying the closers were the best horses in the race rather than they were favored by the run?

Seems like a slippery slope on that one to me.
Of course.

That's what happens when you try to back-fit the results of these races. You could easily and mistakenly attribute these results to the wrong cause.

thaskalos
09-08-2016, 10:40 AM
So, for example, are we actually upgrading the frontrunners in the example you mentioned?

Yes...The DRF is suggesting that we upgrade the performances of the speed horses whenever the "C" indicator is given in a race. And, as a corollary...to downgrade the performances of the closers is such cases.

Pretty strong stuff...which is why I am not a fan of these new indicators.

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 10:42 AM
Yes...The DRF is suggesting that we upgrade the performances of the speed horses whenever the "C" indicator is given in a race. And, as a corollary...to downgrade the performances of the closers is such cases.

Pretty strong stuff...which is why I am not a fan of these new indicators.


It would have been interesting to either now how these indicators are assigned or how the perform. With the latter I mean creating a data base with C and S and estimate the predictive validity.

thaskalos
09-08-2016, 10:50 AM
It would have been interesting to either now how these indicators are assigned or how the perform. With the latter I mean creating a data base with C and S and estimate the predictive validity.
The DRF has remained awfully "secretive" about the procedure behind these new indicators...and has revealed no information about how "potent" these indicators really are in the performance of the task to which they are assigned.

I guess we can form our own opinions on why this has remained so "hush-hush"...

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 10:56 AM
It would have been interesting to either now how these indicators are assigned or how the perform. With the latter I mean creating a data base with C and S and estimate the predictive validity.

I'd be interested to see the results of this study if takes into account other known variables like ability of the horses, pace, path bias, ground loss by closers, trips etc. I suspect the effect of the C and S indicators would disappear as an independent variable.

rsetup
09-08-2016, 11:02 AM
The problem though is that we are not talking about a few but thousands of races per year..

That's why I keep emphasizing that it's a classification problem. Your model needs to be able to situate a given horse at a given point in the race. Even if you know the precise path, which you can approximate from video or Trakus, your model needs to make decisions based on what's happening in the race.

I'm describing a fully automated process, of course.

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 11:06 AM
I'd be interested to see the results of this study if takes into account other known variables like ability of the horses, pace, path bias, ground loss by closers, trips etc. I suspect the effect of the C and S indicators would disappear as an independent variable.

The only way I can see these indicators becoming useful for betting purposes, is if they become adopted by the betting crowd and have some significant contribution to its mistakes. More than this I do not believe they have any value.

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 11:20 AM
That's why I keep emphasizing that it's a classification problem. Your model needs to be able to situate a given horse at a given point in the race. Even if you know the precise path, which you can approximate from video or Trakus, your model needs to make decisions based on what's happening in the race.

I'm describing a fully automated process, of course.

I gave up to the development of a fully automated process a while ago. I am using models of course only for the creation of speed and pace figures and not for automatic betting selections. I concentrate in macro rather than micro handicapping. My handicapping process is based on deduction as opposed to induction, meaning that I try to eliminate as much data noise as possible and describe each race with the absolute minimum information needed, leaving the final judgment to my experience . In other words I am using the concept of freestyle chess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess) applied in this game.

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 11:20 AM
The only way I can see these indicators becoming useful for betting purposes, is if they become adopted by the betting crowd and have some significant contribution to its mistakes. More than this I do not believe they have any value.
I agree. Perhaps I should not be arguing against their utility in my own self interest to get better prices thanks to those that put their faith in them. :)

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 11:24 AM
I agree. Perhaps I should not be arguing against their utility in my own self interest to get better prices thanks to those that put their faith in them. :)

The utility of a handicapping factor is by NO MEANS related to its real impact in the game. It is quite possible that a completely invalid factor to provide tremendous betting value if the crowd believes in it and bets accordingly.

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 11:41 AM
The DRF C and S notations are saying more than just whether the closers or front runners did better in the race. If that's all it was, it would only be marginally useful.

It is also (and imo often more importantly) telling you something about the makeup of the field. In order to earn either the C or S, the race also had to meet qualifications in terms of the number of speed horses and likely pressure in the race. It's BOTH race development and field makeup.

Here's why field makeup is so important.

Let's say there were 2 pure speeds, 2 front runners, and 3 near front runners in the race. Regardless of what the pace is, several of those horses are going to find themselves outside their desired comfort zone. That can and often does cause several of them to run poorly no matter what the pace was or how contested it was (though it will often be fast and/or contested too).

Next time you might see one of those speed horses with a C or C+ next to the race. Let's say he was outrun or raced further back than usual in that race. Now you will know WHY. The horse's own pace figures will often NOT show any of that (assuming you even have pace figures - which many customers DO NOT). It will look like it was a dull race in his PPs, but in fact he was probably just outrun out of the gate or the rider wasn't aggressive because he knew what would happen. In either case the horse was taken out of his comfort zone and probably hasn't lost his speed or form.

Same thing in reverse.

Let's say you see a horse's last race with an S or S+ and you know he's normally more of a midpack type, but he made the lead in that race. Even if his pace figures suggest the pace was honest or mildly fast, you will know he didn't earn the lead by being quicker than other speeds and wanting it. He just inherited it. He's not showing improved speed or a change in running style. It was field makeup issue.

The C and S notations are trying to give race flow and field makeup information to people don't have or don't trust the accuracy of pace figures in all situations. But they are also complimenting pace figures by telling us things about the field makeup and the race flow where pace figures have shortcomings.

They even make running style analysis easier and better because if you are using a speed points type method either formally or not, you can make mental running style adjustments for races with an S and C.

If some horse was racing 2nd early in last 3 races but they were all C+ races, he's not a presser or stalker. He's a front runner or pure speed that just happened to draw into races loaded with speed types.

If some horse was on the lead in his last 3 starts but they were all S+ races, depending on the rest of his record he may not be a front runner. He may be more of a near the lead type or even mid pack horse that just happened to draw into races with no speed types.

The applications of this are endless and I'm working on this privately almost full time for myself. I've incorporated a ton of it into my own database reporting systems so I can project future paces more accurately and find races where the pace figures may be inaccurate or misleading.

No automated system is ever going to replace a thorough analysis of field makeups, watching races, a post race analysis by a very advanced handicapper, a high quality set pace figures and bias notes etc...

But these kinds of things are useful as a tool for people with less time and experience or for more advanced players as a "flag" that they should probably take a better look at that race if they aren't following that track in a detailed way.

I recently hit a shipper that showed speed and tired in his last race. The pace figures weren't exceptional, but it was a C+ race. So it gave me the incentive to take a better look at that field and find out who those other speeds were, how they did next time etc... I concluded that the horse was sharper than he looked and was going to get loose. He did and wired. No way in the old days I would have bothered to do that extra digging. It's possible I could have done that analysis and concluded the C+ wasn't really that strong and thrown the horse out, but the point is I at least knew to take a better look at his race and form.

thaskalos
09-08-2016, 11:58 AM
The DRF C and S notations are saying more than just whether the closers or front runners did better in the race. If that's all it was, it would only be marginally useful.

It is also (and imo often more importantly) telling you something about the makeup of the field. In order to earn either the C or S, the race also had to meet qualifications in terms of the number of speed horses and likely pressure in the race. It's BOTH race development and field makeup.

Here's why field makeup is so important.

Let's say there were 2 pure speeds, 2 front runners, and 3 near front runners in the race. Regardless of what the pace is, several of those horses are going to find themselves outside their desired comfort zone. That can and often does cause several of them to run poorly no matter what the pace was or how contested it was (though it will often be fast and/or contested too).

Next time you might see one of those speed horses with a C or C+ next to the race. Let's say he was outrun or raced further back than usual in that race. Now you will know WHY. The horse's own pace figures will often NOT show any of that (assuming you even have pace figures - which many customers DO NOT). It will look like it was a dull race in his PPs, but in fact he was probably just outrun out of the gate or the rider wasn't aggressive because he knew what would happen. In either case the horse was taken out of his comfort zone and probably hasn't lost his speed or form.

Same thing in reverse.

Let's say you see a horse's last race with an S or S+ and you know he's normally more of a midpack type, but he made the lead in that race. Even if his pace figures suggest the pace was honest or mildly fast, you will know he didn't earn the lead by being quicker than other speeds and wanting it. He just inherited it. He's not showing improved speed or a change in running style. It was field makeup issue.

The C and S notations are trying to give race flow and field makeup information to people don't have or don't trust the accuracy of pace figures in all situations. But they are also complimenting pace figures by telling us things about the field makeup and the race flow where pace figures have shortcomings.

They even make running style analysis easier and better because if you are using a speed points type method either formally or not, you can make mental running style adjustments for races with an S and C.

If some horse was racing 2nd early in last 3 races but they were all C+ races, he's not a presser or stalker. He's a front runner or pure speed that just happened to draw into races loaded with speed types.

If some horse was on the lead in his last 3 starts but they were all S+ races, depending on the rest of his record he may not be a front runner. He may be more of a near the lead type or even mid pack horse that just happened to draw into races with no speed types.

The applications of this are endless and I'm working on this privately almost full time for myself. I've incorporated a ton of it into my own database reporting systems so I can project future paces more accurately and find races where the pace figures may be inaccurate or misleading.

I'm always honest about this kind of stuff. No automated system is ever going to replace thorough analysis of field makeups, watching the races, and a post race analysis by a very advanced pace handicapper, but these kinds of things are very useful as a tool for people with less time and experience or for more advanced players as a "flag" that they should probably take a better look at that race if they aren't following that track in a detailed way.

IMO...the DRF staff should make up their mind on what "service" they want to provide to their customers. Do they want to provide us with the "raw tools", so we could do the best job possible without having to spend untold amounts of time gathering these "raw tools" ourselves...or do they want to "interpret" this game for us, in case we are "inexperienced players"?

If the DRF wants to make the horseplayer's life easier...then how about starting with providing us with a usable track variant...instead of that 19-century relic that they are currently dishing out to us? And they should save us the nonsense about alienating the "old-time" customers...who are used to the current DRF variant. The customers who relied on the current DRF variant went broke and fled the game long ago.

Give us reliable "raw tools", I say...and we'll take care of the "interpreting" job ourselves.

Cratos
09-08-2016, 12:08 PM
(Heart Girth^2 x Body Length) ÷ 330

I'll give it a spin. I'm more interested in other video analytics which are much more telling of performance expectations.

To estimate a horse’s length, multiply its height in hands times 4 and divide by 8. The resultant will be the horse’s length in feet.

EXAMPLE:

A horse is 15.3 hands tall (measured from the withers to the ground).

Multiply 4*15.3 = 61.2/8 = 7.75 feet, the length of the horse.

thaskalos
09-08-2016, 12:11 PM
To estimate a horse’s length, multiply its height in hands times 4 and divide by 8. The resultant will be the horse’s length in feet.

EXAMPLE:

A horse is 15.3 hands tall (measured from the withers to the ground).

Multiply 4*15.3 = 61.2/8 = 7.75 feet, the length of the horse.

If we are going to measure a horse's HEIGHT...then why not just measure the horse's LENGTH, as well?

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 12:15 PM
If the DRF wants to make the horseplayer's life easier...then how about starting with providing us with a usable track variant...instead of that 19-century relic that they are currently dishing out to us? And they should save us the nonsense about alienating the "old-time" customers...who are used to the current DRF variant. The customers who relied on the current DRF variant went broke and fled the game long ago.


IMO (as a customer not employee) the company provides a broad range of tools and information for all levels of players. For example, there are basic jockey and trainer stats available in the PPs that can be helpful and there is a huge 5 year database of trainer data available you can filter any way you want to break the stats down in a much more refined way.

One appeals to me. The other I rarely look at unless a number jumps out at me. Then I go to the database. It's the same thing for lots of features and products.

I know you think it's crazy, but it's true. There are some very large data customers that use the DRF track variant as part of their process and there are old timers that would have a stroke if it was removed. :bang:

Do you honestly think any handicapper at DRF thinks our track variant is worth taking up precious space in the PPs? No way.

Anyway, this was a good thread on bias and shouldn't be sidetracked by this stuff.

Tom
09-08-2016, 12:17 PM
If we are going to measure a horse's HEIGHT...then why not just measure the horse's LENGTH, as well?

:lol::lol::lol: Just about lost my lunch I laughed so hard!

thaskalos
09-08-2016, 12:18 PM
IMO (as a customer not employee) the company provides a broad range of tools and information for all levels of players. For example, there are basic jockey and trainer stats available in the PPs that can be helpful and there is a huge 5 year database of trainer data available you can filter any way you want to break the stats down in a much more refined way.

One appeals to me. The other I rarely look at unless a number jumps out at me. Then I go to the database. It's the same thing for lots of features and products.

I know you think it's crazy, but it's true. There are some very large data customers that use the DRF track variant as part of their process and there are old timers that would have a stroke if it was removed. :bang:

Do you honestly think any handicapper at DRF thinks our track variant is worth taking up precious space in the PPs? No way.

Anyway, this was a good thread on bias and shouldn't be sidetracked by this stuff.

How do you know that these "old-timers" haven't had a stroke already?

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 12:46 PM
How do you know that these "old-timers" haven't had a stroke already?

:lol:

I can ask the manager in charge, but I think the last time a survey was done they started gathering in mass with pitchforks.

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 12:50 PM
The utility of a handicapping factor is by NO MEANS related to its real impact in the game. It is quite possible that a completely invalid factor to provide tremendous betting value if the crowd believes in it and bets accordingly.
My point precisely. When the public puts great value on invalid indicators, this is a bonanza for those that see through them.

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 12:52 PM
My point precisely. When the public puts great value on invalid indicators, this is a bonanza for those that see through them.

This is what the game is all about!

Cratos
09-08-2016, 12:53 PM
Cratos how do you gather the horses weight data?
We modelled a racehorse weight on the NYRA circuit using parametric modeling with an engineering CAD/CAE software program using the following horse body parts as weight determinants:

Wither Height

Hip Height

Body Length

Distal Limb Length

Cannon Circumference

Heart girth

Chest Width

Our results were an average of 1,084 Lbs ±100 Lbs for all horses, but at the G1 stakes level at NYRA we found the average to be 1,150 Lbs.

Tom
09-08-2016, 01:19 PM
So how does an average weight of all horses help to determine a track bias?

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 01:44 PM
So how does an average weight of all horses help to determine a track bias?

I'm still trying to figure that one out too.

Bias is mostly about the interrelationship between the surface, how the individual horse distributes his energy that day, how much speed vs. stamina he has, and whether the track is uniform or different from path to path.

I was recently watching races where the rail was dead but speed was an advantage. :eek: That's the bias note I made.

The best trip was probably being loose on the lead while 3 wide.

Dueling 3 wide is often a tough trip because not only are you being used on the lead, you are running faster than the horses inside of you on the turn because of the ground loss. But on that track it was probably a better trip than being loose on the rail or trying to close off the fast pace.

The 3 wide dueler avoided the slower paths inside and since the track was carrying speed, the extra energy used early and wide was not translating into the horse tiring as much as you would expect.

cj
09-08-2016, 02:27 PM
Let's say there were 2 pure speeds, 2 front runners, and 3 near front runners in the race. Regardless of what the pace is, several of those horses are going to find themselves outside their desired comfort zone. That can and often does cause several of them to run poorly no matter what the pace was or how contested it was (though it will often be fast and/or contested too).



This is done behind the scenes as there are no visible running styles in DRF PPs, correct?

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 02:30 PM
By what possible mechanism does a track favor speed that is not accounted for by pace, ability of the front runners, path bias, trip, etc?
All these variables have a rational explanation. Speed bias has no causal explanation as an independent variable.
The fact that many people think it does makes for a better price for those that see through it.

Tom
09-08-2016, 02:47 PM
The track may not be tiring the front runners as much as normal.
Compare Sartoga to Santa Anita.

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 02:56 PM
The track may not be tiring the front runners as much as normal.
Compare Sartoga to Santa Anita.
That's not a mechanism or explanation. Pace, path bias, ability of front-runners, etc. are.
In addition the difference between tracks is often due to the beliefs of the jockey colonies there and how they ride races. A self fulfilling prophcy

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 03:09 PM
This is done behind the scenes as there are no visible running styles in DRF PPs, correct?

Yes.

The running styles, pre race analysis, and post race chart analysis are all private algorithms.

Given that I saw all the data and the test results, I learned a few things about the details of race setups that I wasn't aware of before. That's what motivated me to develop tools along these lines for private use that would build on it. DRF has budgets and priorities that don't always match my personal handicapping. ;) I can fly on my own.

Tom
09-08-2016, 03:09 PM
Not true at all.
The track itself changes and that cause a bias.
Mountaineer has had a dead rail, I believe I read here, for a while now.
Belmont had a prominent golden rail a few times this year.
We are not talking about the normal track characteristics, but the oddities, the outliers. That has nothing to do with jockeys.

Aqueduct in the winter, when it is too cold to put down a lot of water makes the track dead, as sailing during heavy rains cause a different track than normal

Jeff P
09-08-2016, 03:11 PM
By what possible mechanism does a track favor speed that is not accounted for by pace, ability of the front runners, path bias, trip, etc?
All these variables have a rational explanation. Speed bias has no causal explanation as an independent variable.
The fact that many people think it does makes for a better price for those that see through it.

I respectfully disagree.

For example:

I am aware of a few dirt surfaces where the path nearest the rail along the far turn (but not the clubhouse turn) appears perfectly flat or (put another way) has zero banking.

But all of the other paths to the outside of that first path are banked - and not insignificantly.

As a result (at least my interpretation of how lack of banking in the path nearest the rail on those courses shapes race outcomes) is that horses unfortunate enough to be caught in that path are forced to expend more energy navigating the far turn than those who get to enjoy a path that has banking.

Visually - horses caught along the rail on the far turn on days where this physical oddity can be picked up during the head on replay of the horses navigating the far turn... such horses frequently (and by frequently I mean to the point of statistical relevance or more than their odds would suggest) suffer one of two outcomes:

a. If asked for run while navigating the far turn they fade in the stretch.

b. If not asked for run while navigating the far turn they get shuffled back.

That is just case where I think a physical cause shapes race outcomes. There are others.


-jp


.

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 03:21 PM
By what possible mechanism does a track favor speed that is not accounted for by pace, ability of the front runners, path bias, trip, etc?
All these variables have a rational explanation. Speed bias has no causal explanation as an independent variable.
The fact that many people think it does makes for a better price for those that see through it.


To be honest, Cratos probably has a better theory on all this than I can come up with. But generally surfaces have different compositions, depths, and cushions. Horses have different hoofs, weights, strides etc... That all impacts how the hoof reacts when it makes contact, how it slides or grips the surface, how it springs back etc...

Some surfaces are more or less tiring than others.

To me, the greater mystery is why a track can be super fast and not carry speed better than average (and vice versa). I think those things are mildly correlated, but it's not exact. We see that on dirt, but it's more obvious on turf. Some turf courses are super fast, but closers do fine.

Different hoofs, strides, and surfaces must react differently. Rather than obsess over the explanation, I try to figure out how the races are developing.

thaskalos
09-08-2016, 03:27 PM
To be honest, Cratos probably has a better theory on all this than I can come up with. But generally surfaces have different compositions, depths, and cushions. Horses have different hoofs, weights, strides etc... That all impacts how the hoof reacts when it makes contact, how it slides or grips the surface, how it springs back etc...

Some surfaces are more or less tiring than others.

To me, the greater mystery is why a track can be super fast and not carry speed better than average (and vice versa). I think those things are mildly correlated, but it's not exact. We see that on dirt, but it's more obvious on turf. Some turf courses are super fast, but closers do fine.

Different hoofs, strides, and surfaces must react differently. Rather than obsess over the explanation, I try to figure out how the races are developing.

Sure...Cratos has a "theory", alright. But it's the "theory's" PRACTICALITY that we are wondering about.

rsetup
09-08-2016, 03:34 PM
So how does an average weight of all horses help to determine a track bias? weight, distance covered, time, and force (wind, surface, etc.) get you work and joules. You'll know what a horse typically should expend and note when it expends more.

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 03:36 PM
Sure...Cratos has a "theory", alright. But it's the "theory's" PRACTICALITY that we are wondering about.

I agree with you.

I probably wasted a lot of mental energy years ago trying to come up with theories that explained my observations. I am no less curious now, but winning money is the priority. If I see a bunch of good front runners walking on the lead, but they don't seem to be holding up as well as my "theory" suggests, I don't waste a lot of time wondering why. I adjust my thinking about who to bet.

Tom
09-08-2016, 04:04 PM
weight, distance covered, time, and force (wind, surface, etc.) get you work and joules. You'll know what a horse typically should expend and note when it expends more.

And how does that help you detect a bias?
And you are telling me you can look at 1000s of horse every day in the PPS and tell what each one should expend?
Not likely.

Tom
09-08-2016, 04:06 PM
People have been using bias for decades now.
The time for theories is long gone.

Good thing this thread isn't in Harness - we would be discussing the best designs for WHEELS! :rolleyes:

barn32
09-08-2016, 04:21 PM
Good thing this thread isn't in Harness - we would be discussing the best designs for WHEELS! :rolleyes:Round.

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 04:33 PM
Not true at all.
The track itself changes and that cause a bias.
Mountaineer has had a dead rail, I believe I read here, for a while now.
Belmont had a prominent golden rail a few times this year.
We are not talking about the normal track characteristics, but the oddities, the outliers. That has nothing to do with jockeys.

Aqueduct in the winter, when it is too cold to put down a lot of water makes the track dead, as sailing during heavy rains cause a different track than normal
I already stated that different tracks have path biases. That is not the same as a speed bias as a separate variable.
In one of his books Beyer describes his 1st visit to Santa Anita where he discussed the so-called speed bias of the surface. The jocks believe in a speed bias so they gun the horses early turning most of the races into an extended sprint. In such situations speed horses have an advantage. a self fulfilling prophecy.

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 04:36 PM
I respectfully disagree.

For example:

I am aware of a few dirt surfaces where the path nearest the rail along the far turn (but not the clubhouse turn) appears perfectly flat or (put another way) has zero banking.

But all of the other paths to the outside of that first path are banked - and not insignificantly.

As a result (at least my interpretation of how lack of banking in the path nearest the rail on those courses shapes race outcomes) is that horses unfortunate enough to be caught in that path are forced to expend more energy navigating the far turn than those who get to enjoy a path that has banking.

Visually - horses caught along the rail on the far turn on days where this physical oddity can be picked up during the head on replay of the horses navigating the far turn... such horses frequently (and by frequently I mean to the point of statistical relevance or more than their odds would suggest) suffer one of two outcomes:

a. If asked for run while navigating the far turn they fade in the stretch.

b. If not asked for run while navigating the far turn they get shuffled back.

That is just case where I think a physical cause shapes race outcomes. There are others.


-jp


. Your talking about path or rail biases, which make sense and which I agree exist.

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 04:44 PM
The track may not be tiring the front runners as much as normal.
Compare Sartoga to Santa Anita.
Front runners and closers run on the same track surface. If a front runner distributes his energy evenly on a tiring track this is no disadvantage unless there is a path bias.
Again it comes down to pace and path, not surface.

cj
09-08-2016, 04:48 PM
Front runners and closers run on the same track surface. If a front runner distributes his energy evenly on a tiring track this is no disadvantage unless there is a path bias.
Again it comes down to pace and path, not surface.

If a guy with more stamina is almost as fast as a guy with more speed but less stamina on packed, wet sand, who would win in deep sand? At some point the tables tip towards the slower guy with more stamina I would think.

PICSIX
09-08-2016, 04:51 PM
Any track maintenance employees on this site? If so, can you shine some light on the subject?

VigorsTheGrey
09-08-2016, 04:57 PM
Before I became a devotee of teatotalism, a local pub I frequented had a shuffleboard. Over decades of use, the formerly level and flat surface of the shuffleboard itself became worn down by putted pucks, to form grooves of bias that steered the pucks marginally left or right....players who were aware of the bias scored higher and won more often...

I'm wondering if there are certain pathways that are more favorable than others, to follow on the racecourse...my opinion is that the ideal path would resemble the path that motor sports cars travel....the path of least resistance...the shortest path around the racetrack is not the same one as the path of least resistance for a racehorse running around the course. The baseline for the course might be this peculiar pathway.
For example, envision this peculiar pathway for Santa Anitas' downhill turf sprint.

rsetup
09-08-2016, 04:59 PM
And how does that help you detect a bias?
And you are telling me you can look at 1000s of horse every day in the PPS and tell what each one should expend?
Not likely.

Not my method. Just surmising what would be done with the factors.

And, anyone building something like this would automate it.

bobphilo
09-08-2016, 05:20 PM
If a guy with more stamina is almost as fast as a guy with more speed but less stamina on packed, wet sand, who would win in deep sand? At some point the tables tip towards the slower guy with more stamina I would think.
I see your point if both runners went all out from start to finish.
However in anything other than an all-out sprint an important factor would be how their speed is distributed. Through sound energy distribution the speedier runner would not have to draw on his stamina reserves as much. Of course distance is a major factor as well so you might say that a more tiring track acts somewhat like a longer distance giving the stamina runner a slight advantage.
Given your example one would have to assume that faster tracks are always speed favoring but this is not always considered the case among those looking for speed biases. It would not explain the times where slower tracks supposedly show a speed bias.
The problem with many jockeys is they do not take more tiring tracks into account as much as they should and therefore run out of energy sooner on slow tracks. Not so much a question of surface as of energy distribution.

Cratos
09-08-2016, 05:29 PM
I'm still trying to figure that one out too.

Bias is mostly about the interrelationship between the surface, how the individual horse distributes his energy that day, how much speed vs. stamina he has, and whether the track is uniform or different from path to path.

I was recently watching races where the rail was dead but speed was an advantage. :eek: That's the bias note I made.

The best trip was probably being loose on the lead while 3 wide.

Dueling 3 wide is often a tough trip because not only are you being used on the lead, you are running faster than the horses inside of you on the turn because of the ground loss. But on that track it was probably a better trip than being loose on the rail or trying to close off the fast pace.

The 3 wide dueler avoided the slower paths inside and since the track was carrying speed, the extra energy used early and wide was not translating into the horse tiring as much as you would expect.
Speaking strictly to horse size and track surface deformation; a Smarty Jones, Birdstone, Shared Belief or any horse of similar size will not have as much problem with a soft track as would a Zenyatta, Forego, Point Given or any horse of similar size because when the track surface is soft (turf or dirt) and deforming when under pressure; it increases the resistance to motion.

This doesn’t say that small horses automatically beat their larger counterparts, but it does say that with respect to a deforming surface the smaller horse have an advantage.

Cratos
09-08-2016, 05:30 PM
Before I became a devotee of teatotalism, a local pub I frequented had a shuffleboard. Over decades of use, the formerly level and flat surface of the shuffleboard itself became worn down by putted pucks, to form grooves of bias that steered the pucks marginally left or right....players who were aware of the bias scored higher and won more often...

I'm wondering if there are certain pathways that are more favorable than others, to follow on the racecourse...my opinion is that the ideal path would resemble the path that motor sports cars travel....the path of least resistance...the shortest path around the racetrack is not the same one as the path of least resistance for a racehorse running around the course. The baseline for the course might be this peculiar pathway.
For example, envision this peculiar pathway for Santa Anitas' downhill turf sprint.
An excellent point

Cratos
09-08-2016, 06:34 PM
I agree with you.

I probably wasted a lot of mental energy years ago trying to come up with theories that explained my observations. I am no less curious now, but winning money is the priority. If I see a bunch of good front runners walking on the lead, but they don't seem to be holding up as well as my "theory" suggests, I don't waste a lot of time wondering why. I adjust my thinking about who to bet.
Everyone one on this forum I assume goes first with their learned or innate quantitative abilities when comes to their handicapping of racehorses; practicality is about understanding not about simplification.

Cratos
09-08-2016, 07:27 PM
I respectfully disagree.

For example:

I am aware of a few dirt surfaces where the path nearest the rail along the far turn (but not the clubhouse turn) appears perfectly flat or (put another way) has zero banking.

But all of the other paths to the outside of that first path are banked - and not insignificantly.

As a result (at least my interpretation of how lack of banking in the path nearest the rail on those courses shapes race outcomes) is that horses unfortunate enough to be caught in that path are forced to expend more energy navigating the far turn than those who get to enjoy a path that has banking.

Visually - horses caught along the rail on the far turn on days where this physical oddity can be picked up during the head on replay of the horses navigating the far turn... such horses frequently (and by frequently I mean to the point of statistical relevance or more than their odds would suggest) suffer one of two outcomes:

a. If asked for run while navigating the far turn they fade in the stretch.

b. If not asked for run while navigating the far turn they get shuffled back.

That is just case where I think a physical cause shapes race outcomes. There are others.


-jp


.

A good observation and you are correct, because banking of the turn changes the normal force on the horse by the cosine of the banking angle and this is significant given the inherent side force on the turn.

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 07:58 PM
Here are the PP stats for EMD. They do not reveal any bias although of course the data can be improved by watching the races and marking down the rail horse. Do you have this kind of improved data so we can verify them?

http://i63.tinypic.com/33cohnn.jpg

Hey Delta,

I have date specific data which is what is needed, you know me.

4/17-rail was dead races 6-10. Race 6, the rail was the speed and the favorite, dueled inside and quit. Outside dueler won it. Race 7, PP 10 won with an outside trip. Race 8, yet again outside stalker won. Race 9-all outside PPs ran best. Race 10-chalk got to lead from pp 1, lost while racing inside.

Post 1 was 0/5 in that biased 1/2 day. (I had the rail slightly negative for races 1-5 FYI).

Track was biased not because PP 1 lost. The rail was dead because an intense, experienced Emerald player who knows all the horses inside out, realized that there too many incidents of solid horses who were racing inside, underperforming.

I can list the next 20-30 racing days but I don't want this post to run for 3 pages.

Those PP stats can be extremely misleading. First, we're talking about short term trends which are the most valuable to us. Why?

1) If we catch on to a bias before others, we can bet accordingly
2) If we catch these anamolous days and document properly, we can know more than Joe Schmo the next time each runner comes back. Who's performance was bias aided, who was killed by a bias.

One will never detect short term biases via looking at long term trends. (For example Post Position stats). Over the course of a meet, there will be gold rail days & dead rail days (and other types of biases) and the Post Position stats aren't definitive enough to point out which day had what bias. In the long run, they might even eachother out (but there are many variables to that-better horses in certain positions-lopsided amount of dead rail days etc.)

Finally, as most know, horses can break from any post and run in any paths. PP 1 could have no speed, be taken wide immediately and run 4 wide, 5 wide, 6 wide throughout. PP 10 can tuck and ride the rail for 75% of a race etc.

Not really talking to you as I know you know your stuff. Just replying in general to PA Nation.

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 08:02 PM
I don't bet the Mountain often, I should but I want to give SUPER credit to Mark for this:

http://www.moreatmountaineer.com/racing/track-bias


Awesome work Mark, awesome.


Jason Blewitt compiles this list, good man!

https://www.nyra.com/saratoga/racing/track-trends

classhandicapper
09-08-2016, 08:09 PM
2) If we catch these anamolous days and document properly,


I have bias, trip, and pace/race flow notes for almost all the races of all the top dirt horses. As I'm sure you know, their PPs sometimes sing an entirely different tune when you look at them with all that info attached.

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 08:14 PM
I have bias, trip, and pace/race flow notes for almost all the races of all the top dirt horses. As I'm sure you know, their PPs sometimes sing an entirely different tune when you look at them with all that info attached.

Absoblankenlutey. I learned years ago, read each line from the bottom, up. See the story, understand how the trainer is thinking. Understand what happened with replays, competition info, intent, paddock notes and BIAS notes.

I can't tell you (not you but in general) how many times I saw:

Bad race
Great race
Good race
Solid race


And when I saw the horse was against an intense bias LAST TIME, I realized that I am dealing with an in form horse and not a horse who might be tailing off form.

Good stuff Class

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 08:37 PM
Here are the PP stats for EMD. They do not reveal any bias although of course the data can be improved by watching the races and marking down the rail horse. Do you have this kind of improved data so we can verify them?

http://i63.tinypic.com/33cohnn.jpg

Perhaps an EMD expert can comment on these. There is distortion in the extreme outside positions - possibly due to sample size. If one were to bet only the 3 or 5 hole this year so far it's a tremendous ROI boost.

EMD Post Position Bias 2016
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4K0CBQksS7Oelpkd3BVaDU2LXc/view?usp=sharing

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 08:41 PM
I opened the attached image. Do you mind explaining what the last number signifies or attempts to signify?

Also, what does rail position mean? Post #? Path a horse took at some point?

Please clarify/ expand.

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 08:47 PM
I see you edited the post and clarified that its ROI that is signified.

I'll say this. That is kind of random. You can't blindly bet horses because they had pp 3 or pp5. But if the rail is dead and pp 1 is the main projected speed AND your pick is a stalker/presser starting from pp3 or 5, then yes it can be an advantageous post...

If you place Zippy Chippy in post 3 or 5, they're not winning..

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 08:50 PM
I opened the attached image. Do you mind explaining what the last number signifies or attempts to signify?

Sure. It's used to adjust win probabilities.

For example: if a horse offered in post position number 1 is determined by the public to have a 13.63% chance to win, you multiply the offering by 1.0628 to arrive at an actual 14.49% win rate. In this case it would imparts an edge of .86% (about 1%).

So the higher numbers say that rail position is biased to the positive win for a horse. The lower numbers would say that rail position is biased to the negative win for a horse.

I did not provide adjustments to ROI - just win probability to be clear.

Furthermore, just betting the 5 position this year so far yields a win return of 0.9255 on the dollar. This is versus the average provided by all positions of 0.7813. This is across thousands of animals, and suggests a large positive bias, regardless of reasoning or rationale. It was largely present in June and July and remained very high even after clamping odds at 20 to 1.

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 08:53 PM
Sure. It's used to adjust win probabilities.

For example: if a horse offered in post position number 1 is determined by the public to have a 13.63% chance to win, you multiply the offering by 1.0628 to arrive at an actual 14.49% win rate. In this case it would imparts an edge of .86% (about 1%).

So the higher numbers say that rail position is biased to the positive win for a horse. The lower numbers would say that rail position is biased to the negative win for a horse.

I did not provide adjustments to ROI - just win probability to be clear.

So this says that pps 371011&12 have a better advantage than pp1?

Not saying this is proof, just asking.

Again, I am day specific , not meet specific as every day is unique and many times every hour (EMD runs twilight cards that go from hot daylight to cooler after sunset races) is unique.

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 08:57 PM
Sure. It's used to adjust win probabilities.

For example: if a horse offered in post position number 1 is determined by the public to have a 13.63% chance to win, you multiply the offering by 1.0628 to arrive at an actual 14.49% win rate. In this case it would imparts an edge of .86% (about 1%).

So the higher numbers say that rail position is biased to the positive win for a horse. The lower numbers would say that rail position is biased to the negative win for a horse.

I did not provide adjustments to ROI - just win probability to be clear.

Furthermore, just betting the 5 position this year so far yields a win return of 0.9255 on the dollar. This is versus the average provided by all positions of 0.7813. This is across thousands of animals, and suggests a large positive bias, regardless of reasoning or rationale. It was largely present in June and July and remained very high even after clamping odds at 20 to 1.

Thank you. Did you mean rail position or post position?

ReplayRandall
09-08-2016, 08:57 PM
So this says that pps 371011&12 have a better advantage than pp1?

Not saying this is proof, just asking.

Again, I am day specific , not meet specific as every day is unique and many times every hour (EMD runs twilight cards that go from hot daylight to cooler after sunset races) is unique.

Are you getting paid for these posts? If not, zip it, you're giving too much away for free..;)

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 08:59 PM
Good night everyone. ;)

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 09:01 PM
So this says that pps 371011&12 have a better advantage than pp1?

Not saying this is proof, just asking.

Again, I am day specific , not meet specific as every day is unique and many times every hour (EMD runs twilight cards that go from hot daylight to cooler after sunset races) is unique.

Right. These statistics represent an accumulation so far this year. If you can identify this early in the process it can be profitable when combined with other handicapping factors. It's about the timing. For example I would not use the Rail Position 5 now for example the bias evaporated in August.

What is interesting to me is to watch when the changes occur.

The question how to someone like yourself that views tapes, and takes detailed notes, would be, does this data support or agree with your findings?
Or is this even something you would consider?

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 09:04 PM
Thank you. Did you mean rail position or post position?

gate draw

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 09:12 PM
Right. These statistics represent an accumulation so far this year. If you can identify this early in the process it can be profitable when combined with other handicapping factors. It's about the timing. For example I would not use the Rail Position 5 now for example the bias evaporated in August.

What is interesting to me is to watch when the changes occur.

The question how to someone like yourself that views tapes, and takes detailed notes, would be, does this data support or agree with your findings?
Or is this even something you would consider?

Last post, as you were kind and informative. RR was right, as was Delta, I need to shut up :lol:

I don't pay much attention to stats of that nature. I don't care if PP 1's thru 3 are 95% winners for 95 races. If I see, after 1 race that there was a peculiar result, with outside path running horses running well, all those PP stats are even more useless to me.

I am race specific, day specific, hourly specific. Generalities mean close to little when it comes to starting PP positions. Now, if a rail has been poor for days, yes, it does matter that a horse starts from PP 1. But I will NOT infer a bias off of post position stats.

Finally, I wouldn't suggest you avoid PP 5, now or ever, that's an anamoly stat. No direct cause from PP 5 to the winner's circle.

Been great interacting :ThmbUp: Good stuff !

EMD4ME
09-08-2016, 09:14 PM
Maybe it's an omen, :lol: , but Courtney's Hero is running in the next race at CBY from PP 5.

Should we bet??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

First time starter at long odds! :5: :D

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 09:30 PM
Last post, as you were kind and informative. RR was right, as was Delta, I need to shut up :lol:

I don't pay much attention to stats of that nature. I don't care if PP 1's thru 3 are 95% winners for 95 races. If I see, after 1 race that there was a peculiar result, with outside path running horses running well, all those PP stats are even more useless to me.

I am race specific, day specific, hourly specific. Generalities mean close to little when it comes to starting PP positions. Now, if a rail has been poor for days, yes, it does matter that a horse starts from PP 1. But I will NOT infer a bias off of post position stats.

Finally, I wouldn't suggest you avoid PP 5, now or ever, that's an anamoly stat. No direct cause from PP 5 to the winner's circle.

Been great interacting :ThmbUp: Good stuff !

Thanks. I would never avoid rail position 5, nor would I avoid a 99 to 1 horse if I believed the value proposition was net positive. Biases are simply adjustments used to do something useful.

I understand the nature and power of being a hyper aware individual handicapper and beating average expectations within any given race. It's always interesting to hear how biases are being handled across a spectrum of approach.

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 09:34 PM
Hey Delta,

I have date specific data which is what is needed, you know me.

4/17-rail was dead races 6-10. Race 6, the rail was the speed and the favorite, dueled inside and quit. Outside dueler won it. Race 7, PP 10 won with an outside trip. Race 8, yet again outside stalker won. Race 9-all outside PPs ran best. Race 10-chalk got to lead from pp 1, lost while racing inside.

Post 1 was 0/5 in that biased 1/2 day. (I had the rail slightly negative for races 1-5 FYI).

Track was biased not because PP 1 lost. The rail was dead because an intense, experienced Emerald player who knows all the horses inside out, realized that there too many incidents of solid horses who were racing inside, underperforming.

I can list the next 20-30 racing days but I don't want this post to run for 3 pages.

Those PP stats can be extremely misleading. First, we're talking about short term trends which are the most valuable to us. Why?

1) If we catch on to a bias before others, we can bet accordingly
2) If we catch these anamolous days and document properly, we can know more than Joe Schmo the next time each runner comes back. Who's performance was bias aided, who was killed by a bias.

One will never detect short term biases via looking at long term trends. (For example Post Position stats). Over the course of a meet, there will be gold rail days & dead rail days (and other types of biases) and the Post Position stats aren't definitive enough to point out which day had what bias. In the long run, they might even eachother out (but there are many variables to that-better horses in certain positions-lopsided amount of dead rail days etc.)

Finally, as most know, horses can break from any post and run in any paths. PP 1 could have no speed, be taken wide immediately and run 4 wide, 5 wide, 6 wide throughout. PP 10 can tuck and ride the rail for 75% of a race etc.

Not really talking to you as I know you know your stuff. Just replying in general to PA Nation.

good post and food for thought :ThmbUp:

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 09:39 PM
Maybe it's an omen, :lol: , but Courtney's Hero is running in the next race at CBY from PP 5.

Should we bet??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

First time starter at long odds! :5: :D

Statistically Horses with a name containing 'emd' are strongly negative this year so far:
bias
0.7207

Statistically Horses with a name containing 'courtney' are VERY strongly negative this year so far:
bias
0.0000 (no winners from 16 starts)

Update: It appears Courtney's Hero - was not.

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 10:11 PM
A good observation and you are correct, because banking of the turn changes the normal force on the horse by the cosine of the banking angle and this is significant given the inherent side force on the turn.

Reminds me of my early days in the late 80's and 90's with neural networks and greyhound racing, all about the banking turns. Now there is a racing paradigm with obvious bias.

VigorsTheGrey
09-08-2016, 10:26 PM
good post and food for thought :ThmbUp:

Instead of post position bias maybe it should be path bias....like EMD said, any horse can break from any post and run in any path...the :8: can break clean and drop to the rail immediately effectively make it the :1: post position wise...so what use are post position stats really?

What is needed is running path stats and ways to index and cross reference the history of each horse with regard to the path it ran in for x-portion of the race....EMD's race notes on steroids is the prototype of this kind of record keeping...As Thaskalos says, that losers often know what to do, but don't apply what they know in order to reduce the negative impact of making losing wagers....

EMD's trip notes and record keeping, massive video time, and general overall familiarity with the current racing stock and jockey/ trainer colony, provide a gigantor-enormous edge compared with the regular player who might only do maybe one of these if at all...

...If EMD can convert his post position notes to path notes and somehow index the horses with the paths....all that may be needed is to have some clear idea of which horses can make it to which paths at this or that stage of the race....

EMD has already suggested that at Emerald Downs, for example, horses that make the front at the top of the stretch have a great chance for winning...understanding if any giving horse can make the front at this point in the race would necessarily involve a knowledge of which paths might become available and when, for which horses...

DeltaLover
09-08-2016, 10:35 PM
Instead of post position bias maybe it should be path bias....like you say any horse can break from any post and run in any path...the :8: can break clean and drop to the rail immediately effectively make it the :1: post position wise...so what use are post position stats really?

What is needed is running path stats and ways to index and cross reference the history of each horse with regard to the path it ran in for x-portion of the race....EMD's race notes on steroids is the prototype of this kind of record keeping...As Thaskalos says, that losers often know what to do, but don't apply what they know in order to reduce the negative impact of making losing wagers....

EMD's trip notes and record keeping, massive video time, and general overall familiarity with the current racing stock and jockey/ trainer colony, provide a gigantor-enormous edge compared with the regular player who might only do maybe one of these if at all...

...If EMD can convert his post position notes to path notes and somehow index the horses with the paths....all that may be needed is to have some clear idea of which horses can make it to which paths at this or that stage of the race....

EMD has already suggested that at Emerald Downs, for example, horses that make the front at the top of the stretch have a great chance for winning...understanding if any giving horse can make the front at this point in the race would necessarily involve a knowledge of which paths might become available and when, for which horses...

Based on what I have seen, when it comes to trip notes EMD is the best without a question.

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 10:47 PM
Based on what I have seen, when it comes to trip notes EMD is the best without a question.

Great if he is willing to post a month worth of notes I will figure out how to automate it, let's all get rich. :ThmbUp:

Cratos
09-08-2016, 11:08 PM
Instead of post position bias maybe it should be path bias....like EMD said, any horse can break from any post and run in any path...the :8: can break clean and drop to the rail immediately effectively make it the :1: post position wise...so what use are post position stats really?

What is needed is running path stats and ways to index and cross reference the history of each horse with regard to the path it ran in for x-portion of the race....EMD's race notes on steroids is the prototype of this kind of record keeping...As Thaskalos says, that losers often know what to do, but don't apply what they know in order to reduce the negative impact of making losing wagers....

EMD's trip notes and record keeping, massive video time, and general overall familiarity with the current racing stock and jockey/ trainer colony, provide a gigantor-enormous edge compared with the regular player who might only do maybe one of these if at all...

...If EMD can convert his post position notes to path notes and somehow index the horses with the paths....all that may be needed is to have some clear idea of which horses can make it to which paths at this or that stage of the race....

EMD has already suggested that at Emerald Downs, for example, horses that make the front at the top of the stretch have a great chance for winning...understanding if any giving horse can make the front at this point in the race would necessarily involve a knowledge of which paths might become available and when, for which horses...
We do what I think that you are suggesting.

We use Trakus data and use their given data points of distance from the rail and distance at each POC from the start for each horse in the race and this gives the displacement of the horse at point of intersection from point to point in the race.

Essentially we are conducting vector analysis with tangent vectors along the downward sloping nonlinear race curve.

However we only do this for the NYRA circuit.

BCOURTNEY
09-08-2016, 11:11 PM
Everyone one on this forum I assume goes first with their learned or innate quantitative abilities when comes to their handicapping of racehorses; practicality is about understanding not about simplification.

Actually I was thinking most everyone posting in this thread goes first with their qualitative assessment abilities.

Is the problem we are trying to solve here is this a classification or regression problem? What is the intended output(s)?

Based on you posts I saw cleansed time as the intended output.

Cratos
09-09-2016, 12:06 AM
Actually I was thinking most everyone posting in this thread goes first with their qualitative assessment abilities.

Is the problem we are trying to solve here is this a classification or regression problem? What is the intended output(s)?

Based on you posts I saw cleansed time as the intended output.

What we attempt to do is bring each horse back to its “clean final time” (as you put it) and ask the question: “If Horse A ran against Horse B under the same conditions (i.e., distance and class); what would be the outcome?”

VigorsTheGrey
09-09-2016, 12:09 AM
Actually I was thinking most everyone posting in this thread goes first with their qualitative assessment abilities.

Is the problem we are trying to solve here is this a classification or regression problem? What is the intended output(s)?

Based on you posts I saw cleansed time as the intended output.

This idea of cleansed time is new to me but I'm sure it is not new for all you pros...put another way, is the output you are seeking "the best representative absolute (cleansed) race time for each runner superimposed onto one another to create moving races shapes that terminate at the finish line with a projected order of finish.". My quote.

Tom
09-09-2016, 08:28 AM
My conclusions are Pandy is the only one who knows what he is doing. :rolleyes:
He is watching how races are run and using the information to help him make selections.

Thanks for clarity, Pandy! :lol:

mountainman
09-09-2016, 12:38 PM
I don't bet the Mountain often, I should but I want to give SUPER credit to Mark for this:

http://www.moreatmountaineer.com/racing/track-bias


Awesome work Mark, awesome.


Jason Blewitt compiles this list, good man!

https://www.nyra.com/saratoga/racing/track-trends

tx, pal..but, although the bias notes were my idea, nancy took them over (at my behest) many months ago when I almost died from the gall bladder thing.

I say this not only to give her credit, but because I would (and did) do them a bit differently, and would rather be associated with my own writing style. She's good, but we are very very different in approach, substance, and style.

And we often disagree on bias trends.

I'll pass along the props, and tell her they come from a very sharp guy.

mountainman
09-09-2016, 01:17 PM
I've seen formulas for expressing track-bias-as pertains to running-style-in numeric fashion. But none of these methods take odds or race-flow into account. In other words, a 20-1 that wins after a prolonged speed-battle should be more assigned more significance than a chalk that clears easily and wires.

Just for fun, I've tinkered with devising my own formula, but prefer to use human judgement. And any such formula should have basis in voluminous research performed by geeks that establishes, for instance, what the percentage chance is of a front-running win in a two-turn mile involving an extended speed-duel between two chalks...etc...etc...etc....

rsetup
09-09-2016, 02:16 PM
I've seen formulas for expressing track-bias-as pertains to running-style-in numeric fashion. But none of these methods take race-flow into account.
Setups are not captured by speed or pace numbers. Thought this would never catch on. :jump:

cj
09-09-2016, 02:26 PM
I've seen formulas for expressing track-bias-as pertains to running-style-in numeric fashion. But none of these methods take odds or race-flow into account. In other words, a 20-1 that wins after a prolonged speed-battle should be more assigned more significance than a chalk that clears easily and wires.



The TimeformUS rating takes these into account...odds, pace, and race flow. We certainly don't count a 3-5 winning the same as a 15-1, and a horse setting dawdling fractions and winning doesn't count nearly as much as one setting fast fractions and hanging on, for example. Same goes for a dueler as opposed to a clear lead.

classhandicapper
09-09-2016, 02:51 PM
I've seen formulas for expressing track-bias-as pertains to running-style-in numeric fashion. But none of these methods take odds or race-flow into account. In other words, a 20-1 that wins after a prolonged speed-battle should be more assigned more significance than a chalk that clears easily and wires.



That's an extreme case that would catch my eye under any circumstances, but there are problems with that approach at the margin.

Once a trend at a track has been established, the public catches on quickly and adjusts its betting. So you may think that some horse that wired at 8/5 is somewhat meaningless, but not if the horse would have been 4-1 at another track or on another day.

Also, one 8/5 wiring may be insignificant, but if five of them wire in a row, that may mean a lot.

Also, if it's a long term track trend, all the horses that were helped by a bias will have good looking form next time. If they are helped again, it's still a bias. It just doesn't look like a bias because all the horses look like they are in form when in fact they are just consistently running on a biased track.

It's very difficult to analyze things like that subjectively even if you are dedicating a ton of time to bias (like me), let alone with a formula.

I think formulas like that are best used as a flag for tracks you do not watch closely (kind of like the DRF pace symbols). If your automated algorithm says that Tampa was speed favoring on a certain day and you don't play or watch Tampa, it will alert you to investigate the charts and perhaps the race card a little closer. But for you personally, there's no way any algorithm is going to help me at MNR as much as your observations on a daily basis. When I do watch races at MNR because I want to take notes, I pour over the card, charts, and replays for at least an hour or two (longer if it's a tough day).

All this stuff is what makes it fertile grounds for value. It's so damn difficult to be right consistently enough to matter that most people abandon it and assume there aren't any real biases.

rsetup
09-09-2016, 03:03 PM
It's not easy writing these kind of formulas. Things you can see/comprehend instantly visually, might prove intractible to code. I can easily code for days where speed or closers are dominant by comparing positions at different calls. Or parse chart comments for path bias key words. But these are the obvious cases that everyone is aware of.

classhandicapper
09-09-2016, 03:09 PM
It's not easy writing these kind of formulas. Things you can see/comprehend instantly visually, might prove intractible to code. I can easily code for days where speed or closers are dominant by comparing positions at different calls. Or parse chart comments for path bias key words. But these are the obvious cases that everyone is aware of.

I agree.

The inside/outside biases are much easier to evaluate if you actually get to see how hard the horses in various paths are working relative to what you'd expect and then again how they do when they switch paths. Knowing that a horse was on the rail doesn't tell you how hard the rider was urging him to keep up with the 3 wide dueler or the other way around.

rsetup
09-09-2016, 03:30 PM
What's becoming more and more apparent is Trakus' value. The distance covered, from call to call, allows you to determine the paths of the horses. Combined with the individual timing, you can significantly reduce time spent watching replays. Allowing for their glitches, of course.

ReplayRandall
09-09-2016, 03:57 PM
What's becoming more and more apparent is Trakus' value. The distance covered, from call to call, allows you to determine the paths of the horses. Combined with the individual timing, you can significantly reduce time spent watching replays. Allowing for their glitches, of course.

Your choice, but I might re-think that decision, if I were you....

classhandicapper
09-09-2016, 04:09 PM
Your choice, but I might re-think that decision, if I were you....

I don't do anything automated with Trakus, but it helps me locate and follow horses while I'm watching replays. Sometimes, you lose horses when they are off the screen and sometimes even with the head on replay it's hard to tell which path the horses is running in with all the switching. So you can default into the Trakus number as long as it seems to make sense.

rsetup
09-09-2016, 04:30 PM
I don't anticipate many issues with Trakus. If anything, Trakus is more accurate than the result charts. I'm looking for an initial overview of the race. Then I can focus on the relevant portions and events. I'm more interested in how a horse runs within a given setup, rather than the minutiae of his race.

Cratos
09-09-2016, 04:30 PM
I've seen formulas for expressing track-bias-as pertains to running-style-in numeric fashion. But none of these methods take odds or race-flow into account. In other words, a 20-1 that wins after a prolonged speed-battle should be more assigned more significance than a chalk that clears easily and wires.

Just for fun, I've tinkered with devising my own formula, but prefer to use human judgement. And any such formula should have basis in voluminous research performed by geeks that establishes, for instance, what the percentage chance is of a front-running win in a two-turn mile involving an extended speed-duel between two chalks...etc...etc...etc....
Please explain why the highlighted text in your post have this difference in impact; I am confused by your assertion.

cj
09-09-2016, 04:52 PM
Please explain why the highlighted text in your post have this difference in impact; I am confused by your assertion.

You really need that explained? Really? Seriously?

bobphilo
09-09-2016, 04:52 PM
Please explain why the highlighted text in your post have this difference in impact; I am confused by your assertion.
I think I see his point. Too many people are quick to consider front running wins by a short-priced favorites as indicators of a speed bias. It is much more significant when longshots overcome their long odds and go wire to wire. One must consider horses' abilities when assigning biases. A lot of so called speed biases disappear when the front runner just happened to be the best horse. No bias help required nor implied.

cj
09-09-2016, 04:55 PM
I think I see his point. Too many people are quick to consider front running wins by a short-priced favorites as indicators of a speed bias. It is much more significant when longshots overcome their long odds and go wire to wire. One must consider horses' abilities when assigning biases. A lot of so called speed biases disappear when the front runner just happened to be the best horse. No bias help required nor implied.

It all goes back to being a good handicapper. Even odds can't replace that, as we all know not all 20-1 shots are created equal.

bobphilo
09-09-2016, 05:05 PM
Once a trend at a track has been established, the public catches on quickly and adjusts its betting. So you may think that some horse that wired at 8/5 is somewhat meaningless, but not if the horse would have been 4-1 at another track or on another day.


I love it when people over-bet horses based on so-called speed biases. It gives me better prices on results depending on more rational explanations for front runner advantages or disadvantages such as, horses' ability, pace, path biases, trips, etc.

rsetup
09-09-2016, 05:06 PM
Speed bias is about an unfair advantage. If there's a bias, there's repetition. Hard to make a case without repetition no matter what the odds.

ReplayRandall
09-09-2016, 05:07 PM
I don't anticipate many issues with Trakus. If anything, Trakus is more accurate than the result charts. I'm looking for an initial overview of the race. Then I can focus on the relevant portions and events. I'm more interested in how a horse runs within a given setup, rather than the minutiae of his race.

Bottom-line, if your not watching replays and notating how the JOCKEY pilot's the horse, all the data in the world won't ever be equal to what you SEE, as far as jockey intent and performance goes, with the actual ride that was given.......Some rides are merely workouts within a race, others are fault ridden rides. What data can clearly define that info for you?...."minutiae" you say?..whatever...:rolleyes:

bobphilo
09-09-2016, 05:11 PM
It all goes back to being a good handicapper. Even odds can't replace that, as we all know not all 20-1 shots are created equal.
I agree. I think his point was that 20-1 lonshots are generally less likely to have the ability of short priced favorites so they are more likely to have been aided by a bias of some kind when they win.
Of course, there is no substitute for good handicapping in individual cases.

VigorsTheGrey
09-09-2016, 05:18 PM
Bottom-line, if your not watching replays and notating how the JOCKEY pilot's the horse, all the data in the world won't ever be equal to what you SEE, as far as jockey intent and performance goes, with the actual ride that was given.......Some rides are merely workouts within a race, others are fault ridden rides. What data can clearly define that info for you?...."minutiae" you say?..whatever...:rolleyes:

You are so right Randall....if a picture is worth a thousand words, then certainly a video is worth a million words, easily...

thaskalos
09-09-2016, 05:29 PM
The only thing that I find disagreeable with replay viewing is that its practitioners consider themselves more "insightful" than everybody else.

Cratos
09-09-2016, 05:34 PM
You really need that explained? Really? Seriously?
Yes, seriously

Cratos
09-09-2016, 05:35 PM
I think I see his point. Too many people are quick to consider front running wins by a short-priced favorites as indicators of a speed bias. It is much more significant when longshots overcome their long odds and go wire to wire. One must consider horses' abilities when assigning biases. A lot of so called speed biases disappear when the front runner just happened to be the best horse. No bias help required nor implied.
Thanks for your intelligent response

bobphilo
09-09-2016, 05:49 PM
Thanks for your intelligent response
My pleasure.

VigorsTheGrey
09-09-2016, 05:49 PM
Thanks for your intelligent response

Agree, that's some first class thinking there....much of my thought just skims the surface...I need to learn to think deeper before responding.....not my forte....its just too easy to SOUND intelligent....which really just indicates that I am just infatuated with the sound of my own voice...God, help me...

ReplayRandall
09-09-2016, 05:53 PM
The only thing that I find disagreeable with replay viewing is that its practitioners consider themselves more "insightful" than everybody else.
What an "insightful" comment you've just shared. The hard work, time expended and overall race analysis, makes your comment, true too.....However, the game itself keeps me humble, in addition to you, Gus..:cool:

mountainman
09-09-2016, 05:54 PM
That's an extreme case that would catch my eye under any circumstances, but there are problems with that approach at the margin.

Once a trend at a track has been established, the public catches on quickly and adjusts its betting. So you may think that some horse that wired at 8/5 is somewhat meaningless, but not if the horse would have been 4-1 at another track or on another day.

Also, one 8/5 wiring may be insignificant, but if five of them wire in a row, that may mean a lot.

Also, if it's a long term track trend, all the horses that were helped by a bias will have good looking form next time. If they are helped again, it's still a bias. It just doesn't look like a bias because all the horses look like they are in form when in fact they are just consistently running on a biased track.

It's very difficult to analyze things like that subjectively even if you are dedicating a ton of time to bias (like me), let alone with a formula.

I think formulas like that are best used as a flag for tracks you do not watch closely (kind of like the DRF pace symbols). If your automated algorithm says that Tampa was speed favoring on a certain day and you don't play or watch Tampa, it will alert you to investigate the charts and perhaps the race card a little closer. But for you personally, there's no way any algorithm is going to help me at MNR as much as your observations on a daily basis. When I do watch races at MNR because I want to take notes, I pour over the card, charts, and replays for at least an hour or two (longer if it's a tough day).

All this stuff is what makes it fertile grounds for value. It's so damn difficult to be right consistently enough to matter that most people abandon it and assume there aren't any real biases.

The "chicken or egg" dilemma concerning winning odds when a bias takes hold has occurred to me , sir. And I agree. no formula can equal astute human judgment. It's just fun to tinker with.

Incidentally, I'm not nearly as comfortable or skilled at detecting a bias for tracks with which I'm less familiar. Not knowing the horses makes it a sketchy undertaking, and not knowing the track's intrinsic nature leaves me without a baseline to start from.

In addition, most players who THINK they can detect a bias at Mnr are conclusion jumpers and unfamiliar with the subtle differences between seemingly similar trends.

Also, I find past biases most useful in bringing clarity to a horse's form. Some would-be sharpies,on the other hand, blindly bet any contender that opposed the grain recently.

CincyHorseplayer
09-09-2016, 06:01 PM
The only thing that I find disagreeable with replay viewing is that its practitioners consider themselves more "insightful" than everybody else.

For whatever reason I always am finding a comparison to baseball or women in this game. With replays I see it's merits but it's not for me. I don't want to chunk down in a neighborhood and go to war with everyone around me competing for it's population of women(winners). I want a little of the cream of the crop from everywhere. Beauties that are obvious and overlooked. Look too hard in one place and you end up in one of these painstaking routines(like replays). It's all a matter of preference. Right now I routinely do races from about 12 tracks and feel like the air is fresh and exciting and am in one of those nice runs because of the variety. Not forcing the issue nor taking simply what is there.

Regarding track bias Thask don't you feel like you know what you believe, can't convince anybody of what you believe and don't really care if they believe it anyway? I find certain things pointless because they are so idiosyncratic. You are either inviting ridicule of theft with no personal benefit!

cj
09-09-2016, 06:01 PM
Yes, seriously

Wow.

VigorsTheGrey
09-09-2016, 06:05 PM
What an "insightful" comment you've just shared. The hard work, time expended and overall race analysis, makes your comment, true too.....However, the game itself keeps me humble, in addition to you, Gus..:cool:

My most insightful comments are usually those where even I don't know what the hell I mean....geeez, I got to start REALLY thinking about things more....I appreciate all of the insights here....if I could only remember and implement a tiny fraction of what I learn here....well...I wouldn't be such a wagering fool...

VigorsTheGrey
09-09-2016, 06:13 PM
Wow.

That's the same comment my English teacher wrote across the top of a brilliant term paper I wrote....wow! I was expecting a little more from her... I wanted her to say that I was the greatest, most intelligent writer in her recent memory... Another Keats, Poe, Byron.....

Wow....is......is.....well.....wowie!

EMD4ME
09-09-2016, 06:16 PM
Bottom-line, if your not watching replays and notating how the JOCKEY pilot's the horse, all the data in the world won't ever be equal to what you SEE, as far as jockey intent and performance goes, with the actual ride that was given.......Some rides are merely workouts within a race, others are fault ridden rides. What data can clearly define that info for you?...."minutiae" you say?..whatever...:rolleyes:

Ditto :ThmbUp:

bobphilo
09-09-2016, 06:41 PM
Agree, that's some first class thinking there....much of my thought just skims the surface...I need to learn to think deeper before responding.....not my forte....its just too easy to SOUND intelligent....which really just indicates that I am just infatuated with the sound of my own voice...God, help me...
Is that meant to be sarcastic or an argument to dumb down the conversation? Just asking. Apologies if I'm misreading you.

rsetup
09-09-2016, 07:32 PM
Only a stumble handicapper can infer that rides are minutiae from anything I wrote.

classhandicapper
09-09-2016, 07:43 PM
I love it when people over-bet horses based on so-called speed biases. It gives me better prices on results depending on more rational explanations for front runner advantages or disadvantages such as, horses' ability, pace, path biases, trips, etc.

What are you are really arguing here is that there are a lot of bad bias handicappers out there that jump to premature and wrong conclusions. I agree with that for sure. I'm occasionally wrong myself even after 40 years of doing this crap. :lol:

Sometimes I watch every race multiple times, review every significant horse's speed figures going in, what they earned in the potentially biased race, and then monitor what they earned next time - including other aspects of pace and trip - and I'm still not sure what happened. So a "?" goes into the notes and I keep watching.

VigorsTheGrey
09-09-2016, 09:48 PM
Is that meant to be sarcastic or an argument to dumb down the conversation? Just asking. Apologies if I'm misreading you.

No, neither sarcastic, nor attempt to dumb down....I really do think that what you said is very intelligent.....sorry about the way I expressed it....I'm kind of silly some times and it gets in my way a lot...

I'm trying to get better and not be so impulsive about how I communicate on these threads.....but it isn't easy....old habits are sometimes difficult to break...

Many thanks to all of you who can see beyond my sometimes crazy thoughts....I apologize...and will try to be better in the future... :)

EMD4ME
09-09-2016, 09:49 PM
My most insightful comments are usually those where even I don't know what the hell I mean....geeez, I got to start REALLY thinking about things more....I appreciate all of the insights here....if I could only remember and implement a tiny fraction of what I learn here....well...I wouldn't be such a wagering fool...


Don't forget Vigors, we're all mostly strangers here on PA but this place connects us. You're positive post shows that you are saying to yourself:

DON'T STOP BELIEVING!

SUOWW5i1geU

thaskalos
09-10-2016, 12:53 AM
My most insightful comments are usually those where even I don't know what the hell I mean....geeez, I got to start REALLY thinking about things more....I appreciate all of the insights here....if I could only remember and implement a tiny fraction of what I learn here....well...I wouldn't be such a wagering fool...

I ALSO wish that I could remember a tiny fraction of what we discuss here. But, unfortunately...I remember it ALL.

VigorsTheGrey
09-10-2016, 01:40 AM
I ALSO wish that I could remember a tiny fraction of what we discuss here. But, unfortunately...I remember it ALL.

Does remembering all help or hinder your horseplay?

I would think the later,
but I also think I understand your subtle point,
that being that no one remembers everything, that all of us remembers only a tiny fraction of what we discuss here...

...so my statement is a tad boorish....and that I am somewhat of a boor....point taken....even a boor can change his stripes if he wants to AND sees the need for change like I do...thanks. ;)

NorCalGreg
09-10-2016, 01:49 AM
I think I see his point. Too many people are quick to consider front running wins by a short-priced favorites as indicators of a speed bias. It is much more significant when longshots overcome their long odds and go wire to wire. One must consider horses' abilities when assigning biases. A lot of so called speed biases disappear when the front runner just happened to be the best horse. No bias help required nor implied.

The "speed bias" actually exists and is easily charted, bob....the percent "early" and impact value can be found with a glance. They don't disappear unless rain washes that impact value away.

Speed, pace, and wire to wire winner-percentage at any given distance at any track is readily available--and steers me in the handicapping direction I need to go.

I'm not a trip handicapper-I don't watch replays----see no need to, when FACTS are staring me in the face. If any of you enjoy watching replay after replay--jotting down tidbits of something you see value in--great.

But why do some of you angrily dismiss anyone that doesn't?

I realize you and most people commenting here already know this. This thread has meandered around with nothing gained with an iota of handicapping use.

Did I miss something of value somewhere in this thread? If so, please point it out. If you can do that without name-calling...all the better.


-NCG

bobphilo
09-10-2016, 02:09 AM
The "speed bias" actually exists and is easily charted, bob....the percent "early" and impact value can be found with a glance. They don't disappear unless rain washes that impact value away.

Did I miss something of value somewhere in this thread? If so, please point it out. If you can do that without name-calling...all the better.
-NCG

My point is that what are commonly called speed biases are really caused by other biases with a more rational explanation, such as pace, path, horses abilities, trips, etc. That is where the impact values come from. In terms of handicapping I find it more productive to concentrate on these factors.

I don't know if you are referring to anything I've said when you refer to name calling. I try limit my criticisms to theories without insulting the person.

NorCalGreg
09-10-2016, 03:27 AM
My point is that what are commonly called speed biases are really caused by other biases with a more rational explanation, such as pace, path, horses abilities, trips, etc. That is where the impact values come from. In terms of handicapping I find it more productive to concentrate on these factors.

I don't know if you are referring to anything I've said when you refer to name calling. I try limit my criticisms to theories without insulting the person.


No bob....absolutely wasn't you--thanks for responding

classhandicapper
09-10-2016, 09:39 AM
My point is that what are commonly called speed biases are really caused by other biases with a more rational explanation, such as pace, path, horses abilities, trips, etc. That is where the impact values come from. In terms of handicapping I find it more productive to concentrate on these factors.


If someone is not considering the abilities of the horses, what the pace was, and whether there was a specific path advantage (like the rail), then he's simple a poor bias handicapper.

That would be like me saying that speed handicapping is bogus because some people are looking at raw final times without considering the quality of the horses, the speed of the race track, the wind etc...

These are some of the signs of a speed favoring track.

1. Longshots are carrying their speed better than expected given the pace

2. Front runners are drawing off and putting up lifetime top speed figures

3. Faint-hearted sprinters are wiring routes despite an honest pace

4. Horses engaging in duels that would normally hurt them are running hard to the finish and still earning their typical speed figures

5. 1-4 are happening from multiple paths (even though a preponderance of the performances may come from the rail)

6. Some shorter priced closers are rallying and picking up the pieces from a variety of paths but generally underperforming (as opposed to only rallying on the rail)

This may be the most important one because it throws people off.

7. The smartest riders are gunning out of the gate stetting fractions that are faster than the usual relationships between pace and final time for that quality of horse.

What makes #7 so important is that once the riders recognize a bias, they will sometimes neutralize it by being more aggressive. Once the closers start winning again, that does not mean the bias is gone. It just means the tactics have changed. The same thing sometimes happens in the other direction. The riders will all choke back their horses to slow fractions hoping to offset the track.

But you have to remember we are talking about a "bias". Think of it like a biased roulette wheel or pair of dice. Just because there is a bias that does not mean the biased number will come up every time. It will just come up more than expected by probability.

That's what's happening at the track also. The track is tilting in a way that is helping the speedier front runners, but it's not giving them an automatic ticket to the winner's circle either.

pandy
09-10-2016, 09:56 AM
If someone is not considering the abilities of the horses, what the pace was, and whether there was a specific path advantage (like the rail), then he's simple a poor bias handicapper.

That would be like me saying that speed handicapping is bogus because some people are looking at raw final times without considering the quality of the horses, the speed of the race track, the wind etc...

These are some of the signs of a speed favoring track.

1. Longshots are carrying their speed better than expected given the pace

2. Front runners are drawing off and putting up lifetime top speed figures

3. Faint-hearted sprinters are wiring routes despite an honest pace

4. Horses engaging in duels that would normally hurt them are running hard to the finish and still earning their typical speed figures

5. 1-4 are happening from multiple paths (even though a preponderance of the performances may come from the rail)

6. Some shorter priced closers are rallying and picking up the pieces from a variety of paths but generally underperforming (as opposed to only rallying on the rail)

This may be the most important one because it throws people off.

7. The smartest riders are gunning out of the gate stetting fractions that are faster than the usual relationships between pace and final time for that quality of horse.

What makes #7 so important is that once the riders recognize a bias, they will sometimes neutralize it by being more aggressive. Once the closers start winning again, that does not mean the bias is gone. It just means the tactics have changed. The same thing sometimes happens in the other direction. The riders will all choke back their horses to slow fractions hoping to offset the track.

But you have to remember we are talking about a "bias". Think of it like a biased roulette wheel or pair of dice. Just because there is a bias that does not mean the biased number will come up every time. It will just come up more than expected by probability.

That's what's happening at the track also. The track is tilting in a way that is helping the speedier front runners, but it's not giving them an automatic ticket to the winner's circle either.

These are the kind of things I evaluate when assigning a bias. With bias, the best kind of a track bias, in terms of how valuable it may prove to be when handicapping, is an obvious bias. A lot of times we call a track biased but can't be sure. However, sometimes, we're positive, and that's when you can really take advantage of the bias further on down the road.

DeltaLover
09-10-2016, 09:58 AM
If someone is not considering the abilities of the horses, what the pace was, and whether there was a specific path advantage (like the rail), then he's simple a poor bias handicapper.

That would be like me saying that speed handicapping is bogus because some people are looking at raw final times without considering the quality of the horses, the speed of the race track, the wind etc...

These are some of the signs of a speed favoring track.

1. Longshots are carrying their speed better than expected given the pace

2. Front runners are drawing off and putting up lifetime top speed figures

3. Faint-hearted sprinters are wiring routes despite an honest pace

4. Horses engaging in duels that would normally hurt them are running hard to the finish and still earning their typical speed figures

5. 1-4 are happening from multiple paths (even though a preponderance of the performances may come from the rail)

6. Some shorter priced closers are rallying and picking up the pieces from a variety of paths but generally underperforming (as opposed to only rallying on the rail)

This may be the most important one because it throws people off.

7. The smartest riders are gunning out of the gate stetting fractions that are faster than the usual relationships between pace and final time for that quality of horse.

What makes #7 so important is that once the riders recognize a bias, they will sometimes neutralize it by being more aggressive. Once the closers start winning again, that does not mean the bias is gone. It just means the tactics have changed. The same thing sometimes happens in the other direction. The riders will all choke back their horses to slow fractions hoping to offset the track.

But you have to remember we are talking about a "bias". Think of it like a biased roulette wheel or pair of dice. Just because there is a bias that does not mean the biased number will come up every time. It will just come up more than expected by probability.

That's what's happening at the track also. The track is tilting in a way that is helping the speedier front runners, but it's not giving them an automatic ticket to the winner's circle either.

Great post. Clearly the best in the thread.. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Cratos
09-10-2016, 10:02 AM
If someone is not considering the abilities of the horses, what the pace was, and whether there was a specific path advantage (like the rail), then he's simple a poor bias handicapper.

That would be like me saying that speed handicapping is bogus because some people are looking at raw final times without considering the quality of the horses, the speed of the race track, the wind etc...

These are some of the signs of a speed favoring track.

1. Longshots are carrying their speed better than expected given the pace

2. Front runners are drawing off and putting up lifetime top speed figures

3. Faint-hearted sprinters are wiring routes despite an honest pace

4. Horses engaging in duels that would normally hurt them are running hard to the finish and still earning their typical speed figures

5. 1-4 are happening from multiple paths (even though a preponderance of the performances may come from the rail)

6. Some shorter priced closers are rallying and picking up the pieces from a variety of paths but generally underperforming (as opposed to only rallying on the rail)

This may be the most important one because it throws people off.

7. The smartest riders are gunning out of the gate stetting fractions that are faster than the usual relationships between pace and final time for that quality of horse.

What makes #7 so important is that once the riders recognize a bias, they will sometimes neutralize it by being more aggressive. Once the closers start winning again, that does not mean the bias is gone. It just means the tactics have changed. The same thing sometimes happens in the other direction. The riders will all choke back their horses to slow fractions hoping to offset the track.

But you have to remember we are talking about a "bias". Think of it like a biased roulette wheel or pair of dice. Just because there is a bias that does not mean the biased number will come up every time. It will just come up more than expected by probability.

That's what's happening at the track also. The track is tilting in a way that is helping the speedier front runners, but it's not giving them an automatic ticket to the winner's circle either.
Your post is well taken, but what is missing and was invariably missed IMHO through out this thread was the "WHY"; the "WHAT" was typically given.

Cratos
09-10-2016, 10:17 AM
My point is that what are commonly called speed biases are really caused by other biases with a more rational explanation, such as pace, path, horses abilities, trips, etc. That is where the impact values come from. In terms of handicapping I find it more productive to concentrate on these factors.

I don't know if you are referring to anything I've said when you refer to name calling. I try limit my criticisms to theories without insulting the person.

And that is termed "intellectual disagreement"' a good policy to have in debate and discussion, but when the retorts result to insults and personal attacks it is lack of understanding.

Tom
09-10-2016, 11:01 AM
Your post is well taken, but what is missing and was invariably missed IMHO through out this thread was the "WHY"; the "WHAT" was typically given.

Who cares?
You don't need to know why a track is dead or glib, only that it is and how it is affecting the horses running over it.

rsetup
09-10-2016, 12:12 PM
Who cares?
You don't need to know why a track is dead or glib, only that it is and how it is affecting the horses running over it.you're correct IF you use the information of others. Nothing wrong with that. If you really want to understand the game and be vendor independent, however, additional understanding is needed. Clearly, you're in the former camp and the quoted poster appears to be in the latter. There's, thus, little commonality for you. You keep doling out money for data and he tweaks the FREE Trakus data. And away we all go. Good luck

Saratoga_Mike
09-10-2016, 12:18 PM
you're correct IF you use the information of others. Nothing wrong with that. If you really want to understand the game and be vendor independent, however, additional understanding is needed. Clearly, you're in the for met camp and the quoted poster appears to be in the latter. There's, thus, little commonality for you. You keep doling out money for data and he tweaks the FREE Trakus data. And away we all go. Good luck

Assume on 1/22/13 LRL favored closers. Every heavily favored speed horse lost. The world agrees LRL favored closers that day.

WHY did it favor closers? Unless you believe there were outside forces at work (e.g., jockeys all riding like fools) beyond the composition of the surface, why does it matter? I guess I'm in Tom's camp, but I'm open to caring about the why.

mountainman
09-10-2016, 12:26 PM
Since path bias is sexier, lots of players barely pause to assess which running-styles are being helped or hindered. These are usually the types who watch one 15-1 shot circle wide to win, and conclude the rail is impassable.

rsetup
09-10-2016, 12:38 PM
Assume on 1/22/13 LRL favored closers. Every heavily favored speed horse lost. The world agrees LRL favored closers that day.

WHY did it favor closers? Unless you believe there were outside forces at work (e.g., jockeys all riding like fools) beyond the composition of the surface, why does it matter? I guess I'm in Tom's camp, but I'm open to caring about the why.I'm not going to try to respond with the typical Cratos interpretation because even though I think there's validity in it, I also get the sense he's race understanding challenged and thus the approach is of no value for him.

Why? Either path, which means I can either watch every race carefully or use Trakus distance covered. Doubt Tom is doing either.

Or setup. Pace figures tell me if a race pace is fast or slow but they don't necessarily agree with the flow of the race. So I'd have to see if pace nums agree with flow and see if the races fell apart because of moves or surface. Once again, watch the races and/or Trakus. So WHY is important

Saratoga_Mike
09-10-2016, 12:49 PM
I'm not going to try to respond with the typical Cratos interpretation because even though I think there's validity in it, I also get the sense he's race understanding challenged and thus the approach is of no value for him.

Why? Either path, which means I can either watch every race carefully or use Trakus distance covered. Doubt Tom is doing either.

Or setup. Pace figures tell me if a race pace is fast or slow but they don't necessarily agree with the flow of the race. So I'd have to see if pace nums agree with flow and see if the races fell apart because of moves or surface. Once again, watch the races and/or Trakus. So WHY is important

All good points, and I doubt Tom will disagree with you, but we'll see.

pandy
09-10-2016, 12:49 PM
Assume on 1/22/13 LRL favored closers. Every heavily favored speed horse lost. The world agrees LRL favored closers that day.

WHY did it favor closers? Unless you believe there were outside forces at work (e.g., jockeys all riding like fools) beyond the composition of the surface, why does it matter? I guess I'm in Tom's camp, but I'm open to caring about the why.


The only tracks I've kept track of in recent years has been NYRA and Gulfstream. When these tracks favored closers, the rail, or inside paths, were dull, dead, deep, whatever you want to call them.

One thing that I've always found interesting, when the rail is dead, I'm mainly interested in horses that set the pace along the rail. But I've noticed that some handicappers also give credit to horses that attempt to rally up the inside on a dead rail day. I personally have not found that to be helpful. The pacesetter on a dead rail against a strong closer's bias is really up against it. A horse trying to close up a dead rail is not nearly as severely hindered, in my opinion, because the horse is closing and the track favors closers.

cj
09-10-2016, 01:06 PM
you're correct IF you use the information of others. Nothing wrong with that. If you really want to understand the game and be vendor independent, however, additional understanding is needed. Clearly, you're in the former camp and the quoted poster appears to be in the latter. There's, thus, little commonality for you. You keep doling out money for data and he tweaks the FREE Trakus data. And away we all go. Good luck

You don't have to know why to determine a bias exists on your own. Most people will usually never know the reason, even if they think they do.

bobphilo
09-10-2016, 01:10 PM
If someone is not considering the abilities of the horses, what the pace was, and whether there was a specific path advantage (like the rail), then he's simple a poor bias handicapper.

That would be like me saying that speed handicapping is bogus because some people are looking at raw final times without considering the quality of the horses, the speed of the race track, the wind etc...

These are some of the signs of a speed favoring track.

1. Longshots are carrying their speed better than expected given the pace

2. Front runners are drawing off and putting up lifetime top speed figures

3. Faint-hearted sprinters are wiring routes despite an honest pace

4. Horses engaging in duels that would normally hurt them are running hard to the finish and still earning their typical speed figures

5. 1-4 are happening from multiple paths (even though a preponderance of the performances may come from the rail)

6. Some shorter priced closers are rallying and picking up the pieces from a variety of paths but generally underperforming (as opposed to only rallying on the rail)

This may be the most important one because it throws people off.

7. The smartest riders are gunning out of the gate stetting fractions that are faster than the usual relationships between pace and final time for that quality of horse.

What makes #7 so important is that once the riders recognize a bias, they will sometimes neutralize it by being more aggressive. Once the closers start winning again, that does not mean the bias is gone. It just means the tactics have changed. The same thing sometimes happens in the other direction. The riders will all choke back their horses to slow fractions hoping to offset the track.

But you have to remember we are talking about a "bias". Think of it like a biased roulette wheel or pair of dice. Just because there is a bias that does not mean the biased number will come up every time. It will just come up more than expected by probability.

That's what's happening at the track also. The track is tilting in a way that is helping the speedier front runners, but it's not giving them an automatic ticket to the winner's circle either.

Class, I know you to be a comprehensive handicapper so I'm sure you try to include all the factors in concluding there is a speed bias.

My point is that when one removes all the other factors that may have favored the front runners that day the number of cases attributed to an independent speed bias becomes a small number. Rather than attribute it to some unknown force it is more likely due to normal variance and the notion of an independent speed bias losses its significance.

As far as jockey's tactics playing a large part of of how races are run and their results, I agree. All the jocks I've known are a very superstitions lot. They are very quick to believe in things like independent speed biases without a true scientific explanation. If they believe in a speed bias they tend to push harder early making races into extended sprints. In these situations the speed horses are favored and thus we have a self-fulfilling prophecy which has more to do with superstitious thinking than the properties of the actual track surface.

thaskalos
09-10-2016, 01:15 PM
Great discussion...which leaves me yearning for a "live" example of the predictive value of thorough track bias analysis. I have seen race examples where track bias was the BACK-FITTED cause of the race result...but I don't remember seeing a LIVE example...featuring a race yet to be run.

bobphilo
09-10-2016, 01:23 PM
Great discussion...which leaves me yearning for a "live" example of the predictive value of thorough track bias analysis. I have seen race examples where track bias was the BACK-FITTED cause of the race result...but I don't remember seeing a LIVE example...featuring a race yet to be run.
Very good point. The essence of scientific explanation is that it can predict future events. For example, the big knock on Freudian psychoanalysis is that it's very strong on back-fitting causes for behavior but very poor in predicting future behavior.

rsetup
09-10-2016, 01:34 PM
If that horse runs its typical race, I would bet it back next out

rsetup
09-10-2016, 01:37 PM
Very good point. The essence of scientific explanation is that it can predict future events. For example, the big knock on Freudian psychoanalysis is that it's very strong on back-fitting causes for behavior but very poor in predicting future behavior.social science is pseudo science. Popper. All scientific theories are fasifiable


Damn, this android display sucks

DeltaLover
09-10-2016, 01:47 PM
Very good point. The essence of scientific explanation is that it can predict future events. For example, the big knock on Freudian psychoanalysis is that it's very strong on back-fitting causes for behavior but very poor in predicting future behavior.

In other words, psychoanalysis, Marxism, historicism or astrology spawn of non refutable predictions thus they do not belong in scientific logic!

mountainman
09-10-2016, 01:47 PM
The only tracks I've kept track of in recent years has been NYRA and Gulfstream. When these tracks favored closers, the rail, or inside paths, were dull, dead, deep, whatever you want to call them.

One thing that I've always found interesting, when the rail is dead, I'm mainly interested in horses that set the pace along the rail. But I've noticed that some handicappers also give credit to horses that attempt to rally up the inside on a dead rail day. I personally have not found that to be helpful. The pacesetter on a dead rail against a strong closer's bias is really up against it. A horse trying to close up a dead rail is not nearly as severely hindered, in my opinion, because the horse is closing and the track favors closers.

Maybe some of those closers angled inside and suffered no cumulative effect of running in the dead part. Also, It's my opinion that banked ovals and maintenance procedures make some anti-rail trends more extreme on the turns.

Whatever the case, I focus largely on the far turn in determining potential path-bias. That's where fatigue sets in, and jocks begin asking their mounts.

DeltaLover
09-10-2016, 01:51 PM
social science is pseudo science. Popper. All scientific theories are fasifiable


Damn, this android display sucks

Correct when by social science we refer to "utopian social engineering". On the other hand is what is called "piecemeal" which deals with small incremental changes that are not based in any kind of inductive dogmatism and can be falsifiable.

bobphilo
09-10-2016, 02:15 PM
social science is pseudo science. Popper. All scientific theories are fasifiable


Damn, this android display sucks

Having done my graduate work in social research, I have to disagree with your categorization of social science as pseudo science.
The research standards are just as rigorous as in the physical sciences.
Just because Freudian theory is unscientific doesn't mean other systems such as cognitive theory have not stood up to scientific analysis, which explains its greater therapeutic value.

rsetup
09-10-2016, 02:22 PM
What makes a theory scientific is that there's some phenomenon, eventually, that will either confirm or refute it. It can't be both A and Not A. Some social science theories can't be refuted. I fully realize the analytic bent of many of these social science programs. Any way you cut it, physics is more 'scientific' than psychology and certainly sociology and some of the others

I can prove a computer program is correct using logic. What do I prove correct, other than the form of the argument, in sociology?

DeltaLover
09-10-2016, 02:23 PM
Having done my graduate work in social research, I have to disagree with your categorization of social science as pseudo science.
The research standards are just as rigorous as in the physical sciences.
Just because Freudian theory is unscientific doesn't mean other systems such as cognitive theory have not stood up to scientific analysis, which explains its greater therapeutic value.


Viewing social science (more precisely utopian social science) as a pseudo science is not bobphilo's categorization but a very significant and respected argument of the philosophy of science.

The problem with social science is that it is not falsifiable thus it does not represent a "science" based on the Popperian sense of the term.

DeltaLover
09-10-2016, 02:26 PM
What makes a theory scientific is that there's some phenomenon, eventually, that will either confirm or refute it. It can't be both A and Not A. Some social science theories can't be refuted. I fully realize the analytic bent of many of these social science programs. Any way you cut it, physics is more 'scientific' than psychology and certainly sociology and some of the others

To be more precise, scientific theory can never be confirmed; it can only be refuted. In other words there exists an asymmetry between experiments that behave as expected and those that refute it. A single one of the latter is enough to refute the theory while billions of confirming experiments are not enough to confirm the theory proving its truthfulness.

bobphilo
09-10-2016, 02:28 PM
Correct when by social science we refer to "utopian social engineering". On the other hand is what is called "piecemeal" which deals with small incremental changes that are not based in any kind of inductive dogmatism and can be falsifiable.
What you refer to as Utopian social engineering has nothing to do with the social research. It is a political system (hopefully) based on social research.
The tern "social engineering" is a pejorative term usually used to discredit any social program.
Anyway, I think we are getting away from handicapping into the political sphere.

bobphilo
09-10-2016, 02:35 PM
Viewing social science (more precisely utopian social science) as a pseudo science is not bobphilo's categorization but a very significant and respected argument of the philosophy of science.

The problem with social science is that it is not falsifiable thus it does not represent a "science" based on the Popperian sense of the term.
In biological science the Theory of Evolution cannot be considered a law such as those in Physics. However it comes as close as can be practically expected so it has the status of a law.

DeltaLover
09-10-2016, 02:46 PM
What you refer to as Utopian social engineering has nothing to do with the social research. It is a political system (hopefully) based on social research.
The tern "social engineering" is a pejorative term usually used to discredit any social program.
Anyway, I think we are getting away from handicapping into the political sphere.

Again, it not me who refers to social science as pseudo science; instead there exists a very influential philosophical movement doing so. The problem with social science is that it cannot make irrefutable predictions.

The contrast of methodological essentialism vs nominalism lies in the core of this view as of course does the criterion of demarcation.

Also I do not believe that this kind of conversations belong in the sphere of politics (at least not exclusively) and I can certainly see how these concepts can eventually be applies to handicapping.

traynor
09-10-2016, 03:12 PM
In other words, psychoanalysis, Marxism, historicism or astrology spawn of non refutable predictions thus they do not belong in scientific logic!

The same could be said for the sales and marketing research and processes of most businesses over the mom-and-pop corner store in dollar volume (which includes the multinationals and--especially--the pharmaceutical companies). And yet those businesses seem to do a quite proper job of manipulating the masses into becoming devout consumers of an endless line of products and services, many of which one can only wonder why anyone would want them in the first place.

I agree wholeheartedly that the techniques and processes are not based on "scientific logic." However, they seem to work quite well in the real world, despite that deficiency.

bobphilo
09-10-2016, 03:14 PM
When we talk about politically loaded terms like "social engineering' we are getting into the political sphere.
This discussion began when Thaskalos made the valid point that he would like to see some evidence of speed biases as an independent variable tested for predictive value rather than just a back fitting of data.
My undergrad major was in Philosophy, Philosophy of Science and Political Philosophy, but I don't want to bore people to death with irrelevant right wing political tangents like " Utopian social engineering". I suggest we get back to the specific issue of employing scientific criteria to the notion of speed biases.

bobphilo
09-10-2016, 03:20 PM
The same could be said for the sales and marketing research and processes of most businesses over the mom-and-pop corner store in dollar volume (which includes the multinationals and--especially--the pharmaceutical companies). And yet those businesses seem to do a quite proper job of manipulating the masses into becoming devout consumers of an endless line of products and services, many of which one can only wonder why anyone would want them in the first place.

I agree wholeheartedly that the techniques and processes are not based on "scientific logic." However, they seem to work quite well in the real world, despite that deficiency.
As someone, probably a TV programming executive, once said, "Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the public".
Getting back to handicapping, that's why I do not accept notions like independent speed biases with no scientific basis based on their popularity.

DeltaLover
09-10-2016, 03:20 PM
The same could be said for the sales and marketing research and processes of most businesses over the mom-and-pop corner store in dollar volume (which includes the multinationals and--especially--the pharmaceutical companies). And yet those businesses seem to do a quite proper job of manipulating the masses into becoming devout consumers of an endless line of products and services, many of which one can only wonder why anyone would want them in the first place.

I agree wholeheartedly that the techniques and processes are not based on "scientific logic." However, they seem to work quite well in the real world, despite that deficiency.

The problem is that when facts will refute the findings of "sales and marketing research" (behaviorism in other words) their proponents will be quick to adapt to reality in an posterior fashion.