TRACK BIAS

[LARRY GEORGE]

I HEAR ALOT ABOUT TRACK BIAS SUCH AS A SPEED TRACK OR A CLOSERS TRACK BUT I TEND TO BELIEVE A TRACK BIAS IS WITHIN THE RACE ITSELF BY THE MIX OF HORSES.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE OPINIONS

[andicap]

I vote "other"

sometimes there is a true track bias. Sometimes there is a pace bias within a race. No either or in this category.

I agree that sometimes what is perceived as a track bias is not.

[charleslanger]

i can't vote-- don't understand the question...........:eek:

[Macdiarmadillo]

I fall in with andicap. In track biases, there are also inside/outside biases and biases based on distances/gate location besides.

Failure to recognize either a clear track bias, a pace bias or the combination may cost you a lot of money.

[andicap]

The problem with the anti-bias crowd is that they look at it as "either/or." Is there a bias or not? But it's not always so black and white. Maybe it's a small bias, a 3 on a scale of 1-5.

And a small bias can be superceded by a stronger individual race "pace bias." And horses who are much the best can overcome modest biases, but usually not severe ones.

Yes, it's hard to tell a lot of times and handicappers make mistakes in identifying a bias that isn't there and vice versa, but take it from me, I've lost a lot more money in my life failing to pick up a bias than from mistakenly assuming there was one present when the track was honest.

[Valuist]

I agree its usually not completely black and white. I'm a bigger believer in path bias than speed/closer biases. I also believe bias is more significant in sprint races, where horses are exerting more energy and running at higher speeds than in route races.

[Turfday]

There is a clear and present bias at 6 furlongs at MOST all of the big circuit tracks in North America and Canada.

It only rears its head at 6 furlongs, the most commonly run distance.

You can BANK on this bias...the WORST post position at 6 furlongs in 12 horse fields....remember....I said 12 horse fields...is post position 6. It is not as pronounced in 11 horse fields, but it's there.

Horses in the 6 post position in 12 horse fields continually UNDERPERFORM and do not WIN nearly as many races as they should or near the expected win rate if all things were equal.

This may not hold true for bullring tracks.

[OTM Al]

Anybody that was watching Monmouth Saturday had a perfect example of bias and how it can suddenly reverse itself in the middle of a card. Race 1-5 dead rail. Race 6 on fast rail.

[andicap]

Turfday,
Do you think that's because the 6 horse is smack in the middle of the field and gets solidly bumped a lot?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Are some of you of the belief that a track bias can only occur in certain ways or at certain points around or on the width of a dirt track?
I thought wherever there was dirt (+sand) on the track there could be hard dirt, soft dirt, deep loose dirt, a high spot in the dirt, a low spot in the dirt, too much water on in the dirt, or too little water in the dirt.
I am also thinking if the dirt and the horses are affected much by rain, wind, pollution, smoke from fires, or the Pacific Ocean.
____
Personnally I am still studying how all those possibilities affect various races and horses.
I have learned a lot but I think there is still a lot to learn.

[Turfday]

That's at least my theory. My database contains every single race run in North America and Canada since Jan. 1, 1995. It is updated a couple of times weekly by Equibase and it remains current.

Of course, I had no idea any more than anyone else that the 6 post in 12 horse fields at 6 furlongs underperformed so poorly compared to the other posts until I noticed this for the Southern California tracks, which I handicap.

I continued to check around. I can assure you this is the case at most....not all....big racetracks.

I do believe if a horse doesn't break like a rocketship from the middle, he either is most apt to get bumped by horses inside coming out and/or outside coming in...a veritable sandwich.

Moreover, if they don't break cleanly or are not a quick, speed type, they simply get shuffled back. And even if they do leave cleanly, very often even a speed type in the middle post probably is more likely to get caught in a duel from between horses, a situation that many skittish horses don't like or "suck out of."

And why isn't this the case at 6 1/2 or 7 furlongs? Or I should say not as prevalent? Very likely because there's a longer run down the chute and simply because the race is longer and there's a bit more time to "right the ship."

SOME EXAMPLES (going back to Jan. 1, 1995)

DEL MAR

DMR 6f , 12 horse fields, 97 total races
post 6 expected win 8.3%, actual win 7.2% (post 7 is 5.2%)

SARATOGA

SAR 6F, various field sizes

post 5 is a TERRIBLE, repeat terrible post, far and away the WORST in 8, 9, 10, 11 horse fields for expected win vs actual win

SANTA ANITA

SA 6f, 12 horse fields, 240 total races
post 6 expected win 8.3%, actual win 5.4%

SA 6f, 11 horse fields, 218 total races
post 6 expected win 9.1%, actual win 5%

GULFSTREAM

GULF 6f, 12 horse fields, 253 total races
post 6 expected win 8.3%, actual win 5.5%

[hurrikane]

Turf,

I'm of the opinion that this is more noise in the data than bias.

5 yrs from now it will likely be something different.

[RXB]

I don't see how anyone could argue that there is no such thing as a bias.

If there's not, perhaps someone can explain to me why frontrunners win far less often on grass than on dirt even though the pace of a grass race is typically much slower than a dirt pace.

Every track has long-term characteristics, and every track has deviations from those characteristics at certain times (some more often and/or more pronounced than others.)

[socantra]

Originally posted by OTM Al
Anybody that was watching Monmouth Saturday had a perfect example of bias and how it can suddenly reverse itself in the middle of a card. Race 1-5 dead rail. Race 6 on fast rail.

According to the charts there is no indication of this:

Monmouth Sat, 7/24/04

Race 1.- PP#5 - favorite
Race 2 - PP#7 - favorite
Race 3 - PP#3 - 3rd favorite
Race 4 - PP#5 - 2nd favorite
Race 5 - PP#1 - favorite
Race 6 - PP#1 - longshot
Race 7 - PP#1 - 4th favorite
Race 8 - PP#1 - favorite
Race 9 - PP#5 - favorite
Race 10 -PP#2 - 4th favorite

It's not bias when the favorite wins (he's supposed to). The only races all day won by anything more than 2nd favorite were from the 3 hole in, all day. Slight inside bias. Proably; there is at most tracks. No evidence of anything else. You might have been able to see it in the lane, but it doesn't translate to the charts.


socantra...

[DJofSD]

As has been discussed in other threads many times before, I'd love to have real time streaming data from transponder on each and every runner in the race. You'd get a mountain of data not just where each horse was at the standard points of call. Then perhaps once a for all the question of bias could be answered.

DJofSD

[ceejay]

Originally posted by Turfday
SOME EXAMPLES (going back to Jan. 1, 1995)

DEL MAR

DMR 6f , 12 horse fields, 97 total races
post 6 expected win 8.3%, actual win 7.2% (post 7 is 5.2%)

SARATOGA

SAR 6F, various field sizes

post 5 is a TERRIBLE, repeat terrible post, far and away the WORST in 8, 9, 10, 11 horse fields for expected win vs actual win

SANTA ANITA

SA 6f, 12 horse fields, 240 total races
post 6 expected win 8.3%, actual win 5.4%

SA 6f, 11 horse fields, 218 total races
post 6 expected win 9.1%, actual win 5%

GULFSTREAM

GULF 6f, 12 horse fields, 253 total races
post 6 expected win 8.3%, actual win 5.5%

Bob,

Thanks for posting those numbers. Have you done any statistical tests (T-test for example) to evaluate their statistical significance?

[hurrikane]

Again,

I think the results are just noise.

If you check the last few months you will find the 6, 7, and 8 posts are by far the most productive. By far!

PP data over 10 yrs is meaningless.

IMHO

[NoDayJob]

There seems to be one factor missing. The ability of the horse going into the gate. While post position may have a slight bearing on the chances of the horse winning, the better horses are able to overcome this handicap.

NDJ

[Turfday]

Turfday.com's database covers every single race run in North America and Canada since Jan. 1, 1995.

Not only does Turfday.com have accurate post position stats that are most importantly FIELD SIZE specific instead of inaccurately CLUMPED together, we also have other stats that take into consideration the closing odds of each starter from each post position.

Being sharp, savvy handicappers, we are all aware that the dynamics of a race can change considerably depending on the number of horses entered per race.

I would be happy to send you a Microsoft Word doc showing the (1) the win post position stats for 6 furlongs at Saratoga for the last three years (2) the in-the-money post position stats for 6 furlongs at Saratoga for the last three years (3) the post position Betting Value Averages (using our proprietary formula) for 6 furlongs at Saratoga for the last three years.

If you are quick to use stats from just last season, there were exactly 9 races with 8 horse fields, 10 races with 9 horse fields, 5 races with 10 horse fields, 3 races with 11 horse fields and 3 races with 12 horse fields.

This is hardly a sample size you can rely on. I can assure you of this. Consistent win betting on runners breaking from post position 6 in 11 or 12 horse fields at 6 furlongs at the big tracks in North America is a major losing proposition.

This is true at all of the tracks that I mentioned in my earlier post and many more. And, as mentioned above, not only will I be happy to e-mail you the Microsoft Word doc, you can even call me for clarification if you so choose.

[hurrikane]

turf,

I'm not questioning your findings. I have the data too. What I am saying is what you are implying is useless.

Unless you see why the 6 spot is running worse then there is no meaning to the data.

Do you think they build the 6 gate to open slower than the 10 gate. Without some kind of sensible reason for the 6 hole to slower you are just seeing noise in the data.

You imply that you should not bet the 6 horse in a 12 horse field at a major track. Ok, nobody bet the 6 horse in a 12 horse field.

It will help my bottom line quite a bit.

mho

[CapperLou]

Very interesting stats at the Spa & Del Mar etc.

Makes me think & think more!!!!! Post positions??!!


All the best,

CapperLou

[Turfday]

I'm saying that there is empirical data that supports runners breaking from the 6 post position in 12 horse fields at 6 furlongs at most major racetracks generally considerably underperform compared to runners breaking from the other posts in the same field size.

I am NOT saying they NEVER win. I'm saying they noticeably underperform per the norm and this is also taking ODDS into consideration, as my data does.

That is NOT to say there aren't other posts that underperform. Since you have the data, why not simply check it yourself ?

What is the exact reason? The exact reason may not be known. But if you want to know my theory why, see my post above, earlier in this thread, the seventh post down.

[CapperLou]

WELL!!! It happened just like your database indicates today!!

The 5 and 6 who were both around 3-1 did not win it!!! Instead we had a longshot #7 who "ran on" as they say in CA to win it all!

I'll be keeping my eye on this unusual info of which I was not aware previously. I'll also keep a watch at Del Mar on the stuff you mentioned for that venue!!

Thx for stats!!!

All the best,

CapperLou

P.S. I did play a #6 today, but it was in the 1st race and won at 7.60. A different situation there!!

[hurrikane]

interesting.

I haven't spent any time looking at this race but out of the box I have the

6 rated at 8-1
5 rated 14-1

7 rated a contender and a longshot pick.

yep...must be the post positions....I stand corrected. :rolleyes:

[CapperLou]

Gee!!!! You are a believer after one race---lol. It just worked out that way and I happened to notice it so thought would bring to attention of thread.

On another note--I had a huge day today--I liked the horse in 1st at SAR and liked Pat Day's a little in 2nd. SAL liked them both so I played them both and played a $20 DD. Got lucky a made a very good score with it all together.
See my post under "Show A Profit" software thread--hit the jackpot in 11th at LAD!!

hurricane--I'm headed out to Vegas in ten days--then a few at Del Mar--still want to meet you one of these days--keep in touch!!

All the best,

CapperLou

P.S. I'll be watching these 5 & 6 post positions in 6f at Spa in the 12 horse fields and the #5 in the somewhat smaller fields as Bob described!!

[hurrikane]

Great job Lou, hope it keeps on rolling for you.

Del Mar...tough break. I suppose the retirement is going well. :D

On anouther note, off topic...how did your son do in the WSOP?

[wes]

Let's go to the DOGS


From stats checked from many Greyhound races the post positions 1 and 2 and 7 and 8 positions. Which is half of the field.
One of those four post positions will run 2nd or 3rd around 85 or 90 percent of the time. When your two picks run 2nd and 3rd you will have the trifector two times. On some days all races run will have one of the four dogs finishing 2nd or 3rd.
Picking the win dog and playing the best inside dog and the best outside dog in the place and show positions with all.

5/1-7/all 5/all/1-7 which cost 12 bucks for each bet. If one of the four dogs is your pick to win. You find the best early speed dog from the remaining four middle post dogs to replace your win selection. Then place that dog as one to replace your win choice.

Finding the win dog is the problem for many players. If this exist in horses it will give you a way to stack the numbers in your favor.

Does inside and outside play a role in handicapping the horses as well for the 2nd and 3rd hole?
Can someone run this on horses and see if there exist post positions to favor in the place and show spots. If you play superfectors check for the 4th position as well.


If you can pick 3 or 4 win dogs per 12 race you will have a chance to make some big scores on some of your races.
If you do play the hounds do check your track out before playing it blind.

wes

[Tom]

If you go back to the dsata from 1995 on and look at running styles of every starter in every post, is the 6 hole plaqued by more than expected rear runners whose probablity of winning much less? Were there more longshot in post 6?
Post alone is a meaningless statistic. Your assumption is that all horses breaking from post 6 are equal and that is not so.
Run the study again using closing odds as the only criteia and then see what the 6 hole looks like.

[Faster]

"Do you think they build the 6 gate to open slower than the 10 gate. Without some kind of sensible reason for the 6 hole to slower you are just seeing noise in the data."

In pre-slot days at Woodbine, when only the race 5 and the last race had ten or more entries, I noticed unusual win ratio from hole 10 in the last race. (Usually race nine or ten)
I couldn't explain this inexplicable fact until on the last race of the second meet this was happening, when stewards called a very brief inquiry, after which they declared horse #10 a non-starter because someone noticed that the gate #10 has opened fraction of a second before the others.
Next meet, there was no such ten hole "bias".

[Valuist]

I think the key is the size of the field. Post 6 is bad in 11 or 12 horse fields because its right in the middle. More chances of getting bumped or jostled at the start. Post 6 in a 6 or 7 horse field at an outside biased track like AP can be quite advantageous.

[hurrikane]

Faster,

i remember at LRL they had a problem with the 3 gate for about 2 weeks in the 80s. Not sure who told them about it but it wasn't me...why ruin a good thing.

I'm of the opinion that no one here should bet the 5 or 6 horse in a 10, 11 or 12 horse field. And be sure to tell 5 other people to do the same.

I need the money.

:D

[Faster]

'I'm of the opinion that no one here should bet the 5 or 6 horse in a 10, 11 or 12 horse field. And be sure to tell 5 other people to do the same."


The results of the Turfday empirical study are there for privileged to see, but how you process them is up to you, of course, Hurricane.

Sometime, it would appear that this is more opportunistic kind of a game and sometimes the diligent statisticians are rewarded.

..you gotta be a bit of a schizzo to win at this game :)


(their shoud be a spel cheque hear somewher, no?)

[Turfday]

I have a Microsoft Word doc that I made up that includes all of the 6 furlong races at Del Mar, Saratoga, Gulfstream, Monmouth, Fair Grounds, Belmont and Santa Anita since Jan. 1, 1995. This is just a smattering of tracks where this post position bias that I discussed in this thread exists. At Saratoga, it seems to be post five.

Keep in mind, that I didn't say that this is prevalent at every single track in North America and Canada. I said it was prevalent at MOST tracks.

You will be able to see each particular field size and the number of 6 furlong races at each particular field size from Jan. 1, 1995 through the end of July, 2004.

(1) the expected win % value for each post based on the particular field size

(2) the actual win % to compare to expected win % value,

(3) the AVERAGE ODDS PER STARTER from each post at each field size

(4) the AVERAGE ODDS for ALL STARTERS for that field size (for comparative purposes)

(5) the AVERAGE ODDS for EACH WINNER from each post at each field size

(6) the AVERAGE ODDS for ALL WINNERS from each post at each field size (for comparative purposes)

If any of you are interested in seeing this file, I will be happy to e-mail it to you with the understanding that your comments would be appreciated. Just send me a private message with your actual e-mail address. It will come to you as Microsoft Word Doc attachment.

[Faster]

Originally posted by DJofSD
As has been discussed in other threads many times before, I'd love to have real time streaming data from transponder on each and every runner in the race. You'd get a mountain of data not just where each horse was at the standard points of call. Then perhaps once a for all the question of bias could be answered.

DJofSD

Doubt it.
I would however be for something to measure horses heart rate,
vs oxygen intake, perhaps potasium levels and some electrolytes, uric acid levels would be good.. and something to measure the hoof impact and spring ratio.
There could be a separate monitor for all the data while they run and...never mind