PDA

View Full Version : Lone Star Track Bias?


JustRalph
10-24-2004, 02:28 AM
I have been looking at the last few days charts at Lone Star in anticipation of Breeders Cup weekend. In the limited data I have examined I am starting to see a trend and I am wondering if anybody has any data on the track and any bias that may exist?

It looks to me like front runners are doing pretty well at Lonestar. I don't see many horses closing in the stretch and tonight on TVG I heard the stretch is only like 900 feet long. It appears to me that the horses that are hitting the board are in the top 3-5 spots when they come out of the turn. Not many making up ground in the stretch. Of course who knows what they will do to the course come next Saturday? I have never played a race at Lonestar so I am kind of out of my element on this track. Anybody care to comment?

betchatoo
10-24-2004, 09:43 AM
Copied these from the Bris newsletter

The Juvenile Races
Both juvenile races will be run at 1 1/16 miles. There were 131 races run at 8.5 furlongs found in the database. Surprisingly, there was a low wire-to-wire win rate of only 19-percent at this route distance.

Tactical speed was a big plus as the average beaten lengths at the first two calls were 2.7 and 1.4 lengths, respectively. Few one-run closers were victorious, winning far fewer races than expected statistically.

Look for runners who have good tactical speed while preferably breaking from an inside post.

Distaff and Classic
Due to a lack of races at nine furlongs and beyond, we had to analyze dirt routes as a whole. Two-thirds of the winners from 487 dirt routes were within three lengths of the lead at the first call, and 84-percent were that close at the second call. Tactical speed is vital as few deep closers (S types) were victorious around two turns at Lone Star. Post position did not appear to be much of a factor.

The Mile
There were 95 one mile grass races for three year olds and up since 2002. Inside posts held a significant advantage and, conversely, outside posts were a burden.

Speed can win here as 18-percent of the winners were able to lead the field gate to wire. Pressers (P) and Sustained types (S) accounted for 58-percent of the winners, so there is a slight edge to the runners from off the pace. The typical winner was 3.7 lengths from the lead at the first call and 2.3 lengths behind at the second call.

Favor runners breaking from an inside or middle post who are able to keep the leaders within their sights. Separate the contenders by those that are capable of sustaining their late run versus top graded stakes company. Good ratings to utilize here are the BRIS Class Ratings and Late Pace figures.

The Sprint
The track played surprisingly fair from 450 races run at six furlongs for three-year-olds and up. Wire to wire winners accounted for 31-percent of the races but plenty of winners came from stalkers and mid pack runners. Only deep closers, Sustained types, were at a disadvantage.

Winners were also evenly spread out among the post positions. The rail (one hole) did account for 13-percent winners, slightly better than any other post.

Dissect the early BRIS Pace Ratings to determine if a quality speed horse to get "clear" in this field. If there is an abundance of early speed types with comparable pace ratings, look for the winner to come from off the pace.

The Turf Marathons

The Filly & Mare Turf is run at 1 3/8 miles as the fifth leg of the Breeders’ Cup. The $2 million Turf is 1 ˝ miles. Unfortunately there is an insufficient sample of turf marathons at Lone Star, giving us little to go on.

It would be wise to put a premium on BRIS Class Ratings when handicapping these fields. The BRIS Class Ratings, which include Foreign Class Ratings on the imports, have done very well at identifying the winners in past years.

Shippers
The analysis also took a look what locations produce turf winners shipping into Lone Star. One circuit stood out above the others. Southern California, specifically Hollywood Park and Santa Anita, produced 21-percent turf winners and 54-percent in-the-money runners from 24 shippers. Compare that to Kentucky, which surprisingly produced only one winner from 20 grass starters for a dismal 5-percent win rate. However there is one caveat with the Southern Cal shippers. Despite their strong win rate, they produced a –1.08 ROI for every $2 wagered.

On the dirt the result was similar as shippers from Southern California were victorious 20% of the time with a –0.84 ROI for every $2 wagered. Kentucky shippers, interestingly, fared significantly better. Invaders from the Bluegrass State won 21-percent from 83 starters for a strong flat bet profit.

Rarely did a shipper come down from the Big Apple. New York invaders won with one of 11 starters on the dirt with only two hitting the board. Given the small sample size, one can take that statistic with a grain of salt.

sjk
10-24-2004, 09:59 AM
Over the long run I have LS playing very fair. Speed had the best of it for several days this week but that was no longer true on Saturday.

keilan
10-24-2004, 11:41 AM
Lone Star is one of the faster “A/B” weighted tracks in the country. I’ll be monitoring the track Thursday and Friday and will try to remember to post how the track ran those two days.

Turfday
10-24-2004, 02:14 PM
In Betachatoo's post above that he took from BRIS, BRIS has incorrectly CLUMPED post position data together irrespective of field size.

The dynamics of a six-horse field or seven-horse field are different than an 11-12-13 horse field.

I started a different post on the board and even I unsatisfyingly did a little "clumping"....but I was using data as close to the projected field size of the BC races because there was no other choice.

Here's some advice regarding post position data if you intend to use it in your handicapping:

COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES, ORANGES TO ORANGES

EXAMPLE: BRIS data has 95 turf races at one mile for 3-year-olds and up since 2002. Inside posts held a significant advantage, and conversely, outside posts were a burden.

Problem: BRIS used all field sizes... and clumped them together....so 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 horse fields are all in that stat.


EXAMPLE: BRIS data states "the track played surprisingly fair from 450 races run at six furlongs for three-year-olds and up. Wire to wire winners accounted for 31-percent of the races but plenty of winners came from stalkers and mid pack runners. Only deep closers, Sustained types, were at a disadvantage. Winners were also evenly spread out among the post positions. The rail (one hole) did account for 13-percent winners, slightly better than any other post.

Problem: BRIS used all field sizes run at six furlongs, including field sizes of 6, 7, 8, 9 horses, etc. that in my opinion are meaningless when you have a 12-13-14 horse field that you are handicapping.

Simply put: The dynamics change. More horses, different pace scenarios, possibly more trouble. Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. "Clumping" don't cut it.

keilan
10-24-2004, 02:38 PM
Turfday,

You are absolutely “right on the mark”!

Too many punters generate statistical mis-information all the time. It behoves me why the data is not further filtered. :confused:

Turfday
10-24-2004, 03:07 PM
You definitely get it. Filtering is needing, clumping is not. See my post in a separate thread.

schweitz
10-24-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by JustRalph


It looks to me like front runners are doing pretty well at Lonestar. I don't see many horses closing in the stretch and tonight on TVG I heard the stretch is only like 900 feet long. It appears to me that the horses that are hitting the board are in the top 3-5 spots when they come out of the turn. Not many making up ground in the stretch.

This has always been true of the dirt races at Lone Star---you must stay within striking distance of the leaders.

ElKabong
10-25-2004, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by schweitz
This has always been true of the dirt races at Lone Star---you must stay within striking distance of the leaders.


Amen.

I haven't followed this fall meet closely but have the past spring meets. Frontrunners don't always fare well here, but deep closers are/ were at a real disadvantage.

For whatever reasons, the track will clock very fast *after* hard rains, or at least has in the spring. We're supposed to see rain here wed, thurs, but the main track this month seems to be more kind, or have a better cushion. Down at the rail you can tell it's softer by the (sounds) striking of the hooves. The track was harder in the spring, imho.

rrbauer
10-26-2004, 02:22 PM
Selvin wrote:

EXAMPLE: BRIS data has 95 turf races at one mile for 3-year-olds and up since 2002. Inside posts held a significant advantage, and conversely, outside posts were a burden.

Problem: BRIS used all field sizes... and clumped them together....so 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 horse fields are all in that stat.




Comment: It's pretty much accepted, to my knowledge, that inside posts enjoy an advantage over outside posts in turf route races regardless of field size.

Question: Do you have research that speaks to the contrary?

Selvin wrote:


EXAMPLE: BRIS data states "the track played surprisingly fair from 450 races run at six furlongs for three-year-olds and up. Wire to wire winners accounted for 31-percent of the races but plenty of winners came from stalkers and mid pack runners. Only deep closers, Sustained types, were at a disadvantage. Winners were also evenly spread out among the post positions. The rail (one hole) did account for 13-percent winners, slightly better than any other post.

Problem: BRIS used all field sizes run at six furlongs, including field sizes of 6, 7, 8, 9 horses, etc. that in my opinion are meaningless when you have a 12-13-14 horse field that you are handicapping.

Comment: The essence of the BRIS newsletter info was directed at running styles. They mentioned post position data as an aside. Since I don't know what the distribution of the 450 races that they used is, in terms of field size, it's hard to say if the data is skewed in one direction or the other. Since there is only one sprint in the BC races and "E" and "EP" types have done well in previous BC sprints, and "E" and "EP" types do well at LS, then where else is there to go? (However if Keilan provides any pace analysis of this race for us, pay attention!)

Question: What does your analysis say about fields that have say 10 or fewer starters, versus fields with 11 or more starters in 6f sprints at Lone Star? Are there significant differences in performance vis-a-vis running style in those two "clumps"? Are there significant differences in performance vis-a-vis post position (inside-middle-outside) in those two "clumps"?

kenwoodallpromos
10-27-2004, 02:42 PM
Current negative rail bias.

Turfday
10-27-2004, 04:03 PM
Hopefully these images will work. Have never tried this before, so if they don't, I do apologize.



http://www.turfday.com/post/post3_7yr.asp?track=LS+&surface=T&distid=800++&distunit=F&course=T&about=+


http://www.turfday.com/post/post4_7yr.asp?track=LS+&surface=T&distid=800++&distunit=F&course=T&about=+


http://www.turfday.com/post/post6_7yr.asp?track=LS+&surface=T&distid=800++&distunit=F&course=T&about=+

rrbauer
10-28-2004, 07:43 AM
You were successful in providing a link to your Turfday site. What you were intending to do doesn't show up in my crystal ball.

keilan
10-28-2004, 09:33 PM
One quick look at the results from equibase will tell you all you need to know about how the main track played today. The winners were within a couple lengths of the lead at the 1st and or the 2nd call. I handicapped the card for a typical race day there and was not disappointed other than not wagering a few dollars especially in the 6th and 7th races when both winners paid $23+.

The turf course favoured horses with late turn of foot, the track was listed as yielding and I agree. The rail was set at 20 ft

If there is a change in the track surface tomorrow I’ll try and post.

JustRalph
10-28-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by keilan
One quick look at the results from equibase will tell you all you need to know about how the main track played today. The winners were within a couple lengths of the lead at the 1st and or the 2nd call. I handicapped the card for a typical race day there and was not disappointed other than not wagering a few dollars especially in the 6th and 7th races when both winners paid $23+.

The turf course favoured horses with late turn of foot, the track was listed as yielding and I agree. The rail was set at 20 ft

If there is a change in the track surface tomorrow I’ll try and post.

I get the same when I look at it...............