POST #1 [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

PlanB

11-04-2006, 04:32 PM

No bad vibes but I had a $4 box 1-12, only because #1 was so dominant.
Was that the 1st DQ in BC history? Is the track laying the blame on #12,
rather than going polytrack? I feel like stopping right now, both me & my
2 friends are more gloomy than crazy. I feel really bad for the horses & jocks.

Cesario!

11-04-2006, 04:41 PM

I liked to believe that Street Sense was simply great handicapping by me -- and not a post position bias. :cool:

But, I did have Friendly Island and Octave -- 2nd place horses to the horse on the Golden Rail, so it's all balanced out...

Overlay

11-05-2006, 02:24 AM

For me, starting on the rail is generally a plus factor. Back in 1979, Quirin found a statistically significant advantage for post position 1 at large tracks (one mile or more around) in dirt sprints of 6 furlongs or less and in dirt routes of 1 to 1-1/8 miles around two turns, and also for post positions 1-3 in two-turn turf routes from 1 to 1-1/8 miles at those same tracks, and I don't think that's changed since then. It's still the shortest way home, especially when the race starts relatively near a turn, or the turns are tighter (like on the typical turf course). (Not a guarantee of victory by any means, but, as I say, something I always factor into my considerations when applicable.)

11-05-2006, 02:56 AM

The rail is always the best place to be, which is why I cringe every time some trainer at the Derby picks the 14 hole over the 1. Still, I don't think there was any special bias yesterday. All the winners from the rail figured to run well, and worked out good trips.

The first five race at Delaware were won by the 5 horse yesterday. Stuff like this happens, and many times it is just an anomoly. The rail certainly wasn't bad, but other than the oppurtunity to save ground, I don't think it offered any significant advantage.

The Judge

11-05-2006, 06:57 AM

11-05-2006, 08:31 AM

Clearly there was a rail bais at Chruchill and the prices tell the story 4 for 4 going into the Classic where the clearly the two best horses won after Brother Derek in the 1 hole gave a good account of himself.

I know people in general hate to use the term "track bais" but 4 for 4 at long odds. You must admitt something out of the ordinary happened. For those of us who bet when we first entered the track their was no hope.

Track maintance killed us.

Weren't there a couple of other races run on dirt yesterday? People seem to be forgetting that. Also, despite the prices, what horses were really such a huge surprise? It certainly didn't look like a rail bias in the last race when not one, but two horses looped the field and completed the exacta.

Turntime

11-05-2006, 10:36 AM

Indeed the first two races were dirt races and, after watching them, I suspected the rail was the place to be. The Juvenile Fillies seemed to confirm my suspicions, and I wound up with win money on Street Sense, Thor's Echo and Round Pond as well as hitting the trifecta in the Classic. Although Bernardini and Invasor both looped the field it was a fast pace and they were clearly the two best horses in the race. Superior horses often overcome a bias.

I agree that the results make sense without invoking bias, but they make more sense in light of a good rail. In fact this type of bias typically occurs at Churchill from time to time.

I should point out that CJ's numbers played a big part in my handicapping. Street Sense had a competetive number in his last as well as an improving figure pattern. Thor's Echo was also coming off a big number and seemed to have some upside potential. Round Pond had a pair of huge numbers from 2005 and seemed to be primed for her best effort in her third start off the layoff. This, plus the perception of a rail bias and juicy odds made the bets very logical.

Zaf

11-05-2006, 10:52 AM

Besides CJ gave out Round Pond as one of his best plays, did I listen DOHHHHH :bang:

Z

headhawg

11-05-2006, 11:11 AM

Clearly there was a rail bais at Chruchill and the prices tell the story 4 for 4 going into the Classic where the clearly the two best horses won after Brother Derek in the 1 hole gave a good account of himself.Hmm. By that argument, Bordonaro should have won the Sprint. He had very good numbers and was one of the faves. He got to the rail early. You could argue too much pace pressure, but the winner Thor's Echo was right up there -- in the 4 path!

Maybe when the horses are close on figs/talent, saving lengths by staying inside makes all of the difference. Plus with the short run to the turn at 1 1/16th M you would be silly not to favor the inside horses -- esp with Juvies.

The Judge

11-05-2006, 11:24 AM

Turntime

11-05-2006, 11:24 AM

That was a nice pick by CJ. As I do every year I also downloaded Thoro-Graph's BC overview. Although I've cashed some nice tickets in year's past using TG's insights, it was interesting to note the opposite perception of Round Pond. Thoro-Graph had her making "a big backward move last time", whereas CJ's energy number had her making a big forward move (due to the fast early pace). In the end I opted for CJ's numbers which incorporate pace.

This is not meant to bash Thoro-Graph, which is a good product although too pricey for me. Just think it's interesting that two numbers methodologies using the exact same data could come to such disparate conclusions.

kenwoodallpromos

11-05-2006, 12:41 PM

1 less #7 post horse ITM'ed in the dirt than the #1 post horses CD 11-4.
How the hell did the crew fix the track so posts 1 AND 7 dominated? :confused:

Zaf

11-05-2006, 01:43 PM

I agree with CJ, I am not buying the bias thing 100 %. These were very talented animals, not 2500 claimers at PEN.

Z

The Judge

11-05-2006, 02:16 PM

I didn't come up with the term "track bias" and I am not able to spot a bias unless its pro-nounced I say if this wasn't a bias what is. Davidowitz and Beyer are the "big names" that at least say that there is such a thing as track bias.

I will be interested to here what they have to say. They may very well agree with cj but I would be interested in their explanations of the 1 hole.

I made all of my bets when I walked in. I made some minor $1 bets on the one hole but they were all exotics and missed one horse. In other words I am not going to argue too much for the track bias as it won't help me now. I need to spend my time picking up bottles and cans to redeem so that I can bet again.

classhandicapper

11-05-2006, 03:43 PM

"If" there was a bias, IMO it wasn't overwhelming. Most of the horses that won from the inside were reasonably logical given their best races and the trip they worked out. Some horses did loop outside to finish well (including the exacta in the Classic).

I think that based on the overall results a reasonable case can be made that there was a mild bias over and above the advantage of saving ground, but it wasn't dictating the results. I think we'll learn more when we get to see some of these horses run back.

The thing about biases that many people "never get" is that it's not an all or nothing thing. It isn't like every bias has to totally dictate results 100%. A bias is just that, "a bias". That means it tilts the results a bit. Just tilting the results doesn't tell you how much it tilted them. The strength of a bias is a seperate issue that sometimes you can't determine until after the fact.

Overlay

11-05-2006, 03:50 PM

The thing about biases that many people "never get" is that it's not an all or nothing thing. It isn't like every bias has to totally dictate results 100%. A bias is just that, "a bias". That means it tilts the results a bit. Just tilting the results doesn't tell you how much it tilted them. The strength of a bias is a seperate issue that sometimes you can't determine until after the fact.

I certainly agree that it's not a case of being all-or-nothing, or making it an automatic play at any price. But the tilting effect may be enough to turn a particular horse from an underlay to a bettable overlay, depending on the odds it goes off at.

11-05-2006, 05:00 PM

I'm not saying that the inside wasn't more advantage than just saving ground. Maybe, and probably, it was. However, you need more than 4 1s won in a row. Big deal, 5 5s won in a row at Delaware.

You also need more than "look at the odds". If you don't seriously handicap the races and know what to expect, you are asking for trouble. This is especially true on BC Day when you have very good horses going off at big prices.

Pace Cap'n

11-05-2006, 06:08 PM

If a bias exists when a certain pathway allows horses to perform better than what might be expected of them, with a card full of world-class horses it would take a couple of Arcangues-type payoffs to confirm a bias, IMHO.

rrpic6

11-05-2006, 10:23 PM

Well what's your explanation if there is no bias. I'll listen, I'm sure it will sound just as silly as no bias. In one race Thor's Echo is not huging the rail some other horse is on the rail so what. It doesn't have to happen "every" race and even if it didn't happen in that race if you bet that way you won!

Nakatani said he'd have run over the 2 horses in front of him had he not swung out and around them. Once clear, he went right back to the rail! I cashed the ex, but now expected more of the same from Round Pond, who I originally did not like, but put 2nd behind Pine Island and Fleet Indian in tri's. A new low for me, my 2 key horses both break down.

JustRalph

11-05-2006, 11:59 PM

Nakatani said he'd have run over the 2 horses in front of him had he not swung out and around them. Once clear, he went right back to the rail! I cashed the ex, but now expected more of the same from Round Pond, who I originally did not like, but put 2nd behind Pine Island and Fleet Indian in tri's. A new low for me, my 2 key horses both break down.

try four in one day. I had it happen.

classhandicapper

11-06-2006, 08:55 AM

I certainly agree that it's not a case of being all-or-nothing, or making it an automatic play at any price. But the tilting effect may be enough to turn a particular horse from an underlay to a bettable overlay, depending on the odds it goes off at.

Me too.

During the running of the races I wasn't totally convinced either way.

I did adjust my bet in the Classic. My intention was to play Bernardini over several horses in the exacta. The problem was that several horses that I intended to leave out looked to have a better chance for 2nd "IF" the rail was advatageous over and above saving ground. Plus, it was possible that Bernardini could wind up outside and get beat. Since I didn't see terrific value in those exactas anyway, the "potential" bias gave me an excuse to sit out the exactas. Instead, I played Bernardini to place because he was being totally ignored in that pool and I had a tough time seeing him miss 2nd - mild bias or not.

As I type this, I'm not convinced 100% one way or the other, but even under circumstances like that I tweak my thinking.

Valuist

11-06-2006, 09:43 AM

If anybody wanted to see a real rail bias on Saturday, the track it was happening at was Hawthorne.

The rail didn't hurt at Churchill and the turns are a bit on the sharp side so the inside didn't hurt. Actually, more often than not at Churchill, the rail is the place NOT to be.

kenwoodallpromos

11-06-2006, 10:20 AM

I posted elsewhere- in the last 5 days CD had 5 total winners who paid les that $6.80 to win on dirt and turf combined- that means the bias is against bettors knowing how to pick horses at CD! I never heard of a way to rig that through the tracks, drugs, somebody's "turn to win", the weather, or any other reason for the handicappers picking so poorly.
between all the races on the 3rd and 4th the track was fast, slow, from all posts, 6f dirt splits or time froim 1:08+ to 1:15+, wire-to-wire and deep closing (sometimes the same day!). There is only 1 way I know of for this to happen- a fair track!

The Judge

11-06-2006, 10:42 AM

Wow now that's a bad day.

classhandicapper

11-06-2006, 11:39 AM

Actually, more often than not at Churchill, the rail is the place NOT to be.

Exactly. That's partly what had me a tad confused.

I posted on several forums that Friday, the track seemed to be favoring closers. Also, losing ground didn't seem to be much of a disadvatage. That's the way CD tends to play if there's any bias at all.

I think it's entirely possible they worked on the track Friday night/Saturday morning to get rid of the closer bias and overdid it.

Donnie

11-06-2006, 03:19 PM

From a story about Fleet Indian....a quote from Paul Saylor, owner:

"We waited around and waited around, and it was an elapsed time of damn near 20 minutes before the ambulance showed up," said Saylor, who was interviewed at the Fasig-Tipton Kentucky November select mixed sale. "They had to bring it over from the Sports Spectrum (now known as Trackside Louisville). I tell you what, I don't know if it's the Breeders' Cup or Churchill (that is responsible), but I'm going to find out and I'm going right after somebody's throat because if she had had a fracture, we would have lost her. Everybody was screaming about the track bias, which should not have happened either. If you weren't on the rail, you weren't going to win. But that (the time it took to get an equine ambulance to Fleet Indian) was friggin' unbelievable."

Then this from an Austrailian paper....

That was the scene at dusk. At daybreak there was a different kind of vandalism when someone decided to send out a tractor to scrape away excess dirt from along the running rail and spread it in the centre of the track. The result was a fast lane on the inside that dictated the pattern of racing for most of the day.

In the press box the actions of that tractor driver were the subject of intense discussion among the British racing media, who seem obsessed with the idea that Americans are somehow out to dud them. Maybe they've heard of Phar Lap too.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20706997-2722,00.html

Valuist

11-06-2006, 03:51 PM

Exactly. That's partly what had me a tad confused.

I posted on several forums that Friday, the track seemed to be favoring closers. Also, losing ground didn't seem to be much of a disadvatage. That's the way CD tends to play if there's any bias at all.

I think it's entirely possible they worked on the track Friday night/Saturday morning to get rid of the closer bias and overdid it.

I think they did. I found myself scratching my head over some of Friday's results. Saturday definitely didn't look like the same surface we saw on Friday.

PlanB

11-06-2006, 07:30 PM

I kinda scratch my head everytime a race is loaded with front runners and
the winner, a front runner, wins by charging on the leaders in the stretch.
It's like the E type somehow gets so relaxed he changes styles. I dunno
really.

rrpic6

11-06-2006, 08:02 PM

Exactly. That's partly what had me a tad confused.

I posted on several forums that Friday, the track seemed to be favoring closers. Also, losing ground didn't seem to be much of a disadvatage. That's the way CD tends to play if there's any bias at all.

I think it's entirely possible they worked on the track Friday night/Saturday morning to get rid of the closer bias and overdid it.

You could be right about over doing it. I went back to CD Sunday to watch a few races and noticed the surface had a different apearance to it. It almost looked sealed as it was thoroughly watered down early. Many outside horse faired better on Sunday, but most winners were still E/Ps.

rrpic6

11-06-2006, 08:04 PM

I think they did. I found myself scratching my head over some of Friday's results. Saturday definitely didn't look like the same surface we saw on Friday.

The #7 horse that paid over $110 on Friday got to the rail and won driving, much like Street Sense did the next day. That was a total head scratcher.

The Judge

11-06-2006, 10:10 PM

That's two ones 11

rrpic6

11-07-2006, 01:08 AM

Invasor ran a mighty race to overcome the bias. Nice article recaps many of the threads subjects being talked about:

http://www.rogerstein.com/editorial.asp?id=8

11-07-2006, 01:21 AM

Another that seems to forget the Breeder's Cup did not begin the card. Two other races were run. The first was a rail, wire to wire job. The second was won by a horse near the front, but three and four wide the whole journey.

JustRalph

11-07-2006, 06:54 AM

From Equidaily

Capital OTB-TV viewers [upstate NY] got an early heads-up... Prior to the running of the first BC race on Saturday the Capital OTB-TV BC program featured a live interview with an on-site commentator, "Today I did watch track superintendent Butch Lehr scrape the track. At ten til nine he scraped it two widths of the track or so, out from the rail two widths -- he scraped the track. And he also rolled the track very tight... I think we'll see some pretty quick times and -- I don't want to say speed-favoring just yet, but it looks like the inside is tailor-made for some pretty quick efforts this afternoon."

PriceAnProbability

11-07-2006, 08:16 AM

The rail is always the best place to be, which is why I cringe every time some trainer at the Derby picks the 14 hole over the 1. Still, I don't think there was any special bias yesterday. All the winners from the rail figured to run well, and worked out good trips.

They choose the 14-15 post for the Derby because that is where the two starting gates are connected, and it leaves more room for the horse at the start. With the long runup to the first turn at CD, being on the outside can be an advantage, as the rail horse can get trapped, squeezed in or shuffled if it lacks early speed.