BC Churchill Inside Bias

[Stevie Belmont]

It was evident early on that speed was going to rule, even more so from the extreme inside. Horses that got the rail won early and often. Several other horses that were inside did well to. Not sure if anyone brought this up or what they think about it. Not taking anything away from the winners that all figured, but they were aided, which gave then an overpowering edge.


This might be in the wrong forum considering I just saw a thread on this in the Handicapping forum. So if it's moved...fine by me.

[bigmack]

http://www.horseplayerdaily.com/cat/main+page+columnist.htm

[highnote]

http://www.horseplayerdaily.com/cat/main+page+columnist.htm

Good article. I take Lehr at face value. Statistical anamolies happen.

It is not outside the realm of statistical probability for the number 1 post position to win four in a row.

I just wish I would have been at the track and betting that day! I'd of been on post position 1 like a bum on a baloney sandwich!

[The Hawk]

Take Lehr at face value?

Here's what his reaction to the BC bias reminds me of...a scene from the movie Casino.

In it, a relative of a local bigwig is working for DeNiro's character, Ace Rothstein (real name Lefty Rosenthal), as a "slots manager" when the same guy wins a huge slot jackpot...twice! DeNiro, in trying to explain to the dimwit why he's so pissed, and why the guy is now fired (paraphrased):

Dimwit: People do get lucky and win you know, Mr. Rothstein.

DeNiro: The chances of this happening twice are in the billions, it cannot happen. Either you're too stupid to realize that, or you were in on it. Either way, you're out.

[highnote]

Take Lehr at face value?
DeNiro: The chances of this happening twice are in the billions, it cannot happen. Either you're too stupid to realize that, or you were in on it. Either way, you're out.

post position 1 won four races in a row = approximately (1//12)^4 -- that would be the same chance as say post positions 5,2,10,9 winning the first four races. Or post 5 winning the first 4 races.

It's too small of a sample to say that there was a bias. Probably the best way to know is to monitor how the horses in those races ran before and after the BC races.

There's a good book to read -- "Fooled By Randomness" by Nassim Taleb. He talks about the "Black Swan" effect. A black swan is a rare event. It happens. You have to account for it.

That said, maybe it was biased. But I doubt that Lehr intentionally tried to make it biased. Maybe I'm naive, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[bigmack]

A black swan is a rare event. It happens. You have to account for it.
I wish it more rare. We have one on the golf course - Meaner than a junkyard dog. If you ever read of a guy offing a black swan with a fairway wood, it was me.

http://www.fresnochaffeezoo.com/images/black-swan.gif

[The Hawk]

post position 1 won four races in a row = approximately (1//12)^4 -- that would be the same chance as say post positions 5,2,10,9 winning the first four races. Or post 5 winning the first 4 races.

It's too small of a sample to say that there was a bias. Probably the best way to know is to monitor how the horses in those races ran before and after the BC races.

That said, maybe it was biased. But I doubt that Lehr intentionally tried to make it biased. Maybe I'm naive, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think it was intentional either. But make no mistake, it WAS a bias. There's a lot more to it than post 1 winning four in a row, although that's a good start. It's the way those horses moved up, it's the way that speed held up, it's the way closers who figured failed to make up ground, etc., from race one until the Classic. I was perplexed as to the Classic result until reading how much work was done on the track in the hour leading up to that race.

Also, if it's too small of a sample, then you couldn't call the racetrack on ANY individual day of racing biased, no matter what the evidence is. The sample is plenty big enough, and the evidence is strong.

[Valuist]

The winning post positions may be irrelevant. Thor's Echo had the rail but was 3 wide on the turn and entering the stretch. Bordonaro, who had the 9 hole, got the rail trip and tired. Dreaming of Anna was favored and figured to get the lead.

[The Hawk]

The winning post positions may be irrelevant. Thor's Echo had the rail but was 3 wide on the turn and entering the stretch. Bordonaro, who had the 9 hole, got the rail trip and tired. Dreaming of Anna was favored and figured to get the lead.

How about Round Pond and Street Sense? How about the non-BC race winners, Maryfield and It's No Joke? Yes, Dreaming of Anna was favored and figured to get the lead, but did she figure to shake off a couple of challenges and win going away? And this is from someone who liked her enough to single her in all Pick 3's (I hit exactly zero). That in and of itself might suggest she's simply much the best of her generation but look at the race together with the other evidence and it's clear. If that's not apparent, well, let's just say I'm glad we're betting into the same pools.

[bigmack]

If you watch the replays it's a tough argument to say that Round Pound, Thor's E, Street Sense and D of Anna all road the biased rail to vic?

PP is not the end all to exhibit a bias. A skilled player notes a bias from the nuances of a number of elements, not merely the simpleness of the post.

[JPinMaryland]

Street Sense won by 10 lengths, IIRC and that seemed like quite a lot. He was rolling and none of the rest were.

Also if you want more data pts. then I guess you can and should look at all the other horses in all the other paths. It seemed like no horse could make up any ground coming from the outside (until the last race). And at CD you would expect some, it is fair to generous to those types.

I dont know why the guy says there not enuf data pts. THeres more than just 8 races, there's 14 horses in each of those races, 8 x 14, plus the early races. There should be enuf data...

[kev]

Here's the path info around the turns.

Dreamin of Anna 3w2w
Street Sense 1w1w
Thor's Echo 3w
Round Pond 1w1w
Invasor 2w3w

[highnote]

I dont know why the guy says there not enuf data pts. THeres more than just 8 races, there's 14 horses in each of those races, 8 x 14, plus the early races. There should be enuf data...

I agree. I stand corrected.

[classhandicapper]

It seemed like no horse could make up any ground coming from the outside (until the last race). And at CD you would expect some, it is fair to generous to those types.

I think that's an important point.

Aside from all the subjective opinions about how good the horses were coming into the races and how well they ran on BC day compared to expectations, the race developments didn't look like the typical day at CD.

Regardless, I don't think any bias was huge or we wouldn't be debating it. I think it was strong enough that if there were two similar contenders, the inside horse had a bigger advantage than usual. But if an outside horse was clearly superior, he could win anyway.

[Tee]

But if an outside horse was clearly superior, he could win anyway.

This is along the lines of what I was going to ask everyone involved in the "bias" discussion.

Would the winning horses leading to this "bias" discussion have won anyway with different post positions? Nothing drastic like the far outside, but just not the magical 1 post either.

Was there another competitor in the race that could be pointed to with a great deal of certainty as the best horse in the race & was only defeated because of post position & chosen racing path?

[classhandicapper]

This is along the lines of what I was going to ask everyone involved in the "bias" discussion.

Would the winning horses leading to this "bias" discussion have won anyway with different post positions? Nothing drastic like the far outside, but just not the magical 1 post either.

Was there another competitor in the race that could be pointed to with a great deal of certainty as the best horse in the race & was only defeated because of post position & chosen racing path?

I'd have to review every race more carefully to answer your question, but I'm willing to say that I doubt very much the difference between Street Sense and Circular Quay is as large as the margin and ground loss difference alone.

[cj]

...but I'm willing to say that I doubt very much the difference between Street Sense and Circular Quay is as large as the margin and ground loss difference alone.

Many people, myself included, suspected Circular Quay was not very likely to stretch out to two turns well. Time will tell, but I'm just pointing out that a whole lot of things not called bias could have caused the margin to be as big as it was.

[classhandicapper]

Many people, myself included, suspected Circular Quay was not very likely to stretch out to two turns well. Time will tell, but I'm just pointing out that a whole lot of things not called bias could have caused the margin to be as big as it was.

Agreed. That's why we look at all the races and the preponderance of evidence before making a bias call.

I get a little skeptical when people try to find reasons to make the case for or against a bias because it's consistent with preconceived views. There's a tough balance to strike been subjective opinions about the horses ability and the actual results.

IMO, this was a tough day, but you know I come down on the side of a mild inside bias. So I think if they held a rematch and the under/over was Street Sense by same margin at the same distance (all else equal), I'd take Circular Quay.