Track Bias

[Track Phantom]

I've always struggled with understanding how to figure track bias. The conventional wisdom is to see where the winner was on the track but what if the winner is 1-9 and a deep closer and wins. Do you monitor the also rans.

If anyone has a good process for understanding this, I'd love to hear it.

[skipaway100]

I've always struggled with understanding how to figure track bias. The conventional wisdom is to see where the winner was on the track but what if the winner is 1-9 and a deep closer and wins. Do you monitor the also rans.

If anyone has a good process for understanding this, I'd love to hear it.


I monitor the top four finishers and have pars for each position and each call to determine whether a bias definently existed. With 5 sprints on a card, if you are using 4 horses in your race, your sample size will be 5 times greater than just about everybody else making figures.

Using simply the winner to create a variant or make any kind of judgement on a bias a very poor way to go about it IMO.

[classhandicapper]

What you are looking for is multiple horses on a day that outperformed or underperformed expectations based on their talents and the way the race was run that shared something in common.

It could be horses that raced on the rail or inner most paths doing better or worse than expected.

It could be weak horses that carried their speed much better than expected or even after a duel or good horses tiring badly despite an easy trip on the lead etc...

You have to watch the races development (especially on the turn and when horses are making a major bid).

[Track Phantom]

Thanks guys. Kind of what I thought, too. What you are both saying is track bias is a bit subjective. You have to weigh the expected effort vs. actual effort and factor in running style and part of track. It's a lot of work to get right. I started doing it at my home track (CBY) at the start of the meet and found a specific trend that speed and the rail were dead as can be the first two days (which were muddy). I nailed a few big prices coming back that ran against the bias, which boosted my confidence tremendously. However, now that the track has been dry most of the time, it's been distinctively harder to identify a bias.

I will say this...if you can master the art of finding a bias (when it exists), you can have a distinct edge over the competition when those running against (or with) the bias come back.

[TheGhostOfOscarB]

SAR this year is a good example. It was clear early on (I mean day 1) that speed on all surfaces was holding. Better than usual or normal.

Fit well with the fact that it was hot and dry, though that was more an issue with the turf.

So if you figured this out, you could have avoided playing closers, and saved yourself a few losers. Winners can be harder to come by. Who gets the lead is often semi random.

I'm suspicious of mechanical methods of determining a strong track bias. By watching how the entire field handles the turns and the stretch, you get a pretty good idea if a bias , and what kind of bias might exist.

[Robert Fischer]

Track surface bias is probably a little over-rated.

the majority of bias exists because of track configuration, and race dynamics(such as pace).

there is a minority of bias that exists from track "surface", and the majority of these have to do with rain and an "off" track.

maybe I have trouble seeing it, but with most of the "path" bias(such as inside-outside) that is attributed as being caused by the "surface" I usually do better looking at as a "track configuration" issue instead...

[thaskalos]

While track biases certainly exist...most are only imagined, IMO. So many variables come into play during the race...how can we be sure that the race's outcome can be attributed to a prevailing track bias?

In my own play, I am only on the lookout for the more "severe" forms of these biases...because making a mistake in their diagnosis has a far-reaching affect.

A couple of longshots wire their fields, or they come from well back to win...and everybody is quick to detect a bias.

We horseplayers live in a world of widespread drug use and "supertrainers"; we should demand more conclusive evidence...and not be prone to reaching hasty conclusions.

In a "real" rail bias, MORE horses than just the pace-setter are helped by its existence. We see that SEVERAL horses racing on the inside are making better progress than their counterparts on the outside...who seem to flatten out as a group.

When trying to detect an "early speed" bias, don't just look at the pace-setter...keep your eyes on those pressuring the pace as well. When the pace-setter asserts his superiority, and draws away from the field turning for home...do those early pressers fall back into the field, or do they hang on tenatiously to the wire?

Whether there is an "early" or a "late" bias...it should affect the whole group, not just one of the horses.

In a "front runners" bias, the running order of the field remains largely unchanged during the run, with the front runners dominating from start to finish...while the closers fail to make their customary late runs.

In a "closers" bias, we see SEVERAL closers unleashing their late charge AS A GROUP...and they swallow up the front runners -- who give up with little resistance...also as a group.

Are there "milder" forms of track biases out there?

Of course...but I, for one, would not bet my money on them.

[Greyfox]

While track biases certainly exist...most are only imagined, IMO. .

:ThmbUp: Exactly!

[TheGhostOfOscarB]

:ThmbUp: Exactly!

Exactly why you can make money if you spot a bias early, since so many think its like Santa Clause, just a fable for children

Thanks! :D

[classhandicapper]

What makes biases such a powerfully profitable tool is that it takes a LOT of knowledge to identify and exploit one well.

There are loads of people that try. But they aren't very good at spotting one, find biases that don't exist, misunderstand the impact a bias will have on a specific horse, or aren't skilled enough to project race developments in order to exploit one. So a lot of people make bad bets, get frustrated, and just drop it.

I'm sure there are people out there better than I am at it, but bias plays remain far and away my most profitable angle. It's not even close anymore.

[Greyfox]

Exactly why you can make money if you spot a bias early, since so many think its like Santa Clause, just a fable for children

Thanks! :D

:D Ha. Ha. Yourself. If the bias is genuine you can make money. More often than not horseplayers see a bias where none exists.
Thaskalos prefaced his comments with "While biases certainly exist..."
I agree with that.
I also agree with Thaskalos' comment that "most are imagined."
The :D Ha. Ha. comes in when the perceived bias is a myth.

[Track Phantom]

While track biases certainly exist...most are only imagined, IMO. So many variables come into play during the race...how can we be sure that the race's outcome can be attributed to a prevailing track bias?

In my own play, I am only on the lookout for the more "severe" forms of these biases...because making a mistake in their diagnosis has a far-reaching affect.

A couple of longshots wire their fields, or they come from well back to win...and everybody is quick to detect a bias.

We horseplayers live in a world of widespread drug use and "supertrainers"; we should demand more conclusive evidence...and not be prone to reaching hasty conclusions.

In a "real" rail bias, MORE horses than just the pace-setter are helped by its existence. We see that SEVERAL horses racing on the inside are making better progress than their counterparts on the outside...who seem to flatten out as a group.

When trying to detect an "early speed" bias, don't just look at the pace-setter...keep your eyes on those pressuring the pace as well. When the pace-setter asserts his superiority, and draws away from the field turning for home...do those early pressers fall back into the field, or do they hang on tenatiously to the wire?

Whether there is an "early" or a "late" bias...it should affect the whole group, not just one of the horses.

In a "front runners" bias, the running order of the field remains largely unchanged during the run, with the front runners dominating from start to finish...while the closers fail to make their customary late runs.

In a "closers" bias, we see SEVERAL closers unleashing their late charge AS A GROUP...and they swallow up the front runners -- who give up with little resistance...also as a group.

Are there "milder" forms of track biases out there?

Of course...but I, for one, would not bet my money on them.

Really a top notch post. I appreciate your insight here. I couldn't agree more with everything you stated.

[Greyfox]

At the major tracks watch where the top riders put their mounts on the track.
If the rail is dead, they'll try to get off it. If it's a speedway, they'll use it.

[classhandicapper]

At the major tracks watch where the top riders put their mounts on the track.
If the rail is dead, they'll try to get off it. If it's a speedway, they'll use it.

I agree. Some riders are better at identifying them. Heck I've seen a few guys take speed horses out to the 3-4 path in the first race on the card and after a few races it became clear the rail was bad. It was like they had information beforehand. If everyone is avoiding the rail or gunning to get to it, something is usually up.

[BIG49010]

I agree. Some riders are better at identifying them. Heck I've seen a few guys take speed horses out to the 3-4 path in the first race on the card and after a few races it became clear the rail was bad. It was like they had information beforehand. If everyone is avoiding the rail or gunning to get to it, something is usually up.

Many ride in the style that worked the day before, until something else turns up. They are not that sharp, believe me .