Good Rail or Bad Outside?

[classhandicapper]

When most of the winners on a card race on the rail and some of the contenders that raced wide disappointed badly, bias handicappers will typically designate the day as a "Good Rail" day.

However, I think it's possible there are 2 types of days like that.

1. A good rail that is enabling horses that race on it to run new figure tops

2. A good rail where horses that run on it run their usual figures, but horses racing wide run greatly diminished performances.

That's a subtle distinction that could be related to the way different figure makers interpret results, create track variants, and assign figures.

But nonetheless, it's an important distinction for evaluating horses off figures when they come back and race on a neutral track.

Any thoughts?

(the same would be true of bad rails vs. good outsides)

[windoor]

When most of the winners on a card race on the rail and some of the contenders that raced wide disappointed badly, bias handicappers will typically designate the day as a "Good Rail" day.

However, I think it's possible there are 2 types of days like that.

1. A good rail that is enabling horses that race on it to run new figure tops

2. A good rail where horses that run on it run their usual figures, but horses racing wide run greatly diminished performances.

That's a subtle distinction that could be related to the way different figure makers interpret results, create track variants, and assign figures.

But nonetheless, it's an important distinction for evaluating horses off figures when they come back and race on a neutral track.

Any thoughts?

(the same would be true of bad rails vs. good outsides)

I would agree with your assessment.

If I could have one piece of information that was guaranteed accurate, it would be for a true track variant on a per race basis that included numbers across the track and for each quarter pole.

For instance, you might find the rail was a bad place to be in the first quarter, but was quite firm in the stretch and not tiring at all. I would think the best trainers and jocks would know this before the race and position there horse accordingly if possible.

For Philly ( my home track) I know my horse is a loser (most of the time) if he is on the inside coming down the stretch. I always want to see the strong move on the turn and running outside coming down the stretch. As close to guaranteed winner as you can get when that happens.


Regards,

Windoor

[thaskalos]

When most of the winners on a card race on the rail and some of the contenders that raced wide disappointed badly, bias handicappers will typically designate the day as a "Good Rail" day.

However, I think it's possible there are 2 types of days like that.

1. A good rail that is enabling horses that race on it to run new figure tops

2. A good rail where horses that run on it run their usual figures, but horses racing wide run greatly diminished performances.

That's a subtle distinction that could be related to the way different figure makers interpret results, create track variants, and assign figures.

But nonetheless, it's an important distinction for evaluating horses off figures when they come back and race on a neutral track.

Any thoughts?

(the same would be true of bad rails vs. good outsides)
Whether a horse runs a new figure top or not cannot be attributed solely to the track bias...nor can a track bias be considered the only explanation for a horse's subpar figure. There are other factors that come into play in those situations as well.

I prefer to assess the likelihood of a track bias not by the figures that the horses ran for the race...but by what I see during the running of the race itself.

If the inside horses are outrunning their odds while sticking to the rail, while the horses on the outside are struggling to keep up...then I start to worry about a rail bias and I keep a closer look on things -- no matter how fast the horses are running.

[classhandicapper]

I would agree with your assessment.

If I could have one piece of information that was guaranteed accurate, it would be for a true track variant on a per race basis that included numbers across the track and for each quarter pole.

For instance, you might find the rail was a bad place to be in the first quarter, but was quite firm in the stretch and not tiring at all. I would think the best trainers and jocks would know this before the race and position there horse accordingly if possible.

For Philly ( my home track) I know my horse is a loser (most of the time) if he is on the inside coming down the stretch. I always want to see the strong move on the turn and running outside coming down the stretch. As close to guaranteed winner as you can get when that happens.


Regards,

Windoor

I agree 1000%.

That's the other misconception. I see days where it's clear to me that the track is playing differently on the turn than in the stretch etc..

It could be a disaster to be wide on the turn, but not bad if you swing out in the stretch run after saving ground on the turn.

It could be fine to be inside all the way, but you better out outside during the stretch drive

etc...

Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to those fine line judgments on most days.

[classhandicapper]

Whether a horse runs a new figure top or not cannot be attributed solely to the track bias...nor can a track bias be considered the only explanation for a horse's subpar figure. There are other factors that come into play in those situations as well.

I prefer to assess the likelihood of a track bias not by the figures that the horses ran for the race...but by what I see during the running of the race itself.

If the inside horses are outrunning their odds while sticking to the rail, while the horses on the outside are struggling to keep up...then I start to worry about a rail bias and I keep a closer look on things -- no matter how fast the horses are running.

I agree with you, but I didn't want to write a chapter on track bias to make the point that there are subtle differences in definition that I don't think people appreciate. ;)

[aaron]

I would agree with your assessment.

If I could have one piece of information that was guaranteed accurate, it would be for a true track variant on a per race basis that included numbers across the track and for each quarter pole.

For instance, you might find the rail was a bad place to be in the first quarter, but was quite firm in the stretch and not tiring at all. I would think the best trainers and jocks would know this before the race and position there horse accordingly if possible.

For Philly ( my home track) I know my horse is a loser (most of the time) if he is on the inside coming down the stretch. I always want to see the strong move on the turn and running outside coming down the stretch. As close to guaranteed winner as you can get when that happens.


Regards,

Windoor
I think you are giving the jockeys and trainers too much credit. Most of them will not pick up a bias.

[Robert Goren]

Some bettors see a track bias at every turn. Most of the time there is no track bias. Now day is the only true bias is the "juice" bias. The horse with the best "juice" wins no matter which part of the track he runs on. :rolleyes:

[Dahoss9698]

I think you are giving the jockeys and trainers too much credit. Most of them will not pick up a bias.

I pretty much agree. Most of the time it seems as though most riders are totally clueless when there is a bias and what the bias is.

Some of the better jocks pick up on it, but it's amazing how many don't. It's like they aren't watching the races during the course of the day.

[cj]

When most of the winners on a card race on the rail and some of the contenders that raced wide disappointed badly, bias handicappers will typically designate the day as a "Good Rail" day.

However, I think it's possible there are 2 types of days like that.

1. A good rail that is enabling horses that race on it to run new figure tops

2. A good rail where horses that run on it run their usual figures, but horses racing wide run greatly diminished performances.

That's a subtle distinction that could be related to the way different figure makers interpret results, create track variants, and assign figures.

But nonetheless, it's an important distinction for evaluating horses off figures when they come back and race on a neutral track.

Any thoughts?

(the same would be true of bad rails vs. good outsides)

As a figure guy, I think it can be looked in either way, both being correct as long as you are consistent.

The riders aren't "too bad" spotting biases on the major circuits, but below that most are pretty clueless.

[classhandicapper]

I think you are giving the jockeys and trainers too much credit. Most of them will not pick up a bias.

I agree.

I think "some" jockeys and connections do pick up on speed/closer biases and get either more or less aggressive by mid card depending on how the track is playing. Some will also avoid the rail when it's bad, but there are plenty on every circuit that seem to be clueless.

It's understandable though.

It's not easy to determine if there's a bias even when you are familiar with all the horses in the race and watch the replays, let alone if you are just riding one horse and immediately getting dressed for the next race.

[classhandicapper]

As a figure guy, I think it can be looked in either way, both being correct as long as you are consistent.

The riders aren't "too bad" spotting biases on the major circuits, but below that most are pretty clueless.

The key word being "consistent".