Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andicap
Kind of goes to the "black or white" mentality -- no shades of gray. Either it's perceived as speed biased, neutral or favoring closers. Often the "bias" is pretty limited, nuanced. Thus, when the fractions heat up the speed dies.
Rarely do you see days when horses going, say, 45.0 in turf route will survive going two turns especially if they are dueling. THAT's when you know there is a real plus bias. Happens at times in the summer when it hasn't rained for a while.
|
I don't want to veer this thread too far off base, but imo you are exactly correct.
Imagine some "theoretically" normal/average track that produces X% w2w winners.
Imagine some other tracks that carry speed a little better than average or a little worse than average.
In the end, the w2w% will probably not change as much as the tracks/surfaces themselves should dictate because the jockeys will be smart enough to pick up on the variations and alter their level of aggressiveness a bit.
When one of those "biases" happens on a single day, sometimes the riders are smart enough to pick up on it mid card. So by the time you start adjusting your betting to the bias, they've already started adjusting their riding and neutralized the bias (or maybe not).
That's what makes it so tough. Not only do have to be able to recognize the bias accurately quickly (which is hard enough), you have to pick up on whether you think the riders have or will adjust.
And of course the people that claim there is no such thing as biases will think they are right if suddenly the races stop going w2w, when in fact the bias is still there but the riders are going out in 44 3/5 instead 45 2/5.
