Daily Bias, a simple solution?

[mountainman]

Those intrigued by Klein's track-bias formula might find also of interest his more complex method of calculating speed points.

Pertaining to formulaic ways of detecting what running style a surface might favor, or compromise: these systemic approaches would probably be useful in flagging potential trends for closer scrutiny from those following numerous tracks. But in focusing on just one track, I have the time to look deeper and take more factors into account in forming an opinion I trust more than any "rating." And occasionally it's some subtlety , or other, picked up on visually, that can tip me off to a surface trend before the public catches on.

[ReplayRandall]

Or you and the Track Maintenance Super are best friends....It's a lot easier to know the "subtleties"....

[Half Smoke]

.....................

when I hear the word "simple" and "horse racing" in the same sentence I kind of shut down

for me at least, there is nothing simple about horse racing



*

[cj]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Those intrigued by Klein's track-bias formula might find also of interest his more complex method of calculating speed points.

Pertaining to formulaic ways of detecting what running style a surface might favor, or compromise: these systemic approaches would probably be useful in flagging potential trends for closer scrutiny from those following numerous tracks. But in focusing on just one track, I have the time to look deeper and take more factors into account in forming an opinion I trust more than any "rating." And occasionally it's some subtlety , or other, picked up on visually, that can tip me off to a surface trend before the public catches on.

This is exactly what I say about TimeformUS ratings, if not coded, probably a fair track as far as running style, but if color coded warrants further investigation.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Those intrigued by Klein's track-bias formula might find also of interest his more complex method of calculating speed points.

Pertaining to formulaic ways of detecting what running style a surface might favor, or compromise: these systemic approaches would probably be useful in flagging potential trends for closer scrutiny from those following numerous tracks. But in focusing on just one track, I have the time to look deeper and take more factors into account in forming an opinion I trust more than any "rating." And occasionally it's some subtlety , or other, picked up on visually, that can tip me off to a surface trend before the public catches on.

I'm with you.

I see tracks where a lot of horses are wiring, drawing off to big wins in the stretch, and putting up lifetime tops on speed figures all while closers are rallying fine for the minor awards.

I see tracks where front runners aren't dominating, but the overall flows are favoring horses near the front and the deeper closers seem to be laboring and can't sustain any run to finish well.

Sometimes a rail bias, kickback, or an off track can explain things like that, but I've also even seen tracks where I'm certain the rail was death and outside speed was dominating. So it was a speed track, but you had to be 2-3 wide.

I don't think any single metric can capture all of it. I use 2 automated metrics. If either one flashes an oddity I watch every race on that card and try to make better sense out of the day. If they are neutral, I may just take a quick glance at the charts and only watch the races I plan on taking notes for.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Or you and the Track Maintenance Super are best friends....It's a lot easier to know the "subtleties"....

People who happen to observe track maintenance during the afternoon RARELY know what they are looking at and the predictions they put out are almost always mistaken.

There is, however, one prominent member of mnr's maintenance crew, a tractor driver, who can explain the prevalent grain in simple, very accurate terms. When I see this guy, I SPRINT over to hear the what and why of prevailing biases. What I've learned from him is the crew has surprising awareness of how the strip is behaving-but CORRECTING a bias can be very problematic. Soil, wind, rain, and temperature rule. while these guys fight manfully to maintain a fair surface.

In other words, fixing a negative-rail bias (for instance) is NOT as simple as just
grading outward-or even scraping the inside.

[formula_2002]

What if it you determined that a certain track had, for this example a “SPEED BIAS” . The value of that determination is represented by how much you can beat the track take out.
How valued are the bias formulas post here?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Ran across this article, found it interesting. Pretty simple to use, but I do question the use of position instead of lengths back. Any comments?

http://www.troyrecord.com/news/calcu...fc1d67882.html

A paywall? No thanks

[cj]

Originally Posted by thespaah

A paywall? No thanks

It is free if you don't have an adblocker turned on. That is pretty standard these days for newspaper articles.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by thespaah

A paywall? No thanks

I thought the same thing.

Like CJ said, just "put shields down" for that site.
(That's what they call it in the Brave Browser.)

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

What if it you determined that a certain track had, for this example a “SPEED BIAS” . The value of that determination is represented by how much you can beat the track take out.
How valued are the bias formulas post here?

I've done some testing of automated bias upgrades and downgrades using my metrics. They added some value, but not all that much. I think the major problem is that some suspected speed/closer biases are related to the rail and not just how the track was playing overall. My metrics can't differentiate between the two because I don't have ground loss information in my database. That's one of several reasons I think you have to watch races.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've done some testing of automated bias upgrades and downgrades using my metrics. They added some value, but not all that much. I think the major problem is that some suspected speed/closer biases are related to the rail and not just how the track was playing overall. My metrics can't differentiate between the two because I don't have ground loss information in my database. That's one of several reasons I think you have to watch races.

I THINK that the value in these metrics is to lump similar races in a database together to find better answers.

I'm working with several HSH users who are doing just that and their newest efforts are very promising.

Small example --
Most of us have built models at one time or another.

So, they run a "filter" against the datbase with a particular pace shape.

This produces a sorted list of factors that are important in a "race like this one."

OBJECT 1: Fits the pace model

But, when they take it a step further and isolate on low-odds horses only (within that same sample), the factors that come back are very different.

OBJECT 2: Fits the pace model for low-odds horses

Logically, they build another object from the subset of horses called, "Not Low Odds." Again, these are drastically different.

OBJECT 3: Fits the pace model for not low-odds horses

The logical question is, "Which metrics are important in a race like this one?"

And, ultimately, which factors do we use to handicap such a race?

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've done some testing of automated bias upgrades and downgrades using my metrics. They added some value, but not all that much. I think the major problem is that some suspected speed/closer biases are related to the rail and not just how the track was playing overall. My metrics can't differentiate between the two because I don't have ground loss information in my database. That's one of several reasons I think you have to watch races.

thanks for your reply.

A daunting but interesting task. Good luck with your endeavor.