How to determine a track bias

[pandy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There can BE no "right amount". The entire "figure equalization" idea is flawed. Some horses like to sprint, and some horses like to run a longer distance of ground. The competent handicapper KNOWS that a sprinter's figures can't be trusted in a route race...and vice versa. And we all know that an 80 speed figure at Monmouth isn't the same as an 80 at Belmont.

This tinkering with the figure point values is an effort to smooth-out the rough edges of a very complicated sport...and that is a futile undertaking...IMO.

I agree with you. The parallel time tables are certainly a smart idea and whoever actually created them was probably quite brilliant, but speed figures are nothing more than an educated guess, and the more you try to extrapolate, the greater the degree of error.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There can BE no "right amount". The entire "figure equalization" idea is flawed. Some horses like to sprint, and some horses like to run a longer distance of ground. The competent handicapper KNOWS that a sprinter's figures can't be trusted in a route race...and vice versa. And we all know that an 80 speed figure at Monmouth isn't the same as an 80 at Belmont.

This tinkering with the figure point values is an effort to smooth-out the rough edges of a very complicated sport...and that is a futile undertaking...IMO.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed a horse that runs an 80 at 6f will run an 80 at a mile and a half. The whole point of distance equalization, in my opinion and pretty sure the reason Beyer does it, is to assess track speed and create a variant.

As far as saying that figures don't transfer between tracks, I don't agree. It certainly takes work and some monitoring, but I have no trouble use figures from one circuit when horses ship to another.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't think anyone has ever claimed a horse that runs an 80 at 6f will run an 80 at a mile and a half. The whole point of distance equalization, in my opinion and pretty sure the reason Beyer does it, is to assess track speed and create a variant.

As far as saying that figures don't transfer between tracks, I don't agree. It certainly takes work and some monitoring, but I have no trouble use figures from one circuit when horses ship to another.

When Beyer assigned a 2.4 point value to a 6F length and a 1.8 point value to a 1M length...he attempted, IMO, to make the sprint figures comparable to the routes , "scale-wise"...in the same manner that other speed figures were subsequently readjusted to fit the Beyer-figure scale. I didn't mean that this necessarily implied that the same horse could run equally well at both distances; it means that a horse who registered an 80 Beyer at a sprint theoretically equaled the effort of a horse who ran an 80 in a route. That's what the appeal was at the very beginning with those figures. At a glance...you could tell how good a horse's effort was...regardless of distance, or surface.

Is a horse who runs an 80 speed figure at Finger Lakes able to repeat that 80 when running at a similar class level at Aqueduct? That's a question that each horseplayer has to answer himself...with his own experience to guide him. When you are the figure creator...then you can tweak and adjust these figures so they could be made accurate across different racetracks. When you are the reader and you see those figures already printed in the PPs...such an "adjustment" may be beyond your capabilities.

[DeltaLover]

The thread is pretty busy while all the tracks are running.. When you guys find the time to place your bets??

[cj]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The thread is pretty busy while all the tracks are running.. When you guys find the time to place your bets??

Plenty time between races, especially when Parx and Laurel are going off at the exact same minute.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by cj

Plenty time between races, especially when Parx and Laurel are going off at the exact same minute.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by cj

Plenty time between races, especially when Parx and Laurel are going off at the exact same minute.

Yes, the disrespect to the bettors shown by the morons who run race tracks is appalling.

[classhandicapper]

I'm going to reboard the Penn Derby, but only because half the people at DRF can vouch that this analysis was done before the race was run.

This week when people asked me if I was going to play anyone in the Penn Derby, I told them the horse I was most interested in was Wild About Deb. I told them he was probably not good enough to win, but he could easily get himself into the exacta, triple, or super at a big price and juice it.

I wound up making a good bet on Gun Runner to win/place (who I thought was the mostly likely winner and good value). I played Wild About Deb across the board for a little less than half that amount. Then I made an exacta box to crush the race.

There were a few reasons I expected WAD to improve, but the primary reason I was interested in him was that I thought the track at PARX in his last start favored speed and the rail was an inferior path.

WAD had spent some time closing on that bad rail that day.

Given the likely pace setup for the Penn Derby and the fact that most of the horses in the race did their best running on or near the lead, I was looking for horses that could sit and pick it up late to begin with.

WAD fit the profile, was better then he looked on paper off his last, was lightly raced enough to move forward, had shown some very good promise early in his career, and I suspected he was prepared for his A race.

I won a few bucks on the race, but no celebration. Close doesn't count.

This is why I decided to post this story. I think that race was instructional.

Awesome Slew had beaten WAD by 7 lengths last time out. But he set the pace well out on the track in the better paths on that speed favoring surface while WAD spent time inside on the inferior paths. AS was also likely to get a tougher trip on or near the lead against tougher foes in the Penn Derby.

Earlier in this thread (or the one about pace and final time) we were talking about whether 1 or 2 points matter.

Here was an example of where I thought 7 lengths didn't matter.

[EMD4ME]

With a massive bias, 8 lengths can not matter. I agree. Rare but possible.

[cj]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

With a massive bias, 8 lengths can not matter. I agree. Rare but possible.

Same thing is true of pace. Some races are just a line through for some horses.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by cj

Same thing is true of pace. Some races are just a line through for some horses.

Absolutely agree. Even more so with pace. Especially extreme paces. Combine both and you have a double bogey.

[EMD4ME]

For those who believe in biases, how did YOU see the Belmont main track this weekend on Saturday and Sunday?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

For those who believe in biases, how did YOU see the Belmont main track this weekend on Saturday and Sunday?

I didn't play there Saturday, but when I review it I'll let you know.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

For those who believe in biases, how did YOU see the Belmont main track this weekend on Saturday and Sunday?

I just looked at Saturday and called it honest. When I am dealing with moisture in the track and off the turf races that cloud dirt form, I'm more reluctant to call a track biased because there's some chance some horses didn't like the conditions. Enough horses ran well inside for me to err on the side of honest until I see evidence that suggests otherwise.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I didn't play there Saturday, but when I review it I'll let you know.

You don't play on Saturdays, Classhandicapper?