Talented apprentice in New York

[Bobskim]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I don't believe in labels in general, and specifically for horseplayers, as to have any reasonable chance at success ( especially these days ) you need to be looking at multiple factors. Understanding trips is great, but if you don't use the tools to let you know whether or not your horse is fast enough under relatively ideal circumstances, your skills as a trip handicapper will cost you money, both coming in and going out. Just as if you don't understand how a figure was earned, you risk over, or under, rating it....and that's just scratching the surface.

Prior I meant to say that this was spot on.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I've been frequenting this board for 14 years...and I don't recall ever seeing a "huge disagreement" about a track bias. But then again...my memory is no longer what it used to be.

I've had a couple here, but there have been plenty in public.

When Mike Watchmaker had his column at DRF, he often called biases that other public handicappers disagreed with and vice versa. He also called split biases where he though the track was changing throughout the day more often than other people. I've called a few of those myself, but only when I've seen clear cut changes in the amount of water the maintenance crew was putting on the track between races.

When it's extreme, everyone knows that something is going on. So the debates usually involve whether it was related to the rail, speed, or both because the evidence is not always clear, especially if there are only 4-6 dirt races that day.

When it's a milder bias, split bias, or especially when someone thinks the rail was different on the turn vs. the stretch opinions are all over the place.

[46zilzal]

Having all my formative years following the West coast tracks (when old Hollywood used a part of their advertising to tell you each day they had a fast track and, as I recall, it often got into the 5 to 600 range), Bias seemed to never have visited us.

Now two things changed: I began following New York, Maryland, Toronto, and Delaware and LO and BEHOLD, found a mathematical way of defining when bias was there (ALWAYS EARLY BIAS as I only witnessed a late one once and that was in the early days of the Polytrack and Keeneland where a sub par Blue Grass surface allowed late runners like Dominican, Dullahan and Monba to win there and just about bomb every where else other than the grass where that later running style was better suited). LANE bias, where horses are winning from lanes 3 and 4 etc., are more due to poor drainage than from any inherent bias in the entire course. Secondly, using a Sartin measurement comparing early/late balance standards versus what was winning in any particular day, allowed me to pick up a bias genesis before the crowd. When it was alive, it was definitive to victory after victory and/or MAJOR improvement to faint hearted runners that usually spit the bit late.

For a two day period at little Hasting, the track maintenance people brought in a lot of sand but did not distribute it evenly but just in the first 5 lanes. The riders picked up that slow portion and took their mounts wide to win race after race until the track front office succumbed to complaints and closed down for a few days to correct it. LANE biases are real

Bias (designed this way on the early/late balances) was, usually, a transient phenomenon, but when the combination of both Wet and Cold were there together (as I see currently at Mahoning Downs and Aqueduct from time to time) it can be DOMINANT in projecting which racing style would be able to overcome class of pace advantages. My late friend, Tommy Wolski (retired jockey in Vancouver), told me about frozen chunks of soil mixed with ice that bombard the stragglers in the winter at tracks where he rode. He thought a lot of that bias was based upon no horse's moving into that barrage of particles hitting both he and his mounts. I know when the old Poly was at Woodbine, the track maintenance people would have to bring in thousands of gallons of mineral oil to keep them from making kickback a fog that retarded all closers when they ran late into October to December and the front was golden.

I contend that bias is real and measurable.

[classhandicapper]

LANE bias, where horses are winning from lanes 3 and 4 etc., are more due to poor drainage than from any inherent bias in the entire course.

I agree.

That's one reason why when there is lane bias imo it's not necessarily consistent around the track. The track banking, drainage, and maintenance is not necessarily consistent around the track.

IMO, people focus WAY too much attention on what's happening in the stretch drive when the place more likely to have a lane bias is the turn. It's also way easier to recognize when horses on the outside are moving way better than still fresh horses inside them saving ground or when they are struggling badly to make up any ground even though they are being used much harder.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree.

That's one reason why when there is lane bias imo it's not necessarily consistent around the track. The track banking, drainage, and maintenance is not necessarily consistent around the track.

IMO, people focus WAY too much attention on what's happening in the stretch drive when the place more likely to have a lane bias is the turn. It's also way easier to recognize when horses on the outside are moving way better than still fresh horses inside them saving ground or when they are struggling badly to make up any ground even though they are being used much harder.

Want to handicap Fonner Park in a few weeks. The first thing we look for there is a lane bias. Number one thing. That old track will have one, and it will be consistent. Add running style to the mix and you will get a few big ones.

[RunForTheRoses]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've had a couple here, but there have been plenty in public.

When Mike Watchmaker had his column at DRF, he often called biases that other public handicappers disagreed with and vice versa. He also called split biases where he though the track was changing throughout the day more often than other people. I've called a few of those myself, but only when I've seen clear cut changes in the amount of water the maintenance crew was putting on the track between races.

Anyone remember the Watchmaker-Paseka speed figs?

[Bobskim]

CJ, I know you make weight adjustments. Timeformus still shows Cardenas as a 10lb bug. He is 7 now.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Bobskim

CJ, I know you make weight adjustments. Timeformus still shows Cardenas as a 10lb bug. He is 7 now.

It is an option for users, and we use the weight listed to be carried by Equibase. I'll check if it is causing a problem in the morning.

[Bobskim]

AQU. Cardenas listed weight on Timeformus preview page has him 10lb bug. Look at AQU. Race2, Friday he rides the 5.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Bobskim

AQU. Cardenas listed weight on Timeformus preview page has him 10lb bug. Look at AQU. Race2, Friday he rides the 5.

Yeah, I understood. I'm assuming he was 10 at the time of entry, but changed to 7 since? If so it will update tomorrow. But anyway, like I said, I'll check it out in the morning. Patience grasshopper, only so many hours in the day for work.

[Bobskim]

Originally Posted by cj

Yeah, I understood. I'm assuming he was 10 at the time of entry, but changed to 7 since? If so it will update tomorrow. But anyway, like I said, I'll check it out in the morning. Patience grasshopper, only so many hours in the day for work.

Not rushing you, simply noticed what looked like an error. Like several of my few posts, just trying to point out potential errors. There also is an error within the adjusted fractions that will sometimes appear at the stretch call of you’re PP’s. The leaders time will appear for every horse as their time.

Thanks for making you’re numbers saving me time and effort. Promise I know the work involved. Concerning Cardenas was trying to save you time by pointing out an example.

Sounds like you have a very small staff.

Love the charts Timeformus have. True time saver.

Will try to keep future thoughts to myself, having full confidence that you will discover them anyway.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Bobskim

Not rushing you, simply noticed what looked like an error. Like several of my few posts, just trying to point out potential errors. There also is an error within the adjusted fractions that will sometimes appear at the stretch call of you’re PP’s. The leaders time will appear for every horse as their time.

Thanks for making you’re numbers saving me time and effort. Promise I know the work involved. Concerning Cardenas was trying to save you time by pointing out an example.

Sounds like you have a very small staff.

Love the charts Timeformus have. True time saver.

Will try to keep future thoughts to myself, having full confidence that you will discover them anyway.

You took that wrong, sorry. It wasn't meant the way it probably came across. I promise you I had a smile on my face as I was typing it. I even added a smiley face. I appreciate any and all feedback as anyone here can tell you. I'll get it fixed, though this one probably will by itself. I'll check on the adjusted fractions thing too.

We do have a small staff.

[cj]

Of course the horse scratched. Horses discussed pre-race here on PA for any reason seem to scratch at a Linda Rice like rate.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by cj

Of course the horse scratched. Horses discussed pre-race here on PA for any reason seem to scratch at a Linda Rice like rate.

CJ, can you say



SLAM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4nwMDZYXTI

[Tom]

He's on an interesting one in the 3rd at Aqueduct today.
yes for Love, 8-1 morning line.
Looks like a pace duel might develop between Rudy and Maker.
Horse is tied for 2nd best TFUS late pace and #1 has inferior figs and jumping way up in class.

I might take a shot with him here in his 2nd since coming up from Florida if the odds stay decent.