How to determine a track bias

[classhandicapper]

I think people get confused by certain types of biases.

1. There are biases where the entire surface is more or less tiring than usual.

2. There are biases where certain paths may be faster than others.

3. There are biases where certain paths may be more or less tiring than others.

The distinction between #2 and #3 is significant when trying to understand what's going on with horses running on the rail. It's sometimes why it appears there is conflicting evidence when there actually isn't.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When race after race in a day's card is won by the front-runners, but the last race finds the closers running 1-2...what "track bias" assessment do we make?

The pattern I see most often is that the riders pick up on a bias and get either more or less aggressive to suit the track. That's not a change in bias. It's a change in tactics that produces a more neutral result despite the track bias. My notes will say "speed favoring" for the day. At the race level I will make a specific note about riding tactics offsetting the bias.

I also do not discount the possibility that track biases can change during the card. We know they change speeds. So why not at the bias level too?

Maintenance crews add water, allow water to evaporate, the temperature and humidity changes etc... All that stuff could theoretically change a bias.

The problem of course is that it's hard to pin down a bias (or a bias change) off a single race. That is one reason my notes are starting to get way more "race flow" oriented at the single race level.

It's hard to pin down the individual impacts of pace, bias, competitive development on a race. It's easier to simply look at the race and see what happened as a whole and not worry how much each piece contributed to the result.

The case I am making here is similar to the one we've had debating the correct way to make a track variant. There are loads od reasons races can come up faster or slower. You can try to measure each component (like Cratos attempts) or you can simply say these horses figured to run 1:10 and they ran 1:11 instead so the race was 1 second slow.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The pattern I see most often is that the riders pick up on a bias and get either more or less aggressive to suit the track. That's not a change in bias. It's a change in tactics that produces a more neutral result despite the track bias. My notes will say "speed favoring" for the day. At the race level I will make a specific note about riding tactics offsetting the bias.

I also do not discount the possibility that track biases can change during the card. We know they change speeds. So why not at the bias level too?

Maintenance crews add water, allow water to evaporate, the temperature and humidity changes etc... All that stuff could theoretically change a bias.

The problem of course is that it's hard to pin down a bias (or a bias change) off a single race. That is one reason my notes are starting to get way more "race flow" oriented at the single race level.

It's hard to pin down the individual impacts of pace, bias, competitive development on a race. It's easier to simply look at the race and see what happened as a whole and not worry how much each piece contributed to the result.

The case I am making here is similar to the one we've had debating the correct way to make a track variant. There are loads od reasons races can come up faster or slower. You can try to measure each component (like Cratos attempts) or you can simply say these horses figured to run 1:10 and they ran 1:11 instead so the race was 1 second slow.

You appear to be addressing the bias "what" and not the bias "why."

[Robert Fischer]

Understand the physical track layout

Look at basic stats

Apply accurate handicapping, race interpretation, and an awareness of jockey behavior to race watching
(or pre-race apply accurate handicapping and projection of pace and flow)

Everyone can do the first two. The third method requires a higher degree of skill to get the correct answers. Anyone can become proficient at all three with the proper instruction and study.

[dnlgfnk]

We're now well into the revolution, whereby computer modeling has eclipsed the image of the handicapper of the past. For that reason, I have never understood the grounds for lodging a claim of "bias!" among intelligent players when tracks don't schedule 500 to 1000 races a day. That was the criteria for Benter to compile enough data for testing factors, and he only related to track bias in terms of post position..

https://www.scribd.com/doc/166556276/Benter

It seems contradictory for computer handicappers to be debating such small samples as a day, or even weeks of race results. I suspect Benter was onto something I discovered after years of compiling a mental database by comparing results of races with the expected outcomes based on public odds. That is, there exists universally a subtle favoring of outside horses on straights (moisture inevitably draining to the inside, the desire for many inside PP jockeys not to get "trapped", etc.?) and, of course a mathematical inside advantage on the turns. Two tracks in one, the great difficulty of handicapping.

The inherent "bias" in racing isn't a dead rail in June at Belmont Park or a golden rail at Pimlico in the spring. It's the built in percentages that public odds establish. That is, for a favorite who loses this race 65% of the time, drawing the rail after previous sexy looking outside trips has explanatory power (along with any other negatives) for finding delicious overlays, as well as a myriad of other scenarios.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

https://www.scribd.com/doc/166556276/Benter

Breaking news!!! (only a few decades old!)

[Tom]

The inherent "bias" in racing isn't a dead rail in June at Belmont Park or a golden rail at Pimlico in the spring.

No one is talking about inherent bias. We are calling that the norm.
Benter missed a lot of it as far as "bias" goes.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Breaking news!!! (only a few decades old!)

Thanks, Delta, but you missed the point.

I wasn't unveiling Benter to the uninitiated, but asking "Why is the criteria for computer modeling (large data samples) suddenly abandoned when it comes to especially daily, but even weekly track biases?"

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Tom

No one is talking about inherent bias. We are calling that the norm.
Benter missed a lot of it as far as "bias" goes.

Perhaps. But Alan Woods didn't...

"We chat about barrier numbers, and Alan tells me about the time in November 1995 when the computer model stopped working for a month or two. Eventually Alan worked out that the last turn at Happy Valley had been re-cambered – which means the track is shaped to slope upwards from the inside rail – creating a disadvantage for inside horses as the outside horses shifted in. His team adjusted the coefficients relating to barrier position and immediately resumed their winning ways."...

https://www.themonthly.com.au/monthl...ches-story-149

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I wasn't unveiling Benter to the uninitiated, but asking "Why is the criteria for computer modeling (large data samples) suddenly abandoned when it comes to especially daily, but even weekly track biases?"

Good question!

I think the reason why we cannot model short term biases lies in very limited data to use (meaning that in a daily basis we might have as little as a couple of races to detect the existence of bias or not).

Overall I am very skeptic to any opinion that is based more in personal observation as opposed to quantitative data.

I do not disagree in the fact that biases can be developed but I also believe that this concept is greatly overemphasized and is way more infrequent than what is believed by the majority of the bettors.

[AltonKelsey]

I guess no one here watches MNR

Very hard to model bias with a computer, and at the very least you'd have to input path info on your own. Post position bias is influenced by track bias where one exists, and can be modeled , but without track bias info, how can you model it reliably?

Better to just play the top consensus pick .

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Perhaps. But Alan Woods didn't...

"We chat about barrier numbers, and Alan tells me about the time in November 1995 when the computer model stopped working for a month or two. Eventually Alan worked out that the last turn at Happy Valley had been re-cambered – which means the track is shaped to slope upwards from the inside rail – creating a disadvantage for inside horses as the outside horses shifted in. His team adjusted the coefficients relating to barrier position and immediately resumed their winning ways."...

https://www.themonthly.com.au/monthl...ches-story-149

very cool

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

I guess no one here watches MNR

Your guess is very reasonable I think

[rsetup]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Overall I am very skeptic to any opinion that is based more in personal observation as opposed to quantitative data.

Where might this data come from?

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by rsetup

Where might this data come from?

bris?