Rail bias at Pimlico Saturday?

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

What's your explanation for Everfast?

You can't base these kind of judgments on one horse. Does every longshot winner that goes wire to wire mean there is a speed and/or a rail bias? He was in bad form apparently based on PPs, but he was a horse that had shown talent and is trained by a very competent trainer that thought he had figured something out, enough so that he entered him in the Preakness off of some very bad running lines.

He also happened to get a great trip rating well off a fast pace and saving a lot of ground early. He made his move around the second turn well off the rail and really only dove down inside because there was nowhere else to go.

[delsully]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

What's your explanation for Everfast?

He was running against tomato cans for the most part.

[Fightingirish51195]

Originally Posted by cj

You can't base these kind of judgments on one horse. Does every longshot winner that goes wire to wire mean there is a speed and/or a rail bias? He was in bad form apparently based on PPs, but he was a horse that had shown talent and is trained by a very competent trainer that thought he had figured something out, enough so that he entered him in the Preakness off of some very bad running lines.

He also happened to get a great trip rating well off a fast pace and saving a lot of ground early. He made his move around the second turn well off the rail and really only dove down inside because there was nowhere else to go.

Lexitonian came up the rail and then tipped out and caught gladiator king at the wire.

New York central was getting a rail trip, looked like he was going to get off the rail then dove back to the rail and won easily

[classhandicapper]

When I handicapped the races on Saturday and identified the contenders, almost all the races had a few contenders that were pretty close and kind of tough for me to separate. In each of those races the horses that raced on the inside couple of paths on the turn got the best of the horses that raced outside and a couple that ran on the outside disappointed me a bit.

That's not what happens on the typical day.

On the typical day the horses I make contenders have a more balanced result in terms of running styles and paths compared to my expectations.

Again, I don't think it was a strong bias. I'm not even sure I'd call it it a bias the way most people think about biases. However, if I had 2 horses I liked similarly and I knew one was going to save ground and the other was going to be 3 wide, I'd take a shorter price on the inside horse Saturday than I would on the typical day and I'd pass on that outside horse unless I was getting a bigger premium price.

You can call that whatever you want, but to me that's different than my typical day at Belmont.

[classhandicapper]

This is just an observation.

Sometimes, when I'm trying to figure out if there was a strong speed or rail bias, I'll bring up the Formulator chart and look at each horse's 10 recent Beyers. I'm looking to see if any of the potentially bias aided horses ran a new lifetime top. Some of the time, even when I'm 100% convinced there was a bias, none do.

I think that's because when Andy and his team make figure projections, they are typically assuming an honest track. So they make projections that normalize the figures. If some speed horse won by 5 and typically runs mid to upper 90s, they'll assume maybe a mid to upper 90s again and the horses behind him maybe a tad below normal. They won't project something like a 102 and the horses behind him getting their typical figure.

If you made the figures for that same day under the assumption there was a strong speed/rail bias, you'd produce a set of figures for the day that would be different because you'd be more apt to give those w2w winners new tops.

That's one reason why even though I still look at figures, I know I have to just actually watch the races and see how the horses were running compared to each other and compared to my expectations and not just look at figures. I don't know what the figure maker was thinking.

[jay68802]

Did not see much to indicate any bias. Just not seeing it.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This is just an observation.

Sometimes, when I'm trying to figure out if there was a strong speed or rail bias, I'll bring up the Formulator chart and look at each horse's 10 recent Beyers. I'm looking to see if any of the potentially bias aided horses ran a new lifetime top. Some of the time, even when I'm 100% convinced there was a bias, none do.

I think that's because when Andy and his team make figure projections, they are typically assuming an honest track. So they make projections that normalize the figures. If some speed horse won by 5 and typically runs mid to upper 90s, they'll assume maybe a mid to upper 90s again and the horses behind him maybe a tad below normal. They won't project something like a 102 and the horses behind him getting their typical figure.

If you made the figures for that same day under the assumption there was a strong speed/rail bias, you'd produce a set of figures for the day that would be different because you'd be more apt to give those w2w winners new tops.

That's one reason why even though I still look at figures, I know I have to just actually watch the races and see how the horses were running compared to each other and compared to my expectations and not just look at figures. I don't know what the figure maker was thinking.

The way I make figures is a bit different. Don't really think this is an issue with mine. I do see the point and consider it when analyzing the cards.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by delsully

He was running against tomato cans for the most part.

And HE was a No. 20 Tomato Can himself.
I got a $5 million challenge to his owner to face Zippy Chippy.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

What's your explanation for Everfast?

IMO, it's less about Everfast and more about the overall flow of the races.

People whose opinion I respect made a good case for at least 6 horses in Preakness. Out of the 6, the one that spent the most time inside ran a lifetime top and the 2 that disappointed the most (Bourbon War and Improbable) spent a lot of time in the outside paths. The latter 2 couldn't even make a serious run despite a perfect pace setup.

The one closer among them that did some serious running was Owendale. He saved some ground early before eventually swinging out, but even he got outfinished by a legit 50-1 Everfast who was in the inner most paths for most of the race and ducked in late.

If you go through each result, you'll see a similar thing.

Among the contenders, the horses that spent more time racing closer to the rail and two path got the best of the contenders that were hung out further even if the latter also ran well.

The problem is not what was going on at the track.

The problem is the definition.

Some people will only call a bias when it's extreme enough that horses with it are moving up noticeably and horses running against are being eliminated.

Some people think a rail bias means just the rail when it could be multiple paths.

Some people think if there's a rail bias that means every part of the racetrack is equally biased when it could just be the turn (most common), just the stretch, or both etc..

If there's no bias, the overall flows for similar contenders should be split roughly 50-50. If one style or location keeps getting the best of the other, that's still a bias. It's just not strong enough totally eliminate horses. It's strong enough to separate them.

If you believe in weight, it would be like adding an extra 8 pounds to one of the major contenders. He's still going to run well and may even win if he's good enough, but I'd sure rather have that 8 pounds off.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by cj

This tells me there really wasn't an issue with being outside. I just didn't find a lot of horses under performing that weren't inside.

This makes a lot of sense to me. The under-performers just happened not to be on the inside.

[classhandicapper]

I finally got around to reviewing all the races on the Friday card.

Friday was similar to Saturday.

Most of the horses that hit the board did most of their racing on the inner most 2 paths on the turn and 3-4 significant contenders that raced outside those paths on the turn disappointed badly.

Two of the biggest upside "shock" performances of the day.

1. Covfefe breaking the track record and putting up an astounding 107 Beyer for a spring 3yo filly. She was loose in the 2 path most of the way.

2. Everlasting Secret loose on the rail with a significant lifetime top at 65-1.

The 2 major exceptions for the day were You're to Blame and Point of Honor who both spent significant time outside the inner paths. They both went on to run big races. Both were major contenders and one is probably on her way to becoming the best 3yo filly in the country.

However it is that you view ground loss in your day to day handicapping, imo it was clearly tougher to rally outside on the turns on Friday than it is on the typical day at the typical major track in the US.

[Fightingirish51195]

When I’m looking at a “bias” or whatever you want to call it. I’m looking at how races are being one. Sometimes there’s a speed bias where nobody can gain an inch. And sometimes there’s a speed bias where you just can’t quite gain enough to win, But you can get second or third. So based on what I saw Saturday, it seemed way better to be in the inside paths. That’s essentially where every dirt race was won

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Fightingirish51195

When I’m looking at a “bias” or whatever you want to call it. I’m looking at how races are being one. Sometimes there’s a speed bias where nobody can gain an inch. And sometimes there’s a speed bias where you just can’t quite gain enough to win, But you can get second or third.

I agree 100%.

IMO, those different types of speed biases are harder to explain.

I think it sometimes has to do with kickback. You see it on sloppy tracks sometimes. Horses on the lead are running huge, but closers are rallying for the place and how. In those cases, I think the track is actually neutral, but the front runner is the only one not full of mud. So he goes on to run well with that advantage and the rest have the "equal" disadvantage of having mud kicked in their faces and all over their bodies. So rallying for 2nd or 3rd is just about who is better from among them (or who got less mud).

The true speed favoring track where everyone is having a tough time gaining is probably more about how tiring the surface is. Those kinds of tracks change the entire race flow and not just what happens to the leader.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by cj

Seeing a lot of people convinced there was one but after re-watching all the dirt races I'm not buying it. I'll lay out why I think so a little later, curious what others think.

NO evidence of that....BIAS, by the very nature of its definition, allow the faint hearted to LAST when otherwise they would fade.

[Fightingirish51195]

Tracks often play a certain way on any given day. Maybe it’s not always a bias, but at that point we’re just playing a semantics game.

When I posted my final Preakness picks I said

Tracks playing pretty fair in terms of speed/off the pace. I think the pace will be fast enough to come off the pace. I wonder where war of will is going to be. Inside paths seem good. I’m gonna say or win. So nothing crazy in terms of price. But my bet is 100 win .

So after the war of will wins the way the way he does, and after everfast runs second the way he did, , how am I not supposed to believe the track wasn’t playing better toward the inside?

Too bad catholic boy busted me out of the double, because It wasn’t hard to see what was going on

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree 100%.

IMO, those different types of speed biases are harder to explain.

I think it sometimes has to do with kickback. You see it on sloppy tracks sometimes. Horses on the lead are running huge, but closers are rallying for the place and how. In those cases, I think the track is actually neutral, but the front runner is the only one not full of mud. So he goes on to run well with that advantage and the rest have the "equal" disadvantage of having mud kicked in their faces and all over their bodies. So rallying for 2nd or 3rd is just about who is better from among them (or who got less mud).

The true speed favoring track where everyone is having a tough time gaining is probably more about how tiring the surface is. Those kinds of tracks change the entire race flow and not just what happens to the leader.