Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 09-06-2016, 03:57 PM   #1
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,258
How to determine a track bias

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesal57
A good thread to start is how to determine a track bias.....

For me is to see where the first 2 horses at the 1st quarter end up...
and look at the qtr time
and then compare to other races

mike

The above quote is from the Saratoga dirt bias ? thread - link here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=124633


I thought such a thread might provoke some interesting comments - so I decided to get the ball rolling.

More to come...


-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 04:14 PM   #2
DeltaLover
Registered user
 
DeltaLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: FALIRIKON DELTA
Posts: 4,439
The obvious questions that need an answer in regards to track bias are the following:

(1) What do we mean by it? (Definition of atomic statement is needed)

(2) How it is detected? (Description of neceessary data processing to detect it)

(3) Why it exists? (not essential thus we should not care about)

So, if we want to have a productive conversation about this topic, we need at least to address the (1) amd (2), what is a track bias and how track bias it is detected ? Any ideas??
__________________
whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent
Ludwig Wittgenstein
DeltaLover is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 04:21 PM   #3
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Along the lines of Delta, I think you have to have a baseline for what is a fair track before you can determine one that isn't.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 04:23 PM   #4
rsetup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,037
What oft [is] thought, but ne'er so well expressed.
rsetup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 04:57 PM   #5
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,258
I'm actually going through withdrawal pangs right now as I type this... because closing day at Saratoga was yesterday.

All kidding aside... Hell, who am I kidding? I actually AM going through withdrawal pangs....

----------

I thought the Saratoga dirt surface had a unique (sometimes significant) bias for most of the 2016 meet.

I came to this conclusion pretty early on in the meet.

Part of what got me there is numbers based... The other part of what got me there was watching EVERY race over the course of the meet live... And then watching replays of every race over the course of the meet many times over. (Shout out to EMD4ME for the suggestion.)

I saw the meet as (mostly) speed favoring with a negative or dead rail.

Visually - In my opinion for sprint races at all distances: Horses sent from the gate by their riders (generally) had an edge over those whose riders ahem... shall we say did something other than send.

Visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances - so far as bias determining race outcomes: Being sent from the gate was only PART of it.

In my opinion - The OTHER part of it - so far as bias determining race outcomes had everything to do with WHERE on the turn said sent horses ended up.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders were content with taking the shortest way around the track:

MOST OF THOSE horses were stopping about the time they hit the top of the stretch.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders AVOIDED taking the shortest way around the track... either by tipping out at the first opportunity on backstretch... or who tipped out at some point on the turn... or who were handed ideal positioning because some other rider aboard a primary pace foe purposely glued his horse to the rail:

MOST OF THOSE horses were full of run when the field hit the top of the stretch.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The WORST position seemed to be setting the pace - while through some subtle herding by the horses just to your outside - you found yourself pinned against the rail on the turn.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The IDEAL position seemed to be pressing the pace while just to the outside of the leader - who through some subtle herding - was pinned against the rail on the turn.

That's what I saw visually in race after race.

I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not Jose Ortiz or his agent were aware of this pattern...

But after watching replays of enough races I began to suspect that he was.

If he wasn't aware - I firmly believe he is the one rider who benefited the most from this pattern - simply because of his style.

Still speaking visually, I saw this same pattern unfold not just on the dirt - but on BOTH turf courses.

Comment to Cratos: I did read the position paper you posted about awhile back. I'd be interested in your thoughts about whether or not your group noticed this pattern too and what you think about the possibility of there being a physical cause behind it, etc.

This post is already a bit too long winded (apologies for that.)

I did run some database queries - and the query results suggest (at least to me) that the pattern (or bias) mentioned above was real - or at the very least a deviation from a big picture look at all tracks everywhere.

I'll come back later and provide those db results in a separate post.



-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 06:54 PM   #6
EMD4ME
NoPoints4ME
 
EMD4ME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
I'm actually going through withdrawal pangs right now as I type this... because closing day at Saratoga was yesterday.

All kidding aside... Hell, who am I kidding? I actually AM going through withdrawal pangs....

----------

I thought the Saratoga dirt surface had a unique (sometimes significant) bias for most of the 2016 meet.

I came to this conclusion pretty early on in the meet.

Part of what got me there is numbers based... The other part of what got me there was watching EVERY race over the course of the meet live... And then watching replays of every race over the course of the meet many times over. (Shout out to EMD4ME for the suggestion.)

I saw the meet as (mostly) speed favoring with a negative or dead rail.

Visually - In my opinion for sprint races at all distances: Horses sent from the gate by their riders (generally) had an edge over those whose riders ahem... shall we say did something other than send.

Visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances - so far as bias determining race outcomes: Being sent from the gate was only PART of it.

In my opinion - The OTHER part of it - so far as bias determining race outcomes had everything to do with WHERE on the turn said sent horses ended up.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders were content with taking the shortest way around the track:

MOST OF THOSE horses were stopping about the time they hit the top of the stretch.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders AVOIDED taking the shortest way around the track... either by tipping out at the first opportunity on backstretch... or who tipped out at some point on the turn... or who were handed ideal positioning because some other rider aboard a primary pace foe purposely glued his horse to the rail:

MOST OF THOSE horses were full of run when the field hit the top of the stretch.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The WORST position seemed to be setting the pace - while through some subtle herding by the horses just to your outside - you found yourself pinned against the rail on the turn.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The IDEAL position seemed to be pressing the pace while just to the outside of the leader - who through some subtle herding - was pinned against the rail on the turn.

That's what I saw visually in race after race.

I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not Jose Ortiz or his agent were aware of this pattern...

But after watching replays of enough races I began to suspect that he was.

If he wasn't aware - I firmly believe he is the one rider who benefited the most from this pattern - simply because of his style.

Still speaking visually, I saw this same pattern unfold not just on the dirt - but on BOTH turf courses.

Comment to Cratos: I did read the position paper you posted about awhile back. I'd be interested in your thoughts about whether or not your group noticed this pattern too and what you think about the possibility of there being a physical cause behind it, etc.

This post is already a bit too long winded (apologies for that.)

I did run some database queries - and the query results suggest (at least to me) that the pattern (or bias) mentioned above was real - or at the very least a deviation from a big picture look at all tracks everywhere.

I'll come back later and provide those db results in a separate post.



-jp

.
JP, this post wasn't long winded, you leave one wanting more. Great stuff!
EMD4ME is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 07:04 PM   #7
EMD4ME
NoPoints4ME
 
EMD4ME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaLover
The obvious questions that need an answer in regards to track bias are the following:

(1) What do we mean by it? (Definition of atomic statement is needed)

(2) How it is detected? (Description of neceessary data processing to detect it)

(3) Why it exists? (not essential thus we should not care about)

So, if we want to have a productive conversation about this topic, we need at least to address the (1) amd (2), what is a track bias and how track bias it is detected ? Any ideas??
Deltalover 1) I miss talking horses with you. I'll see you in November, hopefully on opening day at the BIG A.

2) I'll skip to #2 if you don't mind. To me, 90% of track biases can not be detected if someone doesn't know each horse (that is running on a day/night)almost inside out. Without knowing each horse's talent, expected performance etc. it is super hard to trust what one sees in terms of a bias.

Back to question #1. To me a track bias is a race track that (talking dirt only now), because of it's physical make up, lends itself to deterring/slowing down a certain type of racing style or path. A bias assists a horse in running it's super A race and deters a solid horse from running their A race. That is 1 (of a dozen) ways that I would describe a bias.

On to question #3: You're talking to me so please expect a crazy answer. I would think mother nature causes many biases (wet rail as a track dries out from rain-changes in weather etc.) but I also think either intended or unintended, certain track maintenance causes a track bias.


For me, all I care about is #2, obviously. It is detected by knowing all horses inside out. If you see a ragin in form speed horse who overcame pace dyamics and a bias in their last 2 starts, jogging on a loose lead but quitting for no reason, the question should arise. Was it the track? Maybe the vitamins were not in today? One should check the horse's next start for some verification as well. Was that dead speed/dead rail performance a trend for the day?

All initial thoughts that come to mind my friend.
EMD4ME is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 07:05 PM   #8
Cratos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 4,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
I'm actually going through withdrawal pangs right now as I type this... because closing day at Saratoga was yesterday.

All kidding aside... Hell, who am I kidding? I actually AM going through withdrawal pangs....

----------

I thought the Saratoga dirt surface had a unique (sometimes significant) bias for most of the 2016 meet.

I came to this conclusion pretty early on in the meet.

Part of what got me there is numbers based... The other part of what got me there was watching EVERY race over the course of the meet live... And then watching replays of every race over the course of the meet many times over. (Shout out to EMD4ME for the suggestion.)

I saw the meet as (mostly) speed favoring with a negative or dead rail.

Visually - In my opinion for sprint races at all distances: Horses sent from the gate by their riders (generally) had an edge over those whose riders ahem... shall we say did something other than send.

Visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances - so far as bias determining race outcomes: Being sent from the gate was only PART of it.

In my opinion - The OTHER part of it - so far as bias determining race outcomes had everything to do with WHERE on the turn said sent horses ended up.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders were content with taking the shortest way around the track:

MOST OF THOSE horses were stopping about the time they hit the top of the stretch.

In race after race - I noticed that horses sent from the gate whose riders AVOIDED taking the shortest way around the track... either by tipping out at the first opportunity on backstretch... or who tipped out at some point on the turn... or who were handed ideal positioning because some other rider aboard a primary pace foe purposely glued his horse to the rail:

MOST OF THOSE horses were full of run when the field hit the top of the stretch.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The WORST position seemed to be setting the pace - while through some subtle herding by the horses just to your outside - you found yourself pinned against the rail on the turn.

Still speaking visually - In my opinion - again for sprint races at all distances:

The IDEAL position seemed to be pressing the pace while just to the outside of the leader - who through some subtle herding - was pinned against the rail on the turn.

That's what I saw visually in race after race.

I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not Jose Ortiz or his agent were aware of this pattern...

But after watching replays of enough races I began to suspect that he was.

If he wasn't aware - I firmly believe he is the one rider who benefited the most from this pattern - simply because of his style.

Still speaking visually, I saw this same pattern unfold not just on the dirt - but on BOTH turf courses.

Comment to Cratos: I did read the position paper you posted about awhile back. I'd be interested in your thoughts about whether or not your group noticed this pattern too and what you think about the possibility of there being a physical cause behind it, etc.

This post is already a bit too long winded (apologies for that.)

I did run some database queries - and the query results suggest (at least to me) that the pattern (or bias) mentioned above was real - or at the very least a deviation from a big picture look at all tracks everywhere.

I'll come back later and provide those db results in a separate post.



-jp

.
What is a track bias?

Correctly stated a track bias is “Surface Resistance” if we are speaking solely of the racing surface and it is the friction resistance between two surfaces. In horse racing the two surfaces are the shoes on the racehorse and the surface of the track.

Friction is a force that is created whenever the horse’s hooves with its shoes move across the track surface.

This friction always opposes the motion or attempted motion of the horse across the race track surface and is dependent on the texture of the shoes on the horse and the track surface; and the friction is also dependent on the amount of contact force (horse’s weight) pushing the two surfaces together (i.e., the normal force).

Now to answer the second question:

How track bias is detected?

I suppose you could design some sophisticated equipment to do some measurements, but that would take resources that most of us don’t have.
However, we do have sufficient data from the various data providers to do a good estimate that will be sufficient for our handicapping.

To begin we must “clean” the race time data of other biases. Namely of air resistance, turn impact, and wind resistance because we want to understand the track surface bias impact only.

An example (Frosted 2016 Whitney) using Trakus data:

Deceleration = Rate of Travel/ Time of travel = 17.07/107.42 = .158487 m/s

Force to decelerate = 578.04 * .158487 = 91.61 N

Maximum Stopping Force = 578.4*9.8 = 5664.79 N

Surface deceleration force of 91.61 N caused Frosted to lose .10396 ft/one-fifth sec

Frosted actual race velocity was 11.199 ft/one-fifth second

Frosted race velocity adjusted surface resistance (track bias) = 11.1994+.104 =11.303*5 = 56.52 ft/sec

Adjusted time = 6032 ft(actual distance in feet)/56.52 (air resistance, wind resistance, and turn impact not considered) =1:46.73
__________________
Independent thinking, emotional stability, and a keen understanding of both human and institutional behavior are vital to long-term investment success – My hero, Warren Edward Buffett

"Science is correct; even if you don't believe it" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Cratos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 07:11 PM   #9
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMD4ME
JP, this post wasn't long winded, you leave one wanting more. Great stuff!
It was very a good post.

Here's the flip side of what Jeff P was alluding to.

If all the smartest riders are avoiding the rail, it can create a bit of problem for bias analysis on some days. To know whether the rail was actually bad or not, you need a decent enough sample size of in form horses to have actually raced on it, preferably some consistent horses while doing some serious running.

If only a handful of horses raced on the rail, it's hard to make that determination. My notes are peppered with days where I noted that riders were avoiding the rail, but I didn't have enough evidence to make a call.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 07:35 PM   #10
EMD4ME
NoPoints4ME
 
EMD4ME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
It was very a good post.

Here's the flip side of what Jeff P was alluding to.

If all the smartest riders are avoiding the rail, it can create a bit of problem for bias analysis on some days. To know whether the rail was actually bad or not, you need a decent enough sample size of in form horses to have actually raced on it, preferably some consistent horses while doing some serious running.

If only a handful of horses raced on the rail, it's hard to make that determination. My notes are peppered with days where I noted that riders were avoiding the rail, but I didn't have enough evidence to make a call.
I agree. Many times you can't make the call as not enough were on the rail. Great point Class.
EMD4ME is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 07:42 PM   #11
EMD4ME
NoPoints4ME
 
EMD4ME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,854
Sep 2nd, 2016. I made the rail really negative for race 1 and at least negative for the other races.

I emplore anyone who reads this thread, to rewatch the 4 and 1 in race 1.

The 4 is on a pedestrian (even for NYRA) pace, is off the rail on the backstretch but the jock folds over to the rail into the far turn. This horse should NOT be laboring as he ran a joke of a 1st quarter and was in the middle of a JOKE of a 2nd quarter.

Also watch the 1 horse. The 1 is laboring when on the rail, angles out and rallies every well into a "fast late" end.

Back to the 4. The 4 worked hard on the dead rail on the far turn but was able to find paths off the rail into the lane, which allowed to horse to dig in for the win.

This is the perfect race, if you're a newbie and want to learn about track bias.

The 5 was a dressed up bomb to me who rode a slow pace and "off the rail" trip to a placing. He will be overbet next time and is a bet against.
EMD4ME is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 07:53 PM   #12
EMD4ME
NoPoints4ME
 
EMD4ME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,854
Forgot to add...My prior post was in addition to Jeff's excellent comments. It's about how the rail might've been really poor around the far turn (or more) on certain days.
EMD4ME is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 08:07 PM   #13
johnhannibalsmith
Registered User
 
johnhannibalsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,402
I generally stick to one track for most of my wagering and my rule of thumb has evolved into: If I am looking for a track bias, I'm probably going to torture myself with a theory one way or the other. If I'm not looking for a bias and one seems to be presenting itself, I'm interested. And I usually stop betting because I'm just not able to convince myself that after watching two or three races that I've stumbled upon something profound and now can simply not only adjust my handicapping, but also (in the case of path bias) make predictions about which horse will be where and when. I tried for years and just can't get to where I can put much faith in the idea of betting into biases as they are happening unless it is something that is ever present like old Keeneland.

So bias for me is strictly a factor in evaluating a performance that has already happened and augmenting my opinion of the performance with that in mind when the horse runs again in what I assume to be a 'fair' track. At the track that I usually play, these biases are almost always detectable after weather (drying out wet track, extreme sun/wind, etc.) or after significant off-day maintenance (adding surface, deeper rip/harrow, etc). In other words, I pretty well limit myself to what I can consider reasonably high probability cases of legitimate bias and not my own bias projecting bias.

In the case of this track, most of my bias interest revolves around path biases as opposed to the more common generalization of the entire surface as being 'fast' or 'dead' or 'speed favoring' or what have you. The track is considered 'fair' when it has its usual 'speed' bias and more often than not if it is playing absurdly far in favor of speed or suddenly seems to be producing an inordinate amount of rally/closers that didn't look utterly likely anyway or given the eventual pace, it isn't merely as simple as favoring speed or favoring rally/closers. Usually it's a little more nuanced than that, with closers that suddenly win in bunches all seemingly out near the crown of a drying track. Try to save ground with that move and run behind the pace and the bias seems to vanish. Sweep out to the middle of the track in the turn and run in the middle of the course and you are on pavement while the pace down in the inside is spinning its wheels. That sort of thing.

I'm not sure where I'm headed with all of this other than just imparting my skeptical interest in bias. I guess trying to play along with DeltaLover's post in some way. I'll add this part for the hell of it: Though I claim that I rarely try to incorporate an active perceived bias into my handicapping, there is one exception to this rule that might be useful to someone, somewhere, sometime. Again, it is most prominent after weather with a drying track and now and then on a sealed track that has had some races run over it. At this particular track, they run a mixed meet with quarter horses. Quarter horses run early in the card - the first couple or few races. If the conditions are such that reason exists to suspect a bias is looming, quarter horse races often give some great insight into what is to come for the remainder of the thoroughbred card. If horses are going to struggle over a particular part and/or breeze through another, there's nothing like observing quarter horses running straight along the strip eight to ten abreast to sniff out who is gliding with ease and who is really fighting to slog through it.

I'm not a bias guy like EMD so I guess this is the best I can offer.
__________________
"You make me feel like I am fun again."

-Robert James Smith, 1989
johnhannibalsmith is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 08:21 PM   #14
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,472
So we have a bias that affects the flow of the horses, favoring speed, hindering speed.

Then we have post bias, ie, dead rail, golden rail.

Do the same factors cause both types, or are there other things at play?

Is there a third type?
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-06-2016, 08:22 PM   #15
rsetup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,037
Horse races aren't time trials and they don't run in assigned lanes. Races thus are determined by the events that occur during their running. Races fall into categories based on these events. These categories have distinct 'shapes' and contain many subcategories. These categories transcend precise numeric representation; with all due respect to the figuremakers. In fact, I believe, and will test in the near future, they would be a challenging machine learning categorization problem. You can spot biases by, of course, watching races AND looking for horses that get setups that typically result in wins but invariably fall apart.

Last edited by rsetup; 09-06-2016 at 08:24 PM.
rsetup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.