The Golden rail.

[Poindexter]

I am going to start this off by saying I am not a bias player. It seems like every time I have perceived a bias over the years it has been more costly to me as I start throwing out horses who win at big prices. It is just a confusion I really don't need. I honestly do fine without worrying about biases, so it just not part of my arsenal anymore (not saying that my way is right or wrong, it just works for me).

I keep reading people claiming the Always Dreaming won on a golden rail. Early in the day, because the track was sloppy I heard the analyst say that he thought speed was speed and inside was an advantage, but the races that followed did not seem to fit that mold. When I looked at the charts it seemed like on most dirt races the winners were off the rail a good portion of the time. I am not saying the rail was golden or not, nor do I care that much as it is not part of what I do as a handicapper. I am just curious what happened prior to the Kentucky Derby that leads people to think the rail was golden.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I am going to start this off by saying I am not a bias player. It seems like every time I have perceived a bias over the years it has been more costly to me as I start throwing out horses who win at big prices. It is just a confusion I really don't need. I honestly do fine without worrying about biases, so it just not part of my arsenal anymore (not saying that my way is right or wrong, it just works for me).

I keep reading people claiming the Always Dreaming won on a golden rail. Early in the day, because the track was sloppy I heard the analyst say that he thought speed was speed and inside was an advantage, but the races that followed did not seem to fit that mold. When I looked at the charts it seemed like on most dirt races the winners were off the rail a good portion of the time. I am not saying the rail was golden or not, nor do I care that much as it is not part of what I do as a handicapper. I am just curious what happened prior to the Kentucky Derby that leads people to think the rail was golden.

Sharp post.

[Ruffian1]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I am going to start this off by saying I am not a bias player. It seems like every time I have perceived a bias over the years it has been more costly to me as I start throwing out horses who win at big prices. It is just a confusion I really don't need. I honestly do fine without worrying about biases, so it just not part of my arsenal anymore (not saying that my way is right or wrong, it just works for me).

I keep reading people claiming the Always Dreaming won on a golden rail. Early in the day, because the track was sloppy I heard the analyst say that he thought speed was speed and inside was an advantage, but the races that followed did not seem to fit that mold. When I looked at the charts it seemed like on most dirt races the winners were off the rail a good portion of the time. I am not saying the rail was golden or not, nor do I care that much as it is not part of what I do as a handicapper. I am just curious what happened prior to the Kentucky Derby that leads people to think the rail was golden.

It would serve you well to take those comments with a grain of salt.
The rail was not a golden rail. I assume that golden would mean really good. Lol.
Whatever the case, the rail was a nice place to be and probably some advantage all day but the charts clearly show it was not golden, really good or whatever.
A slight advantage probably . A big or huge advantage ? The charts say otherwise.

What people should been pointing to is the incredible trip the winner got. Hard to figure that from the 5 post but he got it. And right with the trip was how in hand and relaxed the winner was early down the back side. He was mentally in complete control and no horse could challenge that.
The 2 horses outside of him could never get on even terms and put any pressure on the winners right eye. They tried to, but were just not capable of it.

That's the race I watched.

Hope that helps.

[dilanesp]

There's nothing wrong with post 5 in the Derby. Maybe it isn't the absolute perfect post, but it's not the rail and for a horse with tactical speed like Always Dreaming, it's a perfectly decent post. Remember, there's a long run into the first turn in the Derby and plenty of time to get position. Post positions in the Derby do matter to some extent (you generally don't want a midpack closer drawing post 1 or a speed horse who is likely to be part of a 3 or 4 horse contested pace duel drawing post 20), but don't overthink this issue.

[Ruffian1]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

There's nothing wrong with post 5 in the Derby. Maybe it isn't the absolute perfect post, but it's not the rail and for a horse with tactical speed like Always Dreaming, it's a perfectly decent post. Remember, there's a long run into the first turn in the Derby and plenty of time to get position. Post positions in the Derby do matter to some extent (you generally don't want a midpack closer drawing post 1 or a speed horse who is likely to be part of a 3 or 4 horse contested pace duel drawing post 20), but don't overthink this issue.

What I was referring to was that a 5 post could go from the rail over to the outside of a cheap speed after 3/8ths of a mile without getting pinned down inside at some point. Then sit 2nd just outside a cheap speed and never have any pressure into his right eye the entire race.
I could not have foreseen that.

[sour grapes]

especially on a sloppy track with a big field and johnie v put him in perfect position.if anyone was gonna beat him it was gonna be irish war cry who got basically the same trip but was no match and the last quarter had nothing.

[BIG49010]

Originally Posted by sour grapes

especially on a sloppy track with a big field and johnie v put him in perfect position.if anyone was gonna beat him it was gonna be irish war cry who got basically the same trip but was no match and the last quarter had nothing.

. Irish War Cry got no where near the same trip, 4+ wide most of the way, I haven't seen trakus but I would think everyone in the race except the one horse, ran quite a way farther then the first two finishers.

[NTamm1215]

If you're trying to determine whether there was a bias, the charts are the last place you should go. You have to watch the races.

[Greyfox]

In 2009 Calvin Borel brought longshot Mine That Bird home to victory in the Kentucky Derby.
Borel said that when Churchill is wet or sloppy the rail is the only place to be.
I don't think that the composition of the soil at Churchill has changed much since Borel said that.
Winners on wider paths would have won by more had they chosen the rail.

[NorCalGreg]

Bias is something that's talked about AFTER the race...generally by those tearing up tickets.

Where's the advantage for the horseplayer....PRE-RACE?

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Bias is something that's talked about AFTER the race...generally by those tearing up tickets.

Where's the advantage for the horseplayer....PRE-RACE?

Getting the bias right is tough. You are lucky if you're at the track and can see it in person.

CJ's Dad and I picked up on a speed bias at Belmont one day while at the track, after just a couple of races. We crushed the card.

A few months later we were sitting in a restaurant in Baltimore where they hooked us up at the bar with wifi and a television, set to TVG (Dennis had friends everywhere that knew he was a player) and we sat there almost 7 hours playing. After about 4 races we picked up on a front runners bias that we actually argued about being real. But we went with it and crushed again.

I can only think of one other time I actually picked up on a bias and it was so late in the card, everybody was on it. I think you really have to know the track to see it. I mean, really know the track.

[no breathalyzer]

There was a massive golden rail.. like stated the chart is the last place to look for it.

[pandy]

Based on watching the races that day, I didn't think the rail was golden but I did think that horses racing along the inside had an advantage, and that horses trying to rally wide on the turn and in the stretch appeared to be toiling... it looked to me that the outside part of the track was deep and horses struggled with the footing.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by pandy

Based on watching the races that day, I didn't think the rail was golden but I did think that horses racing along the inside had an advantage, and that horses trying to rally wide on the turn and in the stretch appeared to be toiling... it looked to me that the outside part of the track was deep and horses struggled with the footing.

I haven't even started my bias work on those days yet, but in watching the races live I thought the rail may have been more live on Friday (at least early in the day) than Saturday.

Sometimes people think in terms of golden rails and bad rails, but there are loads of shades in between those 2 extremes. It's just difficult to figure it out, especially when it's raining, the track is draining, some horse may not like it wet and others are getting pounds of mud kicked in their faces.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I haven't even started my bias work on those days yet, but in watching the races live I thought the rail may have been more live on Friday (at least early in the day) than Saturday.

Sometimes people think in terms of golden rails and bad rails, but there are loads of shades in between those 2 extremes. It's just difficult to figure it out, especially when it's raining, the track is draining, some horse may not like it wet and others are getting pounds of mud kicked in their faces.

Of course it is also true that the rail is a natural advantage due to being the shortest way around the course. People tend to overlook that fact sometimes.