Frank D...
BIAS BOB BACK:
Am on record in earlier post that no dirt bias on May 5th Oaks Day
Am on record that the turf rail was \'dead\' on May 5th Oaks Day.
As to Derby Day May 6th.
And despite the protestations of trainer Casse and all the TV Thoroperts ....I went back and watched every replay twice. Pan shot and Head ON. Read every Chart twice and examined the path info on the TG final figs. So, despite my \'cheaters being upped from 1.50 to 1.75, here are the observations:
Path info for the 1st and 2nd place horse.
Race 1) 1w 3w
Race 2) 3w3w 2w2w
Race 3) 4w 5w
Race 4) 1w1w 3w4w
Race 5) 2w3w 3w4w Turf
Race 6) 2w 3w
Race 7) 4w4w 3w3w Turf
Race 8) 3w 5w
Race 9) 4w5w 2w4w Turf
Race 10)3w 2w
Race 11)1w4w 3w3w Turf
Race 12)1w1w 1w1w
Race 13)1w 3w
Race 14)2w 3w
The read here can be tricky. I noticed the dirt track appeared sealed for the early dirt races. As the day progressed, it seemed to dry out a bit. late afternoon shower slopped it up a bit and our on track source said track was sealed after the 10th race. And surely once could look deeper into the figs ran versus expectations etc.
Pretty clear, however, no bias in the early races on may 6th. Winners came from everywhere as well as runner ups. Then, in dirt races 6, 8, 9, 10--no paint scrapers 1st or second.
Certainly made me curious when I heard the Casse interview about the rail being the place to be. Really? After a 2w, 4w4w, 3w and 3w had won the previous 4 dirt races? Perhaps the jocks were telling owners/trainers that the inside was \'better\' but it is hard to find conclusive evidence in the races leading up to the KD.
One could conceivably argue that sealing the track prior to KD upgraded the inside paths.
One bias still pretty clear. Turf rail was a disadvantage. Very clear in the head on replays that most jocks sere steering their horses away from the hedge. AS a regular poster on this site who is a self described sod buster....water will seek its lowest point and, on a banked turf course, that would be the rail.
Bias Bob
Frank
Look at the dirt races oaks day before the oaks. Watch the replays. And remember, i\'ve said this here before, there can be a strong rail bias at churchill for those that ride right on the rail. I mean skimming it. So 1 1/2 wide, which most would call a 1w trip, is different. And watch the horses who had the rail and came off it in the stretch.
Then keep in mind in the 2 hour or so break between last dirt race and oaks they worked on the track. So ignore those races that came afterward.
Tell me if you see a rail bias then on the undercard card.
Michael,
Is your post directed to me or are you responding to Belmont 3 assertion of no bias on Oaks day. I posted on Sat morning about the track maintenance before the Oaks?
Mike,
That post belongs to me and not Frank. Sorry for the confusion.
Professor Frank, who wrote his Meteorological Doctoral Thesis on Frozen Rails at Thistledown, had graded my previous treatise on Track Bias with a resounding \"F\"!!
As most of the Backyard gang knows, Frank is better at handicapping, Beer, Bakeries (Pereccas), Restaurants (D\'Raymonds in Loudonville NY) and Women.
And he likes it that way!
I really think CD this weekend was way to tricky a read for me to just grant it a \'golden\' rail type of day.
Bob
BTW, Saratoga Mischief won the 1st at Belmont off a \'dead rail\' notation. Not a big price (2-1). Reviewing April 28th Belmont Park replays might be useful.
Bob
Oops. Was to Bob. I thought that was your post Frank. Good thing is i guess i\'m willing to disaree with anyone.
Not definitive but something to consider;
Dirt Races Oaks Day:
TG pairs and tops while being on rail (1w) at some point in the race:
13 total (5 in the 1st 4 races)
TG Pairs or Tops while being off rail:
19 (6 in 1st 4 races)
Turf Races Oaks Day (5th and 10th)
Pairs or Tops on Rail
1 -Latent revenge in sprint
Off Races and X\'s on the Rail: 9
DERBY DAY--The totals were similar on Derby Day for dirt races:
There were 41 tops or pairs on the Dirt.
12 had at least a 1w designation.
28 were 2w or greater
24 were 3w or greater
DERBY DAY TURF:
8 tops on the Turf- 7 were 3w or greater. One was 3w 1w
Rail Horses;
7 ran off
5 ran X
1 ran Pair
Pretty conclusive for turf.
Inconclusive Dirt
belmont3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not definitive but something to consider;
>
> Dirt Races Oaks Day:
>
> TG pairs and tops while being on rail (1w) at some
> point in the race:
>
> 13 total (5 in the 1st 4 races)
>
> TG Pairs or Tops while being off rail:
>
> 19 (6 in 1st 4 races)
>
>
>
> Turf Races Oaks Day (5th and 10th)
>
> Pairs or Tops on Rail
>
> 1 -Latent revenge in sprint
>
> Off Races and X\'s on the Rail: 9
>
>
>
> DERBY DAY--The totals were similar on Derby Day
> for dirt races:
>
> There were 41 tops or pairs on the Dirt.
> 12 had at least a 1w designation.
> 28 were 2w or greater
> 24 were 3w or greater
>
> DERBY DAY TURF:
> 8 tops on the Turf- 7 were 3w or greater. One was
> 3w 1w
>
> Rail Horses;
> 7 ran off
> 5 ran X
> 1 ran Pair
>
> Pretty conclusive for turf.
> Inconclusive Dirt
Whose data are you using to conclude tops on Derby Day? Which is a red herring because here are the two tracks again:
Kentucky Oaks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auz-tmSEaNk)
Kentucky Derby (https://www.youtube.com/user/kentuckyderby)
After observing the track condition in those two videos, can anyone here conclude there is any way to equate them?
In retrospect you must have meant coming into the races...my bad. That\'s an aggregate angle where I don\'t go.
For pairs and tops, I used TG final figures. I also used TG path info which I realize only covers the turns. I used Equibase full Charts on the earlier path info I posted plus the replays for May 6th (visual).
It was just another way of looking at this topic.
Intuitively, I would have expected that a track with a \'rail\' bias would produce less tops and pairs for those that ran \'wide\' (or on the bad/heavy part of the track.)
I would also have expected those that raced along the inside might produce more pairs and tops.
Clearly the case on the Turf Course both May 5 and May 6.
For me at least, the TG \'Dead\" turf rail designation for May 5 and May 6 is spot on.
Just look at the number of horses that ran OFF or totally X\'d.
Almost every one of them ran towards the hedge.
Not entirely clear on the Main Track.
Mixed results.
I understand totally the visual argument. It did appear that the changing track condition produced different results at different points on each card.
If you want to give credit to a performance that was against the bias on the Main Track for May 5 and May 6, I think one has to dig deep into the data, etc, and make his own call.
Regards
Bob
Just my opinion but it appears Bias Bob brought his \"A\" game.
It would be his \"A\" game, but the premise is highly flawed. To be specific, using TG or any performance figure that gives bonus points for ground loss to diagnose a gold rail doesn\'t make any sense at all to me. Many of those horses spinning their wheels in the middle of the track are going to get ground loss loaded figures and look ok on TG. Frank D pointed that out in his review of the figures. I am not going to revisit.
Where did most of the winners come from over the course of the two days on the main track? (Yes, possible exception of late on oaks day after maintenance ). How many horses right on the rail looked about to stop turning for home and then \"kept finding more\".
Hey, it wouldn\'t be the first time that the jockeys, trainers, sharp players, etc were all wrong. But often the obvious answer is just that.
I assume the non-bias believers will love looking at Lee going forward. He wasn\'t helped by the track so he is just a developing 3 year old. One that u may need binoculars to find in the stretch of the Preakness. But who knows
Jim
My own personal opinion is that there was an inside bias part, but not all, of the two days.
I would point out, though, that using TG figures was only one facet of Bias Bob\'s argument.
AS to Lookin At Lee: 1) He saved ground every step of the way. As per TG, this is ideal regardless whether or not the rail is biased. Shortest way around and all that. 2) As others have written, both in 2017 and in past Derby off-track performances, the 1/2 lane - i.e. riding figuratively UNDER the rail - seems to be ideal, assuming you have a brave horse and a half-insane jockey. This is entirely separate from other inside lanes.
\"It was just another way of looking at this topic.\"
\"Not definitive but something to consider\"
There was no premise. Just looking at data available in a different light.
I went in with an open mind.
I assumed nothing
As to the obvious, new tops are not in of themselves a reason to declare a track biased one way or the other.
Nor is a replay of 1 isolated race.
Nor are the comments of commentators, trainers or jockeys.
Naturally, from a TG perspective, some horses have positive or + lines going into a race and some have negative lines.
There are lot of reasons why a horse may run a top or X.
Certainly, the type of surface (the muddy /sloppy quagmire this weekend) could contribute to performance.
So, again, the number of new tops are not an isolated indication of a biased track.
In determining a \'definitive\' and \'conclusive\' bias, I suggest re-visiting the turf course data.
The TG data shows an awful lot of big bounces for those that ran on the inside of the turf course both May 5th and May 6th.
For me, that is a clear cut bias that favored the outside runners.
Only one inside runner managed to pair his top.
The other 12 ran OFF or a total whiff =the dreaded X.
Confirmed by both data and visual review.
A Conclusive BIAS. DEAD RAIL.
For the Main Course, as I said before, it is subjective and the data is INCONCLUSIVE.
Sealing the track on the 6th may after the 10th race (11th was turf) may very well have made a difference for the Derby and later races. No argument there.
There really is no \'premise\' ...just information....one can interpret data
as they wish.
Let me ask this question:
What criteria do you use in determining a track bias?
Visual?
Data?
If data, what data do you use and what is your methodology?
How many races do you need to see before declaring a track biased?
1 race, 2 races?
Once you have concluded a track has a bias, how do you profit from that knowledge?
Was there not a debate last year after the Preakness specifically the turf course regarding the same subject.
None of those turf horses cam back to do anything I believe.
My 2 cents though the track was favoring the inside.
Johnny,
You are correct.
I seem to recall none of them won until Uncle Bill touted one at Saratoga at 30- 1 or more and it came home!!
I don\'t recall if anyone examined the next race fig to see if that group improved in their next race.
I sometimes create a virtual stable so I can follow subsequent races.
Already did that for the may 5th and May 6th turf fields.
Fortunately, TG designates those horse that ran figs on dead rails.
Not advocating betting every horse that ran wide on an \'inside\' day. (I know some folks that do that).
Just another tool in the arsenal.
Re playbacks from a Turf Dead Rail, didn\'t someone post last year at the same time about how difficult it was for horses who raced on a Turf Dead (I.E. Boggy) Rail to race well next time out unless they had considerable rest?
I\'ve concluded a long time ago that if anyone sees a path bias on dirt tracks, they are usually imagining it.
This is a ridiculous small sample of races that people are trying to discern from. Could there be a bias on a dirt track? Sure. But it\'s most likely a random fluke you\'re trying to pattern. A shitty Mendoza Line hitting baseball player can go 7 for 12 over a three-game series and Mike Trout can go 0 for 12. 12 at-bats is more than the quality of the samples that people are trying to detect biases from.
There also could be biases over a certain section of the track. On one turn the rail could be poor, and the next turn it could be gold. The same could easily be going on with the back stretch vs the front stretch. It could change from race to race depending on maintenance! How do you even begin to quantify detecting that with such a small sample and put it to use in your handicapping? A colossal waste of brainpower IMO.
The only absolutely detectable bias in racing is the rail on banked turf where obviously, wet grass/soil is slower than dry grass/soil. This bias is the only one that I\'ve seen predictably turn up winners next time out.
hellersorr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re playbacks from a Turf Dead Rail, didn\'t someone
> post last year at the same time about how
> difficult it was for horses who raced on a Turf
> Dead (I.E. Boggy) Rail to race well next time out
> unless they had considerable rest?
This would make sense. A horse that runs fairly well on a dead rail actually had a much stronger effort than the figure given. Therefore, more likely to react. If they react, the time to bet these horses is not 3-4 weeks later, but 6-8 weeks away when they are coming back into form and recovered from said effort.
There are people that think predicting horse races at all is a fools errand.
So those that can do, and those that can quantify the bias they see and use it going forward, do.
Claiming its imaginary only amuses those that know better.
If one is going by the figures when trying to establish a track bias, at least one would have a much larger data set to go by. I don\'t quite see why that would be a \"deeply flawed\" way to go about it - at least not any more flawed than just trusting ones \"sharp\" eyes. There could be some problems in the figure making methodology that makes this approach problematic too, but I think Bias Bob raises some seriously good questions in his post.
Also a good point about biases producing bounces. If one define a bounce as a physical phenomenon, where a horse \"overextends\" or runs much faster than it\'s ready for, the bounce would be the reaction to that. I think herd dynamics can play a big part in producing these efforts, where a horse is desperate to keep up even though he\'s running against a bias. If he\'s wide too, that sure doesn\'t sound like a \"ground loaded\" figure to me. Note that phenomenons like these could produce \"perfect looking, bounce-proof\" sheets, on paper.
Boscar,
Glad your still alive😎
I was thinking of you the other day and was wondering where you\'ve been?
Hope all is well,
Frank D.
Thanks Frank. No , still here . Lot\'s of posts during Derby season, you don\'t need my noise cluttering up the joint ;-)
belmont3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For pairs and tops, I used TG final figures.
> Regards
>
> Bob
Thanks Bob, probably missed something again. I\'ll check.
TSev
Found it...WHOA
Tough race to score sure. But WHOA
I\'ve concluded a long time ago that if anyone sees a path bias on dirt tracks, they are usually imagining it.
Please feel free to go back to March 5, 2016 string on Gotham Day. I imagined @ 3:46 PM (page 40) right before the Pick 4 kicked off that there was an insane speed/rail bias....
It\'s far too lengthy a string to re post but mjellish and several others with vivid imaginations all cashed a bunch of tickets that day!!!!
Most that have been watching races and know what they are looking at would conclude that day was THE MOTHER OF ALL SPEED BIASES. It was so obvious that even Bias Bob and his A+ game would have had to acknowledge it\'s existance :)
Frank D.
The first Oaks day dead rail horse comes back today at CD- Wilbo in race 4.
Frank, you may want to put quotes around that first line where you repeat Sekrah\'s wisdom.
Wilbo has routinely bounced back from TG -6\'s whether it was two weeks later or 4 mos later after some R&R.
So if this one runs well today it would be a leap (imo) to attribute such an effort to a dead rail on first weekend in May. On the other hand if Wilbo runs poorly. Based on this one data point contrary to a previous pattern I could conclude a dead rail will tire the poor animal out for months.
Alternatively, I have suspicions the horse is just not very fast on turf?
In any event thanks to Agastache for bringing it to our attention.
Chuckling Out Loud
Oh, the inside horse won over a handful of races? Do you have anything that is strong evidence? There\'s so much speed bias around us that you need to go back 2 months to find a case where you think there\'s incontrovertible proof?
If you have evidence that it\'s anything other than a statistical anomaly, I\'m all ears. Red comes up on the roulette wheel 6 times in a row and multiple times every day. The wheel must have a bias to it.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frank, you may want to put quotes around that
> first line where you repeat Sekrah\'s wisdom.
If you can prove it, show it. I\'ll be listening.
Look, someone has to bet against the inside speed on a gold rail day, so if you\'d like to be that person, who am I to stand in the way?
You might even cash once in a while ;-)
Frank ….. Yes, I remember that day …. I was at the Big A …. good description you gave it. That is actually a great example â€" a lot of the talk on here about track/course biases relates to finding horses for future races, but recognizing a bias is at least as important (more so really IMO) on the day of (sometimes not so conducive to forum discussion though). It also emphasized that some jockeys recognize these things faster than others. What you, and mjellish, I and others imagined, Gryder also apparently imagined, as he was whipping and driving his horse straight out of the gate to get the lead at all costs …. not all the others did when they ought to have done.
Sekrah â€" I\'m not sure what kind of proof do you think can be provided. You said that you agreed that on a banked or pitched turf course, one area could be slower than another …. why would this not also be the case for a banked dirt track? If the track is banked toward the inside rail, and there is enough moisture about to make the inside path(s) slightly moister and better packing than the sandy, loose-on-top outer paths, why would that not favor the horses on the inside? Or vice versa. The roulette wheel is a static, mechanical thing …. the physical properties of the track are in a state of constant flux …. sun, precipitation, wind, track maintenance ….. just a matter of how much flux, and who is best suited to benefit.
In general, aren\'t we looking not for irrefutable statistical evidence, but for adequate statistical or other evidence relative to the odds?
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look, someone has to bet against the inside speed
> on a gold rail day, so if you\'d like to be that
> person, who am I to stand in the way?
>
> You might even cash once in a while ;-)
Just inform me when you think you\'ve spotted a golden rail and I\'ll be there.
Wamsutta Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frank ….. Yes, I remember that day …. I was at
> the Big A …. good description you gave it. That
> is actually a great example â€" a lot of the talk
> on here about track/course biases relates to
> finding horses for future races, but recognizing a
> bias is at least as important (more so really IMO)
> on the day of (sometimes not so conducive to forum
> discussion though). It also emphasized that some
> jockeys recognize these things faster than others.
> What you, and mjellish, I and others imagined,
> Gryder also apparently imagined, as he was
> whipping and driving his horse straight out of the
> gate to get the lead at all costs …. not all the
> others did when they ought to have done.
>
> Sekrah â€" I\'m not sure what kind of proof do you
> think can be provided. You said that you agreed
> that on a banked or pitched turf course, one area
> could be slower than another …. why would this
> not also be the case for a banked dirt track? If
> the track is banked toward the inside rail, and
> there is enough moisture about to make the inside
> path(s) slightly moister and better packing than
> the sandy, loose-on-top outer paths, why would
> that not favor the horses on the inside? Or vice
> versa. The roulette wheel is a static, mechanical
> thing …. the physical properties of the track
> are in a state of constant flux …. sun,
> precipitation, wind, track maintenance ….. just
> a matter of how much flux, and who is best suited
> to benefit.
>
> In general, aren\'t we looking not for irrefutable
> statistical evidence, but for adequate statistical
> or other evidence relative to the odds?
I don\'t disagree that biases exist, but they are not detectable over a small sample of races, and they can change as soon as you think you picked up on something.
I\'ve seen muddy/sloppy tracks where the rail looks good and other muddy/sloppy tracks where nobody wins on the rail. I\'ve seen muddy/sloppy tracks where winners are coming from all over the place.
Tell me how many seconds faster the rail is vs the 3-path? Is it 2/5 seconds per furlong faster? 1 second faster? Is it uniformly faster the whole way around the track, or just one-turn? Just the backstretch? Both turns? How is the current weather changing it? How did the maintenance crew between races change it because they just watered/harrowed/sealed the track? Can I borrow your crystal ball?
The fact that these things can\'t be measured to your satisfaction doesn\'t mean they don\'t exist, it just means you aren\'t satisfied.
Monetary evidence would satisfy me. Winning money is the goal of this crazy game we play, so If track bias is so readily common and easy to identify, there should be experts in bias that are raking in the chips.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Monetary evidence would satisfy me. Winning money
> is the goal of this crazy game we play, so If
> track bias is so readily common and easy to
> identify, there should be experts in bias that are
> raking in the chips.
You mean like the guy that touted Always Dreamig for a month as the second coming of Secretariat? Or the guy that randomly shaves a few points off figures to make his \"what if\" points? Then doesn\'t bet him at all in the Derby?
That guy made a comparable amount of money as he has F\'in brain cells.....
What was his name? It ain\'t on the roll call of this week\'s Mensa meeting for sure.
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sekrah Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Monetary evidence would satisfy me. Winning
> money
> > is the goal of this crazy game we play, so If
> > track bias is so readily common and easy to
> > identify, there should be experts in bias that
> are
> > raking in the chips.
>
>
> You mean like the guy that touted Always Dreamig
> for a month as the second coming of Secretariat?
> Or the guy that randomly shaves a few points off
> figures to make his \"what if\" points? Then doesn\'t
> bet him at all in the Derby?
>
> That guy made a comparable amount of money as he
> has F\'in brain cells.....
> What was his name? It ain\'t on the roll call of
> this week\'s Mensa meeting for sure.
So insults instead of discussion? Got it.
I think you make some excellent points.
When it comes to betting a day it could very well pay dividends to act quickly on a hunch of a bias, and I for one would not fault that approach at all. I\'m also fully confident in that you, Frank D., Jimbo66, Mjellish, Bias Bob and many others \"bias conscious\" long term followers of this game have eyes as good as anyones to spot those early - and I\'m sure it have paid you guys well in plenty of occasions.
Certainly a crucial skill, IMO, when making bets, and even if one is wrong one would in the process at least have focused ones bets on horses predicted to run in a path that at the very least is not bad! And that is worth something, in itself.
Biases exists, and even a \"mild\" bias is worthy of attention. They are even possible to predict to a degree, if one have followed a track for a long enough time and know what different weather, track maintenance etc is producing the different biases (sometimes). At the track I\'m following the closest for instance, it\'s a well known phenomenon that when they use a scraper on the dirt track and specially with a bit of moisture in the air and even more so if the weather is cold, it could produce some crazy biases favoring those inside, and on the front end. The better you \"know\" what to expect from a track given different conditions and track maintenance, the less evidence should one demand from oneself before acting on those hunches of a bias.
There is a difference though, in identifying a bias early when there still are bets to be made that day, and to look back and try to confirm it with methodology after the facts (for later use). I find that using figures to try to establish those biases after the fact, is a pretty fruitful way to go about it. If there is a clear bias either way, most of those that ran against it will be compromised i.e not been given the opportunity to run to their true ability (figure wise). If there is a outside bias, those could also produce some ground loaded figures that give those horses more credit for their effort than they deserved; figures they will have trouble with reproducing in fair conditions.
Frank,
Wouldn\'t AD have been the logical bias play in the race? :)
Frank D - I am closer to you than I am to Sekrah when it comes to bias but to say Sekrah or anybody on this list compared Always Dreaming to Secretariat is some kind of serious BS.
All Sekrah said was that he could make a better case for Always Dreaming than the sheets and Pletcher\'s Derby history would suggest, and that if - IF! - the price was right Sekrah would bet him. The price wasn\'t right so Sekrah didn\'t bet him.
Has there been a change in the world of betting whereby odds no longer matter?
Pete,
You could make that point. He had speed, many figured him to at least stalk if not be part of the pace. Most of the other speed horses were outside of him.
Watch the 4th race that day a maiden heat. Johnny V. Was on a Pletcher 3rd time starter That hadn\'t shown as a go to the lead type in his first 2 starts. He gunned him out of the gate, straight to the rail and coast to coast easily.
At the very least AD\'s jockey was imagining the rail was a good place to be....
Save your cute comments for those who just spout out to be heard.
Bring some evidence when you want to debate me or I\'ll send you home to get your
shine box Petey.
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pete,
>
> You could make that point. He had speed, many
> figured him to at least stalk if not be part of
> the pace. Most of the other speed horses were
> outside of him.
>
> Watch the 4th race that day a maiden heat. Johnny
> V. Was on a Pletcher 3rd time starter That hadn\'t
> shown as a go to the lead type in his first 2
> starts. He gunned him out of the gate, straight to
> the rail and coast to coast easily.
>
> At the very least AD\'s jockey was imagining the
> rail was a good place to be....
>
> Save your cute comments for those who just spout
> out to be heard.
> Bring some evidence when you want to debate me or
> I\'ll send you home to get your
> shine box Petey.
A lone-speed horse getting to the front and winning is evidence that there\'s a rail bias? A 3yo that was tied for the fastest figure in the race (by 4 points) and was 3-1 in the betting got to the front and ran 1 1/8 in 1:53.3 on this unbelievable gravy train of a rail!
Holy shit batman!
hellersorr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frank D - I am closer to you than I am to Sekrah
> when it comes to bias but to say Sekrah or anybody
> on this list compared Always Dreaming to
> Secretariat is some kind of serious BS.
>
> All Sekrah said was that he could make a better
> case for Always Dreaming than the sheets and
> Pletcher\'s Derby history would suggest, and that
> if - IF! - the price was right Sekrah would bet
> him. The price wasn\'t right so Sekrah didn\'t bet
> him.
>
> Has there been a change in the world of betting
> whereby odds no longer matter?
Thanks hellers. I wasn\'t going to waste my breath saying it. I am just a retard for betting the 30-1 shot that finished 5th and not the winner. My bad.
Well done, Hellersorr!
That is true, neither Sekrah or I touted AD as a 2nd coming of Secretariat. After the draw I gave the remark that it looked like \"AD would win this with a pairing up of his last now\", and that \"he didn\'t exactly need to be Big Brown to win this\", and Sekrah have stated his completely nuanced and fair opinion too many times already for us to even get into this again.
When that is said..
Horse looks like a legit triple crown contender. LOVES to run. But one have to wonder if they had him peak a week too early, great shot in Preakness IMO, but then what in the Belmont? Completely legit to bet against him there, though I think I\'ll pass.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look, someone has to bet against the inside speed
> on a gold rail day, so if you\'d like to be that
> person, who am I to stand in the way?
>
> You might even cash once in a while ;-)
You know its not blatant where \"anyone\" can see it and say, \"hey what\'s going on here\"! But the thing is when the track is dryer towards the outer rail than it is towards the inner rail there\'s a reason for that, (Dang I love these Chelada\'s!), one of course is banking. Another is where the drainage is located. But for a track to be like that two things have obviously occurred/occurring. One of them is that you\'ve had significant rain. In that regard the next occurrence is cessation of rain and even the effects of sun! I\'m telling you I learned All this from Jerry and just watched closely after that!
Now this is where it gets really interesting, (at least to me), as the drying occurs the living and breathing track mutates from mild mannered Bill Bixby into the Incredible Hulk!!! Totally unpredictable! Well not really. You\'ll see the change in the final race times. When a track is sealed and very wet, man they skip to my lou over it like Dr Fager. But as it drys you\'ll see the times change and there is a point where the surface looks like goopy mud pie and when it gets like that theres a suction on the horses hooves! But what is most intriguing is that the track due to the banking and drainage does Not dry uniformly, (That is the reason I kept posting the Oaks and Derby replays but only a few like you Mr. Obamma understood what I was illustrating!). God I love these Cheladas!
So where were we? (Sips Chelada), the track speed changes during this wetting and drying process and if it dries in a non-uniform manner at times certain parts are indeed faster than others, especially as pertains to path. That stated, one side can, say the homestretch side, can be of a different nature than the backstretch side. (I hope that\'s not confusing.)
So in the end, it probably doesn\'t matter that others don\'t see it. But what I know for certain is that in the mid track post parade that goop was sucking hooves! (Sucks down another gulp of Chelada!)
T Severini Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boscar Obarra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Look, someone has to bet against the inside
> speed
> > on a gold rail day, so if you\'d like to be that
> > person, who am I to stand in the way?
> >
> > You might even cash once in a while ;-)
>
>
> You know its not blatant where \"anyone\" can see it
> and say, \"hey what\'s going on here\"! But the thing
> is when the track is dryer towards the outer rail
> than it is towards the inner rail there\'s a reason
> for that, (Dang I love these Chelada\'s!), one of
> course is banking. Another is where the drainage
> is located. But for a track to be like that two
> things have obviously occurred/occurring. One of
> them is that you\'ve had significant rain. In that
> regard the next occurrence is cessation of rain
> and even the effects of sun! I\'m telling you I
> learned All this from Jerry and just watched
> closely after that!
>
> Now this is where it gets really interesting, (at
> least to me), as the drying occurs the living and
> breathing track mutates from mild mannered Bill
> Bixby into the Incredible Hulk!!! Totally
> unpredictable! Well not really. You\'ll see the
> change in the final race times. When a track is
> sealed and very wet, man they skip to my lou over
> it like Dr Fager. But as it drys you\'ll see the
> times change and there is a point where the
> surface looks like goopy mud pie and when it gets
> like that theres a suction on the horses hooves!
> But what is most intriguing is that the track due
> to the banking and drainage does Not dry
> uniformly, (That is the reason I kept posting the
> Oaks and Derby replays but only a few like you Mr.
> Obamma understood what I was illustrating!). God I
> love these Cheladas!
>
> So where were we? (Sips Chelada), the track speed
> changes during this wetting and drying process and
> if it dries in a non-uniform manner at times
> certain parts are indeed faster than others,
> especially as pertains to path. That stated, one
> side can, say the homestretch side, can be of a
> different nature than the backstretch side. (I
> hope that\'s not confusing.)
>
> So in the end, it probably doesn\'t matter that
> others don\'t see it. But what I know for certain
> is that in the mid track post parade that goop was
> sucking hooves! (Sucks down another gulp of
> Chelada!)
Agree with a lot of what is here, but adjusting for track bias, Battle of Midway must have ran about an 8 point new top last week having run 3w-4w in the goop all the way around and beating 17 horses.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> T Severini Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Boscar Obarra Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Look, someone has to bet against the inside
> > speed
> > > on a gold rail day, so if you\'d like to be
> that
> > > person, who am I to stand in the way?
> > >
> > > You might even cash once in a while ;-)
> >
> >
> > You know its not blatant where \"anyone\" can see
> it
> > and say, \"hey what\'s going on here\"! But the
> thing
> > is when the track is dryer towards the outer
> rail
> > than it is towards the inner rail there\'s a
> reason
> > for that, (Dang I love these Chelada\'s!), one
> of
> > course is banking. Another is where the
> drainage
> > is located. But for a track to be like that two
> > things have obviously occurred/occurring. One
> of
> > them is that you\'ve had significant rain. In
> that
> > regard the next occurrence is cessation of rain
> > and even the effects of sun! I\'m telling you I
> > learned All this from Jerry and just watched
> > closely after that!
> >
> > Now this is where it gets really interesting,
> (at
> > least to me), as the drying occurs the living
> and
> > breathing track mutates from mild mannered Bill
> > Bixby into the Incredible Hulk!!! Totally
> > unpredictable! Well not really. You\'ll see the
> > change in the final race times. When a track is
> > sealed and very wet, man they skip to my lou
> over
> > it like Dr Fager. But as it drys you\'ll see the
> > times change and there is a point where the
> > surface looks like goopy mud pie and when it
> gets
> > like that theres a suction on the horses
> hooves!
> > But what is most intriguing is that the track
> due
> > to the banking and drainage does Not dry
> > uniformly, (That is the reason I kept posting
> the
> > Oaks and Derby replays but only a few like you
> Mr.
> > Obamma understood what I was illustrating!). God
> I
> > love these Cheladas!
> >
> > So where were we? (Sips Chelada), the track
> speed
> > changes during this wetting and drying process
> and
> > if it dries in a non-uniform manner at times
> > certain parts are indeed faster than others,
> > especially as pertains to path. That stated,
> one
> > side can, say the homestretch side, can be of a
> > different nature than the backstretch side. (I
> > hope that\'s not confusing.)
> >
> > So in the end, it probably doesn\'t matter that
> > others don\'t see it. But what I know for
> certain
> > is that in the mid track post parade that goop
> was
> > sucking hooves! (Sucks down another gulp of
> > Chelada!)
>
>
> Agree with a lot of what is here, but adjusting
> for track bias, Battle of Midway must have ran
> about an 8 point new top last week having run
> 3w-4w in the goop all the way around and beating
> 17 horses.
I\'ll be looking at the Derby many more times before the Preakness but my first couple peeks did not have Battle of Midway out of the strike zone. Will look again. Regarding the tops, I\'m going to plead the fifth.
Hey Frank,
Using the TAP maiden in the derby day 4th, to make a point about bias wasn\'t your best contribution here. Remarkably well bred homer from Flay sprinted off the fence at 7 panels first voyage, certain death. Then was a solid second in one twenty one and change. Dam, a half to the wonderful Duke of Marmalade, sib sold for seven figures, race void of speed...
My main point, many cappers,lose sight of dirt bias by focusing on path(s), rather than the overall track itself. In reality, dirt tracks are \"controlled\" by mother nature and track maintenance. When a track is accurately labeled muddy front runners are generally screwed. Looking at the ubiquitous, and poorly labeled, \"off track\" stats could not be any more primitive.
Integer players, generally put more emphasis on their figures, and eschew a change in distance, often a more important data point.
In fairness I did not see the race, only know he wired his field, at a predictable very short price.
On another note, Always Dreaming, to my eye came out of his race extremely well. His weight loss is minimal, he galloped in the draw reins, his head held low, reminiscent of Run Dusty Run and was even better the next day. Looks a simple exacta on top of \"Empire\" bbb