Since the first two finishers in the Derby finished 4/8th.
Any changes of opinion regarding the rail bias on Derby Day?
Bruno had a tweet recently where he stated his amazement at how so many jockeys missed the clue that the rail was golden at the Derby. This coming from a man making a living watching horses train 7 days a week.
Question for the board, can you recall any other TC races where track bias really messed up the order of finish beyond reasonable doubt?
If one is a 100% convinced that a bias existed, you still need to use the race (adjusted) in the context of the pattern, and most people who use a perceived bias do not do that. They automatically dismiss or promote a horse in their next race. A horse that was affected positively by a bias might make his pattern for the next race either stronger or weaker. Same if they were negatively affected.
Looking at Lee\'s performance Saturday does not help the argument for massive golden rail on Derby Day. He got a 0.5 in the Derby, a 2.75 pt new top. Based on that fresh top and only 2 weeks rest, he was suppose to throw a clunker. Unless that is you think the rail was 5 points faster on Derby Day and he 0-2-X\'d. I think that\'s a bit unlikely.
2011 KY Derby had a very bad rail, cost me a lot. Was especially painful to see Shakleford, who ran on the bad rail almost his entire trip in KY Derby, come back and win Preakness two weeks later because if he had held for 3rd in KY Derby i probably had $1M. That\'s no BS.
Happens all the time, but not as often as many cappers think. Breeders Cup at Churchill had bad rails a few times.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2011 KY Derby had a very bad rail, cost me a lot.
> Was especially painful to see Shakleford, who ran
> on the bad rail almost his entire trip in KY
> Derby, come back and win Preakness two weeks later
> because if he had held for 3rd in KY Derby i
> probably had $1M. That\'s no BS.
>
> Happens all the time, but not as often as many
> cappers think. Breeders Cup at Churchill had bad
> rails a few times.
If Shackleford was on a very bad rail and ran as well as he did, he should have bounced badly with two weeks rest.
Wow, tough break! With Animal Kingdom and Always Dreaming in the discussion that makes John Velazquez either a comic book hero with the Superman\'s vision and Spiderman\'s 6th senses or the Forrest Gump of the thoroughbred racing :)
2005 Derby, Giacomo was at least 4 wide throughout the race and 8 wide in the stretch, Closing Argument was even wider during the race but still ran second at 70-1, then came Afleet Alex who, although four wide from his 12 post through the first seven furlongs or so, tried to go inside on the far turn likely costing him a Triple Crown. Beaten a length for the win.
it is entirely possible he makes his living watching horses in the morning because what he\'s watching isn\'t relevant enough to make money in the afternoon. workouts are workouts. that\'s why they don\'t allow wagering on them.
Well, he didn\'t. About all i can say.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If one is a 100% convinced that a bias existed,
> you still need to use the race (adjusted) in the
> context of the pattern, and most people who use a
> perceived bias do not do that. They automatically
> dismiss or promote a horse in their next race. A
> horse that was affected positively by a bias might
> make his pattern for the next race either stronger
> or weaker. Same if they were negatively
> affected.
People automatically dismiss or promote a horse in their next race because bias has nothing to do with subjectively reading a form pattern. People who inheret bias as a study calculate the average speed figure incline/decline in relation to the bias. Example: Horse A was on a dead rail and horses on the dead rail from that day have come back to run an average of 7 points higher.
Wherethevalue,
Like your concept.
How does one practically determine and/or quantify the incline/decline effect of a bias?
If the incline/decline # is determined based on future efforts, would the inherent advantage be lost?
Let me illustrate with a recent race at Belmont Park.
Friday, May 19th
6th race
MSW 1 1/16th on the main track.
Myakka River trained by Shug looked a bit \'outnumbered\' based on first glance at TG #\'s.
In a 7 horse field he was second longest shot at approximately 15 to 1.
Myakka had last raced April 28th which, on the TG\'s, had a dead rail X on the sheet.
Needless to say, Myakka won and paid $33.
Considering your incline/decline methodology, would one use the improved performance of Myakka (assuming he ran an improved TG # in this case) to determine the incline/decline effect of the April 28th dead rail.
Or does one (in theory) look at the performance numbers of all entrants that ran on that dead rail versus their prior efforts and attempt to \'predict\' the probable incline/decline effect?
Hope that makes sense.
BTW, I generally disregard or \'forgive\' a \'poor\' effort if I see the dead rail designation next to the race.
Thanks for posting
Bob
wherethevalue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sekrah Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If one is a 100% convinced that a bias existed,
> > you still need to use the race (adjusted) in
> the
> > context of the pattern, and most people who use
> a
> > perceived bias do not do that. They
> automatically
> > dismiss or promote a horse in their next race.
> A
> > horse that was affected positively by a bias
> might
> > make his pattern for the next race either
> stronger
> > or weaker. Same if they were negatively
> > affected.
>
> People automatically dismiss or promote a horse in
> their next race because bias has nothing to do
> with subjectively reading a form pattern. People
> who inheret bias as a study calculate the average
> speed figure incline/decline in relation to the
> bias. Example: Horse A was on a dead rail and
> horses on the dead rail from that day have come
> back to run an average of 7 points higher.
If they are using bias that way (other horses came back to run 7 points higher), they might as well throw darts when they handicap.
First, the paths are always changing as the moisture changes and as the maintenance crew performs work on it. The \"bias\" is always changing. Tracks will go from slow to fast or fast to slow throughout the day, sometimes race to race. The same would apply to paths.
Second, every horse has a different pattern. If a horse is in a dead or hot path than you have a horse that ran on a completely different track speed variant than the rest of the field, likely completely altering his pattern. It could change his last race from a Top to an Off or vice versa.
Third, they are using a sample from only a handful of horses. How many horses actually ran on the rail? 4? 5? What condition were they in that day? What condition were they in the next race? You don\'t have a chance of knowing any of this if you don\'t use form cycles.
If one isn\'t going to use pattern context then why use the horse\'s next start to judge how much a bias affected a horse? Why not just use the previous start before the biased race?
This is a very poor method to use a bias. The ones who use this are trying to make scientific adjustments to a speed figure and it\'s just not possible using the data at hand.
Tough beat for sure.If I correctly recall, he ran a :48 half in the Derby which is unheard of.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
\"Why not just use the previous start before the biased race? \"
Looking at wherethevalue\'s methodology, you pretty much asked the same question?
If one could \'quantify\' or \'measure\' the incline/decline, how would you do that?
I don\'t think Wherethevalue nor I suggest that incorporating a dead rail performance into one\'s handicapping was a one trick pony. Most punters consider a host of factors when handicapping.
Weather, (my interpretation) was simply suggesting a methodology that might be useful in assessing the \'effect\' of a biased surface on a specific day.
If you see a dead rail designation, do you make a mental adjustment or just note that the figure may be understated?
Do you look at performance figs for those that ran with the bias, (in the case of April 28 Belmont) that would mean wide trips on the main track and adjust them as \'bias enhanced\'?
In terms of the Belmont race I posted and the April 28th dead rail designation, how would you incorporate that into your handicapping?
Am curious.
Bob
MJ,
You could say more, but you are being too nice.
It was another in a long line of uninformed posts by Sekrah. (that was me being nice, \"uninformed\" is not the right word)
Rail was bad in that Derby. Yes, brilliant statement, if the rail was bad that would have to mean that Shackleford would run poorly in the Preakness. Because facts and results in horse racing are extremely binary and not open to other variables. It is that kind of game.
Sek,
You not being able to fathom a bias is your choice, but plenty of the rest of the population understands it. That time period at Churchill Downs was particularly gruesome and was discussed ad nauseum on this board at the time. CD somehow managed to mess up 3 or 4 straight big days with bad rails. Two successive Breeders Cups along with 1 or 2 Derbies. IT was bad.
I think you should perhaps author a book, \"Track biases, global warming, men landing on the moon and other myths perpetrated on the public......\"
belmont3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does one practically determine and/or quantify
> the incline/decline effect of a bias?
>
> If the incline/decline # is determined based on
> future efforts, would the inherent advantage be
> lost?
.
>
> Or does one (in theory) look at the performance
> numbers of all entrants that ran on that dead rail
> versus their prior efforts and attempt to
> \'predict\' the probable incline/decline effect?
I remember Myakka River well :). I think it\'s important to rate how strong you thought the bias was first, i.e: GR -- (slightest advantage to rail) GR ++ (strongest advantage to rail, Feb. 16th on the inner at Aqueduct was one of the strongest I\'ve ever seen.) against how much the horses with/against the bias figures inclined/declined in the current race.
That, combined with the extra data point of when they run back should give you a pretty clear understanding on how strong the bias was on that day.
belmont3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Why not just use the previous start before the
> biased race? \"
>
> Looking at wherethevalue\'s methodology, you pretty
> much asked the same question?
>
> If one could \'quantify\' or \'measure\' the
> incline/decline, how would you do that?
>
> I don\'t think Wherethevalue nor I suggest that
> incorporating a dead rail performance into one\'s
> handicapping was a one trick pony. Most punters
> consider a host of factors when handicapping.
>
>
> Weather, (my interpretation) was simply
> suggesting a methodology that might be useful in
> assessing the \'effect\' of a biased surface on a
> specific day.
>
> If you see a dead rail designation, do you make a
> mental adjustment or just note that the figure may
> be understated?
> Do you look at performance figs for those that ran
> with the bias, (in the case of April 28 Belmont)
> that would mean wide trips on the main track and
> adjust them as \'bias enhanced\'?
>
> In terms of the Belmont race I posted and the
> April 28th dead rail designation, how would you
> incorporate that into your handicapping?
>
> Am curious.
>
> Bob
Mostly I file it as a mental note and consider that a horse who was running 13s, that just ran a 15 on a dead turf rail, I may assume he ran another 13.
The real benefit for these situations is that it could throw shade on a horse\'s form and big prices develop. If I see good or yielding turf, I will always bump up a 1w1w\'s figure a point or two even without the X if it fits the context of his pattern.
It\'s practically impossible to make a perfect adjustment. If you try to get it too precise, you risk getting it totally wrong.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sek,
>
> You not being able to fathom a bias is your
> choice, but plenty of the rest of the population
> understands it. That time period at Churchill
> Downs was particularly gruesome and was discussed
> ad nauseum on this board at the time. CD somehow
> managed to mess up 3 or 4 straight big days with
> bad rails. Two successive Breeders Cups along
> with 1 or 2 Derbies. IT was bad.
>
> I think you should perhaps author a book, \"Track
> biases, global warming, men landing on the moon
> and other myths perpetrated on the public......\"
I\'m just glad that you stopped lying about me and you\'re back to insulting me. I can handle that. Welcome back buddy! Good luck this weekend!
three horses from the CD turf May 6 all 3 ran 6-8 pts off their tops. Those 3 x\'s are so far off their patterns its not even close, total aberrations.
> If they are using bias that way (other horses came
> back to run 7 points higher), they might as well
> throw darts when they handicap.
I think you would be surprised.
>
> First, the paths are always changing as the
> moisture changes and as the maintenance crew
> performs work on it. The \"bias\" is always
> changing. Tracks will go from slow to fast or
> fast to slow throughout the day, sometimes race to
> race. The same would apply to paths.
With the exception of rain storm, a drying out surface or an ambitious track maintenance crew trying to fix the track, paths are easily calculated. Besides, don\'t these same dilemma\'s face figure-makers? are \"figures\" useless?
> Second, every horse has a different pattern. If a
> horse is in a dead or hot path than you have a
> horse that ran on a completely different track
> speed variant than the rest of the field, likely
> completely altering his pattern. It could change
> his last race from a Top to an Off or vice versa.
I agree that some paths are better than others on certain days, trying to discern bias through pattern reading is for astrologists, not handicappers.
> Third, they are using a sample from only a handful
> of horses. How many horses actually ran on the
> rail? 4? 5? What condition were they in that
> day? What condition were they in the next race?
> You don\'t have a chance of knowing any of this if
> you don\'t use form cycles.
Well I agree in this example 5 horses isn\'t much of a data point you can also use previous races to estimate. Still don\'t understand what condition a horse is racing in has to do with form cycles or bias.
>
> If one isn\'t going to use pattern context then why
> use the horse\'s next start to judge how much a
> bias affected a horse? Why not just use the
> previous start before the biased race?
>
> This is a very poor method to use a bias. The ones
> who use this are trying to make scientific
> adjustments to a speed figure and it\'s just not
> possible using the data at hand.
It\'s called using art and science to come up with your best guess, isn\'t that what handicapping is? Don\'t figure makes do the EXACT same thing when determining a variant for a card?
RICH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> three horses from the CD turf May 6 all 3 ran 6-8
> pts off their tops. Those 3 x\'s are so far off
> their patterns its not even close, total
> aberrations.
And MANY horses ran with the X only fell off 2-3 points from their best, did all of those run 5 pt tops on Derby day? One (Ritzy A.P.) paired their top. Based on what you said, does that mean Ritzy A.P. ran a 7 point top? Based on your comments, you believe that he did. What should Beach Patrol\'s figure be changed to? A negative 4?
Horses have total aberrations backwards and X out all the time. How many run 5-7 pt tops in turf races?
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It\'s practically impossible to make a perfect
> adjustment. If you try to get it too precise, you
> risk getting it totally wrong.
This, taken in combination with some of the things you\'ve said in other threads (for instance, comments to the effect that a smart handicapper watches the replay of Always Dreaming\'s alw races and adjusts those figures to take into account that he was well in hand), leaves me scratching my head.
It seems that your points can be combined to amount to \"Do what Sekrah does, which can\'t exactly be described, or constrained by any firm rules.\"
Here, you advocate adjusting for the dead rail, but not trying to do it very accurately? And you suggest that others are better off throwing darts?
TempletonPeck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sekrah Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It\'s practically impossible to make a perfect
> > adjustment. If you try to get it too precise,
> you
> > risk getting it totally wrong.
>
> This, taken in combination with some of the things
> you\'ve said in other threads (for instance,
> comments to the effect that a smart handicapper
> watches the replay of Always Dreaming\'s alw races
> and adjusts those figures to take into account
> that he was well in hand), leaves me scratching my
> head.
>
> It seems that your points can be combined to
> amount to \"Do what Sekrah does, which can\'t
> exactly be described, or constrained by any firm
> rules.\"
>
> Here, you advocate adjusting for the dead rail,
> but not trying to do it very accurately? And you
> suggest that others are better off throwing darts?
By all means, you can certainly try to get as close as you think is accurate. Just for me it\'s a futile effort that ends up with information overload. Just based on my experience of trying to turn this game into an exact science, it never worked well for me. The more you shrink your sample size when creating a variant the more volatile it\'ll be. If you can pull it off profitably, you\'re a much better handicapper than I will ever be.
For me, making minute adjustments to figures is just feel and experience. Like the short game in golf. Analysis paralysis is death to my short game.
For what it\'s worth, if you recall the CD track a year later on Derby Day 2012, there wasn\'t much passing going on in the stretch on the dirt track that day. Not a rail bias. A pure speed bias. I noticed it, and when Shackleford was running on the undercard I went all in on him. I didn\'t make $1M on that race, but I felt like I sorta got out on him. Later that day Bodemeister set what can only be called a suicidal pace in the Derby and almost hung on. I can\'t remember the fractions off the top of my head, but as I recall the half mile was low 45 and change, the 3/4 in 1:09 and change, and he still tried to run off and hide in the stretch before just being caught to lose by about a length.
Track Bias does exist.
Ever notice how the rail can be golden at Keeneland on sunny days when they are watering the track between races? Ever notice where the shadow from the rail falls on the track in the stretch? Imagine all the watering going on and one path in the stretch being in the shade most of the afternoon. You think that path is the same as the rest of the track. Watch a replay of the Bluegrass this year.
I remember a Breeders Cup at Belmont (1995) where every winner on the dirt was running in the tire tractor rut. The jockeys were even talking about it.
Bailey made an early move with Cigar on the turn just to make sure he got to that path in the stretch. If you ask him to this day he will tell you that. Didn\'t help us cappers much because trying to figure out who was going to get in that rut was nearly impossible. But it happened.
I\'m not saying that AD won this year\'s Derby because of the track bias. But it certainly didn\'t hurt him at all, and he had a perfect trip all the way around.
Sure, I thought he was overrated off a bias assisted win. I also didn\'t like how he trained leading up to the Derby or the Preakness and knew he was going to be low odds. But the main reason to bet against him was that Pletcher\'s MO is not to run back on two weeks rest. He doesn\'t train them to run hard on short rest. That\'s not his program. It\'s all about spacing, especially with a light framed horse like AD.
AD looked light to me in the paddock too by the way. Lasix is tough on many of those light framed horses IMO. He was an easy bet against in the Preakness as the favorite.
I still missed cashing on the race because I pushed instead of hedging. But I\'m over it and getting ready for the Belmont. The only thing I know right now is that if Pletcher gets Tapwrit to the gate I am going to handicap the race based on him sending for the lead right out of the gate.
just saying that the 3 horses running back at Belmont June 3rd all ran 6-8 points of their tops, nothing more, that CD race does not seem to fit in , throwing it out
Thought the same about Commissioner and although I made money, him holding on was the difference between a month\'s pay and a year. Still not sure why JJ stayed on the fence that day.
As for Tapwrit...Interesting look for sure. Thinking more quick mid-race move than on the lead.
I\'m praying IWC goes. Doubt he could get a 1 1/2 in the back of a van but I don\'t doubt how much $$ he\'ll take.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
MJ \"The only thing I know right now is that if Pletcher gets Tapwrit to the gate I am going to handicap the race based on him sending for the lead right out of the gate.\"
I have had this thought since the Tampa Bay Derby.
Looks like more potential pace/stalker types in this years Belmont compared to most years.
If Tapwrit is sent there is also Gormley,Irap,Conquest Mo and IWC if he runs.
Sounds like CE might go blinkers off.
I\'m going to start my handicapping around Tapwrit even if he isn\'t sent.
Joe B-IWC has a better chance of getting the distance than CE IMO.
Why do you think Tapwrit will be sent in the Belmont?
See Destin, Materiality, Commissioner, Interactif, Dunkirk et, all. Any horse with some tactical speed he\'s run in the past 10 years.
Interesting. Great call. He ran a tough Derby. Thought he persevered with tons of bumping and eating truck loads of dirt. Nostrils and face were coated over like cement walking back. When he turned late and split a few horses CE and and Lee had IMHO 500 times a better trip up to that point. That means almost everything to me at least in the Derby. He couldn\'t out kick them home obviously but showed some serious grit. I love as well in the Belmont....just is he fast enough I keep asking myself.
Not saying I am betting him. Just saying I think he gets sent with more early speed than usual.
Yup. Makes sense
I have to believe that trainers of other horses with a modicum of early speed will be aware of Pletcher\'s recent Belmont history and will not allow a horse of his a lonely lead.
Re Irish War Cry: If he goes he may not win but it won\'t be because Fair Hill-based Graham Motion can\'t train him to get the mile-and-a-half.
MJ,
I am often in agreement with what you post, but I guess I don\'t see the value in your point, if you don\'t mean the horse is \"live\".
YEs, in a couple of paceless Belmonts, Pletcher sent a few horses with minimal speed like Dunkirk and Commissioner. I would disagree with Materiality being sent. The horse was so disgustingly prepared and over the top, he couldn\'t get near a 48 and change half, despite having 46 speed. Destin took a perfect pocket trip. A Castellano special until the last damn stride.
As for this year\'s Belmont, there is enough speed that Tapwrit being sent or not is irrelevant. If irish War Cry runs, he is way quicker. Meantime is very quick. Patch, Gormley and Conquest Mo Money all have more speed as well.
Whether Tapwrit is sent or not, I don\'t see it affecting how the race gets handicapped. Now, whether Tapwrit can run a big figure here, that is a question worth looking at.
Joe B - on a related point, not sure how the heck you come to a conclusion that IWC is distance challenged. Distance Challenged horses don\'t run negative 2 at 1 1/8 in April of their 3 year old seasons. The horse bounced off his first big figure in Florida and then bounced again in the Derby off the negative 2. (as many predicted - me not being one of them, I used the horse). HE has no distance challenges, at least none that we can see evidence for. As a matter of fact the dam side breeding is awfully robust for distance.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not saying I am betting him. Just saying I think
> he gets sent with more early speed than usual.
I think blindly taking the horse who has the early lead in the Belmomt would have paid quite handsomely over the years.
Never said he wasnt\'t live. Too early. I simply clarified to Chas based on his post that i wasnt saying i was betting the colt at this point.
In last 30 runnings of the Belmont there has only been 3 wire to wire winners!
Wrongly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In last 30 runnings of the Belmont there has only
> been 3 wire to wire winners!
Hrm I thought it was a bigger hit than that. For some reason I thought Ruler on Ice did it but it looks like Shack grabbed most of the calls. Guess AP, Da\'tara and stayers like Destin and Commissioner are in my head. Nevertheless, I like horses near the front in this race.
Da\'tara is a 4 letter word around here IMO. Like saying seven at a craps table.
Another in the long line of Belmont winners out of races at 1 1/16th with strong pace and final numbers.
Destin barely missed being another one last year. That one still hurts.
Good Luck,
Joe B
jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another in the long line of Belmont winners out of
> races at 1 1/16th with strong pace and final
> numbers.
>
> Destin barely missed being another one last year.
> That one still hurts.
>
>
> Good Luck,
> Joe B
Yep.. I collapsed at the wire with Destin. Easily my most painful Triple Crown loss ever. 2nd would probably be when Ruler On Ice won. Massive vertical score if the next 3 are moved up.
Governor Malibu got pinched twice on the rail by the Rabbit.
That is the one that still stings me.
Always the next race.
I feel your pain. I had Malibu wheeled up and down in exactas and tri\'s. I needed him to run 1st or 2nd and I would have been looking at possibly my biggest payday. Ugh, hopefully I get a better ride on my key horse this year ðŸ˜
Probably would of been my biggest as well. Keyed him in the tri/super.
Malibu was my key horse too. Thought he\'d get the Lookin at Lee trip yet he got stuck and lost all momentum. Painful day!
Same basic story here, that one hurt. And you never know what would have been if he got off the rail.
Speaking of GM he runs Monday at Belmont
johnnym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of GM he runs Monday at Belmont
And Destin off a 9-month layoff on Sunday.