Change of topic

[johnnym]

Since the first two finishers in the Derby finished 4/8th.
Any changes of opinion regarding the rail bias on Derby Day?

[atakante]

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?

[sekrah]

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.

[mjellish]

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.

[sekrah]

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.

[atakante]

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

[metroj]

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.

[legendbets]

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.

[mjellish]

Well, he didn\'t.  About all i can say.

[wherethevalue]

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.

[belmont3]

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

[sekrah]

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.

[jbelfior]

Tough beat for sure.If I correctly recall, he ran a :48 half in the Derby which is unheard of.

Good Luck,
Joe B.

[belmont3]

\"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

[jimbo66]

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......\"