Pimlico broadcast analysts said track played fair…

[JohnTChance]

Throw a tomato at the Pimlico feed broadcasters who said the track played fair today. It did not. The strip was a speed-favoring wet bog. Get to the front early and you won.

But Pimlico racing analysts, Acacia Courtney and Ron Nicoletti, repeatedly told their audience the Pimlico surface was playing fair! Huh? Each time they said it - once while interviewing Steve Asmussen after his horse went wire-to-wire - I turned the sound down. How freaking dumb are these two dolts?

[wrongly1]

I always mute Arcadia and Gabby, two worst voices in sports.

[sekrah_]

I\'m gonna disagree with you. I thought it was fair.  Many horses that figured to win may have wired, that doesn\'t prompt a bias. Fractions didn\'t seem absurd anywhere.  Fair track imo.  The Derby winner and runner up were both gassed after some not that fast fractions as well.  All paths seemed fair too.

As usual, it\'s pretty easy to think one sees a bias in tiny samples.

[grinder]

While I agree that most of these winners were favored, closers were at a clear disadvantage at Pimlico yesterday. The winning margins of some of the winners also indicates the existence of a speed bias.

To avoid an unsupported assertion, here is a summary of yesterday\'s chart results for the dirt races at Pimlico:

Sprints - % of winners either on or within 1 length of lead at 2nd call: 100%

Routes - % of winners either on or within 1 length of lead at 2nd call: 83%

In the end, you only have a limited amount of data available in the middle of a card to decide whether or not to adjust your play based on a perceived bias.

Based on the information available, it appears that the closers were against the grain of the bias at Pimlico yesterday.

[TreadHead]

Evaluating only the winner is an absolutely terrible way of identifying a track bias.  If closers weren\'t the best horses, they never figured to win a race anyway.  You have to look at the entire field and who placed where and what their relative prices/ability were.

Closers did fine in races like the Chick Lang, The Very One, even the horse that won the Dixie was 3rd of 4 for most of the race.  And obviously they were coming very late in the Preakness just fine too.

Just as a starting point for this argument, when the best horse wins the race, it\'s hard to argue any kind of bias.  If giant prices were regularly placing higher than they should of based on speed-based trips, that is when a bias may be coming into play. I don\'t see much evidence of that in looking thru the charts.

Analysts correct, horse racing fan wrong.  Shocker.

[john9969]

i was there and friday was def fair and it may have been yesterday too.  i played from race 5 on.....picked every winner as an A horse and lost a bit of money.  as someone on the board said a few days ago.....it isn\'t about picking winners it is about the bet.  yesterday was a chaulk fest.

[sekrah_]

>
> Just as a starting point for this argument, when
> the best horse wins the race, it\'s hard to argue
> any kind of bias.  If giant prices were regularly
> placing higher than they should of based on
> speed-based trips, that is when a bias may be
> coming into play. I don\'t see much evidence of
> that in looking thru the charts.
>


Bingo. Humans are awesome creatures when it comes to imagination.  Gamblers, in particular, think they have to find a reason to explain everything.

[Tavasco]

I have repeatedly asked this forum to define the physics of an early speed bias. I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer. One could then conclude there is no such thing. At least until we know what it is.

Maybe Saturday was a sloppy track bias. The results of which cause the differences in performances to be exaggerated. When front runners consistently pull away in the stretch we wonder? Maybe its the opposite and dry fast conditions minimize the difference in performances.

Previously, some answers to my query described the results of an early speed bias. They are obvious. What are the causes of an early speed bias. If such a phenomena exists what are its components and characteristics? Does it seem to be magnified in sloppy conditions?

In the end, its not surprising the crowd made the front runners the favorites, or the the favorites were the previously best performers, but the margins of victory? Yes, races taken off the turf presumably won\'t look like their turf version.

The Preakness sure was interesting especially in light of Rags having both Justify and Good Magic regressing in their previous race. However, their regression on Saturday (one or both) would not have been surprising. A blanket finish with four horses was not what I expected. As others have pointed out, by the time (yawn) we got to race #13 any bias certainly did not help the two pace setters, but track conditions can change race to race as we know.

Let The TAP touting begin.

[BitPlayer]

Richard Migliore on XBTV yesterday suggested that the success of frontrunners had more to do with kickback than with footing.

After walking on the track, he and Zoe Cadman both said that, at least late in the card, inside was not the place to be.  Of course, the jocks seemed to know that.  The inside horses were not right up against the rail.

Regarding speed biases, four possible causes I can think of (without any supporting evidence) are kickback (as above), wind, the ability to choose your path and footing that is favorable to horses with a quicker stride.

[JR]

Kickback, dead rail and trips. Front runners picked their paths. Trailers had to either run wide outside of them or run inside on a dead rail. Lots of wide and wider trips on Saturday including the front runners.