On the subject of track bias

[Ollie]

which we all try our best to discern and to capitalize on by making the best decision(s):


https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/understanding-track-bias

[TGJB]

Miff posted this a few days ago as well. I had an email dialogue with Peterson that I used for my DRF Expo presentation (displayed as \"Changing Track Speeds\" in the Archive section here), obviously have serious respect for the work he does, and have found a lot of his findings to be true, coming at it from another direction.

Having said that, I keep waiting for someone to raise the obvious question about his track bias comments. Curtis? Are you ready to use the nine letter A word?

[Ollie]

Sorry, didn\'t see Miff\'s post.

[TGJB]

Not a problem at all. Surprised the first one didn\'t get responses, hopefully this will.

[Rich Curtis]

When did assertion become sufficient?

[TGJB]

Yeah, that\'s the A word.

To put it in more detail, Peterson discusses the causes of \"biases\" without explaining what data he uses to show there is in fact a bias, let alone a cause and effect relationship.

This conversation is a long and winding road that leads inevitably to a story about a jumping frog and some scientists, once incorrectly credited here by me to Mark Twain...

Again, I have a lot of respect for Peterson.

[Rich Curtis]

Frog with no legs is deaf? You should tell it again. It will set Richiebee up for a crack about his mother-in-law.

[billk5300s]

I\'ve watched the first 2 races at Saratoga today and see an incredible speed/rail bias.  Reminds me of the winter meet at Gulfstream.  I realize 2 races isn\'t much of a sample size but Waco wasn\'t much compared to the competition.

[Tavasco]

Four out of Four.

Could be coincidence. Whatever that is? Or a rush to judgement knee jerk.

[Boscar Obarra]

I love folks needing 20 races to confirm a bias.

 Helps my prices.