cheesebeast
28-02-2002, 18:15
Understanding Track Bias
From the National Thoroughbred Racing Association website
http://www.ntra.com
Bob Neumeier | Special to NTRA.com
With mounds and mounds of available information to the betting public, the successful player must always seek “an edge” to stay one-step ahead of the Joneses. The understanding and application of “track bias” is one way a sharp handicapper can earn that edge. The trend has become so popular, however, that tracking the bias has become as common a handicapping tool as speed figures and trainer-jockey combinations.
For those few who are not aware of “track bias”--the principles are relatively simple. On certain days at certain tracks, front-running speed-types might enjoy an enormous advantage. On others, stalkers and closers rule the day. The paths are also a factor in this analysis. On some days, the inside or “golden rail” lanes have a huge advantage. Then again, the wide, sweeping move can dominate a racing card.
By keeping an accurate ledger of these “biases,” either by tape study or chart analysis, the successful handicapper can plug this information into future wagering opportunities.
As a hypothetical example, let's say a horse named “Dead Rail” is entered in a six-furlong sprint at Gulfstream Park, Florida.
In his last race, his performance in the Daily Racing Form looks miserable on paper. In this mythical race, “Dead Rail” duels through a rapid early pace on the inside of the track, before wilting to a well-beaten sixth place finish.
But what if the rail was truly dead on that given day? The sharp player will excuse that poor effort. But the other players unaware of that day's “bias” will look at Dead Rail's performance as a miserable one. If the majority of players are unaware of the trend, the chances are Dead Rail will go off at juicy odds in his next start and only those who have kept track of his obvious disadvantage will be prepared to cash in.
Unfortunately, too many players are quick to stamp a track with a bias without nearly enough evidence. In my days at the Turf Club at Suffolk Downs in Boston, I am amazed at the number of veteran horseplayers who make these snap judgements after just one or two races!
“The rail is dead at Aqueduct,” they scream, after the first race winner loops the field from the extreme outside. “Inside speed is huge at Suffolk,” they shout, after the first race winner speeds gate-to-wire from the rail.
Nonsense.
So, while most of the sharp handicappers can quickly identify those horses that were compromised by track bias, these conclusions are made exclusively on dirt races.
But in my opinion, a huge edge can be gained from a track bias edge that is NEVER talked about--that is the biased turf-to-dirt move.
On Sunday, February 10th at Gulfstream Park, a filly named Miss Chrissy was entered in a 1 and 1/16th mile dirt race for non-winners or “maiden”. Trained by the crafty veteran Allen Jerkens, the filly had run only once in her career. That race was contested in early January on the turf at Gulfstream.
Ridden in that debut by Jose Santos, Miss Chrissy was forwardly placed in that grass race, before tiring to finish a dismal ninth, eight lengths behind Manhattan Skyline. But she was racing against a severe turf bias. Without exception, all the winners on the turf were deep closers, rallying from behind either up the hedge or from the extreme outside. This trend held up for the first three weeks of the Gulfstream meet.
Therefore, any horse running on or within several lengths of the lead in those turf races were swimming against the tide. Their performances have to be upgraded in subsequent starts. Here's a key point: Why can't that angle be used for a turf-to-dirt move as well?
When a railbird friend added that the shape of Miss Chrissy's feet was better suited for mud than turf, that was even more reason to think she was very “live” in that February 10th maiden race. Sure enough, the daughter of Kris S. wormed her way between horses and won an exciting stretch duel.
This is certainly a unique application of the track bias angle, but equally valid as the traditional dirt to dirt race comparisons.
POSTSCRIPT: In my last column, I wrote about the patent absurdity of making big-money “show” wagers on so-called unbeatable favorites. Sure enough, in a recent race in Florida, an individual or syndicate bet over $300,000 to show on the 3-10 favorite, Pleasant County.
Sorry, folks. The odds-on favorite wilted like three-day lettuce in the stretch and finished out of the money. That set up show prices that looked like basic telephone numbers …$8.60, $125.60, and a whopping $351.40 for the 1-2-3 finishers.
They'll just never learn.
From the National Thoroughbred Racing Association website
http://www.ntra.com
Bob Neumeier | Special to NTRA.com
With mounds and mounds of available information to the betting public, the successful player must always seek “an edge” to stay one-step ahead of the Joneses. The understanding and application of “track bias” is one way a sharp handicapper can earn that edge. The trend has become so popular, however, that tracking the bias has become as common a handicapping tool as speed figures and trainer-jockey combinations.
For those few who are not aware of “track bias”--the principles are relatively simple. On certain days at certain tracks, front-running speed-types might enjoy an enormous advantage. On others, stalkers and closers rule the day. The paths are also a factor in this analysis. On some days, the inside or “golden rail” lanes have a huge advantage. Then again, the wide, sweeping move can dominate a racing card.
By keeping an accurate ledger of these “biases,” either by tape study or chart analysis, the successful handicapper can plug this information into future wagering opportunities.
As a hypothetical example, let's say a horse named “Dead Rail” is entered in a six-furlong sprint at Gulfstream Park, Florida.
In his last race, his performance in the Daily Racing Form looks miserable on paper. In this mythical race, “Dead Rail” duels through a rapid early pace on the inside of the track, before wilting to a well-beaten sixth place finish.
But what if the rail was truly dead on that given day? The sharp player will excuse that poor effort. But the other players unaware of that day's “bias” will look at Dead Rail's performance as a miserable one. If the majority of players are unaware of the trend, the chances are Dead Rail will go off at juicy odds in his next start and only those who have kept track of his obvious disadvantage will be prepared to cash in.
Unfortunately, too many players are quick to stamp a track with a bias without nearly enough evidence. In my days at the Turf Club at Suffolk Downs in Boston, I am amazed at the number of veteran horseplayers who make these snap judgements after just one or two races!
“The rail is dead at Aqueduct,” they scream, after the first race winner loops the field from the extreme outside. “Inside speed is huge at Suffolk,” they shout, after the first race winner speeds gate-to-wire from the rail.
Nonsense.
So, while most of the sharp handicappers can quickly identify those horses that were compromised by track bias, these conclusions are made exclusively on dirt races.
But in my opinion, a huge edge can be gained from a track bias edge that is NEVER talked about--that is the biased turf-to-dirt move.
On Sunday, February 10th at Gulfstream Park, a filly named Miss Chrissy was entered in a 1 and 1/16th mile dirt race for non-winners or “maiden”. Trained by the crafty veteran Allen Jerkens, the filly had run only once in her career. That race was contested in early January on the turf at Gulfstream.
Ridden in that debut by Jose Santos, Miss Chrissy was forwardly placed in that grass race, before tiring to finish a dismal ninth, eight lengths behind Manhattan Skyline. But she was racing against a severe turf bias. Without exception, all the winners on the turf were deep closers, rallying from behind either up the hedge or from the extreme outside. This trend held up for the first three weeks of the Gulfstream meet.
Therefore, any horse running on or within several lengths of the lead in those turf races were swimming against the tide. Their performances have to be upgraded in subsequent starts. Here's a key point: Why can't that angle be used for a turf-to-dirt move as well?
When a railbird friend added that the shape of Miss Chrissy's feet was better suited for mud than turf, that was even more reason to think she was very “live” in that February 10th maiden race. Sure enough, the daughter of Kris S. wormed her way between horses and won an exciting stretch duel.
This is certainly a unique application of the track bias angle, but equally valid as the traditional dirt to dirt race comparisons.
POSTSCRIPT: In my last column, I wrote about the patent absurdity of making big-money “show” wagers on so-called unbeatable favorites. Sure enough, in a recent race in Florida, an individual or syndicate bet over $300,000 to show on the 3-10 favorite, Pleasant County.
Sorry, folks. The odds-on favorite wilted like three-day lettuce in the stretch and finished out of the money. That set up show prices that looked like basic telephone numbers …$8.60, $125.60, and a whopping $351.40 for the 1-2-3 finishers.
They'll just never learn.