Derby Day Track Bias

[belmont3]

Frank D...

BIAS BOB BACK:

Am on record in earlier post that no dirt bias on May 5th Oaks Day
Am on record that the turf rail was \'dead\' on May 5th Oaks Day.

As to Derby Day May 6th.
And despite the protestations of trainer Casse and all the TV Thoroperts ....I went back and watched every replay twice. Pan shot and Head ON. Read every Chart twice and examined the path info on the TG final figs. So, despite my \'cheaters being upped from 1.50 to 1.75, here are the observations:

Path info for the 1st and 2nd place horse.

Race 1) 1w     3w
Race 2) 3w3w   2w2w
Race 3) 4w     5w
Race 4) 1w1w   3w4w
Race 5) 2w3w   3w4w  Turf
Race 6) 2w     3w
Race 7) 4w4w   3w3w  Turf
Race 3w     5w
Race 9) 4w5w   2w4w  Turf
Race 10)3w     2w
Race 11)1w4w   3w3w  Turf
Race 12)1w1w   1w1w
Race 13)1w     3w
Race 14)2w     3w  

The read here can be tricky. I noticed the dirt track appeared sealed for the early dirt races. As the day progressed, it seemed to dry out a bit. late afternoon shower slopped it up a bit and our on track source said track was sealed after the 10th race. And surely once could look deeper into the figs ran versus expectations etc.

Pretty clear, however, no bias in the early races on may 6th. Winners came from everywhere as well as runner ups. Then, in dirt races 6, 8, 9, 10--no paint scrapers 1st or second.

Certainly made me curious when I heard the Casse interview about the rail being the place to be. Really? After a 2w, 4w4w, 3w and 3w had won the previous 4 dirt races? Perhaps the jocks were telling owners/trainers that the inside was \'better\' but it is hard to find conclusive evidence in the races leading up to the KD.
One could conceivably argue that sealing the track prior to KD upgraded the inside paths.  

One bias still pretty clear. Turf rail was a disadvantage. Very clear in the head on replays that most jocks sere steering their horses away from the hedge. AS a regular poster on this site who is a self described sod buster....water will seek its lowest point and, on a banked turf course, that would be the rail.

Bias Bob

[mjellish]

Frank

Look at the dirt races oaks day before the oaks.  Watch the replays.  And remember, i\'ve said this here before, there can be a strong rail bias at churchill for those that ride right on the rail.  I mean skimming it.  So 1 1/2 wide, which most would call a 1w trip, is different.  And watch the horses who had the rail and came off it in the stretch.

Then keep in mind in the 2 hour or so break between last dirt race and oaks they worked on the track.  So ignore those races that came afterward.  

Tell me if you see a rail bias then on the undercard card.

[FrankD.]

Michael,

Is your post directed to me or are you responding to Belmont 3 assertion of no bias on Oaks day. I posted on Sat morning about the track maintenance before the Oaks?

[belmont3]

Mike,

That post belongs to me and not Frank. Sorry for the confusion.
Professor Frank, who wrote his Meteorological Doctoral Thesis on Frozen Rails at Thistledown, had graded my previous treatise on Track Bias with a resounding \"F\"!!

As most of the Backyard gang knows,  Frank is better at handicapping, Beer, Bakeries (Pereccas), Restaurants (D\'Raymonds in Loudonville NY) and Women.

And he likes it that way!

I really think CD this weekend was way to tricky a read for me to just grant it a \'golden\' rail type of day.

Bob

BTW, Saratoga Mischief won the 1st at Belmont off a \'dead rail\' notation. Not a big price (2-1). Reviewing April 28th Belmont Park replays might be useful.

Bob

[mjellish]

Oops.  Was to Bob.  I thought that was your post Frank.  Good thing is i guess i\'m willing to disaree with anyone.

[belmont3]

Not definitive but something to consider;

Dirt Races Oaks Day:

TG pairs and tops while being on rail (1w) at some point in the race:

13 total (5 in the 1st 4 races)

TG Pairs or Tops while being off rail:

19 (6 in 1st 4 races)



Turf Races Oaks Day (5th and 10th)

Pairs or Tops on Rail

1 -Latent revenge in sprint

Off Races and X\'s on the Rail: 9



DERBY DAY--The totals were similar on Derby Day for dirt races:

There were 41 tops or pairs on the Dirt.
12 had at least a 1w designation.
28 were 2w or greater
24 were 3w or greater

DERBY DAY TURF:
8 tops on the Turf- 7 were 3w or greater. One was 3w 1w

Rail Horses;  
7 ran off
5 ran X
1 ran Pair

Pretty conclusive for turf.
Inconclusive Dirt

[T Severini]

belmont3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not definitive but something to consider;
>
> Dirt Races Oaks Day:
>
> TG pairs and tops while being on rail (1w) at some
> point in the race:
>
> 13 total (5 in the 1st 4 races)
>
> TG Pairs or Tops while being off rail:
>
> 19 (6 in 1st 4 races)
>
>
>
> Turf Races Oaks Day (5th and 10th)
>
> Pairs or Tops on Rail
>
> 1 -Latent revenge in sprint
>
> Off Races and X\'s on the Rail: 9
>
>
>
> DERBY DAY--The totals were similar on Derby Day
> for dirt races:
>
> There were 41 tops or pairs on the Dirt.
> 12 had at least a 1w designation.
> 28 were 2w or greater
> 24 were 3w or greater
>
> DERBY DAY TURF:
> 8 tops on the Turf- 7 were 3w or greater. One was
> 3w 1w
>
> Rail Horses;  
> 7 ran off
> 5 ran X
> 1 ran Pair
>
> Pretty conclusive for turf.
> Inconclusive Dirt


Whose data are you using to conclude tops on Derby Day?  Which is a red herring because here are the two tracks again:

Kentucky Oaks

Kentucky Derby

After observing the track condition in those two videos, can anyone here conclude there is any way to equate them?

In retrospect you must have meant coming into the races...my bad. That\'s an aggregate angle where I don\'t go.

[belmont3]

For pairs and tops, I used TG final figures. I also used TG path info which I realize only covers the turns. I used Equibase full Charts on the earlier path info I posted plus the replays for May 6th (visual).

It was just another way of looking at this topic.

Intuitively, I would have expected that a track with a \'rail\' bias would produce less tops and pairs for those that ran \'wide\' (or on the  bad/heavy part of the track.)

I would also have expected those that raced along the inside might produce more pairs and tops.

Clearly the case on the Turf Course both May 5 and May 6.
For me at least, the TG \'Dead\" turf rail designation for May 5 and May 6 is spot on.
Just look at the number of horses that ran OFF or totally X\'d.
Almost every one of them ran towards the hedge.

Not entirely clear on the Main Track.  
Mixed results.
I understand totally the visual argument. It did appear that the changing track condition produced different results at different points on each card.

If you want to give credit to a performance that was against the bias on the Main Track for May 5 and May 6, I think one has to dig deep into the data, etc, and make his own call.

Regards

Bob

[hellersorr]

Just my opinion but it appears Bias Bob brought his \"A\" game.

[jimbo66]

It would be his \"A\" game, but the premise is highly flawed. To be specific, using TG or any performance figure that gives bonus points for ground loss to diagnose a gold rail doesn\'t make any sense at all to me. Many of those horses spinning their wheels in the middle of the track are going to get ground loss loaded figures and look ok on TG.   Frank D pointed that out in his review of the figures. I am not going to revisit.  

Where did most of the winners come from over the course of the two days on the main track?  (Yes, possible exception of late on oaks day after maintenance ). How many horses right on the rail looked about to stop turning for home and then \"kept finding more\".

Hey, it wouldn\'t be the first time that the jockeys, trainers, sharp players, etc were all wrong.  But often the obvious answer is just that.

I assume the non-bias believers will love looking at Lee going forward.  He wasn\'t helped by the track so he is just a developing 3 year old.  One that u may need binoculars to find in the stretch of the Preakness.  But who knows

Jim

[hellersorr]

My own personal opinion is that there was an inside bias part, but not all, of the two days.

I would point out, though, that using TG figures was only one facet of Bias Bob\'s argument.

AS to Lookin At Lee:  1)  He saved ground every step of the way.  As per TG, this is ideal regardless whether or not the rail is biased.  Shortest way around and all that.  2)  As others have written, both in 2017 and in past Derby off-track performances, the 1/2 lane - i.e. riding figuratively UNDER the rail - seems to be ideal, assuming you have a brave horse and a half-insane jockey.  This is entirely separate from other inside lanes.

[belmont3]

\"It was just another way of looking at this topic.\"
\"Not definitive but something to consider\"

There was no premise. Just looking at data available in a different light.
I went in with an open mind.
I assumed nothing
 

As to the obvious, new tops are not in of themselves a reason to declare a track biased one way or the other.

Nor is a replay of 1 isolated race.

Nor are the comments of commentators, trainers or jockeys.


Naturally, from a TG perspective, some horses have positive or + lines going into a race and some have negative lines.
There are lot of reasons why a horse may run a top or X.
Certainly, the type of surface (the muddy /sloppy quagmire this weekend) could contribute to performance.  

So, again,  the number of new tops are not an isolated indication of a biased track.

In determining a \'definitive\' and \'conclusive\' bias,  I suggest re-visiting the turf course data.

The TG data shows an awful lot of big bounces for those that ran on the inside of the turf course both May 5th and May 6th.


For me, that is a clear cut bias that favored the outside runners.
Only one inside runner managed to pair his top.
The other 12 ran OFF or a total whiff =the dreaded X.

Confirmed by both data and visual review.
A Conclusive BIAS. DEAD RAIL.

For the Main Course, as I said before, it is subjective and the data is INCONCLUSIVE.

 
Sealing the track on the 6th may after the 10th race (11th was turf) may very well have made a difference for the Derby and later races. No argument there.

There really is no \'premise\' ...just information....one can interpret data
as they wish.

Let me ask this question:

What criteria do you use in determining a track bias?

Visual?

Data?

If data, what data do you use and what is your methodology?

How many races do you need to see before declaring a track biased?  

1 race, 2 races?

Once you have concluded a track has a bias, how do you profit from that knowledge?

[johnnym]

Was there not a debate last year after the Preakness specifically the turf course regarding the same subject.
None of those turf horses cam back to do anything I believe.
My 2 cents though the track was favoring the inside.

[belmont3]

Johnny,

You are correct.
I seem to recall none of them won until Uncle Bill touted one at Saratoga at 30- 1 or more and it came home!!

I don\'t recall if anyone examined the next race fig to see if that group improved in their next race.  

I sometimes create a virtual stable so I can follow subsequent races.
Already did that for the may 5th and May 6th turf fields.

Fortunately, TG designates those horse that ran figs on dead rails.

Not advocating betting every horse that ran wide on an \'inside\' day. (I know some folks that do that).

Just another tool in the arsenal.

[hellersorr]

Re playbacks from a Turf Dead Rail, didn\'t someone post last year at the same time about how difficult it was for horses who raced on a Turf Dead (I.E. Boggy) Rail to race well next time out unless they had considerable rest?