Florida Derby

[BitPlayer]

TGJB -

You are right; the question is really whether such a thing as a \"speed bias\" exists.  (Maybe I\'ve been watching too much TVG.)  I can\'t think of a good physical explanation for why it should, but it\'s certainly a staple of handicapping jargon.  For instance, I don\'t think I\'ve read a single story about this year\'s San Felipe that didn\'t include a reference to the fact that closers weren\'t winning that day at Santa Anita.  And Frankel told Bailey to send Badge of Silver based on his belief that the front end was the place to be on Louisiana Derby Day.

I\'m also not sure what evidence of a speed bias would look like in the figures.  Perhaps horses running on or near the pace would earn a disproportionate number of new or paired tops, but that would be difficult to measure on a statistically reliable basis.

Thanks for your time.  It\'s been informative as always.

[TGJB]

Miff-- the methodology I am using is to say that horses who ran in different paths and with different styles turned out to be no more or less likely to run good figures-- look at the sheets. Which, as I said, does not mean more or less likely to win or run in the money-- that\'s why I said that running style (and specifically ground loss) didn\'t bias the performances, but did bias the results.

[beyerguy]

When there is a bias that makes frontrunning types lose, those are the ones I want to know about.  This is much easier to identify and profit from in the future.  Unfortunately, this is VERY rare in the US.

[miff]

I understand your methodology and that seems reasonable and correct to me.As to your comments about bias in general, let me add this. On many occasions at the track you will hear some people yelling \'speed bias\" after a couple of much the best runners (going in) wire the field.

I completely agree with you that on most of those occasions, there was no speed  bias at all.I have noted and recorded many days at NYRA tracks where there was PRONOUNCED speed biases or dead rails.

On one or two obvious bias days at Belmont, I questioned the lack of an X(dead rail) on your sheets.You replied, for example, that on May5th at Belmont (deadest of all dead rails days)that several horses got tops racing down inside and therefore there was no dead rail.What you should have concluded is that several horses running inside ran new tops IN SPITE of the dead rail( a major difference)

Figs alone will never tell it all about this game and a computer program is not going to catch every dead rail.

[miff]

BEYERGUY,

If you follow Belmont and it plays like it normally does, you will find speed horses that fall apart on dead rail days only to come back to score at big baloons on an honest surface.

Bad news for bias players. I hear that the new track superintendent at NYRA tracks is great at keeping surfaces even(no bias). Lets see how he does with BIG SANDY this summer.

[beyerguy]

No doubt miff, I do follow Belmont.  It is one of the few tracks where this occurs, and one of my most profitable.

[Saddlecloth]

I sure wish there was a site that tracked the bias, and while I know its subjective, it would help.  I mean I track my circuit, but certainly play others.

All my humble opinion if anyone cares.

1. The speed figure assigned to a race can be influenced to some degree by the interpretation of the result by the figure maker. So if he goes into the process thinking/not thinking there was a bias etc... there could be some small interpretative differences that would impact the figures and still allow both sets to make sense based on prior performances. One which includes bias and one that doesn\'t.  The same is true of pace.    

2. I have never met or heard of anyone that could quantify biases exactly, but everyone I know that believes they exist tends to look at the subsequent performances of the key horses of the day to see if they (as a group) confirm or negate the initial suspicion.

3. IMHO, there are speed biases.

4. IMHO, speed biases are more related to stamina than running styles. It just so happens that most horses with stamina issues are front runners.

Some tracks are more or less tiring on some days.

Personally, I doubt a speed bias would help Dr. Fager run faster at 7F. He didn\'t have a stamina issue. However, it might make allow him sustain his normal figure or run a little faster at 10F if he dueled with a rabbit.

A tiring track is not going to stop him at 7F, but it might get him beat at 10F without a rabbit.

(In other words if you are looking for a one size fits all formula for all horses on the same day, I haven\'t found it yet nor have I ever met anyone that had anything even tempting as a theory).    

5. Because no one can quantify this stuff, it is impossible to prove - hence the constant differences of opinion. I think it is best to observe this stuff and form an opinion based on your results.

6. Vic\'s performance yesterday proved nothing one way or the other. There are a lot of reasons he might have lost.



Post Edited (04-04-05 17:45)

[BitPlayer]

TGJB -

I may betray my ignorance of figure making here, but please bear with me.  CH\'s post seems to be consistent with a common handicapping theory: that speed is most likely to hold up when the track is least tiring.  The press coverage of San Felipe day exemplifies the prevalence of that theory.

If the theory is correct, there would presumably be some correlation between your \"variant\" and the success and/or speed figures of frontrunners.  Is that something that you have tested for or (in the absence of formal statistical analysis) noticed to be true or noticed not to be true?  Thanks for your help.

[TGJB]

This one is a very good question, not just in substance but in form (for all the old Racing Times guys out there). Several things--

1-- For years I have downgraded frontrunners on soft grass because experience has told me that they are less likely to run their race, and while it may or may not be related, fewer races in Europe, where the courses are generally slower, are won on the front end (I think. How\'s that for qualification).

2-- I actually had a conversation about this years ago with George, don\'t know if he remembers. One possibility is that a \"faster\" track, and resultant faster time, makes the race shorter-- they run for less time-- and thereby helps frontrunners. I have absolutely no idea if that is true. I do know that muscle fibers are either slow twitch or fast twitch, (aerobic or anaerobic, don\'t know which is which), meaning they either rely on stored oxygen or don\'t, and that stored oxygen runs out in a horse in about a minute under extreme exertion, or about five furlongs. The percentage of each type of fiber determines how far a horse will run well (also whether a human will be better at lifting weights or running a marathon). Don\'t know whether this is useful, but I suspect it may be relevent.

3-- The difference in final time between a fast dirt track and one which is not, in percentage and real time terms, is very small (as opposed to the difference between a firm grass course and a soft one, which can be pretty extreme).

4-- Don\'t know how we we test this, but if someone (Chris?)can figure out the right question to ask, we\'ll have George do a run (and in fact I can hear the wheels turning in his head as he reads this, and he\'s in rural Pennsylvania).

[beyerguy]

TGJB,

Yes, this is a great question, and one I\'ve checked into in the past.  

I did not find any difference in races at Turfway, one of the more extreme tracks you will find final time wise.  In other words, front runners and up close types won the same percentage of races whether the variant rated the track very slow or very fast, at 4 very common distances, 6, 6.5, 8, and 8.5 furlongs.

I checked a few other places as well and couldn\'t find anything to back up this very plausible sounding theory on dirt.  I\'ve never tried on turf, just too tough to find enough races under similar conditions for me.

[miff]

I have seen very fast surfaces where early speed did NOT hold well and very dull surfaces where speed did hold well.

From all of my research on this, I did not find that speed held \"better\" just because the surface was very fast.The one exception I noticed was on wet fast tracks where speed is usually dominant.