GAINING AN EDGE - 4 (TRACK BIAS)

[BiyaX]

Special Situations : TRACK BIAS

Most track biases are mild, extending only slightly favorable advantages to horses having certain running styles or exiting certain posts, and the casual handicapper relentless preoccupation with the effects of track surface is usually unwarranted.

But when track biases are severe, they become dominant. Severe biases take precedence over all other handicapping factors. Severe track biases can be recognized when:

1. Horses that do not figure on the fundamentals but having specific running are winning easily and frequently.
2. Inside or outside posts are dominating, or failing, at irrational rates.
3. Contenders and favorites running against a speed or post bias have been failing persistently and badly

The types of biases are four. They interact:
Inside - Speed
Outside - Closers

Inside speed biases are easiest for pace handicappers to recognize and to exploit. If the rail post has been winning at unusually high rates, favor speed horses on the inside.

When outside closer biases predominate, handicappers best exploit the circumstances by playing horses having a definite class advantage and an off-pace running style. Class analysts can get excellent prices with this tactic.

 

[racingnovice]

Forgive me if I'm being dense - is pace bias really a thing? Once you've factored in sectionals (and therefore conditions)? Like is a 7 race card enough of a sample to draw strong conclusions from?

I don't really know why a track would favour a particular running style (again, after taking into account the pace of the race). What would have to be materially different about a track in order to create a bias? Or even, what would have to happen to a track (or the conditions) before/during racing to create it? As an example, say a 6f race - is it something like the ground being quicker 3f to the post than the preceding 3f and therefore to make up ground you're having to quicken more from off the pace in relative terms?

I get that 'front runners get away' or 'nothing was coming from the rear' but we already know that front runners do well relative to other 'positions' and so unless they've gone demonstrably too quickly then we would expect there to be a bias, right?

More than happy to be convinced otherwise on this - it's always felt like something that's heavily narrative-based rather than something that would show up as being statistically significant relative to the pace of races on a given card.

 

[racingnovice]

Forgive me if I'm being dense - is pace bias really a thing? Once you've factored in sectionals (and therefore conditions)? Like is a 7 race card enough of a sample to draw strong conclusions from?

I don't really know why a track would favour a particular running style (again, after taking into account the pace of the race). What would have to be materially different about a track in order to create a bias? Or even, what would have to happen to a track (or the conditions) before/during racing to create it? As an example, say a 6f race - is it something like the ground being quicker 3f to the post than the preceding 3f and therefore to make up ground you're having to quicken more from off the pace in relative terms?

I get that 'front runners get away' or 'nothing was coming from the rear' but we already know that front runners do well relative to other 'positions' and so unless they've gone demonstrably too quickly then we would expect there to be a bias, right?

More than happy to be convinced otherwise on this - it's always felt like something that's heavily narrative-based rather than something that would show up as being statistically significant relative to the pace of races on a given card.

Kickback has just sprung to mind as a possible reason