[str]

I watched the race on my computer and didn't realize TVG talked about after the race. I agree I don't think it got her beat but as you said it's unacceptable.
When I heard about the rider switch I was trying to put the pieces together so I went back and watched the DelMar race looking for something and saw the reigns.Also Baffert had made a comment in the winners circle after the Hollywood Gold Cup that she looked nervous coming into the paddock for the Gold Cup race.

The backside is like a soap opera .

So many sub plots .

[str]

I just found out that a kid that I coached in rec basketball in the 90s has made the final table in this years WSOP.

I hope that showing up for practice and games with a track program hanging out of my pocket didn't sway the young fella.

[Dark Horse]

Is this an extreme case of avoiding a strong horse, or is 30K for fifth place not worth it?

The Cotillion drew only four horses, even though there is a $30,000 payoff for finishing fifth. Questing is coming off a spectacular nine-length victory in the Alabama, in which she earned a 106 Beyer speed figure.

Read more on BloodHorse.com: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...#ixzz26njmeb5U

[str]

Is this an extreme case of avoiding a strong horse, or is 30K for fifth place not worth it?

Often times the local horses that were nominated but not of the same caliber would run against a 1-5 shot because they could still run 3rd if they got lucky, get black type which is valuable come broodmare time, and at worst, make 50,000 for 4th place money or 30,000 for 5th place money if it all backfired. In this case, the inferiors look at the PPs and figure that they have no shot whatsoever for 1st or 2nd and doubtful at best they can run 3rd. So they opt to run elsewhere .
There was a time back in the day when I would nominate a potential broodmare prospect solid allowance/minor stakes horse, to a bigger type race just in case a monster would show up and scare off the others. It was worth the nomination fee to weigh the risk / reward if it presented itself. I would assume that maybe there were some like that nominated in here but with 2 monsters in the race and 2 well qualified 2nd tier horses in , it just was not worth it for them in all probability.

[Dark Horse]

I suppose it wouldn't be right to just gallop around the track, cash in the 30K, and move on to the next race without a loss of energy.

[Dark Horse]

str, the Santa Anita fall meet starts this week. Normally this is a fast track. And I would expect it to be a fast track again when the Breeders Cup rolls around. But at this point, before the meet, times are slow, and people are pointing at how deep the stretch is. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this deeper stretch, how long it might take to wear off, and things to look for in the process.

[str]

str, the Santa Anita fall meet starts this week. Normally this is a fast track. And I would expect it to be a fast track again when the Breeders Cup rolls around. But at this point, before the meet, times are slow, and people are pointing at how deep the stretch is. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this deeper stretch, how long it might take to wear off, and things to look for in the process.

People see the horses come through the stretch and getting tired and assume that it is the stretch. Without seeing the track or reading anything about it yet, it MUST be at a consistent depth and texture, all the way around. Anything short of that would be catastrophic. So it's deeper and different but the same all the way around.

Because of the outcry for safety and because Santa Anita had a rough time of it with the breakdown numbers last year as well as the "Luck" series problems, they have obviously done something to address that. I don't know if it is more sand, clay, silt, or what, but it is something. It is called loam or a loamy type mixture but I do not know for sure what exactly they used. With the B.C. coming in November, they had no choice but to do something. Hopefully, they get it right.
If memory serves me, they also have a drainage problem once it gets saturated. If so, a complete overall of the surface and drainage is( was) necessary and I can only assume that they have done that.
Anytime you mess with a surface as they were forced to, it can have a real effect on the horses training and running on it. Too hard and you have to deal with fractures, too deep and you have to deal with muscle and tendon pulls. It is a very fine line and the horses will need to adapt, and they will. Also, it is very common to see the racing surface much looser prior to opening day. It takes time to play with the ingredients that make up the surface, to get it exactly where you want it. Adding water and how much also factors in. So no surprise that it might be slower now than opening day or a few days into the meet.

From a trainers perspective, types of shoe worn will be a hot topic, as well as wear and tear on the horses in the AM as they prep for opening day. Friction burns on the backs of ankles ( fetlocks) might also pop up so the "fronts on" angle might need to relax a bit for the 1st couple of weeks of the meet. It's never easy.

As for what this means to the betting public, nobody knows for sure. People will say, "it's slower and deeper, so bet the closer". Nope, doesn't always work like that. The only way to know is to watch and learn, and while not forcing a conclusion, come to one asap. The conclusion might be, it's not any different than before, just a little slower, from a bettors prospective. Maybe, but I would guess that there WILL BE some sort of preferred placement at certain times at the very least. Maybe we should start a bias pool. Lol. I would also be very careful of the speed ratings early on. New surface comparing numbers from an entirely different surface , if that is the case, will be confusing for players if that takes place. The "old reliable" track variant will be a key player early on if there is a significant difference in times.

Here is my guess if a bias appears and what might take place, in no particular order:

1. I would think that horses stabled "on the grounds" and train on it everyday would have a big edge over ship ins until they have all ran over it at least once.

2. I would look at the inside to be the place to be on opening day. Not just speed, but position towards the rail. Why? Because if indeed the surface is deeper, they sure as heck don't want it to wash away or work towards the rail on opening day. Costly and bad press aside, the track super( no clue of who he is) might not have dealt with more cushion or this type texture of cushion before and if so, might need to deal with it on the fly, thus causing possible biases.
If it shows to be a closers track it might be outside, but maybe not, position from the gate to the 1/4 pole is just as important as position through the lane. Monitor this closely on the replays to get an accurate reading.

3. If indeed it is inside, watch to see if this changes towards mid week or after 2-3 straight days of racing . If so, you have determined the time it takes this surface to work down hill. If indeed it changes, watch and see if the "inside " reappears and when. For the weekend or the day before significant rain is forecast?

4. Watching the head on angle, see if the riders stay off the fence a path or two. Actions speak louder than words.

5. The more patient riders out there will probably have a significant edge if indeed the track has more cushion.

6. See if the 1st race of the day differs in time or trip notes from the rest of the card, and if so, how. Some patterns might persist in the 1st race each day and that could last all meet.

I will be happy to talk about this after opening day.

Should be interesting and good luck everybody.

I hope some of this helps.

[Dark Horse]

Wow. Thanks for the very detailed answer. Saturday is a big day already, so this is a big help. (For those who may not know, races and replays can be watched at calracing.com).

[dugbug15]

str,i read your post on duff's post,concerning you had little knowledge of aussie racing.no problem,no gripes.but,it did prompt me to get your opinion of another scenario designed for the good of horseracing industry in general,connections & bettors would benefit from this,i believe.
i would like your opinion,if you care to address it.here we go. iam friends with a horse owner who resides in massachusetts.he has horses all over the place.he told me about a meeting he attended at nyra,or,one of their tracks. he proprosed 2 suggestions for the better of the sport.
1rst one was the starting gate.he explained the present has a roof on it with all kinds of crappe attached to it,creating a hazard for horses,
and,riders when a horse rears up propelling the jock into the overhead of the gate,most likely causing injury to both,and,possibly to others
to left or right of the commotion.he suggests removing the roof altogether so it is an open air affair,and, less intimidating,and more inviting to a horse entering his position.the aussies have these gates,(no roof).susequently,ther behave very nicely,for the most part,and injuries are minimal. suggestion 2: he expressed his displeasure with the current parimutual rule of bettors stuck with the closing odds favorites,
with no recourse on multiple leg wagers,(p3,4,6 wagers),heis suggesting that you should be able to go back to the mutual window,announce
that a horse in on of your legs is scratched.the teller should give you a supplement ticket with the new number that you chose,replacing
the scratched horse,so you don't get stuck with a chalk horse that may,or, not be the right horse. just curious of your,or anyones elses
opinion of all of this.thanks,i'm pooped! good bye.

[mrginandtonic]

Hello sir, I have a question about horse training on turf vs dirt/synth. I don't know if this question has been asked before or not. It is regarding the workouts. I was looking at the free PP from DRF for tomorrow's race 8 at Santa Anita. Horse no. 3 and 4 are both trained by John Sadler. These two horse have a very interesting published workouts. No. 3, Calimonco, has workouts only on turf, and No. 4, Koast, only has workout on dirf. Both of these horse are preparing to race in the same race, 6.5f Downhill Turf. Why is one only on turf and the other only on dirt?? Usually, we would see a horse have published workouts on dirt, then may have one or two on turf for the upcoming turf race. Just wondering what is reason behind this?? Thanks in advance.

[str]

str,i read your post on duff's post,concerning you had little knowledge of aussie racing.no problem,no gripes.but,it did prompt me to get your opinion of another scenario designed for the good of horseracing industry in general,connections & bettors would benefit from this,i believe.
i would like your opinion,if you care to address it.here we go. iam friends with a horse owner who resides in massachusetts.he has horses all over the place.he told me about a meeting he attended at nyra,or,one of their tracks. he proprosed 2 suggestions for the better of the sport.
1rst one was the starting gate.he explained the present has a roof on it with all kinds of crappe attached to it,creating a hazard for horses,
and,riders when a horse rears up propelling the jock into the overhead of the gate,most likely causing injury to both,and,possibly to others
to left or right of the commotion.he suggests removing the roof altogether so it is an open air affair,and, less intimidating,and more inviting to a horse entering his position.the aussies have these gates,(no roof).susequently,ther behave very nicely,for the most part,and injuries are minimal. suggestion 2: he expressed his displeasure with the current parimutual rule of bettors stuck with the closing odds favorites,
with no recourse on multiple leg wagers,(p3,4,6 wagers),heis suggesting that you should be able to go back to the mutual window,announce
that a horse in on of your legs is scratched.the teller should give you a supplement ticket with the new number that you chose,replacing
the scratched horse,so you don't get stuck with a chalk horse that may,or, not be the right horse. just curious of your,or anyones elses
opinion of all of this.thanks,i'm pooped! good bye.

The gate is a very dangerous place , there is no doubt about it. The guys that work on the gate" the gate crew' are the epitome of unsung heroes in the racing business. It is an unbelievably difficult job and they do it 99.9% of the time as well as could ever be expected.
Part of their job , the part that is not seen by the fans, is to work with the horses 4 days a week in the AM during training hours to make sure that the gate experience is as safe as it can be for all. But for all their hard work nothing and I mean nothing can keep a horse from rearing up if they decide to do so.

The roof that you are talking about is actually not a roof as we know it, it is a series of steel trusses that support the frame of the gate . I do remember that Delaware Park used to have an aluminum shed type roof over their gate but in most if not all the other places I raced, it was open above. Not open enough to be clear if a horse went up but open none the less. It is a long way up though to hit someones head and I don't think that a horse would be able to get that high without going over backwards. The jockey would be the one at more risk I would think but again, it's a long way up and the problem usually is the flipping over backwards that takes place when the horse goes up to fast and subsequently over . Sadly, that is exactly what happened in the mid 70s to a jock in Calif. named Pineda. I did not know him but I knew and rode his brother Bobby in Md. That horse went up and flipped over, smashing Pineda's head against the steel or iron posts. That accident lead to more padding in crucial areas of the gate in years to come if memory serves me. It was a tragedy to say the least.
In a terrible twist of fate, Bobby Pineda who was the Md. jock, was killed at Pimlico a couple of years later in May of 1978 on the far turn when a filly named Easy Edith broke her leg on the lead and he was sitting directly behind her and could not avoid her. He died from multiple trauma but he was kicked in the head and blood was coming out from every hole in his head It was a mess. I will never forget it.
I got off the question but all this reminded me of a real tough day, sorry.
So I suppose that my answer is that while the gate is a very dangerous place for anyone to have to work in, the roof portion I, IMO, don't see as something that can be avoided or fixed without redesigning the entire gate. Again, the roof is of no value, it's the crisscross trusses that are there to stabilize the structure. If there is a way to redesign the whole thing, that would be one thing but to try and eliminate the trusses above, the structure would be compromised to the point where it would be too flimsy I would think.

As for getting the post time favorite, I actually sat on a Md. horseman's board that tried to figure this out. While on the board, ironically, we also talked about the bute question quite a bit after Bobby's death . Again, if memory serves me, we determined that the best of many bad options was to have it as it is. If a horse is scratched and there is plenty of time to change the ticket that would be one thing, but when a horse is scratched at the gate, you can not hold up the race for 10 minutes while those players switch there ticket. And if you tried, when do you know that all the tickets have been switched? That wait time not only compromises the bettors that played into other pools but it also compromises the owners, trainers, jockey's and all the barn help that would be adversely effected by a long delay in running the race, meaning that the eventual outcome of the race could and in some cases for sure, would be different because of the delay. Perhaps the icing on the cake was what do you do with the player that bet and leaves or has no access to changing the ticket. A refund is unfair because some legs have already been run and won so the post time favorite was the best of a bad bunch of solutions for all involved.

Hope all that helps.

[str]

Hello sir, I have a question about horse training on turf vs dirt/synth. I don't know if this question has been asked before or not. It is regarding the workouts. I was looking at the free PP from DRF for tomorrow's race 8 at Santa Anita. Horse no. 3 and 4 are both trained by John Sadler. These two horse have a very interesting published workouts. No. 3, Calimonco, has workouts only on turf, and No. 4, Koast, only has workout on dirf. Both of these horse are preparing to race in the same race, 6.5f Downhill Turf. Why is one only on turf and the other only on dirt?? Usually, we would see a horse have published workouts on dirt, then may have one or two on turf for the upcoming turf race. Just wondering what is reason behind this?? Thanks in advance.

What a great question !

While it can only be an educated guess as to why the trainer choose this path, I will try . I will present an overview that might apply to other races as well.

As for the 3 horse, the training pattern for the previous 2 races were to breeze a snappy 1/2 mile 3 days before running a mile race. Both efforts were best of the day at a 1/2 mile , so it seems to me that cutting back to 6 1/2 he did not want to stay with the same routine and work a 1/2 mile 3 days prior to the shorter distance. It looks as though the trainer had a maintenance work of 3/4s of a mile one week prior to the last race and he did it again this time. That makes perfect sense. I would venture to guess that he will let the horse " run through the lane" today or " blow him out" a 1/4 or so to put him on his toes for the shorter distance. Either way, he is hoping to have the horse show a little more early speed because of the difference in pace so he chooses to keep him a little bit more "sharp" for this race. That would be logical.
As for the works on the dirt by the 4 horse, the works don't seem to have a rhyme or reason to them from a timing angle and distance angle like the 3 horses did. Not sure what is going on there.
As an overview, trainers working on the turf to get the horse familiar with the course is obviously a good thing. Ship ins don't have that luxury unless they have been there for a week or so. Not every turf course is open to train on every day. Not so much for grade 1s where they always have a chance to get on the turf but in general, a track might only let you train on the turf once or twice a week. Also, the turf is usually only open AFTER the break or around 8:30 in the morning. If so, some trainers might prefer to train earlier in the morning before it gets warm out in the summer and give up the chance to work on the turf to have the chance to have the horse out and back in by 6:30 AM . Further, the footing of the turf on any given day will change and if it is wet or soft, a trainer may well opt out of wanting to put there horse on that type of footing.
There are so many variables as to why a trainer does this stuff that it is hard to put a lot of weight into their decisions from a handicapper's perspective. While it is great to see a horse come up to the race perfectly , like the 3 seems to have done, it is not necessarily a negative if they don't . So I would advise you to take those works and give the horse a plus for having a perfectly timed setup but not give them a minus if they don't.
In lesser races like allowance races at tracks that don't offer a turf workout opportunity except once a week or so, seeing a turf work tells you that the trainer went to great lengths to accommodate the horse with a turf work. In Md. for instance , you could not work out on the turf course unless you were nominated for a stake race back when I trained. Therefore, anybody working on the turf, usually was serious about wanting to work on it first. I have to admit that I ran many a horse on the turf without EVER working on it first. Those that ran well on it had no problem whatsoever with it. These were not grade 1 horses by any means. Just horses transitioning from dirt to turf. So , where some trainers might swear that you need to work on it first, I would say no you don't.
Too me, it's all about the comfort of trusting the surface albeit turf, hard or soft, or mud. If they do, look out.

Hope that answered your question sufficiently.

If not, please let me know.

Now get after that Pick 6 !

[Dark Horse]

wrong data. nm.

[mrginandtonic]

What a great question !

While it can only be an educated guess as to why the trainer choose this path, I will try . I will present an overview that might apply to other races as well.

As for the 3 horse, the training pattern for the previous 2 races were to breeze a snappy 1/2 mile 3 days before running a mile race. Both efforts were best of the day at a 1/2 mile , so it seems to me that cutting back to 6 1/2 he did not want to stay with the same routine and work a 1/2 mile 3 days prior to the shorter distance. It looks as though the trainer had a maintenance work of 3/4s of a mile one week prior to the last race and he did it again this time. That makes perfect sense. I would venture to guess that he will let the horse " run through the lane" today or " blow him out" a 1/4 or so to put him on his toes for the shorter distance. Either way, he is hoping to have the horse show a little more early speed because of the difference in pace so he chooses to keep him a little bit more "sharp" for this race. That would be logical.
As for the works on the dirt by the 4 horse, the works don't seem to have a rhyme or reason to them from a timing angle and distance angle like the 3 horses did. Not sure what is going on there.
As an overview, trainers working on the turf to get the horse familiar with the course is obviously a good thing. Ship ins don't have that luxury unless they have been there for a week or so. Not every turf course is open to train on every day. Not so much for grade 1s where they always have a chance to get on the turf but in general, a track might only let you train on the turf once or twice a week. Also, the turf is usually only open AFTER the break or around 8:30 in the morning. If so, some trainers might prefer to train earlier in the morning before it gets warm out in the summer and give up the chance to work on the turf to have the chance to have the horse out and back in by 6:30 AM . Further, the footing of the turf on any given day will change and if it is wet or soft, a trainer may well opt out of wanting to put there horse on that type of footing.
There are so many variables as to why a trainer does this stuff that it is hard to put a lot of weight into their decisions from a handicapper's perspective. While it is great to see a horse come up to the race perfectly , like the 3 seems to have done, it is not necessarily a negative if they don't . So I would advise you to take those works and give the horse a plus for having a perfectly timed setup but not give them a minus if they don't.
In lesser races like allowance races at tracks that don't offer a turf workout opportunity except once a week or so, seeing a turf work tells you that the trainer went to great lengths to accommodate the horse with a turf work. In Md. for instance , you could not work out on the turf course unless you were nominated for a stake race back when I trained. Therefore, anybody working on the turf, usually was serious about wanting to work on it first. I have to admit that I ran many a horse on the turf without EVER working on it first. Those that ran well on it had no problem whatsoever with it. These were not grade 1 horses by any means. Just horses transitioning from dirt to turf. So , where some trainers might swear that you need to work on it first, I would say no you don't.
Too me, it's all about the comfort of trusting the surface albeit turf, hard or soft, or mud. If they do, look out.

Hope that answered your question sufficiently.

If not, please let me know.

Now get after that Pick 6 !

Just want to say thank you for your answer. It is gonna take me awhile to digest the info. From what you said, I really expected better effort from the 3 horse. Don't know what happened there yesterday. And I guess we won't find out about the 4 horse since it was scratched. Anyways, keep up the great work, great info in this thread. Thanks again, and I'm sure I will be back with another question soon.

And yes, I will get that Pick 6. (I hope).

[str]

Just want to say thank you for your answer. It is gonna take me awhile to digest the info. From what you said, I really expected better effort from the 3 horse. Don't know what happened there yesterday. And I guess we won't find out about the 4 horse since it was scratched. Anyways, keep up the great work, great info in this thread. Thanks again, and I'm sure I will be back with another question soon.

And yes, I will get that Pick 6. (I hope).

The 4 horse scratching seemed to make sense. It just did not look as though the conviction to that race was there. But having said that, I don't want you or any of you guys to possibly try and read too much into a horse training up to a race. This is one reason why I said a ways back that I rarely pay much if any attention to workouts as a handicapper when gauging most horses. ( There are some exceptions but not many). Understanding what is taking place is never a bad thing but if a bettor sees and understands too much of what a trainer is doing with a particular horse, the player, and I have caught myself doing this more than once, will lock in so hard on what they see on the training side of said particular horse, and lose focus on the big picture. That picture being, does the horse "turn back" to 6 1/2 well off of multiple 1 mile efforts? And in it's next race, does the horse stretch out well off of the 6 1/2? And can this horse really beat this bunch the way this race takes shape? If so, fine, make the play. Just be very sure that it is the horses ability in that spot that you play on and not the fact that you know more about a particular horse than most others.
This goes back to what I said about giving a positive if the horse seems to train up well but DON'T give a negative if it seems they do not. There are just way too many things that can alter a horse's schedule going into the race that irks the crap out of the trainer at the time but ultimately does not deter the horse from running well in the race.

I hope that makes sense.

[dirtcapper]

Quoting Bgbooth in another thread, I would like to ask are there any obvious tells about a slow pace race? I am not inclined to think it's always a lone speed setting the pace, sometimes there seems to be speed that doesn't challenge it (maybe wanting to avoid a duel). Should one be tracking the jockeys and trainers for that. Or are there maybe clues in the race conditions.

[dirtcapper]

One thing I have found is if it's a high % jockey on the lead the others may be respecting him, sometimes maybe too much, so he can set the pace unmolested. But perhaps sometimes trainers/jockeys decide to try changing the running style of a horse also.

[seanatlargo]

Is there any way to figure out how much a horse will pay before the race? whether its and hour or 5 mins..

[str]

Quoting Bgbooth in another thread, I would like to ask are there any obvious tells about a slow pace race? I am not inclined to think it's always a lone speed setting the pace, sometimes there seems to be speed that doesn't challenge it (maybe wanting to avoid a duel). Should one be tracking the jockeys and trainers for that. Or are there maybe clues in the race conditions.

Speed can be tricky. I think that you need to factor in how far the run is to the 1st turn, if indeed there are 2 turns. With multiple speeds in the race, it will always be difficult to slow down the pace when going around only one turn. Two turn races , where the run to the 1st turn is short, is the optimum choice when trying to set a slow pace. Riders do not want to chase hard AND lose ground also. Unless they are inexperienced, or just not very good, they will show patience, which allows for a slower early pace. This leads to your question about jockeys. Yes, knowing who is inside and who is outside helps quite a bit if they are certain jocks.
If for instance, a solid speed type rider is inside and the leading rider, who is very patient is outside, in most if not all cases, the inside horse will make the lead and the outside patient rider, riding with both patience AND confidence, will almost certainly wait to ease up past the 5/8ths pole so as to try and get on even terms ( into the lead horses right eye) as they go into the far turn, assuming that both horses are what we consider speed types. Reverse these two jocks and I would venture to guess that more often than not, The patient rider , now inside, will not only slow the pace somewhat, but make the outside horse work when HE wants him too, not when the outside jock wants him too. He will allow the outside horse a short head lead going into the turn, knowing full well he (inside) will come out of the turn a neck + in front. He will toy with the outside rider and frustrate the other horse , or at least he will try to.
When the jocks at major tracks hook up, that scenario might not always play out, depending on the styles of the riders but understanding that jocks at the best several tracks are across the board way more talented than at lesser venues, but at places like Monmouth Park, Delaware, Laurel, Pimlico, Colonial, and plenty more, this occurs almost daily.The still lesser tracks have this happen as well but remember, even the leading rider at an very inferior meet is only so good. I don't mean to knock those guys but without knowing who is who I can't give credit to the leading rider at Beulah without seeing them ride. Getting to know the strengths and weaknesses of jocks at the lesser tracks is a HUGE advantage in my book and I always made it a point to play to those strengths as often as possible, albeit training or betting.

So the answers to the questions in short is , Yes, the tells come from how many speeds, how close the 1st turn is, ( the closer the better for slowing down the pace) and who is on the speed horse or horses, and Yes, jocks do matter in this scenario. Race conditions ( assuming you mean Maiden, n/w 2 , etc.) should not factor in this. It's all about the entrants of each race.

[dirtcapper]

Thanks for that. As a bettor looking for value one might actually then want to favor tracks with longer distance to the turn, since the pacesetters also tend to be experienced higher percentage jockeys that would be bet down more. Somehow though it seems to me to be the rule at most tracks that closer types win at two turn races no matter what, maybe this is less common than I have assumed.

[Dark Horse]

str, just to follow up on Santa Anita's first few days of racing and monitoring the track bias. So far the track seems to favor speed. Watchmaker from drf not too impressed early on:

Judging from the first two days of the meet, the main track at Santa Anita is clearly different than what we are accustomed to. For one, it is decidedly slower. When Grade 1 horses in the Awesome Again and Zenyatta go 23 and 48 for opening fractions, and when those races are completed in times three and four seconds over the track record, you know the Santa Anita main track is very different.

That’s fine with me. A glib racing surface is not high up on my list of racing requirements. In fact, I always disliked the longstanding tradition of speeding up the track on big race days. For one, I was always offended that someone thought that I, and fellow fans and horseplayers, could be fooled into thinking that horses who produce fast times on juiced tracks were exceptional. Monarchos and his Kentucky Derby on one of the fastest tracks I have ever seen comes to mind. Here’s a (not exactly) news flash: Final time, whether it is fast or slow, means absolutely nothing unless it is viewed in the context of the relative speed of the surface that time was recorded over. So, a fast/fast surface, or a relatively slow/fast surface like the one at Santa Anita on Friday and Saturday … it doesn’t mean a thing to me because raw time without adjustment for the quickness of the surface means nothing.

But what does mean something to me is a track bias that colors the outcome of races. As a bettor, I like them for reasons that need no explanation. But as also a fan of the sport, I don’t like them, and I didn’t like the overt speed bias that prevailed on the main track at Santa Anita Saturday. Look, horses like Game On Dude and Executiveprivilege were probably going to win Saturday whether or not there was a bias, so I don’t think they should be penalized for riding the crest of the way the track was playing. I am less convinced about Love and Pride and Power Broker. But I do know that the way the track was playing, well bet closers such as Richard’s Kid, Include Me Out, Amani, and Capo Bastone had absolutely zero chance. And that’s not fair.

Here’s hoping Santa Anita fixes this problem tout suite. By Sunday’s races would be good (this is being written prior to Santa Anita’s Sunday card), but certainly before the Breeders’ Cup. They don’t have to address the relative speed of the surface, but they do have to even it out so that horses with all running styles have a fair chance. If they don’t, then this Breeders’ Cup will make news for the wrong reasons.

http://www.drf.com/blogs/thoughts-super-saturday

[str]

Is there any way to figure out how much a horse will pay before the race? whether its and hour or 5 mins..

The amount bet dictates the price at the track. Odds can change for better or for worse until the race is closed.

[str]

Thanks for that. As a bettor looking for value one might actually then want to favor tracks with longer distance to the turn, since the pacesetters also tend to be experienced higher percentage jockeys that would be bet down more. Somehow though it seems to me to be the rule at most tracks that closer types win at two turn races no matter what, maybe this is less common than I have assumed.

It really all depends on the pace and the first two splits as to front runners or closers winning in most cases as well as the track itself. I think that if you work on what I mentioned and look at it from that angle, it will hopefully help. Keep me posted.

[str]

str, just to follow up on Santa Anita's first few days of racing and monitoring the track bias. So far the track seems to favor speed. Watchmaker from drf not too impressed early on:



http://www.drf.com/blogs/thoughts-super-saturday

I agree with him. Champions should not be decided on any bias type track. Hopefully it will be at least a little bit more even on B C day.

[Dark Horse]

str, would you consider mud/slop as a 'great equalizer'? In other words, a surface that gives longshots a better shot (because there's less traction). If you say no I won't have to look at it nearly as seriously as if you say yes. lol

[str]

str, would you consider mud/slop as a 'great equalizer'? In other words, a surface that gives longshots a better shot (because there's less traction). If you say no I won't have to look at it nearly as seriously as if you say yes. lol

I'm afraid the answer is no.

It will favor certain horses that love it, favs or long shots alike, but no, it will not negate ability except to those that do not trust it. It is harder to run into , helping the speed a bit but if a closer relishes the footing, it is no problem for them.
Sorry. Lol.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks for sparing me the trouble. Still, I have to look into it some more. I don't think 24-1 Ruler On Ice would have had a shot in the 2011 Belmont without the slop, do you? Ruler On Ice has yet to win his next race (nine tries). 50-1 Mine that Bird? Never won another race after the Derby (nine tries). Wasn't that stunning ride, without loss of momentum in the stretch, mostly on Borel? I've never heard a commentator in any sport more wrong-footed than in that race. Biggest race of the year and he's talking about all the other horses except the one way ahead... Ouch. lol He's announced thousands of races, but something happened here that was so unusual that he missed it. It begs the question. Does the mud set the stage for the unusual? It's a value related question, obviously. I've ran these races through my model, with some initial clarity, but for greater clarity I need to have a better understanding of what I'm looking at. A better grasp of the concept. I'm missing something. (last year, my 'problem' was pace; it took six, at times frustrating, months to figure it out. This year it could be mud. If so, some silly questions may lie ahead).

[pacocn]

Looking for a winner in Race 6 at Santa Anita this Sunday i am
throwing 2k i won in a contest on a horse to win. Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dark Horse]

I probably was asking the wrong question, str. It's not about mud. I see now that mud can open the door to a strong bias, and a strong bias opens the door to the unusual. It was always the bias, not the mud.

[str]

Looking for a winner in Race 6 at Santa Anita this Sunday i am
throwing 2k i won in a contest on a horse to win. Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you can post the form of that race there are many in here that will help you.

[str]

I probably was asking the wrong question, str. It's not about mud. I see now that mud can open the door to a strong bias, and a strong bias opens the door to the unusual. It was always the bias, not the mud.

BINGO !!!

Mine that Bird as well as Rachel A. ( by 20 lengths) both won on the rail on a track that was as inside as it possibly could have been. Ruler On Ice was a blinker change if I recall and was 3rd all by himself outside of a good pace and got a perfect trip. (Don't remember if it was outside as well that day) Deputed Testimony won the 83 Preakness on a HUGE rail bias. Bee Bee Bee won the 72 Preakness denying Riva Ridge the triple crown because if an outrageous rail bias in the slop at Pimlico. That's the race where I started to understand about biases.
Not to say that there is always a bias if there is mud or slop , but if the track has to be graded or over graded as I spoke about a month or two ago, the bias rears it's ugly head. Heavy rains predicted on a friday or late Thursday that will stick around until Saturday , and Saturday is a big race day is the perfect recipe for a rail bias in the mud. Rail meaning ANY horse with a rail trip speed and closers. Those parked in the 3-4-5 path just don't run. But they do next time out.

[Dark Horse]

I remember you mentioned that no horse had come back to win from more than 2 or 3 lengths back all day on 2011 Belmont Stakes day. Race favorite Animal Kingdom had a poor start, then started his move, which looked powerful enough to win, but it stalled in the stretch. Ruler on Ice was second behind Shackleford (who we now know doesn't like mud) most of the way. I think the superfecta paid 78K, for a 12 horse race, so mud can turn to gold on certain days.

[str]

Yes, I was wrong with the exact facts but as you saw, Ruler got the perfect clean right eye trip all the way around and I did not remember it was so speed favoring. Obviously, especially in hind sight of races after that day, Ruler was a big beneficiary of the wet track and how it played that day.

[Dark Horse]

So the bias is about the depth of the surface, correct? Right now, at Santa Anita, there's a speed bias because horses trying to come from behind are stuck in the deep surface. But with a rail bias, after bad weather, the surface at the rail is not as deep as the rest. (Maybe not as dramatic, but same idea as a person running in the soft sand on the beach, and running where the water has made the surface hard).

Whatever they did at Santa Anita is not working. The races are decided before the stretch run. A week into the meet and nothing has changed. Wow.

[str]

So the bias is about the depth of the surface, correct? Right now, at Santa Anita, there's a speed bias because horses trying to come from behind are stuck in the deep surface. But with a rail bias, after bad weather, the surface at the rail is not as deep as the rest. (Maybe not as dramatic, but same idea as a person running in the soft sand on the beach, and running where the water has made the surface hard).

Whatever they did at Santa Anita is not working. The races are decided before the stretch run. A week into the meet and nothing has changed. Wow.

A rail vs. outside bias is created by the depth of the surface or how stable or unstable the loam (dirt) is. When this occurs, ALL horses come from the same area, like speed on the rail stays, the rail stalker runs well and the deep closer that was in the 1-2 path the majority of the time fires and runs well while the outside horses falter. The Santa Anita chart of the 2nd race on the 28th is clear evidence of this. So while it was said that SA favored speed, and it very well might have, I looked on opening day after a few races, at the charts( DRF.com PDF charts 28th 2nd race) of that race led me to believe that it was inside, not only speed which is what everyone looks at , but inside for all the horses, which would be considered a RAIL bias IMO not speed bias. There is a big difference between the two. I did not follow up and carefully read all the charts but when four 7-2 or 4-1 shots run that poorly and the inside horses at big prices do run well, it is usually a clear sign.

A speed vs. closers bias is very tricky and can be caused by a multitude of things. Typically, harder surfaces will favor speed while dry and cuppy surfaces will favor closers. So many different factors can effect a speed bias that it is real hard to pinpoint exactly what it is.
As for Santa Anita, it has long favored speed to some degree, be it a little or a lot. It seemed to be very speed ( or rail) favoring the 1st week but hopefully that will settle back to only somewhat speed favoring ,as usual, in time. In that type of scenario, speed will do very well , no matter where they are positioned on the track, like Ruler On Ice.
So if speed stays longer than it should, especially when duels stay , it is a speed bias. If the inside horses run well from all positions and all the outside trip horses falter, speed and others, it is a rail. Same works in reverse for outside bias or closers bias.
Hope that makes sense.