Something isn't right in SoCal

[madmaxx]

No, I didn't lose money here. I hit the P4, P5, didn't play the Pick6 or I would have chopped with that one ticket.

Here is my problem. In the 5th at Santa Anita yesterday, when the horse that made everything pay won, the 4 is full of run at the top of the lane but Quinonez is almost tugging on him and making it look like the horse is all in. Clearly he didn't do a good enough job because the horse loses by 1 - 1.5 if that. This is the second time in 2 weeks where I have seen a Mario Guitierrez horse wire a field where he was a big shot (47-1 last week). While last week's horse looked primed, this one looked like crap until you look at the 4-1 ML which made no sense. The 1 and 6 were almost clear singles in the last 2 races and one ticket grabs the pick6, after Quinonez's horse takes him for a ride in the 6th....I just can't figure how pure speed continues to dominate races and nothing is done about it. And how does only one ticket have that pick6? If you use 3 horses in the 5th its pretty easy.

[str]

I just looked at the charts of Santa Anita yesterday. Excluding turf races,NO horse made up more than 1 1/2 lengths too win the race, all day. No horse came from further back than 3rd too win all day.
I do not follow Cal. racing at all. The reason I never did and the reason I always discredited it when I trained was because of the ridiculous speed bias that seemingly always existed out there. So my question is, does that speed bias that was clearly visible yesterday always exist? Another question is, if it does not always exist, does it seem to exist after multiple dark days? If so, there is a reason for that and I can probably guess what it is .
Either way, it is biases like this that I talk about in terms of following not so much the winners and horses that ran well yesterday, but the closers that should have run well and did not. There will almost certainly be value in several of them when they run back, providing the circumstances warrant it.
Have to go now but I will pull up the replay later and respond to what I see.

If someone can answer the questions of mine, that will be great.

[TonyP]

the speed bias always existed after they changed racing surface back to dirt

[str]

the speed bias always existed after they changed racing surface back to dirt

Thanks Tony. That is certainly how it was before the surface changed, although not as extreme as yesterdays results.

The fact that no winning horse could not make up more than a length and a half all day is crazy.

[TonyP]

and to me they are having more breakdowns.

[str]

Just watched the replay and the jockey that lost and finished 2nd did not in my eyes do anything that I would have been angry about from the 1/4 pole home. I think that the unfairness of the track lent a big hand to the winner. I can't see how, on a fair surface the winner would have held off the 2nd horse. All things considered the 2nd horse ran better than the winner but that doesn't help your ticket. Sorry about that.

[str]

and to me they are having more breakdowns.

Really ? That was a real problem out there before they changed the first time.
They run so darn fast out there. I might call a friend of mine that trained out there and ask him about the surface. I will let you know.