Ranch right now I am keeping track of track biases and specifically looking at poor/bad or "negative" biases that I can see

I am doing almost 99% of the tracks on North America right now and have data starting from the start of this month if anyone wanted a quick sneak peek of what I do (which is probably nobody)

Recurrent troubled trips for jockeys might prove to be a sound downgrading factor.

I suspect that those in the industry are not real keen on negative information. But it might be useful in handicapping. Have you ever tracked negative information?

I am currently working on tracking jockey troubled trips. I know that a troubled trip can happen to any jockey at any time. But I am thinking that jockeys that have a lot of troubled trips may not be very good wagers. What do you think?

Started as The Dinner Party Stakes in 1870. Winner THERE was Preakness owned by
Milton Sanford. The colt was named after his farms in Kentucky and New Jersey. Preakness is derived from the language of the Minisi Indian Nation of New Jersey: in thier language , "pra-qua-les" means "quality woods."

Older than the K Derby but it has not run continuously. Run at three different tracks (two in New York) it has been run at 7 distances from 1 mile to a mile 3/4.

Of note, and interesting running in 1947 became of undoing of a then, famous radio sports announcer, Clem McCarthy, as he wrongly called the winner on LIVE coast to coast radio. He was unable to get back up into his regular spot and had to call the race low in the grandstand, where the field, from his point of view, disappeared behind infield garandstand seats.He assumed the colt leading before they went behind it was the same coming out the other side. It was not: Fautless was the winner over On Trust and the good one Phalanx.

in 1890, the race was open to 3 year olds and up. A 5 y/o Montague won that version as the only mature horse winner of the race.

Slowest Preakenss? CITATION (1948) 2:02 2/5 over a heavy track.

Only a single DQ (should have been two others: Codex and Sunday Silence) and that was Dancer's Image who ran 3rd but was DQ'd

Track is speedier than the other two legs of the Triple Crown and the shortest distance of the three

I believe a players style hinges on their personality. Some are grinders and others are splash players going for the big score. And then there are those in between. I don't believe people can play for any length of time opposite of their personality.

As promised in the thread on past performances, here we can discuss handicapping with minimal to no use of past performances.

Of course, you will need software that offers data compiled from the past performance lines or other sources.

This is how I quick handicap non-maiden races with minimal to no use of past performances. I use numbers such that I do not need to refer to the past performances for quick handicapping (typically no more than 5-7 minutes). Maiden races can be done this way, but there's a lot of unknowns in maiden races that make them more risky unless you have a lot of experience navigating them (or a good coach).

1) Check the odds line. If your software does not have its own odds line, use the track morning line. A lot of winners will usually come from the top three horses. So, I keep those in mind.

2) Find the "best horses". My opinion -- the best horses have the best speed ratings. I prefer composite speed ratings, derived from more than one race. I have the highest confidence when I am looking at a lot of different views of speed. Again, many races will be won by the top three horses, so I keep those in mind. I think this is where a lot of people stop, but many races are won by other than the best horse. This is where I get going.

3) Form cycle. This is not really a quick handicapping technique, but if I find something disturbing about the form cycle or the days away from racing, I may take a fast look outside my normal steps to see workouts and possibly other factors.

4) Chaos or pace bias. Next, I look at the race as a whole. How fast should it go and can the field carry the pace that they are likely to start with? Not many races go to chaos, but when they do, the front pace falls apart and I have to look for closers. Some of the closers will pay really big, really big. Chaos usually requires more than 6 horses to set up the fast pace. Keep in mind that horses that are deep closers often do not have good speed ratings, so in chaos races I don't shy away from horses that have recently shown a closing tendency even if their speed ratings are not top notch.

5) Pace. This is very important for me. Which horses conform to the overall pace scenario found in step 4? Normally, to win a horse needs to be either very good on the front end or very good as a closer. Mediocre horses seldom win. As with speed, I like to look at pace from as many perspectives as I can. I generally prefer a horse that can be near the front end but can keep running, but it depends on what I found in step 4.

6) Look for vulnerable low odds horses. This is the MOST important step. If I can toss a low odds horse, then my chances of picking a decent priced winner go up dramatically.

7) Decision time. This is the art of handicapping. I have to recognize the over-riding factors. When I have too much doubt, I have to go back to the "best horses" and the odds line favorites for influence. It really takes experience to get it down to a limited number of horses with a high level of confidence. I don't pay much attention to odds. If I think the odds may be really low, I look for an exotic play. But this process seems to work best with win selections.

I have tried to keep these explanations as generic as possible. Most software packages that do a lot of calculations should be at least somewhat successful using steps similar to mine.

I watched Dave handicap in his Derby video... he does things differently from me, but he uses data from HSH to quick handicap and he did quite well while I was watching. I'd guesstimate that it was taking him about 3 to 5 minutes a race. It took a little longer for him to add comments for the viewers.

Dave recently helped me to see the need for a standard process. Before, I was just jumping in SOMEWHERE and jumping out SOMEWHERE and trying to decide SOMETHING. Since I've gone to this process, my selections have been much better. And, it seems to do just fine on the smaller tracks such as TDN and FL. Because I don't have access to an ADW in Texas, I don't wager very often. So, I don't have much in the way of hard wagering numbers YET, so no need to ask.

Feel free to ask questions.

I just ran across this quote:

The distance between your dreams and reality is called action.

Hope this is not seen as hijacking the thread, but I think it fits here.

TO OWN YOUR HANDICAPPING DAY...
You must win the battle of the of The Low Odds Horses.
To win the battle of the low-odds horses, you must own the bet-against favorites.
Your BA routine matters more for your success than almost anything else.

If you don't get this right, you're sabotaging yourself before you even start.

That's why I've spent years researching what causes a low-odds horse to lose money.

Over the last 5 years, I've watched the whales dominate the game more and more. So much so that their wagers (and the resulting odds shifts) have destroyed the paradigm that handicappers have used for decades: Create a line and bet into the tote board.

Initially, I was able to find one horse every three races that were bet against. (BAs as I call them.) Those horses for years returned $0.89 for every $2 wagered - a loss of 55 cents per wagered dollar. Now, I've expanded it to over 50% of all races, but they lose a little less: about 40%.

Imagine what happens when you can identify a big-time losing proposition that is backed by 30% to 70% of the pool. It's called POOL RECOVERY.

Effectively, backers of the BA horse are paying your takeout!

I know that many players MISTAKENLY BELIEVE they can accomplish this by simply tossing all the low-odds horses. Since they are tossing them all, they've gained nothing. The fact is that the horses they are tossing out are actually the best bets at the race track because they lose less than the higher odds horses.

If you've feeling stuck in your handicapping...
And you KNOW that there's another level you could reach.
A level where you are actually WINNING and handicapping in LESS time.
You're right.

The only thing standing between you and your handicapping goals are the systems and routines you're using right now.

I'll close with this...
You cannot win in The Whale Era with handicapping strategies from the 1990s.

___________________________
#BetAgainst #BA #PoolRecovery #BALO

I think the majority of missing pieces out there for handicapping data involve the actual betting. There's tons and tons of data on PICKING contenders but not all that much on BETTING contenders.

If I could magically tell you the winner of a single race with 100% sureness and give you $100, how do you bet it?

There's win, you can top an exacta or tri to all, you can double to all on either side, etc. I wonder how many handicappers actually possess the skill (or will) to actually analyze what the right decision is given this scenario.

I couldn't even count the number of times I've heard people comment (especially myself included) that they had the horse...but they just didn't bet it right.

There are some outstanding thoughts being exchanged here! Now this is what a handicapping forum is all about.
I agree 100% that we have to be 'different' from the whales to uncover opportunities that they may miss. They play a highly sophisticated game that overcomes the take. And they are assisted by tools like batch wagering that most of us can't afford access to. So how do we compete?

• Here are some ideas:
• Make your game more artsy. Avoid commonly used paceline selection methods like 2 best of last 3. Instead, don't be afraid to select multiple pacelines, weigh them differently and perhaps factor in subtle changes to them.
• Always project improvement or decline in a horses form. I'm not recommending wild swings but something different than the last performance.
• Build and maintain something exclusive to yourself. Perhaps notes about prior races that are not widely available. Not just about the slow start that everyone else saw but maybe the pack position a runner found themselves in that is different than normal.
• Focus on a few venues and become expects there. You will find nuggets of data that are not available to the general public.

Any feedback is appreciated

I remember the old betting windows specifically assigned an amount and placing. If I wanted to bet WPS, I had to go to three different windows, unless the WPS window was open, usually only one weekends.

i had a buddy who I knew didn't have much money, but he would bet $100 to win. That's probably several times that in today's dollars. So, I asked him... why so much?

So, he said, well I figured out... if I have money, i have women. If i have women, I have no money. So, the money is going away one way or the other. i might as well try to win enough to try to keep a woman just a little bit longer. — RanchWest

Reminds me of the old guy who said "I spent 95% of the money I made on liquor and women. The other 5% I wasted!"

I think that the most under utilized thing is our own minds, our imagination. We can often become lost in the data and miss opportunities that arise in the roughly 30% of races that lie "outside the numbers. "
Imagining alternative possible scenarios can be productive. Looking backward, I would guess that roughly 10% of all races would have been unhittable because the races were unplayable or the winners won only because of unpredictable events occurring during their running.That leaves 20% of winners at good odds that might have been playable given an alternative perspective to the data alone. We look at a 20% win percentage as very good for a horse,jockey or trainer so why would we want to omit this group from consideration?
One simple ,practical demonstration of what I mean is to quickly handicap a race BEFORE considering the data . Ignore the speed and pace figures and focus on the running lines and the human connections and "imagine" a scenario in which each horse could win. THEN consult the data and compare results. Often they'll be similar but sometimes you'll find a nice overlay that just doesn't "seem to fit the numbers profile". Perhaps what I'm getting at, is the need to think about the race in addition to "calculating " it. Therein may lie that "something new to discover". — William Zayonce

What is your definition of good price?
74% of races are won by the top 3 tote horses.


You said:
"One simple ,practical demonstration of what I mean is to quickly handicap a race BEFORE considering the data"
What are you using to handicap if not data?
I understand that you mean you are not looking at hard factors. but you are still using --- for lack of a better phrase --- SOFT DATA.

That is, the things you know/believe to be true.
Not questioning nor criticizing your beliefs, here. Just saying that if you consider internal questions/thoughts:
Such as

• Good race at the distance
• Recently claimed
• Top/Good Jockey
• Top/Good Trainer
• 2nd race after layoff
• Ranks in the top 3 for ______
• Running Style E
• Fits the profile

These are all DATA.

Respectfully, the fact that you don't see them in columns doesn't change what they are.

Do you disagree?

what I mean is to quickly handicap a race BEFORE considering the data — William Zayonce

My view is pretty much opposite. I think most races can be solved from the data. Sometimes the data is not saying what most people think.

Is there anything new to discover?

I think there’s still a lot as to what is prioritized and what is used together. There’s also a lot that is under-utilized.

I think that the most under utilized thing is our own minds, our imagination. We can often become lost in the data and miss opportunities that arise in the roughly 30% of races that lie "outside the numbers. "
Imagining alternative possible scenarios can be productive. Looking backward, I would guess that roughly 10% of all races would have been unhittable because the races were unplayable or the winners won only because of unpredictable events occurring during their running.That leaves 20% of winners at good odds that might have been playable given an alternative perspective to the data alone. We look at a 20% win percentage as very good for a horse,jockey or trainer so why would we want to omit this group from consideration?
One simple ,practical demonstration of what I mean is to quickly handicap a race BEFORE considering the data . Ignore the speed and pace figures and focus on the running lines and the human connections and "imagine" a scenario in which each horse could win. THEN consult the data and compare results. Often they'll be similar but sometimes you'll find a nice overlay that just doesn't "seem to fit the numbers profile". Perhaps what I'm getting at, is the need to think about the race in addition to "calculating " it. Therein may lie that "something new to discover".

I was doing some spring cleaning yesterday and found this old horse racing system which not sure if the system itself is old or just how the paper looked crushed on boxes but here is what it is (note not 100% sure but this could be a Rpm system or system mill company system)

This method applies to races for three-year-olds in the last half of the year, And to races for three-year-olds and up, for grass or non-grass surfaces. Maiden races are OK except for two-year-old races.

Pace Calculation:
Pick a running line for the best speed (any speed figure, Beyer, DRF, Bris, etc.) closest to today’s race distance. The race chosen must be within the last calendar year. Total the pace values for three calls depending on the distance of the race:
Sprints: quarter-mile call and the half-mile call.
Routes: quarter-mile call, the half-mile call, and ¾ mile call.

Normalize the pace values (For instance, 22 seconds at the 1/4 mile call equals 20.) 43 seconds at 4 furlongs equals 40, and 68 seconds at 6 furlongs equals 60 Because smaller values indicate a faster pace, the total the pace values must be subtracted from a fixed number to give the proper indication of a quicker pace. So, subtract the total pace values as follows:
For sprints, Total Pace = 300 minus sprint pace values.
For routes, Total Pace = 400 minus route pace values.
**Or, use the FIGS equation to calculate the values at each call. See **Note below for the FIGS equation. FIGS Pace = Total of values at each call.

Speed:
Calculate Final Speed using the FIGS Equation or the Bris speed figure: the Figs value is the best. But if you do not want to go with the FIGS Equation – the Bris or DRF Speed Figures is close enough to produce still good results.

Calculate the Class Figure for each horse as follows:
Use the year’s total money won divided by the year’s finish positions as follows:
Class, $ = [(Total Money Won) / (0.6 x no. of wins + 0.2x no. of places + 0.1 x no. of shows + 0.05 no. of fourths+ 0.02 x no. of fifths )]/100.
To make this easier, you can multiply by whole numbers.
Multiply the # of wins by 6, places by 2, shows by 1, 4ths by .05 and 5ths by .02. So if a horse had 6 wins x 6 = 36, and 6 places x 2 = 16, and 4 shows x 1 = 4, and 2 4ths x .05 = 2 and 2 5ths x .02 would equal .04 so total for horse would be 58.4.

Consistency
[(No. of wins + No. of places) / (No. of races)] x100. Use the values from the current year no matter the number of races.
To get your Total Rating = Sum of [Pace + Speed + Class+ Consistency] The horse with the highest total is the projected winner. Now, if you want to use the FIGS speed # as opposed to the Bris or DRF, proceed as follows:

**Note: Figs Equation: (Total of FIGS values could be a
selection method on its own.)

FIGS Equation:
Speed Rating = [(furlongs of race x 60 Lengths per furlong –
(Lengths behind winner))/Time of race, seconds) + [(0.07 xfurlongs) – 4.92] / 0.008
Example for a six furlong race where the horse finished two lengths behind the winner:
Speed Rating = [(6 x 60 -2)/72] + [0.07 x 6.0 – 4.92] / 0.008]= [358]/72] + [0.42 – 4.92] / 0.008 = [4.972 –
4.5]/0.008 = 0.472/0.008 = 59.00
This is a more precise speed rating, but up to you if you want to go thru the calculations.

Not sure if anyone understands it fully but I just don't get the Pace calculation

It doesn't matter how you did it. A gazillion people bet that race and very few had the winner obviously. If you walked up to the window and cashed a ticket on that race then Kudos to you. Doesn't matter if you got a tip from a drunk horse walker or you got a tip from Mr. Ed cashing a ticket is what counts in this game. And for those of you too young to get the reference, Mr. Ed was a talking horse on tv in the 60's I believe.

Is there anything new to discover?

I think there’s still a lot as to what is prioritized and what is used together. There’s also a lot that is under-utilized.

Also, I find that data such as pace can easily be misinterpreted if you don’t turn it every which way but loose.

I've been involved in Handicapping for about 30 to 40 years. I have written numerous handicapping software for myself and others. There is just so much data available, (meaning a limited amount) to actually work with, that it begs the question.... Is there anything new to discover?

Handicapping is a mature industry as they say, and has been turned inside and out by hundreds if not thousands of handicappers. All looking to gain that edge needed to beat the game. So, is there anything new that we are over looking or have not discovered as of yet? Or is it a fools errand to believe that there is something undiscovered?

The optimist in me hopes not, but the pragmatic part of me thinks it might just be a fools errand. Given everything I have said, if my eyesight continues to respond to treatment and improves, I will be back at the keyboard chasing the Holy Grail again.

The PP Generator can merge the works, sample below. I really hate the way they interupt the running lines with the claimed from comments. Grrrrrrrr!

Back before TFUS, CJ sold his figures to a group and one of the great things was he had a way to replace some data in the $1 files with his pace and speed figs so we could have the PPs with his numbers.

I'm too set in my ways to stray too far from the basic format. I've been using them since Dr Fager.
What I do like is the options and filters Bris Custom Generator offers. Similar to the method Michael Pizzola outlined in Handicapping Magic I use the filter to see only the races within 1 furlong of today's distance and on the same surface, set to show only races where the horse was w/in 2 lengths at the first two calls, evaluate the early pace scenario from there. I make a composite EP and SR, similar to a Qurinn pace/speed figure.

The next step I do is remove the early pace filter and view all the appropriate lines and see what closers can overcome the projected pace.

Tomorrow's 2nd at Belmont is attached in two files, the first pass and the second pass, for examples.
I found a dominant pace horse, the #1, who's 105/84 should put away all the other front runners with the exception of the $6, who cuts back off a very fast route pace. In the second pass, the #2 comes into the picture as a closer who has already won against the projected pace.

I construct my PP’s by importing data from Access to Excel — Jack Price

Well done, Jack!

I use Harbour to read BRIS data (Multicaps) into a dBase file, then use Harbour to write to an HTML file because I like the versatility of the output, though it is very labor intensive to write the code. I do end up with my key handicapping factors in one section. I can "quick handicap" entirely from there, but I have many sections that I can reference from a drop-down menu in case there's something I want to do a deep dive on. The downside is that it is not easy to hide or scratch horses, though I can accomplish it in a little bit of a cumbersome way. Right now the quick capping section is displayed in odds line sequence, but I am working on making each column sortable.

The connections of Rich Strike have announced that they will skip the Preakness and point to the Belmont. Seems like a good decision for the horse.

Another baseball quote I like is from Stan Musial. When asked his secret to being a great hitter, he replied, "Wait for your pitch and swing hard." — RanchWest

It is amazing how when folks integrate discipline into their handicapping, how the tides change for the better!

Love this quote!

Ranch- thank you for sharing your experience. I have had a similar relationship with Dave for 30 years. He's sharp and always willing to help and share. I have a feeling that 30 years from now I'll be saying the same things about you!!

By the way, I had at least 5 horses run 2nd. So, that's at least 16 of 21 in 1st or second. All from just a consistent, simple structure of process. The process is what I was lacking. Makes a huge difference. I had been just starting SOMEWHERE and ending SOMEWHERE. I can tell you, that doesn't work... at least it definitely doesn't for me.

Dave, in my experience most trainers provide riding instructions to jocks. Sometimes owners even enter the conversation. For the most part jocks do what they can to follow the instructions but when gate opens the best laid plans often get derailed.
In the mid 1980's I was part of a paddock conversation between jockey Rudy Aviles (high percentage jock) and a 25% plus trainer whom I'll leave unnamed. The trainer got a little carried away and gave what felt like was 5 minutes of instructions. After listening to the instructions Rudy looked at the trainer and said, Steve you train 'em and I'll ride them. The trainer was speechless. Needlesstosay Rudy steered his mount home 5 in front. I don't believe I ever heard this trainer provide instructions again.

I do not represent any jockeys today. I would definitely consider it if I spotted the right rider. It actually is a nice compliment to wagering. In fact I have been pursuing a young apprentice rider currently taking calls at Indiana Grand. I watched her work horses at GP when she was just starting to ride. This young lady has the tools to enjoy a prosperous apprentice year. Her name is Gage Holmes, keep an eye on her. She's currently won 3 out of 45 races but she's been riding longshots for the most part. I expect her to have a big year.

If I may, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion and say when selecting a single representative paceline to predict today's outcome, This may give you the runner's "ability level"...but would seem to ignore the condition and form cycle pattern of the runner when that particular representative paceline was earned...which could have no relationship to the current condition and form cycle pattern...which greatly affects today's "ability level." Thanks guys. — Dustin Korth

Absolutely right!
"How good is the horse?" and "Is the horse in form?" are certainly two different questions.

The other day, I posted this as a reply in the Live & Breath Handicapping Facebook group when someone was looking for ways to figure out a complicated race conditions. I suggested this.



Here's a screenshot I just took of a concept I built back in 2001.
The yellow box represents the last 10 races for each horse.
_________
G=Won on today's surface, at today's approximate distance, at today's class or higher.
(Losing by a neck or less counts as a win.)
_________
B=Lost today's surface, at today's approximate distance, at today's class or lower.
_________
The Dots are races at the wrong surface, wrong distance, too high a class, or off-track.
IOW, the horse had a valid excuse.
_________
As you can see, very few horses actually are entered in a race where they actually fit.
BTW, the LINE column indicates the horse's odds in the most recent race where they got a G.
The theory is that if the horse won at what he's trying to do today, then he should be an overlay at that price or higher.

Of course, this worked out.

I write handicapping stuff, right? LOL
_________

.but would seem to ignore the condition and form cycle pattern of the runner — Dustin Korth

Good point, Dustin. I think this is where the art of handicapping comes into play. I think one thing that helps is to look at recent composite speed ratings and compare those to the pace line speed rating. it's also good to note the points at which the horse was claimed. And, which race off the last layoff. Lots of stuff available to make me look foolish. lol

If I may, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion and say when selecting a single representative paceline to predict today's outcome, This may give you the runner's "ability level"...but would seem to ignore the condition and form cycle pattern of the runner when that particular representative paceline was earned...which could have no relationship to the current condition and form cycle pattern...which greatly affects today's "ability level." Thanks guys.

At NYRA tracks, jockey is a big part of my pace evaluation.
Too many riders refuse to use a horse's speed and some of them are big names,
When evaluating early horses, I have to take that into account.

A stat I look at is the riders's record by running style.

Was scrolling around YT last night and I came across this video called "ANDY SERLING Horse Racing Handicapping Tutorial" so I watched it and thought it was a very good video showing how Andy breaks down a race/horses and what tools he uses etc

There is another video on there about interviewing Jessica Paquette who is the Handicapper/Paddock Horst for Colonial Downs Racetrack which she also did which I found to also be a great video

The next interviews are going to be from Steve Byk and CJ who is with TimformUS so looking forward to that!

Just thought others might want to look at these videos so they are below!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXra3D_BPOM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDHU94ZDMw

Andy's screenshots:

What's winning at TAM so far in 2022

What's winning at OPX so far in 2022.

What's winning at GPX so far in 2022. Includes maidens, dirt, turf, sprints and routes.

For anyone who doesn't know me, I'm a long-time HSH user and go all the way back to the ThoroBrain Days.

I asked Dave for permission to share the paceline system he taught me back in the early 1990s.

About the Paceline System
HSH has a built in Paceline system. It is completely programmable by the user and amazingly simple once you get the hang of it.

This system is exactly what Dave showed me years ago and it looks for pacelines in order until it has found what it is looking for.
Step 1: The Tight Finish
Quit looking if you get once race.

• A race like today where the horse finished inside of 1 length of the winner.
• "Like today" means:
• similar surface ( Dirt or Turf, treat Poly as dirt)
• similar distance (sprint or route) and within 1/2 fur of today

Sort by:

• most recent
• closest distance
• fastest final time

If the winner won by more than 0.99 lengths then this is not a tight finish.

The theory is that a race like this shows exactly how good a horse really is. If he was any better, then he'd have either won the race or would have won by more.

Step 2: Same as Step 1 but widen the distance to 1fur. instead of .5fur.

Step 3: Same as Step 2 but include all distances from 5f to 9f

Step 4: Same as Step 3 but widen the lengths ahead/behind to 2.00

It continues outward from there out to step 8, widening with each step.
Beyond step 3 you always select 2 pacelines.

Ranch- seriously well thought out group of questions. Thank you!! Here are a few thoughts from my perspective.

But in studies of topics other than bias, we usually talk in terms of a very minimum of 30 wins before we consider there to be any trend. So, why do we look at such a small sample of bias when that is contrary to our normal habits?
By definition, bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against something. I suppose that if a bias held up over a larger sample size it would become the norm and lose much of the value it may offer. That being said, I view horse racing as a cyclical game and I'm always looking for 'short term' trends that may offer value. For me a handful of races may be more than enough.
I utilize a similar mindset when betting 'hot' trainers. I'm looking for trainers that win 2 or 3 of their last 4 or 5 races, not 12 of their last 30. My belief is that value is more prevalent in short term trends

And, do you take into consideration track circumference and/or the run-up to the (first or only) turn?

What about turf racing? Many people point to a bias against the outside horses. Is that because they are running on grass? Or is it because turf courses have tighter turns? And, do you adjust for odd configurations, such as the downhill races at Santa Anita? What about the "half turns" and chutes configurations?

In racing literature and messaging, bias is a common topic.

Bias is usually focused on a few winning efforts over a few days or even a few races.

But in studies of topics other than bias, we usually talk in terms of a very minimum of 30 wins before we consider there to be any trend. So, why do we look at such a small sample of bias when that is contrary to our normal habits?

Now, certainly, inside horses run a shorter distance than outside horses, so there is going to always be an advantage to the inside. Just look at the starting positions of human sprinters... starts are staggered to avoid lane advantage. Does the positional bias in horse racing shift?

And, studies clearly do show that front runners win more often than closers.

In winter, there is an explanation for the combination of inside and early speed bias. The horse that gets the early lead can take a firm inside ground for a shorter distance and pelt the trailing horses with ice and other solid particles that sting (the jockeys and probably the horses, too) in the cold weather. So, there is that.

Do you trust an inside/outside bias or an early/late speed bias off of a small sample? Or is it really mostly based on the random chance of which horses are in assigned positions (gates) in the races? What do you think? How much of your handicapping relies on bias?

RanchWest,

You really come up with some interesting topics for discussion. Thanks!

As with anything, you might want to take some of Benter's claims with a grain of salt.

But, we must be aware that there are whales. They do homework. On computers. The days of the four dots on a program method you learned in 1980 are probably just a fantasy world today. You have to ferret out value differently from the whales unless you have the resources to cover your bases 90 ways from Sunday.

Do whales drive down prices? Certainly! But are there good overlays every day? Yes, there are. This is one of the reasons I look forward to diving into Dave's Percentages and Probabilities. I anticipate that there's a lot of good info in there. Stuff that leads you to the fact that finding perfect horses is a path to disaster. But, which warts can you live with and which ones are disaster? That's what I am seeking.

https://youtu.be/YOVrZrJ-wtc