|
|
HANDICAPPING FEATURE OCTOBER 18, 2007 Monmouth in the autumn...and some thoughts on bias! by Steve Zacks Many tracks play differently at various times of the year. How Monmouth will play at the end of October is a question on the minds of most horseplayers as they look forward to the four-day mini-meet that features the inaugural two-day Breeders' Cup program. The effects of cooler temperatures, wind, rain and tides on the running of the races in the autumn are mostly unknown. Will the summer profiles hold or will there be a new reality? Until at least several races have been run, that will remain a well-kept secret. Before turning to a discussion of Monmouth next week, let's take a look at track bias from other perspectives. Defining a True Track Bias Basic approaches to track bias range from finding a bias for virtually every racing day to the belief that they rarely exist. How you approach track bias will affect the way you approach handicapping and record keeping. When Andy Beyer and Steve Davidowitz brought the idea of track bias to the handicapping foreground several years ago, it merely put a name and a face on what many successful players then knew and incorporated into their play. Years ago, track surfaces and track maintenance procedures were a lot different than they are today; more dirt, more clay and less sand made tracks a lot more susceptible to the influences of prolonged and severe weather patterns. There were days back then when it appeared that the track surface itself was the sole determining factor in the outcome of a series of races, many or most of which defied any other rational explanation. These were infrequent and often short-lived at most tracks, but they could be pronounced and profitable if you were able to pick up on them quickly. In more recent times, without even including the artificial surfaces, major progress has been made in the care and upkeep of the reconstituted dirt surfaces. The occurrence of these dominating types of track biases has become rare. Strong winds blowing in one direction can influence the shape of the day's races too and have a similar effect to a strong bias, though they may show up more as favoring one running style than a path on the race track. To me, a bias only exists when there is a series of implausible results sharing common factors and defying any other rational explanation. There can be a variety of explanations for many other results beyond the influence of the track surface. Another handicapping approach might have preferred the winner; the lower the odds, the more likely that is the case. There are usually two common threads to a series of improbable results caused by the racing surface: the winners are either on one part of the track or share a similar running style. The winners show speed and/or stay inside or take back and circle their fields from the back. The winners pay off in high-double or even triple digits. This occurs for the simple reason that unless what is happening on the race track is picked up, finding many of the winners by most conventional means is not likely. After all, few of them make sense! When the logical horses (use the odds as a guide) win in these situations, they usually fit the current bias profile. To place things in better context, the prevailing bias for North American dirt racing is early speed and saving ground. This varies from track to track depending upon configuration of the turns and the degree of banking. It is only logical that the inside is better, for a horse covers less ground when he is on the inside. Being forwardly placed avoids kickback and trip troubles as well as ground loss. Remember that cheaper horses are less inclined to pass others and there are a plethora of races for cheaper horses these days. And once it is a given that horses closer to the front win more races, owners, trainers and riders who want to win all adjust their tactics, reinforcing the normal tendency of North American dirt racing. Human beings, other than the maintenance crews, can and do influence track biases. Detecting the Onset and Conclusion of a True Track Bias The following are two examples of controlling biases. Going through the process might be instructive for the future. You have to pick up on sometimes subtle changes and act in a bold fashion against conventional logic to benefit. The first occurred following a period of rain; the inside of the track became a virtual paved highway. Only if you picked up on the changing circumstances would you have been able to find many of these winners. The sequence of six races came over a two-day period, when the race track itself held the key to winner selection. In the 3RD and 4TH races on day one, two out-of-form speed horses were able to make the lead on the inside path and to hold off all but the more favored winners to finish second. One such occurrence would have little meaning but two in succession could signal something is up, perhaps with the racing surface itself. When the 5TH race was won by a faint-hearted long shot with tactical speed starting inside, something was up. He came from a low-profile stable and paid $28; one could have suspected a bias was in play. In the 6TH, a speedster on the inside fit the profile of a hanging chandelier; it would take a lot of courage to bet this one unless you suspected that there would be some help from the racing surface as he did not figure to last without it. He dominated the race from the get-go, uncharacteristically widening in the stretch and returned $22 plus. The 7TH featured a stretching-out sprinter that could not last going five furlongs. This filly went wire-to-wire, again widening throughout the running to pay $13 and change going two turns. In the finale of the first day, the winner figured to be the pacesetter; he too came from a low-key outfit and also had trouble carrying his speed. Get the picture? If you did you might have cashed a spectacular overlay. He used his speed to make the lead but did not stop as usual; he returned $100+. The big question was what to do about the next day's races. You never know what will happen overnight, even if you know the track maintenance schedule. In the 1ST, there was another unlikely long shot, which fit the previous day's inside speed bias; he was sent out by a no-win trainer, with a no-win rider. A cautious play would be in order if the price was generous. If your handicapping pointed to another prospect, a saver bet would make sense …just in case. They rode the bias to just last, returning $99. A keen observer would have noticed a change taking place (which might be expected overnight). Several of the outside horses ran better than outside horses did the day before. In the 2ND race, a filly that combined logical handicapping strengths along with the bias-favoring factors of early speed with an inside draw just held on to win in a race she likely would have won by many had it been run the previous day with the strong bias. Just as the strong performances of the place horses in the early races had pointed to the possibility of a bias the day before, so too did the horses that ran second and third the next day point to pending change; the tight winning margins also indicated that the inside and speed bias was not as strong and pointed to a possible change in the surface on day two. Thereafter, no speed or inside runner was able to win for the rest of that day, which was the norm for the track. The second example came during a period of extended rain; track conditions necessitated a shortening of all sprint races to five furlongs. From watching the early races it became apparent that the speed and the inside horses were struggling; deep closers running out on the crown of the track were running much better. Identifying the closers is often difficult. (BRIS users can get help from The Summary in Ultimate Past Performances; late runners become easier to identify using the list of running styles as well as the Early and Late Pace figures. Along with the track bias stats for both the short and longer run, you can quickly pick up on whether the track is playing as usual or trending away from the norm.) In a race that was cut back from seven to five furlongs, a late-running router with a good race at seven-eighths was drawn outside and was ridden by the top rider. He was a tough play in this short a sprint under any circumstances even if there was help form the racing surface! He moved widest on the turn and romped by five returning $22. Just because you detect what you think is a bias, it doesn't mean that you will be able to find a horse that fits the profile -- and you can lose a lot trying to make horses fit! These are two examples of short cycles where a strong track bias controlled the outcome of the races. Logical handicapping would have pointed to few if any of these winners. Most of the winners could be detected only by identifying otherwise illogical runners that fit what was seen as a controlling track bias. The evidence of a bias takes on added significance when placed in context of the norm. The prevailing tendency at this and many tracks is for horses attending the pace outside to win more than their fair share of races. The norm also suggested there should be considerable movement (position changes and lengths gained and lost) during the running of each race. Each of these short sequences of consecutive events indicated an aberration from the norm. You had to pick up on the aberration early and be bold enough to back seemingly illogical runners based on your observations. Today many players are involved in the serial wagers and are trying to pick up on something that will help them focus on running styles two or four races later. The absence or overabundance of positional changes and/or gains in lengths (from what is usual) can be a clue to the onset or disappearance of change. Speed horses widening in the stretch more than the race suggests can signal a bias; closers doing better either inside or outside can be another signal. Win bettors go from race to race and need use only the latest information. Combining the odds and your expectations of how horses should run can help to clue you in to a change in the running surface. Several high-priced horses around the money can signal something abnormal, especially if they share a common path or running style. One thing is for sure, if you think you spot something be ready to pounce on it quickly. It may not last long, nor will the betting edge if it is real. Testing a Bias: The Breeders' Cup 2006 in Retrospect One of the best ways to test the truth of a supposed bias is to see how the runners came back to perform in subsequent outings. If there was a strong bias in existence, many of the performers would be expected to underperform in their next several starts. However, if they for the most part come back to perform at a similar level in like situations, the true validity of the bias can be called into question. In the above examples, only one of the seven winners were able to win back in any of their next three starts! The prevailing opinion of last year's Breeders' Cup dirt races at Churchill was that there was a strong inside bias which severely influenced the outcome of the races. I approach the selection process differently from most players, focusing more on the future than on the past. I subscribed to a different opinion about the strength of the bias then, and the subsequent evidence supports that opinion. This is not to say that the inside was not beneficial, but rather to say that it usually is, and its contribution provides only a partial and perhaps minimal explanation of the results. DREAMING OF ANNA (Rahy) (5-2) was three-for-three going into the Juvenile Fillies (G1), defeating the boys on one occasion. She was also going turf to dirt and had demonstrated competitive tactical and tractable early speed numbers as well as the best Late Pace numbers. She wired the field as the betting favorite for top Chicago connections, which made her absolutely no surprise. Octave (Unbridled's Song), the runner-up, demonstrated before the race the tendency to settle for second and has recorded four second in seven starts as a three-year-old. Dreaming of Anna's victory race was no fluke due to simply being inside. STREET SENSE (Street Cry [Ire]) (15-1) owned only one win from four starts before last year's Juvenile (G1). He entered the race off a pair of close thirds in Grade 1 and 3 events and had demonstrated his late run with a bid-and-hang move in his final prep on Polytrack -- a surface over which he does not do his best running. Street Sense worked a strong five furlongs nine days out and an easy four in the slop two days out. He was being pointed to this race all along. We now know from his subsequent performances this year that his trainer is a master at bringing his horse up to a race and using Grade 1 stakes as preps. With his devastating late run, he repeated in this year's Kentucky Derby (G1) at Churchill Downs. His Juvenile effort might have been forthcoming under any circumstances, from any post or over any part of the track. But his rider, Calvin Borel, knows that the rail is the shortest way home. In retrospect, why was this trip or result any surprise? Maybe the best-prepared, best horse was misjudged by the public and simply won the race with the best trip. THOR'S ECHO (Swiss Yodeler) (15-1) came back to win the Frank J. De Francis Memorial Dash S. (G1) in search of his Eclipse Award. While he was drawn inside in the Sprint (G1), he did most of his running on the three-path on the turn and into the stretch. While not exactly a win machine, Thor's Echo had always been close and competitive in his previous five starts in 2006, but he seldom had the benefit of a contested pace while running well -- something he figured to get on Breeders' Cup Day. The winning margin of four lengths indicates that he was a superior horse on that afternoon, and he probably would've won from another post. There were a lot of questions about the four runners who were bet down to below 10-1. Henny Hughes, a suspect favorite in this pace mix, was reasonably drawn (post #4) but saw his chances compromised with a stumble at the gate and then a tough trip. Thor's Echo's jockey, Corey Nakatani, had ridden another supposed inside bias to victory in the Sprint at Woodbine in 1996; why would he not take the inside trip last fall when he had the opportunity to take the shortest route home aboard Thor's Echo. ROUND POND (14-1) had to work her way through traffic to get to the front and widened as much the best in a trouble-marred race. Students of jockey riding profiles would have known that Edgar Prado always does his best both to save ground and save horse, both of which he did here. Students of trainers and preparation can make the case that the physically challenged and lightly-raced filly was being pointed to this event and a pair five-furlong works, going in :59 in the most recent (the best work on her recent tab), sent a strong signal of a forthcoming big effort. The Grade 1 winner wasn't the fastest (from a Speed rating perspective) going in, but she was six-for-10 entering the race and had competed against in top company in most of her starts. She certainly deserved at least as much attention as she got. Would she have won in a trouble-free race? No one can say for sure. In her case, Round Pond tried to return to the races but was retired shortly thereafter. INVASOR (Arg) (6-1), who broke from post 11, was simply the best horse. He overcame his usual less-than-perfect start and never was that close to the inside. He reaffirmed his quality in winning his final two career starts, the Donn H. (G1) and the Dubai World Cup (UAE-G1) before an injury forced retirement. Everyone can have his or her own opinion about how strong the influence the track surface had on the outcome of the five dirt races in last year's Breeders' Cup. There may, however, be more than one plausible explanation for the outcomes of these races. That may signal a slight bias, but certainly not the controlling one that pre-ordained the outcome of these events! Looking Ahead to Monmouth What if anything can we learn from this as we look forward to Monmouth in a new set of circumstances? It is well-documented public perception, seemingly shared by owners, trainers and media, that Monmouth is a speed-favoring surface. Some have opted not to come for that reason. However, we know that closers won a lot of races at Monmouth this past summer when they fit the race profile. Some were well backed with top riders, others were not. If the different season and its cooler and wetter weather makes an impact, things could turn out a lot differently than many anticipate. If your plan of attack is to focus mainly on the two days of the Breeders' Cup races, use the first two days of the meeting to spot various trends. Horses are training and working daily at Monmouth and you can follow the times of the works as the weather cools and if the rains come. Using BRIS PPs, you have 12 works listed so you can go back and see how the works compare. Charts are available from BRIS or on the Monmouth Park site if you wish to do some back checking. The quality of some of the races on Wednesday and Thursday is sufficient to get a good read on any differences in fractional times and running styles of winners. During the heat of summer, mid-class runners regularly post sub-:22 opening quarter-miles and sub-:45 half-mile splits fractions on dirt. Check those numbers to see how things are playing now; that might give you a good read on any change. A real clue to how the track is playing can come by noting the balance of the second pace call number with the final rating for each race; the pars are summer-based so if there is a difference over a few races, the track might be playing differently. Look to see if the early numbers are significantly higher than the final in the best recent race for the winners and if you play the vertical exotics then the place and show horses as well. You can also look for positional change; is there a lot or a little? When the pace is contested, what happens? If there is quality lone E, what happens? If you find a competitive lone S in a field of early and pressers can he get there in time? How do the pressers and closers fare, especially the ones who figure to win the race or to be right there. Just as the quality lone "E" is one of the best bets in racing, so too is the lone "S" a great bet in a field of "E"s and "EP"s! And of course the latter angle has far better wager value than the former; which could prove very rewarding at Monmouth soon. In my recent piece on jockeys, I noted that an easy way to pick up on a jockey's tendencies or preferred style is to review charts of recent races and see where he has his runners placed in terms of pace and path. In many cases, this can prove revealing, although not all riders are pre-programmed and many make adjustments from horse-to-horse and race-to-race if the track dictates. If you see a top jockey change his position willingly, play close attention! The pace scenario of any race is not always predictable in advance; some speedballs get tangled up in the gate, while some fresh or unknown runners show far more speed than is predictable. And of course if the jockeys think the track is playing the same way, they will place their runners more forwardly, either on their own or riding to instructions. If you begin with an open mind, opportunities might arise. If one is prepared to take a contrarian view about closers then the rewards may be there! A wait-and-see attitude will let the evidence support the facts. If you are playing the early races, give any legitimate closer a square chance (if the price is right) and carefully observe what happens. Start small and use each race as a learning experience. Do not rush to judgment if speedy bet-down runners win the first few races and if pricy closers are gaining ground, the opportunities to score could arise. Of course, this will be a better than usual quality of meeting and it is known that the classier the horse, the less significant the role of an all but a dominating track bias. Better horses are more likely to run down the speed, even the loose speed, than are lower-quality runners. I would suspect that from the more than 40 races carded over four days, there will be some overlooked late runners winning races on both turf and dirt. Unless and until the early race results prove that the track surface is controlling the outcome of the races, give every horse his fair and proper chance. If three favorites win the first three races on the front end, and there is a logical overlooked closer in the 4TH or 5TH, be prepared to be bold if you think the opportunity is right. It may only take one favorable result to make the Breeders' Cup Weekend a memorable one!
 Send this article to a friend
|
|
