|
|
 |
|
|
|
Feeling a little biased
By Doug Parry A track bias happens every so often. I've learned to take it in stride. I usually do my Emerald Downs picks for the Everett Herald 36-48 hours in advance. I gather the past performances, check my notes, and carefully pour over each race. Then, occasionally, something happens out of the blue. A stormy day or an overwhelming track bias comes along that makes all advance handicapping about as valuable as a $2 win ticket on Edneator was last Sunday. Track biases can drive a newspaper handicapper nuts, but they can be lucrative opportunities if you know how to recognize them. And the opportunities don't go away with the track bias -- they actually present a new opportunity with every subsequent race day. The most common types of track biases are speed and rail biases, and there have been good examples of each this year at Emerald Downs. When speed can't be beatJuly 1 started like any ordinary Thursday, with a 9-length gate-to-wire win by the favorite in a maiden race. The second race was won in the same style, but this time by an 8-1 shot. By the end of the day, eight of the nine races had been won by horses racing on the lead from gate to wire. July 1 was a prime example of a speed bias at work. The second-race winner was our first clue that something strange was happening, but it takes more evidence than one race to call a speed bias. The clincher was the sixth race of the day, a maiden $5,000 claiming race for fillies. Arctic Chance (9-1) and Robinella (54-1) dueled head-and-head to the quarter pole. Arctic Chance won, and Robinella held on for the place. It was obvious that something was up. Arctic Chance was the fifth horse of the night to lead all the way, and after the sixth race handicappers had a golden opportunity: three more races on a day when it was obvious the early speed would hold. But one thing that's great about a speed bias is that bettors never seem to think it will last. Speed horses Island Slew, Sassie Jo Lassie and Enterprising finished off the day, but even though they all looked like the best speed on paper, only one was favored. Stalker Three Charlie One was favored over Island Slew; big closer Dundee was the betting public's choice over Enterprising. The speed horses all dashed out to wins, and the easy pick-3 paid a healthy $68. The golden railProbably a more common form of track bias is the rail bias. One of the best examples I've seen all year came back on Friday, May 7. On May 7, eight of nine races were won by horses that hugged the rail all the way around. Some unlikely winners were a tell-tale sign of the "golden rail": E.M.D. Dot Com at 14-1, Belle Etoille at 11-1, and Lefty McSlew at 13-1 all stayed on the inside path all the way to victory. Bad rail days develop too, and they're usually obvious. When good jockeys go out of their way to take their horses two- and three-wide, a good reason may be the condition of the rail footing. How do you tell the difference between a speed bias and a rail bias? This can be a tricky call. The key is to watch where the top finishers in each race were running. If the winners are leading from gate to wire on the rail but horses are gaining ground inside in the stretch, you're probably looking at a rail bias. What if a few closers win on your "speed biased" track? Maybe there's no bias at all. It's important not to be too eager to blame an unexpected result on the track condition. Memories payWith a little dilligence, a handicapper can reep rewards from spotting a bias long after the day in question is done. In my case, I take note of days when I see a bias and remind myself every time I look at the past performances. The track biases of May 7 and July 1 each produced a horse that bucked the trend of the day. A handicapper that took note was amply rewarded the next time those horses raced. On May 7 it was Skeeber, who circled the field to become the only non-rail winner. On July 1 it was Bizzou Slew, who stalked just behind the leader and narrowly overtook him late, becoming the only horse to win from off the pace that day. Both Skeeber and Bizzou Slew came back to post convincing wins the next time out on a surface that was playing evenly. Horses that ran poorly because of a bias can be a good play the next time out as well. If the track condition has such great control over the outcome of a race, it's wise not to put too much emphasis on the race when studying the past performances. If a stretch-running horse ran poorly on July 1, for example, it's possible he was just feeling a little biased! |