“How did that win?” is often the question asked by my punting mates or the crusty ‘Old Salty’ down at the pub or TAB.
“Have another look at your form guide,” is often my response.
I’m not a punting freak by any means, I’m not one who backs double-figure priced winners on a regular basis. But it’s not exactly a rarity the number of times a horse is bagged unmercifully by so called ‘experts’ as only having won due to track bias when in fact, it had the form to win.
I’ll say from the outset that I think track bias is a myth.
A majority of the time when there is a perceived bias, it is in fact speed bias and not the highly popular and convenient track bias.
The most laughable aspect is that track bias always seems to rear its head according to analysts and commentators when horses aren’t in the market win. Had they been in the market, no such comments would be made or such questions asked.
I’m always amused to hear experts speak of track bias, even sometimes before the meeting has started – speculating as to what the bias will be for the day ahead.
When I talk about a horse having the form to win, I speak of horses who have finished within three to four lengths of the winner in the same grade of race at one of their last few runs. Generally, it proves the horse is good enough to race in that particular grade and often the beaten margin it has been beaten previously can be turned around, given better luck in running or a more suitable pace.
When I speak of pace bias, I refer to when they go out in front quicker than you can say ‘Jack Robinson’, often a swooper can get home and when they dawdle in front, the leaders are hard to run down. This is nothing to do with track bias, but everything to do with the pace of the race.
Also, in general, horses racing in the first three or four win the majority of races time and time again – this is a proven fact and therefore nothing to do with track bias.
In other conditions, such as bog tracks, or when the rail is in differing positions, it can favour either those on the speed or those coming from the back. It’s only in these conditions which I will consider the concept of track bias – and even then, pace is still usually the best guide when analysing the result.
In the punting game we’re often defeated by paralysis by analysis but in my humble opinion time would be better spent trying to work out what the pace will be like in any given race and where in the run your selection is likely to be positioned, which will then give you a far better understanding than trying to work out any perceived bias.
Cameron Rose
Expert
I'm a member at Caulfield too Andrew, and it's absolutely true - the smaller fields are often earlier in the day over those sort of distances, and are often jogging affairs. Seldom do I look outside a horse I think will settle in the first couple, but not because of track bias, but simply the way those races often turn out. The Oakleigh Plate is a classic example of barriers being irrelevant over a particular course and distance too.
Bondy
Guest
Track bias is real and does exist and its generally to do with last meetings rail placement , when horses are winning out wide and off the speed that means the fence is off and obviously horses drawn 1-4 ease in the market and when the rails hot reverse that situation in a market sense horses firm steeply when drawn in ? . Track bias also doesn't occur every meet I might add as Doomben last Saturday were pace related results ...
BrisburghPhil
Roar Guru
Very good points Andrew.
andrew
Guest
im a regular at caulfield and constantly bemused by the flak it gets. people guess the bias and wager accordingly on a friday arvo or sat morn. one thing at caul i will say is, in the 1400m and 1600m races, if you get a small field the on pacers are suited. this is due to the contours of the track. small fields are often early in the day too, thereby creating a perception of bias. the turn at top of track means no one makes a mid race move. in a small field, they all find their spots, and jog along for a few furlongs. the leaders are hard to run down. conversely in the 1000-1200m races, the pace is often very strong and covering ground doesnt matter as there is only 1 turn. far better to be 3 or 4 wide but able to move than bottled up on the rails. one factor that is very underestimated and often confused in the 'track' bias is the wind. get a summer day at caul with a strong north win and you need cover. get a south-east wind and the leaders get a kick and keep going. the stand (this also applies at flem) give cover avoiding the prevailing north wind once in the straight. wind a very underestaimted factor for mine.
BrisburghPhil
Roar Guru
Track bias isn't a myth Ralph. Very often you just cannot win coming wide on some tracks, and conversely the rail is 'off' at other times. Some of the smaller country tracks consistently have horrendous leader bias.
King Spuddo
Guest
Good points Ralph. I do pick double digit winners on a regular basis, that's why I'm the champ!!
Bids
Guest
I Agree Ralph. When will racing move with the times and add RFID or GPS timing chips to the gear and enable solid timing data to be provided to the punting public. That way we can cut and dice the pace and sectional data anyway we want to....track bias is rubbish.
MGC
Guest
Very much agree Ralph, for way too long the experts have blamed track bias for their inability to accurately assess the anticipated pace tactics of each runner and this may affect the chances of their picks.
BHD
Guest
Ralph, I have to agree with your sentiment on this one. There was a long shot around two years ago called Booh Khaki that stunned punters on more than one occasion out at Morphetville, but no-one bothered to look at the heritage, form in previous starts or the company it kept. It was all about who was in favour and trained by the big names....so they claimed Track Bias. Load of rubbish in my opinion. Keep up the great work.
Bringbackthebiff
Guest
Do you ever look at the form and wonder how a horse will handle running in the opposite direction to what it is used to Ralph? For example a Sydney based horse racing in Melbourne. I'm not generally one for paralysis by analysis but this is one factor I consider
DD
Guest
Agree Ralph...but a bad Punter always has to have something blame for their errant judgement...bad ride...trainers ability....track conditions...track bias....stewards.... nobblers....the vibe!!!! just a bad punters prerogative in my view.
mrs c
Guest
Agree Ralphie...lets see how the gelding, Puneet Aroochie, gets on with his track bias later this week
Stephen Kelly
Guest
Good thought provoking article Ralph. However I do believe in track bias on certain tracks ie the straight six at Flemington. Inside or outside can make a big difference at Flemington in the sprint events.
pat malone
Guest
Ralph, we should compile a list of rubbish excuses that experts come up with as to why their boom horses get beat
kevin dustby
Guest
easiest person to blame is the track manager, as you said its all about the pace in the race
peeeko
Roar Guru
agree Ralph, its a cop out used by "expert tipsters" its always easy to blame the track staff. I would love to see how many experts actually back the horses they tip
Will Sinclair
Roar Guru
When are the racing authorities going to provide accurate, horse by horse, and in race sectionals? Such information would help eliminate any perception of track bias. And help punters!