Crash, this track bias of which you speak. I've heard on wet tracks of jockeys heading for the "better" part of the track because the going seems better there. Is that the track bias? or is it something else?

Your right there Kenny. Track bias is an overused description applied far too often to a situation that usually just isn't there ['overlay' is another word similarly overused and misunderstood].

When Oliver walks a track with his metal prod zig-zagging at 45% angles around a track he is looking for the firm going that may or may not exist at various track sections. One whole section may be firmer on the inside and another in the centre etc. What he is looking for is the firm ground which he can use to his advantage. This would be called a 'track bias'. Everything else is track layout and is also to be considered [differently] for various race distances.

Track bias is a hotly contested topic and my opinion above is only that.

Thanks for that Crash. Is this track bias reputed to exist only when track conditions are less than perfect, i.e. slow or heavy going, or are some tracks supposed to have better sections whatever the weather?

Randwick had a dreadful track bias until they did some deep rooting,that seemed to fix it up.

Makes for an interesting mental picture. Some people might actually suggest that the Randwick track was already well and truly 'rooted'. :o

Seriously though, it seems to be going pretty well now.

The less returns in the big fields interests me. I can offer you one POSSIBLE explanation: small fields tend to almost always be slowly run. They dawdle. In slowly run races, horses who shouldn't win can because of getting the run of the race, the right ride and falling in. In big fields, truly run affairs, the best horse tends to have it over the bad one. No doubt you've heard the race callers making that great racing generalisation, in their peculiar nasal tones - "Well, how often do you see it. Small field, and the outsider gets up." Slowly run races are a farce, and they mean form doesn't become the most important thing, where they are positioned does.
To illustrate the point: 16 horses running over 1600m-2000m at Flemington, in a truly run affair, the cream rises to the top. 7 horses in a crappy class6 at MV on a Thursday night and anything can win. I have seen 1000m races at MV on Thurs nights which have been crawled in front.
A good example of a jockey counteracting this was Jason Benbow on Highclere on Saturday. Whilst he rolled along at a good pace, a true pace, the kind of pace conducive to running the best times, the rest of the field sat 10-12 lengths behind him. THEY were in a slowly run race all of their own while he was running a race the pace it should be. Well, evenly run races always run better times than slowly run ones, so little wonder the other jockeys found themselves scratching their heads after the race, wondering how he had managed to keep going on Highclere. The horse wasn't going too fast, just so ingrained in the minds of these uneducated dwarfs is the culture of the slowly run race that they no little else, and have no imagination to deal with it.
You know what they say - if jockeys were one foot taller, they'd all be unemployed.

Hmm. Just re-read all that. Kind of got off the topic. Sorry..
Duritz

Wet weather doesn't in itself create a track bias. Wet weather MIGHT create track bias depending on the track. Rail position being moved and creating firmer going on the inside couple of alleys though would create a bias [biased toward the inside] as those alleys are now faster. This 'bias' [or punter perception of it] could and often does change during the day.

I never [seriously] bet on any track worse than 'good'. The punter has enough things working against him already without worrying about his runner having crap kicked up into it's mouth and face at galloping speed as well !!!

I just read my earlier post (with the figures) which showed Caulfield returning 79.95% of our cash and Flemington 82.7%. I wrongly said this confirms Duritz's view that we are more accurate punters at Flemington than Caulfield. Although this is the case over the last 10 years the last two years show Caulfield about 82% and Flemington 76.9%. So although I made a mistake in my original musings Duritz, on recent figures, is still right.
Interesting Flemington had a wild year in 2002 where it returned 103%. So if you'd bet a dollar on all 2858 horses that went around Flemington in 2002 you would have got about $2944 back. This year is exceptional (by about 9%) for Flemington. Did something happen that year at Flemington or are the figures biased by a few long price winners?

Regarding your (mild) digression to Moonee Valley on a Thursday night Duritz. Moonee Valley, 1 to 8 runners (all days of the week combined), returns 85.1% (which makes it about as easy to pick as the average heavy track).

Hmmm, those figures might be a bit bendy for using to make assumptions [Caulfield is easier to bet on] beyond the obvious facts of win/loss % there ....for those that bet Cauilfield anyway.

I'm sure a lot more mug money [a huge amount more] gets spent at Flemington, especially during the spring and Melb. Cup carnival, that ever gets spent at Caulield, which would 'load' the loss figures at Flemington. A lot of average punters avoid betting on Caulfield because of it's difficult reputation, but it also draws a lot of specialists which perhaps loads it's win figures and lightens it's loss figure [?].

It might be drawing a long bow to jump to conclusions about punting difficulty or anything else from basic track win/loss figures at any track. Do you see my point ?

From studying each Tracks Win Efficiency, it tells you, you have to change things from track to track. Every handicapping factor performs differently from track to track. And the track regulars understand their track's "performance parameters" and adjust their play accordingly. So to take advantage of the crowd's tendencies, you DO have to study and understand wagering at each track as an individual entity. That's not to say there aren't a lot of similarities from track to track. And the general effect of crowd size behaves much the same from track to track. But the amount the crowd overplays or underplays any given factor does depend on that factor's performance at each track.

Another study would be to look at win efficiency by the day of the week (public holidays and special events), by doing this you will get another crosshair on when Favs are over played an longshots underplayed and vice versa an when you need to use different wagering strategies.

Remember people are creatures of habit, and they will reward you time after time with profits IF YOU ARE WILLING TO LOOK IN THE RIGHT PLACE. If you are looking at factors, you are trying to beat the HORSES. If you are looking at wagering, you are trying to beat the CROWD. Of those two, the only one who actually offers you money is the crowd! GO WHERE THE MONEY IS. Let the HORSES take care of themselves! the thing that makes it SO HARD to make a profit using a standalone ranking/handicapping method IS THAT IT'S ABOUT THE SAME WAY THAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT. When everybody is doing it, IT'S GOING TO BE AN UNDERLAY! Only by slicing out your own private little 5% do you have a chance with such a method.

Imagine You're giving up on 19 races out of 20 because you're too blindered by steps #1 and #2 in your handicapping. You should be looking for ways to make your handicapping AS IS work on a high percentage of all races. That's possible, but ONLY if you study wagering instead of trolling for magical combinations of factors. Or trolling for your tiny slice of races where your combination of factors plus your wagering pattern AREN'T overbet by the crowd.

Imagine if your car broke down 19 times out of 20 when you tried to drive to the supermarket, would you say you have a well-designed car? If your computer locked up 19 times out of 20 when you booted up, would you say you have great software? If you chose 20 restaurants because of the colour of their awnings and got 1 good meal out of 20, would you think you have a good way of finding eateries? if you admit you can only play 1 race out of 20 this tells you something really important.