You’ve seen me point out time and again, horses who raced well against a prevailing bias. You’ve seen me say things like "Prestige One raced exceptionally gamely on the front end on 11/28, a night when only 2 horses won from the front end all night," etc. It’s great to notice this later on, because as I’ve said, it really helps you to distinguish mediocre efforts from truly strong ones. But what happens when that horse runs the next week, and again, that same bias exists? He might face the same fate, this time with your money on the line. What’s the answer?

The answer is being alert early in the evening as to what’s happening, even if you ain’t betting the early races. It is one thing to recognize it in the charts tomorrow, but an entirely different thing to recognize it in advance tonight, when you can really use it.

Let’s say you are going to the track tonight, and one horse you really like is Front End Hanover. You love his chances, and are counting on him to get to the front and take it from there. Further, he raced strongly against the bias last week. Then, as you arrive at the track, you find a blinking sign like this:

Would this affect your approach for the evening? How might this affect your intended bet on Front End Hanover? Well, the first answer is yes. I’m going to re-evaluate the relative chances that I have formed about all of the in-shape horses. For my key horse, I am going to decrease his chances in my mind, and therefore, I am going to need higher odds in order to justify the wager. I may, in fact, not bet him at all. I might decide to bet a sharp closer in that same race, if there is one. I might go off of him all together! This is tough to do folks, since you already have an emotional stake in his success, having spotted him in advance. But you need to have the flexibility and objectivity to do this, if you really wish to succeed. You have to be willing to give up whatever attachment you might have for him, and admit that his chances tonight (which are the only ones that matter) are significantly less than you initially thought. This is one of the great obstacles to making early wagers or handicapping and making picks in advance.

Now I know what you are thinking. You’re saying, "sure Steve, that sounds great….but where do they have such a blinking sign?" Well, surprise of surprises….they don’t! You’re the one who has to come up with the blinking sign yourself by careful observation.

Say you watch the 1st race, and a horse who is in decent shape, gets the lead pretty easy, is unchallenged, and beaten a couple of lengths by the pocket horse, missing for place by a neck by a closer with the pack making steady progress in the stretch. Well, you’re not sure. Maybe he wasn’t in shape, and after all, one of the horses who beat him was right behind.

Then the 2nd race comes along, and another horse, this time the 8-5 favorite, in shape, but not necessarily a front runner, gets parked to the quarter, then gets a weak challenge in moderate fractions, and the pack closes in,…he holds second but is beaten by a closer from well behind. You start to get suspicious. After all, it is not as though a dead, out of shape 30-1 shot was on the front end. This was a horse who figured.

In the 3rd race, there is plenty of early action and the fractions are quick, the leaders tire and they come charging from behind. Can’t tell much from this, as it is not unexpected.

Then the 4th race comes along. A horse you feel is definitely sharp, who does his best racing on the front is the 7-5 chalk. The horse gets the lead rather easily, has a 2 or 3 length lead all the way around, on his own, pocket horse gapping. Fractions legit but moderate. In mid-stretch, he’s racing on fumes, the pocket gapper has him measured. Further, 3 horses from off the pace are in gear and going by.

Folks…this is very often the blinking sign that you are searching for. Here’s the clue that it may be a tough night on the speed. It may reverse later, but for now, you have to adjust your expectations and re handicap (remember, ‘handicapping’ is not picking - "handicapping’ means estimating the relative chances of the horses.) You have to question the chances of other horses to figure to be leaving or wanting the top.

Recognizing bias is not as easy as it appears. It is not enough to just see how many front runners are winning. And you certainly cannot rely on the little bias figure that the program gives you - the little "2w" all the way on the right. To really understand the bias of the track, you must ask yourself certain questions, and these become even more important if you are trying to get a handle on it as it is happening:

· Quality of the front runners - who are the front runners who are failing? Are they strong favorites who figure and are in shape, or out of shapers who figure to fade anyway? Are they horses who’s most effective racing style is on the lead or are they non-front runners who are looking for position and end up on the top? Are they horses coming off layoffs who are speed tightening or horses who already figure to be tight?
· Energy use at the start - how did they arrive at the lead? Did they leave from outside posts and have to clear other horses to get there? Look at the driver - was his head facing to the left as though he were looking for a spot to duck in all the way, or was he clearly looking for the front end? Did the horse have the opportunity to take a seat and pass it up for a shot at the front?
· Dueling for the lead - for horses that re-take enroute to the front end - did the inside horse accelerate and "sweat" him or was the retake an easy one which did not really need a move? Did they receive pressure on the front end? If so, when? For how long? Who was the horse pressuring? Did the pressuring horse actually "get there" to go eyeball to eyeball, or was it a weak, token first over move?
· Look at the fractions - were they even? The 3rd quarter is usually a particularly good indicator of a poor track for front runners - did the horse get a clear breather here and still fail? Was the outside flow strong or was the front runner successful in slowing the pace in the 3rd panel forcing closers wide prematurely?
· The overall action in the stretch - forget the winner …. Even if the leader did not win, when did he lose it? And did he lose it, or were closers actually just sharper? Was everyone closing in or just one or two strong closers? How did the first-over horse and pocket horse fare in the stretch as compared to the leader? Where they full, 10-horse fields, or 6 and 7 horse fields?

NOTICE THAT THIS PROCESS IS STRANGELY SIMILAR TO MY RECOMMENDED PROCESS FOR DETERMINING SHAPE - namely, it is relative performance (vs. Expectations) that counts, not the absolute performance. It is not merely whether leaders win or lose, it is how they won or lost and how they performed relative to how you would have expected them to. These are the questions you need to ask yourself in order to make an accurate conclusion about the track bias. There have been many nights where, maybe only 2 horses go "wire to wire" which would indicate a potentially poor track for the speed, but upon review of these factors, it turns out that the bias was, in fact, quite legitimate. On the other hand, there are nights were you get maybe 5 or 6 front-end winners, indicating a good night for the speed, but upon closer inspection, the track was tougher on the speed than at first glance.

An there is another tricky spot with determining bias, namely, that it can change during the course of an evening. Of course, you cannot predict this while you are there, but if you are looking at charts later, did front-end horses perform much better than expected for the first five races but much poorer than expected in the final 4 or 5 races?

Let’s take a look at this past Saturday’s card, February 7, and I have notations throughout the card, giving you my thoughts as the night developed.

If you don’t have the charts in front of you, get them out, or download them HERE … if you are reading this too late to download, EMAIL me and I will get them to you.

The first thing you will notice when you look at the charts of the evening is that only 2 races were won on the front end - RED BOW TIE (in shape/very heavy favorite/front runner/short field) and BG DUNDEE(in shape/very heavy favorite/front runner/short field). The only other horse who had anything whatsoever to do with the pace who won was TUNE TOWN who was dead heated … the only thing surprising was not so much what he did, but that he wasn’t short after being out 3 weeks. So in retrospect, you can look back at this chart and say, "Wow, sure was tough bias against speed!" Without determining whether you are right or wrong, if you look at these charts, notice this and mark it down for next week, you are taking a quantum leap in your understanding shape for next week. Let’s take a closer look - here are my comments on the speed only, race by race:

1st race - ALMAHURST TRIUMPH, sharp off a good win, left hard parking a challenger past the quarter, re-took, face a little pressure at ¾ and held well, beaten only a head at the very late stages. The winner got a perfect 2nd-over trip and the pocket horse was unable to go by. Not a bad effort considering the pace was pretty quick in the early stages.

2nd race - a much more evenly paced race, no clear front-runner as the lead changed hands – TOUGH KNIGHT, the early leader did not fade badly, WUZZUP, the leader past the half went on to win.

3rd race - RED BOW TIE won as a standout in a short field, as expected, but given the fractions and no challenge after getting the lead, and the fact that the entire remainder of the field was closing on him, and he was under stiff urging throughout the stretch, he should have won easier.

4th race - WOODMERE TOPCAT got an easy lead and an easy pace and had no excuse for such a failure.

5th race - again, several lead changes in a very fast middle half - no clear frontfunner, so not much to say.

6th race - TUNE TOWN, had cover during the first quarter and got the lead easily after that, and managed to hang on to a piece of the win despite being off 3 weeks and sick, when he should have been short. Good effort.

7th race - USHER HANOVER, set blistering early fractions and faded, though he was taking on substantially tougher foes that prior race, but really put up little resistance.

8th race - TILLY’S SAM quarter moved to command, did not face much pressure and should have held well – and he did, but he should have won this one.

9th race - HENSELL HANOVER was hounded into 2 moves early by a non-contender and faced pressure at the ¾. Considering he was taking a double jump in conditions and facing a much, much superior field to previous, fade is not unexpected.

10th race - BG DUNDEE won wire to wire, as expected as heavy front-running fave in short field.

11th race - PUT UP YOUR DUKES was used very hard through brutal fractions in the first half and faded.

12th race - MOLECULAR quarter moved to command, was unpressured and really should not have lost, though closers were not in gear either.

13th race - HARD AS A ROCK, a horse who always races best from off the pace, was 2-moved to the lead past the quarter, faced pressure in the far turn and, as expected, collapsed.

Well, if you were there, you could look at it this way …. After Almahurst Triumph fails in the first, well - he made two moves… couldn’t tell much from the 2nd, but after Red Bow Tie struggles to hang on in the 3rd, you have to start wondering. When Woodmere Topcat does nothing with an uncontested lead in the 4th, the blinking sign goes off! Maybe this track’s gonna be a bit tougher on the front runners. By the 7th, it is crystal clear and even clearer by the 8th! So depending on when you make this discovery, you have between 5 and 8 races where you can clearly re-adjust the chances for horses who figure to want the top, and likewise, for closers, an increase in their chances.

This is why I was IRATE when I bet closers in back to back races later in the card - namely ALAR and INFELLABLE and I’ll be dipped in shit - they both left and both races were won from off the pace!

Now looking back at this, we can see some clearly good performances from leaders on this evening: Almahurst Triumph, Tune Town, Hensell Hanover and Put Up Your Dukes, all of whom were used pretty stiffly, faced challenges and who’s lack of stretch endurance could have been expected. In fact, they hung in better than they might have been expected to, particularly Almahurst Triumph and Put Up Your Dukes - as the first halves of these races were among the fastest relative fractions all night.

Given the bias and the relative fractions that resulted, the only closer who I think was clearly outstanding was Yankee Finesse in the 1st, but he had a perfect trip. Consideration can also be given to Frank Kash, who worked very hard in the middle half of the 5th, as did Magnetic Killean. There were really no other closers that were that impressive on the face of it – a few had excuses (Sakra Mania, for example) but really no over achievers from the rear.

So, not only is it important to recognize a bias after the evening is over, but you can gain a significant advantage by watching it develop in the early stages of the card, as in the card this past Saturday.