6/8 (BEL): 151st Belmont Stakes Day ~ 8 G1's

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you know anyone who knows me (which you probably don't), you would know that it's just the opposite. I never have a problem admitting when I am wrong.

Anyway, back to the argument, I still think there was a speed bias (independent of any possible rail bias). At almost all of the big tracks, when they make the track really fast for a big stakes day, it creates a speed bias most of the time.

But hypothetically if there was a day where there was not going to be a speed bias but the track was going to be faster on the rail (a rail bias), that would create a speed bias. An inside bias will manifest itself as a speed bias every time. There is no way around it. There is no such thing as an inside bias that doesn't favor speed.

It's not that complicated.

In addition, if there is a speed bias (with no rail bias), it will make it appear like there is a rail bias, because there will be a ton of winners who were on the lead and in the 1 or 2 path turning into the stretch and coming down the stretch. A speed bias can easily be mistaken for a rail bias.

Frankly, you have no idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t happen much anymore, but when the Belmont main used to get really wet and speed favoring, the inside was the worst place to be. You wanted to be away from the rail. Jorge Chavez was always one of the first riders to pick up on this.

I understand the point you’re trying to make. A speed bias will look like an inside bias because a majority of speed horses gravitate towards the rail. But that isn’t a true rail bias. A true rail bias is what we saw at Belmont Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Speed and closers who spent a good amount of time on the rail did well. Look at the H Man race on Friday and where the winner and runner up spent a good portion of their time running.

You’re trying to oversimplify it and you’re incorrect. If you spent any time following the Aqueduct inner when we used to really get some gold rails you’d know the difference.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Frankly, you have no idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t happen much anymore, but when the Belmont main used to get really wet and speed favoring, the inside was the worst place to be. You wanted to be away from the rail. Jorge Chavez was always one of the first riders to pick up on this.

I understand the point you’re trying to make. A speed bias will look like an inside bias because a majority of speed horses gravitate towards the rail. But that isn’t a true rail bias. A true rail bias is what we saw at Belmont Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Speed and closers who spent a good amount of time on the rail did well. Look at the H Man race on Friday and where the winner and runner up spent a good portion of their time running.

You’re trying to oversimplify it and you’re incorrect. If you spent any time following the Aqueduct inner when we used to really get some gold rails you’d know the difference.

Read this article about track maintenance at Belmont. Look at all the science and equipment they use to monitor the track closely every day at Belmont. They measure all parts of the track and test all parts of the track. They didn't use to do this years ago, but they do it now. There is practically no way for there to be a rail bias. If there was, they would see it and fix it.

I am not a big believer in inside or outside biases. I'm not saying they it has never happened before. I'm sure it has happened in the past, especially after a lot of rain. But right now I think inside/outside biases are mainly a figment of the imagination of handicappers who are trying to come up with a way to explain a certain result. If I am wrong and these biases exist and are common, then I guess I'm missing out on a great handicapping angle.

If playing inside/outside biases is making you money, then keep doing it and I wish you continued success.

Here is an article that talks about all the science that goes into maintaining the track at Belmont. By the way, if they want to speed up or slow the down the track, it is easy for them to do. They can make the harrows go a little deeper if the track is getting too fast. Don't let anyone tell you that if the track is lightening fast that it wasn't something they wanted. If they didn't want it that fast, they would slow it down. As the article says, they have all this stuff down to a science.

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...t-belmont-park

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Read this article about track maintenance at Belmont. Look at all the science and equipment they use to monitor the track closely every day at Belmont. They measure all parts of the track and test all parts of the track. They didn't use to do this years ago, but they do it now. There is practically no way for there to be a rail bias. If there was, they would see it and fix it.

I am not a big believer in inside or outside biases. I'm not saying they it has never happened before. I'm sure it has happened in the past, especially after a lot of rain. But right now I think inside/outside biases are mainly a figment of the imagination of handicappers who are trying to come up with a way to explain a certain result. If I am wrong and these biases exist and are common, then I guess I'm missing out on a great handicapping angle.

If playing inside/outside biases is making you money, then keep doing it and I wish you continued success.

Here is an article that talks about all the science that goes into maintaining the track at Belmont. By the way, if they want to speed up or slow the down the track, it is easy for them to do. They can make the harrows go a little deeper if the track is getting too fast. Don't let anyone tell you that if the track is lightening fast that it wasn't something they wanted. If they didn't want it that fast, they would slow it down. As the article says, they have all this stuff down to a science.

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...t-belmont-park

At least we finally got some truth out of you. You don’t believe in rail biases, so there wasn’t one. Fascinating...

Before I waste another second of my time doing this with you, have you watched all of the races from Thursday, Friday and Saturday that were run on the dirt?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

At least we finally got some truth out of you. You don’t believe in rail biases, so there wasn’t one. Fascinating...

Before I waste another second of my time doing this with you, have you watched all of the races from Thursday, Friday and Saturday that were run on the dirt?

I watched practically every race. I may have missed a few races Thursday. I don't think I missed more than a couple on Friday and Saturday combined. I think the only race I missed Saturday was the first race.

Can you explain with all of their sophisticated equipment and constant testing, how they failed to detect the supposed rail bias? You and Andy better contact Glen and inform him about the rail bias so he can fix it.

By the way, the good news is that you will make a fortune next time when these horses come back, who were negatively affected by the supposed inside bias. I hope you took good notes. Who are some of the horses that you will be betting back next time because they were compromised by the inside bias? We will see if you are right. If they all come back and run lousy, it may be time for you to reevaluate.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I watched practically every race. I may have missed a few races Thursday. I don't think I missed more than a couple on Friday and Saturday combined. I think the only race I missed Saturday was the first race.

Can you explain with all of their sophisticated equipment and constant testing, how they failed to detect the supposed rail bias? You and Andy better contact Glen and inform him about the rail bias so he can fix it.

By the way, the good news is that you will make a fortune next time when these horses come back, who were negatively affected by the supposed inside bias. I hope you took good notes. Who are some of the horses that you will be betting back next time because they were compromised by the inside bias? We will see if you are right. If they all come back and run lousy, it may be time for you to reevaluate.

This is internet for “I’m wrong but can’t admit it.”

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

This is internet for “I’m wrong but can’t admit it.”

Why would I possibly admit or think I am wrong when you have presented zero evidence to substantiate you rail bias claim?

Look at Strike Silver. He's not even a speed horse these days and he goes out there in :44 2/5 and only gets beat by 2 lengths. If there was no speed bias he would have lost by at least triple that margin, setting those suicide fractions. In that same race, Nitrous was very wide, out in the middle of the track and only got beat by a neck. So I guess if it wasn't for the supposed rail bias, Nitrous would have won. I actually bet on both those horses and lost both bets because I bet Strike Silver to win and place (he ran 4th), but only bet Nitrous to win.

As I said before, if you think there are inside/outside biases and you think you are good at spotting them, then by all means include it in your handicapping. I personally don't think they happen often (and probably never at Belmont with their sophisticated testing equipment). But even if they do happen, I think they are very difficult to spot (unlike speed biases), at least for me. So I'm not going to look for them and I'm not going to include them in my handicapping. If it works for you, then by all means use it.

Anyway, this debate is getting old. I'll give you the last word.

[Alabama Stakes]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would I possibly admit or think I am wrong when you have presented zero evidence to substantiate you rail bias claim?

Look at Strike Silver. He's not even a speed horse these days and he goes out there in :44 2/5 and only gets beat by 2 lengths. If there was no speed bias he would have lost by at least triple that margin, setting those suicide fractions. In that same race, Nitrous was very wide, out in the middle of the track and only got beat by a neck. So I guess if it wasn't for the supposed rail bias, Nitrous would have won. I actually bet on both those horses and lost both bets because I bet Strike Silver to win and place (he ran 4th), but only bet Nitrous to win.

As I said before, if you think there are inside/outside biases and you think you are good at spotting them, then by all means include it in your handicapping. I personally don't think they happen often (and probably never at Belmont with their sophisticated testing equipment). But even if they do happen, I think they are very difficult to spot (unlike speed biases), at least for me. So I'm not going to look for them and I'm not going to include them in my handicapping. If it works for you, then by all means use it.

Anyway, this debate is getting old. I'll give you the last word.

You must have been psyched when Silver Strike went out there to the lead quickly at 30-1 and the other Ortiz grabbed a hold of Complexity instead of continuing up the gold rail to the lead.


Derby day = gold rail
Preakness = gold rail
Belmont = gold rail

They all soup up the rail on the big days looking for headlines. Someday Belmont will get that 2:24 they’re looking to get.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would I possibly admit or think I am wrong when you have presented zero evidence to substantiate you rail bias claim?

Look at Strike Silver. He's not even a speed horse these days and he goes out there in :44 2/5 and only gets beat by 2 lengths. If there was no speed bias he would have lost by at least triple that margin, setting those suicide fractions. In that same race, Nitrous was very wide, out in the middle of the track and only got beat by a neck. So I guess if it wasn't for the supposed rail bias, Nitrous would have won. I actually bet on both those horses and lost both bets because I bet Strike Silver to win and place (he ran 4th), but only bet Nitrous to win.

As I said before, if you think there are inside/outside biases and you think you are good at spotting them, then by all means include it in your handicapping. I personally don't think they happen often (and probably never at Belmont with their sophisticated testing equipment). But even if they do happen, I think they are very difficult to spot (unlike speed biases), at least for me. So I'm not going to look for them and I'm not going to include them in my handicapping. If it works for you, then by all means use it.

Anyway, this debate is getting old. I'll give you the last word.

You admitted you haven’t watched every race over the three days...so why would I waste my time giving you examples of something you don’t believe in because as you admit, spotting a rail bias is too difficult for you to see?

Nitrous was on the inside for much of the first 4 furlongs. I gave you an example of a race that perfectly shows the rail bias, you ignored it. H Man on Friday. He spent the whole race on the rail and runner up (dead closer) was glued to the rail until very late when he was going by the chasers. How many more should I give you? Will you at least watch all the races first? Seems only fair to actually watch the races before declaring something, no?

A closer won the Belmont. He was glued to rail. The pacesetter who spent the entire race on the rail was 3rd.

As for suicide fractions, they went 43 and change in the longer Acorn. The Woody Stephens fractions weren’t that fast.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Anyway, this debate is getting old. I'll give you the last word.

Internet for “I’m out of bullshit, so I’m taking my ball and going home.”