Sir Tom article about track bias and gambles in the post anyone

Confidence is vitally important in any walk of life. When you feel you're in form, whatever you do tends to be the right call. In contrast, if you're lacking in confidence, everything becomes a chore and it's hard to see the ball clearly.

Horseracing is no different but these days it's often pretty hard to have too much confidence placing a bet because before racing starts it's virtually impossible to know where the best part of any track is going to be or where the jockeys are going to race.

Take last month's Ebor festival at York, where there was clearly a massive track bias towards those drawn low, which hasn't been the case on the round course for years. The very first race was a big-field sprint handicap, which really came down to a handful of runners because anything drawn in double figures had no chance.
That trend continued for the next three days. While you'd think that would be a help to punters, and for the most part it was, the picture at any meeting can be complicated by the tendency of jockeys to ride away from a bias, rendering it useless.

In those circumstances, those who follow any perceived bias end up backing horses on the wrong side. Basically it becomes extremely hard to have any confidence in where the horses are going to run.

At Goodwood in the Stewards' Cup those drawn high had a huge advantage. On Saturday at Haydock there was a massive bias for those drawn low, yet last year there was a big advantage in being drawn on the stands' rail on occasions at the same track. On Sunday at York the bias switched from everyone wanting to go low to every horse heading to the stands' rail.

For a punter it's really confusing and so many, like me, have ended up forgetting the draw, backing the horse they perceive to be the fastest and hoping they end up on the right strip of ground. There's a chasm of difference between betting in hope than betting in confidence, but that's so often what happens at the big meetings.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly why this is the case, but I believe it's two-fold. Of course clerks of the course and watering policies play a part but I can't believe for one second that any clerk of the course aims to make a biased track.

More unfathomable are the participants themselves. I never used to hear a jockey say they were avoiding the shortest route because the ground was chopped up five years ago. Now you hear it all the time, but surely the more compacted ground is firmer and faster.

That's maybe where the watering comes in because clerks are so worried about quick ground that they water overnight and the chopped-up ground takes on more water than the ground that hasn't been raced on.

However, it's impossible to know how watering is going to affect the racing because it seems to me that the jockeys decide where the horses will race going down to the start for the first race, which makes it really hard to have a confident bet prior to racing.

That maybe explains why there are lots of late gambles landed because the most informed punters know much more about what's going to happen than those who bet a long way prior to the off. That group are basically just guessing or hoping they luckily choose where the jockeys are going to race.

Tend to agree with the article, the weather and watering has obviously played a part in creating the biases, though not knowing what the jockeys are going to do either makes it extra difficult to second guess or predict.  You can’t even guarantee that they will go the shortest way round Chester anymore. It’s weird watching them race wide round there when a low draw used to be so important.

He also wrote a small piece underneath about the benefits of betting on the world pool, I haven’t posted that, that’s Westberks job!

I am happy to accept that CoCs do not set out to cause/amend a track bias with watering, that isn't the point imho. It seems clear to me that most watering systems are inefficient. They cannot deliver exactly the right amount of water evenly across a wide track. Wind, marginal soil differences, compaction are some of the reasons. There may be others. The ludicrous difference between the bias at the 2 York meetings is surely evidence of an attempt to correct an obvious bias that has simply gone wrong. There is too much watering overall in my view but the only partial solution is to lower stakes on races on straight tracks until the bias is clear ; try and stick to jockeys who know which way is up and, in extremis, to restrict wagers to 10f -12f+ races (these being less prone to being ruined by bias). It's a mess.

someone actually gets paid for writing that ?

did segal mention  there was a massive low drawbias in Saturdays post,because 30 mins before the race ,the incoming champion jock Murphy said you need to be drawn high and inisherin in 10 had a brilliant draw and top trainer haggis had given up on montassib because of his low draw, if they don't/didn't  no there was a  massive draw bias how did segal ? ,and punters certainly didn't no inisherin drawn 10 was 5,s before the sprint handicap  won by a horse drawn low and 9 to 4 after murphy spoke

it was fast going at ebor and on soft side last week,the Dixon brothers have been telling us you need to be drawn low at York 24/7 for 4 seasons,nice to no segal doesn't listen to the Dixon brothers, jocks have been avoiding rail on round course at York for yrs not because of going but for fairer races ,more room for everyone,

My guess was right about the article but quite a few on here already know what’s been on with watering for years, For those not familiar with the clerk at beverley, they used to have a massive bias on low numbers it was probably the largest draw bias in the country on good- firm ground especially at 5 f, it was published a few years ago by the clerk that the track had now started watering more the inside numbers to make the draw more fair for all runners, which is now why they can win more from middle draws and imo lots of other courses are secretly doing it and not telling the general public but it’s been going on for years it’s no coincidence. Went to beverley last meeting, years ago you could nearly guarantee winning there but since the watering more the inside numbers it’s got harder to predict the draw, and become a lottery

As for world pool imo it’s the best thing for punters to ever happen to racing since betfair, as a example at York I only bet on the tote for world pool days, I had the winner at 37/1 tote where the sp was 25/1 and even beat betfair bsp decent bets as well and makes a massive difference, also had more winners at decent odds that beat sp

"Of course clerks of the course and watering policies play a part but I can't believe for one second that any clerk of the course aims to make a biased track."   aye but im convinced they try to eradicate a perceived bias as per meetings mentioned.

Once you get the bias its actually easier than it was to bet IR. The IR bots dont get the track bias position in their algorithms

What level of importance/weight should a punter give when handicapping a race to the watering conundrum?
ChatGPT said:

When handicapping a race, the watering conundrum should be given moderate but not absolute weight. The influence of watering on track conditions can significantly affect how the race unfolds, especially in terms of ground bias, so it’s worth factoring in. However, it should be considered as part of a broader set of variables rather than a standalone deciding factor. Here are a few key points to balance its importance:

1. Track Conditions and Bias
Uneven watering can create biases in certain areas of the track, favouring certain horses based on their draw or racing position. A recent pattern of low or high-drawn horses performing well may suggest watering has influenced ground conditions. Punters should always check track bias trends for the specific course on the day.

2. Jockey and Trainer Responses
Watering may cause jockeys to make tactical decisions mid-race to avoid chopped-up or slower areas of the track. Pay attention to how jockeys have adapted at recent meetings on the same course, as this can override any perceived bias caused by watering. Trainers with a sharp understanding of such conditions may also have a game plan in place to overcome the issue, so their track performance record under similar conditions is important.

3. Going Stick and Watering History
Tools like the BHA's going stick readings and published watering history should be incorporated into your analysis. While these tools help to clarify the extent of watering, they won’t always tell the whole story, especially when there’s late watering or unexpected weather conditions. Still, they are useful indicators that can add context.

4. Horse Preferences
Horses have different preferences for ground conditions (soft, firm, etc.), and any watering that alters the going may favour horses that perform well on that type of surface. Focus on a horse's historical performance on similar going types and under conditions where watering has previously impacted the race.

5. Context of the Race Meeting
Watering tends to have a greater impact at big festivals and summer races when clerks are managing fast ground. In these scenarios, the watering policy may drastically change ground conditions day-to-day, so it’s more critical to consider this aspect. On smaller race days with less pressure on ground maintenance, watering may have a lesser effect.

Conclusion
Watering should be part of a layered handicapping strategy but not the sole focus. Use it alongside form, going preferences, track bias trends, and tactical jockey decisions to make a well-rounded assessment. Adapt your weighting of this factor based on the race's context, recent track bias, and available pre-race data like the going stick readings.

Must have been a very difficult year for clerks of the course with the weather.

This is the least amount of times I have mowed my lawn in a year by a long way. A lot of things this year, including the grass, just haven’t grown. A very cold spring and early summer, add in all the rain and strong winds that we seem to get almost everyday now too, and it’s no surprise that biases keep popping up.

Though predicting them from meeting to meeting, or even day to day, can seem almost random. Then you have the added conundrum of second guessing what the jockeys are going to do too.

Doncaster has a bias but because as pointed out we don’t know where the watering has taken place and which side they have watered more to even up that bias

Thanks for posting Booster - interesting to read, though of course a lot of questions.

Must admit I've found draw biases to be less important in recent seasons overall, so often don't bother much with it as a factor.

By that meaning historical draw bias, not the short term ones, which can become a factor as discussed above...

draw bias no probs to pricewise,value +, PK, etc etc there must be a million columns where they put 2 up on the sole reason their drawn on either side