Laurel Park | Is There Really a Bias with the 1 1/16 Miles Course?

1 1/16 Miles at Laurel Park: Is There Really a Bias?

This question turned out to be amazingly simple to answer. In our database, we show 1,524 races run on fast tracks. If we simply break them down by post position, here are the results.

Laurel, 1 1/16 miles – Post Position

	Starts	Wins	Win%	$Net	IV	PIV	Avg Pay	Avg Odds	Avg PubCh
1	1,524	352	23.1	$2.32	1.71	1.38	$10.03	4.05	3.7
2	1,524	264	17.3	$1.84	1.28	1.20	$10.62	4.87	4.1
3	1,524	221	14.5	$1.67	1.07	1.03	$11.50	5.02	4.1
4	1,522	182	12.0	$1.29	0.88	0.88	$10.81	5.26	4.3
5	1,511	168	11.1	$1.39	0.83	0.81	$12.51	5.17	4.2
6	1,460	144	9.9	$1.22	0.75	0.77	$12.37	5.64	4.5
7	1,214	94	7.7	$1.00	0.62	0.68	$12.89	6.45	4.7
8	763	66	8.7	$1.57	0.76	0.81	$18.12	6.91	4.9
up	623	39	6.3	$0.86	0.60	0.67	$13.67	8.08	5.5
total	11,665	1,530	13.1	$1.51	1.00	0.98	$11.55	5.30	4.3

This data shows without a doubt that the 1 1/16 mile distance at Laurel truly is beatable simply with post position.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this study is that the public has knowledge of this bias as evidenced by the average odds and public choice columns. In spite of their knowledge they simply under bet these horses.

Let’s break this study down by Quirin Early Speed Points and see if there is any pattern.

(Editor’s note: The totals in the following sections will not match the totals above because first-time starters and foreign starters have been removed.)

Closers – 0 Early Speed Points

PP	sts	win	w%	IV
1	317	48	15%	1.13
2	317	42	13%	1.01
3	312	34	11%	0.83
4	326	34	10%	0.79
5	312	25	8%	0.60
6	273	26	10%	0.73
7	254	10	4%	0.32
8	177	16	9%	0.79
9	114	8	7%	0.66
10	54	2	4%	0.37
11+	0	0	0%	–
Total	2,456	245	10%	0.78

Mid-Pack Horses – 1 to 4 Early Speed Points

PP	sts	win	w%	IV
1	587	132	22%	1.68
2	592	99	17%	1.22
3	601	81	13%	1.00
4	559	56	10%	0.75
5	575	67	12%	0.87
6	623	56	9%	0.68
7	480	41	9%	0.69
8	311	28	9%	0.79
9	170	11	6%	0.61
10	81	5	6%	0.62
11+	0	0	0%	–
Total	4,579	576	13%	0.97

Front Runners – 5 to 8 Early Speed Points

PP	sts	win	w%	IV
1	613	174	28%	2.06
2	611	126	21%	1.51
3	606	102	17%	1.21
4	631	90	14%	1.04
5	620	72	12%	0.86
6	559	63	11%	0.85
7	476	41	9%	0.68
8	272	23	8%	0.74
9	142	10	7%	0.66
10	60	4	7%	0.67
11+	0	0	0%	0
Total	4,590	705	15%	1.16

And what of the obvious question of track condition?

In this sample, we consider only those races run on “off” tracks. That is, races that were notÂ “fast” or “good.”

PP – “Off” Tracks

ALL	Sts	Pays	PCT	$NET
1	169	47	27.8	$3.08
2	169	30	17.8	$2.29
3	169	25	14.8	$1.98
4	169	23	13.6	$1.18
5	162	16	9.9	$1.06
6	144	13	9.0	$1.22
7	114	6	5.3	$1.70
8	63	8	12.7	$2.56
up	43	1	2.3	$0.42
Total	1,202	169	14.1	$1.80

Here we see that the bias is about the same from a standpoint of win%, but that the public manages to forget to consider post position all together!

By the way, the sample of “good” tracks was small (70 races) and showed a diminished bias.

Summary

There really is a post position bias at Laurel! It is so pronounced that if one had done nothing but bet horses in post position one over the last few years, a profit of at least 16% per wagered dollar would have been realized.

Furthermore, looking at the impact of running style, using the Quirin Early Speed Point approach, shows us that the greater the likelihood of the horse being a front runner, the stronger the bias becomes.

On off tracks, the mid-pack horses showed improvement over the front runners, but closers did dismally. In other words, the bias is still intact.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply