– The procedure for Part 2 of the Track Bias study and Top 5 lists can be seen <\/I>here<\/B><\/I><\/U><\/FONT><\/A><\/P> – For the complete Overall chart, click <\/I>here<\/B><\/I><\/U><\/FONT><\/A><\/P> – For the comparison charts of Turf, Dirt, and Overall races, click <\/I>here<\/B><\/I><\/U><\/FONT><\/A> (this will take you to a non-sim site)<\/P><\/I> Now that we know how each of the 88 tracks in the sim play as tracks, we have to ask ourselves one question. Does this mean anything at all to us? How does knowing the results of every single race at a track help me place my six furlong dirt stakes horse? What about my 16 furlong turf claimer? Clearly the two races don\u2019t have the same bias. Or do they? The next part of the track bias study looked at the three types of distances; sprint, classic, and long. Looking at both surfaces, the races were then broken down into winning lengths back. Each winner fell into 1 of 15 categories, ranging from 0-1 length back to over 14 lengths back (the ranges go 0-1 lengths, 1-2 lengths, 2-3 lengths, etc.). The breakdown is based on the winner\u2019s farthest lengths back from the leader at any point in the race. After getting the totals for each of the 6 divisions, an overall total was taken for each surface.<\/P> In total, 253,749 races were run on the dirt. Of these, 139,938 were sprints, 98,411 were classic races, and 15,400 were long distances races. Similarly, 145,145 races were run on the turf in total. Of these turf races, 55,446 were sprints, 74,838 were classic distances, and 14,873 were long distance races.<\/P> The overall totals show that you have the best chance of winning if you are no more than 1 length off the lead at any point in the race. On the dirt, 42.00% of winning horses were no more than 1 length back; on the turf, the percentage is 43.23%. Your best chance with a front-runner is in turf sprints, where those who stay within 1 length are 47.77% winners. The worst chances are in dirt classic races, where those within 1 length win a mere 35.77%. The previous part of the study showed that “Front-Runners”, those within .5 length of the leader, win on average of 35.96%. At the dirt classic level, even after doubling the “front-running” lengths, the percentage is less, showing that front-runners fair much worse in these types of races.<\/P> Due to last week\u2019s problems with posting the table necessary for the article, I have decided to forego the addition of tables in this article. Unfortunately, with more data and more tables, it almost becomes more necessary now. Sadly, I cannot write about all of the data that has been uncovered. What I can do is address specific issues. Last week I posted a Top 5 list for the best and worst 5 tracks for each style of runner. How different would those lists be if it were done on a distance\/surface level rather than merely with different tracks? The most important thing to note is that the two parts to this study were conducted slightly differently \u2013 the first part divided each winner into 1 of 5 categories, whereas the second (and current) part divided each winner up into a distance range. A front-runner in the first part of the study was anyone who was 0 to .5 lengths off the lead \u2013 the first grouping in the second part of the study is anyone who was 0 to 1 length off the lead. To avoid confusion (or to make it more confusing), I will use different classifications for this part of the study. A “Pace-Setter” is any horse who falls into the 0-1 length category. An “Off-Pace” horse is any who fall in either the 1-2 length or 2-3 length categories. A “Middler” is any horse who falls in either the 3-4 length, 4-5 length, or 5-6 length categories. A “Come-From-Behind” horse is one who is in either the 6-7 length, 7-8 length, or 8-9 length categories. Lastly, a “Way-Back” horse is one who is in any group that is farther than 9 lengths back. To get the total percentages for definitions which cover more than 1 group, I will merely add the percentages of the individual groups together.<\/P> Rather than do individual Top 5 lists again, however, I will merely compare the previous list to the current results. I will then do an “in-depth” analysis (where “in-depth” is limited by file size) of each of the 6 classifications. One important thing to note before going into different surfaces is that many tracks in the sim are either Dirt tracks (Most US tracks, with Virginia being the notable exception) or Turf tracks (Most Overseas tracks under 57, with Dubai and Malaysia being the exceptions). However, the newer overseas tracks, including most in Asia, do not have a surface preference. So while track 36 Ostend<\/I> has only had 475 career dirt races and track 14 New Mexico only has 199 career turf races, many of the newer tracks are an even split. This may skew results, but at the same time, it may show a clear surface-bias. If the turf tracks at all distances favor “pace-setters”, it may show that sim turf is good for those on the lead.<\/P> Dirt Sprinters<\/P><\/B><\/U> As I just mentioned, South and North Korea, #1 and 2 on the Top 5 front-runner list, fall into the “no surface” category; that is, they have a similar number of races on both turf and dirt. Of the top 5 in that division, only #3 Ostend<\/I> has a specific surface related to it. That would explain why Ostend (36) ranks 61st when it comes to Pace-Setting dirt sprinters, with a mere 45.60% of winners coming from within 1 length, whereas the 95% Confidence Interval shows the average is between 46.22% and 46.53%. Even more interesting to note is that while sprints seem to be the distance where pace-setters are most rewarded (and the data confirms this), 2 of the Top 5 front-running tracks make this top 5 list. The highest is North Korea<\/I>, originally #2 on the list. In dirt sprints, 50.20% of winners at North Korea (80) come from within 1 length of the leader. The next closest is Malaysia<\/I> (56), with 49.82% of winners being Pace-Setters. The other, South Korea<\/I> (81) squeaks in at number 5, with 49.09% of winners being a part of this group. The other two from the Top 5 list, Portugal<\/I> (64) and Taiwan <\/I>(68), come in at #10 and #46, respectively.<\/FONT><\/P> What about the worst 5 Front-Running tracks? Did they remain on the bottom? Well, ignoring tracks 83-88 (as was done last week, for lack of races), only Florida<\/I> (2) makes the bottom 5, finishing 4th to last with a 42.85% win rate for those coming from 1 back. The worst in dirt sprints is Queensland<\/I> (55), with a paltry 35.96%. However, Queensland has only seen 178 dirt sprints. The next lowest, Japan<\/I> (50), has seen 688 of these races, less than most US tracks, and has a 40.13%. The worst “dirt” track is Florida, followed closely by Tennessee<\/I> (74) with a 43.06% win percentage. So where did the other four from the bottom 5 end up? Kentucky,<\/I> the worst front-running track, has the best percentage of the five at 45.12%, ranking 63rd on the list. Indiana <\/I>(20), Upper New York <\/I>(78), <\/I>and California<\/I> (1) rank #67, 68, and 75 respectively. As for how many tracks fall into the “average” category for Pace-Setters? There are 8; Iowa<\/I> (19), Utah<\/I> (27), Alabama <\/I>(32), North Carolina<\/I> (40), Maine<\/I> (45), North Florida <\/I>(46), Taiwan<\/I> (68), and District Of Columbia<\/I> (77).<\/FONT><\/P> How about the rest of the groups? Of the top 5 Stalking tracks, only #5 Utah<\/I> (27) is in the top 5 for Off-Pace horses, with 25.96% of winners coming from between 1 and 3 back (4th place). Ignoring tracks 83-88 and Virginia (17) due to lack of races at the conditions, the best track for off-pace dirt sprinters is North Dakota<\/I> (75), with a 26.31%. The other four from the top 5 list do not even make the top 10 here, with Montana<\/I> (72) falling all the way to #44. As for the worst 5 Stalking tracks, Ascot <\/I>(33) remains the worst offender for off-pace runners, with a mere 19.52% winning. #3 South Carolina <\/I>(70) rounds out the bottom 5 for dirt sprints, and Ostend<\/I> (36) comes in a 6th worst. While the percentages for these two European tracks are low, they may be artificially low, as neither has held more than 500 dirt sprints. The worst “non-turf” track for dirt sprints is Finland<\/I> (61), with a 20.33% win percentage. As for the others on the bottom 5, Vermont<\/I> and California <\/I>remain fairly low, but Spain<\/I> (57) jumps all the way to the 26th best<\/I> track for off-pace runners.<\/FONT><\/P> The best middler tracks share nothing in common with their Mid-Pack counterparts. Of the top 5 Mid-Pack tracks, #4 Upper New York<\/I> (78) comes in the highest in dirt sprints, finishing 5th (7th with tracks 83-88 included) with a 22.94% win percentage for horses between 3-6 lengths back. #1 Oklahoma<\/I> (31) comes in at #27 on this list with a 21.73%, while the other three range from anywhere between #10 and #72 (yes, West Virginia<\/I> (13), which was #2 on the Mid-Pack list, falls to #72 here in the Middler Dirt Sprint category, with a 20.25%). As for the Bottom 5 on the Mid-Pack list, the list here looks very similar. The bottom 3 for Dirt Sprint Middlers is Newmarket<\/I> (49) with a 16.73%, Epsom <\/I>(34) with an 18.20%, and Sweden<\/I> (52) with an 18.78%. These three were formerly #4, 3, and 1 respectively. Malaysia<\/I> (56) comes in at 7th worst, with a 19.52%. Only Italy<\/I> (63) shows any remote promise in dirt sprints, finishing 54th with a 20.87%. The 4th and 5th worst tracks for middlers in dirt sprints are British Columbia <\/I>(69) and North Korea<\/I> (80).<\/FONT><\/P> When it comes to the final two categories, rarely do we see wins from these groups in sprints. They come from too far back and they don\u2019t have enough distance. So while the top 5 group for Closers includes many “low” tracks (as well as Vermont, which has become a major Sim track), these tracks are prone to seeing Classic races. The result is that only #1 California<\/I> (1) sneaks into the top 5 here (7th with 83-88 included) at #5 with a 9.22% win percentage for horses coming from 6-9 back. The top tracks on this list, instead, are ones that are considered “turf tracks”. Epsom<\/I> (34), Queensland<\/I> (55), and Victoria<\/I> (53) make up the top 3, most likely due to the fact that they have seen less of these races, so 1 winner from this distance will go a lot farther than 1 winner from Kentucky. They are the 3 of only 4 tracks with a win percentage higher than 10% for this group, with 11.35%, 11.24%, and 10.58% respectively (the fourth highest is Eastern Kentucky, track 83, so it is excluded). The other four tracks off the Closer top 5 list come in at #46, #20, #44, and #22, respectively. As for the worst 5 Closer tracks, there is something about the air in Montana <\/I>(72). While the rest of the bottom 5 are scattered around, Montana once again sports the worst percentage of all, a paltry 5.22%. The next closest on the list is Malaysia<\/I> (56), with a 5.61% winning percentage. Of the rest of the bottom 5, Idaho <\/I>(30) is the 3rd worst dirt sprint track for Come-From-Behind horses, with a 5.76% rate, and British Columbia<\/I> (69) is the 7th worst, with a 6.19% win rate. The last two, New Mexico<\/I> (14) and Taiwan<\/I> (68), rank #70 and #32 for dirt sprints, respectively.<\/FONT><\/P> If there\u2019s one group you would rarely expect to see cross the finish line first in a sprint, it\u2019s the “Way-Back” group. That could be why the first 8 tracks, and the only 8 with a winning percentage over 2%, are all European turf-tracks. The best of those is Epsom<\/I> (34) with a 3.43% rate, and Japan (50), who is #3 on the Best Deep Closers list, comes in again at #3 with a 2.84%, but all of those percentages are artificially inflated. So which dirt\/neutral track is the best when it comes to these far-off guys? Well, that title belongs to Tennessee<\/I> (76), ranked #9 with a 1.97% win rate. But of all the “neutral” US tracks, Tennessee is the most turf-oriented. So next on the list is a true dirt track, Northern California <\/I>(29), which sees Way-Back winners at a 1.93% clip. The others from the Top 5 Deep Closers list are led by Florida<\/I> (2), ranked #13 with a 1.77% win percentage. It is then followed by New York<\/I> (4), Vermont <\/I>(37), <\/I>and Sweden<\/I> (52), which are ranked #20, #35, and #68, respectively. On the other end of the spectrum, we see no Turf European tracks. Instead, we see 4 of the Worst 5 Deep Closer tracks within the bottom 6 tracks for Way-Back dirt sprinters. It is lead by previous #5 Mexico<\/I> (41), who sports a measly 0.55% win percentage for any horse coming from 9 or more lengths back. Portugal<\/I> (64) remains ranked 2nd worst, Malaysia <\/I>(56) comes in at 4th, and previous leader Montana<\/I> (72), the track where there is quicksand following the leaders, comes in 6th. Only North Korea<\/I> (80) shows any sign of life in the back of dirt sprints, ranked 41st best track in dirt sprints. The newest addition to tracks sporting no closing kick is Mississippi<\/I> (48), coming in tied for 2nd worst with a 0.57% win rate.<\/FONT><\/P> Overall, 46.38% of dirt sprint winners are Pace-Setters. 23.79% of winners are Off-Pace horses, and 21.14% are Middlers. The closers have a very hard time, as only 7.45% of winners fall into the Come-From-Behind category, and a mere 1.25% come from Way-Back.<\/FONT><\/P> Dirt Classic<\/FONT><\/P><\/B><\/U> This is the most interesting distance\/surface combination. It is the dominant combination that people know. The Triple Crown races all fit here, as do the Breeders Bowl Classic, Juvenile, and Juvenile Fillies. Most major Grade 1 races in the US fall into this category. So which tracks hold the bias? Is there a reason I Seek U went wire-to-wire in all three Triple Crown races? Did one of those races actually favor his competitors?<\/FONT><\/P> Again, we compare our newer stats with those compiled last week. The #2 Front-Running track, North Korea<\/I> (80) brings home the bacon for Dirt Classic Pace-Setters, winning at an astounding 42.04% rate. The second best track for pace-setters, Tasmania<\/I> (67), wins at a 40.58% clip. The only other track to break 40% is Italy<\/I> (63), with 40.11% winners. Taiwan<\/I> (68), #5 in last week\u2019s top 5 Front-Runners list, again breaks through at #5 in the dirt classic pace-setter division. The others, South Korea<\/I> (81), Ostend<\/I> (36), and Portugal <\/I>(64) come in at #25, #53, and #16 respectively. Ostend\u2019s poor showing may again have to do with the fact that it is a turf track, and has had only 185 Dirt Classic races.<\/FONT><\/P> Something very interesting comes from looking at the bottom 5 tracks for pace-setters. Kentucky was the worst front-running track overall, but we all watched (and some may have read two weeks ago) as I Seek U wired the field in a dominant Bluegrass Derby performance, with Silverwore hanging in for 2nd. But that does not appear to be a common occurrence. Kentucky<\/I> (3) is the worst track for dirt classic pace-setters, with only a 29.89% winning percentage. A couple of turf tracks (Ascot <\/I>(33) and Longchamp<\/I> (35), break up the union of the “Under 10” tracks at the bottom, with New York <\/I>(4) being the 4th worst with a 31.22% winning percentage. Florida<\/I> (2), #2 in the worst front-running track ranking, is now the 10th worst track. The other three off the bottom five list range between being the 52nd best track and the 66th best track.<\/FONT><\/P> Queensland<\/FONT><\/I> (55), with only 123 dirt classic races run, is the dominant favorite for off-pace horses, having a win percentage of 26.83% for these horses. The next closest (and highest rated dirt track) is Missouri<\/I> (24), with a 21.22% win rate for the 1-3 length crowd. Missouri was also the #1 Best Stalker track from the overall data, showing that maybe there is something to the idea that it\u2019s good to be just off-pace in Missouri. Of the top 5 stalker list, the next 2 highest in dirt classic are Malaysia<\/I> (56) and Utah <\/I>(27), ranked #10 and 11, with 19.65% and 19.60% rates, respectively. Montana<\/I> (72) ranks #13 and Mississippi<\/I> (48) falls all the way to #46. The biggest surprise, however, is with South Carolina<\/I> (70). Last week, we found that South Carolina was the 3rd worst track for stalkers. This week, we find that South Carolina is the 3rd best<\/I> for off-pace horses in dirt classics. With a 20.86% win rate for horses 1-3 lengths back, South Carolina bucks the trend we saw last week. What this does show us is that South Carolina might be the most fair when it comes to speed holding, regardless of distance. The percentage of wins from off-pace horses changes very slightly between non-long distances (20.70% for sprints, 20.86% for classic).<\/FONT><\/P> As for the worst off-pace tracks, the worst tracks are mostly comprised of turf tracks. In fact, the worst 6 tracks have had a combined 1,363 dirt classic races run at them. This number is less than many of the original 60 tracks have had individually (for example, California has had 1,364, Mexico has had 1,856). So the fact that New South Wales<\/I> (54) has only had 9.31% of its winners come from 1-3 lengths back should not scare off any owners who have a horse with this running style. Beyond those 6, the worst track for off-pace horses is District Of Columbia<\/I> (77), which has seen a low 15.55% of winners come from 1-3 lengths back. As for the list of bottom 5 stalker tracks, Ostend<\/I> (36), ranked 3rd worst, comes in here as 5th worst, just one of the many turf tracks that have taken the bottom of the barrel here. Vermont <\/I>(37), tied for 5th worst on the stalker list, is the worst of the dirt tracks on the list for this distance, 9th worst with 16.28% winners for off-pace horses. Spain<\/I> (57) is 3 better than Vermont, and California <\/I>(1) is 48th best. Ascot<\/I> (33), #1 on the worst stalker track list, is 28th best here, but since Ascot is a turf track, it can be disregarded as well.<\/FONT><\/P> Virginia<\/FONT><\/I> (17), with 170 total dirt classic races, is the best track for Middlers, with 28.24% of winners coming from 3-6 back. I would ignore this data, as Virginia is a turf course. What that means is that West Virginia<\/I> (13), the #2 best track for mid-pack horses, is the best for Middlers in dirt classic races, with a 26.01% winning percentage. #1 ranked Oklahoma<\/I> (31) did not fare as well, ranking 12th in dirt classic races, with a 24.68% rate. Louisiana<\/I> (5) is #4 when it comes to dirt classic middlers, with 25.50%. The more interesting thing here is that #3 and #4 from the best Mid-Pack tracks, Tennessee<\/I> (74) and Upper New York<\/I> (78), are the 75th and 64th ranked tracks for dirt classic middlers. Tennessee, #75, has a 21.96% win rate, which is so low that Malaysia<\/I> (56), the only dirt track on the bottom 5 mid-pack track list (ranked #5), is ranked 72nd best at this distance for middlers with a 22.03% win rate. As for the rest of the bottom 5, only Italy<\/I> (63) is a neutral track; the rest are turf tracks. Italy is the 11th worst track for dirt classic middlers, with a 21.69% winning percentage. Of the other three, only Epsom<\/I> (34) is in the bottom 5 for dirt classic middlers, but the even the best of the 5, Newmarket<\/I> (49), is ranked 70th for the type. The worst track for these types of races happens to be Finland<\/I> (61), a neutral track, with a 17.81% win rate. South Carolina<\/I> (70) is the other noticeable bottom track, coming in 4th worst with a 20.86% win rate (yes, the percentage is the same as the off-pace).<\/FONT><\/P> As far as Come-From-Behind horses go, the best 3 tracks all have an insufficient number of races to assume the percentage is accurate (two are turf tracks, and one is in the 83-88 range). The best dirt tracks when it comes to these types of horses are Vermont<\/I> (37) and Kentucky<\/I> (3), which also happen to rank #2 and #3 on the best closer track list. For dirt classic races, Vermont sports a 19.18% percentage for come-from-behind horses, while Kentucky boasts an 18.71% rate. California <\/I>(1) and Colorado<\/I> (71) rank 12th and 16th in dirt classics, respectively. That leaves only Illinois<\/I> (7), which comes in at #41. The 6th best track for dirt classic come-from-behind horses is Germany<\/I> (58), with a 17.98% rate. Meanwhile, the bottom 5 dirt classic tracks for come-from-behind horses includes only 1 turf track, Newmarket<\/I> (49), coming in 4th worst. The rest are either neutral or dirt tracks. Montana <\/I>(72), where you get left behind if you\u2019re in a “closer” group, is actually the 6th worst in these classic races, with a 12.90% win percentage. That is the worst of the Bottom 5 Closers group. For dirt classics, the worst come-from-behind track is South Korea<\/I> (81), where only 12.08% of these horses have gone on to win. The next worst is West Virginia <\/I>(13), followed by Tasmania<\/I> (67). Rounding out this bottom 5 is Iowa<\/I> (19). As for the rest of the Bottom 5 Closer tracks, they range between 38th best (British Columbia<\/I> (69)) and 74th best (New Mexico<\/I> (14)).<\/FONT><\/P> For the final group, the Way-Back horses, all we see are turf tracks. The best track for Way-Back horses is New South Wales<\/I> (54), where 14.22% of these 9+ length trailers win. In fact, the first non-turf track is Eastern Kentucky<\/I> (83), which is excluded as well because it does not have enough races. After more turf tracks, we finally find a neutral track with #10 Germany<\/I> (59). Germany has seen 9.29% of its winners come from more than 9 lengths back. Yes, Japan<\/I> (50) and Sweden<\/I> (52) are in the top 10, but as they are turf tracks, I am reluctant to mention them as leaning towards the Way-Back horses in dirt classics, even though they are in the top 5 for Best Deep Closer tracks. The best of the remaining three from the top 5 best deep closers list is New York<\/I> (4), coming in at #13 overall for dirt classic Way-Back horses, with 8.84% of winners being of this style. Vermont<\/I> (37) ranks 19th, while Florida <\/I>(2) ranks 24th. As for the worst 5 tracks for Way-Back horses, Montana <\/I>(72) is once again upstaged, coming in as the 3rd worst for dirt classic Way-Back horses, at 5.53%. The worst is a fellow member of the Bottom 5 Deep Closer list, #3 North Korea<\/I> (80), who has a mere 5.31% of winners come from 9 or more back. In between those two is Wyoming<\/I> (26), with 5.48% of winners being Way-Back horses. The other 3 members of the Bottom 5 Deep Closer list are all in order as the 10th, 11th, and 12th worst tracks for dirt classic Way-Back horses. Portugal<\/I> (64) is the 10th worst with 5.88% winners, while Mexico<\/I> (41) and Malaysia<\/I> (56) are tied with 5.93% winners.<\/FONT><\/P> Overall, a mere 35.77% of winners in dirt classic races are Pace-Setters. Possibly more surprising is that only 18.41% of Off-Pace horses go on to win. The percentage jumps for the last three, with Middlers taking home 23.33% of races, Come-From-Behind horses taking 15.12%, and Way-Back horses coming through 7.37% of the time.<\/FONT><\/P> Dirt Long<\/FONT><\/P><\/B><\/U> Only 4% of the races in the sim fit this category, meaning single races will be more amplified, as each track has less of these races. In order to get even remotely accurate data, I cannot include any track that has not had a set number of races. Since the average number is of long dirt races per track is 175, and the maximum is only 321, I am excluding any track with less than 50 long dirt races run. With that, however, I will include tracks 83-88, provided that they have over 50 races run at the distance. This will end up excluding Virginia <\/I>(17), Epsom<\/I> (34), Longchamp<\/I> (35), Ostend<\/I> (36), Newmarket <\/I>(49), New South Wales <\/I>(54), and Queensland<\/I> (55).<\/FONT><\/P> Pace-Setters have won a surprisingly high percent of the time. One would expect that as the distance got longer, the number of horses staying on the lead the entire way would continue to decrease, meaning that classic distances would have more pace-setting wins than long distances. That is not the case, however. In fact, the best track for pace-setting long dirt horses, Tasmania<\/I> (67), has a 51.27% winning percentage, in 158 races. Also over 50% is Arkansas<\/I> (6), which has a 50.78% win rate in 193 races. South Korea <\/I>(81), #1 on the Best Front-Runner tracks list, is 8th here with a 47.86% win percentage. North Korea<\/I> (80) is ranked #18, and Portugal<\/I> (64) and Taiwan <\/I>(68) are #41 and #43, respectively. On the other end of the spectrum, it is Victoria<\/I> (53), with 30.51% of winners being pace-setters, which has the worst win percentage for this type. It is closely followed by Athens<\/I> (87), at 30.77%. Only California<\/I> (1), the 4th worst front-running track, remains in the bottom 5 at this distance, coming in again as the 4th worst pace-setting long distance track, with 32.43% of wins coming from within 1 length. Upper New York<\/I> (78), the third worst track for front-runners, is actually ranked 15th best track for long distance pace-setters. Florida <\/I>(2) is ranked 61st, Indiana <\/I>(20) is 59th, and Kentucky<\/I> (3) is 43rd.<\/FONT><\/P> Smell something fishy? I do. In order to show how much a small sample size can affect results, we look at the Off-Pace horses in long dirt races. The king of tracks when it comes to off-pace horses is Ascot<\/I> (33), where 21.95% of wins come from horses who are 1-3 lengths back. Ascot? Did I read that right? The same Ascot that was rated Worst Stalker Track<\/I> just last week, when only 20.15% of winners were stalkers? That\u2019s what happens when only 82 races are run at a track. There is a bit of comfort, however, knowing that #3 on last week\u2019s Best Stalker Track list, Montana<\/I> (72), again comes in #3, with 20.13% of wins coming from Off-Pace horses. Separating the “really bad” and the “really good” is Mexico<\/I> (41), with 20.25%. So where do the rest of last week\u2019s Top 5 fair? Malaysia<\/I> (56) is 20th win 14.91% of winners being Off-Pace horses. Mississippi<\/I> (48), Missouri<\/I> (24), and Utah<\/I> (27) come in 31st, 32nd, and 33rd, with percentages ranging between 14.07% and 13.94%. As for the Bottom 5 from last week, #3 South Carolina<\/I> (70) comes in as the 7th worst here, with only 8.82% of wins coming from the Off-Pace group. The worst track in long dirt races for the off-pace horses is Indiana<\/I> (20), where only 6.73% of the winners have come from 1-3 lengths back. Next on the worst list is Finland<\/I> (61), with a 7.63% percentage. With the rest of the Bottom 5 that is eligible, Spain <\/I>(57) and California<\/I> (1) rank 36th and 37th best, respectively, and Vermont <\/I>(37) comes in ranked 61st.<\/FONT><\/P> The Middler group (Not to be confused with the Midler Group \u2013 Bette Midler\u2019s backup singers) is led by a couple of unqualified tracks. So, we look at the first qualified one, making Athens<\/I> (87), usually unqualified, the best track for Middlers. 27.69% of long dirt winners at Athens come from this group. Next on the list is Finland<\/I> (61). They may have only had 7% winners from 1-3 lengths, but they excelled at the 3-6 length group, with 25.85% of winners coming from this far back. It is a big drop back to humanity, but we eventually land at #3 West Virginia<\/I> (13), where 22.59% of winners came from 3-6 lengths back. Sitting at #2 in the overall best Mid-Pack track, they are right where they would be expected. Oklahoma, the best Mid-Pack track overall, is the 14th best dirt long track, with a 20.47% win percentage. The others from the Top 5 are Tennessee<\/I> (74) in 11th, Louisiana<\/I> (5) in 32nd, and Upper New York<\/I> (78) in 41st. As for the worst Middler tracks, this side is also covered in unqualified tracks. If we ignore those, we see that the worst track for middlers is Italy<\/I> (63), where only 10.66% win. Much like the other end of the spectrum, Italy was #2 on the overall list for Worst Mid-Pack tracks, so it is right where we\u2019d expect it. Joining Italy down at the bottom are South Africa<\/I> (84) at 10.78% and Ontario<\/I> (28) at 11.11%. The “Worst” Mid-Pack track, Sweden<\/I> (52), is rated the 39th best Middler track with 17.81% winning the long dirt contests. Malaysia<\/I> (56), the only other track on the Worst Mid-Pack Track list that qualifies for long dirt races, ranks 15th best with 20.29% of wins going to middlers.<\/FONT><\/P> Two of the top 3 Come-From-Behind long dirt tracks are unqualified, which is not surprising. Somewhat surprisingly, #1 isn\u2019t. That title belongs to Argentina<\/I> (88), where 27.38% of winners have come from between 6-9 lengths back. Next on the list, after a huge dropoff, is North Carolina<\/I> (40), which has a 19.89% win rate. The #1 “Best Closer Track”, California<\/I> (1), pulls in at #5 on the long dirt surface, with an 18.92% rate. However, none of the other 4 from that list are in the Top 19, although Illinois<\/I> (7) does squeak into the Top 20. Kentucky<\/I> (3) is ranked 33rd, Vermont<\/I> (37) is 46th, and Colorado<\/I> (71) is 55th. As for the worst tracks, Montana<\/I> (72) finally fails to live up to its reputation, as it is the 30th best track for Come-From-Behind long dirt runners, with a 14.94% win rate. Instead, the title goes to a track that we haven\u2019t heard very much from; New Jersey<\/I> (9). Come-From-Behind horses wish that the New Jersey racetracks would stay closed, as they have won at a mere 6.45% rate. The next worse rate belongs to another little-heard-from track, Washington<\/I> (16), where Come-From-Behind horses have only won 8.55% of the time. New Mexico<\/I> (14), #2 on the Overall Worst Closers Track list, is the 3rd worst here, with only 8.79% of closers winning. The others from the Bottom 5 list, Idaho<\/I> (30), British Columbia<\/I> (69), and Taiwan<\/I> (68) rank 41st, 54th, and 58th best respectively.<\/FONT><\/P> When you see a track have 27.12% of winners coming from more than 9 lengths back, at any distance, you know there is something fishy. Yet that\u2019s what Victoria<\/I> (53) sports as their win percentage in long dirt races, leading the rest of the tracks. Then again, the track has only seen 59 races. Still, that means 16 winners came from at least 9 back. That\u2019s pretty impressive. The next ones on the list are expected. While Eastern Kentucky<\/I> (83) and South Africa<\/I> (84) are in there at #3 and #5, the 2, 4, 6, and 7 spots all belong to tracks that were on the Top 5 Deep Closer Tracks; Sweden<\/I> (52), Vermont<\/I> (37), Florida<\/I> (2), and Japan <\/I>(50). Sweden\u2019s win rate is 25.34%, and the range goes down to Japan\u2019s 19.20%. The only track missing is New York<\/I> (4), which ends up 17th with 16.20% winners from Way-Back. Malaysia<\/I> (56) headlines the tracks you should avoid with Way-Back horses in long dirt races, winning only 5.43% of the races. The next lowest is 7.18%, held by newcomer Pennsylvania<\/I> (12), followed by 7.96% by another newcomer, Maine <\/I>(45). Montana<\/I> (72) disappoints yet again, ending up ranked 47th best with a 12.34% win rate for Way-Back horses. Portugal<\/I> (64), North Korea<\/I> (80), and Mexico<\/I> (41) rank as the 64th, 65th, and 68th best tracks for Way-Back horses.<\/FONT><\/P> Overall, 42.01% of races are won by Pace-Setters. Only 13.09% of races are won by Off-Pace horse, the lowest of any group. Middlers win 17.46% of the races, and the closers do fairly well. The Come-From-Behind crowd has taken home 14.29% of the races, and the Way-Back group has taken 13.15%.<\/FONT><\/P> Dirt Overall<\/FONT><\/P><\/B><\/U> Here are some quick overall numbers for the dirt surface. <\/FONT><\/P> In total, 42.00% of the 253,749 races were won by Pace-Setters. The best dirt Pace-Setter track is North Korea<\/I> (80), where they have won 46.59% of the 1,848 races. This is followed by Malaysia<\/I> (56), where 44.91% of the 4,547 races were won by Pace-Setters. The biggest tracks to avoid for Pace-Setters are Queensland<\/I> (55), Eastern Kentucky<\/I> (83), Argentina <\/I>(88), and Japan<\/I> (50), all with win percentages under 37%. Since those do not have many races run on the dirt, the heavy dirt tracks to avoid are Kentucky<\/I> (3), where 38.79% of the 3,269 races were won by Pace-Setters, and Florida<\/I> (2), where 38.80% of the 3,023 were won by the same group.<\/FONT><\/P> Off-Pace horses were victorious in 21.05% of the races. This time, Queensland<\/I> (55) has the highest percentage, at 24.31%. This is not a number I would trust. Instead, head for more certain tracks, such as Utah<\/I> (27), where 22.97% of the 3,762 were won by Off-Pace horses, or Pennsylvania<\/I> (12), where 22.59% were winners in the 3,524 races. Again, turf courses fill the bottom 4 Off-Pace dirt tracks, with Victoria<\/I> (53), Epsom<\/I> (34), Ostend<\/I> (36), and New South Wales<\/I> (54) taking the prizes. But, if you have a dirt horse, don\u2019t worry; there aren\u2019t many dirt races here, so these numbers don\u2019t mean much, and you may not get a dirt race there anyway. Instead, avoid dirt tracks such as Vermont<\/I> (37), where only 18.97% of the 3,459 races were won by Off-Pace horses. Also avoid neutral tracks like Finland<\/I> (61), in which 19.05% of 2,515 races were won by the 1-3 length crowds.<\/FONT><\/P> For your Middlers, who win on the dirt 21.76% of the time, you can try Ostend<\/I> (36), Argentina <\/I>(88), Virginia <\/I>(17), or Queensland<\/I> (55). But why risk it? Instead, you can play it safer with dirt tracks such as Colorado<\/I> (71), where 23.43% of the 2,399 races were taken home by Middlers. You can also go to the deserts of Nevada<\/I> (44), where 23.28% took home gold in 3,591 races. Newmarket<\/I> (49), Epsom<\/I> (34), and Sweden<\/I> (52) have the worst percentages, but again they\u2019re turf tracks. Where I wouldn\u2019t send your promising 3yo dirt middler is British Columbia<\/I> (69), where only 20.05% of wins come from 3-6 back in 2,379 races, or Spain<\/I>, which sports a 20.16% win rate over 2,549 races.<\/FONT><\/P> Come-From-Behind horses have it a little tougher, only pulling it out 10.84% of the time. But some tracks are better than others. If you don\u2019t want to test Victoria<\/I> (53), Epsom<\/I> (34), Argentina<\/I> (88), or Ascot<\/I> (33), you don\u2019t have to. California<\/I> (1) has a 13.17% win rate for Come-From-Behind horses in 3,121 races. And if Eastern Kentucky <\/I>(83) scares you, you can always head to plain old Kentucky<\/I> (3), where 12.97% have won in 3,269 races. But if there\u2019s one message you get out of this whole thing, here it is: Keep your closers out of Montana<\/I> (72)<\/B>. A mere 8.85% have won from 6-9 back in 2,249 races. Also stay away from West Virginia<\/I> (13), where 8.99% have won the 4,636 races.<\/FONT><\/P> If you have a horse from the Way-Back group, you\u2019re not looking too good on dirt, as they\u2019ve only won 4.35% of the time. If the turf and the inexperienced tracks have you scared, of which the top 8 are all a part of, then you may want to check out Vermont<\/I> (37), where 5.93% of 3,459 races have been won by horses coming from 9 or more back. If your horse is overseas, however, you can take a peak at Ireland<\/I> (59), where in 2,397 races, 5.88% have been taken home by the Way-Back group. On the off-chance that you are overseas with your deep dirt closer, however, try to stay away from Malaysia<\/I> (56), where only 2.95% have won, and Portugal<\/I> (64), where only 3.13% have won. Oh, and I\u2019ll say it again\u2026Keep your closers out of Montana<\/I> (72)<\/B>. Only 3.38% have won from more than 9 out, and your odds aren\u2019t very good.<\/FONT><\/P> That\u2019s it for Track Biases from the sim, as presented by the Speed Study Series<\/I><\/FONT><\/U>. Tune in next week, when we take a look at some of the most underrated, and unknown, big horses in the sim. The question is: Do you even know who they are?<\/FONT><\/P>
That\u2019s it for the dirt analysis. You can head back to the BTB main page for the Turf analysis, or you can do your own. That\u2019s right, I said you can do your own. Thanks to jimj, all the data used for these Track Bias articles has been posted at his SimSports site. It is in an excel spreadsheet, but also comes with a key to understand what everything on the spreadsheet is (and what the colors mean, and why there are about 8 tables on each sheet). It can be downloaded by <\/FONT><\/SUP>clicking here<\/FONT><\/B><\/I><\/U><\/SUP><\/FONT><\/A>, or by visiting the link off of the main message board. Feel free to conduct whatever analysis you want. You want to know where Wisconsin stacks up against the rest? Check it out. You want to know how I did what I did? Check it out. You want to learn how to calculate a 95% Confidence Interval? Check it out (assuming, of course, that I did it right). You want to make sure I did my 95% Confidence Intervals right? Check it out.<\/FONT><\/P>