– The dirt version of the analysis can be seen by <\/EM>Clicking Here<\/EM><\/FONT><\/B><\/U><\/SUP><\/FONT><\/A> <\/EM><\/FONT><\/B><\/U><\/SUP><\/P> – The procedure for Part 2 of the Track Bias study and Top 5 lists can be seen <\/EM>here<\/EM><\/B><\/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 length of the article) 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> Turf, however, is especially hard to analyze in the sim. Many of the numbers will be skewed due to the fact that many North American tracks have very few turf races run. In fact, there were only half as many turf sprints run than dirt sprints. Therefore, the numbers may seem to favor tracks that either don\u2019t have turf races, or that don\u2019t actually have any sort of bias in the way that the data suggests. Regardless, I will do my best to analyze these conditions, as it\u2019s good to know what\u2019s out there.<\/P> Turf Sprinters<\/P><\/B><\/U> Pace-Setters don\u2019t have it any better than in Turf Sprints. And Pace-Setting turf sprinters don\u2019t have it any better than at Oregon<\/I> (25). In 122 races (very small sample size, 0.22% of the total turf sprints), 56.56% of winners have been Pace-Setters. If that doesn\u2019t excite you, then maybe Washington<\/I> (16) is better, as it has almost quadruple the sample size, and still sports a 55.09% win rate for Pace-Setters. In fact, in stark contrast of dirt sprints, there are 17 tracks that have a Pace-Setting winning percentage of 50.00% or more. Included in that group is #5 South Korea<\/I> (81), who was #1 on the Top 5 Front-Runners chart, with a 53.80%. It is followed very closely by Portugal<\/I> (64), #4 on the Top 5 Front-Runners chart, which has a 52.87%, good enough for 6th overall for Pace-Setting turf sprinters. Coming in at #14 is #5 from last week\u2019s list, Taiwan<\/I> (68), where 50.21% of winners have been within a length of the leader. Now the only one\u2019s missing from last week\u2019s Top 5 list are Ostend<\/I> (36), the turf track, and North Korea<\/I> (80). Surprisingly, Ostend is ranked 23rd with a 49.30% win rate, even though it is a turf track. There are turf tracks ahead of it, such as Ascot<\/I> (33), Epsom<\/I> (34), and Sweden <\/I>(52). North Korea rounds out the Top 25, as it has seen 49.16% of winners come from within 1.<\/FONT><\/P> I previously removed tracks 83-88 for lack of races, but for these turf ones, I will mention them, due to the fact that they have seen many more turf races than a lot of these tracks. I could choose to not include these, but then I would also have to disallow just about half of the tracks. Therefore, I must note that Eastern Kentucky<\/I> (83), which would have been the Worst Front-Runner track last week had I included it, is the worst here for turf sprint pace-setters as well, with only 41.55% of winners coming from 1 length back. Next is Argentina<\/I> (88), which still has a very small sample size, but has only seen 41.67% of pace-setting winners. We soon hit the Bottom 5 Front-Runners though, as 3 of the next 5 worst tracks all fell into this group last week. The 4th worst track is Indiana <\/I>(20), which was the 5th worst overall as stated last week, with only 42.52% being Pace-Setters. This is closely followed by Upper New York<\/I> (78), 5th worst here and 3rd worst overall, with 42.65%. 7th worst is California<\/I> (1), where 43.18% have won. Kentucky<\/I> (3), the worst front-running track overall, rounds out the bottom 10 here, but Florida<\/I> (2), #2 worst overall, actually ranks 42nd best here in turf sprints. And since you\u2019re probably curious as to where the first non-83-88 is on the bottom, it is Maine<\/I> (45), which is the 3rd worst track, as only 41.98% have been won by Pace-Setters.<\/FONT><\/P> Again proving that small sample sizes are dangerous to work with, Argentina<\/I> (88) comes in as the 2nd best track for Off-Pace horses, where 30.95% have won. This says that while it punishes your horse for taking the lead or staying 1 back, if you drop to 2 back, you have a good chance of winning. Luckily, it is not the best track for Off-Pace horses. Instead, that title goes to New Mexico<\/I> (14), where in 85 <\/B>races, 35.29% of winners have been Off-Pace horses. The most accurate measure comes from #4 Montana<\/I> (72), which not surprising was #3 on the Top 5 Stalker list, where in 763 races, 28.70% have won from Off-Pace. That may not seem like a lot of races, but it is well over the average number of turf sprints. Mississippi<\/I> (48), #4 on the Top 5 Stalker list, is the 7th best here, with a 27.73% win rate. Malaysia<\/I> (56) ranks 29th on this list. But in classic “your analysis is stupid” strategy, Missouri<\/I> (24), the best overall Stalker track, ranks dead last<\/B> in off-pace turf sprinters, with only 17.24% winning. If that wasn\u2019t bad enough, the 5th best overall stalking track, Utah<\/I> (27), is the 4th worst here, with only 20.91% winning. And the best Pace-Setting track, Oregon <\/I>(25), is 2nd worst here with 18.03%. As for the Bottom 5 overall stalking tracks? The worst here is Ascot<\/I> (33), #1 from last week, finishing as 5th worst here with 21.79% winning. The other turf track, Ostend<\/I> (36) and neutral Spain<\/I> (57), rank 57th and 31st best, respectively. As for the dirt tracks of South Carolina<\/I> (70), California<\/I> (1), and Vermont<\/I> (37), they rank 34th, 43rd, and 74th, respectively.<\/FONT><\/P> There is a fair leader for the Middler group, as Arkansas<\/I> (6) has had 26.48% of its winners come from 3-6 back in 559 races. It is followed by Maine<\/I> (45), Jamaica<\/I> (86), District of Columbia<\/I> (77), Malaysia<\/I> (56), and Pennsylvania<\/I> (12). Only Maine and Pennsylvania look to be even remotely legitimate. Oklahoma<\/I> (31), the best track for Mid-Pack horses, is 11th here as 22.69% of winners are Middlers. 14th here is Upper New York<\/I> (88), which was 4th overall. Louisiana <\/I>(5), Tennessee<\/I> (74), and West Virginia<\/I> (13) are 16th, 60th, and 46th here. As for the “turf tracks”, the best for Middlers is Queensland<\/I> (55), ranked 28th with 21.29% of winners coming from 3-6 back. It would seem as though the sim turf tracks do not have Mid-Pack biases, as there are no turf tracks on the bottom either. The worst offender for turf sprint Middlers is New Mexico<\/I> (14), which was the best for Off-Pace horses, meaning I would ignore it. It is followed by Mexico<\/I> (41), Massachusetts<\/I> (79), and Norway<\/I> (66). Norway, where 16.95% have won, is the only one of those four that is not a dirt track. In fact, Norway, with 702 races, has seen almost double the other three combined (437, with 312 of those coming from Massachusetts). Montana<\/I> (72), a bad track for closers all around, comes in as 7th worst here, with only 17.30% of winners coming from 3-6 back in these sprints. As far as turf-specific tracks go, the worst is Victoria<\/I> (53), where only 19.26% of winners have been Middlers. Interestingly, 3 of the 5 Worst Mid-Pack tracks are all turf tracks. Sweden<\/I> (52), the worst Mid-Pack track, ranks 63rd overall, with 19.11% winning. Epsom<\/I> (34) and Newmarket<\/I> (49), 3rd and 4th on last week\u2019s list, rank 54th and 52nd for turf sprint Middlers, respectively. Italy<\/I> (63) is 71st here, and Malaysia<\/I> (56), a dirt track, is 5th on the list (as mentioned earlier).<\/FONT><\/P> There are some respectable results for Come-From-Behind horses, as the top 3 all have a reasonable number of turf sprints. Wyoming<\/I> (26) leads the way for these horses, as 11.01% have come from 6-9 lengths back to pull it out. 2nd is the #1 track for Closers, California<\/I> (1), which has seen 10.30% win. Northern California<\/I> (29) is 3rd on the list with 9.62%. Maybe it has something to do with the weather out west. Illinois<\/I> (7), #5 overall for closers, is 12th here as 7.87% have crossed the line first. Vermont <\/I>(37), Kentucky<\/I> (3), and Colorado<\/I> (71) rank 19th, 37th, and 27th respectively. As for predominantly turf tracks, Japan<\/I> (50) leads the way at #18, with 7.54% of Come-From-Behind horses winning. As for the worst come-from-behind tracks, we again see Mexico<\/I> (41) and its 40 races, as well as Oregon<\/I> (25) and its 122. The first semi-legitimate result is that from Washington<\/I> (16), 3rd worst, where 3.32% of winners were Come-From-Behind horses. British Columbia<\/I> (69), #5 on the Worst Closers list, ends up as #5 here as well for worst Come-From-Behind tracks, at 4.30%. The worst turf track is New South Wales<\/I>, which sports a 5.88% win rate, ranking 61st. As for the rest of the Bottom 5 Closer track list, #2 New Mexico<\/I> (14) and #3 Idaho<\/I> (30) are dirt tracks, and they could end up anywhere for turf sprints. In this particular case, Idaho is 10th best, and New Mexico is 26th best. #1 Montana <\/I>(72) and #4 Taiwan<\/I> (68) are neutral. Montana is ranked 74th, while Taiwan is 42nd.<\/FONT><\/P> What a surprise that the Way-Back category would again be dominated, on both ends, by dirt tracks. Leading the way here is Indiana<\/I> (20), where 3.32% have come from more than 9 back. It is followed by Massachusetts<\/I> (79), Nevada<\/I> (44), Upper New York<\/I> (78), and Utah<\/I> (27). Nevada and Utah, at 2.07% and 1.92% respectively, are the two semi-legitimate results in this group. Following them is Kentucky<\/I> (3) at 1.84%. As for the Best Deep Closer tracks, you would expect that Japan and Sweden would be high on this list. However, Sweden<\/I> (52), at 18 with 1.31%, and Japan<\/I> (50), at 20 with 1.28%, are not even the highest-ranked turf courses. That title belongs to Ascot<\/I> (33), who ranks 14th with 1.41% of winners coming from Way-Back. In fact, 2 dirt tracks on the Best Deep Closer list, #2 Vermont<\/I> (37) and #3 New York<\/I> (4) rank higher than the turf members of the list, as they rank 10th and 16th, respectively. Heck, even Malaysia<\/I> (56), the #4 worst<\/B> track for Deep Closers, ranks higher as #17 (although Malaysia has seen barely over 100 turf sprints, and so the results are somewhat invalid). The only track from the list that is not any good is Florida<\/I> (2), which is ranked tied for 66th with 0.73% win rate. Meanwhile, 5 dirt tracks all have not had 1 winner come from way back in a dirt sprint. The lowest with at least 1 winner is North Carolina<\/I> (40), with a 0.22% win rate for Way-Back horses. It is closely followed by a neutral track, Finland<\/I> (61), with a 0.25% rate. The worst turf track is Epsom<\/I> (34), where only 0.47% of races were won by Way-Back horses. As for the others on the Bottom 5 list, Mexico<\/I> (41) is one of the 5 with no winners. #2 Portugal<\/I> (64) is ranked 75th, with a 0.57% win rate. #1 Montana <\/I>(72) disappoints, as it is ranked 72nd. Lastly, neutral track North Korea<\/I> (80) ranks 55th, seeing Way-Back horses win 0.84% of the time.<\/FONT><\/P> Overall, an incredible 47.77% of the 55,446 races were won by Pace-Setters. 24.50% went to the Off-Pace horses, and 20.23% went to Middlers. Closers had a tough time, as only 6.53% went to the Come-From-Behind horses, and Way-Back horses had a brutal time, taking a mere 0.98% of the races.<\/FONT><\/P> Turf Classic<\/FONT><\/P><\/B><\/U> Luckily, there are more races that fall in this category than in turf sprints. Unlike the dirt, turf races are generally longer, and therefore these are more common. While there are some tracks that still do not break 100 races, those that were semi-legitimate in the sprint category are more likely to have enough races to form a valid opinion this time. <\/FONT><\/P> Toss the leader of the Pace-Setter tracks, Iowa<\/I> (19), with only 69 turf classic races. The second track, Taiwan<\/I> (68) is much more legitimate, with 45.23% of its 1,154 turf classic races won by Pace-Setters. It makes sense, as Taiwan is the #5 overall Front-Runner track. Following Taiwan is Montana<\/I> (72), with a 44.22% win rate, which would explain where all the races go, since closers never win. The #1 overall Front-Runner track, South Korea<\/I> (81), ranks 17th, 2 behind #2 overall Front-Runner track North Korea<\/I> (80). The have a win rate of 41.21% and 41.38%, respectively. Portugal<\/I> (64), #4 on the overall list, is the 7th best here with 42.98%. The lone turf track on the Top 5 list, Ostend<\/I> (36), is 11th here with a 41.79% win rate. As for the worst Pace-Setter tracks, the list is led by Missouri<\/I> (24), West Virginia<\/I> (13), and Upper New York<\/I> (78), all dirt tracks, although the latter was the 3rd worst front-runner track overall. Eastern Kentucky<\/I> (83) at 31.94% and Maryland<\/I> (8) at 32.78% are the 4th and 5th worst turf classic tracks for Pace-Setters. Kentucky<\/I> (3) and Indiana <\/I>(20), the #1 and #5 worst tracks for Front-Runners, are the 11th and 12th worst tracks for Pace-Setters here, with 36.08% and 36.18% of Pace-Setters winning, respectively. California<\/I> (1) is ranked 60th here, and Florida<\/I> (2) is 63rd.<\/FONT><\/P> North Dakota<\/FONT><\/I> (75) leads the way for Off-Pace horses with 25.41% of the 366 races being won from 1-3 lengths back. It\u2019s not an overwhelming number of races, but it\u2019s more than track #2, Idaho<\/I> (30), where only 30 races were run. The most interesting result, however, may be that Maryland<\/I> (8), which has a fair number of turf races, is the 3rd best track for Off-Pace horses, at 23.19%, after being the 4th worst for Pace-Setters. Montana<\/I> (72) has the highest ranking turf classic course out of the Top 5 Stalker tracks, ranking 12th with 21.45% winners. It is, however, the only one of the 5 tracks that is a neutral track \u2013 the rest are dirt tracks. So it\u2019s not surprising that Missouri<\/I> (24) and Utah<\/I> (27), #1 and #5 front the Best Stalkers list, rank 28th and 29th here, with 20.34% and 20.29% respectively. Mississippi<\/I> (48) stays right behind, ranked 32nd. Malaysia<\/I> (56) is really the only disappointing result, ranked 71st with only 18.03% of Off-Pace winners. Meanwhile, the top 2 on the Worst Stalker Tracks list are both turf tracks, so they would be expected to stay bad here. Ascot<\/I> (33), #1 on the list, ends up as the 10th worst here, with 17.38% of Off-Pace winners. Ostend<\/I> (36) is the 19th worst for turf classic races, where 18.09% of winners come from Off-Pace. The worst track here happens to be New York<\/I> (4), with 15.92% of winners coming from Off-Pace in 873 races, enough races to give an accurate reading. Iowa<\/I> (19) made the list again, and will for all 5 styles of running, as there were only 69 turf classic races run there, and it just so happens to have a relatively even spread of win distances. New Mexico<\/I> (14) is the 3rd worst, followed by Illinois<\/I> (7), which has seen 16.16% Off-Pace winners. Spain<\/I> (57), the 4th worst overall track for Stalkers, is ranked 73rd best here, and Vermont<\/I> (37) and California<\/I> (1), originally tied for 5th, are ranked 78th and 81st here, respectively. South Carolina<\/I> (70) faired the best of the poor groups, ranking 65th in turf classic races for Off-Pace horses.<\/FONT><\/P> Missouri<\/FONT><\/I> (24) and West Virginia <\/I>(13) lead the way for Middlers with over 30% winning at each track. 30%? Yes\u2026then again, they are dirt tracks with a combined total of 145 turf classic races between them. New Mexico<\/I> (14), the 3rd highest, adds only 93 races to the mix. The 4th ranked District of Columbia<\/I> (77) has more than those 3 combined, with 344 races, but even that is low for this distance. The 5th ranked Oklahoma<\/I> (31) has 600 races, more that the previous 4 combined, and only now can we start making valid conclusions. Add to that the fact that Oklahoma is the #1 overall Mid-Pack track, and it would make sense that it should be ranked 5th here with 27.00% of its wins coming at the hands of Middlers. It is followed by another dirt track, Upper New York<\/I> (78), which happens to be #4 on the overall Mid-Pack list. Louisiana<\/I> (5), #5 overall, rounds out the Top 10 here with 25.56% for the Middler category. Tennessee<\/I> (74), the final member of the Top 5 Mid-Pack list (West Virginia was #2), ranks 17th here with 24.93% of winners. As I eluded to previously, Iowa<\/I> (19) leads the way again as the worst Middler track. Nevada<\/I> (44), the 5th worst track for turf classic Middlers, is the first on the list that has seen over 100 turf classic races. It is followed by Wyoming<\/I> (26), which has 20.37% of its races won by Middlers. The first from the previous Top 5 is Malaysia<\/I> (56), the 9th worst turf classic track for Middlers, with only 20.49%. Italy<\/I> (63), #2 from the Top 5 list, is ranked 63rd overall for turf classic Middlers. Epsom<\/I> (34) is 59th, Newmarket<\/I> (49) is 53rd, and Sweden<\/I> (52), the worst Mid-Pack track overall, is 48th with 22.93% of winners coming from 3-6 lengths back.<\/FONT><\/P> Upper New York <\/FONT><\/I>(78) headlines the best tracks for Come-From-Behind horses, with 19.43% of winners coming from 6-9 lengths back. This, Malaysia<\/I> (56), and West Virginia<\/I> (13) are dirt tracks, and Argentina<\/I> (88) has about as many races at the turf classic distance as the dirt tracks do. This means that the most definite result is that the #2 best track for closers, Vermont<\/I> (37), is equally good here, ranking 5th with 16.77% winning percentage for Come-From-Behind horses. The 7th best track for Come-From-Behind turf classic horses is Colorado <\/I>(71), the #4 Best Closer track, where 15.87% of winners have had this running style. Rounding out the top 10 is Best Closer track #3 Kentucky<\/I> (3), with 15.23%. The #1 best closer track, California<\/I> (1), is 18th, and #5 Illinois<\/I> (7) is a disappointing 40th. Yet again, Iowa<\/I> (19) bests all when it comes to being bad, with only 8.70% of its 69 races going to Come-From-Behind horses. It is followed by 30 race Idaho<\/I> (30), which happens to be #4 on the overall worst closer track list. Then the real tracks take over. The 4th worst overall closer track, Taiwan<\/I> (68), is the 3rd worst for turf classic races, with only 9.19% of wins coming from Come-From-Behind horses. Montana<\/I> (72) is barely better, ranking as 4th worst with 9.98% of wins from this running style. British Columbia <\/I>(69), #5 on the list, ranks 75th overall here. New Mexico<\/I> (14), the only other track on the overall list, ranks 67th with only 93 races run. <\/FONT><\/P> For the Way-Back horses, Iowa<\/I> (19) turns the tables, with an insane 10.14% winning its 69 races. After New Mexico<\/I> (14) and Malaysia<\/I> (56) and their combined 200 races, we get to the tracks that made the Top 5 Deep Closer tracks. #3 New York <\/I>(4) leads the way here, ranked 4th with 7.56% winners from Way-Back. It is followed closely by #4 Florida<\/I> (2), ranked 5th here at 7.42%. A break for some newcomers, Ireland<\/I> (59) with 7.36% and Northern California<\/I> (29) at 7.09%, and then a return to the list in #2 Vermont<\/I> (37), which has seen 7.08% of its winners come from Way-Back. The only 2 from the overall list that did not make the top 20 are the 2 turf tracks, Japan<\/I> (50) and Sweden<\/I> (52), which ranked 25th and 34th respectively. On the other side, West Virginia<\/I> (13) has only seen 1 winner from more than 9 lengths back in its 86 turf classic races, making it the worst for Way-Back horses. North Carolina<\/I> (40) takes the cake for legitimately bad for Way-Back horses, with only 2.93% winning almost 600 races. Montana<\/I> (72), the worst track in the sim for any type of closer, does not lose any reputation here, with only 3.06% of Way-Back horses winning its 1,142 turf classic races. The remaining 3 on the bottom 5 list for Deep Closers, North Korea<\/I> (80), Portugal<\/I> (64), and Mexico<\/I> (41), rank 75th, 76th, and 77th overall, all ranging between 4.00% and 4.13%. Taiwan<\/I> (68) is another interesting track at the bottom here, ranking as the 5th worst track with only 3.38% winning turf classic races.<\/FONT><\/P> Overall, 39.54% of Pace-Setters have won the 74,838 turf classic races. 19.40% have come from Off-Pace, and 23.04% have been Middlers. The closers faired better here, as 12.77% were Come-From-Behind horses, and 5.25% got up from Way-Back.<\/FONT><\/P> Turf Long<\/FONT><\/P><\/B><\/U> One would think that the Turf Long division would yield a lot of races, as the male classic turf distance of 12 furlongs actually falls in this category, even though it is called the “classic turf distance”. However, that does not seem to be the case. I made the policy of disqualifying any track with less than 50 races from the analysis for dirt long races, where the maximum was 321 and the average was around 175. 7 tracks were disqualified. This time, the maximum number of races is 586, about double that of the dirt (from Vermont). However, the minimum is 10, about half that of the dirt. This time, there is an average of 169, and the 50 race minimum will disqualify 9 tracks: West Virginia<\/I> (13), New Mexico<\/I> (14), Iowa<\/I> (19), Missouri <\/I>(24), Oregon<\/I> (25), Idaho<\/I> (30), Mexico<\/I> (41), Malaysia<\/I> (56), and Argentina<\/I> (88).<\/FONT><\/P> There are 12 tracks that sport at least 50% win percentages for Pace-Setters. Leading the fray is Tasmania<\/I> (67), where 54.55% of wins have come from horses within 1 length. It is followed by Montana<\/I> (72), which has a Pace-Setter win percentage of 53.92%. South Korea<\/I> (81), the #1 Overall Front-Runner track, ranks 20th here, with 47.44% of wins coming from Pace-Setters. From the overall list, the best showing in long turf races is Portugal<\/I> (64), which ranks 4th with 52.54% of wins going to pace-setters. North Korea<\/I> (80) has a Pace-Setter win rate of 46.52%, good enough for 23rd in long turf races. Taiwan<\/I> (68), #5 on the overall list, ranks 14th here with a 49.10%. Ostend<\/I> (36), the one turf track on the Front-Runner list, shows it here as the second highest ranking turf course, ranking 7th for the Pace-Setters with a 50.68% win rate. Only Newmarket<\/I> (49) is a better turf course for long turf Pace-Setters, ranking 6th with a 50.73%. If you\u2019re in the States and can\u2019t get to Montana, you can go to either Oklahoma<\/I> (31), ranked 3rd, or District of Columbia<\/I> (77), ranked 5th. As for the not-so-hot places for long turf Pace-Setters to be, the worst-overall Kentucky<\/I> (3) is also the worst here, with a mere 34.50% of wins coming from pace-setters. Jamaica<\/I> (86) is the next worst with 34.88%, then it jumps a little to Illinois<\/I> (7) and Arizona<\/I> (15), both in the 37th percentile. California<\/I> (1) and Florida<\/I> (2) are both true to their overall styles and end up within the 10 worst tracks for Pace-Setters, with California at 7 and Florida at 9. Upper New York<\/I> (78) ranks as the 47th best place for long turf Pace-Setters, and in a big surprise, Indiana <\/I>(20) breaks away from its ranking as the 5th worst place for pace-setters and actually ranks as the 11th best place for long turf Pace-Setters.<\/FONT><\/P> The #5 worst overall track for Stalkers is Vermont. Yet for long turf races, Vermont<\/I> (37) is the best track, with 22.87% of winners coming from 1-3 lengths back. 2nd is the #4 overall best track for Stalkers, Mississippi<\/I> (48), with a 21.43% winning percentage. Rounding out the long turf top 5 are North Dakota<\/I> (75), New Hampshire<\/I> (38), and Washington<\/I> (16), all three of which are in the 18-20% range. Missouri<\/I> (24) and Malaysia<\/I> (56) were disqualified, so the two remaining tracks from the Top 5 Stalkers list are Montana and Utah. Montana<\/I> (72) ranks 44th in long turf races, with 13.73% wins going to the Off-Pace horses. Utah<\/I> (27), on the other hand, appears to have traded with Vermont. Although it is the #5 best overall track for Stalkers, it is the worst<\/B> track for long turf Off-Pace horses. Only 7.77% of races were won by off-pace horses. Other bad tracks for off-pace horses include Maine<\/I> (45), Dubai<\/I> (51), and Pennsylvania<\/I> (12), all with win percentages under 9%. South Carolina<\/I> (70) and California<\/I> (1), #3 and #5 on the worst overall stalker list, rank 55th and 56th for Off-Pace horses in long turf races. Spain<\/I> (57), the 4th worst overall stalker track, is ranked 6th best in long turf races for off-pace horses, with 17.84% winners. The two turf courses on the Bottom 5 list, #1 Ascot<\/I> (33) and #2 Ostend<\/I> (36), rank 51st and 18th in long turf races, respectively.<\/FONT><\/P> Kentucky<\/FONT><\/I> (3) leads the way for Middlers in long turf races, with 24.56% of races going to horses coming from 3-6 lengths back. It\u2019s followed by relatively unbiased Hong Kong<\/I> (60) and Kansas<\/I> (18), both over 23%. Louisiana<\/I> (5) is the highest-ranked track from the Top 5 Overall Mid-Pack track list, 6th best for Middlers in long turf races, with a 22.00% win rate. Oklahoma<\/I> (31), the number 1 overall Mid-Pack track, ranks 23rd in long turf races, with 18.28% going on to win. Tennessee<\/I> (74) and Upper New York<\/I> (78) fair much worse, ranking 54th and 72nd, respectively. As for the bottom of the barrel tracks, there are some slightly familiar names, and a new one as well. The worst track for long turf middlers is Jamaica<\/I> (86), where only 10.47% of wins are by these horses. Barely better is a newcomer, Nebraska<\/I> (23), which has an 11.11% win rate for Middlers. Our old favorite Montana<\/I> (72) shows up next on the list, with an 11.76%. From the Bottom 5 list, Newmarket <\/I>(49) is the worst in long turf races, as the 14th worst track for Middlers, with merely 14.39% winning races. Epsom<\/I> (34) and Italy<\/I> (63) are the next two, ranked 60th and 58th, respectively. The worst Mid-Pack track, Sweden<\/I> (52), actually performs well in long turf races, ranking 30th with 17.55% of races being taken home by Middlers.<\/FONT><\/P> Jamaica<\/FONT><\/I> (86) goes from worst-to-first when moving down to the Come-From-Behind group, where 20.93% of the races are won by Come-From-Behind horses. It is followed by Arkansas<\/I> (6) and Ohio<\/I> (11), both of which are almost identical at 19.71% and 19.70%, respectively. It\u2019s a drop down to 18.99% for Athens<\/I> (17), and the only other track over 18% wins for Come-From-Behind horses is Arizona<\/I> (15). Of the top 5 Closer tracks, Kentucky<\/I> (3) is the highest rated at #18, with a 15.79% win percentage for horses coming from 6-9 back. Close by is Colorado<\/I> (71), ranked 21st with 15.00%. California<\/I> (1) is ranked 35th, and Illinois<\/I> (7) is #50. The surprise is Vermont<\/I> (37), 2nd best overall closer track, as it is the 3rd worst for long turf races, with only 7.51% wins from the Come-From-Behind crowd. The worst track is Oklahoma<\/I> (31) with only 6.45%, with Portugal<\/I> (64) sneaking in between the two with 7.20% winners. Taiwan<\/I> (68), the 4th worst overall closer track, is also the 4th worst long turf Come-From-Behind track, seeing these winners in only 7.66% of races. Montana <\/I>(72) disappoints this time, ranking 24th best track for Come-From-Behind horses. However, British Columbia<\/I> (69) is the biggest disappointment\/surprise, ranking as the 14th best track with 16.36% of wins for the Come-From-Behind crowd.<\/FONT><\/P> Jamaica<\/FONT><\/I> (86) stays at the top for the Way-Back horses, seeing an amazing 19.77% win these long turf races. None of the overall Top 5 for deep closers made the top 10 here in long turf races, but Arizona <\/I>(15), Wyoming<\/I> (26), and California<\/I> (1) make up for it in the Top 4, all of which have win percentages over 17%. As for the overall Top 5 list, #1 Japan<\/I> (50) is the highest ranked in long turf races, ranking 11th with a 14.33% win percentage for Way-Back horses. New York<\/I> (4) sees 13.26% of wins from Way-Back horses, good enough for 17th, while Sweden<\/I> (52) settles in 24th. Florida<\/I> (2) has 11.81% of its races won by Way-Back horses which put it in 31st. Vermont<\/I> (37), continuing its trend in long turf races, has the worst rate of all, a mere 1.37%. The next worst, Washington<\/I> (16) has 3.48% of wins come from Way-Back horses, and the 4th worst track, Montana<\/I> (72), has a whopping (when compared to Vermont) 5.88% of wins come from Way-Back horses. Montana is tied with the 3rd worst overall Deep Closer track, North Korea<\/I> (80). Keeping with the theme of being accurate to the overall rankings when it comes to bad tracks for Way-Back horses in long turf races, Portugal<\/I> (64) ranks as the 7th worst, only better than Hong Kong<\/I> (60) and North Dakota<\/I> (75), ranked 6th and 3rd respectively. <\/FONT><\/P> Overall, 44.93% of the 14,873 races were taken home by Pace-Setters. Off-Pace horses won a mere 14.31%, and Middlers took home 17.25%. The closers do very well here, as Come-From-Behind horses took home 12.98%, and Way-Back won a whopping 10.54%.<\/FONT><\/P> Turf Overall<\/FONT><\/P><\/B><\/U> Here are some quick overall numbers for the turf surface. <\/FONT><\/P> In total, 43.23% of the 145,145 races were won by Pace-Setters. The best turf Pace-Setter track is Washington<\/I> (16), where they have won 49.01% of the 1,114 races. Iowa<\/I> (19) is 2nd, but has only had 193 races, and it is followed by equally few raced tracks Mexico<\/I> (41) and Idaho<\/I> (30). Therefore, we look to the 4th highest ranked, which is Portugal <\/I>(64), where 47.70% of the 2,302 races were won by Pace-Setters, or the 5th ranked Taiwan<\/I> (68), with a 47.36% win rate in 2,103 races. The biggest tracks to avoid for Pace-Setters are Upper New York<\/I> (78), Eastern Kentucky<\/I> (83), and West Virginia <\/I>(13), all with win percentages under 38%. Only Eastern Kentucky has over 1000 races run on turf. The next best to avoid, where turf races are at least existent, are Kentucky<\/I> (3), where 38.75% of the 1,569 races were won by Pace-Setters, and Pennsylvania<\/I> (12), where 39.65% of the 1,314 were won by the same group. If you\u2019re looking for turf-specific tracks, then head for Ostend<\/I> (36), with a win percentage of 45.54% in 4,363 races. You should avoid Virginia<\/I> (17), where only 42.02% have won in 4,367 races. If you need an American track to visit with your Pace-Setting turf horse, try Montana<\/I> (72), ranked 8th. <\/FONT><\/P> Off-Pace horses were victorious in 20.82% of the races. This time, West Virginia<\/I> (13) has the highest percentage, at 26.73%. This is not a number I would trust, as only 202 races have been run there. Instead, head for more certain tracks, such as Montana<\/I> (72), where 23.33% of the 2,109 were won by Off-Pace horses, or British Columbia<\/I> (69), where 22.94% were winners in the 1,979 races. Dirt courses fill the bottom 2 Off-Pace dirt tracks, with Missouri<\/I> (24) and Oregon<\/I> (25) taking the prizes. But if you have a horse in one of these places and it\u2019s a turfer, don\u2019t worry. Montana, Washington, and British Columbia aren\u2019t far away. What you should make sure you do is avoid tracks such as Colorado<\/I> (71), where only 18.58% of the 1,959 races were won by Off-Pace horses. Also stay away from New York <\/I>(4), where only 18.60% won out of 1,720 races. If you\u2019re looking at turf-specific tracks, or you\u2019re in the EAAA, head for Queensland<\/I> (55), where Off-Pace horses win 21.60% of the time. Make sure to stay out of Ascot<\/I> (33), however; only 18.68% win of horses coming from 1-3 lengths back win there.<\/FONT><\/P> For your Middlers, who win on the turf 21.38% of the time, you could try the 1st ranked Missouri<\/I> (24), but it wouldn\u2019t be a smart idea. Instead, you can play it safer with more neutral tracks such as Arkansas<\/I> (6), where 24.93% of the 1,360 races were taken home by Middlers. You can also try the Midwest and Deep South with Oklahoma<\/I> (31) and Louisiana<\/I> (5), where 24.62% and 23.94% took home gold, respectively. Mexico<\/I> (41), Iowa<\/I> (19), Idaho<\/I> (30), and New Mexico <\/I>(14) have the worst percentages, but again they have very few turf races run between them. Where I would make sure not to send your mid-pack turf claimer is Montana<\/I> (72), where only 18.92% of wins come from 3-6 back in 2,109 races, or Wyoming<\/I>, which sports a 18.94% win rate over 1,056 races. Another to avoid is Japan<\/I> (50), where in 3,624 races, only 19.40% of Middlers won. If you\u2019re looking for the turf track to head to, tough luck. The best is Ascot<\/I> (33) with a 21.91% win rate, but I would instead choose a track like Hong Kong<\/I> (60), a neutral track, where 22.88% have won.<\/FONT><\/P> <\/FONT>\u00a0<\/P> Come-From-Behind horses have it a little tougher, only pulling it out 10.41% of the time. But some tracks are better than others. If you don\u2019t want to risk the moderately-tried Upper New York<\/I> (78), you can go elsewhere. Nebraska <\/I>(23) boasts a 13.02% win rate for horses coming from 6-9 back, in 1,060 races. If that\u2019s not enough races for you, California<\/I> (1) has a 12.75% win rate for Come-From-Behind horses in 1,717 races. And if you\u2019re looking for about 2,000 races, will you settle for Colorado<\/I> (71) and its 1,959 with a 12.51% win rate? You can still test Mexico <\/I>(41), but make sure to avoid Washington <\/I>(16), which has only seen 7.72% winners from 6-9 lengths. Also, make sure to stay away from Taiwan<\/I> (68). <\/B>Only 8.08% of winners were Come-From-Behind horses. <\/B>Also avoid Portugal<\/I> (64) and its 8.56%. Oh\u2026and keep your closers away from Montana<\/I> (72)<\/B>. If you haven\u2019t read the dirt analysis yet, or skipped that part, closers do not fair well in Montana. For a European track to choose, head for Ireland<\/I> (59), which has a 11.63% rate. The turf-specific tracks are about average all around.<\/FONT><\/P> If you have a horse from the Way-Back group, you\u2019re looking really bad on turf, as they\u2019ve only won 4.16% of the time. There is a clear favorite here, and that\u2019s New York<\/I> (4), where 5.81% of the 1,720 races have been taken from 9 or more back. It may also strike your fancy, in the US, to try out Massachusetts (79) and its 5.44% rate in 680 races, or Eastern Kentucky <\/I>(83) and its 5.30% in 1,037 races. If your horse is overseas, and you\u2019re afraid of testing Dubai <\/I>(51) and its 5.30% in 623 races, you can take a peak at Ireland<\/I> (59), where in 2,441 races, 5.04% have been taken home by the Way-Back group. If you\u2019re in the US with your deep turf closer, you may or may not want to test out West Virginia<\/I> (13) and its invisible turf track. Definitely stay away from North Carolina<\/I> (40), where in 1,123 races only 2.40% of the winners came from Way-Back. Oh, and I\u2019ll say it again\u2026Keep your closers out of Montana<\/I> (72)<\/B>. Only 2.47% have won from more than 9 out, and your odds aren\u2019t very good. Also keep them away from Taiwan<\/I> (68), which has seen a mere 2.95% 9+ length comebacks. <\/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 turf analysis. You can <\/FONT><\/SUP>Click Here<\/FONT><\/B><\/I><\/U><\/SUP><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/B><\/I><\/U>for the Dirt 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>