Pertaining to intrinsic bias, Mnr's main track traditionally favors speed at one-turn, while conforming to statistical standards of normalcy (success rates of various running styles) in route events. In accordance with this intrinsic nature, some speed-biases that set in apply ONLY to sprints. Nights when race after race is won gate-to-wire at one-turn, but horses can rally to win at a route, are not uncommon at Mnr.  

 

Now speaking to path- biases: Mountaineer's rep as a dead-rail track seemed a bit less deserved last season, as the strip played fairly for a full 80% of race-cards. As evidence, though, that the old stigma remains somewhat applicable: twenty-five of the twenty-eight path-biases that I did observe put inside trips at a disadvantage.

​

As to running style, anti-speed trends are rare at Mnr, but when leaders do struggle, an anti-rail bias is almost always in play. So, when you sense that speed has the worst of it, be alert for a corresponding dead-rail bias.

​                                                                    

                                                                                    DAILY TRENDS

​​

​

(Temporary bias is in the eye of the beholder, but the following observations are based on decades of experience and local knowledge.)

​

Tues, June 2 (fast) Distinct visual impression that inside trips had an advantage more than confirmed by raw results. Posts 1 and 2 accounted for eight of possible ten exacta placings from the five dirt races carded. (PRO- RAIL)

​

Monday, June 1 (fast) Not considering the 440, just a five-race sampling of main-track events. Although a 7-1 winner (the cheap, but indefatigable Polyester Bride- race five) did save all the ground, the bulk of other results gave no real indication of the pro-rail conditions that would set in Tuesday. Neither did any particular style seem to have an advantage. (FAIR)

​

Sunday, May 30 (fast) Four grassers plus a 440 reduce the number of relevant dirt events to just four. And with two of those won at extremely short prices, the detection of any bias would be questionable at best. (FAIR)

​​

Tues, May 26 (fast) A bit unusual to see half the card won by deep closers. But since the other half was wired, the strip seemed unbiased. (FAIR)

​

Monday, May 25 (good) Six frontrunning winners (from eight dirt races) is a lot. Would also consider that one of non-winning speeds came with hopeless sub-zero fig baggage. Potentially tempering probability of bias, no winner paid as high as 5/2. So, there's that. Since all but one second finisher occupied portion of trifecta at first call, would at least conclude closers had worst of it.  BIG ON PACE ADVANTAGE

​

Sunday, May 24 (sly) Two winning ralliers. Cicatirz in finale, was simply much the best after positioning in reasonable proximity to pace. While Change at Jamaica( race 4) likewise fired big, in addition to benefitting from setup. On pace trips had discernable edge, but more notable was pro-rail bias somewhat detectable in races 1, 6, and 8, and apparent as potent in races 4, 5, and 7.  STRONG ADVANTAGE TO INSIDE TRIPS (That's five occasions this season on which the surface played pro-rail-if you're keeping score. And from just 21 cards, which constitutes a dramatic change from last year's grain)

 

Tues, May 19 (fast) With four of the five main track races won by speed, and one of those frontrunning winners surviving heavy pressure at 14-1, an intense bias looked in play. Judging from winning paths and minor placings, the strip may have (slightly) favored inside trips..  POTENT SPEED BIAS and A BIT PRO-RAIL

 

Monday, May 18 (fast) With winners held at .2, 1.6, and 1.3 from just five dirt races, detecting any bias would be difficult at best-and the surface did, indeed, seem fair. FAIR

 

Sunday, May 17 (fast) Considered characterizing strip as anti-wide (not pro-rail), or slightly in favor of on-pace trips, but that  seemed like drawing too fine a line. FAIR

 

Tues, May 12 (fast) Three winners stormed from 12 lengths or more back, while another closed from dead-last. Speed did post a pair of scores and checked in for several seconds, one of those at huge odds.  FAIR

 

Monday, May 11 (fast) The first three races were taken by early leaders, each of which scored by a clear-margin. Rallies from well back, however, netted second in two of those events, and off -pace moves would account for several wins. FAIR

 

Sunday, May 10 (muddy) Five frontrunning winners (not counting the 440) normally would indicate a potent pro-speed bias, none of those winners, though, wound up higher than 8/5, with several held much lower. Intense pressure fielded by 2 or 3 of those horses cements my opinion on the grain.  ADVANTAGE SPEED

 

Tues, May 5 (fast) If you tuned in only for a late double that returned $194 on a pair of front-running winners (that each took extended pressure), you probably would conclude speed had the best of it. But maybe not so much if you watched the .5 chalk fold a big lead in the 6th..or a 6-furlong winner close from nearly 10 lengths back in the 4th. YOUR CALL, BUT I SEE IT AS FAIR

​

Monday, May 4 (fast) Early speed continued on a roll as five-frontrunners scored, including 7-1 and 8-1 upsets.The style bias did, however, seem a bit less potent than last night-perhaps because inside paths had no detectable advantage. ADVANTAGE SPEED

 

Sunday, May 3 (fast) Non-favored early leaders took the night's first two sprint races, and speed continued to hold well-but only at one-turn, which is characteristic of the mountain main. Also, inside trips held a discernible edge, as evidenced by the 8th race winner (Versatile $11) overcoming the style-bias, albeit with a ground saving ride. STRONG ADVANTAGE SPEED-BUT ONLY IN SPRINTS..PRO RAIL

​

Tues, April 28, (good) Overnight rains that rendered the footing "good" seemed to mitigate what had been a speed-favoring trend. Winning horses either ran best or got favorable set-ups. While the two routes were won from well back, notably, those winners launched powerful turn-moves and had advanced to first and second by their respective pre-stretch calls. FAIR (but no deep closing winners)

 

Monday, April 27, (fast) Nearly all winners made the lead at first call or moved to command on the turn. While most of these winners wound up at short odds, a 16-1 price on a dominating gate-to-wire trip served to underscore an obvious bias. STRONGLY PRO-SPEED.

 

Sunday, April 26, (fast) Five first call leaders won. In the three other races, one saw the leader end up second while attempting a route in a first start of the season, and another was won by a .5 favorite. EARLY SPEED HAD A CONSIDERABLE ADVANTAGE.

 

Tues, Apr 21, (fast) Four first-call leaders went on to win-not unusual at Mnr on a card that included just one route. 5-1 and 9-1 odds on a pair of those winners, however, seemed to indicate that speed had the best of it. Early leaders that did not score, either took pressure in front or appeared in need of the outing.   PRO-SPEED.

​

Monday, Apr 20, (fast)-Things opened with a 16-1 upset by a first-call leader. Even so, last nite's distinct pro-speed trend did not recur. Numerous winners saved ground for large portions of their trips, and longshots able to crash trifecta tickets seemed to likewise benefit from inside journeys. So, an at least mild path-bias perhaps influenced results.  SLIGHT ADVANTAGE INNER LANE

 

 

Sunday, Apr 19 (fast)-Early leaders had decided advantage, winning four of seven (not counting the two-furlong race). Supporting that assessment-only one of those front-running winners went favored, while another paid 12-1. STRONGLY PRO-SPEED

 

 

Tues, Apr 14 (fast)- Four first -call leaders scored, but with two of those pounded below even-money and none forced to battle for command, I would not rate the surface as speed-favoring. Again, though, as dry conditions continued, it did seem difficult to pass horses thru the homestretch.  DIFFICULT TO CLOSE

 

Monday, Apr 13 (fast)- Speed and aggression raced at some advantage, as most winners secured the lead by first or second call. Notably, the inner-more of two pace combatants did go on to win in several instances. SLIGHT ON-PACE ADVANTAGE

 

Sunday, Apr 12 (fast)-Don't wise guys always jump the gun in proclaiming a bias? "Speed can't win!" was the battle-cry after just two races. I get it. With unexpectedly slow times indicating a dead surface and that Stansbury chalk blowing a big lead at just 5-furlongs, an anti-speed bias may well have looked in play. But early reports of speed's demise turned out to be exaggerated. I did think that early leaders had slightly the worst of it-but probably because inner-paths seemed dead. Nor did wide closers have a field day.  Most winners raced close to the pace and buffered out from the inside.   INSIDE QUESTIONABLE..STILL NOT KIND TO DEEP CLOSERS

​

 

​

​