Betting Poor Jocks Is Throwing Money Away

[jjgold]

Boys 90% of picking winners is sticking with the top jocks of the particalr meet you are playing. There are too many clowns caught up in value on a horse and bet the bad jock just for the higher odds and they rarely win. Stick to top notch jocks or you will not last in this graveyard game.

Good Luck

[highnote]

Pittsburgh Phil wrote something to the effect, "A good jockey, a good horse, a good bet. An average jockey, a good horse, an average bet. A poor jockey, a good horse, a poor bet."

I always feel better when Bailey is onboard. I lost alot of bets on good horses with poor jockeys. I paid my dues. Now, if I like a horse with a poor jock, I scale my wager back.

[kingfin66]

Originally posted by jjgold
Boys 90% of picking winners is sticking with the top jocks of the particalr meet you are playing. There are too many clowns caught up in value on a horse and bet the bad jock just for the higher odds and they rarely win. Stick to top notch jocks or you will not last in this graveyard game.

Good Luck

And from a prior post by jjgold:

"This past weekend I dropped $2200 on betting over 135 races but i loved it/ The money did not really mean much as long as i had action. "

So jj, can we infer that the method you are using to throw your money away is by betting poor jockeys?

[Dick Schmidt]

Damn,

You mean to tell me that there are people riding on the horses? Doesn't that just slow them down? And I always thought they ran for the pure love of it.

Dick

Never bet on anything that can talk.

[Dan Montilion]

Poor Jock, Rich Jock. Who Cares?

Dan Montilion

[cj]

Its a rare day I know who is riding a horse I bet on. I don't even want to know.

[sjk]

I also pay no attention to the jock. I recall one race where the winner's circle ceremony included the anouncement that my horse had given the jock his first win ever.

[highnote]

This is a long winded message, and since I invested about 20 minutes writing it, I'm going to post it. You've been warned. :)

Certainly, the jock is not the most important factor. The horse has to have ability. If the horse can't run, the best jock in the world won't get him past the finish line first.

But surely, the jock plays a role in the outcome of the race. However, sometimes a jock just sits chilly on the horse because no effort is needed. Any jock could ride a horse like that. On the other hand, I've seen jocks leaning back in the saddle with their legs straight and pulling hard on the reins to slow the horse down. The jock is affecting the way the horse is running the race.

I know that the Sartin Methodology doesn't consider the jock. And many speed figure guys consider mostly the figs and not the jock and they still turn a profit. Just because they ignore the jock, doesn't mean the jock has no effect.

I wrote in an earlier post, back about 1995 or so, I was keeping track of jocks at the AQU inner dirt meeting. There was one jock, either Filiberto Leon or Jean Cruget, that never once got the lead at the first or second call in a 6 furlong inner dirt sprint. That was over hundreds of races.

Now if it's February 1995 and that jock is on your horse in a 6 furlong AQU inner track race and your horse is a habitual front runner -- a <x> horse as Jim Bradshaw labels them -- and the track profile says you gotta have the lead by the second call to win there is no way I'm betting his horse. I'd pass the race or bet him to place or show.

Now, I also understand that it takes a lot of work to discover this type of information and for most handicappers the value gained does not equal the profits to be made. Fair enough. There are other ways to win this game.

That said, I seem to recall several recent Belmont Stakes where the Triple Crown was on the line and the jocks got too anxious and made their moves too early. Had they waited another 1/2 furlong or so they might have won. On the other hand, I wasn't on the horse. Maybe the horse was telling them it was time to go? Maybe that's why only the greatest horses win the Triple Crown? Maybe that's why only the greatest jockeys win the Triple Crown?

The fact of the matter is, jocks play a role in the outcome of a race. You don't always need to measure their effect to have a bet on the winning horse, and you can't always measure their effect, but they must have some effect -- good, bad or neutral.

For example, if the jock has been riding the horse and he/she is riding the horse again today, then the effect of the jock is built into the paceline. However, if the horse has a different jock on it's back and you have pertinent info about how that jock might perform today on that horse, then it's something that probably needs to be weighed. How you weigh it, or if it even needs weighing is the question.

But that's just my opinion based on my experiences.

[cj]

Just for the record, the reason I don't pay attention to jocks has nothing to do with any belief that they don't matter. I just think it is already heavily factored into the odds, overly so in my opinion. Therefore, I gain little by trying to account for this factor in a personal odds line. I am smart enough not to bet some 0-79 guy sent out by an 0-82 trainer, but that is about the extent of my jockey handicapping.

[highnote]

I agree that the jocks are heavily weighted in the odds. Just look at Pat Day in Kentucky.

[Buddha]

I don't pay much attention to the jocks. I know at Mountaineer there are some jocks that I just won't play, and others that I may not play a race if I find out who the jockey is before I make the bet. More times than not, that will save me money, but usually I don't pay much attentino to the jockey.

Like CJ said, the odds for the most part are going to be inflated/deflated with the jock and or trainer.

Put Bailey on a Billy Mott turf horse and you will get 3/5. Put Billy Wilson on a Lucinda Knowles horse, and you will get 300/1.

[alysheba88]

I think the people who completely ignore jockeys and dont even look are making a big mistake.

As far as the human connections are concerned I definitely believe the trainer is far more important.

And I also believe that jocks like Bailey and Day are often overbet in relation to their chances of winning. So you can make money betting against them when thats the case.

The biggest mistake the public makes in my opinion IS betting jockeys. Ie: always betting Bailey or the name jock. However the second biggest mistake is totally disregarding the jockey completely.

Stats dont tell the whole story either. Some low percentage jockeys are actually pretty decent. Their low % likely reflects the quality of animal they get. But when they ride a decent horse they give a good ride. Contrarily there are guys with decent %'s but they get a lot of good horses and arent as good as their #'s.

I also think its very relevant when a jockey stays (or switches) to another horse when he rode both last time out. Sometimes its because one trainer has first call or something, but often its a toss-up. And the good jockey agents are very sharp in getting on the better horse.

[brdman12]

I look at speed first. I look at Pace. I look at the horses past and try and determine his present condition. And After I do that I always look at the trainer AND jockey win% before I make a bet. It does make a difference for me, but its not THE primary factor.

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by alysheba88 (MW)
I think the people who completely ignore jockeys and dont even look are making a big mistake.

As far as the human connections are concerned I definitely believe the trainer is far more important.

And I also believe that jocks like Bailey and Day are often overbet in relation to their chances of winning. So you can make money betting against them when thats the case.

The biggest mistake the public makes in my opinion IS betting jockeys. Ie: always betting Bailey or the name jock. However the second biggest mistake is totally disregarding the jockey completely.

Stats dont tell the whole story either. Some low percentage jockeys are actually pretty decent. Their low % likely reflects the quality of animal they get. But when they ride a decent horse they give a good ride. Contrarily there are guys with decent %'s but they get a lot of good horses and arent as good as their #'s.

I also think its very relevant when a jockey stays (or switches) to another horse when he rode both last time out. Sometimes its because one trainer has first call or something, but often its a toss-up. And the good jockey agents are very sharp in getting on the better horse.

my outlook for harness drivers is just about the same aly.

[Valuist]

There is no factor that is weighted more into the odds than the rider. Put Pat Day and Jerry Bailey on a couple 3 legged horses and they'd still be 5-2. Go thru any major race meet; there might be 1 or 2 jocks who have a positive ROI for the meet, and usually they have 1 or 2 lobsters that created that. A good jock won't win you a race, but a bad one could get you beat.

[pmd62ndst]

When I think of jockeys, I think of the "Keanu Reeves theory".

The guy just cannot act and his movies are usually terrible, but he does have one redeeming quality: he has the knack for picking roles in movies that make lots and lots of money.

That's the same way I think of some high percentage jockeys. I believe that they don't necessarily make the horse better, I believe they can just pick the better horses to ride.

PMD

[sq764]

Well, I use Validator 2, so I could care less who's on the horse.

And since I am mainly a harness player, I use my spreadsheet for fractional analysis and make no mention to the driver. The horse is the main component for me.