Do you guys avoid betting second tier tracks because of the Jockeys?

[menifee]

I see so many bad rides at the smaller tracks (anything but NY circuit, Kee, CD and California) that I have started to stop betting on them. There are so many times I see great value on paper and the tote board, but then the race goes off and the jockey finds trouble, misreads pace, plays bumper cars down the stretch (gets dq'd) etc. Very frustrating. There are only so many things you can control - sometimes I wish they could run them without the jockeys.

[horses4courses]

It's because of the pools for me.
My action never alters the payout, but I can't stand big deviations at post time.

[CincyHorseplayer]

A good horse with a so so jockey might be the only overlay you ever get.Not at all on the question.If you need the big name jockey to make you feel better you might be on a Mission Impossible.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

menifee

if you are not happy with how the jockeys are riding at any circuit then it is best to stop betting there. This applies to top tier as well as 2nd or 3rd tier tracks. There are plenty of circuits around to choose from

[Augenj]

I make a habit of watching only the favorite at these small tracks. There are way too many suspicious rides where the jockey never urges the horse forward. One time at Delta Downs, I saw the jockey check a favorite twice on the far turn with the nearest horse at least two lengths in front of him. I'm sticking with the majors.

[JustRalph]

It's because of the pools for me.
My action never alters the payout, but I can't stand big deviations at post time.

Same here. Pools are too small.

[jballscalls]

I find knowing the jockeys at small tracks is really important, maybe more important than at some big tracks in the sense that the disparity is sometimes larger between the top and the bottom.

As far as the smaller pools, my experience has been that if you get any separation from the chalk, sometimes you can get bigger overlays because there are just fewer players and fewer big money players to have the price horses. But if you hit a common horse in all races then you're screwed as far as payoff. Also, if you're going after life changing scores, then you're in the wrong place.

that being said, I love small tracks :)

[Chris Longshot]

I make a habit of watching only the favorite at these small tracks. There are way too many suspicious rides where the jockey never urges the horse forward. One time at Delta Downs, I saw the jockey check a favorite twice on the far turn with the nearest horse at least two lengths in front of him. I'm sticking with the majors.

Amen brother!!:ThmbUp:

Must be a Louisiana thing.... see it at EVD a lot too. They keep their horses in neutral in the stretch...or they tuck the horse to the rail instead of dipping the horse to the outside where it could build up moumentum. Not saying always suspicious and the horse just might always find trouble and might not be good enough anyway but at the very least a lot are totally incompetent.
Sticking to the majors is a smart move.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I can deal with bad jocks not getting bad horses home. It's when I have to watch good horses get atrocious rides at the so-called "top tier tracks" with so-called "good jocks" that I get mad enough at riders to not want to bet.

[Pensacola Pete]

Play Russel Baze and get 4/5 every race.

You try being a 110-120 lb human, sitting on top of a half-ton neurotic, stupid animal, running along in a pack of a dozen of them, and around turns no less, competing with other people doing the same thing, where you have to make spit-second decisions that could mean life and death, and see if you do everything perfectly, too.

Except to show trainer intent, the jockey is the most overrated thing in horse racing, in my opinion.

[DeltaLover]

I see so many bad rides at the smaller tracks (anything but NY circuit, Kee, CD and California) that I have started to stop betting on them. There are so many times I see great value on paper and the tote board, but then the race goes off and the jockey finds trouble, misreads pace, plays bumper cars down the stretch (gets dq'd) etc. Very frustrating. There are only so many things you can control - sometimes I wish they could run them without the jockeys.

No.

The inferiority of jockeys is not important for me ignoring second tier race tracks. Jockey's are very well handicapped by the circuit level and exceptions are easy to spot for everyone making them a no-factor for betting purposes.

Some of the reasons I avoid cheap racing are the following:

- As other have mentioned, the main reason to avoid second tiered tracks has to do with the size of the pools which are usually very small to allow for a decent score.

- An equally important reason to avoid them has to do with rebates. Cheap tracks tend to offer higher than normal rebates to large bettors, increasing their edge.

- It seems to me that in these tracks the bulk of the pool is coming from large bettors and is bet almost simultaneously to the bell making it very difficult to follow the betting action.

- Small tracks operate more like a closed group, where the racing secretary is exchanging favors to the trainers and vice verse and most of the horsemen know each other or even have family relations, converting horse handicapping to knowing the relation among the insiders.

[burnsy]

Its about the horses for me. The good horses are more likely to run the same way EVERY time or as close as you can expect a race horse to run. When there are horses like that at the smaller tracks , they are chalk, they get the best jock and there may be many fields where like 2 horses can even win. Now, on the opposite end at Saratoga, there are usually 4 somtimes 5 horses that have a legit shot...thats where you get a price with a chance. Theres a race today (the 3rd, The Alydar) with 5 horses, you pretty much can make a case for all 5........thats horse racing. If i'm going to BUY bets, its going to be the BEST possible VALUE....horses, pools, jocks and trainers.

[DeltaLover]

Its about the horses for me. The good horses are more likely to run the same way EVERY time or as close as you can expect a race horse to run.

The problem is that the betting public is following exactly the same approach, making it unsuitable for betting purposes

[appistappis]

yeah, jockeys only cheat and give bad rides at the the smaller tracks. :lol:

[Overlay]

In my opinion, at nearly any track (regardless of what tier it may be in), a small percentage of the riders will win a disproportionate share of the races. Giving due regard to that statistic in the handicapping process is one component of determining each horse's winning probability.

[Stillriledup]

Play Russel Baze and get 4/5 every race.

You try being a 110-120 lb human, sitting on top of a half-ton neurotic, stupid animal, running along in a pack of a dozen of them, and around turns no less, competing with other people doing the same thing, where you have to make spit-second decisions that could mean life and death, and see if you do everything perfectly, too.

Except to show trainer intent, the jockey is the most overrated thing in horse racing, in my opinion.

I think its the most underrated thing. Just depends on how you use it in your handicapping.

To answer the OP, i wouldnt ever shy away from a track due to a poor riding colony, in fact, i would embrace it as there would be more ability for me to "sniff out" a rider who's much better than the stats show. There are a lot of politics in racing, at any track, especially the lower rung ones, its not likely that the jockeys will all go according to rank all the time. (leading rider being the actual best jock, 2nd leading rider being the 2nd best jock and so on). You can find a needle in a haystack where a lower rung rider is really good and just doesnt get mounts for some reason whether it be political, gender based, poor and unliked agent, some rumor that's been floating around, etc. There are a lot of reasons a decent rider will be farther back in the standings than he or she should be. If you can uncover that jock, you can turn it into some kind of advantage.

[pondman]

Play Russel Baze and get 4/5 every race.



Golden Gate is a gold mine. It's the 1st entry card I view. It's almost dropped to C level with it's C4000.

I stay away from low budget claimers. If that's all a track offers, then they won't get my money. Higher purses attract the talented riders. I try and stick with the high end, but if the horse is in the right spot...

[therussmeister]

I don't shy away from second tier, or third tier tracks for any reason. Nor do I avoid bottom level claimers.

[thaskalos]

When I want to punish myself, I bet Evangeline Downs...where the worst jockeys ride in the biggest fields.

[pondman]

There are a lot of reasons a decent rider will be farther back in the standings than he or she should be. If you can uncover that jock, you can turn it into some kind of advantage.

There also are personal reasons why a hot jockey is riding at a Bull Ring. Could be they were taken away from a paddock by a swat team. Or the were arrested for meth and can't get a license to ride in California. Some states don't give a hoot. And they can ride...just not where there is a Race Board.

[JeffH]

I agree with you. The only thing a jockey can do to a decent horse in a race is get him beat. If the horse is good enough to win, he will. I put zero emphasis on the jockey in my handicapping. It's a game of failure-like baseball. You hit .333, you're a hall of famer. You're still out two- thirds of the time. By the way, this was in response to Pensacola Pete's reply.

[Robert Goren]

More because of bad trainers than bad jockeys. It harder to get a read on the trainers at the small tracks.

[so.cal.fan]

The higher takeout at California Fairs should put you all off. :ThmbDown:

[Stillriledup]

The higher takeout at California Fairs should put you all off. :ThmbDown:

Higher than 23.something percent on exa's and Tri's?

[Zaf]

Avoid PRX and CRC, cant remember the last time i cashed a bet at one of those 2 plants. Takeout sucks at PRX too :ThmbDown:

Z

[Tom]

What I see at smaller tracks is jock hustle out of the gate.
Take a look at some of the major tracks when the gate opens. Some horse are grabbed so hard you can see their tongues pop out! The jocks are hugging like a little kid on a 10 cent horsey ride outside the grocery store ( now that dates me!). You can tell the good riders fro the bad. There are good riders at small tracks.

And Zaf, Calder - last time I cashed a ticket there was.........ah......uh........oh, yeah, there was a gate scratch in '98.

[nat1223]

certain jockeys can make a difference if the odds are right.

[Valuist]

If all the riders are lousy, then I'd say its no detriment at all. But usually there's one or two guys who can ride a bit. Even at the lousy tracks. They've probably tried the bigger circuits and found it too tough to break into, and they realize they can make a decent living being a big fish in a small pond.

[iceknight]

When I want to punish myself, I bet Evangeline Downs...where the worst jockeys ride in the biggest fields. This is quite true... BUT.. they have the largest fields so if you figure out an occasional good horse (trainer change etc) at the right odds, you can easily get 10-1 or more and do well. The bigger issue at EVD is that there are 3-4 Melancons riding in any given race :lol:

[mountainman]

When you see how things operate from the inside, you think in terms of agents. Which jocks are related, that is, have the same guy hustling their books? What agent has pushed his way into a new barn? What's the pecking order amongst riders sharing the same agent? Why has an agent chosen which call for which rider? Which agent covers another agent's doubles-and are they working together behind the scenes?

Hidden alliances, double calls and the brokering of mounts all impact the jockey factor. In other words, how and why a jock has obtained a certain assignment can be much more predictive than his level of competence.