How people bet.

[Robert Goren]

The question is on how people bet on jockeys. It is not on how you bet on them, but how you think other people bet on them. As we all know there are factors in the race but just assume all the horse identical PPs. Would a certain number bet on the best jockey, a slightly less number on the second best jockey, a still slightly less on the third and so on down the line? Or would many bet on the best jockey and rest split up it up more or less evenly on the rest with maybe a drop off on the worst? Do they bet on very good jockeys or not bet on very bad?
Do you feel the same way about how people bet on trainers?

[HUSKER55]

i always include a value for the trainer and jockey. some are having a banner year and some are not. some have a great meet and the next one does not.

I think it is important to pay attention to that particularly if your top picks are not that far apart. If I view them all the same then yes I bet the trainer and jockey. An edge is an edge IMO.

[DJofSD]

I generally do not pay any attention to the jocks. But, when I do, it is when there is a late change that does not have an obvious reason such as illness or injury.

[Flysofree]

The question is on how people bet on jockeys. It is not on how you bet on them, but how you think other people bet on them. As we all know there are factors in the race but just assume all the horse identical PPs. Would a certain number bet on the best jockey, a slightly less number on the second best jockey, a still slightly less on the third and so on down the line? Or would many bet on the best jockey and rest split up it up more or less evenly on the rest with maybe a drop off on the worst? Do they bet on very good jockeys or not bet on very bad?
Do you feel the same way about how people bet on trainers?

Good question Robert.....Do you happen to know if the Prime Power figure posted by Bris includes anything for the jockey and trainer today or is that just a by product of the horse's form?

[thaskalos]

It is rare to see a situation where a jockey dominates a circuit to the extent where this rider would get singled out by the bettors. What I mostly see now is the casual bettor favoring the top 4-5 jockeys...while neglecting the bottom rung.

[Overlay]

I don't regard any individual jockey as a stand-alone determinant for wagering (or not wagering) on a horse, but typically, at almost any race meeting, a relatively small number of riders will win a disproportionate share of races (whether that's due to the ability of those jockeys, or as an indication of a trainer's intentions with a horse, or a combination of both). As such, it makes sense to me to factor in the jockey when evaluating a horse's overall chance of winning.

I don't give the same consideration to trainers by themselves because the number of trainers at a given race meeting will typically far exceed the number of jockeys; because I think that considering both the jockey and the trainer could be duplicative to a certain extent (due to the trainer's role in selecting the jockey); and because I think that the trainer's influence is otherwise adequately addressed through analysis of the horse's past performances, with no need for consideration of the trainer as a separate factor.

[DJofSD]

I don't regard any individual jockey as a stand-alone determinant for wagering (or not wagering) on a horse, but typically, at almost any race meeting, a relatively small number of riders will win a disproportionate share of races (whether that's due to the ability of those jockeys, or as an indication of a trainer's intentions with a horse, or a combination of both). As such, it makes sense to me to factor in the jockey when evaluating a horse's overall chance of winning.
How about an agents ability to determine a change in form -- either way?

[Overlay]

How about an agents ability to determine a change in form -- either way?
If I'm understanding your question, I don't necessarily try to get inside the agent's head as to why a particular jockey is on a given mount. I use the rider's ability by itself (including consideration of the rider's previous "history" with the horse in question) as one weighted component of my assessment of the horse's overall winning chances, which also includes separate consideration of whether I view the horse as improving or declining in form.

[Grits]

It is rare to see a situation where a jockey dominates a circuit to the extent where this rider would get singled out by the bettors.

Thask, he was rare, indeed. I think his name's ... Ramon.

Miss him. Still.

[Overlay]

Thask, he was rare, indeed. I think his name's ... Ramon.

Miss him. Still.
I believe I recall reading that Steve Cauthen showed a flat-bet profit on all his mounts for the entire 1976 New York racing season, which was especially remarkable since, as the year went on, people were betting on his horses for no other reason than that he was riding.

[whodoyoulike]

It is rare to see a situation where a jockey dominates a circuit to the extent where this rider would get singled out by the bettors. What I mostly see now is the casual bettor favoring the top 4-5 jockeys...while neglecting the bottom rung.

What about R. Baze at GG?

[Robert Goren]

Good question Robert.....Do you happen to know if the Prime Power figure posted by Bris includes anything for the jockey and trainer today or is that just a by product of the horse's form?It does appear that either the jockey or the trainer is taken into account, but there is no way to know for sure. If they are, it has to be a very small metric. I am looking at that now and when I final get the data plug in, I will let you know.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Unsophisticated bettors will play their "favorite" jock, or if they like another horse, will play saver bets with their jock. I crack up when people root for a jockey, rather than a number or the horse itself.

Back in the day, once glance at the tote board could tell you who Pat Day was riding at Churchill, Oaklawn or Arlington.

More sophisticated bettors will take into account jockey stats, and I'd guess that some of the BRIS stats (surface, horse running style, distance) associated with the jockey are overbet a smidge.

The only thing I look at are jockey changes, but like Overlay points out that's part of looking at the trainer.

[cutchemist42]

Me personally, it might only concern me if the jockey is below 5% or there is a jockey change, especially if the normal jockey riding another horse in the same race.

I literally spend about 5-10 seconds looking at the jockey stuff.

[precocity]

intuition! :cool:

[riskman]

I do pay attention to any first time starters at Belmont and Saratoga on the dirt that is ridden by John Velazquez. He seems fairly consistent with newbies.

[BettinBilly]

I generally do not pay any attention to the jocks. But, when I do, it is when there is a late change that does not have an obvious reason such as illness or injury.

;):ThmbUp: Agreed. This happens to be my thinking at present. In the past, I sometimes placed value on the Jocks, but gave this practice up about 8 or so years ago. Except when there is, as you say, a late change that does not have an obvious reason.

[cashmachine]

I have several variables for jockeys in my system, and they got significant weights after training which means that jockey is pretty important. Of course, jockey is not the most important variable, but it contributes significantly to the precision.

[Some_One]

Yes a better jockey will win more races then a bad one, but the profitability of them are pretty close if not the worst jockey being better EV vs the good one.

[cashmachine]

Yes a better jockey will win more races then a bad one, but the profitability of them are pretty close if not the worst jockey being better EV vs the good one.
In order to compute EV you have to know probability of win, and jockey affects this probability. That is why you need to pay attention to jockeys. From my experience, EV is not a stable characteristics of a jockey, it changes from race to race for the same jockey. Sometimes you see good jockeys who mount overlays, sometimes bad jockey is an overlay, but in order to determine that you need to have pretty good idea about capability of jockey and factor it in when you make decision.

[Some_One]

In order to compute EV you have to know probability of win, and jockey affects this probability. That is why you need to pay attention to jockeys. From my experience, EV is not a stable characteristics of a jockey, it changes from race to race for the same jockey. Sometimes you see good jockeys who mount overlays, sometimes bad jockey is an overlay, but in order to determine that you need to have pretty good idea about capability of jockey and factor it in when you make decision.

Yes of course there are many variables about jockeys that affect EV, but I'm not naive enough to try and make it worth my while to find the separate EV's for a jock at all distances/surfaces/tracks. When I see that J Castellano a 24% win jockey over the last 17 months with a -.31 ROI vs Alan Garcia with a 15% win with a -.06 ROI, is proof enough to me that finding the 'good' jockeys will help you select more winners, but it won't make you any more money then a random number generator.

[cashmachine]

When I see that J Castellano a 24% win jockey over the last 17 months with a -.31 ROI vs Alan Garcia with a 15% win with a -.06 ROI
Win % is a poor metric to measure quality of a jockey, you need to take into account quality of horses he was given.

[Some_One]

Win % is a poor metric to measure quality of a jockey, you need to take into account quality of horses he was given.

And that is what ROI does

[cashmachine]

And that is what ROI does
Agree, ROI is one of possible metrics to measure quality of jockey.

[fmolf]

Agree, ROI is one of possible metrics to measure quality of jockey.
i follow NYRA and on their website they give detailed jockey/trainer stats and one of them is how a jockey does on the favorites he rides.So when i see a jockey onthe favorite and he brings them in at 45% i will usually not go against this legit favorite...When i see that the fav. has a jockey on that brings the favorite home 20% of the time then i may try to beat that favorite.I wish all tracks would give such detailed info.

[Robert Goren]

Yes of course there are many variables about jockeys that affect EV, but I'm not naive enough to try and make it worth my while to find the separate EV's for a jock at all distances/surfaces/tracks. When I see that J Castellano a 24% win jockey over the last 17 months with a -.31 ROI vs Alan Garcia with a 15% win with a -.06 ROI, is proof enough to me that finding the 'good' jockeys will help you select more winners, but it won't make you any more money then a random number generator. Garcia has lead the world in giving bad rides to good horses. He's ROI is a reflection of the number of people who will never bet him again even if he was on the cinch of the century.

[traynor]

It is not so much that jockey statistics are not useful as that those statistics are generally based on simplistic evaluations. There is a world of difference between "all horses ridden by this jockey" and "horses I select as top contenders ridden by this jockey."

It is easier to toss everything in a pot, give it a stir, and pretend it is a "statistical evaluation." It is MUCH more useful to layer the data into meaningful aggregates, rather than simplistic generics. When so layered, the jockey forms an important part of the decision process.

[BettinBilly]

I've been on the fence with Jockey significance since Secretariat and Turcotte. It may indeed make a difference, but just "how much" of a difference is my question.

In William Nack's Book on Secretariat, he describes Turcotte's ride during the Preakness. He stated (and I'm paraphrasing), "In the Preakness, The horse broke dead last again. Then after a Furlong, Turcotte grabbed a hold of him and made an almost imperceptible gesture like a man adjusting his cuff. The horse took off and went from last to first in 100 yards."

Since reading that I've been looking for verification of the significance of this "almost imperceptible gesture". Lucien Lauren states he told Turcotte to let him go and run his own race. Penny Tweedy stated that Turcotte would not have driven the horse to break for the lead that early in the race, and that it had to be something the horse wanted to do.

Perhaps it depends on the horse. Maybe a Jockey is highly significant based on the horse. Problem for a Capper though, which horses?

[traynor]

I've been on the fence with Jockey significance since Secretariat and Turcotte. It may indeed make a difference, but just "how much" of a difference is my question.

In William Nack's Book on Secretariat, he describes Turcotte's ride during the Preakness. He stated (and I'm paraphrasing), "In the Preakness, The horse broke dead last again. Then after a Furlong, Turcotte grabbed a hold of him and made an almost imperceptible gesture like a man adjusting his cuff. The horse took off and went from last to first in 100 yards."

Since reading that I've been looking for verification of the significance of this "almost imperceptible gesture". Lucien Lauren states he told Turcotte to let him go and run his own race. Penny Tweedy stated that Turcotte would not have driven the horse to break for the lead that early in the race, and that it had to be something the horse wanted to do.

Perhaps it depends on the horse. Maybe a Jockey is highly significant based on the horse. Problem for a Capper though, which horses?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKAOZpekAjw

Bear in mind that virtually none of the "experts" even considered this horse.

[BettinBilly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKAOZpekAjw

Bear in mind that virtually none of the "experts" even considered this horse.

Thanks. It's been a while since I viewed Shoemaker in action. Too bad I don't speak German. That commentary was probably worth listening to.

[flatstats]

ROI is not the best metric. It can be flawed due to a rogue huge priced winner. If a jockey randomly wins on a 100/1 shot then the ROI can be positive for a couple of years.

Use the IV at the very least but ideally the A/E is the stat to use. This will take into consideration the odds of the horse and thus compensates for field sizes, trainer, owner, breeding, and mass public popularity.

In the UK some media pundits swear by jockey Ryan Moore and consider him to be an outstanding jockey. But for betting purposes he does not even rank in the top 100 of value jockeys (based on A/E)

Another issue with jockey stats is that punters only look at the overall stats. They see the all time performance but should be looking at individual courses and race conditions.

This is not much of an issue in the US but it is a big issue in the UK. We have 40 courses that any jockey can ride at and some ride at two meetings in the same day. As UK courses are so disparate then jockey ability can be different at each course.

e.g. A Jockey may be good on a flat surfaced, galloping left hand track but perform badly on a right handed, undulating stiff track.

In the US your courses are more uniform but you will get jockey biases for different going allowances (on turf UK ranges from Heavy to Firm) and for different distances such as sprints, middle route.

The vast majority of punters assume a jockey is a machine that is just there to steer the horse. This is not true and all jockeys exhibit flaws and biases of some kind. But you will never know that unless you use the A/E stat.

[Grits]

"In the Preakness, The horse broke dead last again. Then after a Furlong, Turcotte grabbed a hold of him and made an almost imperceptible gesture like a man adjusting his cuff. The horse took off and went from last to first in 100 yards."

Since reading that I've been looking for verification of the significance of this "almost imperceptible gesture". Lucien Lauren states he told Turcotte to let him go and run his own race. Penny Tweedy stated that Turcotte would not have driven the horse to break for the lead that early in the race, and that it had to be something the horse wanted to do.

http://www.horseracingpics.com/secpreaknesssignedphoto2.jpg

"Secretariat begins his sensational looping rush" -- as Raymie Woolfe Jr's caption reads in his most famous photo of him in the Preakness.

--From, "Secretariat". (One of my many coffee table horse books, and my favorite photo of him.)

[BettinBilly]

http://www.horseracingpics.com/secpreaknesssignedphoto2.jpg

"Secretariat begins his sensational looping rush" -- as Raymie Woolfe Jr's caption reads in his most famous photo of him in the Preakness.

--From, "Secretariat". (One of my many coffee table horse books, and my favorite photo of him.)

;):ThmbUp:

You got my vote, Grits. I even have it on my Kindle. Awesome Photo. Thank you.

[mishka]

I try to note changes for the given race such as change in class, distance, etc. A jockey change is on the list--one among other factors.

Hopefully not too off topic, but I wonder if the comments on previous races in past performances can reveal some insights when a trainer uses the the same jockey. For example, sometimes comments will show that a horse goes wide (4w,5w, 6w) a lot. Is this a function of the jockey not timing a move properly??

[Tall One]

Back in the day, once glance at the tote board could tell you who Pat Day was riding at Churchill, Oaklawn or Arlington.


Aint that the truth. It was even worse out here at Keeneland. And to an extent Keeneland is notorious for fans driving prices down on whichever mount the hot jock or apprentice was on. Willy Martinez, Fabio Arguello, jr..Wigberto Ramos.. :cool:

But, those early '90s summer jockey colonies Arlington had back then were stout: Day, Jorge Velasquez, Mike Smith before he went to NY full time, Romero, Earlie Fires, Guidry, an up and coming Shane Sellers, plus a solid group of local riders.

But, you could catch Day on 10 or 15-1 shots up at the Spa, and make up for the short prices. :ThmbUp:

[EMD4ME]

Thask, he was rare, indeed. I think his name's ... Ramon.

Miss him. Still.

Amen. All jockeys can only blow a race with their idiotic rides.

Ramon is the only jockey that I have ever seen that can help a mule win & can make a "sure thing" a mortal blanken LOCK.

I miss his professionalism, preparation, mental aptitude, soft hands, humility and intelligence IMMENSELY.

[cashmachine]

Use the IV at the very least but ideally the A/E is the stat to use.
What is "IV" and "A/E"? How do you compute them?

[IrishRail76]

Amen. All jockeys can only blow a race with their idiotic rides.

Ramon is the only jockey that I have ever seen that can help a mule win & can make a "sure thing" a mortal blanken LOCK.

I miss his professionalism, preparation, mental aptitude, soft hands, humility and intelligence IMMENSELY.


You and Grits are 100% spot on. Plus, Ramon made it look sooo easy.

I didn't see any mention of "longshot specialists" in the thread, but we've all got our favorite "go to" super saver. From 2000 - 2010, mine was Omar Berrio (So Cal). I know that he suffered two strokes a few years ago and left for awhile, so I hope this finds him in better health.

[flatstats]

IV - Impact Value
This is a figure, which takes into consideration the number of starters as well as the number of winners in a group. It can indicate if there is a bias towards a particular group or not.

e.g. in a specific Maiden Stakes race (UK) the genders that win a race may look like this:

Total Races 786
Colts won 188
Fillies won 361
Geldings won 268
Mares won 6

From that you may think fillies are the best horses to follow as they won 361 of the 786 races. But what you don't know is how many starters in each group there were. What if 500 fillies raced, or 5000?

Some use the strike rate or Win% but that is flawed for the same reason as you don't know the number of starters. That's where the Impact Value comes in.

Colts 1.64 IV
Fillies 0.93
Geldings 0.89
Mares won 0.28

That is a much better picture on what gender wins these races. It is clear that colts are way better than the other genders.

IVs were pioneered / championed by Fred Davis in his book "Percentages and Probabilities" and then championed by William Quirin, Mike Nunamaker and others. If you search for those you can see the easy formula that is used to calc the figures.

A/E - Actual Winners / Expected Winners
The problem with IV is that it only explains if a group win more or less than their fair share of races. This is not ideal as there is no way of knowing if the general public over or underbet that group. It has no price element and thus it is not possible to work out value. That's where the A/E comes in.

A/E is the actual number of wins divided by the expected number of wins. This is great as we can instantly see if a stat is over or underbet.

The expected number of wins is based on the sum of the odds chance of winning. If you have 10 horses that go off at evens then odds chance of one horse winning =10 * 0.5

odds chance = 1 / (price + 1)
10 horses at evens = 5

Thus with 10 evens priced horses we would expect 5 of them to win. Now look at the actual number of winners.

If the actual number of winners was 6 the A/E = 6/5 = 1.2

That indicates the stat is doing better than expected, or that the public are underbetting the stat (an overlay).

If the actual number of winners was only 4 the A/E = 4/5 = 0.8

This indicates the stat is doing worse than expected, or that the public tend to overbet the stat.

A/E is used by Gordon Pine / Netcapper.

[cashmachine]

Thank you!

[ultracapper]

You and Grits are 100% spot on. Plus, Ramon made it look sooo easy.

I didn't see any mention of "longshot specialists" in the thread, but we've all got our favorite "go to" super saver. From 2000 - 2010, mine was Omar Berrio (So Cal). I know that he suffered two strokes a few years ago and left for awhile, so I hope this finds him in better health.

He teamed up with AC Avila for many of those, and Avila had given him a lot of chances the past month or so, but he's not riding well. Obviously, he's healthy, but he's not the same jock. He has actually looked awful a couple times. Almost like he wasn't strong enough to really man handle the horse in the stretch when needed. He had one swimming all over the home stretch a couple weeks ago. Avila went to another jock this weekend, and got his first winner home of the year. I'm sure Berrio just getting back on a horse is an incredible accomplishment, but it's hard to back him with anything but "I'm rooting for you" money.