PDA

View Full Version : Jockeys Don't Make a Difference


Dahoss9698
05-05-2017, 10:39 PM
Yeah right!

I used to subscribe to this theory. Maybe it was more true in the past, when IMO riders were better.

I offer up today's Kentucky Oaks as an example. Switch the riders on the top two finishers and IMO the results would have been reversed. Smith moved at just the right time and of course Leparoux did not.

ReplayRandall
05-05-2017, 10:45 PM
Yeah right!

I used to subscribe to this theory. Maybe it was more true in the past, when IMO riders were better.

I offer up today's Kentucky Oaks as an example. Switch the riders on the top two finishers and IMO the results would have been reversed. Smith moved at just the right time and of course Leparoux did not.
Mike Smith= Hall of Fame Rider

Julien Leparoux= Overated Rider

dilanesp
05-05-2017, 11:07 PM
Isn't the issue whether a particular rider, on average, improves' horses performance? Not whether they outride an opponent in a particular big stakes race.

Dahoss9698
05-05-2017, 11:11 PM
Isn't the issue whether a particular rider, on average, improves' horses performance? Not whether they outride an opponent in a particular big stakes race.

Why does it have to be just one thing? Can't it be both (and other factors)?

Watch the Oaks. I'm not really sure what Leparoux was doing around the turn but he cost his mount 5 lengths easy. Judging by the way she finished don't you think those lengths were the deciding factor?

VigorsTheGrey
05-05-2017, 11:35 PM
Why does it have to be just one thing? Can't it be both (and other factors)?

Watch the Oaks. I'm not really sure what Leparoux was doing around the turn but he cost his mount 5 lengths easy. Judging by the way she finished don't you think those lengths were the deciding factor?

After watching the video closely, I agree with you...Julien just missed the timing by alot...while Mike was blowing past him gaining momentum, Julien was drowsy at the helm...didn't seem like he was riding hard till the final yards in deep stretch...

PaceAdvantage
05-05-2017, 11:47 PM
Yeah right!

I used to subscribe to this theory. Maybe it was more true in the past, when IMO riders were better.

I offer up today's Kentucky Oaks as an example. Switch the riders on the top two finishers and IMO the results would have been reversed. Smith moved at just the right time and of course Leparoux did not.Whether they make a difference or not, I don't think about them one bit. Don't consider them at all. Don't consider trainers either.

Horses are way more reliable than humans anyway. Sure, I could obsess about jockeys and factor into the equation, who, in my opinion, might give my horses a better chance or who might compromise my chances. But I haven't come to the point where I think it might be worth my time and effort to do so.

How exactly would you quantify something like that anyway? With any reliability? And how would you test it to make sure you're not wasting your time?

VigorsTheGrey
05-05-2017, 11:53 PM
Whether they make a difference or not, I don't think about them one bit. Don't consider them at all. Don't consider trainers either.

Horses are way more reliable than humans anyway. Sure, I could obsess about jockeys and factor into the equation, who, in my opinion, might give my horses a better chance or who might compromise my chances. But I haven't come to the point where I think it might be worth my time and effort to do so.

How exactly would you quantify something like that anyway? With any reliability? And how would you test it to make sure you're not wasting your time?

I have to think that trainers do just this with their gut instincts...they make choices about which riders ride which horses...yes, it is difficult if not impossible to quantify, yet the esoteric IS THERE...some riders ARE better than others, some FAR better than others...that is just human nature, humans being different than each other....

cj
05-06-2017, 12:04 AM
Whether they make a difference or not, I don't think about them one bit. Don't consider them at all. Don't consider trainers either.

Horses are way more reliable than humans anyway. Sure, I could obsess about jockeys and factor into the equation, who, in my opinion, might give my horses a better chance or who might compromise my chances. But I haven't come to the point where I think it might be worth my time and effort to do so.

How exactly would you quantify something like that anyway? With any reliability? And how would you test it to make sure you're not wasting your time?

I think they absolutely matter as to who wins, but when it comes to wagering I think the human factor is over bet, so I mostly ignore it. Only difference is I just won't bet terrible trainers and I won't bet bad riders on turf.

SuperPickle
05-06-2017, 12:34 AM
I really can't figure out how to explain how Mike Smith is THIS good these days.

He was as good as any jockey on earth in the early 90's. Then he had the horrible accident, left New York and was almost in exile in CA. His first couple years in CA were just sad.

I know Zenyatta kind of put him back on the map but he struggled for stretches after Zenyatta. One of the Del Mar meetings around that time he had a particularly awful meet. How awful? Kayla Stra won more races than him at that Del Mar meet.

So it's not like it's been a rocket ship post Zenyatta.

Is it a health thing? Riding for Baffert? Mental?

It's just rare for a jockey to be this good at his age. He's riding as good as he's ever.

And what does it say about the guys he went toe-to-toe with at NYRA. Are guys like Antley, Santos, Cordero, Bailey, Day, THAT much better than today's guys?

Honestly it's hard to pinpoint a reason.

thaskalos
05-06-2017, 12:48 AM
Yes...the jockey factor is often significant in retrospect. But it's hard to account for it BEFORE the race...when our bets are placed.

EasyGoer89
05-06-2017, 12:58 AM
I really can't figure out how to explain how Mike Smith is THIS good these days.

He was as good as any jockey on earth in the early 90's. Then he had the horrible accident, left New York and was almost in exile in CA. His first couple years in CA were just sad.

I know Zenyatta kind of put him back on the map but he struggled for stretches after Zenyatta. One of the Del Mar meetings around that time he had a particularly awful meet. How awful? Kayla Stra won more races than him at that Del Mar meet.

So it's not like it's been a rocket ship post Zenyatta.

Is it a health thing? Riding for Baffert? Mental?

It's just rare for a jockey to be this good at his age. He's riding as good as he's ever.

And what does it say about the guys he went toe-to-toe with at NYRA. Are guys like Antley, Santos, Cordero, Bailey, Day, THAT much better than today's guys?

Honestly it's hard to pinpoint a reason.

I think it's a Bunch of things but the main factor right now is that he's riding with a specific plan tailored to that specific horse in the context of the situation. Most jocks leg up and go, instructions get lost in translation many times because trainers either fail to give them, or give the wrong ones, or give right ones and jock doesn't listen, etc. smiths ready w a plan when the others, not so much.

he also rides very few races so he has more time to really handicap the races that he DOES ride. Riding all those races can wear on a jock physically and mentally, smith doesn't have that problem.

JustRalph
05-06-2017, 02:06 AM
Smith is an enigma.

I remember when he was riding in Florida after his accident. He would not ride within ten feet of another horse, or always go as wide as possible. I thought he was done. Yet, he turned it around.

I cannot imagine the bankroll he has put away.

Dahoss9698
05-06-2017, 06:55 AM
Whether they make a difference or not, I don't think about them one bit. Don't consider them at all. Don't consider trainers either.

Horses are way more reliable than humans anyway. Sure, I could obsess about jockeys and factor into the equation, who, in my opinion, might give my horses a better chance or who might compromise my chances. But I haven't come to the point where I think it might be worth my time and effort to do so.

How exactly would you quantify something like that anyway? With any reliability? And how would you test it to make sure you're not wasting your time?

That's fine. There are a lot of ways to make money in this game. And I don't think having a discussion means obsessing. I mean can't you factor something into your equation without obsessing? I know I can.

Here's my point in a nutshell. If I like a horse and I see someone like Eric Cancel up, I think twice about making my bet. If I see Castellano up I have no hesitation. If I see a rider switch to someone like Castellano over someone like Leparoux I run to the window. I didn't use to do that but years and years of extensive replay watching has led me there.

I think you absolutely have to factor a riders style into the equation nowadays considering the horse they are riding. In the past, even if Pat "wait all" Day was on a speed horse you could count on him sending. He wouldn't try and force a horse to adjust to his style. Today's riders do that. If I like a speed horse and Irad Ortiz is up I hesitate because I cannot count on him sending.

Dahoss9698
05-06-2017, 06:57 AM
And what does it say about the guys he went toe-to-toe with at NYRA. Are guys like Antley, Santos, Cordero, Bailey, Day, THAT much better than today's guys?
.
Yes. Much, much better.

Mulerider
05-06-2017, 09:12 AM
Yes...the jockey factor is often significant in retrospect. But it's hard to account for it BEFORE the race...when our bets are placed.

I tend to agree with that, and while in my handicapping I do assign a small weighting to jockey win %, it is narrowly focused on his win % on the running style of the horse he's on today. While most jockeys run similar numbers between their overall win rate and their specific running style rate, I've noticed that there are a few jockeys that consistently under or over-perform those categories relative to each other. Why that is, I do not know. Perhaps it is because those jocks are better (or worse) in particular pace situations.

If it's a turf race, I use the jock's turf race stats only.

Mule

castaway01
05-06-2017, 09:15 AM
I'm definitely in the "avoid the bad jockeys but the good ones are still likely to make a mistake" camp. Have to toss those 3% riders unless you are getting a ridiculous price and/or you know the jockey sometimes gets a live horse for that barn.

Tom
05-06-2017, 12:03 PM
Isn't the issue whether a particular rider, on average, improves' horses performance? Not whether they outride an opponent in a particular big stakes race.

I think it is more whether, on average, a particular ride downst screw up a horse's chances.

I think there are far more riders out there who screw them than help them.

Tom
05-06-2017, 12:06 PM
Yes...the jockey factor is often significant in retrospect. But it's hard to account for it BEFORE the race...when our bets are placed.

This is why Finger Lakes outlawed "Umbrella" give-away day back in the 70's. :rant::rant::rant:

Thomas Roulston
05-06-2017, 12:09 PM
Mike Smith= Hall of Fame Rider

Julien Leparoux= Overated Rider


And thanks to Pat Day we no longer have a Derby Trial - and it is not even a trial anymore since it is now run on Derby Day itself.

PaceAdvantage
05-06-2017, 12:12 PM
That's fine. There are a lot of ways to make money in this game. And I don't think having a discussion means obsessing. I mean can't you factor something into your equation without obsessing? I know I can.Sorry, wasn't thinking about you when I wrote that, but some others on here (and some who aren't on here anymore...lol)

My apologies

Greyfox
05-06-2017, 12:14 PM
In my opinion, the jockey factor increases as race distance increases.

Tom
05-06-2017, 12:29 PM
More opportunity to screw it up? :lol:

cj
05-06-2017, 12:36 PM
Yes. Much, much better.

Totally agree. I'm usually not one to think athletes were "better" in the old days. It usually just isn't true because people are bigger and stronger. But obviously the weight thing makes that not possible with jockeys. It is mostly mental, and the older generations were smarter riders.

Tom
05-06-2017, 12:56 PM
Sitting on a bench at Saratoga in 1977, I saw more good jockey in one day than I have seen in the last 20 years.

For trainers, it was in one race.

ultracapper
05-06-2017, 05:15 PM
Whether they make a difference or not, I don't think about them one bit. Don't consider them at all. Don't consider trainers either.

Horses are way more reliable than humans anyway. Sure, I could obsess about jockeys and factor into the equation, who, in my opinion, might give my horses a better chance or who might compromise my chances. But I haven't come to the point where I think it might be worth my time and effort to do so.

How exactly would you quantify something like that anyway? With any reliability? And how would you test it to make sure you're not wasting your time?

With all the data crunching being done in handicapping these days, weighing the un-quantifiables properly will ultimately be the difference between .97 and 1.03

PaceAdvantage
05-06-2017, 05:34 PM
The jockey sure made the difference on my pick, Oscar Nominated, in the Woodford...thanks Mike Smith :bang::puke:

Could you have been any wider around both turns despite sitting practically last through much of the race? And oh yeah, the horse who won, who was back there with you, managed not to be 6 wide around both turns...and that's why he won and you lost.

cj
05-06-2017, 05:42 PM
The jockey sure made the difference on my pick, Oscar Nominated, in the Woodford...thanks Mike Smith :bang::puke:

Could you have been any wider around both turns despite sitting practically last through much of the race? And oh yeah, the horse who won, who was back there with you, managed not to be 6 wide around both turns...and that's why he won and you lost.


People keep saying the wet turf track is firmer on the outside than the inside. True, I have no idea.

fiznow
05-06-2017, 07:06 PM
The winning percentage of jockeys is what counts for me and jockey-horse combinations.

thespaah
05-06-2017, 07:18 PM
Mike Smith= Hall of Fame Rider

Julien Leparoux= Overated Rider

Mike Smith is a "money rider".....

rsetup
05-06-2017, 11:00 PM
The jockey sure made the difference on my pick, Oscar Nominated, in the Woodford...thanks Mike Smith :bang::puke:

Could you have been any wider around both turns despite sitting practically last through much of the race? And oh yeah, the horse who won, who was back there with you, managed not to be 6 wide around both turns...and that's why he won and you lost.

Are you quantifying the trip?

Cratos
05-06-2017, 11:44 PM
The jockey sure made the difference on my pick, Oscar Nominated, in the Woodford...thanks Mike Smith :bang::puke:

Could you have been any wider around both turns despite sitting practically last through much of the race? And oh yeah, the horse who won, who was back there with you, managed not to be 6 wide around both turns...and that's why he won and you lost.

I didn't bet the Woodford, but I will echo an old saying about jockeys: "jockeys can't make a horse win, but hey can make a horse lose".

Dahoss9698
05-07-2017, 10:13 AM
I thought CD favored the inside for much of Friday and Saturday. Which makes the fact most riders avoided the rail during the Derby all the more bizarre.

Kudos to Corey Lanerie for getting it, he rode a fantastic race. Joel Rosario also put up a phenomenal ride somehow getting to the rail from the 19 post before the first turn.

mannyberrios
05-09-2017, 09:31 PM
That's fine. There are a lot of ways to make money in this game. And I don't think having a discussion means obsessing. I mean can't you factor something into your equation without obsessing? I know I can.

Here's my point in a nutshell. If I like a horse and I see someone like Eric Cancel up, I think twice about making my bet. If I see Castellano up I have no hesitation. If I see a rider switch to someone like Castellano over someone like Leparoux I run to the window. I didn't use to do that but years and years of extensive replay watching has led me there.

I think you absolutely have to factor a riders style into the equation nowadays considering the horse they are riding. In the past, even if Pat "wait all" Day was on a speed horse you could count on him sending. He wouldn't try and force a horse to adjust to his style. Today's riders do that. If I like a speed horse and Irad Ortiz is up I hesitate because I cannot count on him sending.

That post is perfect. Couldn't have said it better

EasyGoer89
05-10-2017, 02:58 AM
That's fine. There are a lot of ways to make money in this game. And I don't think having a discussion means obsessing. I mean can't you factor something into your equation without obsessing? I know I can.

Here's my point in a nutshell. If I like a horse and I see someone like Eric Cancel up, I think twice about making my bet. If I see Castellano up I have no hesitation. If I see a rider switch to someone like Castellano over someone like Leparoux I run to the window. I didn't use to do that but years and years of extensive replay watching has led me there.

I think you absolutely have to factor a riders style into the equation nowadays considering the horse they are riding. In the past, even if Pat "wait all" Day was on a speed horse you could count on him sending. He wouldn't try and force a horse to adjust to his style. Today's riders do that. If I like a speed horse and Irad Ortiz is up I hesitate because I cannot count on him sending.

Great post. 100 pct agree with the sentiment as well as the comments on the specific jocks you mention.

keithw84
05-10-2017, 11:09 PM
It's a generalizarion, but I think the jockey makes a bigger difference at smaller tracks with lower quality horses.

Dahoss9698
06-03-2017, 02:14 PM
Jockeys making a difference example #9,999,999. Mike Luzzi had no business losing the 2nd at Belmont today. Had he just rode his horse instead of looking back 3 times he wins. Instead he's 3rd beaten a nose.

Embarrassing

no breathalyzer
06-03-2017, 09:05 PM
:ThmbUp: That was pitiful ... might as well put cement blocks on your horse... not sure anyone in the jocks room could of lost with that setup.

Appy
06-03-2017, 09:38 PM
On the Mike Smith topic, I know he has spent considerable time and effort to become more than just a jockey. He has focused on learning how to be a horseman, which has made him a better jockey.
That, to me, makes a big difference. That's the kind of guy I want riding my horses.

Exotic1
06-04-2017, 07:49 AM
:ThmbUp: That was pitiful ... might as well put cement blocks on your horse... not sure anyone in the jocks room could of lost with that setup.

:ThmbUp:

Luzzi should endeavor to destroy all copies of that tape.