Do Jockeys Or Trainers Have An Edge Betting??

[Nickle]

Seems like they have best chance to win as they know the horse better than anyone else and I would pick jocks more than trainers.

I think the regular handicapper cannot get the info that these guys have access too.

[GameTheory]

Seems like they have best chance to win as they know the horse better than anyone else and I would pick jocks more than trainers.

I think the regular handicapper cannot get the info that these guys have access too.The jocks are not allowed to bet so hopefully they don't think about it much...

[Overlay]

I don't remember who said it (Arcaro, perhaps?), but there's a commonly-circulated quote from one jockey, saying that the job he wanted to have after he hung up his tack was as the bookie in the jockeys' quarters, because they were such poor handicappers.

[Nickle]

In trots drivers are allowed to bet to win on their horse.

[lsbets]

The good trainers tend to enter in spots where they think they can win, but most never seem to win often enough to have a positive ROI when you look at their runners.

Then there are the bad trainers who always seem to enter their horses in too tough. I sincerely hope those trainers bet on their horses.

When my wife and I were playing the claiming game a couple of years ago, I asked our trainer how confident he was that we would win. He said it was the right spot and we had the best horse, so he expected to win. I asked him if he would mind if I put his monthly training bill down on the horse to win, and he said "Hell no, I can't handicap a race to save my life!"

[speculus]

You are right.

It was Eddie Arcaro who said it.

[PaceAdvantage]

The jocks are not allowed to bet so hopefully they don't think about it much...

Except at Magna tracks.

[john spencer]

Ummmm. Apart from knowing if their own horse is 'on the job' by all accounts they would colectively the worst of all handicappers.


John

[cnollfan]

From what I have read, Jerry Bailey is a pretty good handicapper. One of his techniques is to follow what he believes is the horse to beat through a hole, reasoning that that horse won't be the one stopping in front of him.

[cj's dad]

Jockeys first. With few exceptions, some of the less intelligent people around. Have you ever had a lengthy conversation with any of them?

Trainers ? Too busy paying attention to their own stable to be concerned with the field they are running against. The only thing they have a clue on is whether their entry is fit.
How could they possibly know the condition of the other horses in the field?

The absolute worst hcprs are track announcers; CJ can tell you stories about his friend Larry Collmus from Monmouth/Suffolk.

[andicap]

To my limited knowledge it seems jockey agents are some of the best cappers at the track. The top ones have to be since they are effectively handicapping every race to get their client on the best horses.

steve adika was always considered an excellent handicapper when he was handling mike smith in ny. lot of people credited smith's success here to adika getting him on the right horses.

[Overlay]

To my limited knowledge it seems jockey agents are some of the best cappers at the track. The top ones have to be since they are effectively handicapping every race to get their client on the best horses.

I'm not disagreeing with you or discounting the degree of the jockey agent's potential knowledge of the local thoroughbred population. But wouldn't there also be a certain initiative on the part of trainers who had a horse that was well-meant in a particular race to actively contact the agents of the better jockeys about riding it, rather than necessarily waiting for the agents to come to them?

[bettheoverlay]

One contrarian angle I always look for is in a race where a winning jockey has ridden two horses to in the money finishes in their last race. The crowd will usually bet down the horse he chooses to ride back, and underbet the horse he gives up, the logic being the jockey must know which is the better horse.

I usually bet the horse he gives up, with some success.

[classhandicapper]

I think trainers definitely have an edge, but I wouldn't know if many exploit it well. I worked as a hotwalker for a summer about 25 years ago. On 3 occasions I had access to information about a horse that was critical to undertanding its chances.

1. A MSW race came up "extremely" light. There was one first time starter in the race that wasn't particlurly well bred and didn't show much in its WOs. But it was the perfect spot for a 1st timer. I simply walked into the shed row of the trainer (I knew a few of the guys there) and asked if the horse could run a little. They said yes. I bet. It won. If they told me no, I woudn't have bet. If I didn't know I would have been playing a guessing game. At least I knew I had a live one.

2. We were sending out the favorite in a claiming race. We were dropping her in class off a win. If you didn't know anything, you'd at least be suspicious of a dropdown like that. Yet many do win and you can never be sure. I knew this horse had no shot at all. She was barely sound enough to send to the track, let alone win. We were trying to get rid of her. Nice edge knowing the favorite will be off the board.

3. We had a horse whose last race looked dull, but who would have been the favorite on his other recent races. The public didn't know about some problems the horse had in that last race that prevented him from running his best, but that weren't going to be a factor in his next start. I did. He won and paid $10.40 as the obvious most likely winner.

[cnollfan]

One contrarian angle I always look for is in a race where a winning jockey has ridden two horses to in the money finishes in their last race. The crowd will usually bet down the horse he chooses to ride back, and underbet the horse he gives up, the logic being the jockey must know which is the better horse.

I usually bet the horse he gives up, with some success.

I love this angle! If it didn't affect the odds I'd just as soon go with the rider, but since the public tends to blindly follow the rider, the other horse is underbet. Reminds me of a Jewish mother joke -- she gives her son two shirts, and the next time she sees him, he's wearing one of the shirts. Her face drops and she says sadly, "you didn't like the other one?"

In a somewhat related angle, I like it when the meet's leading rider picks up the mount on a longshot that proceeds to show little, and the next time the horse is ridden by an obscure jockey. It's almost always a good price, as bettors reasoning goes something like "if it couldn't win for Gomez it won't win for Joy Scott." But for the leading rider to pick up the mount on a strange horse to begin with, there's often a story involved. Even though the horse lost that day, the story remains.

[twindouble]

Seems like they have best chance to win as they know the horse better than anyone else and I would pick jocks more than trainers.

I think the regular handicapper cannot get the info that these guys have access too.

Without a doubt a good handicapper has a big edge over most jocks and trainers, some trainers are dam good handicappers and do a good job spotting their horses and claiming. It's up to us to figure out who they are at the tracks we play.

[Perilous]

I second most jock's agents are very good at picking live horses. A agent, should know where particular horses go and in what races before the entries are drawn. They watch every race everyday, they talk to a good amount of trainers on the backside everyday, and get tons of gossip. That being said, there are a few agents that jock's do well, and they can't remember whether your horse runs in a allowance race or a 5 thousand claimer, so I wouldn't depend on them for handicapping tips.

As far as Jockey's being good/bad handicappers, I think jock's like Bailey and a few other older and experienced ones can tell you how a race will probably play out on a fairly level playing track. A few of my close friends are jockeys, and if they say they are on something live, especially first time starters I'll take their word for it, but other then that I wouldn't put my money down on what they actually say.

Trainers, usually can tell you how their horse will run, but most won't actually tell someone. Its better to keep things like that to yourself, especially in claiming races and no one wants to say he'll win, and something happens and the person bet their paycheck away on it. If a trainer is betting on their own horse, and they usually don't bet..then I would watch out. Certain trainers have more insight about other trainers, because they are friends and they talk about stuff like that. But everyone can put together a pretty general statement about a trainer, for example his horses tend to all run on the front, or he has so and so riding must be a live horse, or what not.

I would go with some of the jock's agents that are friends with people on the backside, have a great memory as far as horses go, and are sitting in the track kitchen everyday watching the races.

Most backside help(exercise riders, grooms and hotwalkers) get the best tips, because if someone has a horse that is real live they will share it with someone that can use the money.

[cj]

The difference with jock agents and betttors is that jock agents don't really care about value. The lower the odds, the better. If I was a jockey, I'd want my agent getting me on the lowest odds horses.

So, a good one is of course good at picking winners, but his goal is different.

[plainolebill]

Mike Mitchell went broke betting horses.

[Figman]

The edge is in realizing and remembering that each and every race affects a horse's "condition". Each race either improves the horses "condition" or detracts from its present condition therefore affecting its next performance. They are living equine....not machines!

The jockey that regularly rides the same horse can feel it. The trainer that cares for the horse can see it. (Horses cool out and eats up properly after a race or on the other hand, acts differently from normal). After a race, if a horse doesn't "feel right" the jockey reports it to the trainer (usually) and to his agent (all the time).

The "edge" goes to the agent/jockey combination that remembers the right information especially when making a choice from among multiple possibilities for next time.

[FUGITIVE77]

Any bookie can attest to the fact that 99% of jockeys are horrible handicappers, probably only a small percentage know how to read a form, that is if they can read at all. Trainers aren't much better.

[xfile]

Every jockey and trainer that gave me a horse during the years....well let's just say these horses are still running :D :D

[JackS]

I don't know for sure but I think jocks do handicap the race prior to its running. It only makes sense that a jocky would want to know what kind of horse he is about to ride and attempt to develop a mental stratagy that might give his horse a chance to win.
I don't think a smart jockey that is riding an underdog would have enough faith in his chances to win to bet this horse but, he might at least have the feeling he has a chance.

[Nickle]

I think Jocks have more of an edge comapred to trainers and plus they can play games with the horse.

[ezpace]

Eddie D. can analyze past performances with just about anybody.