Jockey Impact?

[JackS]

Unlike leading trainers which insure a more than likely healthy and ready to run horse, impact values for leading jocks on any horse from any trainer regardless of standing must be considered.
To put an actual number on a horse because of a jockeys current standing will always be voo-doo but still as handicappers ,most of us will attempt to do so.
My thoughts on this has lead me to believe that great jocks add somewhere between one inch to a length in final time. The median of this would be 5ft or 1/10th of a second. This number would be applied to horses in all sprints and routes finals.
Depending on everyones personal preference and perhaps track condition and speed (or lack thereof) and distance, incrementals of 1/10th could be applied to each call.
Another thought that I had was that since this number is so subjective that the actual estimation of 5 feet might be reduced by half and that 2.5ft be used in hopes of a more realistic number. It might be best to error on the side of under estimation than over estimation.
Other problems also exist when trying to adjust for good jocks versus great jocks but further estimations are possible.
Here's my question to you guys. What is your personal method for making an adjustment or if you make no adjustment what are your reasons?
Since this question will have no correct or incorrect answer, everyone should feel free to voice an opinion.

[46zilzal]

passenger.....akin to a race car. Only SO much they can do to change or agument a mechanism that they are just AROUND or in this case ON...
The GREATEST among them can change them a bit (the Shoe's, Baeza's and Laffit's) but the mechanism is still exclusive to them

[Overlay]

I use the distinguishing criteria that Quirin originally developed, which divide jockeys into three strata, depending on whether the jockey is one of the top five riders (including ties) in terms of victories at the current race meeting; or, if the jockey is not among the top five, whether he or she has ridden a "good race" on the horse in its past performances (finishing third or better, or within two lengths of the winner in a sprint of less than one mile, or within three lengths of the winner in a route of one mile or more); or whether the jockey meets neither of those criteria. The impact values that Quirin found to be associated with those categories were 1.46, 1.14, and .60, respectively. Quirin advised readers to treat the jockey factor as a signal of the trainer's intentions. "When a leading rider turns up on a horse, it usually means that the trainer has the horse fit and placed where it can win." Whether anyone would agree with that or not, or however one might feel regarding whether the jockey actively enhances the horse's winning chances or is just a passenger along for the ride, I personally find it hard to ignore the disproportionate number of races won by a relatively small percentage of the total jockey colony at almost any race meeting. I think that consistently disregarding that statistic would make achieving a positive return considerably more difficult for the handicapper.

[Pace Cap'n]

It might be well to consider that winning the race is, at best, the third priority of any jockey.

Priority #1: Don't get hurt.

Priority #2: Don't hurt anyone else.

Only then can the jock focus on the race at hand.

[twindouble]

Unlike leading trainers which insure a more than likely healthy and ready to run horse, impact values for leading jocks on any horse from any trainer regardless of standing must be considered.
To put an actual number on a horse because of a jockeys current standing will always be voo-doo but still as handicappers ,most of us will attempt to do so.
My thoughts on this has lead me to believe that great jocks add somewhere between one inch to a length in final time. The median of this would be 5ft or 1/10th of a second. This number would be applied to horses in all sprints and routes finals.
Depending on everyones personal preference and perhaps track condition and speed (or lack thereof) and distance, incrementals of 1/10th could be applied to each call.
Another thought that I had was that since this number is so subjective that the actual estimation of 5 feet might be reduced by half and that 2.5ft be used in hopes of a more realistic number. It might be best to error on the side of under estimation than over estimation.
Other problems also exist when trying to adjust for good jocks versus great jocks but further estimations are possible.
Here's my question to you guys. What is your personal method for making an adjustment or if you make no adjustment what are your reasons?
Since this question will have no correct or incorrect answer, everyone should feel free to voice an opinion.


Rating jocks has more to do with observation, other than the obvious, getting better mounts via a good agent.

Not many cappers don't pay attention to that first call, out of the gate. So if you keep track of jock changes for example he manages to get a horse out of the gate that never broke 1,2,or 3rd and he does, take note. To me that's important to get position, ESP to that first turn, more so at some tracks depending where they start.

Ability to rate; Again observation, having a good sense of pace. Yes it's true, some are better than others going both ways, on the lead off the pace including deep closers. I find when it comes to that, even some of those that aren't in the top 5 or 10 have that talent.

Riding style; Jocks are athletes some are in better shape than others, well balanced on a horse, in sink with the horse, able to switch leads and a smooth transition, left or right with the whip. I might add, the trainers know what jocks are in tune with their horse. That can be a big factor.

On the lead; I might conclude a jock lacks the obove but put him on the lead and he owns the race, breaking ability and asking the horse to do more in a drive. Chavez and A. Cordero come to mind. Good examples to go by.

It's up to you from there to figure out who's who, I rate them in my mind so maybe you can put a number to it or scale.


Good luck,

T.D.

[Buckeye]

to sum it up . . . pinheads.

Some are better than others though. Am I contradicting myself again?

That's horseracing!

Stats are available.

Nothing works all the time but I'll take Pat Day (retired) over Rochelle Lee.

[Buckeye]

and of course, degree of impact (ability) is usually reflected in the odds.

[classhandicapper]

I treat the jockey assignment as a signal of what the trainer thinks of the horse's chances. Many trainers have favorite "go to" riders. A switch to that rider or if that rider is on another horse could tell you something.

I also like to know which jockeys are aggressive and which are passive when it comes to front runners. If I'm going to play a horse because I think he has an edge in early speed, I don't want a rider that likes to choke speed horses back and allow the field get to him. The proper way to ride a horse like that is to open up a couple of lengths and get clear of the field without getting excesssive. I want open lengths at the quarter pole. I don't want to play cat and mouse with some closer that has more kick than I do breathing down my neck.

In slow pace scenarios, a hand full of the very best jockey's will be sensitive to that possibility before the fact (they read the DRF) and make an effort to get closer position than usual so they are within striking distance.

The same kind of thing is true of track biases.

When these circumstances come up, knowing the rider's talents and jockey/ trainer preferences helps me make marginal bet or pass decisions.

[Overlay]

and of course, degree of impact (ability) is usually reflected in the odds.

I've noted that, too, but it can also occur in a beneficial reverse way. Bettors may overemphasize the importance of one particular "hot" rider to a horse's winning chances, and drive the horse's odds down to an unjustifiably low level, while not paying enough attention to other horses in the same race with jockeys who are just as capable, or (as classhandicapper suggested) who are a specific trainer's "rider of choice" when sending out a horse that is fit and entered where it can win. (For example (speaking of Pat Day), I can recall many past instances at Churchill where the public went overboard on his horses just because he was riding, which created solid overlays on one or more of the other horses in the race.)

[shoelessjoe]

Talking about jocks it's a shame to see Joe Bravo get hurt so often ,this guy has a lot of talent.He reminds me of another talented NJ based rider at one time who got hurt a lot Rick Wilson.When Rick the stick got clear sailing he was very tough on the front end.Shoeless

[Valuist]

If the thread was wondering what was the jockey's impact in a literal sense, here's some info:

http://sports.yahoo.com/rah/news?slug=ap-jockey-head-butt&prov=ap&type=lgns