Any opinions

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Racing fans,

I just found this printed information in my storage area of my garage.I do not know who the author of this tidbit is but it really got me thinking.What's your opinions on this piece.

Author unknown

The real masters of winner-picking, and the true insiders at any track are...
JOCKEY AGENTS!

Who's the best winner-picker at any race track? not the trainers. Not the track secretary, and not the local public selectors.Jockey agents are the most successful group, when it comes to picking the highest percentage of winners at any track! This is a proven fact!!!

These individuals are more knowledgeable about racing than any 100 handicappers combined! they have to be. they need to know which horses will win to keep their clients (the jockeys) on a steady stream of winners

You think they spend their time pouring over past performances? NO WAY. they know it's bunk.

This man seems to have a real strong opinion on the jockey agent factor.Any opinions on this article? thanks Zappi

[toetoe]

Much truth in that. The good ones are great handicappers and, if they can hook up with a good jockey, sometimes two, why go through the heartbreak of gambling? Ray Harris makes a ton of money as Russell Baze's agent, and he can still get the occasional bet down. The only problem? We can't really turn this information into money, can we?

[twindouble]

Much truth in that. The good ones are great handicappers and, if they can hook up with a good jockey, sometimes two, why go through the heartbreak of gambling? Ray Harris makes a ton of money as Russell Baze's agent, and he can still get the occasional bet down. The only problem? We can't really turn this information into money, can we?

toetoe, zappi;

I agree some agents have a talent but I wouldn't call it handicapping in the strictest sense like you or I handicapping a field of 10. Their talent lies in their ability to recognize good things like any other politician or salesmen enabling them to get on the bandwagon.


T.D.

[the little guy]

It's not like there's a field of ten horses and the jockey agent that handicaps the race the best gets to ride the winner. Handicapping has very little to do with their job, as riders mostly ride for specific trainers, and rarely have a choice of mounts. And, if they do, the choice is usually obvious.

As a friend of mine who's a very successful agent in NY says, it's all about access, as in access to good mounts. The more access you have, the more live mounts that will be available to you, and thus the more winners you ride. I wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive, but being a good handicapper has very little to do with being a good agent.

[twindouble]

It's not like there's a field of ten horses and the jockey agent that handicaps the race the best gets to ride the winner. Handicapping has very little to do with their job, as riders mostly ride for specific trainers, and rarely have a choice of mounts. And, if they do, the choice is usually obvious.

As a friend of mine who's a very successful agent in NY says, it's all about access, as in access to good mounts. The more access you have, the more live mounts that will be available to you, and thus the more winners you ride. I wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive, but being a good handicapper has very little to do with being a good agent.


Thanks for clarifying my position on the subject.

T.D.

[GeTydOn]

But a agent's gotta start somewhere. And at that point he's gotta know who to go after and keep chipping away until he gets the breaks for his rider that down the line will help to create that access and availability.

[toetoe]

tlg,

So the best talent to have is the ability to handicap the jockeys, and represent the best?

[twindouble]

But a agent's gotta start somewhere. And at that point he's gotta know who to go after and keep chipping away until he gets the breaks for his rider that down the line will help to create that access and availability.

That's good question, it would be better answered by a successful agent. I have my common sense thoughts on it, but it's business related knowing what it takes to break into any new field. It would be interesting to get it from the horses mouth. :cool:


T.D.

[the little guy]

tlg,

So the best talent to have is the ability to handicap the jockeys, and represent the best?

It's sort of twofold, and this may help answer the question in the post before yours, in that a jockey AND his agent will have contacts, and hopefully they can mesh the two. Certainly a rider comes with contacts, and if he's already successful, it's a question of keeping people happy while trying to add some of your trainers as his clients. The key is trying to balance things. I am in no way suggesting being an agent isn't a tough job, I am just saying actual race handicapping is a VERY limited part of the job, if really a part at all.

IMO, one of the greatest " agenting " jobs in history is what Drew Mollica did with Aaron Gryder in NY about eight years ago. When he took over Gryder's book Aaron was kind of in no-man's land, having had no real NY success, or particularly experience, in the past. They won like five or six riding titles together! Drew had the contacts, Aaron worked his butt off, rode well, and things worked exceptionally well. When Drew took another book, things didn't go as well for Gryder, and it seemed clear his confidence dropped off, and he ended up riding more in New Jersey ( now he's in California ).

[twindouble]

It's sort of twofold, and this may help answer the question in the post before yours, in that a jockey AND his agent will have contacts, and hopefully they can mesh the two. Certainly a rider comes with contacts, and if he's already successful, it's a question of keeping people happy while trying to add some of your trainers as his clients. The key is trying to balance things. I am in no way suggesting being an agent isn't a tough job, I am just saying actual race handicapping is a VERY limited part of the job, if really a part at all.

IMO, one of the greatest " agenting " jobs in history is what Drew Mollica did with Aaron Gryder in NY about eight years ago. When he took over Gryder's book Aaron was kind of in no-man's land, having had no real NY success, or particularly experience, in the past. They won like five or six riding titles together! Drew had the contacts, Aaron worked his butt off, rode well, and things worked exceptionally well. When Drew took another book, things didn't go as well for Gryder, and it seemed clear his confidence dropped off, and he ended up riding more in New Jersey ( now he's in California ).

I would think it would be very difficult to come off the street and become an agent. There would have be a history associated with racing on some level even to qualify as one.

T.D.

[laff]

Toetoe,

Do you know Ray Harris?

[kenwoodallpromos]

It is hard to believe none of them study the form.
I read since many are allowed only 2 riders they have to chose their jockeys carefully, get one that likes to work mornings for free, know everybody, and have a good idea WHY a horse is in a certain race. (not just trainer intent, but purse level and timing moves, future plans and which trainers have stakes horses in the barn.)
I'm sure top agents can make a good bet, but they also make 10% of jockey earnings so some could make over $100,000 per year.

[rastajenk]

but being a good handicapper has very little to do with being a good agent.

I disagree entirely, and agree with most of the original post. A good agent knows all the horses on the grounds, and can often help a trainer in finding the right spot for a horse, even to the point of actually entering it for him. How often do you read or hear that divining trainer intention is a big part of handicapping? Well, the agent is often a big part of that "trainer intention." He knows the condition book as well as anybody that's not the racing secretary. A good agent is on top of daily workout news. He knows who wants to make some claims, and who wants to unload junk. He practically lives in the racing office, so all the things that "good handicappers" try to figure out, he already knows in real time.

I don't know Drew Mollica (mentioned above), but I don't think he is successful just because he has contacts and is on the phone all the time. There is much more than that going on. He has contacts because people trust his knowledge of the game and his judgment. Agents are at the center of everything, it would be wrong to minimize their impact.

I don't agree with the line about agents not needing pp's. Every agent I've ever known always got the Form as soon as it was available.

[the little guy]

I never said an agent doesn't do the things you said, and I understand a lot better than you obviously realize what goes into being an agent, but none of what you said also means he has to be a good handicapper. I mean handicapper in the sense of someone who objectively analyses the pps to try to determine betting opportunities. Don't forget, the actual race pps come out after a race has been drawn.

I understand how agents work with trainers and the condition book but none of this is specific to successful horse race handicapping.

There are many jobs at the racetrack. Being good at one may not preclude others but it doesn't necessarily include them.

[toetoe]

I do not know Ray Harris. I think, in light of tlg's posts, that Harris' handicapping skill is superfluous, but it couldn't hoit. I know he was arrogant or outraged enough to slander (libel?) Ron Hansen during a brouhaha after which Doug Schrick was convicted of something. Exactly what happened is pretty hazy to me now. Race fixing, I think. Anyway, Harris had to recant his charge for lack of proof, which had to hurt. I think jockey Ron Warren jumped in on the accusations, too.

Some agents are reformed trainers, bolstering the well-rounded resume theory. Wayne McDonnell, a trainer at MNR, I THINK is the same guy that used to be the agent for the aforementioned, ultra-talented but despised Mr. Hansen. If I'm wrong, see smilies to my right. >>>>>>> :blush: :bang:

[the little guy]

I wouldn't say it's " superfluous "...just hardly a prerequisite or particularly common. The more you know the better.

[laff]

Toetoe,

I was just curious if you knew Ray. I will tell you one thing though. When Baze retires, Ray will probably end up right where he started. Working the information booth. Yep, that's where he started. And it's quite amusing to the regulars at GG and Bay Meadows to see Ray walking around asking who everybody likes in the next race. Handicapper? No. He doesn't have to be a good handicapper. As long as Russell is winning at a 30% clip, all Ray has to do is collect that 10%.

[toetoe]

Besides possibly being way off about RH, I may be misunderstood as to "handicapping." An agent may have the luxury of taking a horse like, I dunno, Rock Hard Ten, in his first off a long layoff, planning to cash in two or three races later in the BC, e.g. A bettor can't "handicap" like that. If RH is so lucky to be where he is, his accusations against Hansen were even more ill-advised, stupid even.

tlg, I just meant, by superfluous, "more than needed," "a luxury."

[BIG49010]

They usually know whats up!! Look at the success of a E. Banks with Shane Sellers and P. Val. ,Cordero and Velasquez, Lenny Pike and Alborado, Harry the Hat in Chicago, starts good jocks and takes them to Cal., Garret Gomez, and others. Take a look at jocks that loose a good agent, Pike, he had A. Gryder, Kerwin Clark. I always look at the condition book to see who the agents have. :cool:

[kenwoodallpromos]

I assume the racing sect'y and better agents know more inside scoop about all trainer's horses (competing horses) than anyone else. Just knowing when a trainer thinks the horse will be physical fit to run at peak is a big deal!

[the little guy]

You what happens when you assume.

[twindouble]

I assume the racing sect'y and better agents know more inside scoop about all trainer's horses (competing horses) than anyone else. Just knowing when a trainer thinks the horse will be physical fit to run at peak is a big deal!

Funny thing ken, in my 45 years playing I have yet to sit down with an agent or even come close to shaking one's hand. I had no desire to take the big deal information you refered to, whereas others got sucked in to it. Most of those hot tips were chalk to begin with or they were touted off the real thing. I don't know how many times someone would say to me, "they are going to try with this horse today he's primed to explode," or some other dumb comment. In the majority of cases the horse was over his head. It was common sense to me, that good information doesn't go public. I just had to figure out who had the right conditions to go for it. Sure, I got blind sided here and there but when I put it together, well what can I say, it's one hell of a good feeling.

Anyway, how often does the public have the heads up on insider trading? Didn't one guy take down the breeders cup pick 6 with a $12.00 wager, that had connections and undisclosed partners. :rolleyes: Correct me if I'm wrong.

T.D.

[Valuist]

In a recent thread about jockeys, I mentioned that to a handicapper, the agent is really more significant than the jockey himself. The agent is the one who makes the decisions when the rider has more than one call. In the not too distant past, you'd open the DRF and see several riders have multiple calls in a race. That's changed now since the riders have the calls committed several days before the race but one can still read between the lines and see who likely had a choice of mounts in a race. Whether one feels jockey agents are good handicappers or not, there are instances (i.e. layoff horses, 1st timer starters) when they likely have far more knowledge about a horse's current fitness or ability than we do as handicappers.

[twindouble]

In a recent thread about jockeys, I mentioned that to a handicapper, the agent is really more significant than the jockey himself. The agent is the one who makes the decisions when the rider has more than one call. In the not too distant past, you'd open the DRF and see several riders have multiple calls in a race. That's changed now since the riders have the calls committed several days before the race but one can still read between the lines and see who likely had a choice of mounts in a race. Whether one feels jockey agents are good handicappers or not, there are instances (i.e. layoff horses, 1st timer starters) when they likely have far more knowledge about a horse's current fitness or ability than we do as handicappers.

Here again, I think there's bias in their perception of fitness and ability but there's nothing wrong with reading between the lines if a horse fits the conitions very well. That's handicapping, just as Boxcar.

T.D.

[oddswizard]

I do know Ray Harris. He is an excellent handicapper. Sometimes he will play a $20.00 win ticket but most of the time he doesn't have to bet as he is making so much money as Russell Baze's agent. I have seen a ton of jockey agents who have left the business because they became losing bettors. Remember that a jockey agent is looking out for his jockey's horses and that means he usually does not have the time to handicap the other horses. Since the average jockey wins under 20% the agent will lose 80% of the time. Think about it.
There are exceptions to the rule and Ray Harris is one of them. A good handicapper has a better chance to make money wagering than any agent, jockey or trainer. When you talk to them about this most of them will readily admit they would be losers is they had to bet on horses.

[Valuist]

T.D.-

There is bias sometimes in their opinion, no doubt. But the better ones are more subjective. And there also is the loyalty factor. Let's say JRV has the call on a Pletcher horse who figures to be 7-1 or 8-1 but he also has the call on a horse that figures to be a little more bet, maybe 4-1/9-2. You have to figure Cordero would put JRV on the Pletcher horse, unless it was possibly a big stake. One does have to read between the lines a bit but when a top rider on a circuit takes a mount that doesn't appear obvious over a couple would be contenders, the handicapper should take notice. At TP a couple weeks ago, a rider took the mount on Spruce Hero, a horse totally unproven on the main track over two others w/very solid dirt form. Spruce Hero paid almost $25 while easily beating the two higher regarded horses.

[twindouble]

T.D.-

There is bias sometimes in their opinion, no doubt. But the better ones are more subjective. And there also is the loyalty factor. Let's say JRV has the call on a Pletcher horse who figures to be 7-1 or 8-1 but he also has the call on a horse that figures to be a little more bet, maybe 4-1/9-2. You have to figure Cordero would put JRV on the Pletcher horse, unless it was possibly a big stake. One does have to read between the lines a bit but when a top rider on a circuit takes a mount that doesn't appear obvious over a couple would be contenders, the handicapper should take notice. At TP a couple weeks ago, a rider took the mount on Spruce Hero, a horse totally unproven on the main track over two others w/very solid dirt form. Spruce Hero paid almost $25 while easily beating the two higher regarded horses.

Yes, those subtle moves are a factor but even then I'd like to have others that support my decision. That's why I like boxcar's posts, he can explain angles like this a lot better than I.

T.D.

[jotb]

Hello all:

I'll tell you what a good agent is. The good agent is the agent that can take a low profile rider and go to a racing circuit where the agent has no clients and within a short period of time puts that rider into the top 10 in the jockey colony. This rarely ever happens.

Most agents in the industry that have outfits behind them can and will most of the time get a rider off the ground even if the rider's talent is in question. I don't think the agent is good in this case because the agent does not have to work hard. It comes down to who you know.

Many agents are excellent handicappers but you would be surprised how many of them don't know how to read the pp's and more importantly, the condition book which is the agents Bible.

The agents that have one of the top 5 riders usually do most of their business through a phone and the most difficult thing for them to do is decide which horse is best. It can be hectic for them because they can get as many as 6 calls for a given race. Many times when this is in front of the agent he or she may need to pass on the better horse because of business relations that an agent has with certain trainers. You (as an agent) try to honor your calls protect your better customers but look out for the small guy and at the same time keep your rider happy (making money each week). This can be extremly difficult at times.

Joe

[JulieKrone]

Besides possibly being way off about RH, I may be misunderstood as to "handicapping." An agent may have the luxury of taking a horse like, I dunno, Rock Hard Ten, in his first off a long layoff, planning to cash in two or three races later in the BC, e.g. A bettor can't "handicap" like that. If RH is so lucky to be where he is, his accusations against Hansen were even more ill-advised, stupid even.

tlg, I just meant, by superfluous, "more than needed," "a luxury."

Hansen, at the peak of his prowess moves to So.Cal and looks like he could maybe dominate there too. This basically ruined his career and likely led to untimely end.