What Are the Odds?

[Pell Mell]

Not being very good at this kind of math, I have a question.

Most tracks have a couple of jocks winning at a 20-25% rate and some places, like BM, have 3 or more. And there's the case of trainers where some of these hit at a very high rate.

My question is; if two or more 25% jocks are in a race what are the odds that one of them wins the race? I guess a lot of stats could be worked out using the high% trainers and jocks in combo.

It just seems to me that to be betting a place like BM and going against these guys is like going up against a brick wall. There are other tracks with like situations but not quite that extreme. I would be interested to know if anyone has ever worked out what a bettor's chances are in these situations, especially when trying to nail a longshot with a low % jock or trainer.:confused:

[mrharness]

Here is how I would go about it.

Say you have the following jockeys win percentages, 8 horse field.
1) 25
2) 25
3) 10
4) 15
5) 18
6) 9
7) 10
8) 20
Add up all the per cents (132 in this case). Divide 100% by 132%. Gives you .0757, the amount to multiply each jockey percent by. That gives you 100% for the race.
1) 18.9
2) 18.9
3) 7.5
4) 11.36
5) 13.6
6) 6.8
7) 7.5
8) 15.15
From here you would convert percentages to odds.
1) 4:1
2) 4:1
3) 12:1
4) 7:1
5) 6:1
6) 13:1
7) 12:1
8) 5:1

There would be a slight round-off error but that is the procedure.

[Zman179]

Add up all the per cents (132 in this case). Divide 100% by 132%. Gives you .0757, the amount to multiply each jockey percent by. That gives you 100% for the race.


Actually, it's .757 :)

[mrharness]

Typo:) thanks.

[Pell Mell]

Here is how I would go about it.

Say you have the following jockeys win percentages, 8 horse field.
1) 25
2) 25
3) 10
4) 15
5) 18
6) 9
7) 10
8) 20
Add up all the per cents (132 in this case). Divide 100% by 132%. Gives you .0757, the amount to multiply each jockey percent by. That gives you 100% for the race.
1) 18.9
2) 18.9
3) 7.5
4) 11.36
5) 13.6
6) 6.8
7) 7.5
8) 15.15
From here you would convert percentages to odds.
1) 4:1
2) 4:1
3) 12:1
4) 7:1
5) 6:1
6) 13:1
7) 12:1
8) 5:1

There would be a slight round-off error but that is the procedure.


I think I understand your procedure but I'm thinking more along the line of cumulative odds. For instance in the case you cite, I'm thinking that there is a 70% chance that either 1,2 or 8 is going to win. In other words, what are the chances of one of these guys not winning?:confused:

[kenwoodallpromos]

Generally when I try for a longshot it is in a situation that has a higher % probability to be unpredictable, like routes and off-tracks.
But with the way they have set BM this meet to be speed crazy (6f wiring at 67%), super workout times) real tough to do if a LS does not have early speed. Since Baze is 19 wins in 31 races, I would make sure there is other early speed and Baze has an outer post in a sprint.
"Chad Phillip Schvaneveldt 102 21 10 16 $404,980"
This BM jockey is an old veteran, note the wins compared to 2nds and 3rds- and the total purse won, which is very goood for BM. There are a few established trainers who use PS when the do not want the odds beat down because Baze or the lastest "hot" bug is on the mount. He can win at a price and routing. Sometimes wins in small streaks.
When not using Baze NorCal trainers, like trainers on other circuits, often go to the "go to" bug (Martin Garcia and Luis Martinez in the recent past). When the "hot" bug loses his bug he often goes cold and the trainers give him nothing good to ride.
Then there are a few select trainers who use Barrington Harvey when they think they have a coup!

[lilmegahertz]

I guess this is as good a place as ant to ask a stoopid question but could someone please tell me what they mean by an overlay?:confused: I think you guys know that I am new to the sport [the betting part, not the enjoying part]. I have asked several people and keep getting different answers. Please help a racing sister out...thanks

[GaryG]

I guess this is as good a place as ant to ask a stoopid question but could someone please tell me what they mean by an overlay?:confused: I think you guys know that I am new to the sport [the betting part, not the enjoying part]. I have asked several people and keep getting different answers. Please help a racing sister out...thanksAn overlay is a horse whose odds are higher than they should be. An underlay is the opposite.

[maxwell]

It depends what the odds are as well. Top jocks do find their way onto 20/1 shots. If three 25% riders are all on 2/1 shots in a race, you would think they would be harder to beat. But I'm guessing they fall under the well-known win % for horses going to post at 2/1?

[Pell Mell]

Let me use a hypo, there are 4 jocks in a race who are all riding at a 25% clip. They have all ridden in the last 100 races. Wouldn't that mean that one of these 4 has won every race? What diff does it make what the odds on the horses are? What's the chances of beating them in race 101?:bang:

[kenwoodallpromos]

I guess Schvaneveldt got lucky in a turf sprint.

[socantra]

Let me use a hypo, there are 4 jocks in a race who are all riding at a 25% clip. They have all ridden in the last 100 races. Wouldn't that mean that one of these 4 has won every race? What diff does it make what the odds on the horses are? What's the chances of beating them in race 101?:bang:

Who knows. I've never been to a hypothetical track. Let's keep it in the real world. How about Bay Meadows, from your original example. Though Russell Baze is winning at the astounding clip of 38%, he is riding in less than half the races run at Bay Meadows. Baze has ridden in 170 races out of a total of 346 run at BM this meet. That is more than any other rider. His winning percentage of actual races run is only 19%(only?).

There are 3 other jockeys with winning percentages over 20%, but none of them has won over 10% of the total races run. If you combine those top 4 winning percentage jockeys, they have won 42% of the total races run.

The top 10 jockeys (by wins) in the standings have won 80% of the races run at BM this meet.

Since they don't run in all the same races, it would be pretty hard to draw much of a conclusion. If you had a database on how they did head to head, you might be able to make a better guess, but remember that warning about past results not guaranteeing future performance.

[Pell Mell]

Who knows. I've never been to a hypothetical track. Let's keep it in the real world. How about Bay Meadows, from your original example. Though Russell Baze is winning at the astounding clip of 38%, he is riding in less than half the races run at Bay Meadows. Baze has ridden in 170 races out of a total of 346 run at BM this meet. That is more than any other rider. His winning percentage of actual races run is only 19%(only?).

There are 3 other jockeys with winning percentages over 20%, but none of them has won over 10% of the total races run. If you combine those top 4 winning percentage jockeys, they have won 42% of the total races run.

The top 10 jockeys (by wins) in the standings have won 80% of the races run at BM this meet.

Since they don't run in all the same races, it would be pretty hard to draw much of a conclusion. If you had a database on how they did head to head, you might be able to make a better guess, but remember that warning about past results not guaranteeing future performance.


Thank you, what you have stated is more like what I was asking. I only used a hypo to draw attention to the kind of stat that I was wondering if anyone had ever worked out.

It's like that old saw, 10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish. This is not to say that anyone of the 90% can't catch a fish but that the better fisherman catch most of the fish. Thanks again:)

[Overlay]

Willliam Quirin drew the line in terms of impact value at the top five jockeys in a race meeting. If I recall his findings (based on a 946-race sample), the top five riders had a cumulative impact value of 1.46. Jockeys who were not among the top five, but who had previously ridden a "good race" (by Quirin's definition) on the horse in its past peformances had a cumulative value of 1.14. Jockeys meeting neither of those descriptions had a cumulative value of .60. (I asked Mike Nunamaker why he hadn't included jockey impact values like that in the larger sample he used for Modern Impact Values, and he indicated that it was due to the inability to reliably track jockey changes or errors in jockey assignment in the data that he worked from.)

[JWBurnie]

I have found that many jocks (usually at smaller tracks) have a preferred distance (not to mention surface, running style & post). If a jock has 38 wins out of 100 mounts but say 35 of those wins were at a sprint distance (3 for 37 >=1M), would you want to bet this jock with such certainty going 1 1/16? Tracks that are 7/8 of a mile, or less typically run nothing but sprint races w/ one, maybe two route races thrown in per card. Then you need to figure out jocks preferred sprint distances. I feel like I've uncovered a few nice overlays slicing and dicing these stats.

[maxwell]

Pell,

The ONLY real way four 25% jocks could win every race in your "last 100 races" scenario is if there were only four horses in every race. :bang:

And what do you think the chances are of all four jocks winning 25 races each?


Think about it!