Late jockey changes

[GameTheory]

How do you handle them?

If you track things like trainer/jock combos, what do you do when the jock changes late?

If the change is positive, do you regard that the same as if that (preferred) jock had been named in the first place?

If the change is negative, what then? What if the "good" jock is injured in an earlier race and someone not as good fills in? Is it the trainer intention that is important or the actual jockey?

Or are any and all late changes bad news?

I'm not talking about SHRP-type "I ain't riding this horse" changes at the very last second, but those announced before the card starts and those due to injury in a previous race.

[JimG]

GT,

Great question. I'm probably in the minority but I do not pay attention to jockey changes. I have always believed that if a rider is named to the horse in the track program, that shows the intent of the trainer. (ie. is the horse ready?) Put more simply, if Bailey takes off all his mounts in a day, regardless of who replaces him in a race, I will give the horse a second look since Bailey was originally named to ride.

Jim

[Hosshead]

GT, If the jock changes late, it was probably not the trainers decision. Right? So the trainers intent is still the same. So yes, a positive jockey change is alright (maybe better). Especially if the displaced jock rode last time. However, if it's the other way around and the intended jockey (Pincay) gets hurt, and is replaced with Pedroza, then you've got a problem. Because nomatter how good the trainer intent is, it can't make up for the skill level between those two jocks. "Are any or all changes bad news?" - Not necessarily, If the horse is "live", then the trainer has worked with the horse, gone through the condition book, picked todays spot, and will certainly "go for it" if he gets Pincay to replace the injured jock.-IMO--Hoss

[ranchwest]

I agree on the trainer intent. If the horse was meant with a certain jockey, the horse is probably no less meant if that jockey is no longer available.

If I feel the style and skill of the jockey is at least a bit similar, I don't worry about it.

[Rick]

I agree with all of you. I consider the assigned jockey to be a sign of trainer intent and don't change my opinion if there is a change in jockeys. That's partly because it's more convenient to not worry about it, but the results seem to back up that opinion for my method.

It is interesting though, that the typical horseplayer would probably consider it (the change) an important factor while experienced horseplayers don't. Jockey data, especially wins and win %, does affect the odds significantly.

[David McKenzie]

This doesn't pertain to *late* jockey changes, but to jockey changes overall.

More often than you might suspect, the jockey's agent has other agendas than today's race in mind.

Jockey: I've won three times in a row on that horse? Why did you take me off?

Agent: My wife's girlfriend's third cousin needs the mount. My wife promised her I'd do it and if I dont deliver she'll kill me (but he may say "politics" to the jockey).

or,

Agent: The trainer said if you ride Zippy Chippy today you can ride the Great Big Hoss in Saturday's feature.

~~~

I've been told by a jockey's agent that 50% of the time it has nothing whatsover to do with today's race. I found that hard to believe...at first.

[JustRalph]

I love it when a Hot apprentice picks up a ride.....Ed Alicea at Hou is an example. If the horse is game at all, I look hard at them.

[Whitehos]

Although trainer/jockey combos are the mainstay of my handicapping, I am surprised at how seldom a jockey change happens on my wagers, including SHR. The rediculus situation at SHR is not characteristic of all other American tracks.