Espinoza's winning percentage at Belmont
 

I will bring it up again. Last year I said it is hard to take a low price on a horse with a jockey that has a low winning percentage at a track.
Is anyone else factoring this in ?

Absolutely no.

Winning percentage is a very weak indicator and when it comes to connections, it is next to useless.

There exist other kind of metrics that can measure the effectiveness of jockey way better that the prehistoric win percentages..

Please do tell

Let's see what the other have to say and I will probably go ahead and write a blog posting about this topic...

Yes factoring in the risk of a bad trip. No not really worried about Espinoza's stats.

Espinoza (and the general risk of a bad trip) is the biggest threat IMO.

You have to wait 30 more seconds than usual. That's an eternity in horse racing.


Can't get sucked into a duel early, can't get sucked into hanging out with stretch-runners who are faster either.
He's got to let American Pharaoh run his race, and he's likely got to ask American Pharaoh at some point for a run that will both pull away from the pack and is going to test AP's limits.

Hard to win the Belmont and then wrap up, like Espinoza likes to do (unless you get out on a dream trip and open up). May have to test the horse like in the Derby, only without Firing Line to target, and after those 30 seconds.

Espinoza's win percentage at Belmont is relevant.
 

I have seen Jockeys so successful at some tracks and quite the opposite at other tracks.

Generally speaking I would not bet a horse at 3/5 with the jockey winning at a dismal 3%-5% winning percentage at a track. I would insist on a better price.

With that said I am rooting for a Triple Crown winner. But at a betting standpoint he is an underlay.

If i was going for the Triple Crown, my jockey would be riding at Belmont on a daily basis or else he would be replaced. My jock would be learning every nook and cranny of that place, these races could come down to 1/1000 of a second at the wire, riding the track in the week or 2 up to this race could be the difference.

Espinoza's win percentage at Belmont is the least of my concerns regarding AP's chances in the Belmont.

The 12Fs, the numerous good and rested competition, and the pressure of winning the triple crown are much bigger factors in my opinion along with AP's breeding and the 4 races in 8 weeks.

He is attempting something no other horse in the field is trying to attempt. And he will be 3/5 or so in that attempt. But, an underlaid horse trying to complete the triple crown in the Belmont is nothing new. It happens every time In this circumstance as the bandwagon gets heavy.

He is the best horse in the race, but there are obvious other choices worth wagering due to price that have nothing to do with AP's Jockey's record at Belmont.

What you are saying here sounds reasonable, is nothing knew, is adopted by the vast majority of bettors and is also a fallacy!

I claim that a low percentage jock in not necessary a reason to not bet a 3-5 favourite while you claim the opposite.. Apart from your rational opinion, what kind of data do you have to support your views?

What I'm factoring in the most is the fact Baffert is training at Churchill rather than Belmont, and won't ship in till Wed. of the Belmont. He's made the same mistake 3 times before, and we've all seen how that works out. Meanwhile, a lot of horses, well rested, are working really good over the Belmont track. That could be a big reason that AP won't win at Belmont. :bang:

I mentioned this topic in one of the AP threads...if i was backing AP, and with Victor's record at Belmont, id fly in a day or two early and get me a couple handfulls of races under my belt..he maybe rode one race on the undercard last year?

Victor's record at Belmont......I have 14% for 7 years.
25% last year.

What's the problem?

Feel free to add more dates if I missed any.

A 3% Jockey is data. Percentages don't lie. I have watched thousands of races and low percentage jockeys "find a way to lose". Some would get Secretariat beat in a claiming race.

Where did you get the 3% from?

Assuming 3-5% is accurate, that seems like pretty solid data considering he has percentages normally higher than that away from Belmont. Yes, it is said to be a small sample size, I believe, but I would think given the trainers he often rides for and the fact that he probably rode at Belmont on bigger days, you have to assume he had pretty decent mounts, no?

You said earlier in the thread that you had some metrics and I am anxious to see what those are.