Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 02-26-2018, 09:37 AM   #31
upthecreek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,661
Rep Power: 10 upthecreek will become famous soon enoughupthecreek will become famous soon enough
Jockey Intent

Jockey Intent has to be figured into the equqtion somehow, but I dont how. Ill try to express my point
Yesterday 1st race @ SA #7 Royal Opera House ridden by Kent D
Now the horse was claimed off of Bob Hess who Kent reguarly rides for. The horse was claimed by Alfredo Marquez(who) and Kent and I guess his agent ask to ride back. The horse won and paid $11.80, an underlay from ML, pointed out by Kurt Hoover(who picked the horse for some of these reasons), and an overlay on a KD ridden horse, probably because of the no name trainer.The horse finished 2nd last out , same condition, @ 3-1, with KD.
upthecreek is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-26-2018, 02:08 PM   #32
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 2,581
Rep Power: 19 GMB@BP will become famous soon enoughGMB@BP will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikeUnlimited View Post
Maybe a dumb question. Is there any place where I can download the day's results and put them into my own database?
I believe both BRIS and DRF sell downloadable data for data base work.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-26-2018, 02:43 PM   #33
JerryBoyle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 164
Rep Power: 0 JerryBoyle can only hope to improve
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP View Post
I believe both BRIS and DRF sell downloadable data for data base work.
Both sell csv files of historical data, which makes it easy to do the db work. Having gone with DRF myself, I'd go with BRIS if I were starting over. BRIS provides much more data, including workouts which is huge. DRF csv files don't have workout info and purchasing separately is very pricey. I think BRIS yearly plan is actually cheaper as well...
JerryBoyle is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-27-2018, 04:25 PM   #34
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 41,073
Rep Power: 64 cj is a name known to allcj is a name known to allcj is a name known to allcj is a name known to allcj is a name known to allcj is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaLover View Post
You are right in the sense that a flat ROI analysis like the one I present here leaves a lot of room of improvement; removing outliers and applying a moving window based on time are two of the ways to do so. More that this though your job is to predict the error in the crowd's estimate and not the most probable outcome of the race; this is the point I am trying to make here.
I think the ability of the jockey should be factored into the overall rating for each horse, those horses converted to an odds line, and the odds line determining betting. At no point do I consider how much the jockey gets bet by the public. It will be factored into my betting line already.

Simple example, lets say you use two ratings, horse and jockey, and count the jockey for 20%. Horse A is rated 100 and Horse B is rated 100. Horse A has a jockey that rates 100 on ability and horse B has a jockey that rates a 50. Overall ratings are Horse A is 100 and Horse B is 90. Convert those to an odds line and see how it plays out. I now the public will bet Horse A more because of the jockey but I also know that it is warranted. You need a premium to bet on Horse B in my opinion.

My point is that at no point do I consider if the jockeys are overbet or underbet normally by the crowd. I think that will all come out in the wash with a good odds line and comparing it to the public odds. But I definitely factor in the ability of the jockey.

One thing I would caution is that you need to factor in the jockey in past races as well. If Horses A and B have been continually ridden by the same jockey in previous races, make sure those 100 ratings reflect that as well.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-27-2018, 06:03 PM   #35
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 615
Rep Power: 11 steveb will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I think the ability of the jockey should be factored into the overall rating for each horse, those horses converted to an odds line, and the odds line determining betting. At no point do I consider how much the jockey gets bet by the public. It will be factored into my betting line already.
that's what i was trying to say!
you just said it better than i could have.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-27-2018, 11:56 PM   #36
blackandtanstable
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0 blackandtanstable is on a distinguished road
Great thread

A buddy of mine contacted me and thought I was posting in this thread. Several years ago, I developed a jockey rating system based on similar methodology as discussed here. I feel the ratings are good, but there are excellent ideas here and a better system underway. Years ago, Turfday.com had terrific jockey ratings that I love to used. (It also had excellent sire and trainer ratings too). After Turfday went out of business, I searched everywhere for jockey ratings that could add some betting value to my game and finally came up with my own. I'm looking forward to seeing what's created here -- it would be great to have an automated option with more tracks available and less manual work needed.

Last edited by blackandtanstable; 02-28-2018 at 12:10 AM.
blackandtanstable is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-28-2018, 12:10 PM   #37
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 13,731
Rep Power: 28 classhandicapper will become famous soon enoughclasshandicapper will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
One thing I would caution is that you need to factor in the jockey in past races as well. If Horses A and B have been continually ridden by the same jockey in previous races, make sure those 100 ratings reflect that as well.
When I first started playing this game I used to pay close attention to jockey switches, jockey trainer combos, and red hot riders getting a lot of live mounts. Then somewhere along the line I started paying very little attention to jockey at all. I guess I didn't feel like it was adding much value to my opinions.

As an owner with a piece of a few horses, I'm paying more attention again. I've had the opportunity to observe a few jockeys. I know who has listened to instructions, who is riding hard for minor awards, who is being more or less aggressive than I want etc... Now I find myself forming opinions again. After a race I'll immediately start mumbling to myself how my horse would do better with so and so as a rider.
__________________
"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned." Fast Eddie Felson
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-28-2018, 03:11 PM   #38
DeltaLover
Registered user
 
DeltaLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: FALIRIKON DELTA
Posts: 4,386
Rep Power: 15 DeltaLover will become famous soon enoughDeltaLover will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I think the ability of the jockey should be factored into the overall rating for each horse, those horses converted to an odds line, and the odds line determining betting. At no point do I consider how much the jockey gets bet by the public. It will be factored into my betting line already.

Simple example, lets say you use two ratings, horse and jockey, and count the jockey for 20%. Horse A is rated 100 and Horse B is rated 100. Horse A has a jockey that rates 100 on ability and horse B has a jockey that rates a 50. Overall ratings are Horse A is 100 and Horse B is 90. Convert those to an odds line and see how it plays out. I now the public will bet Horse A more because of the jockey but I also know that it is warranted. You need a premium to bet on Horse B in my opinion.

My point is that at no point do I consider if the jockeys are overbet or underbet normally by the crowd. I think that will all come out in the wash with a good odds line and comparing it to the public odds. But I definitely factor in the ability of the jockey.

One thing I would caution is that you need to factor in the jockey in past races as well. If Horses A and B have been continually ridden by the same jockey in previous races, make sure those 100 ratings reflect that as well.
I do not imply that the jockey should not be factored in the rating of each horse; instead what I am trying to say here, is that this factoring should not depend it his absolute ability but how this is been conceived by the betting crowd.

I am also saying that exactly the same principle applies to any other applicable handicapping factor that affects the betting patterns of the crowd.

Take as an example a horse that is offered at 4-1 odds; this means that the crowd believe that its winning chances are 0.2 or 20%. Whether this horse represents an overlay, underlay or a neutral betting proposition depends on how its handicapping factors are perceived by the betting public and not by the itís (always unknown) absolute winning probability. The jockeyís ability is already part of the 4-1 odds since the crowd is well aware of its significance it the outcome of the race. The real challenge is not to quantify the ability of the jockey but to detect potential estimation errors committed by the crowd.

To keep our example relative to the topic of the thread, letís assume that this starter is ridden by the absolutely best jockey that can be found in the circuit. The ability of the jockey alone, is not enough to derive any kind of useful handicapping opinion. It can very well be the case that the top ridder represents a very valid reason to bet against him; this happens when his superiority is so obvious that the crowd is mislead to the point of overbetting him while simultaneously creating value in some of the other starters. The reversed situation can very well occur in the case of the worst jockey who might be tremendously underbet converting his mount to an overlay.

Exactly the same behaviour applies to any other handicapping factor; think of females against males or a claimer who is trying stakes company for first time. In either case, it is well known that the winning chances of such a starter are significantly diminished but this does not necessary imply a bad bet; in many cases quite the opposite is true! It all depends on how the crowd will perceive each situation and to what degree it the bets will be optimally distributed or not.

Following this way of thinking, it is easy to conclude that what matters when it comes to the gambling aspect of the game, is not the raw ability of the jockey but the degree of the potential crowd mistake in its evaluation.
__________________
whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent
Ludwig Wittgenstein
DeltaLover is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-28-2018, 03:51 PM   #39
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 13,731
Rep Power: 28 classhandicapper will become famous soon enoughclasshandicapper will become famous soon enough
There are 2 common approaches to finding value.

1. Figure out how important each factor is in predicting the winner and then combine them into a model for making an odds line to determine your value plays.

2. Try to find factors/angles that the public often under/over estimates and use filters and combinations of them to find value plays

If you use approach #1, then you are probably interested in a rating that measures the skills of the jockey that you will combine with similar data on the horse, trainer, etc...

If you use approach #2, then you are interested in which jockeys are under/over bet in certain situations.
__________________
"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned." Fast Eddie Felson

Last edited by classhandicapper; 02-28-2018 at 03:57 PM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-28-2018, 06:26 PM   #40
blackandtanstable
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0 blackandtanstable is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaLover View Post
I do not imply that the jockey should not be factored in the rating of each horse; instead what I am trying to say here, is that this factoring should not depend it his absolute ability but how this is been conceived by the betting crowd.

I am also saying that exactly the same principle applies to any other applicable handicapping factor that affects the betting patterns of the crowd.

Take as an example a horse that is offered at 4-1 odds; this means that the crowd believe that its winning chances are 0.2 or 20%. Whether this horse represents an overlay, underlay or a neutral betting proposition depends on how its handicapping factors are perceived by the betting public and not by the itís (always unknown) absolute winning probability. The jockeyís ability is already part of the 4-1 odds since the crowd is well aware of its significance it the outcome of the race. The real challenge is not to quantify the ability of the jockey but to detect potential estimation errors committed by the crowd.

To keep our example relative to the topic of the thread, letís assume that this starter is ridden by the absolutely best jockey that can be found in the circuit. The ability of the jockey alone, is not enough to derive any kind of useful handicapping opinion. It can very well be the case that the top ridder represents a very valid reason to bet against him; this happens when his superiority is so obvious that the crowd is mislead to the point of overbetting him while simultaneously creating value in some of the other starters. The reversed situation can very well occur in the case of the worst jockey who might be tremendously underbet converting his mount to an overlay.

Exactly the same behaviour applies to any other handicapping factor; think of females against males or a claimer who is trying stakes company for first time. In either case, it is well known that the winning chances of such a starter are significantly diminished but this does not necessary imply a bad bet; in many cases quite the opposite is true! It all depends on how the crowd will perceive each situation and to what degree it the bets will be optimally distributed or not.

Following this way of thinking, it is easy to conclude that what matters when it comes to the gambling aspect of the game, is not the raw ability of the jockey but the degree of the potential crowd mistake in its evaluation.
this is a great post. it's like kitten's joy offspring. they like turf but nowhere near as much as the betting public thinks they do.
blackandtanstable is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-28-2018, 06:42 PM   #41
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 16,870
Rep Power: 29 Robert Fischer will become famous soon enoughRobert Fischer will become famous soon enough
Have to say 'Thank You' for doing the work, and sharing it

Surprised to see Jose Cruz looking great, and Saez looking terrible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
Here's a quick sample of the kind of thing you can do in 5 minutes.

This is Jockey performance for riders that had a minimum of 25 mounts on favorites at AQU, BEL and SAR. This covers about 2 1/2 years. Doing it by rank will take a little longer. Something like this could also obviously be broken up by track, distance, surface, running style etc...

The average for all NYRA jockeys was 2.83.

So anything lower than 2.83 would be positive and anything higher would be negative. You can also see the average odds of the favorites the jockey ride to make an adjustment there.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
What post time odds would you require to bet on Justify in the Belmont?
1/1 or even lower - 16.98%
9 Votes
2/1 - 37.74%
20 Votes
3/1 - 16.98%
9 Votes
4/1 - 15.09%
8 Votes
5/1 - 3.77%
2 Votes
6/1 or higher - 9.43%
5 Votes
Total Votes: 53
Non-members may not vote on this poll.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2018 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.