Jockeys Don't Make a Difference

[Dahoss9698]

Yeah right!

I used to subscribe to this theory. Maybe it was more true in the past, when IMO riders were better.

I offer up today's Kentucky Oaks as an example. Switch the riders on the top two finishers and IMO the results would have been reversed. Smith moved at just the right time and of course Leparoux did not.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Yeah right!

I used to subscribe to this theory. Maybe it was more true in the past, when IMO riders were better.

I offer up today's Kentucky Oaks as an example. Switch the riders on the top two finishers and IMO the results would have been reversed. Smith moved at just the right time and of course Leparoux did not.

Mike Smith= Hall of Fame Rider

Julien Leparoux= Overated Rider

[dilanesp]

Isn't the issue whether a particular rider, on average, improves' horses performance? Not whether they outride an opponent in a particular big stakes race.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Isn't the issue whether a particular rider, on average, improves' horses performance? Not whether they outride an opponent in a particular big stakes race.

Why does it have to be just one thing? Can't it be both (and other factors)?

Watch the Oaks. I'm not really sure what Leparoux was doing around the turn but he cost his mount 5 lengths easy. Judging by the way she finished don't you think those lengths were the deciding factor?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Why does it have to be just one thing? Can't it be both (and other factors)?

Watch the Oaks. I'm not really sure what Leparoux was doing around the turn but he cost his mount 5 lengths easy. Judging by the way she finished don't you think those lengths were the deciding factor?

After watching the video closely, I agree with you...Julien just missed the timing by alot...while Mike was blowing past him gaining momentum, Julien was drowsy at the helm...didn't seem like he was riding hard till the final yards in deep stretch...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Yeah right!

I used to subscribe to this theory. Maybe it was more true in the past, when IMO riders were better.

I offer up today's Kentucky Oaks as an example. Switch the riders on the top two finishers and IMO the results would have been reversed. Smith moved at just the right time and of course Leparoux did not.

Whether they make a difference or not, I don't think about them one bit. Don't consider them at all. Don't consider trainers either.

Horses are way more reliable than humans anyway. Sure, I could obsess about jockeys and factor into the equation, who, in my opinion, might give my horses a better chance or who might compromise my chances. But I haven't come to the point where I think it might be worth my time and effort to do so.

How exactly would you quantify something like that anyway? With any reliability? And how would you test it to make sure you're not wasting your time?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Whether they make a difference or not, I don't think about them one bit. Don't consider them at all. Don't consider trainers either.

Horses are way more reliable than humans anyway. Sure, I could obsess about jockeys and factor into the equation, who, in my opinion, might give my horses a better chance or who might compromise my chances. But I haven't come to the point where I think it might be worth my time and effort to do so.

How exactly would you quantify something like that anyway? With any reliability? And how would you test it to make sure you're not wasting your time?

I have to think that trainers do just this with their gut instincts...they make choices about which riders ride which horses...yes, it is difficult if not impossible to quantify, yet the esoteric IS THERE...some riders ARE better than others, some FAR better than others...that is just human nature, humans being different than each other....

[cj]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Whether they make a difference or not, I don't think about them one bit. Don't consider them at all. Don't consider trainers either.

Horses are way more reliable than humans anyway. Sure, I could obsess about jockeys and factor into the equation, who, in my opinion, might give my horses a better chance or who might compromise my chances. But I haven't come to the point where I think it might be worth my time and effort to do so.

How exactly would you quantify something like that anyway? With any reliability? And how would you test it to make sure you're not wasting your time?

I think they absolutely matter as to who wins, but when it comes to wagering I think the human factor is over bet, so I mostly ignore it. Only difference is I just won't bet terrible trainers and I won't bet bad riders on turf.

[SuperPickle]

I really can't figure out how to explain how Mike Smith is THIS good these days.

He was as good as any jockey on earth in the early 90's. Then he had the horrible accident, left New York and was almost in exile in CA. His first couple years in CA were just sad.

I know Zenyatta kind of put him back on the map but he struggled for stretches after Zenyatta. One of the Del Mar meetings around that time he had a particularly awful meet. How awful? Kayla Stra won more races than him at that Del Mar meet.

So it's not like it's been a rocket ship post Zenyatta.

Is it a health thing? Riding for Baffert? Mental?

It's just rare for a jockey to be this good at his age. He's riding as good as he's ever.

And what does it say about the guys he went toe-to-toe with at NYRA. Are guys like Antley, Santos, Cordero, Bailey, Day, THAT much better than today's guys?

Honestly it's hard to pinpoint a reason.

[thaskalos]

Yes...the jockey factor is often significant in retrospect. But it's hard to account for it BEFORE the race...when our bets are placed.

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

I really can't figure out how to explain how Mike Smith is THIS good these days.

He was as good as any jockey on earth in the early 90's. Then he had the horrible accident, left New York and was almost in exile in CA. His first couple years in CA were just sad.

I know Zenyatta kind of put him back on the map but he struggled for stretches after Zenyatta. One of the Del Mar meetings around that time he had a particularly awful meet. How awful? Kayla Stra won more races than him at that Del Mar meet.

So it's not like it's been a rocket ship post Zenyatta.

Is it a health thing? Riding for Baffert? Mental?

It's just rare for a jockey to be this good at his age. He's riding as good as he's ever.

And what does it say about the guys he went toe-to-toe with at NYRA. Are guys like Antley, Santos, Cordero, Bailey, Day, THAT much better than today's guys?

Honestly it's hard to pinpoint a reason.

I think it's a Bunch of things but the main factor right now is that he's riding with a specific plan tailored to that specific horse in the context of the situation. Most jocks leg up and go, instructions get lost in translation many times because trainers either fail to give them, or give the wrong ones, or give right ones and jock doesn't listen, etc. smiths ready w a plan when the others, not so much.

he also rides very few races so he has more time to really handicap the races that he DOES ride. Riding all those races can wear on a jock physically and mentally, smith doesn't have that problem.

[JustRalph]

Smith is an enigma.

I remember when he was riding in Florida after his accident. He would not ride within ten feet of another horse, or always go as wide as possible. I thought he was done. Yet, he turned it around.

I cannot imagine the bankroll he has put away.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Whether they make a difference or not, I don't think about them one bit. Don't consider them at all. Don't consider trainers either.

Horses are way more reliable than humans anyway. Sure, I could obsess about jockeys and factor into the equation, who, in my opinion, might give my horses a better chance or who might compromise my chances. But I haven't come to the point where I think it might be worth my time and effort to do so.

How exactly would you quantify something like that anyway? With any reliability? And how would you test it to make sure you're not wasting your time?

That's fine. There are a lot of ways to make money in this game. And I don't think having a discussion means obsessing. I mean can't you factor something into your equation without obsessing? I know I can.

Here's my point in a nutshell. If I like a horse and I see someone like Eric Cancel up, I think twice about making my bet. If I see Castellano up I have no hesitation. If I see a rider switch to someone like Castellano over someone like Leparoux I run to the window. I didn't use to do that but years and years of extensive replay watching has led me there.

I think you absolutely have to factor a riders style into the equation nowadays considering the horse they are riding. In the past, even if Pat "wait all" Day was on a speed horse you could count on him sending. He wouldn't try and force a horse to adjust to his style. Today's riders do that. If I like a speed horse and Irad Ortiz is up I hesitate because I cannot count on him sending.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

And what does it say about the guys he went toe-to-toe with at NYRA. Are guys like Antley, Santos, Cordero, Bailey, Day, THAT much better than today's guys?
.

Yes. Much, much better.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...the jockey factor is often significant in retrospect. But it's hard to account for it BEFORE the race...when our bets are placed.

I tend to agree with that, and while in my handicapping I do assign a small weighting to jockey win %, it is narrowly focused on his win % on the running style of the horse he's on today. While most jockeys run similar numbers between their overall win rate and their specific running style rate, I've noticed that there are a few jockeys that consistently under or over-perform those categories relative to each other. Why that is, I do not know. Perhaps it is because those jocks are better (or worse) in particular pace situations.

If it's a turf race, I use the jock's turf race stats only.

Mule