How people bet.

[Robert Goren]

The question is on how people bet on jockeys. It is not on how you bet on them, but how you think other people bet on them. As we all know there are factors in the race but just assume all the horse identical PPs. Would a certain number bet on the best jockey, a slightly less number on the second best jockey, a still slightly less on the third and so on down the line? Or would many bet on the best jockey and rest split up it up more or less evenly on the rest with maybe a drop off on the worst? Do they bet on very good jockeys or not bet on very bad?
Do you feel the same way about how people bet on trainers?

[HUSKER55]

i always include a value for the trainer and jockey. some are having a banner year and some are not. some have a great meet and the next one does not.

I think it is important to pay attention to that particularly if your top picks are not that far apart. If I view them all the same then yes I bet the trainer and jockey. An edge is an edge IMO.

[DJofSD]

I generally do not pay any attention to the jocks. But, when I do, it is when there is a late change that does not have an obvious reason such as illness or injury.

[Flysofree]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

The question is on how people bet on jockeys. It is not on how you bet on them, but how you think other people bet on them. As we all know there are factors in the race but just assume all the horse identical PPs. Would a certain number bet on the best jockey, a slightly less number on the second best jockey, a still slightly less on the third and so on down the line? Or would many bet on the best jockey and rest split up it up more or less evenly on the rest with maybe a drop off on the worst? Do they bet on very good jockeys or not bet on very bad?
Do you feel the same way about how people bet on trainers?

Good question Robert.....Do you happen to know if the Prime Power figure posted by Bris includes anything for the jockey and trainer today or is that just a by product of the horse's form?

[thaskalos]

It is rare to see a situation where a jockey dominates a circuit to the extent where this rider would get singled out by the bettors. What I mostly see now is the casual bettor favoring the top 4-5 jockeys...while neglecting the bottom rung.

[Overlay]

I don't regard any individual jockey as a stand-alone determinant for wagering (or not wagering) on a horse, but typically, at almost any race meeting, a relatively small number of riders will win a disproportionate share of races (whether that's due to the ability of those jockeys, or as an indication of a trainer's intentions with a horse, or a combination of both). As such, it makes sense to me to factor in the jockey when evaluating a horse's overall chance of winning.

I don't give the same consideration to trainers by themselves because the number of trainers at a given race meeting will typically far exceed the number of jockeys; because I think that considering both the jockey and the trainer could be duplicative to a certain extent (due to the trainer's role in selecting the jockey); and because I think that the trainer's influence is otherwise adequately addressed through analysis of the horse's past performances, with no need for consideration of the trainer as a separate factor.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by Overlay

I don't regard any individual jockey as a stand-alone determinant for wagering (or not wagering) on a horse, but typically, at almost any race meeting, a relatively small number of riders will win a disproportionate share of races (whether that's due to the ability of those jockeys, or as an indication of a trainer's intentions with a horse, or a combination of both). As such, it makes sense to me to factor in the jockey when evaluating a horse's overall chance of winning.

How about an agents ability to determine a change in form -- either way?

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

How about an agents ability to determine a change in form -- either way?

If I'm understanding your question, I don't necessarily try to get inside the agent's head as to why a particular jockey is on a given mount. I use the rider's ability by itself (including consideration of the rider's previous "history" with the horse in question) as one weighted component of my assessment of the horse's overall winning chances, which also includes separate consideration of whether I view the horse as improving or declining in form.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It is rare to see a situation where a jockey dominates a circuit to the extent where this rider would get singled out by the bettors.

Thask, he was rare, indeed. I think his name's ... Ramon.

Miss him. Still.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Grits

Thask, he was rare, indeed. I think his name's ... Ramon.

Miss him. Still.

I believe I recall reading that Steve Cauthen showed a flat-bet profit on all his mounts for the entire 1976 New York racing season, which was especially remarkable since, as the year went on, people were betting on his horses for no other reason than that he was riding.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It is rare to see a situation where a jockey dominates a circuit to the extent where this rider would get singled out by the bettors. What I mostly see now is the casual bettor favoring the top 4-5 jockeys...while neglecting the bottom rung.

What about R. Baze at GG?

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Flysofree

Good question Robert.....Do you happen to know if the Prime Power figure posted by Bris includes anything for the jockey and trainer today or is that just a by product of the horse's form?

It does appear that either the jockey or the trainer is taken into account, but there is no way to know for sure. If they are, it has to be a very small metric. I am looking at that now and when I final get the data plug in, I will let you know.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Unsophisticated bettors will play their "favorite" jock, or if they like another horse, will play saver bets with their jock. I crack up when people root for a jockey, rather than a number or the horse itself.

Back in the day, once glance at the tote board could tell you who Pat Day was riding at Churchill, Oaklawn or Arlington.

More sophisticated bettors will take into account jockey stats, and I'd guess that some of the BRIS stats (surface, horse running style, distance) associated with the jockey are overbet a smidge.

The only thing I look at are jockey changes, but like Overlay points out that's part of looking at the trainer.

[cutchemist42]

Me personally, it might only concern me if the jockey is below 5% or there is a jockey change, especially if the normal jockey riding another horse in the same race.

I literally spend about 5-10 seconds looking at the jockey stuff.

[precocity]

intuition!