Jockey handicapping

[bobhilo]

Aloha

Has anybody ever done any kind of database study on the top jockeys(say 20% winners and up)?

Can a profit be made handicapping jocks...say by odds above 4 to 1?

Trainer/Jocks stats are available but are they profitable?

[GR1@HTR]

I used to keep a db of Jockey stats by dist/surface and Running Style...Was some interesting stuff...looked at angles when bad jock/rs combo went to good and also how jocks did running w/ a horse for the 2nd time (seeing if they learned anything from their first ride)...

[Brian Flewwelling]

First let me state that jockies do vary in ability, but finding that variation in in broad averages is difficult.

Why:
jockies are chosen to ride horses by trainers with occassional input by owners.

and can you name a worse group of handicappers than trainers? only owners.

Fleww

In North America last year, only 1 jockey, Ramon Dominguez, won 30% of his races, but I'm sure his ROI was negative. In the last 2 years, I've got him with 3292 mounts and 907 wins on the circuits I follow. That's 27.7% winners. His $2 ROI is $1.83, which isn't bad -- that's about an 8.5% loss. AWP $6.63. On Monday, he rode the winners in the 1st 3 at DEL. $10 DD/$29 P3. But I don't see any future here unless you like a slow erosion of your bankroll, and that's for America's winningest rider, arguably.

About 15 years ago, a guy named Paul Braseth spoke of a 'system' of betting the hot jock -- he recommended it for use on those days when you want to bet, but don't feel like handicapping, which sounds like a very dangerous combination to me. In reality, it's a 'jockey agent' system. Goes something like this:

Watch the first race. If the jock who won the first rides back in the 2nd, bet him. Otherwise, just watch again. In subsequent races, only bet on any and all jocks who have won earlier in the card. Theoretically, in the 10th, you could be betting on as many as 9 horses (unless you're playing DEL, where they never have more than 7 horses).

Braseth claimed that he tested this over tens of thousands of races and, playing correctly and strictly, it comes out dead even. That puts you about 17% ahead of the crowd. I've never tried it, but I recommended it to my mom, a once a year player. The first time she tried it at MTH, Joe Bravo brought home 6, including 2 double digit winners. Mom thought I was a genius (but then she always did). My sister tried it at Emerald and got shut out. Sis has me pegged for a moron.

Jockeys/trainers would seem to have more potential, especially when used in situations. Mostly, I look for hot combos. E.g., at PHA recently, Allard/Vega were ITM in their last 13. Last fall, they won 7 in a row -- I managed to catch only one.

[bobhilo]

I have seen some profit on betting the jockey win and place ....but ....

does it hold up over time?

....I don't have the database to know that long term

[GeTydOn]

No database here either. I have noticed things run in trends, like trainer/jockey combos. And it's key to know a rider's strengths and weaknesses. You wouldn't expect a baseball player to be capable of moving to handle any position on the field. You can't expect every rider to be able to equally handle every type of race and/or horse.

[andicap]

Originally Posted by GR1@HTR

I used to keep a db of Jockey stats by dist/surface and Running Style...Was some interesting stuff...looked at angles when bad jock/rs combo went to good and also how jocks did running w/ a horse for the 2nd time (seeing if they learned anything from their first ride)...

If if was interesting, Why "used to?"

Too much time and hassle? (My problem)

[andicap]

The best way of jockey handicapping IMHO is if you were good enough and had enough to study each jock's tendancies -- strengths and weaknesses so if say a good gate jock got put on a horse to replace a weak gate jock you would know the trainer is probably gunning his horse for the lead today.

Steve Davidowitz has printed his analyses of the jockey colonies in LA and I think NY in DRF's Simulcast Weekly --

Taking win % alone for a jock. Joe Blow is 12% with "E" horses and Joe Schmo is 17% with E horses could be misleading if Joe Schmo is getting better horses. (Of course that means the trainers think Schmo is better on "E" horses and maybe does mean something. )

[JustRalph]

I tried it for a while. Early on. But, it does take a bunch of time.

Now I limit it to "Edgar Prado" on anything, in a big race.

He could be on Black Ruby and I wouldn't count him out in a stakes race

[delayjf]

there is a guy who post here (Dan Montilion I think ) that used to do a trainer jockey report for SOCAL. The emphasis was on the connections, not any ability of the jockeys themselves. I think that is a better way to handcap with jockeys. One stat you never here off is the "switched to" stat. In other words, what is a trainers record when he switches to a certain jockey.

[Dan Montilion]

The product Delayjf is speaking of is the now defunct Goldstein Report. Produced by the late Jeff Goldstein and his wife Lea Hall. Upon Jeff's passing and following some time off for Lea she began producing the stats herself. I was asked by Lea to contribute to a page of notes provided to subscribers, I had nothing to do with the accumaltion of the stats.

Jeff and Lea were hands on, they compiled their stats with actual thought instead of mindless number crunching. Case in point if a rider was taken off of all mounts for a day and a mount or two go on to win, the Goldstein Report would give the original rider credit for the win. The justification was the intent of the trainer to use the listed rider. Indeed these numbers were jockey/trainer stats just done at a higher level.

There are profitable jockey/trainer combos on any circuit. However, I feel the best way to use these stats are as final tweak to the strength of wager and or conviction. I look to this type of info as the final step in my handicapping procedure, again for weager strength. Also if there is a high percentage combo that I have overlooked I will look again at that horse to note anything I may have missed. Delayjf made I think a great point in a switched to stat. I also have never seen this type of figure but with working with trainer/jock numbers I think this is a potent weapon in certain situations. Like a new horse in the barn, or lightly raced. I don't have any statistical backing on this but in those situations for the circuit I was working at (no. Cal) it agian seemed a strong add on over and above the good stats.

One may also want to get jockey/agent listings. Note the agents that have two or more riders, many times it is the trainer/agent that has the relationship.

Dan Montilion

[bobhilo]

Hmmmmmm,

where do you get trainer/agent ratings?

....I have read that the agent is the handicapper...... in the jock -trainer-agent picture

[Brian Flewwelling]

Misc thots:

Agents are usually the handicapper, but jockies that ride in the morning may be able to judge stock better than even the trainer.

But jockies generally have to ride the crap for a trainer to get the good ones. Only the very top riders get the gravy rides.

And i have noted that at some tracks, trainers figure a bad ride by an apprentice is better than a good ride by journeyman jock.

On jky stats, i like to compare jockies in routes vs sprints... often a tell tale stat. Some jocks are good gaters and can win short sprints, but their internal pace clock is more like a calendar ... not too fine


Fleww

[Turfday]

In researching my database, I have found that some jockeys either excel at riding sprints, routes or turf races OR the public might be overlooking them in certain instances.

I am particularly interested in turf racing because of generally bigger fields and its more chaotic nature.

Right now, I am following the following jockeys when they have turf mounts only. This is based on last 1,095 calendar days from today and a minimum of 300 turf mounts. Because I consider "what have you done for me lately," to be most important, generally these jockeys below have performed BETTER with their turf mounts in the last 365 days than their overall record with for the entire 1,095 calendar day period.

Monte Clifton Berry 600 turf mts., 20% wins, avg. price winner $10.00

Javier Castellano 892 turf mts., 13% wins, avg. price winner $16.00

Manoel Cruz 788 turf mts., 13% wins, avg. price winner $16.00

Wilson Omar Dieguez 304 turf mts., 14% wins, avg. price winner $14.00

Patrick Husbands 492 turf mts., 17% wins, avg. price winner $11.00

Seth Martinez 381 turf mts., 21% wins, avg. price winner $11.00

Leslie Mawing 380 turf mts., 15% wins, avg. price winner $14.00

Chad Schvaneveldt 399 turf mts., 20% wins, avg. price winner $11.00

Terry Stanton 484 turf mts., 16% wins, avg. price winner $14.00

The jocks above may not have the highest win percentage on turf, but all have at least a good win percentage (over the last three years and based on a big sample size of turf mounts) and, either due to their talent for turf riding, or the crowd underrating their turf mounts, the value on their mounts has been terrific.

[GR1@HTR]

ACap,

For me it was and is very time consuming to maintain a db for jockeys. Some of the other guys are really good a keep up w/ databases and running outputs a by pusing one button...for me to get a win% and ROI for a jockey I would have to run the following about 15 reports (dirt sprints, dirt routes, turf routes and then for the following RS: F E P S R)...Takes me about 15 minutes per jockey to do....As you know there are many ways to skin a cat...