From headlesschook at australiamail.com  Fri Jan 11 07:42:36 2019
From: headlesschook at australiamail.com (headless chook)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:42:36 +0100
Subject: [AusRace] tab ubet xml
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR04MB4204892027F8468B10A0AF38BBB20@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <trinity-25545df8-db77-4a7b-bc03-bced7bb8b352-1546220415407@3c-app-mailcom-lxa05>
	<DM6PR04MB4204892027F8468B10A0AF38BBB20@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <trinity-0fd36f5d-2ce5-49bc-b78e-cc94b30bf241-1547152956022@3c-app-mailcom-lxa08>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190110/860d5b85/attachment.html>

From conceptracing at bigpond.com  Fri Jan 11 16:56:41 2019
From: conceptracing at bigpond.com (Ken Blake)
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:56:41 +0800
Subject: [AusRace] Par times
In-Reply-To: <CAJfP4b2LkbzL_iqGSn9K+zgy6mwLw1POCwgUSY+pfzH2=rSqgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJfP4b2LkbzL_iqGSn9K+zgy6mwLw1POCwgUSY+pfzH2=rSqgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000e01d4a972$6e7feb70$4b7fc250$@bigpond.com>

Nick??they were always available from horsetorque

 

Cheers Ken

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of norsaintpublishing at gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, 17 June 2018 3:34 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: [AusRace] Par times

 

  <https://mailtrack.io/trace/mail/01784b0f304474dd0bea5726003865a7ac7f8307.png?u=1035275> 


Does anyone know how or where to get them for Aust courses? 




 <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> 

Sender notified by 
 <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> Mailtrack 17/06/18, 17:33:07 

	

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190111/159819a3/attachment.html>

From norsaintpublishing at gmail.com  Fri Jan 11 20:14:03 2019
From: norsaintpublishing at gmail.com (norsaintpublishing at gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 20:14:03 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Par times
In-Reply-To: <000e01d4a972$6e7feb70$4b7fc250$@bigpond.com>
References: <CAJfP4b2LkbzL_iqGSn9K+zgy6mwLw1POCwgUSY+pfzH2=rSqgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<000e01d4a972$6e7feb70$4b7fc250$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <CAJfP4b0RnGA_AyFZAyJC5Z_LkwW=YW4=KEqUREkqV=jgGh_Qww@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Ken. Yes I've had them for awhile but they're missing Pakenham and a
few other things that I can't remember now.
I've also seen their accuracy doubted too.
Not that it matters much. I quickly decided that keeping them is far too
time consuming.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Ken Blake <conceptracing at bigpond.com> wrote:

> Nick??they were always available from horsetorque
>
>
>
> Cheers Ken
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *
> norsaintpublishing at gmail.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, 17 June 2018 3:34 PM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* [AusRace] Par times
>
>
>
>
> Does anyone know how or where to get them for Aust courses?
>
> [image: Mailtrack]
> <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&>
>
> Sender notified by
> Mailtrack
> <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> 17/06/18,
> 17:33:07
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190111/7b27004c/attachment.html>

From tonymoffat at bigpond.com  Sun Jan 13 11:22:23 2019
From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat)
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 08:22:23 +0800
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
Message-ID: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com




From RaceStats at hotmail.com  Mon Jan 14 01:46:30 2019
From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats)
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:46:30 +0000
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com



From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Mon Jan 14 08:17:50 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:17:50 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>
	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From RaceStats at hotmail.com  Mon Jan 14 11:02:47 2019
From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 00:02:47 +0000
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>
	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB4204B937AFB40B94ABB49262BB800@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Roman,
Brent Thompson
Michael Clarke
Mick Dittman
Darren Beadman
All owe their success to the leading stables they rode for.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Darren Gauci the youngest apprentice to outright his claim in the city?
But you're only as good as your last few rides, poor Darren was a bit nervous after a number of falls with his brother having a really nasty fall breaking arms and legs.  
Darren retired, he just couldn't get the rides anymore, but one of the nicest blokes you'd ever meet.
Still remember Darren cleaning his saddle and falling through glass doors at his parents' home as an apprentice.
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com



From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Mon Jan 14 13:39:34 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:39:34 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From robbie at robwaterhouse.com  Mon Jan 14 14:21:25 2019
From: robbie at robwaterhouse.com (Rob Waterhouse)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:21:25 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>
	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <03ae01d4abb8$3b941680$b2bc4380$@robwaterhouse.com>

Len,

I suspect fitness level play a key part. For many jocks, a bit of trackwork,
race rides and golf is their fitness program. Others train very hard.

Rob W

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Mon Jan 14 14:50:44 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:50:44 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>
	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com>

Gee Len that's the longest string on any bow I have ever seen.
  We have to assume your comments are based on some personal happenings and
you are therefore extrapolating!!!
I will admit behind every good man there's a good woman, as I am told almost
daily, (must mean I am a good man) but this was not the case with JC in the
mathematical sense. If Ken B is reading this there was a saying from our
group of desperates, he will verify,  that Rider X had more runs of outs
than Jimmy Courtney!! I cannot remember the figure of outs exactly but it
was indicative of a guy who rode few winners in town.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Mon Jan 14 15:16:27 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:16:27 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <03ae01d4abb8$3b941680$b2bc4380$@robwaterhouse.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
	<03ae01d4abb8$3b941680$b2bc4380$@robwaterhouse.com>
Message-ID: <001a01d4abbf$eb773b70$c265b250$@bigpond.com>

Hi Rob,
These days I suspect most jockeys are fit (bar those off injury) due to the
enormous number of rides most have these days. Assuming 90 something percent
are fit (as I write this I see my paunch hanging over the shorts) so it must
come back to the horses initially AND the way they are ridden.  If the
trainer has the horse fit it's a big start as no jockey in the world can win
on an unfit horse. If a fit  horse races near the lead life is definitely
simpler for all but it is the get back types that are the biggest concern
and this is where the jockey comes more in the equation than the trainer,
stats wise, as they must assess the speed up front. The top Syd jockeys such
as Bowman, McDonald and McEvoy seem to arrive in the nick of time as, of
course, our locals in Melb often do (llie, Williams, Lane). They must have
"clocks" in their head.
I remember Frank Reys once stating that his mentor Ray Hutchins? would not
let him ride in a race until Frank could tell him the exact time to the
second and close fractions in track work what time had been run.

I am getting off the topic a bit but Rob you know the success of Gai with
Stephen Baster in Melbourne. Top trainer (and great wife of course) with a
fit horse and the right jockey for the type of horse (on pacer/leaders) is a
big start. S Baster would not be in many punters top 20 jockeys but with the
right trainer providing the right horses his POT on the 136 rides for Gai in
Vic over the last couple of years is fantastic.
Roman Koz

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 2:21 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Len,

I suspect fitness level play a key part. For many jocks, a bit of trackwork,
race rides and golf is their fitness program. Others train very hard.

Rob W

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Mon Jan 14 16:09:00 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:09:00 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
	<001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <003601d4abc7$45e84ac0$d1b8e040$@ozemail.com.au>

Whatever JC's figure of outs was, I'd bet it was not close to CCole's 195
going back 12 years, or of current jockeys, LCheshire's 181 4 years ago, and
if you want a male, SParnham clocked up 166 during 2018.

LBL

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 2:51 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Gee Len that's the longest string on any bow I have ever seen.
  We have to assume your comments are based on some personal happenings and
you are therefore extrapolating!!!
I will admit behind every good man there's a good woman, as I am told almost
daily, (must mean I am a good man) but this was not the case with JC in the
mathematical sense. If Ken B is reading this there was a saying from our
group of desperates, he will verify,  that Rider X had more runs of outs
than Jimmy Courtney!! I cannot remember the figure of outs exactly but it
was indicative of a guy who rode few winners in town.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Mon Jan 14 16:14:18 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:14:18 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <03ae01d4abb8$3b941680$b2bc4380$@robwaterhouse.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
	<03ae01d4abb8$3b941680$b2bc4380$@robwaterhouse.com>
Message-ID: <003701d4abc8$02e1fa40$08a5eec0$@ozemail.com.au>

Justin Sheehan was for the "longest" time at the top of my ratings, and
apparently he worked out ferociously.



-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 2:21 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Len,

I suspect fitness level play a key part. For many jocks, a bit of trackwork,
race rides and golf is their fitness program. Others train very hard.

Rob W

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From conceptracing at bigpond.com  Mon Jan 14 17:14:19 2019
From: conceptracing at bigpond.com (conceptracing at bigpond.com)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:14:19 +0800
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
	<001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <006b01d4abd0$63b57290$2b2057b0$@bigpond.com>

Yes Roman...there's a blast from the past. " More Outs Than Jimmy Courtney"

If my memory serves me correct I think he had 147 consecutive metro
non-winning rides before breaking the drought on a horse named Hoylake in
the last at Moonee Valley one day.

K.B.

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 11:51 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Gee Len that's the longest string on any bow I have ever seen.
  We have to assume your comments are based on some personal happenings and
you are therefore extrapolating!!!
I will admit behind every good man there's a good woman, as I am told almost
daily, (must mean I am a good man) but this was not the case with JC in the
mathematical sense. If Ken B is reading this there was a saying from our
group of desperates, he will verify,  that Rider X had more runs of outs
than Jimmy Courtney!! I cannot remember the figure of outs exactly but it
was indicative of a guy who rode few winners in town.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Mon Jan 14 17:58:20 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:58:20 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
	<001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com> 
Message-ID: <003f01d4abd6$8ba69c10$a2f3d430$@ozemail.com.au>

Whatever JC's figure of outs was, I'd bet it was not close to CCole's 195
going back 12 years, or of current jockeys, LCheshire's 181 4 years ago, and
if you want a male, SParnham clocked up 166 during 2018.

LBL

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 2:51 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Gee Len that's the longest string on any bow I have ever seen.
  We have to assume your comments are based on some personal happenings and
you are therefore extrapolating!!!
I will admit behind every good man there's a good woman, as I am told almost
daily, (must mean I am a good man) but this was not the case with JC in the
mathematical sense. If Ken B is reading this there was a saying from our
group of desperates, he will verify,  that Rider X had more runs of outs
than Jimmy Courtney!! I cannot remember the figure of outs exactly but it
was indicative of a guy who rode few winners in town.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Mon Jan 14 17:58:20 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:58:20 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
	<03ae01d4abb8$3b941680$b2bc4380$@robwaterhouse.com> 
Message-ID: <004001d4abd6$8d1f8070$a75e8150$@ozemail.com.au>

Justin Sheehan was for the "longest" time at the top of my ratings, and
apparently he worked out ferociously.



-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 2:21 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Len,

I suspect fitness level play a key part. For many jocks, a bit of trackwork,
race rides and golf is their fitness program. Others train very hard.

Rob W

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Tue Jan 15 08:31:04 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:31:04 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
	<001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <004e01d4ac50$76ae42c0$640ac840$@ozemail.com.au>

"The fundamental reason that women do not achieve so greatly as men do is
that women have no wives. Until such a time as science or economics correct
this blunder of nature, we shall, I fear, remain the inferior sex".

Professor Marjorie Nicolson, PhD, of Columbia University, September 1946.


-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 2:51 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Gee Len that's the longest string on any bow I have ever seen.
  We have to assume your comments are based on some personal happenings and
you are therefore extrapolating!!!
I will admit behind every good man there's a good woman, as I am told almost
daily, (must mean I am a good man) but this was not the case with JC in the
mathematical sense. If Ken B is reading this there was a saying from our
group of desperates, he will verify,  that Rider X had more runs of outs
than Jimmy Courtney!! I cannot remember the figure of outs exactly but it
was indicative of a guy who rode few winners in town.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Tue Jan 15 08:33:19 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:33:19 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
Message-ID: <004f01d4ac50$c7159ab0$5540d010$@ozemail.com.au>


Whatever JC's figure of outs was, I'd bet it was not close to CCole's 195
going back 12 years, or of current jockeys, LCheshire's 181 4 years ago, and
if you want a male, SParnham clocked up 166 during 2018.

LBL

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 2:51 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Gee Len that's the longest string on any bow I have ever seen.
  We have to assume your comments are based on some personal happenings and
you are therefore extrapolating!!!
I will admit behind every good man there's a good woman, as I am told almost
daily, (must mean I am a good man) but this was not the case with JC in the
mathematical sense. If Ken B is reading this there was a saying from our
group of desperates, he will verify,  that Rider X had more runs of outs
than Jimmy Courtney!! I cannot remember the figure of outs exactly but it
was indicative of a guy who rode few winners in town.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Tue Jan 15 08:33:49 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:33:49 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
	<03ae01d4abb8$3b941680$b2bc4380$@robwaterhouse.com> 
Message-ID: <005001d4ac50$d8cfdf90$8a6f9eb0$@ozemail.com.au>


Justin Sheehan was for the "longest" time at the top of my ratings, and
apparently he worked out ferociously.



-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 2:21 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Len,

I suspect fitness level play a key part. For many jocks, a bit of trackwork,
race rides and golf is their fitness program. Others train very hard.

Rob W

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From norsaintpublishing at gmail.com  Tue Jan 15 08:40:56 2019
From: norsaintpublishing at gmail.com (norsaintpublishing at gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:40:56 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <004e01d4ac50$76ae42c0$640ac840$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>
	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>
	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>
	<001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com>
	<004e01d4ac50$76ae42c0$640ac840$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAJfP4b327H0i-2K1zegphjsQ5jVQPgBnxBZ6my4gG_xTMG_z5g@mail.gmail.com>

Aha, well that's all changed. I give you the member for Wentworth.

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 8:31 AM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> "The fundamental reason that women do not achieve so greatly as men do is
> that women have no wives. Until such a time as science or economics correct
> this blunder of nature, we shall, I fear, remain the inferior sex".
>
> Professor Marjorie Nicolson, PhD, of Columbia University, September 1946.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
> Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 2:51 PM
> To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
>
> Gee Len that's the longest string on any bow I have ever seen.
>   We have to assume your comments are based on some personal happenings and
> you are therefore extrapolating!!!
> I will admit behind every good man there's a good woman, as I am told
> almost
> daily, (must mean I am a good man) but this was not the case with JC in the
> mathematical sense. If Ken B is reading this there was a saying from our
> group of desperates, he will verify,  that Rider X had more runs of outs
> than Jimmy Courtney!! I cannot remember the figure of outs exactly but it
> was indicative of a guy who rode few winners in town.
> Roman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:40 PM
> To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
>
> An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
> success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted
> and
> that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.
>
> He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
> a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
> responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.
>
> LBL
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
> Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
> To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
>
> Hi all,
> I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
> instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer
> drops
> them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with
> an
> appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
> get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into
> the
> CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
> following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for
> sure,
> made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
> that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have
> fitted
> into the mediocre jockey list.
> Roman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
> To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
>
> Hi Tony,
> Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
> one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
> If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
> said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
> reasons .
> Lindsay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
> Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
> To: racing at ausrace.com
> Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
>
> Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
> today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra
>
> She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.
>
> I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't
> a
> bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
> directly tied to their mounts I know.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tony
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190115/aa3951b8/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Tue Jan 15 09:18:45 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:18:45 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <005901d4ac57$205e9a30$611bce90$@ozemail.com.au>

I've also got WC rated exactly average at 100 - or 1.00 if you prefer - on
my IV scale.

LGHenry is in a class of her own as the worse rated, M or F, as is
VBolozhinsky as the best.


-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Tue Jan 15 13:30:29 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:30:29 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <004e01d4ac50$76ae42c0$640ac840$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>	<003301d4abb2$64f0fb70$2ed2f250$@ozemail.com.au>	<001901d4abbc$53b291c0$fb17b540$@bigpond.com>
	<004e01d4ac50$76ae42c0$640ac840$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <001b01d4ac7a$489fd950$d9df8bf0$@bigpond.com>

The year of that statement, at over 70 years ago, was indicative of how
little even an academic thought of her sex. It was a gross over statement.
There were many women in years before 1946 who did what was needed to
further themselves using guts and perspiration. Great work by Marjorie in
obtaining a Phd in those days and she would be a prime example of the type
of woman I am suggesting. However, as we see all too clearly these days
having a Phd means zippo if all you do is talk nonsense and don't have
commonsense.

Women have wives these days in de facto lesbian relationships or in married
circumstances yet women  are under represented in most fields. If Marjorie
was correct many of the current "married" women would be starring as leaders
of the community but they are not. The big question is "Why is it so? "
(Professor Julius Sumner Miller). The answer is simple: they don't want to
be leaders. There is almost nothing stopping any woman achieving enormous
community status as all the tools of education and support are available.

Btw, don't think I am some sort of sexist male as I have three daughters who
are outstanding individuals. That did not happen by receiving their awards
at university and spouting nonsense: it came from pushing themselves beyond
various comfort zones.

Roman Koz


-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 8:31 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

"The fundamental reason that women do not achieve so greatly as men do is
that women have no wives. Until such a time as science or economics correct
this blunder of nature, we shall, I fear, remain the inferior sex".

Professor Marjorie Nicolson, PhD, of Columbia University, September 1946.


-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 2:51 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Gee Len that's the longest string on any bow I have ever seen.
  We have to assume your comments are based on some personal happenings and
you are therefore extrapolating!!!
I will admit behind every good man there's a good woman, as I am told almost
daily, (must mean I am a good man) but this was not the case with JC in the
mathematical sense. If Ken B is reading this there was a saying from our
group of desperates, he will verify,  that Rider X had more runs of outs
than Jimmy Courtney!! I cannot remember the figure of outs exactly but it
was indicative of a guy who rode few winners in town.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:40 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

An alternative possibility - JC was joint top apprentice with HWhite,
success went to his head (hello Ms Payne) then got a bit wild/distracted and
that showed in his riding. Would hardly be the first young man to so do.

He then got engaged, then married, "saw the light", settled down and became
a top jockey. Again, would hardly be the first young man to have the
responsibility of marriage return his nose to the grindstone.

LBL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Tue Jan 15 13:42:04 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:42:04 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>	<DM6PR04MB4204446B1E3FA3FB27F5F3BCBB870@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
	<000f01d4ab85$70d3dd40$527b97c0$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <001001d4ac7b$e9238100$bb6a8300$@ozemail.com.au>

Q&D analysis:

Took just last 8 years data, "top" jockeys as those Oz-based who rode in the
2018 MC -

CWBrown        
JChilds       
BMelham       
TAngland     
JBowman      
GSchofield    
JMcDonald    
TBerry       
DOliver      
PMoloney     
MZahra       
MJWalker     
RBayliss     
DDunn        
DLane        
SBaster      
CraigWilliam  
KMcEvoy   

and "top" trainers as:

Cummings
Ellerton
Hawkes
Hayes
Moroney
O'Shea
Smerdon
Snowden
Waller
Waterhouse
Weir


"Top" Jockey riding for "Top" Trainer:

  N   27685  Win  4427 0.1599   Ret @SP  0.8279   Ret @ 100% Normalised SP
1.0105

"Top" Jockey riding for Non-"Top" Trainer:

  N   48751  Win  5722 0.1174   Ret @SP  0.7813   Ret @ 100% Normalised SP
1.0689

Win% from a betting point of view is irrelevant separated from price/odds,
and because of the "long-shot effect", I use Normalised SP rather than SP
for my ratings.


-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2019 8:18 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi all,
I am with Lindsay. Over the years (make that decades) have seen many
instances of the jockey dropping off the radar if a trainer or trainer drops
them and vice versa. It's really the trainers job to match the horse with an
appropriate jockey, if they have half a brain, if possible. I still cannot
get out of my mind a jockey called Jim Courtney. I think he married into the
CS Hayes family but one year he rode 3 winners in Melbourne and the
following year was the top rider in Adelaide. Rides from CS Hayes, for sure,
made the difference. You could argue the SA jockeys weren't that flash but
that would be nonsense simply because JC by his wins in Vic must have fitted
into the mediocre jockey list.
Roman

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:47 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Hi Tony,
Just my opinion, but the trainers seem more important than the jockeys, if
one looks at the top jockeys, they are riding for the top stables.
If the stable is on fire, makes the jockeys look good and the same can be
said when the stable is struggling (even top stables) due to a myriad of
reasons .
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com




From RaceStats at hotmail.com  Tue Jan 15 18:08:09 2019
From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:08:09 +0000
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
In-Reply-To: <005901d4ac57$205e9a30$611bce90$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <000101d4aad6$0e8641f0$2b92c5d0$@bigpond.com>
	<005901d4ac57$205e9a30$611bce90$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB4204159292AA7A56071A60C9BB810@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Len, 
How do you rate Linda Meech, she's a great front running rider and seems to have had a purple patch recently?
Lindsay

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2019 9:19 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

I've also got WC rated exactly average at 100 - or 1.00 if you prefer - on
my IV scale.

LGHenry is in a class of her own as the worse rated, M or F, as is
VBolozhinsky as the best.


-----Original Message-----
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2019 11:22 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona

Winona Costin has been busy, in Tasmania for a couple of days recently and
today in NZ, yesterday Kembla (if it was running), and tomorrow in Nowra

She has been on a few by Gai, with success also.

I don't factor in jockeys but do rate them and she is average, which isn't a
bad place, as so many are not when scored off their endeavours which is
directly tied to their mounts I know.

Cheers

Tony


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com



From tonymoffat at bigpond.com  Tue Jan 15 20:43:41 2019
From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:43:41 +0800
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
Message-ID: <000201d4acb6$cd3e1410$67ba3c30$@bigpond.com>

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced
on some others in this race.

 No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good
ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
that value to it early in the calculation.

 Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a
jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
individually determine an iv. 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again
divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the
overall stat picture

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
that.

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
a race
Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
Dylan Dunn = 1.1

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
 This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
 in it, nor do I suggest you do.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com




From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Wed Jan 16 13:04:00 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:04:00 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
Message-ID: <000101d4ad3f$c138d860$43aa8920$@ozemail.com.au>

Lindsay,
 
Your post did not come through to me - saw it in the Archives (I sent mine 3
times before it came back to me; apologies if anyone received it multiple
times).
 
LJMeech has been a highly-rated jockey "Forever". Current have her at 123,
she has not been below 100 since 30/3/2013, her highest was 126 on
29/12/2019, so as you say, she's in a purple patch.
 
Previous nasty comments about my factual statements about MichelPayne being
sexist emphasise to me what a f'd-up place the West in general and Oz in
particular, has become.
 
My only interest in racing is to make money - I don't watch many races,
don't know what won the MC, let alone the CC or CP; front bar punters know
more about horses, trainers and jockeys than I; but I know how to analyse
data like few others. Is LJMeech the female jockey with the little-girl
voice? (the missus had Racing-com on the other day and I heard a female
jockey being interviewed)
 
LBL
 
 
 
Len, 
How do you rate Linda Meech, she's a great front running rider and seems to
have had a purple patch recently?
Lindsay
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
<http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com> ] On Behalf Of
L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2019 9:19 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
 
I've also got WC rated exactly average at 100 - or 1.00 if you prefer - on
my IV scale.
 
LGHenry is in a class of her own as the worse rated, M or F, as is
VBolozhinsky as the best.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190116/273a69e6/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Wed Jan 16 13:18:50 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:18:50 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] FW:   Everywhere Winona
Message-ID: <000801d4ad41$d3526960$79f73c20$@ozemail.com.au>

A question - is LJM "a front running rider", in that when she rides horses
they tend to be more forward than they tend to be with other riders, or is
LJM a "rider of front runners" in that the horses she rides tend to race
more forward than other horses tend to?

 

Going back, GW's horses on average raced much more forward than JBC's to the
extent it could not be attributed to jockeys - if LJM had ridden solely for
GW, she'd have been a "front running rider", but if for JBC, she'd have been
a female RSDye, "always" flashing home from behind.

 

From: L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2019 1:04 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
'RaceStats at hotmail.com' <RaceStats at hotmail.com>
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona 

 

Lindsay,
 
Your post did not come through to me - saw it in the Archives (I sent mine 3
times before it came back to me; apologies if anyone received it multiple
times).
 
LJMeech has been a highly-rated jockey "Forever". Current have her at 123,
she has not been below 100 since 30/3/2013, her highest was 126 on
29/12/2019, so as you say, she's in a purple patch.
 
Previous nasty comments about my factual statements about MichelPayne being
sexist emphasise to me what a f'd-up place the West in general and Oz in
particular, has become.
 
My only interest in racing is to make money - I don't watch many races,
don't know what won the MC, let alone the CC or CP; front bar punters know
more about horses, trainers and jockeys than I; but I know how to analyse
data like few others. Is LJMeech the female jockey with the little-girl
voice? (the missus had Racing-com on the other day and I heard a female
jockey being interviewed)
 
LBL
 
 
 
Len, 
How do you rate Linda Meech, she's a great front running rider and seems to
have had a purple patch recently?
Lindsay
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
<http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com> ] On Behalf Of
L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2019 9:19 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
 
I've also got WC rated exactly average at 100 - or 1.00 if you prefer - on
my IV scale.
 
LGHenry is in a class of her own as the worse rated, M or F, as is
VBolozhinsky as the best.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190116/3eae3d9d/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Mon Jan 21 11:59:45 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:59:45 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
Message-ID: <000901d4b124$9b8fd260$d2af7720$@ozemail.com.au>

This may be an indication. I was trying to ascertain the correct jockey in
one of the (too many for my liking) cases in which different sources give
different names, and came across this in a Stewards Report:

 

Lady Dee Dee slow to begin. Performed below market expectations. Rider, L
Meech reported that after being slow to begin, her mount settled further
back than anticipated and in her opinion this was detrimental to its
chances. A post-race veterinary examination revealed no abnormalities.

 

Lady Dee Dee is an exceptionally slow beginner, but in its previous run,
after jumping true to form, last, LJMeech immediately pushed it to the lead
and ran them off their feet, winning easily. This time it, again true to
form, jumped last, but LJMeech could not, or at least did not, make it go
forward, so it stayed last, passing a few late in the race.

 

 

From: L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2019 1:19 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
'RaceStats at hotmail.com' <RaceStats at hotmail.com>
Subject: FW: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona 

 

A question - is LJM "a front running rider", in that when she rides horses
they tend to be more forward than they tend to be with other riders, or is
LJM a "rider of front runners" in that the horses she rides tend to race
more forward than other horses tend to?

 

Going back, GW's horses on average raced much more forward than JBC's to the
extent it could not be attributed to jockeys - if LJM had ridden solely for
GW, she'd have been a "front running rider", but if for JBC, she'd have been
a female RSDye, "always" flashing home from behind.

 

From: L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
> 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2019 1:04 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >; 'RaceStats at hotmail.com'
<RaceStats at hotmail.com <mailto:RaceStats at hotmail.com> >
Subject: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona 

 

Lindsay,
 
Your post did not come through to me - saw it in the Archives (I sent mine 3
times before it came back to me; apologies if anyone received it multiple
times).
 
LJMeech has been a highly-rated jockey "Forever". Current have her at 123,
she has not been below 100 since 30/3/2013, her highest was 126 on
29/12/2019, so as you say, she's in a purple patch.
 
Previous nasty comments about my factual statements about MichelPayne being
sexist emphasise to me what a f'd-up place the West in general and Oz in
particular, has become.
 
My only interest in racing is to make money - I don't watch many races,
don't know what won the MC, let alone the CC or CP; front bar punters know
more about horses, trainers and jockeys than I; but I know how to analyse
data like few others. Is LJMeech the female jockey with the little-girl
voice? (the missus had Racing-com on the other day and I heard a female
jockey being interviewed)
 
LBL
 
 
 
Len, 
How do you rate Linda Meech, she's a great front running rider and seems to
have had a purple patch recently?
Lindsay
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
<http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com> ] On Behalf Of
L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2019 9:19 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Everywhere Winona
 
I've also got WC rated exactly average at 100 - or 1.00 if you prefer - on
my IV scale.
 
LGHenry is in a class of her own as the worse rated, M or F, as is
VBolozhinsky as the best.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190121/e37632ce/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Mon Jan 21 18:12:05 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:12:05 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
Message-ID: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190121/fbf3b35f/attachment.html>

From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Mon Jan 21 21:34:20 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:34:20 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid
determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure
those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses
the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in
races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better
than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say
favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35%
jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It
would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid
fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more
accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len's reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To: tonymoffat at bigpond.com; racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190121/1ebc2587/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Tue Jan 22 12:49:38 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:49:38 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's
easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back
around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list,
and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides
in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like
125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
tonymoffat at bigpond.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid
determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure
those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses
the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in
races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better
than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say
favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35%
jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It
would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid
fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more
accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len's reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To: tonymoffat at bigpond.com <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> ;
racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> 
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190122/f3ad53b0/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 22 16:38:07 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:38:07 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>

JockeyA2ETable
AscotTrack
Rider Distance Actual Expected Rides A2E
DAMIAN LANE 1200 7 22.25 178 0.31
DANIEL STAECK 1000 3 20.40 157 0.15
DANIEL STAECK 1200 12 20.40 206 0.59
DANIEL STAECK 1400 19 19.39 222 0.98
DANIEL STAECK 1600 11 7.68 59 1.43
DANIEL STAECK 1800 9 8.61 48 1.05
LUCY WARWICK 1000 19 11.83 150 1.61
LUCY WARWICK 1200 10 8.98 53 1.11
PETER HALL 1200 9 8.12 56 1.11
PETER HALL 1400 15 7.37 59 2.04
PETER HALL 1600 18 22.28 184 0.81
PETER HALL 1800 4 7.88 45 0.51
PETER KNUCKEY 1000 26 64.45 381 0.40
PETER KNUCKEY 1100 26 35.25 253 0.74
PETER KNUCKEY 1200 36 34.01 207 1.06
PETER KNUCKEY 1400 27 24.39 159 1.11
PETER KNUCKEY 1600 11 40.31 214 0.27
PETER KNUCKEY 1800 9 7.44 60 1.21
WILLIAM PIKE 1000 37 48.42 332 0.76
WILLIAM PIKE 1100 41 80.55 571 0.51
WILLIAM PIKE 1200 96 86.60 434 1.11
WILLIAM PIKE 1400 89 86.57 487 1.03
WILLIAM PIKE 1500 26 26.37 127 0.99
WILLIAM PIKE 1600 79 70.15 474 1.13
WILLIAM PIKE 1800 33 35.14 159 0.94
WILLIAM PIKE 2200 38 45.77 246 0.83

Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for
a $1.
Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive
means of extracting
the outliers.

Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%. From
there an expected
wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual. These
have pulled at random.
The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190122/b78f0ea3/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 22 17:48:17 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:48:17 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-RxAfDaCXc2fF5rLPnrKoP1mhDus1t6kaw6zjpBu2ZghQ@mail.gmail.com>

JockeyA2ETable
Ascot
Rider Distance A E NoOfRides A2E
DAMIAN LANE 1000 4 4.81 166 0.83
DAMIAN LANE 1200 8 23.88 218 0.34
DAMIAN LANE 1400 2 7.31 193 0.27
DANIEL STAECK 1000 5 22.00 193 0.23
DANIEL STAECK 1100 4 8.20 84 0.49
DANIEL STAECK 1200 16 25.94 316 0.62
DANIEL STAECK 1400 22 28.44 452 0.77
DANIEL STAECK 1500 3 5.33 55 0.56
DANIEL STAECK 1600 14 14.58 260 0.96
DANIEL STAECK 1800 11 10.97 96 1.00
DANIEL STAECK 2200 3 7.26 67 0.41
LUCY WARWICK 1000 20 12.41 164 1.61
LUCY WARWICK 1200 13 10.34 88 1.26
LUCY WARWICK 1400 6 7.25 73 0.83
LUCY WARWICK 1600 11 6.43 176 1.71
PETER HALL 1000 4 6.23 54 0.64
PETER HALL 1100 5 11.21 167 0.45
PETER HALL 1200 10 10.86 123 0.92
PETER HALL 1400 16 11.39 146 1.40
PETER HALL 1600 20 25.01 232 0.80
PETER HALL 1800 5 9.15 72 0.55
PETER HALL 2150 1 5.39 130 0.19
PETER HALL 2200 9 6.90 54 1.30
PETER KNUCKEY 1000 27 69.28 474 0.39
PETER KNUCKEY 1100 26 38.30 313 0.68
PETER KNUCKEY 1200 44 42.47 376 1.04
PETER KNUCKEY 1400 32 31.49 312 1.02
PETER KNUCKEY 1500 10 7.87 87 1.27
PETER KNUCKEY 1600 14 43.37 295 0.32
PETER KNUCKEY 1800 11 9.31 109 1.18
PETER KNUCKEY 2200 10 6.70 70 1.49
WILLIAM PIKE 1000 45 57.42 408 0.78
WILLIAM PIKE 1100 46 86.10 630 0.53
WILLIAM PIKE 1200 115 105.53 695 1.09
WILLIAM PIKE 1400 104 101.94 623 1.02
WILLIAM PIKE 1500 30 31.23 164 0.96
WILLIAM PIKE 1600 85 77.78 541 1.09
WILLIAM PIKE 1800 38 39.50 196 0.96
WILLIAM PIKE 2100 16 10.36 50 1.54
WILLIAM PIKE 2150 2 6.87 138 0.29
WILLIAM PIKE 2200 40 50.25 277 0.80
Heres another extract of the SAME jocks in WA. The right hand column is the
ROI for a $1.
No caveat, these rides include ALL in the market.



On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:38 sean mclaren <seanmac4321 at gmail.com wrote:

> JockeyA2ETable
> AscotTrack
> Rider Distance Actual Expected Rides A2E
> DAMIAN LANE 1200 7 22.25 178 0.31
> DANIEL STAECK 1000 3 20.40 157 0.15
> DANIEL STAECK 1200 12 20.40 206 0.59
> DANIEL STAECK 1400 19 19.39 222 0.98
> DANIEL STAECK 1600 11 7.68 59 1.43
> DANIEL STAECK 1800 9 8.61 48 1.05
> LUCY WARWICK 1000 19 11.83 150 1.61
> LUCY WARWICK 1200 10 8.98 53 1.11
> PETER HALL 1200 9 8.12 56 1.11
> PETER HALL 1400 15 7.37 59 2.04
> PETER HALL 1600 18 22.28 184 0.81
> PETER HALL 1800 4 7.88 45 0.51
> PETER KNUCKEY 1000 26 64.45 381 0.40
> PETER KNUCKEY 1100 26 35.25 253 0.74
> PETER KNUCKEY 1200 36 34.01 207 1.06
> PETER KNUCKEY 1400 27 24.39 159 1.11
> PETER KNUCKEY 1600 11 40.31 214 0.27
> PETER KNUCKEY 1800 9 7.44 60 1.21
> WILLIAM PIKE 1000 37 48.42 332 0.76
> WILLIAM PIKE 1100 41 80.55 571 0.51
> WILLIAM PIKE 1200 96 86.60 434 1.11
> WILLIAM PIKE 1400 89 86.57 487 1.03
> WILLIAM PIKE 1500 26 26.37 127 0.99
> WILLIAM PIKE 1600 79 70.15 474 1.13
> WILLIAM PIKE 1800 33 35.14 159 0.94
> WILLIAM PIKE 2200 38 45.77 246 0.83
>
> Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for
> a $1.
> Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive
> means of extracting
> the outliers.
>
> Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%.
> From there an expected
> wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual.
> These have pulled at random.
> The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Tony,
>>
>>
>>
>> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
>> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>>
>>
>>
>> LBL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>>
>> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>>
>> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
>> advanced
>>
>> on some others in this race.
>>
>>
>>
>> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>>
>> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>>
>> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>>
>> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off
>> a
>>
>> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
>> good
>>
>> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4
>> -
>>
>> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor
>> is
>>
>> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>>
>> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>>
>> that value to it early in the calculation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>>
>> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there
>> is a
>>
>> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>>
>> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>>
>> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct,
>> and
>>
>> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into
>> all
>>
>> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>>
>> individually determine an iv.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>>
>> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants,
>> dividends
>>
>> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>>
>>
>>
>> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>>
>> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>>
>> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>>
>> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
>> again
>>
>> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>>
>> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
>> the
>>
>> overall stat picture
>>
>>
>>
>> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same
>> as
>>
>> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>>
>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>>
>> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>>
>> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>>
>> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to
>> win
>>
>> a race
>>
>> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>>
>> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>>
>>
>>
>> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>>
>> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>>
>> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Racing mailing list
>> Racing at ausrace.com
>> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190122/1eae3fb7/attachment.html>

From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Tue Jan 22 23:41:57 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:41:57 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000901d4b24f$ddc9afd0$995d0f70$@bigpond.com>

Hey Sean,

How?s life?

 

I am afraid I am missing the point of your stats. Yes, I can see Peter Hall is 0.51 at 1800m but Pike is the same over at 1100m with over 10 times the rides by Pike. 

 

Why haven?t you provided P Hall at all distances? As for his figure of 2.04 for 1400m at just 59 rides is no indication, surely?

 

Why are the others incomplete?

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 4:38 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 


JockeyA2ETable
AscotTrack

					

Rider

Distance

Actual

Expected

Rides

A2E


DAMIAN LANE

1200

7

22.25

178

0.31


DANIEL STAECK

1000

3

20.40

157

0.15


DANIEL STAECK

1200

12

20.40

206

0.59


DANIEL STAECK

1400

19

19.39

222

0.98


DANIEL STAECK

1600

11

7.68

59

1.43


DANIEL STAECK

1800

9

8.61

48

1.05


LUCY WARWICK

1000

19

11.83

150

1.61


LUCY WARWICK

1200

10

8.98

53

1.11


PETER HALL

1200

9

8.12

56

1.11


PETER HALL

1400

15

7.37

59

2.04


PETER HALL

1600

18

22.28

184

0.81


PETER HALL

1800

4

7.88

45

0.51


PETER KNUCKEY

1000

26

64.45

381

0.40


PETER KNUCKEY

1100

26

35.25

253

0.74


PETER KNUCKEY

1200

36

34.01

207

1.06


PETER KNUCKEY

1400

27

24.39

159

1.11


PETER KNUCKEY

1600

11

40.31

214

0.27


PETER KNUCKEY

1800

9

7.44

60

1.21


WILLIAM PIKE

1000

37

48.42

332

0.76


WILLIAM PIKE

1100

41

80.55

571

0.51


WILLIAM PIKE

1200

96

86.60

434

1.11


WILLIAM PIKE

1400

89

86.57

487

1.03


WILLIAM PIKE

1500

26

26.37

127

0.99


WILLIAM PIKE

1600

79

70.15

474

1.13


WILLIAM PIKE

1800

33

35.14

159

0.94


WILLIAM PIKE

2200

38

45.77

246

0.83

 

 

Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for a $1.

Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive means of extracting

the outliers.

 

Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%. >From there an expected 

wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual. These have pulled at random.

The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.

 

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190122/27d5dda4/attachment.html>

From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Tue Jan 22 23:48:26 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:48:26 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-RxAfDaCXc2fF5rLPnrKoP1mhDus1t6kaw6zjpBu2ZghQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBDE-RxAfDaCXc2fF5rLPnrKoP1mhDus1t6kaw6zjpBu2ZghQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000e01d4b250$c4e13b90$4ea3b2b0$@bigpond.com>

Hi again Sean,

Again I am wondering?

 

Surely L Warwick has had rides at 1800m plus? Where are they?

 

I look at Pike. Why not bunch 2100 to 2200m together?

 

Do you rate jockeys based on the exact distance starts?

 

Confused Roman

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 5:48 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 


JockeyA2ETable
Ascot

					

Rider

Distance

A

E

NoOfRides

A2E


DAMIAN LANE

1000

4

4.81

166

0.83


DAMIAN LANE

1200

8

23.88

218

0.34


DAMIAN LANE

1400

2

7.31

193

0.27


DANIEL STAECK

1000

5

22.00

193

0.23


DANIEL STAECK

1100

4

8.20

84

0.49


DANIEL STAECK

1200

16

25.94

316

0.62


DANIEL STAECK

1400

22

28.44

452

0.77


DANIEL STAECK

1500

3

5.33

55

0.56


DANIEL STAECK

1600

14

14.58

260

0.96


DANIEL STAECK

1800

11

10.97

96

1.00


DANIEL STAECK

2200

3

7.26

67

0.41


LUCY WARWICK

1000

20

12.41

164

1.61


LUCY WARWICK

1200

13

10.34

88

1.26


LUCY WARWICK

1400

6

7.25

73

0.83


LUCY WARWICK

1600

11

6.43

176

1.71


PETER HALL

1000

4

6.23

54

0.64


PETER HALL

1100

5

11.21

167

0.45


PETER HALL

1200

10

10.86

123

0.92


PETER HALL

1400

16

11.39

146

1.40


PETER HALL

1600

20

25.01

232

0.80


PETER HALL

1800

5

9.15

72

0.55


PETER HALL

2150

1

5.39

130

0.19


PETER HALL

2200

9

6.90

54

1.30


PETER KNUCKEY

1000

27

69.28

474

0.39


PETER KNUCKEY

1100

26

38.30

313

0.68


PETER KNUCKEY

1200

44

42.47

376

1.04


PETER KNUCKEY

1400

32

31.49

312

1.02


PETER KNUCKEY

1500

10

7.87

87

1.27


PETER KNUCKEY

1600

14

43.37

295

0.32


PETER KNUCKEY

1800

11

9.31

109

1.18


PETER KNUCKEY

2200

10

6.70

70

1.49


WILLIAM PIKE

1000

45

57.42

408

0.78


WILLIAM PIKE

1100

46

86.10

630

0.53


WILLIAM PIKE

1200

115

105.53

695

1.09


WILLIAM PIKE

1400

104

101.94

623

1.02


WILLIAM PIKE

1500

30

31.23

164

0.96


WILLIAM PIKE

1600

85

77.78

541

1.09


WILLIAM PIKE

1800

38

39.50

196

0.96


WILLIAM PIKE

2100

16

10.36

50

1.54


WILLIAM PIKE

2150

2

6.87

138

0.29


WILLIAM PIKE

2200

40

50.25

277

0.80

 

Heres another extract of the SAME jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for a $1.

No caveat, these rides include ALL in the market. 

 

 

 

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:38 sean mclaren <seanmac4321 at gmail.com wrote:


JockeyA2ETable
AscotTrack

					

Rider

Distance

Actual

Expected

Rides

A2E


DAMIAN LANE

1200

7

22.25

178

0.31


DANIEL STAECK

1000

3

20.40

157

0.15


DANIEL STAECK

1200

12

20.40

206

0.59


DANIEL STAECK

1400

19

19.39

222

0.98


DANIEL STAECK

1600

11

7.68

59

1.43


DANIEL STAECK

1800

9

8.61

48

1.05


LUCY WARWICK

1000

19

11.83

150

1.61


LUCY WARWICK

1200

10

8.98

53

1.11


PETER HALL

1200

9

8.12

56

1.11


PETER HALL

1400

15

7.37

59

2.04


PETER HALL

1600

18

22.28

184

0.81


PETER HALL

1800

4

7.88

45

0.51


PETER KNUCKEY

1000

26

64.45

381

0.40


PETER KNUCKEY

1100

26

35.25

253

0.74


PETER KNUCKEY

1200

36

34.01

207

1.06


PETER KNUCKEY

1400

27

24.39

159

1.11


PETER KNUCKEY

1600

11

40.31

214

0.27


PETER KNUCKEY

1800

9

7.44

60

1.21


WILLIAM PIKE

1000

37

48.42

332

0.76


WILLIAM PIKE

1100

41

80.55

571

0.51


WILLIAM PIKE

1200

96

86.60

434

1.11


WILLIAM PIKE

1400

89

86.57

487

1.03


WILLIAM PIKE

1500

26

26.37

127

0.99


WILLIAM PIKE

1600

79

70.15

474

1.13


WILLIAM PIKE

1800

33

35.14

159

0.94


WILLIAM PIKE

2200

38

45.77

246

0.83

 

 

Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for a $1.

Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive means of extracting

the outliers.

 

Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%. >From there an expected 

wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual. These have pulled at random.

The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.

 

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190122/99e9e3ca/attachment.html>

From RaceStats at hotmail.com  Wed Jan 23 03:02:23 2019
From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:02:23 +0000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-RxAfDaCXc2fF5rLPnrKoP1mhDus1t6kaw6zjpBu2ZghQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBDE-RxAfDaCXc2fF5rLPnrKoP1mhDus1t6kaw6zjpBu2ZghQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB4204DFBFF88216FE369D0A29BB980@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Sean,
Very interesting stuff and a lot of work there!
I?m interested and may well rate the jockeys, then the trainers, then jockey trainer combo?s to see a clearer picture of what?s what.
The A2E might be better on the corrected market odds versus actual winners and then ROI.
Just a suggestion.
Lindsay

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 5:48 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

JockeyA2ETable
Ascot

Rider

Distance

A

E

NoOfRides

A2E

DAMIAN LANE

1000

4

4.81

166

0.83

DAMIAN LANE

1200

8

23.88

218

0.34

DAMIAN LANE

1400

2

7.31

193

0.27

DANIEL STAECK

1000

5

22.00

193

0.23

DANIEL STAECK

1100

4

8.20

84

0.49

DANIEL STAECK

1200

16

25.94

316

0.62

DANIEL STAECK

1400

22

28.44

452

0.77

DANIEL STAECK

1500

3

5.33

55

0.56

DANIEL STAECK

1600

14

14.58

260

0.96

DANIEL STAECK

1800

11

10.97

96

1.00

DANIEL STAECK

2200

3

7.26

67

0.41

LUCY WARWICK

1000

20

12.41

164

1.61

LUCY WARWICK

1200

13

10.34

88

1.26

LUCY WARWICK

1400

6

7.25

73

0.83

LUCY WARWICK

1600

11

6.43

176

1.71

PETER HALL

1000

4

6.23

54

0.64

PETER HALL

1100

5

11.21

167

0.45

PETER HALL

1200

10

10.86

123

0.92

PETER HALL

1400

16

11.39

146

1.40

PETER HALL

1600

20

25.01

232

0.80

PETER HALL

1800

5

9.15

72

0.55

PETER HALL

2150

1

5.39

130

0.19

PETER HALL

2200

9

6.90

54

1.30

PETER KNUCKEY

1000

27

69.28

474

0.39

PETER KNUCKEY

1100

26

38.30

313

0.68

PETER KNUCKEY

1200

44

42.47

376

1.04

PETER KNUCKEY

1400

32

31.49

312

1.02

PETER KNUCKEY

1500

10

7.87

87

1.27

PETER KNUCKEY

1600

14

43.37

295

0.32

PETER KNUCKEY

1800

11

9.31

109

1.18

PETER KNUCKEY

2200

10

6.70

70

1.49

WILLIAM PIKE

1000

45

57.42

408

0.78

WILLIAM PIKE

1100

46

86.10

630

0.53

WILLIAM PIKE

1200

115

105.53

695

1.09

WILLIAM PIKE

1400

104

101.94

623

1.02

WILLIAM PIKE

1500

30

31.23

164

0.96

WILLIAM PIKE

1600

85

77.78

541

1.09

WILLIAM PIKE

1800

38

39.50

196

0.96

WILLIAM PIKE

2100

16

10.36

50

1.54

WILLIAM PIKE

2150

2

6.87

138

0.29

WILLIAM PIKE

2200

40

50.25

277

0.80


Heres another extract of the SAME jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for a $1.
No caveat, these rides include ALL in the market.



On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:38 sean mclaren <seanmac4321 at gmail.com<mailto:seanmac4321 at gmail.com> wrote:
JockeyA2ETable
AscotTrack

Rider

Distance

Actual

Expected

Rides

A2E

DAMIAN LANE

1200

7

22.25

178

0.31

DANIEL STAECK

1000

3

20.40

157

0.15

DANIEL STAECK

1200

12

20.40

206

0.59

DANIEL STAECK

1400

19

19.39

222

0.98

DANIEL STAECK

1600

11

7.68

59

1.43

DANIEL STAECK

1800

9

8.61

48

1.05

LUCY WARWICK

1000

19

11.83

150

1.61

LUCY WARWICK

1200

10

8.98

53

1.11

PETER HALL

1200

9

8.12

56

1.11

PETER HALL

1400

15

7.37

59

2.04

PETER HALL

1600

18

22.28

184

0.81

PETER HALL

1800

4

7.88

45

0.51

PETER KNUCKEY

1000

26

64.45

381

0.40

PETER KNUCKEY

1100

26

35.25

253

0.74

PETER KNUCKEY

1200

36

34.01

207

1.06

PETER KNUCKEY

1400

27

24.39

159

1.11

PETER KNUCKEY

1600

11

40.31

214

0.27

PETER KNUCKEY

1800

9

7.44

60

1.21

WILLIAM PIKE

1000

37

48.42

332

0.76

WILLIAM PIKE

1100

41

80.55

571

0.51

WILLIAM PIKE

1200

96

86.60

434

1.11

WILLIAM PIKE

1400

89

86.57

487

1.03

WILLIAM PIKE

1500

26

26.37

127

0.99

WILLIAM PIKE

1600

79

70.15

474

1.13

WILLIAM PIKE

1800

33

35.14

159

0.94

WILLIAM PIKE

2200

38

45.77

246

0.83



Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for a $1.
Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive means of extracting
the outliers.

Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%. From there an expected
wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual. These have pulled at random.
The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au<mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au>> wrote:
Tony,

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

LBL


790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced
on some others in this race.

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good
ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
that value to it early in the calculation.

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a
jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
individually determine an iv.

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
in the sub $2 range, most of us really.

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again
divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the
overall stat picture

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
that.

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
a race
Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
Dylan Dunn = 1.1

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
in it, nor do I suggest you do.

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com<mailto:Racing at ausrace.com>
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190122/e3fe6698/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 23 07:31:58 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:31:58 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <000901d4b24f$ddc9afd0$995d0f70$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<000901d4b24f$ddc9afd0$995d0f70$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-RpgXQ=72jS5aRL6pkDz2G3g0DWWmrJ=qhRwB=aoQpu5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hey roman

Trust you are well and brought in the New Year with plenty of cheer.

Oddly enough my bathroom scales has a missing battery. Convenient?

To the business at hand, I was just illustrating how the A2E method works
as a jockey rating method. The list is a small extract.

The reason for Hall having nothing for say 2400? is that I put a minimum of
50 rides.

Interesting you mention P Hall. My speed ratings had Star Exhibit rated on
top in the Perth Cup. If I had referred to the A2E list I would have been
tipped out. Lol.

I confess that I have dug into the A2E side of things many years ago.
Although I had no joy, I believe that Len incorporates A2E somewhere in his
setup. So does Nick A.

At their level you are also massaging a Fav Long Shot (FLS) bias factor
that would make my  list more accurate.

I stumbled across the FLS bias factor in my Dr Z readings. Although talked
about and quantified throughout the book I could not see the equation used.

Roman I can forward through the complete list if you were interested.

As an aside., personally I have yet to incorporate a Jockey adjustment to
my speed ratings. Or a trainer adjustment for that matter. I prefer to keep
them in their rawest state, for now.

That being said, I have toyed with an average beaten margin index. The goal
being to provide further separation / clarity to the ratings. As a rule of
thumb
I get say 3 speed points to a length. Ie it oscillates around 3 depending
on the distance and other factors. So I can easily multiply the index by
say 3, and simply add on. The strength of the jockey would be borne out in
the difference of the gross adjust.

Despite having a access database with 10 years of data. incorporating these
type of adjustments is like turning the Queen Mary around in Sydney
harbour.
Ideally you would be looking for a before versus an after set. My VBA
skills are as such, that I cannot whip up code to achieve the above in a
reasonable amount of time.

Best regards Sean









On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 22:42 Roman <kozza1950 at bigpond.com wrote:

> Hey Sean,
>
> How?s life?
>
>
>
> I am afraid I am missing the point of your stats. Yes, I can see Peter
> Hall is 0.51 at 1800m but Pike is the same over at 1100m with over 10 times
> the rides by Pike.
>
>
>
> Why haven?t you provided P Hall at all distances? As for his figure of
> 2.04 for 1400m at just 59 rides is no indication, surely?
>
>
>
> Why are the others incomplete?
>
>
>
> Roman Koz
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *sean
> mclaren
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 4:38 PM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> JockeyA2ETable
> AscotTrack
>
> Rider
>
> Distance
>
> Actual
>
> Expected
>
> Rides
>
> A2E
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1200
>
> 7
>
> 22.25
>
> 178
>
> 0.31
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1000
>
> 3
>
> 20.40
>
> 157
>
> 0.15
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1200
>
> 12
>
> 20.40
>
> 206
>
> 0.59
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1400
>
> 19
>
> 19.39
>
> 222
>
> 0.98
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 7.68
>
> 59
>
> 1.43
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 8.61
>
> 48
>
> 1.05
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1000
>
> 19
>
> 11.83
>
> 150
>
> 1.61
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1200
>
> 10
>
> 8.98
>
> 53
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1200
>
> 9
>
> 8.12
>
> 56
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1400
>
> 15
>
> 7.37
>
> 59
>
> 2.04
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1600
>
> 18
>
> 22.28
>
> 184
>
> 0.81
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1800
>
> 4
>
> 7.88
>
> 45
>
> 0.51
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1000
>
> 26
>
> 64.45
>
> 381
>
> 0.40
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1100
>
> 26
>
> 35.25
>
> 253
>
> 0.74
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1200
>
> 36
>
> 34.01
>
> 207
>
> 1.06
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1400
>
> 27
>
> 24.39
>
> 159
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 40.31
>
> 214
>
> 0.27
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 7.44
>
> 60
>
> 1.21
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1000
>
> 37
>
> 48.42
>
> 332
>
> 0.76
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1100
>
> 41
>
> 80.55
>
> 571
>
> 0.51
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1200
>
> 96
>
> 86.60
>
> 434
>
> 1.11
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1400
>
> 89
>
> 86.57
>
> 487
>
> 1.03
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1500
>
> 26
>
> 26.37
>
> 127
>
> 0.99
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1600
>
> 79
>
> 70.15
>
> 474
>
> 1.13
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1800
>
> 33
>
> 35.14
>
> 159
>
> 0.94
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2200
>
> 38
>
> 45.77
>
> 246
>
> 0.83
>
>
>
>
>
> Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for
> a $1.
>
> Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive
> means of extracting
>
> the outliers.
>
>
>
> Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%.
> From there an expected
>
> wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual.
> These have pulled at random.
>
> The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190123/fff08eb1/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 23 07:55:53 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:55:53 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR04MB4204DFBFF88216FE369D0A29BB980@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBDE-RxAfDaCXc2fF5rLPnrKoP1mhDus1t6kaw6zjpBu2ZghQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM6PR04MB4204DFBFF88216FE369D0A29BB980@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-TsFw0qYFYQUJm6kJGyz6QE_L9SwP7jaYgrQqRXnnY3zw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Lindsay & Roman

Heres another all in ASCOT ONLY list.

Rider  ACTUAL EXPECTED             A2E
AARON MITCHELL 70 67.93 1.03
AARON ROGERS 2 2.86 0.70
ALAN KENNEDY 83 78.78 1.05
ALANA WILLIAMS 5 18.31 0.27
ALEX HEARN 7 5.30 1.32
ANDREW CASTLE 10 15.48 0.65
ANDREW MALLYON 5 3.27 1.53
ANDREW MASTERS 5 2.17 2.30
BEN ALLEN 2 1.99 1.00
BEN KENNEDY 36 52.90 0.68
BEN MELHAM 3 1.33 2.25
BEN PATERSON 41 45.25 0.91
BRAD PARNHAM 170 176.31 0.96
BRAD RAWILLER 5 3.92 1.28
BRAYDEN GAERTH 1 0.60 1.66
BRODIE KIRBY 10 11.27 0.89
CAMPBELL MC CALLUM 40 31.18 1.28
CHAD DAVIES 1 1.68 0.60
CHANELLE O'GRADY 13 11.22 1.16
CHLOE CHATFIELD 25 45.69 0.55
CHRIS PARNHAM 97 103.44 0.94
CLINT HARVEY 33 39.42 0.84
CLINT JOHNSTON-PORTER 63 61.25 1.03
CRAIG STAPLES 49 55.36 0.89
CRAIG WILLIAMS 5 2.91 1.72
DAMIAN BROWNE 2 0.85 2.36
DAMIAN LANE 26 49.68 0.52
DAMIAN MILLER 1 0.62 1.62
DAMIEN OLIVER 13 12.94 1.01
DANIEL GANDERTON 3 2.45 1.23
DANIEL STAECK 84 127.75 0.66
DANIELLE CONROY 1 1.15 0.87
DANNY MILLER 5 11.26 0.44
DEAN YENDALL 1 0.96 1.04
DOUGLAS WHYTE 6 4.68 1.28
DUNCAN MILLER 11 22.00 0.50
DWAYNE DUNN 2 1.11 1.80
ELLIE COCKRAM 13 30.04 0.43
EMMA STENT 8 8.19 0.98
ERAN BOYD 1 0.33 3.05
FELICITY IVES 16 2.88 5.55
FIONA BELL 2 8.43 0.24
FRED W KERSLEY 7 6.81 1.03
GLEN BOSS 3 3.17 0.95
GLENN SMITH 50 62.60 0.80
HAYLEY DIENER 7 5.00 1.40
HUGH BOWMAN 1 1.84 0.54
JADE MCNAUGHT 1 3.35 0.30
JAKE CASEY 31 25.01 1.24
JARRAD NOSKE 180 208.47 0.86
JASON BROWN 155 187.98 0.82
JASON WHITING 176 235.72 0.75
JAY FORD 2 1.00 2.00
JEFFREY BERRY 3 2.95 1.02
JEROME LERMYTE 1 0.19 5.29
JERRY NOSKE 61 56.32 1.08
JESS EATON 1 0.16 6.45
JESSICA CARBERY 10 10.92 0.92
JESSICA VALAS 6 10.85 0.55
JOAO MOREIRA 1 0.20 5.08
JOE BOWDITCH 3 1.09 2.75
JOHN CLAITE 10 11.68 0.86
JORDAN MALLYON 15 14.79 1.01
JORDAN TURNER 14 39.88 0.35
JOSEPH AZZOPARDI 71 95.92 0.74
JOSH PARR 1 0.34 2.91
JULIEN KOKOTAJLO 1 1.24 0.80
KATARIINA AHO 2 1.24 1.61
KATE FITZGERALD 8 5.39 1.48
KATE WITTEN 11 12.96 0.85
KELLY DAVIDSON 1 0.47 2.14
KERRIN MC EVOY 1 0.97 1.04
KEVIN BOHORUN 5 3.76 1.33
KYRA YUILL 57 48.15 1.18
LEE NEWMAN 9 6.10 1.48
LINK ROBERTSON 9 21.52 0.42
LISA STAPLES 3 10.11 0.30
LUCAS CAMILLERI 40 63.04 0.63
LUCY WARWICK 71 56.91 1.25
LUKE NOLEN 1 1.27 0.79
MADDISON BROWN 16 6.86 2.33
MAKI MORITA 2 13.51 0.15
MANDY RICHMOND 1 1.25 0.80
MARCO CHUI 4 6.20 0.65
MARK FORDER 4 5.28 0.76
MARK MILLER 1 1.61 0.62
MATTHIEU AUTIER 8 9.89 0.81
MICHAEL FRETHEY 4 2.82 1.42
MICHAEL GRANTHAM 12 18.96 0.63
MICHAEL RODD 1 0.28 3.60
MICHAEL WALKER 1 0.69 1.44
MITCHELL PATEMAN 40 34.19 1.17
MOLLIE CLARK 5 5.60 0.89
NASH RAWILLER 3 1.19 2.53
NATASHA FAITHFULL 10 11.39 0.88
NED COLDBECK 1 1.61 0.62
NICOLE HOPWOOD 1 0.40 2.53
NOEL RUDLAND 2 3.63 0.55
PATRICK CARBERY 198 240.48 0.82
PAUL HARVEY 226 245.81 0.92
PAUL KING 27 34.98 0.77
PETER BLACK 1 0.98 1.02
PETER FARRELL 1 6.28 0.16
PETER HALL 80 96.56 0.83
PETER KNUCKEY 179 255.37 0.70
PRISCILLA SCHMIDT 1 0.24 4.13
RACHAEL MURRAY 1 0.08 13.16
RANDY TAN 26 53.24 0.49
RASIT YETIMOVA 1 0.15 6.71
RAYCE NIELSEN 3 7.01 0.43
RENEE FORREST 14 20.58 0.68
RICHARD RHODES 22 18.29 1.20
RIO BURNETT 1 1.01 0.99
ROBERT MARKOU 1 2.54 0.39
ROY MC KAY 1 7.39 0.14
RUSSELL HANSON 5 1.68 2.99
RYAN HILL 74 74.03 1.00
SARAH BONNER 3 3.63 0.83
SASHA STARLEY 3 1.52 1.98
SHANE GILCHRIST 9 7.58 1.19
SHAUN MC GRUDDY 126 184.94 0.68
SHAUN MEERES 30 41.27 0.73
SHAUN O'DONNELL 188 192.39 0.98
SHELBY BOWTELL 6 11.53 0.52
SHIRALEE MAHER 1 0.47 2.11
SIMON PRICE 1 0.16 6.41
SIMONE ALTIERI 8 10.19 0.79
STEVEN PARNHAM 161 208.37 0.77
TAKAHIDE IKENUSHI 28 39.39 0.71
TALIA RODDER 4 6.46 0.62
TAYLA STONE 21 27.98 0.75
TAZ SALLEH 8 7.10 1.13
TIM CLARK 3 0.25 12.05
TOMMY BERRY 2 1.28 1.56
TROY TURNER 176 215.61 0.82
WAYNE HOKAI 1 0.62 1.60
WILLIAM PIKE 535 579.28 0.92
WILLIE ARNOLD 2 3.02 0.66
WILLIE WHITE 6 11.67 0.51
Lindsay, haven't read your post, the Samoyed awaits.

Cheers Sean

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:03 AM Race Stats <RaceStats at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sean,
>
> Very interesting stuff and a lot of work there!
>
> I?m interested and may well rate the jockeys, then the trainers, then
> jockey trainer combo?s to see a clearer picture of what?s what.
>
> The A2E might be better on the corrected market odds versus actual winners
> and then ROI.
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> Lindsay
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *sean
> mclaren
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 January 2019 5:48 PM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> JockeyA2ETable
> Ascot
>
> Rider
>
> Distance
>
> A
>
> E
>
> NoOfRides
>
> A2E
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1000
>
> 4
>
> 4.81
>
> 166
>
> 0.83
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1200
>
> 8
>
> 23.88
>
> 218
>
> 0.34
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1400
>
> 2
>
> 7.31
>
> 193
>
> 0.27
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1000
>
> 5
>
> 22.00
>
> 193
>
> 0.23
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1100
>
> 4
>
> 8.20
>
> 84
>
> 0.49
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1200
>
> 16
>
> 25.94
>
> 316
>
> 0.62
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1400
>
> 22
>
> 28.44
>
> 452
>
> 0.77
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1500
>
> 3
>
> 5.33
>
> 55
>
> 0.56
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1600
>
> 14
>
> 14.58
>
> 260
>
> 0.96
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1800
>
> 11
>
> 10.97
>
> 96
>
> 1.00
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 2200
>
> 3
>
> 7.26
>
> 67
>
> 0.41
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1000
>
> 20
>
> 12.41
>
> 164
>
> 1.61
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1200
>
> 13
>
> 10.34
>
> 88
>
> 1.26
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1400
>
> 6
>
> 7.25
>
> 73
>
> 0.83
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 6.43
>
> 176
>
> 1.71
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1000
>
> 4
>
> 6.23
>
> 54
>
> 0.64
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1100
>
> 5
>
> 11.21
>
> 167
>
> 0.45
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1200
>
> 10
>
> 10.86
>
> 123
>
> 0.92
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1400
>
> 16
>
> 11.39
>
> 146
>
> 1.40
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1600
>
> 20
>
> 25.01
>
> 232
>
> 0.80
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1800
>
> 5
>
> 9.15
>
> 72
>
> 0.55
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 2150
>
> 1
>
> 5.39
>
> 130
>
> 0.19
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 2200
>
> 9
>
> 6.90
>
> 54
>
> 1.30
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1000
>
> 27
>
> 69.28
>
> 474
>
> 0.39
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1100
>
> 26
>
> 38.30
>
> 313
>
> 0.68
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1200
>
> 44
>
> 42.47
>
> 376
>
> 1.04
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1400
>
> 32
>
> 31.49
>
> 312
>
> 1.02
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1500
>
> 10
>
> 7.87
>
> 87
>
> 1.27
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1600
>
> 14
>
> 43.37
>
> 295
>
> 0.32
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1800
>
> 11
>
> 9.31
>
> 109
>
> 1.18
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 2200
>
> 10
>
> 6.70
>
> 70
>
> 1.49
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1000
>
> 45
>
> 57.42
>
> 408
>
> 0.78
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1100
>
> 46
>
> 86.10
>
> 630
>
> 0.53
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1200
>
> 115
>
> 105.53
>
> 695
>
> 1.09
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1400
>
> 104
>
> 101.94
>
> 623
>
> 1.02
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1500
>
> 30
>
> 31.23
>
> 164
>
> 0.96
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1600
>
> 85
>
> 77.78
>
> 541
>
> 1.09
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1800
>
> 38
>
> 39.50
>
> 196
>
> 0.96
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2100
>
> 16
>
> 10.36
>
> 50
>
> 1.54
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2150
>
> 2
>
> 6.87
>
> 138
>
> 0.29
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2200
>
> 40
>
> 50.25
>
> 277
>
> 0.80
>
>
>
> Heres another extract of the SAME jocks in WA. The right hand column is
> the ROI for a $1.
>
> No caveat, these rides include ALL in the market.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:38 sean mclaren <seanmac4321 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> JockeyA2ETable
> AscotTrack
>
> Rider
>
> Distance
>
> Actual
>
> Expected
>
> Rides
>
> A2E
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1200
>
> 7
>
> 22.25
>
> 178
>
> 0.31
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1000
>
> 3
>
> 20.40
>
> 157
>
> 0.15
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1200
>
> 12
>
> 20.40
>
> 206
>
> 0.59
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1400
>
> 19
>
> 19.39
>
> 222
>
> 0.98
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 7.68
>
> 59
>
> 1.43
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 8.61
>
> 48
>
> 1.05
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1000
>
> 19
>
> 11.83
>
> 150
>
> 1.61
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1200
>
> 10
>
> 8.98
>
> 53
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1200
>
> 9
>
> 8.12
>
> 56
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1400
>
> 15
>
> 7.37
>
> 59
>
> 2.04
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1600
>
> 18
>
> 22.28
>
> 184
>
> 0.81
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1800
>
> 4
>
> 7.88
>
> 45
>
> 0.51
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1000
>
> 26
>
> 64.45
>
> 381
>
> 0.40
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1100
>
> 26
>
> 35.25
>
> 253
>
> 0.74
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1200
>
> 36
>
> 34.01
>
> 207
>
> 1.06
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1400
>
> 27
>
> 24.39
>
> 159
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 40.31
>
> 214
>
> 0.27
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 7.44
>
> 60
>
> 1.21
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1000
>
> 37
>
> 48.42
>
> 332
>
> 0.76
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1100
>
> 41
>
> 80.55
>
> 571
>
> 0.51
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1200
>
> 96
>
> 86.60
>
> 434
>
> 1.11
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1400
>
> 89
>
> 86.57
>
> 487
>
> 1.03
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1500
>
> 26
>
> 26.37
>
> 127
>
> 0.99
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1600
>
> 79
>
> 70.15
>
> 474
>
> 1.13
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1800
>
> 33
>
> 35.14
>
> 159
>
> 0.94
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2200
>
> 38
>
> 45.77
>
> 246
>
> 0.83
>
>
>
>
>
> Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for
> a $1.
>
> Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive
> means of extracting
>
> the outliers.
>
>
>
> Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%.
> From there an expected
>
> wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual.
> These have pulled at random.
>
> The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190123/5ceeeab9/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 23 08:30:00 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:30:00 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <000901d4b24f$ddc9afd0$995d0f70$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<000901d4b24f$ddc9afd0$995d0f70$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-RZzv8zdV+z0QGrzxZ2426H73w-ra=GU6P2_BjzQS16OA@mail.gmail.com>

Ascot Only Pre 2018 2018 Index Up
Rider A E A2E A E A2E Base Pre
AARON MITCHELL 63 60.278 1 7 7.439 0.94 0.90033 Down
ALAN KENNEDY 72 68.009 1.1 11 6.572 1.67 1.58099 Up
ANDREW CASTLE 7 8.843 0.8 3 6.635 0.45 0.571192 Down
BEN ALLEN 1 1.184 0.8 1 0.808 1.24 1.465347 Up
BRODIE KIRBY 10 9.934 1.01
CHRIS PARNHAM 66 66.871 1 31 24.706 1.25 1.271315 Up
CLINT JOHNSTON-PORTER 47 47.366 1 15 13.022 1.15 1.160867 Up
CRAIG STAPLES 44 50.424 0.9 5 4.787 1.04 1.196992 Up
DAMIAN LANE 23 47.911 0.5 3 1.769 1.70 3.532652 Up
DAMIEN OLIVER 12 12.301 1 1 0.634 1.58 1.616851 Up
DANIEL STAECK 70 112.417 0.6 14 11.142 1.26 2.017896 Up
DEAN YENDALL 1 0.465 2.15
FIONA BELL 1 5.081 0.2 1 1.553 0.64 3.271732 Up
GLENN SMITH 47 58.289 0.8 3 4.312 0.70 0.862842 Down
JADE MCNAUGHT 1 3.352 0.30
JARRAD NOSKE 145 180.51 0.8 33 20.701 1.59 1.984522 Up
JASON BROWN 140 178.741 0.8 15 9.116 1.65 2.100792 Up
JASON WHITING 173 216.989 0.8 3 12.279 0.24 0.306443 Down
JERRY NOSKE 57 53.198 1.1 4 2.47 1.62 1.511414 Up
JESS EATON 1 0.155 6.45
JOSEPH AZZOPARDI 54 76.486 0.7 17 16.211 1.05 1.485345 Up
JULIEN KOKOTAJLO 1 1.244 0.80
KATE FITZGERALD 7 4.336 1.6 1 1.053 0.95 0.588251 Down
KATE WITTEN 7 6.887 1 3 5.276 0.57 0.559434 Down
LUCAS CAMILLERI 39 61.625 0.6 1 1.411 0.71 1.119864 Up
LUCY WARWICK 59 45.661 1.3 10 10.714 0.93 0.72234 Down
MATTHIEU AUTIER 6 8.187 0.7 2 1.706 1.17 1.599648 Up
MITCHELL PATEMAN 30 28.631 1 10 5.555 1.80 1.718032 Up
PATRICK CARBERY 183 214.733 0.9 14 25.236 0.55 0.650961 Down
PAUL HARVEY 219 235.376 0.9 7 10.433 0.67 0.721119 Down
PETER HALL 76 80.517 0.9 4 16.043 0.25 0.264149 Down
PETER KNUCKEY 173 247.929 0.7 6 7.361 0.82 1.168142 Up
RANDY TAN 25 50.612 0.5 1 2.024 0.49 1.000237 Up
RYAN HILL 73 70.294 1 1 3.736 0.27 0.257744 Down
SHAUN MC GRUDDY 111 146.148 0.8 15 34.434 0.44 0.573553 Down
SHAUN O'DONNELL 173 178.645 1 15 13.413 1.12 1.154809 Up
STEVEN PARNHAM 154 193.277 0.8 7 13.91 0.50 0.631583 Down
TAYLA STONE 5 6.71 0.7 16 11.546 1.39 1.859692 Up
TROY TURNER 172 199.175 0.9 4 8.644 0.46 0.53586 Down
WILLIAM PIKE 471 520.462 0.9 64 58.822 1.09 1.202287 Up

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:42 PM Roman <kozza1950 at bigpond.com> wrote:

> Hey Sean,
>
> How?s life?
>
>
>
> I am afraid I am missing the point of your stats. Yes, I can see Peter
> Hall is 0.51 at 1800m but Pike is the same over at 1100m with over 10 times
> the rides by Pike.
>
>
>
> Why haven?t you provided P Hall at all distances? As for his figure of
> 2.04 for 1400m at just 59 rides is no indication, surely?
>
>
>
> Why are the others incomplete?
>
>
>
> Roman Koz
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *sean
> mclaren
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 4:38 PM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> JockeyA2ETable
> AscotTrack
>
> Rider
>
> Distance
>
> Actual
>
> Expected
>
> Rides
>
> A2E
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1200
>
> 7
>
> 22.25
>
> 178
>
> 0.31
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1000
>
> 3
>
> 20.40
>
> 157
>
> 0.15
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1200
>
> 12
>
> 20.40
>
> 206
>
> 0.59
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1400
>
> 19
>
> 19.39
>
> 222
>
> 0.98
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 7.68
>
> 59
>
> 1.43
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 8.61
>
> 48
>
> 1.05
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1000
>
> 19
>
> 11.83
>
> 150
>
> 1.61
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1200
>
> 10
>
> 8.98
>
> 53
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1200
>
> 9
>
> 8.12
>
> 56
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1400
>
> 15
>
> 7.37
>
> 59
>
> 2.04
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1600
>
> 18
>
> 22.28
>
> 184
>
> 0.81
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1800
>
> 4
>
> 7.88
>
> 45
>
> 0.51
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1000
>
> 26
>
> 64.45
>
> 381
>
> 0.40
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1100
>
> 26
>
> 35.25
>
> 253
>
> 0.74
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1200
>
> 36
>
> 34.01
>
> 207
>
> 1.06
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1400
>
> 27
>
> 24.39
>
> 159
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 40.31
>
> 214
>
> 0.27
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 7.44
>
> 60
>
> 1.21
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1000
>
> 37
>
> 48.42
>
> 332
>
> 0.76
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1100
>
> 41
>
> 80.55
>
> 571
>
> 0.51
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1200
>
> 96
>
> 86.60
>
> 434
>
> 1.11
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1400
>
> 89
>
> 86.57
>
> 487
>
> 1.03
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1500
>
> 26
>
> 26.37
>
> 127
>
> 0.99
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1600
>
> 79
>
> 70.15
>
> 474
>
> 1.13
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1800
>
> 33
>
> 35.14
>
> 159
>
> 0.94
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2200
>
> 38
>
> 45.77
>
> 246
>
> 0.83
>
>
>
>
>
> Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for
> a $1.
>
> Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive
> means of extracting
>
> the outliers.
>
>
>
> Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%.
> From there an expected
>
> wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual.
> These have pulled at random.
>
> The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190123/d66a1b22/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 23 08:58:17 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:58:17 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-SNs+JkGYA+QcyaeZ+kUtDUt6p5pg_Z7e=gSc8xBeg7tQ@mail.gmail.com>

Ascot Only Pre 2018 2018 Index Up
Rider Actual Expect A2E Actual Expect A2E Base Pre
WILLIAM PIKE 471 520 0.9 64 59 1.1 1.2 Up
PAUL HARVEY 219 235 0.9 7 10 0.7 0.7 Down
PATRICK CARBERY 183 215 0.9 14 25 0.6 0.7 Down
PETER KNUCKEY 173 248 0.7 6 7 0.8 1.2 Up
SHAUN O'DONNELL 173 179 1 15 13 1.1 1.2 Up
JASON WHITING 173 217 0.8 3 12 0.2 0.3 Down
TROY TURNER 172 199 0.9 4 9 0.5 0.5 Down
STEVEN PARNHAM 154 193 0.8 7 14 0.5 0.6 Down
JARRAD NOSKE 145 181 0.8 33 21 1.6 2.0 Up
JASON BROWN 140 179 0.8 15 9 1.6 2.1 Up
SHAUN MC GRUDDY 111 146 0.8 15 34 0.4 0.6 Down
PETER HALL 76 81 0.9 4 16 0.2 0.3 Down
RYAN HILL 73 70 1 1 4 0.3 0.3 Down
ALAN KENNEDY 72 68 1.1 11 7 1.7 1.6 Up
DANIEL STAECK 70 112 0.6 14 11 1.3 2.0 Up
CHRIS PARNHAM 66 67 1 31 25 1.3 1.3 Up
AARON MITCHELL 63 60 1 7 7 0.9 0.9 Down
LUCY WARWICK 59 46 1.3 10 11 0.9 0.7 Down
JERRY NOSKE 57 53 1.1 4 2 1.6 1.5 Up
JOSEPH AZZOPARDI 54 76 0.7 17 16 1.0 1.5 Up
CLINT JOHNSTON-PORTER 47 47 1 15 13 1.2 1.2 Up
GLENN SMITH 47 58 0.8 3 4 0.7 0.9 Down
CRAIG STAPLES 44 50 0.9 5 5 1.0 1.2 Up
LUCAS CAMILLERI 39 62 0.6 1 1 0.7 1.1 Up
MITCHELL PATEMAN 30 29 1 10 6 1.8 1.7 Up
RANDY TAN 25 51 0.5 1 2 0.5 1.0 Up
DAMIAN LANE 23 48 0.5 3 2 1.7 3.5 Up
DAMIEN OLIVER 12 12 1 1 1 1.6 1.6 Up
KATE FITZGERALD 7 4 1.6 1 1 0.9 0.6 Down
ANDREW CASTLE 7 9 0.8 3 7 0.5 0.6 Down
KATE WITTEN 7 7 1 3 5 0.6 0.6 Down
MATTHIEU AUTIER 6 8 0.7 2 2 1.2 1.6 Up
TAYLA STONE 5 7 0.7 16 12 1.4 1.9 Up
FIONA BELL 1 5 0.2 1 2 0.6 3.3 Up
BEN ALLEN 1 1 0.8 1 1 1.2 1.5 Up
Heres another order ..... rgds Sean

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:34 PM Roman <kozza1950 at bigpond.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
> literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.
>
>
>
> I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
> much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a
> solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not
> figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the
> horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100
> rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a
> fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two
> jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an
> on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the
> ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with
> leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of
> figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and
> placings.
>
>
>
> I look forward to Len?s reply.
>
>
>
> Roman Koz
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *
> L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
> *To:* tonymoffat at bigpond.com; racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190123/2d09cbdd/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 23 09:35:40 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:35:40 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR04MB4204DFBFF88216FE369D0A29BB980@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBDE-RxAfDaCXc2fF5rLPnrKoP1mhDus1t6kaw6zjpBu2ZghQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM6PR04MB4204DFBFF88216FE369D0A29BB980@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-TENfiOht3ghHZJdEbYJeQ-CdveQoomeJOSDMXvMRZAgw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Lindsay & Roman

I work in Access and Excel.

Once you have the data in then it is a matter of running queries.

The more you do the queries, the better you get at constructing them.

I quite enjoyed Roman's questions.

But it was not my intention to bombard the list with tables.

Apart from the numbers, it also shows what you can do with a simple access
database.

Access has it's limitations in that your file cant go past 2 gig in size.

In WA, I have Ascot & Belmont in one file. I could split them. Then go to
single files for country provincial.

The beauty of Access allows you export queries etc into another file. Then
you can cut and paste the sql into
word, and find say "Ascot" and replace with say "Pinjarra". Then pull the
sql back in and the Pinjarra file is up and running.

My speed ratings that I have developed are derived from a very inefficient
method of a series of queries.

Each query generating tables for further use down the chain.

This is not the most efficient way I know. It is a convenient solution for
ME.

I will be moving across to PowerBI in time. I believe Nick Aubrey uses this
platform.

The problem is I am not as smart or clever as Nick lol.

Cheers Sean







On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:03 AM Race Stats <RaceStats at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sean,
>
> Very interesting stuff and a lot of work there!
>
> I?m interested and may well rate the jockeys, then the trainers, then
> jockey trainer combo?s to see a clearer picture of what?s what.
>
> The A2E might be better on the corrected market odds versus actual winners
> and then ROI.
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> Lindsay
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *sean
> mclaren
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 January 2019 5:48 PM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> JockeyA2ETable
> Ascot
>
> Rider
>
> Distance
>
> A
>
> E
>
> NoOfRides
>
> A2E
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1000
>
> 4
>
> 4.81
>
> 166
>
> 0.83
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1200
>
> 8
>
> 23.88
>
> 218
>
> 0.34
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1400
>
> 2
>
> 7.31
>
> 193
>
> 0.27
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1000
>
> 5
>
> 22.00
>
> 193
>
> 0.23
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1100
>
> 4
>
> 8.20
>
> 84
>
> 0.49
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1200
>
> 16
>
> 25.94
>
> 316
>
> 0.62
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1400
>
> 22
>
> 28.44
>
> 452
>
> 0.77
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1500
>
> 3
>
> 5.33
>
> 55
>
> 0.56
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1600
>
> 14
>
> 14.58
>
> 260
>
> 0.96
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1800
>
> 11
>
> 10.97
>
> 96
>
> 1.00
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 2200
>
> 3
>
> 7.26
>
> 67
>
> 0.41
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1000
>
> 20
>
> 12.41
>
> 164
>
> 1.61
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1200
>
> 13
>
> 10.34
>
> 88
>
> 1.26
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1400
>
> 6
>
> 7.25
>
> 73
>
> 0.83
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 6.43
>
> 176
>
> 1.71
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1000
>
> 4
>
> 6.23
>
> 54
>
> 0.64
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1100
>
> 5
>
> 11.21
>
> 167
>
> 0.45
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1200
>
> 10
>
> 10.86
>
> 123
>
> 0.92
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1400
>
> 16
>
> 11.39
>
> 146
>
> 1.40
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1600
>
> 20
>
> 25.01
>
> 232
>
> 0.80
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1800
>
> 5
>
> 9.15
>
> 72
>
> 0.55
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 2150
>
> 1
>
> 5.39
>
> 130
>
> 0.19
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 2200
>
> 9
>
> 6.90
>
> 54
>
> 1.30
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1000
>
> 27
>
> 69.28
>
> 474
>
> 0.39
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1100
>
> 26
>
> 38.30
>
> 313
>
> 0.68
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1200
>
> 44
>
> 42.47
>
> 376
>
> 1.04
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1400
>
> 32
>
> 31.49
>
> 312
>
> 1.02
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1500
>
> 10
>
> 7.87
>
> 87
>
> 1.27
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1600
>
> 14
>
> 43.37
>
> 295
>
> 0.32
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1800
>
> 11
>
> 9.31
>
> 109
>
> 1.18
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 2200
>
> 10
>
> 6.70
>
> 70
>
> 1.49
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1000
>
> 45
>
> 57.42
>
> 408
>
> 0.78
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1100
>
> 46
>
> 86.10
>
> 630
>
> 0.53
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1200
>
> 115
>
> 105.53
>
> 695
>
> 1.09
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1400
>
> 104
>
> 101.94
>
> 623
>
> 1.02
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1500
>
> 30
>
> 31.23
>
> 164
>
> 0.96
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1600
>
> 85
>
> 77.78
>
> 541
>
> 1.09
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1800
>
> 38
>
> 39.50
>
> 196
>
> 0.96
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2100
>
> 16
>
> 10.36
>
> 50
>
> 1.54
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2150
>
> 2
>
> 6.87
>
> 138
>
> 0.29
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2200
>
> 40
>
> 50.25
>
> 277
>
> 0.80
>
>
>
> Heres another extract of the SAME jocks in WA. The right hand column is
> the ROI for a $1.
>
> No caveat, these rides include ALL in the market.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:38 sean mclaren <seanmac4321 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> JockeyA2ETable
> AscotTrack
>
> Rider
>
> Distance
>
> Actual
>
> Expected
>
> Rides
>
> A2E
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1200
>
> 7
>
> 22.25
>
> 178
>
> 0.31
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1000
>
> 3
>
> 20.40
>
> 157
>
> 0.15
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1200
>
> 12
>
> 20.40
>
> 206
>
> 0.59
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1400
>
> 19
>
> 19.39
>
> 222
>
> 0.98
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 7.68
>
> 59
>
> 1.43
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 8.61
>
> 48
>
> 1.05
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1000
>
> 19
>
> 11.83
>
> 150
>
> 1.61
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1200
>
> 10
>
> 8.98
>
> 53
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1200
>
> 9
>
> 8.12
>
> 56
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1400
>
> 15
>
> 7.37
>
> 59
>
> 2.04
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1600
>
> 18
>
> 22.28
>
> 184
>
> 0.81
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1800
>
> 4
>
> 7.88
>
> 45
>
> 0.51
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1000
>
> 26
>
> 64.45
>
> 381
>
> 0.40
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1100
>
> 26
>
> 35.25
>
> 253
>
> 0.74
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1200
>
> 36
>
> 34.01
>
> 207
>
> 1.06
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1400
>
> 27
>
> 24.39
>
> 159
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 40.31
>
> 214
>
> 0.27
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 7.44
>
> 60
>
> 1.21
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1000
>
> 37
>
> 48.42
>
> 332
>
> 0.76
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1100
>
> 41
>
> 80.55
>
> 571
>
> 0.51
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1200
>
> 96
>
> 86.60
>
> 434
>
> 1.11
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1400
>
> 89
>
> 86.57
>
> 487
>
> 1.03
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1500
>
> 26
>
> 26.37
>
> 127
>
> 0.99
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1600
>
> 79
>
> 70.15
>
> 474
>
> 1.13
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1800
>
> 33
>
> 35.14
>
> 159
>
> 0.94
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2200
>
> 38
>
> 45.77
>
> 246
>
> 0.83
>
>
>
>
>
> Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for
> a $1.
>
> Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive
> means of extracting
>
> the outliers.
>
>
>
> Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%.
> From there an expected
>
> wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual.
> These have pulled at random.
>
> The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190123/c39bd500/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 23 09:44:52 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:44:52 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR04MB4204DFBFF88216FE369D0A29BB980@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBDE-RxAfDaCXc2fF5rLPnrKoP1mhDus1t6kaw6zjpBu2ZghQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM6PR04MB4204DFBFF88216FE369D0A29BB980@DM6PR04MB4204.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-Tnb0Cyx=+NGO6ebCUX7bqh=261xSmtHVgBRurts_oxoA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Lindsay

The A2E might be better on the corrected market odds versus actual winners
and then ROI.

I stand to be corrected lol, but I have used "corrected market odds" ie.
the overround has been removed.

Cheers Sean



On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:03 AM Race Stats <RaceStats at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sean,
>
> Very interesting stuff and a lot of work there!
>
> I?m interested and may well rate the jockeys, then the trainers, then
> jockey trainer combo?s to see a clearer picture of what?s what.
>
> The A2E might be better on the corrected market odds versus actual winners
> and then ROI.
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> Lindsay
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *sean
> mclaren
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 January 2019 5:48 PM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> JockeyA2ETable
> Ascot
>
> Rider
>
> Distance
>
> A
>
> E
>
> NoOfRides
>
> A2E
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1000
>
> 4
>
> 4.81
>
> 166
>
> 0.83
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1200
>
> 8
>
> 23.88
>
> 218
>
> 0.34
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1400
>
> 2
>
> 7.31
>
> 193
>
> 0.27
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1000
>
> 5
>
> 22.00
>
> 193
>
> 0.23
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1100
>
> 4
>
> 8.20
>
> 84
>
> 0.49
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1200
>
> 16
>
> 25.94
>
> 316
>
> 0.62
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1400
>
> 22
>
> 28.44
>
> 452
>
> 0.77
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1500
>
> 3
>
> 5.33
>
> 55
>
> 0.56
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1600
>
> 14
>
> 14.58
>
> 260
>
> 0.96
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1800
>
> 11
>
> 10.97
>
> 96
>
> 1.00
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 2200
>
> 3
>
> 7.26
>
> 67
>
> 0.41
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1000
>
> 20
>
> 12.41
>
> 164
>
> 1.61
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1200
>
> 13
>
> 10.34
>
> 88
>
> 1.26
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1400
>
> 6
>
> 7.25
>
> 73
>
> 0.83
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 6.43
>
> 176
>
> 1.71
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1000
>
> 4
>
> 6.23
>
> 54
>
> 0.64
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1100
>
> 5
>
> 11.21
>
> 167
>
> 0.45
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1200
>
> 10
>
> 10.86
>
> 123
>
> 0.92
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1400
>
> 16
>
> 11.39
>
> 146
>
> 1.40
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1600
>
> 20
>
> 25.01
>
> 232
>
> 0.80
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1800
>
> 5
>
> 9.15
>
> 72
>
> 0.55
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 2150
>
> 1
>
> 5.39
>
> 130
>
> 0.19
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 2200
>
> 9
>
> 6.90
>
> 54
>
> 1.30
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1000
>
> 27
>
> 69.28
>
> 474
>
> 0.39
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1100
>
> 26
>
> 38.30
>
> 313
>
> 0.68
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1200
>
> 44
>
> 42.47
>
> 376
>
> 1.04
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1400
>
> 32
>
> 31.49
>
> 312
>
> 1.02
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1500
>
> 10
>
> 7.87
>
> 87
>
> 1.27
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1600
>
> 14
>
> 43.37
>
> 295
>
> 0.32
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1800
>
> 11
>
> 9.31
>
> 109
>
> 1.18
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 2200
>
> 10
>
> 6.70
>
> 70
>
> 1.49
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1000
>
> 45
>
> 57.42
>
> 408
>
> 0.78
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1100
>
> 46
>
> 86.10
>
> 630
>
> 0.53
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1200
>
> 115
>
> 105.53
>
> 695
>
> 1.09
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1400
>
> 104
>
> 101.94
>
> 623
>
> 1.02
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1500
>
> 30
>
> 31.23
>
> 164
>
> 0.96
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1600
>
> 85
>
> 77.78
>
> 541
>
> 1.09
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1800
>
> 38
>
> 39.50
>
> 196
>
> 0.96
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2100
>
> 16
>
> 10.36
>
> 50
>
> 1.54
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2150
>
> 2
>
> 6.87
>
> 138
>
> 0.29
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2200
>
> 40
>
> 50.25
>
> 277
>
> 0.80
>
>
>
> Heres another extract of the SAME jocks in WA. The right hand column is
> the ROI for a $1.
>
> No caveat, these rides include ALL in the market.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:38 sean mclaren <seanmac4321 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> JockeyA2ETable
> AscotTrack
>
> Rider
>
> Distance
>
> Actual
>
> Expected
>
> Rides
>
> A2E
>
> DAMIAN LANE
>
> 1200
>
> 7
>
> 22.25
>
> 178
>
> 0.31
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1000
>
> 3
>
> 20.40
>
> 157
>
> 0.15
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1200
>
> 12
>
> 20.40
>
> 206
>
> 0.59
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1400
>
> 19
>
> 19.39
>
> 222
>
> 0.98
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 7.68
>
> 59
>
> 1.43
>
> DANIEL STAECK
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 8.61
>
> 48
>
> 1.05
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1000
>
> 19
>
> 11.83
>
> 150
>
> 1.61
>
> LUCY WARWICK
>
> 1200
>
> 10
>
> 8.98
>
> 53
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1200
>
> 9
>
> 8.12
>
> 56
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1400
>
> 15
>
> 7.37
>
> 59
>
> 2.04
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1600
>
> 18
>
> 22.28
>
> 184
>
> 0.81
>
> PETER HALL
>
> 1800
>
> 4
>
> 7.88
>
> 45
>
> 0.51
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1000
>
> 26
>
> 64.45
>
> 381
>
> 0.40
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1100
>
> 26
>
> 35.25
>
> 253
>
> 0.74
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1200
>
> 36
>
> 34.01
>
> 207
>
> 1.06
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1400
>
> 27
>
> 24.39
>
> 159
>
> 1.11
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1600
>
> 11
>
> 40.31
>
> 214
>
> 0.27
>
> PETER KNUCKEY
>
> 1800
>
> 9
>
> 7.44
>
> 60
>
> 1.21
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1000
>
> 37
>
> 48.42
>
> 332
>
> 0.76
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1100
>
> 41
>
> 80.55
>
> 571
>
> 0.51
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1200
>
> 96
>
> 86.60
>
> 434
>
> 1.11
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1400
>
> 89
>
> 86.57
>
> 487
>
> 1.03
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1500
>
> 26
>
> 26.37
>
> 127
>
> 0.99
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1600
>
> 79
>
> 70.15
>
> 474
>
> 1.13
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 1800
>
> 33
>
> 35.14
>
> 159
>
> 0.94
>
> WILLIAM PIKE
>
> 2200
>
> 38
>
> 45.77
>
> 246
>
> 0.83
>
>
>
>
>
> Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for
> a $1.
>
> Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive
> means of extracting
>
> the outliers.
>
>
>
> Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%.
> From there an expected
>
> wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual.
> These have pulled at random.
>
> The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190123/8c41d531/attachment.html>

From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Wed Jan 23 10:02:11 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:02:11 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-RpgXQ=72jS5aRL6pkDz2G3g0DWWmrJ=qhRwB=aoQpu5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<CAOBDE-SJ5fZGALr911LttqkNfShN3ToAKaqgU6suV_KyDcxirQ@mail.gmail.com>	<000901d4b24f$ddc9afd0$995d0f70$@bigpond.com>
	<CAOBDE-RpgXQ=72jS5aRL6pkDz2G3g0DWWmrJ=qhRwB=aoQpu5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002f01d4b2a6$82083c00$8618b400$@bigpond.com>

Hi Sean,

Had a ripper New Years eve. Had no alcohol for the night (10000/1 in the old days: I must be getting wiser??!!) and woke up fitter than the proverbial Mallee bull.

 

I am about to do a study of jockeys and trainers for Vic and SA over the last couple of years using figures based on proportional betting of their rides. Thus if $101 the bet is $1 and if $11 the bet is $10.

 

My prelims show some jockeys are much better than the public realizes. Obviously the likes of J Allen D Yendall, just to name two, who ride for DK Weir are overbet, especially in the non metro tracks. Then there?s the issue of  rides on well fancied horses which I suggest is $5 and under. Again some surprises but to be fair I have really only glanced. I don?t have W Pike WA figures but I suspect he is way over bet with Williams and Durrant  runners which  , of course, means, to a certain extent, that other jockeys are under rated by the public. I suppose the issue is by how much. On everything I see from your postings it seems Lucy Warwick is up there in most distance ranges.

 

Re P Hall: well it is a matter of how you use your various ratings. Bet them both if you have time and jockey ratings , maybe?

 

I will contact you re Perth figures in due time. 

 

Cheers

Roman Koz

 

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 7:32 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hey roman

 

Trust you are well and brought in the New Year with plenty of cheer. 

 

Oddly enough my bathroom scales has a missing battery. Convenient?

 

To the business at hand, I was just illustrating how the A2E method works as a jockey rating method. The list is a small extract. 

 

The reason for Hall having nothing for say 2400? is that I put a minimum of 50 rides. 

 

Interesting you mention P Hall. My speed ratings had Star Exhibit rated on top in the Perth Cup. If I had referred to the A2E list I would have been tipped out. Lol. 

 

I confess that I have dug into the A2E side of things many years ago. Although I had no joy, I believe that Len incorporates A2E somewhere in his setup. So does Nick A. 

 

At their level you are also massaging a Fav Long Shot (FLS) bias factor that would make my  list more accurate. 

 

I stumbled across the FLS bias factor in my Dr Z readings. Although talked about and quantified throughout the book I could not see the equation used. 

 

Roman I can forward through the complete list if you were interested.

 

As an aside., personally I have yet to incorporate a Jockey adjustment to my speed ratings. Or a trainer adjustment for that matter. I prefer to keep them in their rawest state, for now. 

 

That being said, I have toyed with an average beaten margin index. The goal being to provide further separation / clarity to the ratings. As a rule of thumb 

I get say 3 speed points to a length. Ie it oscillates around 3 depending on the distance and other factors. So I can easily multiply the index by say 3, and simply add on. The strength of the jockey would be borne out in the difference of the gross adjust. 

 

Despite having a access database with 10 years of data. incorporating these type of adjustments is like turning the Queen Mary around in Sydney harbour. 

Ideally you would be looking for a before versus an after set. My VBA skills are as such, that I cannot whip up code to achieve the above in a reasonable amount of time. 

 

Best regards Sean

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 22:42 Roman <kozza1950 at bigpond.com wrote:

Hey Sean,

How?s life?

 

I am afraid I am missing the point of your stats. Yes, I can see Peter Hall is 0.51 at 1800m but Pike is the same over at 1100m with over 10 times the rides by Pike. 

 

Why haven?t you provided P Hall at all distances? As for his figure of 2.04 for 1400m at just 59 rides is no indication, surely?

 

Why are the others incomplete?

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 4:38 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 


JockeyA2ETable
AscotTrack

					

Rider

Distance

Actual

Expected

Rides

A2E


DAMIAN LANE

1200

7

22.25

178

0.31


DANIEL STAECK

1000

3

20.40

157

0.15


DANIEL STAECK

1200

12

20.40

206

0.59


DANIEL STAECK

1400

19

19.39

222

0.98


DANIEL STAECK

1600

11

7.68

59

1.43


DANIEL STAECK

1800

9

8.61

48

1.05


LUCY WARWICK

1000

19

11.83

150

1.61


LUCY WARWICK

1200

10

8.98

53

1.11


PETER HALL

1200

9

8.12

56

1.11


PETER HALL

1400

15

7.37

59

2.04


PETER HALL

1600

18

22.28

184

0.81


PETER HALL

1800

4

7.88

45

0.51


PETER KNUCKEY

1000

26

64.45

381

0.40


PETER KNUCKEY

1100

26

35.25

253

0.74


PETER KNUCKEY

1200

36

34.01

207

1.06


PETER KNUCKEY

1400

27

24.39

159

1.11


PETER KNUCKEY

1600

11

40.31

214

0.27


PETER KNUCKEY

1800

9

7.44

60

1.21


WILLIAM PIKE

1000

37

48.42

332

0.76


WILLIAM PIKE

1100

41

80.55

571

0.51


WILLIAM PIKE

1200

96

86.60

434

1.11


WILLIAM PIKE

1400

89

86.57

487

1.03


WILLIAM PIKE

1500

26

26.37

127

0.99


WILLIAM PIKE

1600

79

70.15

474

1.13


WILLIAM PIKE

1800

33

35.14

159

0.94


WILLIAM PIKE

2200

38

45.77

246

0.83

 

 

Here an extract of a few jocks in WA. The right hand column is the ROI for a $1.

Caveat is these rides only include the first 5 in the market. Primitive means of extracting

the outliers.

 

Essentially the over round is taken out and the markets reset to 100%. >From there an expected 

wins figure is arrived at. And ultimately checked against the actual. These have pulled at random.

The first couple are interesting. Remembering these are in the first 5.

 

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:13 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190123/636c4f27/attachment.html>

From tonymoffat at bigpond.com  Fri Jan 25 01:58:32 2019
From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat)
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 22:58:32 +0800
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>

Len - thanks

 

Kozzi's  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here - I
have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

 

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence
affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely
mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included
the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have
reverted to this input now.

 

My calculations are in the mould of 'ok, what can you do', looking forward,
and others can be described as 'look what I done'.

 

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don't
have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that. 

 

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and
form and multiply these to get a value for each runner - highest is best. 

 

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
places together, remove the worst result, then rank that - this appears to
be strong information, and has always been.

 

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3
and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 =
-3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1,
and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the
calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight
rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this
race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the
highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this
race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out
the weight rated best ranking.

 

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few
of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections
also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now,
and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions. 

 

I don't use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
and include it here only for information and comment.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On
Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au>

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne

 

I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.

 

Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
-15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%

 

AN

 

Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start
with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's
easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back
around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list,
and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides
in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like
125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >; tonymoffat at bigpond.com
<mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> 
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid
determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure
those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses
the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in
races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better
than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say
favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35%
jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It
would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid
fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more
accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len's reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com;
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190124/cafd534a/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Fri Jan 25 07:09:21 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 06:09:21 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-Qa+6nStkpL+rCKtHUAOy+_NtqUW7F0--0FJQf2zpr23A@mail.gmail.com>

  Hey Tony

I remember Nick  and Len exchange re female jockey.

About a month ago I spent considerable time in trying to separate the males
and females for 1 state WA. I can say that it's not so easy.

That being said, at the time I was running some models / analysis and by
introducing the M/F variable shifted things most noticeabley.

Tony,  I thoroughly enjoyed your post as usual.

Cheers Sean

On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:59 Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com wrote:

> Len ? thanks
>
>
>
> Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I
> have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
> promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).
>
>
>
> I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
> the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their
> presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not
> uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had
> included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that
> ran and have reverted to this input now.
>
>
>
> My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking
> forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.
>
>
>
> The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t
> have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
> but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that.
>
>
>
> Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance
> and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is
> best.
>
>
>
> Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
> places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to
> be strong information, and has always been.
>
>
>
> As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
> but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
> subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
> from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as
> -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three)
> came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1)
> came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this
> runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5
> to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the
> limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The
> best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered
> the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated
> weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.
>
>
>
> I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a
> few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the
> selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a
> quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella
> inclusions.
>
>
>
> I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
> and include it here only for information and comment.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> FROM THE ARCHIVES
>
> From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On
> Behalf Of Nick at Twonix
>
> Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM
>
> To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'
>
> <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
>
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne
>
>
>
> I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
> discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
> A2E (think POT betting to prices).
>
> However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
> A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.
>
>
>
> Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW
>
> A2E
>
> Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%
>
>    Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
> -15%
>
>       Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%
>
>       Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518
> -18%
>
>    Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%
>
>      Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%
>
>      Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%
>
>
>
> AN
>
>
>
> Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all
> start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *
> L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> "Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices -
> it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll
> back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.
>
>
>
> Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you
> list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.
>
>
>
> Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000
> rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
> considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
> markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):
>
>
>
> Best returns @ SP:
>
>
>
> SThornton       101
>
> MJWalker        103
>
> WD'Avila        103
>
> CParnham        104
>
> VWong           104
>
> DMoor           105
>
> PWells          105
>
> DWBallard       107
>
> SFawke          113
>
> SGuymer         115
>
> JOliver         117
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers
> like 125/1 winners:
>
>
>
> JPStanley       100
>
> JPracey-Holm    100
>
> JTaylor         100
>
> MWeir           100
>
> RFradd          100
>
> RonStewart      100
>
> KWalters        102
>
> SLisnyy         102
>
> LJMeech         103
>
> TPannell        103
>
> CGallagher      104
>
> RMaloney        106
>
> CHall           107
>
> BWerner         108
>
> DWBallard       108
>
> JLyon           109
>
> PWells          109
>
> SThornton       109
>
> CNutman         110
>
> VBolozhinsky    112
>
>
>
> Worst returns @SP:
>
>
>
> LGHenry          21
>
> JeffKehoe        31
>
> DPitomac         33
>
> TJeffries        33
>
> SBayliss         34
>
> JMissen          36
>
> MJStephens       37
>
> ABadger          38
>
> NRose            38
>
> SStarley         38
>
> ECockram         39
>
> JKeating         39
>
> MHackett         39
>
> RYetimova        39
>
> SParnham         39
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
> LGHenry is in a class of her own):
>
>
>
> LGHenry          27
>
> MJStephens       32
>
> SBayliss         36
>
> CBryen           41
>
> JMissen          43
>
> SGalvin          45
>
> SStarley         45
>
> ABadger          46
>
> DPitomac         46
>
> BPowell          47
>
> MHackett         47
>
> SParnham         47
>
> BStower          48
>
> PaulPayne        49
>
> CQuilty          50
>
>
>
> The big gaps -  All  "in market"
>
>
>
> SFawke          113     79
>
> WD'Avila        103     75
>
> MJWalker        103     76
>
> JOliver         117     91
>
> BMertens         88     63
>
>
>
> JTaylor          69    100
>
> NPunch           60     95
>
> JeffKehoe        31     72
>
> SLisnyy          61    102
>
> CHall            66    107
>
> VBolozhinsky     70    112
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *Roman
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
> tonymoffat at bigpond.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
> literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.
>
>
>
> I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
> much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a
> solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not
> figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the
> horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100
> rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a
> fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two
> jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an
> on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the
> ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with
> leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of
> figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and
> placings.
>
>
>
> I look forward to Len?s reply.
>
>
>
> Roman Koz
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
> *To:* tonymoffat at bigpond.com; racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_-1926564448622818019_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/a99d7e23/attachment.html>

From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Fri Jan 25 08:51:15 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:51:15 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>

Hi Tony,

I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his.
That's how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past "pluck a duck"
with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

 

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call
"linear". I assume that's the correct term where I mean favs win more times
than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is
linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7
chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is
correct in the high 90's percentage wise.

 

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise
and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they
are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is
that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes
of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this
site realise many of their horses are "unders". Nevertheless that can be
factored in.

 

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for
-17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes
with 529 runners is -11.2%.

So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set
you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a
better figure.

 

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation
if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers
the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure
or should it be vice versa.

 

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or
less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some
jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir,
Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

 

However, all said above is just one way!!

 

Cheers

Roman

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Len - thanks

 

Kozzi's  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here - I
have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

 

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence
affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely
mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included
the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have
reverted to this input now.

 

My calculations are in the mould of 'ok, what can you do', looking forward,
and others can be described as 'look what I done'.

 

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don't
have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that. 

 

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and
form and multiply these to get a value for each runner - highest is best. 

 

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
places together, remove the worst result, then rank that - this appears to
be strong information, and has always been.

 

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3
and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 =
-3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1,
and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the
calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight
rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this
race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the
highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this
race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out
the weight rated best ranking.

 

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few
of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections
also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now,
and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions. 

 

I don't use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
and include it here only for information and comment.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On
Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au>

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne

 

I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.

 

Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
-15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%

 

AN

 

Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start
with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's
easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back
around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list,
and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides
in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like
125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
tonymoffat at bigpond.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid
determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure
those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses
the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in
races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better
than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say
favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35%
jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It
would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid
fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more
accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len's reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com;
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Image removed by sender.

Virus-free.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/ba22bef1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/ba22bef1/attachment.jpg>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Fri Jan 25 10:56:10 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 09:56:10 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-TWN7D9GFYR3bLLoeKx_Q+P1CBCJ7_ZoF8zF76qdoSAUw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Roman

That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck?
with a cursory ten minute look or *listen to various tipsters*.

The last little bit piqued my interest and reminded me of that funny film
"Let It Ride" with Richard Dreyfuss in it.

Dreyfuss plays a colorful character , Jay Trotter , who frequents the local
track.

He cuts down the chances in each race by simply asking anybody before each
race, whataahyalike?.

The lone remaining horse is his selection. Here are some extracts from the
film.

If you haven't seen the film, a person that doesn't have a flutter wont get
it.

The film came out in 1989.

Jay Trotter: I'm having a very good day.


Looney: Fifty bucks on Junebug to win! It's the same name as my cat.


Jay Trotter: You got a brother?
Looney: In Cleveland.
Jay Trotter: Call him up, ask him who he likes. I figure it's in the blood!


Jay Trotter: Seven hundred and TEN - and you'll never have that problem,
because the only reason I won is that you didn't bet! You are the
unluckiest person in the world!

Mrs. Davis: There's a fine line between winning and losing.
Jay Trotter: Yeah. The finish line.


Marty: Eight's the one, I'd stake my life on it.
Jay Trotter: They've got a $2 minimum bet.


Jay Trotter: May I... buy you a drink?
Mrs. Davis: I don't see why not. I am xx xxx xxxx.






On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:51 AM Roman <kozza1950 at bigpond.com> wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
> I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his.
> That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck?
> with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.
>
>
>
> The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call
> ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times
> than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is
> linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7
> chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is
> correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.
>
>
>
> Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this
> premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of
> whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a
> fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who
> think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win.
> As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?.
> Nevertheless that can be factored in.
>
>
>
> In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710
> for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst
> Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.
>
> So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set
> you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a
> better figure.
>
>
>
> These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation
> if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers
> the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure
> or should it be vice versa.
>
>
>
> Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or
> less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some
> jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir,
> Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.
>
>
>
> However, all said above is just one way!!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Roman
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *Tony
> Moffat
> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
> *To:* racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Len ? thanks
>
>
>
> Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I
> have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
> promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).
>
>
>
> I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
> the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their
> presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not
> uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had
> included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that
> ran and have reverted to this input now.
>
>
>
> My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking
> forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.
>
>
>
> The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t
> have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
> but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that.
>
>
>
> Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance
> and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is
> best.
>
>
>
> Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
> places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to
> be strong information, and has always been.
>
>
>
> As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
> but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
> subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
> from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as
> -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three)
> came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1)
> came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this
> runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5
> to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the
> limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The
> best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered
> the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated
> weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.
>
>
>
> I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a
> few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the
> selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a
> quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella
> inclusions.
>
>
>
> I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
> and include it here only for information and comment.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> FROM THE ARCHIVES
>
> From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On
> Behalf Of Nick at Twonix
>
> Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM
>
> To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'
>
> <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
>
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne
>
>
>
> I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
> discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
> A2E (think POT betting to prices).
>
> However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
> A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.
>
>
>
> Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW
>
> A2E
>
> Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%
>
>    Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
> -15%
>
>       Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%
>
>       Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518
> -18%
>
>    Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%
>
>      Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%
>
>      Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%
>
>
>
> AN
>
>
>
> Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all
> start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *
> L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> "Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices -
> it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll
> back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.
>
>
>
> Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you
> list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.
>
>
>
> Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000
> rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
> considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
> markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):
>
>
>
> Best returns @ SP:
>
>
>
> SThornton       101
>
> MJWalker        103
>
> WD'Avila        103
>
> CParnham        104
>
> VWong           104
>
> DMoor           105
>
> PWells          105
>
> DWBallard       107
>
> SFawke          113
>
> SGuymer         115
>
> JOliver         117
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers
> like 125/1 winners:
>
>
>
> JPStanley       100
>
> JPracey-Holm    100
>
> JTaylor         100
>
> MWeir           100
>
> RFradd          100
>
> RonStewart      100
>
> KWalters        102
>
> SLisnyy         102
>
> LJMeech         103
>
> TPannell        103
>
> CGallagher      104
>
> RMaloney        106
>
> CHall           107
>
> BWerner         108
>
> DWBallard       108
>
> JLyon           109
>
> PWells          109
>
> SThornton       109
>
> CNutman         110
>
> VBolozhinsky    112
>
>
>
> Worst returns @SP:
>
>
>
> LGHenry          21
>
> JeffKehoe        31
>
> DPitomac         33
>
> TJeffries        33
>
> SBayliss         34
>
> JMissen          36
>
> MJStephens       37
>
> ABadger          38
>
> NRose            38
>
> SStarley         38
>
> ECockram         39
>
> JKeating         39
>
> MHackett         39
>
> RYetimova        39
>
> SParnham         39
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
> LGHenry is in a class of her own):
>
>
>
> LGHenry          27
>
> MJStephens       32
>
> SBayliss         36
>
> CBryen           41
>
> JMissen          43
>
> SGalvin          45
>
> SStarley         45
>
> ABadger          46
>
> DPitomac         46
>
> BPowell          47
>
> MHackett         47
>
> SParnham         47
>
> BStower          48
>
> PaulPayne        49
>
> CQuilty          50
>
>
>
> The big gaps -  All  "in market"
>
>
>
> SFawke          113     79
>
> WD'Avila        103     75
>
> MJWalker        103     76
>
> JOliver         117     91
>
> BMertens         88     63
>
>
>
> JTaylor          69    100
>
> NPunch           60     95
>
> JeffKehoe        31     72
>
> SLisnyy          61    102
>
> CHall            66    107
>
> VBolozhinsky     70    112
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *Roman
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
> tonymoffat at bigpond.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
> literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.
>
>
>
> I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
> much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a
> solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not
> figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the
> horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100
> rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a
> fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two
> jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an
> on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the
> ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with
> leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of
> figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and
> placings.
>
>
>
> I look forward to Len?s reply.
>
>
>
> Roman Koz
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
> *To:* tonymoffat at bigpond.com; racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/a766dff4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/a766dff4/attachment.jpg>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Fri Jan 25 12:03:59 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:03:59 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <003501d4b449$dd087bc0$97197340$@ozemail.com.au>

I find analysing trainers, let alone incorporating them into ratings, much
more problematical than jockeys. The data I receive is far less consistent,
and while I hunt down who the jockey actually was when there is the all too
often discrepancy, and ensure, as far as I can, accuracy and consistency, I
don't undertake the same effort wrt trainers.

 

>From Roman's 7,516 runs for Weir, I figure he's using data from about the
start of 2017, which raises the question of how far back do you go - in both
time and runs. 

 

Here's some trainers in my data who may be the D Hayes Roman refers to  - 

 

D Hayes         

D J Hayes       

D & B Hayes & T 

David Hayes     

David Hayes & To

D, B & T Hayes &

 

Apart from the difficulty of determining who's who, there is the question of
who is actually training and the continuity of "dynasties" - CS, Peter and
David Hayes, the Cummings's, Hawkes's . When an heir apparent takes over as
the listed trainer, do you start rating afresh?

 

How different from jockeys - there is just one, discrete jockey on each
runner. MBeadman did not continue the riding of his father - he started from
scratch and there was no phasing in or continuity from D to B.

 

I presume these are all for Gai Waterhouse, but it's beyond the ability of
this number cruncher to be sure:

 

G Waterhouse & A

Ms G Waterhouse 

G & A Waterhouse

 

Then, what about when Gai is at Royal Ascot or on a skiing holiday and she
does not run her expert eye over the horses or give final instructions to
jockeys? You can be the named trainer while 20,000km away, but is the same
job done? With a jockey, who is named is who you get.

 

D K Weir is at least unambiguous in my data, BUT, I looked at several
public-domain sites and their figures are all over the place. So, I looked
at darrenweirracing.com and they claim 3535 winners at a strike rate of
20.58, from which I infer 17,177 runners. BUT, my data has D K Weir with
24,740 runners since 1/1/1995 for 3,896 winners (I can't be bothered looking
at my archived data to go back further).

 

I'll leave rating trainers to those who have personal, as distinct from
digital only, data.

 

LBL

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2019 8:51 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi Tony,

I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his.
That's how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past "pluck a duck"
with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

 

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call
"linear". I assume that's the correct term where I mean favs win more times
than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is
linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7
chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is
correct in the high 90's percentage wise.

 

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise
and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they
are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is
that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes
of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this
site realise many of their horses are "unders". Nevertheless that can be
factored in.

 

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for
-17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes
with 529 runners is -11.2%.

So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set
you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a
better figure.

 

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation
if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers
the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure
or should it be vice versa.

 

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or
less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some
jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir,
Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

 

However, all said above is just one way!!

 

Cheers

Roman

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To:  <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Len - thanks

 

Kozzi's  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here - I
have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

 

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence
affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely
mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included
the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have
reverted to this input now.

 

My calculations are in the mould of 'ok, what can you do', looking forward,
and others can be described as 'look what I done'.

 

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don't
have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that. 

 

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and
form and multiply these to get a value for each runner - highest is best. 

 

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
places together, remove the worst result, then rank that - this appears to
be strong information, and has always been.

 

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3
and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 =
-3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1,
and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the
calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight
rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this
race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the
highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this
race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out
the weight rated best ranking.

 

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few
of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections
also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now,
and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions. 

 

I don't use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
and include it here only for information and comment.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From:  <mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com> ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [
<mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com> mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On
Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' < <mailto:ausrace at ausrace.com>
ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'

< <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au> lloveday at ozemail.com.au>

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne

 

I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.

 

Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
-15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%

 

AN

 

Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start
with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)

 

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < <mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's
easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back
around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list,
and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides
in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like
125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing < <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < <mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
racing at ausrace.com>;  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid
determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure
those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses
the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in
races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better
than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say
favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35%
jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It
would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid
fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more
accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len's reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com;
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virus-free.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/4f515582/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/4f515582/attachment.jpg>

From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Fri Jan 25 15:26:27 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:26:27 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-TWN7D9GFYR3bLLoeKx_Q+P1CBCJ7_ZoF8zF76qdoSAUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
	<CAOBDE-TWN7D9GFYR3bLLoeKx_Q+P1CBCJ7_ZoF8zF76qdoSAUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002701d4b466$23bc16a0$6b3443e0$@bigpond.com>

Terrific film. I have a copy.

 

I love the part where the blonde says ?some men just rub ME for luck?. A classic line.

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 10:56 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi Roman

 

That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck? with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters. 

 

The last little bit piqued my interest and reminded me of that funny film "Let It Ride" with Richard Dreyfuss in it.

 

Dreyfuss plays a colorful character , Jay Trotter , who frequents the local track. 

 

He cuts down the chances in each race by simply asking anybody before each race, whataahyalike?.

 

The lone remaining horse is his selection. Here are some extracts from the film.

 

If you haven't seen the film, a person that doesn't have a flutter wont get it.

 

The film came out in 1989.

 

Jay Trotter: I'm having a very good day.

Looney: Fifty bucks on Junebug to win! It's the same name as my cat.

Jay Trotter: You got a brother? 
Looney: In Cleveland. 
Jay Trotter: Call him up, ask him who he likes. I figure it's in the blood! 

Jay Trotter: Seven hundred and TEN - and you'll never have that problem, because the only reason I won is that you didn't bet! You are the unluckiest person in the world!

 

Mrs. Davis: There's a fine line between winning and losing. 
Jay Trotter: Yeah. The finish line.

Marty: Eight's the one, I'd stake my life on it. 
Jay Trotter: They've got a $2 minimum bet.

Jay Trotter: May I... buy you a drink? 
Mrs. Davis: I don't see why not. I am xx xxx xxxx.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:51 AM Roman <kozza1950 at bigpond.com> wrote:

Hi Tony,

I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his. That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck? with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

 

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7 chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.

 

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?. Nevertheless that can be factored in.

 

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.

So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a better figure.

 

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure or should it be vice versa.

 

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir, Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

 

However, all said above is just one way!!

 

Cheers

Roman

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Len ? thanks

 

Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

 

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have reverted to this input now.

 

My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.

 

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices, but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that. 

 

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is best. 

 

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to be strong information, and has always been.

 

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.

 

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions. 

 

I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon, and include it here only for information and comment.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au>

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne

 

I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.

 

Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448    -15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%

 

AN

 

Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like 125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>; tonymoffat at bigpond.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len?s reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com;  <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

 


 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Image removed by sender.

Virus-free.  <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

 

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/638a5f52/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/638a5f52/attachment.jpg>

From kozza1950 at bigpond.com  Fri Jan 25 15:40:01 2019
From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:40:01 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <003501d4b449$dd087bc0$97197340$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
	<003501d4b449$dd087bc0$97197340$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <002d01d4b468$08b9cda0$1a2d68e0$@bigpond.com>

Hi Len,

I would be confident 4 bottom combinations are one and the same for David
Hayes, David and Ben his son and Tom Dabernig. It seems like variations of
DH and his operation.The top two would checkable if you had names of horses
trained under those names. David Hayes is listed as David A. Hayes in
Wikipedia so I suspect David J Hayes is someone else unless there's a typo
and the J should be an A!!

 

Here's some trainers in my data who may be the D Hayes Roman refers to  - 

 

D Hayes         

D J Hayes       

D & B Hayes & T 

David Hayes     

David Hayes & To

D, B & T Hayes &

 

Apart from the difficulty of determining who's who, there is the question of
who is actually training and the continuity of "dynasties" - CS, Peter and
David Hayes, the Cummings's, Hawkes's . When an heir apparent takes over as
the listed trainer, do you start rating afresh?

 

How different from jockeys - there is just one, discrete jockey on each
runner. MBeadman did not continue the riding of his father - he started from
scratch and there was no phasing in or continuity from D to B.

 

I presume these are all for Gai Waterhouse, but it's beyond the ability of
this number cruncher to be sure:

 

G Waterhouse & A

Ms G Waterhouse 

G & A Waterhouse

 

RKOZ: All Gai with the addition of Adrian Bott, as co manager.

 

Then, what about when Gai is at Royal Ascot or on a skiing holiday and she
does not run her expert eye over the horses or give final instructions to
jockeys? You can be the named trainer while 20,000km away, but is the same
job done? 

 

RKOZ: It would be the same for all of them at some stage of the year.

 

With a jockey, who is named is who you get.

 

D K Weir is at least unambiguous in my data, BUT, I looked at several
public-domain sites and their figures are all over the place. So, I looked
at darrenweirracing.com and they claim 3535 winners at a strike rate of
20.58, from which I infer 17,177 runners. BUT, my data has D K Weir with
24,740 runners since 1/1/1995 for 3,896 winners (I can't be bothered looking
at my archived data to go back further).

 

I'll leave rating trainers to those who have personal, as distinct from
digital only, data.

 

LBL

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2019 8:51 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi Tony,

I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his.
That's how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past "pluck a duck"
with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

 

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call
"linear". I assume that's the correct term where I mean favs win more times
than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is
linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7
chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is
correct in the high 90's percentage wise.

 

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise
and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they
are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is
that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes
of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this
site realise many of their horses are "unders". Nevertheless that can be
factored in.

 

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for
-17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes
with 529 runners is -11.2%.

So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set
you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a
better figure.

 

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation
if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers
the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure
or should it be vice versa.

 

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or
less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some
jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir,
Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

 

However, all said above is just one way!!

 

Cheers

Roman

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To:  <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Len - thanks

 

Kozzi's  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here - I
have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

 

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence
affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely
mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included
the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have
reverted to this input now.

 

My calculations are in the mould of 'ok, what can you do', looking forward,
and others can be described as 'look what I done'.

 

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don't
have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that. 

 

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and
form and multiply these to get a value for each runner - highest is best. 

 

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
places together, remove the worst result, then rank that - this appears to
be strong information, and has always been.

 

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3
and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 =
-3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1,
and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the
calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight
rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this
race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the
highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this
race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out
the weight rated best ranking.

 

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few
of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections
also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now,
and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions. 

 

I don't use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
and include it here only for information and comment.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From:  <mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com> ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [
<mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com> mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On
Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' < <mailto:ausrace at ausrace.com>
ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'

< <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au> lloveday at ozemail.com.au>

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne

 

I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.

 

Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
-15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%

 

AN

 

Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start
with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)

 

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < <mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's
easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back
around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list,
and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides
in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like
125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing < <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < <mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
racing at ausrace.com>;  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid
determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure
those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses
the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in
races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better
than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say
favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35%
jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It
would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid
fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more
accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len's reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com;
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Image removed by sender.

Virus-free.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/8bfd9893/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/8bfd9893/attachment.jpg>

From RaceStats at hotmail.com  Fri Jan 25 20:58:09 2019
From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 09:58:09 +0000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <SN6PR04MB42086479BA6660BD46F7E960BB9B0@SN6PR04MB4208.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Roman,
As you have said, the trainers and jockeys at the very top are NEARLY always over bet, and I think the secret to Len's or anyone's success is to identify those that are down the list, but still perform well above average and are overlooked by the crowd, because the crowd don't drill down that far. I remember Len saying he hardly ever backs favourites, probably they key to his success.
Sorry Len if I've misconstrued what you have previously written.
Lindsay

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2019 8:51 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Hi Tony,
I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his. That's how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past "pluck a duck" with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call "linear". I assume that's the correct term where I mean favs win more times than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7 chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is correct in the high 90's percentage wise.

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this site realise many of their horses are "unders". Nevertheless that can be factored in.

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.
So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a better figure.

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure or should it be vice versa.

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir, Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

However, all said above is just one way!!

Cheers
Roman

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Len - thanks

Kozzi's  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here - I have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have reverted to this input now.

My calculations are in the mould of 'ok, what can you do', looking forward, and others can be described as 'look what I done'.

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don't have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices, but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that.

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner - highest is best.

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the places together, remove the worst result, then rank that - this appears to be strong information, and has always been.

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions.

I don't use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon, and include it here only for information and comment.

Cheers

Tony

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au>

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne



I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.



Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448    -15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%



AN



Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)



From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:


Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

Best returns @ SP:

SThornton       101
MJWalker        103
WD'Avila        103
CParnham        104
VWong           104
DMoor           105
PWells          105
DWBallard       107
SFawke          113
SGuymer         115
JOliver         117

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like 125/1 winners:

JPStanley       100
JPracey-Holm    100
JTaylor         100
MWeir           100
RFradd          100
RonStewart      100
KWalters        102
SLisnyy         102
LJMeech         103
TPannell        103
CGallagher      104
RMaloney        106
CHall           107
BWerner         108
DWBallard       108
JLyon           109
PWells          109
SThornton       109
CNutman         110
VBolozhinsky    112

Worst returns @SP:

LGHenry          21
JeffKehoe        31
DPitomac         33
TJeffries        33
SBayliss         34
JMissen          36
MJStephens       37
ABadger          38
NRose            38
SStarley         38
ECockram         39
JKeating         39
MHackett         39
RYetimova        39
SParnham         39


Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said LGHenry is in a class of her own):

LGHenry          27
MJStephens       32
SBayliss         36
CBryen           41
JMissen          43
SGalvin          45
SStarley         45
ABadger          46
DPitomac         46
BPowell          47
MHackett         47
SParnham         47
BStower          48
PaulPayne        49
CQuilty          50

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

SFawke          113     79
WD'Avila        103     75
MJWalker        103     76
JOliver         117     91
BMertens         88     63

JTaylor          69    100
NPunch           60     95
JeffKehoe        31     72
SLisnyy          61    102
CHall            66    107
VBolozhinsky     70    112



From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com<mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>>; tonymoffat at bigpond.com<mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Hi all,
The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

I look forward to Len's reply.

Roman Koz

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To: tonymoffat at bigpond.com<mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com>; racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Tony,

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

LBL


790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced
on some others in this race.

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good
ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
that value to it early in the calculation.

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a
jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
individually determine an iv.

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
in the sub $2 range, most of us really.

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again
divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the
overall stat picture

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
that.

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
a race
Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
Dylan Dunn = 1.1

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
in it, nor do I suggest you do.


[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/a49da7e6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/a49da7e6/attachment.jpg>

From RaceStats at hotmail.com  Fri Jan 25 20:59:52 2019
From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 09:59:52 +0000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-TWN7D9GFYR3bLLoeKx_Q+P1CBCJ7_ZoF8zF76qdoSAUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
	<CAOBDE-TWN7D9GFYR3bLLoeKx_Q+P1CBCJ7_ZoF8zF76qdoSAUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SN6PR04MB420863DD952D5616AD068A2CBB9B0@SN6PR04MB4208.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Sean,
One of my favourite films of all time, a must see for any punter.
Many laughs to be had.
Lindsay

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2019 10:56 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Hi Roman

That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck? with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

The last little bit piqued my interest and reminded me of that funny film "Let It Ride" with Richard Dreyfuss in it.

Dreyfuss plays a colorful character , Jay Trotter , who frequents the local track.

He cuts down the chances in each race by simply asking anybody before each race, whataahyalike?.

The lone remaining horse is his selection. Here are some extracts from the film.

If you haven't seen the film, a person that doesn't have a flutter wont get it.

The film came out in 1989.

Jay Trotter: I'm having a very good day.
Looney: Fifty bucks on Junebug to win! It's the same name as my cat.
Jay Trotter: You got a brother?
Looney: In Cleveland.
Jay Trotter: Call him up, ask him who he likes. I figure it's in the blood!
Jay Trotter: Seven hundred and TEN - and you'll never have that problem, because the only reason I won is that you didn't bet! You are the unluckiest person in the world!

Mrs. Davis: There's a fine line between winning and losing.
Jay Trotter: Yeah. The finish line.
Marty: Eight's the one, I'd stake my life on it.
Jay Trotter: They've got a $2 minimum bet.
Jay Trotter: May I... buy you a drink?
Mrs. Davis: I don't see why not. I am xx xxx xxxx.






On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:51 AM Roman <kozza1950 at bigpond.com<mailto:kozza1950 at bigpond.com>> wrote:
Hi Tony,
I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his. That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck? with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7 chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?. Nevertheless that can be factored in.

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.
So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a better figure.

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure or should it be vice versa.

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir, Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

However, all said above is just one way!!

Cheers
Roman

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com<mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Len ? thanks

Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have reverted to this input now.

My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices, but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that.

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is best.

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to be strong information, and has always been.

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions.

I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon, and include it here only for information and comment.

Cheers

Tony

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com<mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com> [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com<mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com>] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com<mailto:ausrace at ausrace.com>>; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au<mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au>>

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne



I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.



Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448    -15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%



AN



Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)



From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com<mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:


Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

Best returns @ SP:

SThornton       101
MJWalker        103
WD'Avila        103
CParnham        104
VWong           104
DMoor           105
PWells          105
DWBallard       107
SFawke          113
SGuymer         115
JOliver         117

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like 125/1 winners:

JPStanley       100
JPracey-Holm    100
JTaylor         100
MWeir           100
RFradd          100
RonStewart      100
KWalters        102
SLisnyy         102
LJMeech         103
TPannell        103
CGallagher      104
RMaloney        106
CHall           107
BWerner         108
DWBallard       108
JLyon           109
PWells          109
SThornton       109
CNutman         110
VBolozhinsky    112

Worst returns @SP:

LGHenry          21
JeffKehoe        31
DPitomac         33
TJeffries        33
SBayliss         34
JMissen          36
MJStephens       37
ABadger          38
NRose            38
SStarley         38
ECockram         39
JKeating         39
MHackett         39
RYetimova        39
SParnham         39


Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said LGHenry is in a class of her own):

LGHenry          27
MJStephens       32
SBayliss         36
CBryen           41
JMissen          43
SGalvin          45
SStarley         45
ABadger          46
DPitomac         46
BPowell          47
MHackett         47
SParnham         47
BStower          48
PaulPayne        49
CQuilty          50

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

SFawke          113     79
WD'Avila        103     75
MJWalker        103     76
JOliver         117     91
BMertens         88     63

JTaylor          69    100
NPunch           60     95
JeffKehoe        31     72
SLisnyy          61    102
CHall            66    107
VBolozhinsky     70    112



From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com<mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>>; tonymoffat at bigpond.com<mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Hi all,
The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

I look forward to Len?s reply.

Roman Koz

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To: tonymoffat at bigpond.com<mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com>; racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Tony,

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

LBL


790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced
on some others in this race.

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good
ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
that value to it early in the calculation.

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a
jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
individually determine an iv.

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
in the sub $2 range, most of us really.

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again
divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the
overall stat picture

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
that.

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
a race
Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
Dylan Dunn = 1.1

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
in it, nor do I suggest you do.


[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com<mailto:Racing at ausrace.com>
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/374bbf83/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/374bbf83/attachment.jpg>

From RaceStats at hotmail.com  Fri Jan 25 21:05:36 2019
From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:05:36 +0000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <003501d4b449$dd087bc0$97197340$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
	<003501d4b449$dd087bc0$97197340$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <SN6PR04MB420832BA6663F2EA36FECCC6BB9B0@SN6PR04MB4208.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Len,
Couldn't you search for Hayes, Weir or Waterhouse in your database with a wildcard?
How far back do you go? I would go back last 12 months, so the beginning of the new season would be the final Jockey and Trainer premiership results and keep rolling on from there deleting that first month and adding the last month as it goes.
That's just me.
Lindsay

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2019 12:04 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

I find analysing trainers, let alone incorporating them into ratings, much more problematical than jockeys. The data I receive is far less consistent, and while I hunt down who the jockey actually was when there is the all too often discrepancy, and ensure, as far as I can, accuracy and consistency, I don't undertake the same effort wrt trainers.

>From Roman's 7,516 runs for Weir, I figure he's using data from about the start of 2017, which raises the question of how far back do you go - in both time and runs.

Here's some trainers in my data who may be the D Hayes Roman refers to  -

D Hayes
D J Hayes
D & B Hayes & T
David Hayes
David Hayes & To
D, B & T Hayes &

Apart from the difficulty of determining who's who, there is the question of who is actually training and the continuity of "dynasties" - CS, Peter and David Hayes, the Cummings's, Hawkes's ... When an heir apparent takes over as the listed trainer, do you start rating afresh?

How different from jockeys - there is just one, discrete jockey on each runner. MBeadman did not continue the riding of his father - he started from scratch and there was no phasing in or continuity from D to B.

I presume these are all for Gai Waterhouse, but it's beyond the ability of this number cruncher to be sure:

G Waterhouse & A
Ms G Waterhouse
G & A Waterhouse

Then, what about when Gai is at Royal Ascot or on a skiing holiday and she does not run her expert eye over the horses or give final instructions to jockeys? You can be the named trainer while 20,000km away, but is the same job done? With a jockey, who is named is who you get.

D K Weir is at least unambiguous in my data, BUT, I looked at several public-domain sites and their figures are all over the place. So, I looked at darrenweirracing.com and they claim 3535 winners at a strike rate of 20.58, from which I infer 17,177 runners. BUT, my data has D K Weir with 24,740 runners since 1/1/1995 for 3,896 winners (I can't be bothered looking at my archived data to go back further).

I'll leave rating trainers to those who have personal, as distinct from digital only, data.

LBL


From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2019 8:51 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Hi Tony,
I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his. That's how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past "pluck a duck" with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call "linear". I assume that's the correct term where I mean favs win more times than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7 chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is correct in the high 90's percentage wise.

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this site realise many of their horses are "unders". Nevertheless that can be factored in.

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.
So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a better figure.

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure or should it be vice versa.

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir, Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

However, all said above is just one way!!

Cheers
Roman

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Len - thanks

Kozzi's  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here - I have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have reverted to this input now.

My calculations are in the mould of 'ok, what can you do', looking forward, and others can be described as 'look what I done'.

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don't have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices, but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that.

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner - highest is best.

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the places together, remove the worst result, then rank that - this appears to be strong information, and has always been.

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions.

I don't use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon, and include it here only for information and comment.

Cheers

Tony

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com<mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com> [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com<mailto:ausrace at ausrace.com>>; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au<mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au>>

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne



I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.



Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448    -15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%



AN



Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)



From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:


Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

Best returns @ SP:

SThornton       101
MJWalker        103
WD'Avila        103
CParnham        104
VWong           104
DMoor           105
PWells          105
DWBallard       107
SFawke          113
SGuymer         115
JOliver         117

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like 125/1 winners:

JPStanley       100
JPracey-Holm    100
JTaylor         100
MWeir           100
RFradd          100
RonStewart      100
KWalters        102
SLisnyy         102
LJMeech         103
TPannell        103
CGallagher      104
RMaloney        106
CHall           107
BWerner         108
DWBallard       108
JLyon           109
PWells          109
SThornton       109
CNutman         110
VBolozhinsky    112

Worst returns @SP:

LGHenry          21
JeffKehoe        31
DPitomac         33
TJeffries        33
SBayliss         34
JMissen          36
MJStephens       37
ABadger          38
NRose            38
SStarley         38
ECockram         39
JKeating         39
MHackett         39
RYetimova        39
SParnham         39


Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said LGHenry is in a class of her own):

LGHenry          27
MJStephens       32
SBayliss         36
CBryen           41
JMissen          43
SGalvin          45
SStarley         45
ABadger          46
DPitomac         46
BPowell          47
MHackett         47
SParnham         47
BStower          48
PaulPayne        49
CQuilty          50

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

SFawke          113     79
WD'Avila        103     75
MJWalker        103     76
JOliver         117     91
BMertens         88     63

JTaylor          69    100
NPunch           60     95
JeffKehoe        31     72
SLisnyy          61    102
CHall            66    107
VBolozhinsky     70    112



From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com<mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>>; tonymoffat at bigpond.com<mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Hi all,
The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

I look forward to Len's reply.

Roman Koz

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To: tonymoffat at bigpond.com<mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com>; racing at ausrace.com<mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

Tony,

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

LBL


790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced
on some others in this race.

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good
ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
that value to it early in the calculation.

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a
jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
individually determine an iv.

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
in the sub $2 range, most of us really.

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again
divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the
overall stat picture

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
that.

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
a race
Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
Dylan Dunn = 1.1

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
in it, nor do I suggest you do.


[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/a08bd98a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190125/a08bd98a/attachment.jpg>

From headlesschook at australiamail.com  Sun Jan 27 09:47:38 2019
From: headlesschook at australiamail.com (headless chook)
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 23:47:38 +0100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <003501d4b449$dd087bc0$97197340$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
	<003501d4b449$dd087bc0$97197340$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <trinity-5a5c300c-f8c3-489d-a12e-5245b04cd2ef-1548542858643@3c-app-mailcom-lxa14>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190126/ac6fbbad/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190126/ac6fbbad/attachment.jpe>

From tonymoffat at bigpond.com  Sun Jan 27 13:01:17 2019
From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 10:01:17 +0800
Subject: [AusRace] They're Racing  - a system using the API
Message-ID: <002301d4b5e4$31a45050$94ecf0f0$@bigpond.com>

Part 3 of the Calculated Racing series
This was my first exposure/understanding? of impact values - from 1970.
The API was a new thing then, and seemed scientific and invincible looking.

They wrote. Sum the API values for all runners, and divide that total by the
number of runners in this race.
This is the average API

Divide the average API into the individual API scores from each runner and
record the result.
This is the impact value mentioned. Results greater than or equal to 1 are
strong, less than 1 are not (strong?)
and shows the hidden strengths of the runners in this race, a factor not
revealed anywhere else, to anyone.

I say. Is this not another way of ranking the API, often the two methods
will co-incide, ranking the raw figures or
constructing ivs? API is a useful tool when selling a horse for stud, or
racing on perhaps.

Some results below, scroll on.

Another method using the API, complicated to give it credence - Prizemoney
Pearls
Using the API, divide this by the number of starts the runner has had, then
multiply this by 10.
You have normalized this runners API rating to 10 starts - all runners are
treated like this. Value A

Using the total prizemoney for this race calculate 65% of this. Total
winnings * .65.
Divide this figure by 1000 and divide it again by Value A. This is Value B
 
Value B represents the ratio needed (I think they mean dividend) and if the
runners price is shorter than this the runner can be ignored as a chance!

There is further writing about owners and trainers being profit maximisers,
it is highly unlikely they
 will enter their runner in a race where it does not have a calculated
chance of winning
 and it seems Value B is that chance.

Runners should have more than 4, less than 30 starts. Metro racing only,
however they claim
winners out to $41 at provincial (Vic) tracks in the result pages. 

Results - LHS (second method after normalising) RHS (first mentioned method
- the IV way)
PR 5 - ranked 2nd won - - FAIL
PR6  - ranked 1st won---   RANKED 1ST WON
PR7  - FAIL ------FAIL 
PR8  - FAIL---RANKED 3RD WON
MR6 - FAIL ------RANKED 1ST WON
MR7 - FAIL-----FAIL
MR8 - ranked 1st won-----RANKED 1ST WON
MR9 -FAIL-------FAIL

TODAY
SR5 - Fraudulent - Pickelhaube
SR6 - TOUGH LARRY
SR7 - MISS EINSTEIN
SR8 -  NINDAMOS

The first part 'They're Racing' using the iv was meant as an introduction to
the use of the pocket calculator into winner finding methods.
 (A Morrison Co publication - printed and bound in Maryborough (Vic)) and,
perhaps, rare now.

	


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com




From tonymoffat at bigpond.com  Sun Jan 27 14:54:31 2019
From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:54:31 +0800
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <00a301d4b5f4$02c1f3e0$0845dba0$@bigpond.com>

Roman - my response to Len wasn't intended as having a shot at you, and your
assertion, but more to show that the values were aligning, at least in the
case of SGuymer and his 115/1.15.

 

Personally, I like to involve the exposed values of runners engaged in the
upcoming race and minimize, if I can, the magical addings/dividings/other
things needed to construct a rank. 

Let's call it evidence based handicapping.

 

I do use the market - firstly, if you divide the place dividend by the win
dividend and rank the result you can see at a glance those runners which
have a disproportionate sum plonked for the win - my cut off value is 41% -
the place dividend is 41% of the win, which is the 'normal' range for most
out to $9, then the place div % falls away, the longer divs out there in the
badlands are being bet/hunted by somebody.

 

Caulfield R7 yesterday - the one runner over 41% is 4AlGayel 48% from
$1.5/$2.5 - skinny I know but you get the gist.

Caulfield R8 yesterday - the one runner over 41% is 8Manolo 50% from
$1.4/$2.8 - skinny etc.

Randwic R9 yesterday  - there are two selections over 41% - 1ST and 2ND
$1.80/$1.5

Randwic R8 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sondelon 42% from
$1.4/$3.3

Randwic R7 yesterday -  there are two selections over 41% - Unp and Unp - so
it is not perfect.

Randwic R6 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sei Stella 58% from
$1.5/$2.6

 

SunCoast R8 yesterday- the winner was ranked 11, the 2nd was ranked 4, and
the 3rd was ranked 10th 

So it is not perfect. 

 

See the story of JIM, Jim and jim about scoring off these types of bets. jim
(all lowercase) has been known to move

$1k on these until he accumulates his daily take - it was $1700 - and never
less than $1k if the pool is large (enough)

 

I rank the quinella dividends then countif those runner numbers involved in
the first 10 - this may include up to 5 or more horses.

My feeling was that, when I commenced doing that, that astuteness from
others caused them to select their bets and I could benefit from that.

Those other punters had made an effort I considered, in isolation though.
Now the inclusion of flexi betting has affected that a lot but it still

'seems to be' a good strong lead. You need access to a matrix, not always
allowed now.

 

I can do it with exacta divs as well - it is much of a muchness.

 

All of the data above was from final dividends. In the sometimes frantic
betting scene before a race, with data changing 3 times a second, you have
to take a stab occasionally, and to hope that your selection holds it's
value, they normally do.

 

Cheers]

 

Tony

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:51 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi Tony,

I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his.
That's how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past "pluck a duck"
with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

 

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call
"linear". I assume that's the correct term where I mean favs win more times
than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is
linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7
chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is
correct in the high 90's percentage wise.

 

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise
and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they
are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is
that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes
of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this
site realise many of their horses are "unders". Nevertheless that can be
factored in.

 

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for
-17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes
with 529 runners is -11.2%.

So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set
you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a
better figure.

 

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation
if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers
the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure
or should it be vice versa.

 

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or
less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some
jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir,
Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

 

However, all said above is just one way!!

 

Cheers

Roman

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> 
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Len - thanks

 

Kozzi's  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here - I
have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

 

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence
affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely
mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included
the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have
reverted to this input now.

 

My calculations are in the mould of 'ok, what can you do', looking forward,
and others can be described as 'look what I done'.

 

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don't
have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that. 

 

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and
form and multiply these to get a value for each runner - highest is best. 

 

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
places together, remove the worst result, then rank that - this appears to
be strong information, and has always been.

 

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3
and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 =
-3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1,
and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the
calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight
rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this
race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the
highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this
race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out
the weight rated best ranking.

 

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few
of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections
also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now,
and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions. 

 

I don't use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
and include it here only for information and comment.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com>
[mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com <mailto:ausrace at ausrace.com>
>; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au> >

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne

 

I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.

 

Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
-15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%

 

AN

 

Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start
with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's
easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back
around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list,
and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides
in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like
125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
> On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >; tonymoffat at bigpond.com
<mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> 
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid
determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure
those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses
the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in
races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better
than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say
favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35%
jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It
would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid
fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more
accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len's reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com;
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

 


 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virus-free.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190127/73144984/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190127/73144984/attachment.jpg>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Mon Jan 28 08:54:11 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 07:54:11 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <00a301d4b5f4$02c1f3e0$0845dba0$@bigpond.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
	<00a301d4b5f4$02c1f3e0$0845dba0$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-SniqOAjr-dJOritaADFF0vgBr4zo1nBt_OuXHTchLuUQ@mail.gmail.com>

And I should add that names of jockeys or trainers can be easily overcome
in excel via look-up tables or in access via a table. The fuss escapes me.
Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable. The challenge
for mine is placing a value on a jockey or a trainer that's in sync with
the scale of my type of performance rating. Which is why leaving them in
their raw state, as Roman does, is still quite appealing. Apart from its
simplicity, it shouldn't be ignored that a degree of randomness is created
by default and in a chaotic space (ie a horse Race) that could translate
into better prices because of unfashionable jockeys / trainers. Just some
thoughts.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:55 Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com wrote:

> Roman ? my response to Len wasn?t intended as having a shot at you, and
> your assertion, but more to show that the values were aligning, at least in
> the case of SGuymer and his 115/1.15.
>
>
>
> Personally, I like to involve the exposed values of runners engaged in the
> upcoming race and minimize, if I can, the magical addings/dividings/other
> things needed to construct a rank.
>
> Let?s call it evidence based handicapping.
>
>
>
> I do use the market ? firstly, if you divide the place dividend by the win
> dividend and rank the result you can see at a glance those runners which
> have a disproportionate sum plonked for the win ? my cut off value is 41% -
> the place dividend is 41% of the win, which is the ?normal? range for most
> out to $9, then the place div % falls away, the longer divs out there in
> the badlands are being bet/hunted by somebody.
>
>
>
> Caulfield R7 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 4AlGayel 48% from
> $1.5/$2.5 ? skinny I know but you get the gist.
>
> Caulfield R8 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 8Manolo 50% from
> $1.4/$2.8 ? skinny etc.
>
> Randwic R9 yesterday  - there are two selections over 41% - 1ST and 2ND
>  $1.80/$1.5
>
> Randwic R8 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sondelon 42% from
> $1.4/$3.3
>
> Randwic R7 yesterday -  there are two selections over 41% - Unp and Unp ?
> so it is not perfect.
>
> Randwic R6 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sei Stella 58% from
> $1.5/$2.6
>
>
>
> SunCoast R8 yesterday- the winner was ranked 11, the 2nd was ranked 4,
> and the 3rd was ranked 10th
>
> So it is not perfect.
>
>
>
> See the story of JIM, Jim and jim about scoring off these types of bets.
> jim (all lowercase) has been known to move
>
> $1k on these until he accumulates his daily take ? it was $1700 ? and
> never less than $1k if the pool is large (enough)
>
>
>
> I rank the quinella dividends then countif those runner numbers involved
> in the first 10 ? this may include up to 5 or more horses.
>
> My feeling was that, when I commenced doing that, that astuteness from
> others caused them to select their bets and I could benefit from that.
>
> Those other punters had made an effort I considered, in isolation though.
> Now the inclusion of flexi betting has affected that a lot but it still
>
> ?seems to be? a good strong lead. You need access to a matrix, not always
> allowed now.
>
>
>
> I can do it with exacta divs as well ? it is much of a muchness.
>
>
>
> All of the data above was from final dividends. In the sometimes frantic
> betting scene before a race, with data changing 3 times a second, you have
> to take a stab occasionally, and to hope that your selection holds it?s
> value, they normally do.
>
>
>
> Cheers]
>
>
>
> Tony
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *Roman
> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 5:51 AM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his.
> That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck?
> with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.
>
>
>
> The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call
> ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times
> than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is
> linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7
> chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is
> correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.
>
>
>
> Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this
> premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of
> whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a
> fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who
> think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win.
> As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?.
> Nevertheless that can be factored in.
>
>
>
> In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710
> for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst
> Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.
>
> So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set
> you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a
> better figure.
>
>
>
> These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation
> if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers
> the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure
> or should it be vice versa.
>
>
>
> Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or
> less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some
> jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir,
> Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.
>
>
>
> However, all said above is just one way!!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Roman
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *Tony Moffat
> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
> *To:* racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Len ? thanks
>
>
>
> Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I
> have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
> promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).
>
>
>
> I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
> the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their
> presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not
> uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had
> included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that
> ran and have reverted to this input now.
>
>
>
> My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking
> forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.
>
>
>
> The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t
> have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
> but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that.
>
>
>
> Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance
> and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is
> best.
>
>
>
> Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
> places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to
> be strong information, and has always been.
>
>
>
> As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
> but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
> subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
> from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as
> -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three)
> came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1)
> came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this
> runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5
> to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the
> limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The
> best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered
> the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated
> weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.
>
>
>
> I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a
> few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the
> selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a
> quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella
> inclusions.
>
>
>
> I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
> and include it here only for information and comment.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> FROM THE ARCHIVES
>
> From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com
> <ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com>] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix
>
> Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM
>
> To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'
>
> <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
>
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne
>
>
>
> I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
> discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
> A2E (think POT betting to prices).
>
> However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
> A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.
>
>
>
> Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW
>
> A2E
>
> Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%
>
>    Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
> -15%
>
>       Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%
>
>       Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518
> -18%
>
>    Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%
>
>      Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%
>
>      Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%
>
>
>
> AN
>
>
>
> Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all
> start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> "Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices -
> it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll
> back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.
>
>
>
> Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you
> list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.
>
>
>
> Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000
> rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
> considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
> markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):
>
>
>
> Best returns @ SP:
>
>
>
> SThornton       101
>
> MJWalker        103
>
> WD'Avila        103
>
> CParnham        104
>
> VWong           104
>
> DMoor           105
>
> PWells          105
>
> DWBallard       107
>
> SFawke          113
>
> SGuymer         115
>
> JOliver         117
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers
> like 125/1 winners:
>
>
>
> JPStanley       100
>
> JPracey-Holm    100
>
> JTaylor         100
>
> MWeir           100
>
> RFradd          100
>
> RonStewart      100
>
> KWalters        102
>
> SLisnyy         102
>
> LJMeech         103
>
> TPannell        103
>
> CGallagher      104
>
> RMaloney        106
>
> CHall           107
>
> BWerner         108
>
> DWBallard       108
>
> JLyon           109
>
> PWells          109
>
> SThornton       109
>
> CNutman         110
>
> VBolozhinsky    112
>
>
>
> Worst returns @SP:
>
>
>
> LGHenry          21
>
> JeffKehoe        31
>
> DPitomac         33
>
> TJeffries        33
>
> SBayliss         34
>
> JMissen          36
>
> MJStephens       37
>
> ABadger          38
>
> NRose            38
>
> SStarley         38
>
> ECockram         39
>
> JKeating         39
>
> MHackett         39
>
> RYetimova        39
>
> SParnham         39
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
> LGHenry is in a class of her own):
>
>
>
> LGHenry          27
>
> MJStephens       32
>
> SBayliss         36
>
> CBryen           41
>
> JMissen          43
>
> SGalvin          45
>
> SStarley         45
>
> ABadger          46
>
> DPitomac         46
>
> BPowell          47
>
> MHackett         47
>
> SParnham         47
>
> BStower          48
>
> PaulPayne        49
>
> CQuilty          50
>
>
>
> The big gaps -  All  "in market"
>
>
>
> SFawke          113     79
>
> WD'Avila        103     75
>
> MJWalker        103     76
>
> JOliver         117     91
>
> BMertens         88     63
>
>
>
> JTaylor          69    100
>
> NPunch           60     95
>
> JeffKehoe        31     72
>
> SLisnyy          61    102
>
> CHall            66    107
>
> VBolozhinsky     70    112
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *Roman
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
> tonymoffat at bigpond.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
> literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.
>
>
>
> I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
> much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a
> solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not
> figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the
> horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100
> rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a
> fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two
> jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an
> on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the
> ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with
> leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of
> figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and
> placings.
>
>
>
> I look forward to Len?s reply.
>
>
>
> Roman Koz
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
> *To:* tonymoffat at bigpond.com; racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190128/e59d260c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190128/e59d260c/attachment.jpg>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Mon Jan 28 13:49:21 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:49:21 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-SniqOAjr-dJOritaADFF0vgBr4zo1nBt_OuXHTchLuUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>	<00a301d4b5f4$02c1f3e0$0845dba0$@bigpond.com>
	<CAOBDE-SniqOAjr-dJOritaADFF0vgBr4zo1nBt_OuXHTchLuUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000c01d4b6b4$154997a0$3fdcc6e0$@ozemail.com.au>

Easily via tables BUT " Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable". Tough indeed.

 

Even with top trainers, I have problems as discussed earlier:

 

D Hayes         

D J Hayes       

D & B Hayes & T 

David Hayes     

David Hayes & To

D, B & T Hayes &

 

G Waterhouse & A

Ms G Waterhouse 

G & A Waterhouse

 

WORSE, in a complementary data-base separately sourced, for only the last 8 years, I have additionals:

 

DHayes          

D&BHayes        

 

and:

 

GWaterhouse     

G&AWaterhouse       

MsGWaterhouse     

 

 

 

Then what about this tiny non-random sample of 43 trainers out of the 11,421 I have in my current (non-archived) data base?

 

A D Smith       

A F Smith       

A J Smith       

A L Smith       

A Smith         

Ms A J Smith    

Ms A Smith      

Ms Alison Smith 

J A Smith       

J B Smith       

J C Smith       

J E Smith       

J L Smith       

J Smith         

Jeremy Smith    

Ms J M Smith    

Ms J Smith      

K C Smith       

K L Smith       

K M Smith       

K N Smith       

K R Smith       

K Smith         

K T Smith       

Kelvin Smith    

Ms K Smith      

L A Smith       

L C Smith       

L J Smith       

L R Smith       

L Smith         

Les Smith       

Ms L C Smith    

Ms L Smith      

M J Smith       

M K Smith       

M Smith         

M W Smith       

Marilyn Smith   

Matthew Smith   

Max Smith       

Melissa Smith   

Ms M Smith      

 

I can't be bothered looking up how many additionals there are in the complementary 8-year file.

 

How long do you figure it would take to be 99% sure you had determined how many unique trainers are in the 43 names (and of course thus form a tiny part of the required table)?

 

Then do the same for at the other 11,378 names? Then match to the 8-year file?

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2019 8:54 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

And I should add that names of jockeys or trainers can be easily overcome in excel via look-up tables or in access via a table. The fuss escapes me. Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable. The challenge for mine is placing a value on a jockey or a trainer that's in sync with the scale of my type of performance rating. Which is why leaving them in their raw state, as Roman does, is still quite appealing. Apart from its simplicity, it shouldn't be ignored that a degree of randomness is created by default and in a chaotic space (ie a horse Race) that could translate into better prices because of unfashionable jockeys / trainers. Just some thoughts. 

 

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:55 Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com>  wrote:

Roman ? my response to Len wasn?t intended as having a shot at you, and your assertion, but more to show that the values were aligning, at least in the case of SGuymer and his 115/1.15.

 

Personally, I like to involve the exposed values of runners engaged in the upcoming race and minimize, if I can, the magical addings/dividings/other things needed to construct a rank. 

Let?s call it evidence based handicapping.

 

I do use the market ? firstly, if you divide the place dividend by the win dividend and rank the result you can see at a glance those runners which have a disproportionate sum plonked for the win ? my cut off value is 41% - the place dividend is 41% of the win, which is the ?normal? range for most out to $9, then the place div % falls away, the longer divs out there in the badlands are being bet/hunted by somebody.

 

Caulfield R7 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 4AlGayel 48% from $1.5/$2.5 ? skinny I know but you get the gist.

Caulfield R8 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 8Manolo 50% from $1.4/$2.8 ? skinny etc.

Randwic R9 yesterday  - there are two selections over 41% - 1ST and 2ND  $1.80/$1.5

Randwic R8 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sondelon 42% from $1.4/$3.3

Randwic R7 yesterday -  there are two selections over 41% - Unp and Unp ? so it is not perfect.

Randwic R6 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sei Stella 58% from $1.5/$2.6

 

SunCoast R8 yesterday- the winner was ranked 11, the 2nd was ranked 4, and the 3rd was ranked 10th 

So it is not perfect. 

 

See the story of JIM, Jim and jim about scoring off these types of bets. jim (all lowercase) has been known to move

$1k on these until he accumulates his daily take ? it was $1700 ? and never less than $1k if the pool is large (enough)

 

I rank the quinella dividends then countif those runner numbers involved in the first 10 ? this may include up to 5 or more horses.

My feeling was that, when I commenced doing that, that astuteness from others caused them to select their bets and I could benefit from that.

Those other punters had made an effort I considered, in isolation though. Now the inclusion of flexi betting has affected that a lot but it still

?seems to be? a good strong lead. You need access to a matrix, not always allowed now.

 

I can do it with exacta divs as well ? it is much of a muchness.

 

All of the data above was from final dividends. In the sometimes frantic betting scene before a race, with data changing 3 times a second, you have to take a stab occasionally, and to hope that your selection holds it?s value, they normally do.

 

Cheers]

 

Tony

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> ] On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:51 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi Tony,

I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his. That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck? with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

 

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7 chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.

 

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?. Nevertheless that can be factored in.

 

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.

So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a better figure.

 

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure or should it be vice versa.

 

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir, Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

 

However, all said above is just one way!!

 

Cheers

Roman

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> 
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Len ? thanks

 

Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

 

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have reverted to this input now.

 

My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.

 

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices, but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that. 

 

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is best. 

 

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to be strong information, and has always been.

 

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.

 

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions. 

 

I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon, and include it here only for information and comment.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com>  [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com <mailto:ausrace at ausrace.com> >; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au> >

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne

 

I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.

 

Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448    -15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%

 

AN

 

Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like 125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> > On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >; tonymoffat at bigpond.com <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> 
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len?s reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com;  <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

 


 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virus-free.  <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

 

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com <mailto:Racing at ausrace.com> 
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190128/8eb267bf/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 29 01:49:02 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:49:02 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <000c01d4b6b4$154997a0$3fdcc6e0$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
	<00a301d4b5f4$02c1f3e0$0845dba0$@bigpond.com>
	<CAOBDE-SniqOAjr-dJOritaADFF0vgBr4zo1nBt_OuXHTchLuUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<000c01d4b6b4$154997a0$3fdcc6e0$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-T9q-Ap5PnVsA6rvDcDLh0xtk+jXSj4HZm1LgXMA4oh5g@mail.gmail.com>

trainer state runs
A D Smith                 NSW 5
A D Smith                 WA 1
B J Smith                 QLND 11
B S Smith             NSW 3
B Smith             QLND 3
C Smith                   QLND 35
D J Smith             NSW 1
D S Smith                 NSW 5
D Smith              NSW 2
D Smith              VIC 18
F E Smith                 QLND 5
G Smith               QLND 2
J Smith              NSW 2
K Smith               NSW 1
L Smith                   WA 3
M J Smith                 ACT 6
M Smith             NSW 16
Ms A J Smith              WA 3
Ms A Smith                NSW 8
Ms J Smith                VIC 1
P A Smith                 NSW 2
P Smith               NSW 1
P Smith               VIC 1
R G Smith                 WA 3
R Smith            NSW 22
S L Smith                 NSW 6
hello Len

national Dec 2018 numbers for the unique Smiths.

35 mins. total

near 10 mins waiting for the query. Export to excel. Query, Sort, Format
count etc etc

i can offer no further comment.

Thanks Sean





On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:50 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

> Easily via tables BUT " Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not
> insurmountable". Tough indeed.
>
>
>
> Even with top trainers, I have problems as discussed earlier:
>
>
>
> D Hayes
>
> D J Hayes
>
> D & B Hayes & T
>
> David Hayes
>
> David Hayes & To
>
> D, B & T Hayes &
>
>
>
> G Waterhouse & A
>
> Ms G Waterhouse
>
> G & A Waterhouse
>
>
>
> WORSE, in a complementary data-base separately sourced, for only the last
> 8 years, I have additionals:
>
>
>
> DHayes
>
> D&BHayes
>
>
>
> and:
>
>
>
> GWaterhouse
>
> G&AWaterhouse
>
> MsGWaterhouse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Then what about this tiny non-random sample of 43 trainers out of the
> 11,421 I have in my current (non-archived) data base?
>
>
>
> A D Smith
>
> A F Smith
>
> A J Smith
>
> A L Smith
>
> A Smith
>
> Ms A J Smith
>
> Ms A Smith
>
> Ms Alison Smith
>
> J A Smith
>
> J B Smith
>
> J C Smith
>
> J E Smith
>
> J L Smith
>
> J Smith
>
> Jeremy Smith
>
> Ms J M Smith
>
> Ms J Smith
>
> K C Smith
>
> K L Smith
>
> K M Smith
>
> K N Smith
>
> K R Smith
>
> K Smith
>
> K T Smith
>
> Kelvin Smith
>
> Ms K Smith
>
> L A Smith
>
> L C Smith
>
> L J Smith
>
> L R Smith
>
> L Smith
>
> Les Smith
>
> Ms L C Smith
>
> Ms L Smith
>
> M J Smith
>
> M K Smith
>
> M Smith
>
> M W Smith
>
> Marilyn Smith
>
> Matthew Smith
>
> Max Smith
>
> Melissa Smith
>
> Ms M Smith
>
>
>
> I can't be bothered looking up how many additionals there are in the
> complementary 8-year file.
>
>
>
> How long do you figure it would take to be 99% sure you had determined how
> many unique trainers are in the 43 names (and of course thus form a tiny
> part of the required table)?
>
>
>
> Then do the same for at the other 11,378 names? Then match to the 8-year
> file?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *sean mclaren
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 January 2019 8:54 AM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> And I should add that names of jockeys or trainers can be easily overcome
> in excel via look-up tables or in access via a table. The fuss escapes me.
> Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable. The challenge
> for mine is placing a value on a jockey or a trainer that's in sync with
> the scale of my type of performance rating. Which is why leaving them in
> their raw state, as Roman does, is still quite appealing. Apart from its
> simplicity, it shouldn't be ignored that a degree of randomness is created
> by default and in a chaotic space (ie a horse Race) that could translate
> into better prices because of unfashionable jockeys / trainers. Just some
> thoughts.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:55 Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com wrote:
>
> Roman ? my response to Len wasn?t intended as having a shot at you, and
> your assertion, but more to show that the values were aligning, at least in
> the case of SGuymer and his 115/1.15.
>
>
>
> Personally, I like to involve the exposed values of runners engaged in the
> upcoming race and minimize, if I can, the magical addings/dividings/other
> things needed to construct a rank.
>
> Let?s call it evidence based handicapping.
>
>
>
> I do use the market ? firstly, if you divide the place dividend by the win
> dividend and rank the result you can see at a glance those runners which
> have a disproportionate sum plonked for the win ? my cut off value is 41% -
> the place dividend is 41% of the win, which is the ?normal? range for most
> out to $9, then the place div % falls away, the longer divs out there in
> the badlands are being bet/hunted by somebody.
>
>
>
> Caulfield R7 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 4AlGayel 48% from
> $1.5/$2.5 ? skinny I know but you get the gist.
>
> Caulfield R8 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 8Manolo 50% from
> $1.4/$2.8 ? skinny etc.
>
> Randwic R9 yesterday  - there are two selections over 41% - 1ST and 2ND
>  $1.80/$1.5
>
> Randwic R8 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sondelon 42% from
> $1.4/$3.3
>
> Randwic R7 yesterday -  there are two selections over 41% - Unp and Unp ?
> so it is not perfect.
>
> Randwic R6 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sei Stella 58% from
> $1.5/$2.6
>
>
>
> SunCoast R8 yesterday- the winner was ranked 11, the 2nd was ranked 4,
> and the 3rd was ranked 10th
>
> So it is not perfect.
>
>
>
> See the story of JIM, Jim and jim about scoring off these types of bets.
> jim (all lowercase) has been known to move
>
> $1k on these until he accumulates his daily take ? it was $1700 ? and
> never less than $1k if the pool is large (enough)
>
>
>
> I rank the quinella dividends then countif those runner numbers involved
> in the first 10 ? this may include up to 5 or more horses.
>
> My feeling was that, when I commenced doing that, that astuteness from
> others caused them to select their bets and I could benefit from that.
>
> Those other punters had made an effort I considered, in isolation though.
> Now the inclusion of flexi betting has affected that a lot but it still
>
> ?seems to be? a good strong lead. You need access to a matrix, not always
> allowed now.
>
>
>
> I can do it with exacta divs as well ? it is much of a muchness.
>
>
>
> All of the data above was from final dividends. In the sometimes frantic
> betting scene before a race, with data changing 3 times a second, you have
> to take a stab occasionally, and to hope that your selection holds it?s
> value, they normally do.
>
>
>
> Cheers]
>
>
>
> Tony
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *Roman
> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 5:51 AM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his.
> That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck?
> with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.
>
>
>
> The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call
> ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times
> than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is
> linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7
> chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is
> correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.
>
>
>
> Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this
> premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of
> whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a
> fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who
> think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win.
> As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?.
> Nevertheless that can be factored in.
>
>
>
> In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710
> for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst
> Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.
>
> So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set
> you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a
> better figure.
>
>
>
> These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation
> if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers
> the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure
> or should it be vice versa.
>
>
>
> Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or
> less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some
> jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir,
> Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.
>
>
>
> However, all said above is just one way!!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Roman
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *Tony Moffat
> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
> *To:* racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Len ? thanks
>
>
>
> Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I
> have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
> promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).
>
>
>
> I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
> the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their
> presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not
> uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had
> included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that
> ran and have reverted to this input now.
>
>
>
> My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking
> forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.
>
>
>
> The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t
> have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
> but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that.
>
>
>
> Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance
> and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is
> best.
>
>
>
> Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
> places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to
> be strong information, and has always been.
>
>
>
> As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
> but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
> subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
> from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as
> -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three)
> came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1)
> came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this
> runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5
> to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the
> limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The
> best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered
> the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated
> weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.
>
>
>
> I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a
> few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the
> selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a
> quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella
> inclusions.
>
>
>
> I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
> and include it here only for information and comment.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> FROM THE ARCHIVES
>
> From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com
> <ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com>] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix
>
> Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM
>
> To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'
>
> <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
>
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne
>
>
>
> I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
> discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
> A2E (think POT betting to prices).
>
> However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
> A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.
>
>
>
> Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW
>
> A2E
>
> Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%
>
>    Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
> -15%
>
>       Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%
>
>       Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518
> -18%
>
>    Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%
>
>      Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%
>
>      Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%
>
>
>
> AN
>
>
>
> Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all
> start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> "Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices -
> it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll
> back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.
>
>
>
> Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you
> list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.
>
>
>
> Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000
> rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
> considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
> markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):
>
>
>
> Best returns @ SP:
>
>
>
> SThornton       101
>
> MJWalker        103
>
> WD'Avila        103
>
> CParnham        104
>
> VWong           104
>
> DMoor           105
>
> PWells          105
>
> DWBallard       107
>
> SFawke          113
>
> SGuymer         115
>
> JOliver         117
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers
> like 125/1 winners:
>
>
>
> JPStanley       100
>
> JPracey-Holm    100
>
> JTaylor         100
>
> MWeir           100
>
> RFradd          100
>
> RonStewart      100
>
> KWalters        102
>
> SLisnyy         102
>
> LJMeech         103
>
> TPannell        103
>
> CGallagher      104
>
> RMaloney        106
>
> CHall           107
>
> BWerner         108
>
> DWBallard       108
>
> JLyon           109
>
> PWells          109
>
> SThornton       109
>
> CNutman         110
>
> VBolozhinsky    112
>
>
>
> Worst returns @SP:
>
>
>
> LGHenry          21
>
> JeffKehoe        31
>
> DPitomac         33
>
> TJeffries        33
>
> SBayliss         34
>
> JMissen          36
>
> MJStephens       37
>
> ABadger          38
>
> NRose            38
>
> SStarley         38
>
> ECockram         39
>
> JKeating         39
>
> MHackett         39
>
> RYetimova        39
>
> SParnham         39
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
> LGHenry is in a class of her own):
>
>
>
> LGHenry          27
>
> MJStephens       32
>
> SBayliss         36
>
> CBryen           41
>
> JMissen          43
>
> SGalvin          45
>
> SStarley         45
>
> ABadger          46
>
> DPitomac         46
>
> BPowell          47
>
> MHackett         47
>
> SParnham         47
>
> BStower          48
>
> PaulPayne        49
>
> CQuilty          50
>
>
>
> The big gaps -  All  "in market"
>
>
>
> SFawke          113     79
>
> WD'Avila        103     75
>
> MJWalker        103     76
>
> JOliver         117     91
>
> BMertens         88     63
>
>
>
> JTaylor          69    100
>
> NPunch           60     95
>
> JeffKehoe        31     72
>
> SLisnyy          61    102
>
> CHall            66    107
>
> VBolozhinsky     70    112
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *Roman
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
> tonymoffat at bigpond.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
> literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.
>
>
>
> I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
> much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a
> solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not
> figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the
> horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100
> rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a
> fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two
> jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an
> on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the
> ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with
> leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of
> figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and
> placings.
>
>
>
> I look forward to Len?s reply.
>
>
>
> Roman Koz
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
> *To:* tonymoffat at bigpond.com; racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190129/73adfe1f/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 29 02:06:14 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 01:06:14 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-T9q-Ap5PnVsA6rvDcDLh0xtk+jXSj4HZm1LgXMA4oh5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
	<00a301d4b5f4$02c1f3e0$0845dba0$@bigpond.com>
	<CAOBDE-SniqOAjr-dJOritaADFF0vgBr4zo1nBt_OuXHTchLuUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<000c01d4b6b4$154997a0$3fdcc6e0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-T9q-Ap5PnVsA6rvDcDLh0xtk+jXSj4HZm1LgXMA4oh5g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-R8af3Ye=ge6nGoVoE=nDfbC-m0OfJPHin7JY2XwNBecQ@mail.gmail.com>

hello again

ignore the final column called Runs.

i had not cross checked.

the initial query for Dec 18 generated 16460 runs for trainers nationally.

the smiths were extracted as a sub set.

thanks

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:49 AM sean mclaren <seanmac4321 at gmail.com> wrote:

> trainer state runs
> A D Smith                 NSW 5
> A D Smith                 WA 1
> B J Smith                 QLND 11
> B S Smith             NSW 3
> B Smith             QLND 3
> C Smith                   QLND 35
> D J Smith             NSW 1
> D S Smith                 NSW 5
> D Smith              NSW 2
> D Smith              VIC 18
> F E Smith                 QLND 5
> G Smith               QLND 2
> J Smith              NSW 2
> K Smith               NSW 1
> L Smith                   WA 3
> M J Smith                 ACT 6
> M Smith             NSW 16
> Ms A J Smith              WA 3
> Ms A Smith                NSW 8
> Ms J Smith                VIC 1
> P A Smith                 NSW 2
> P Smith               NSW 1
> P Smith               VIC 1
> R G Smith                 WA 3
> R Smith            NSW 22
> S L Smith                 NSW 6
> hello Len
>
> national Dec 2018 numbers for the unique Smiths.
>
> 35 mins. total
>
> near 10 mins waiting for the query. Export to excel. Query, Sort, Format
> count etc etc
>
> i can offer no further comment.
>
> Thanks Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:50 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Easily via tables BUT " Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not
>> insurmountable". Tough indeed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even with top trainers, I have problems as discussed earlier:
>>
>>
>>
>> D Hayes
>>
>> D J Hayes
>>
>> D & B Hayes & T
>>
>> David Hayes
>>
>> David Hayes & To
>>
>> D, B & T Hayes &
>>
>>
>>
>> G Waterhouse & A
>>
>> Ms G Waterhouse
>>
>> G & A Waterhouse
>>
>>
>>
>> WORSE, in a complementary data-base separately sourced, for only the last
>> 8 years, I have additionals:
>>
>>
>>
>> DHayes
>>
>> D&BHayes
>>
>>
>>
>> and:
>>
>>
>>
>> GWaterhouse
>>
>> G&AWaterhouse
>>
>> MsGWaterhouse
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Then what about this tiny non-random sample of 43 trainers out of the
>> 11,421 I have in my current (non-archived) data base?
>>
>>
>>
>> A D Smith
>>
>> A F Smith
>>
>> A J Smith
>>
>> A L Smith
>>
>> A Smith
>>
>> Ms A J Smith
>>
>> Ms A Smith
>>
>> Ms Alison Smith
>>
>> J A Smith
>>
>> J B Smith
>>
>> J C Smith
>>
>> J E Smith
>>
>> J L Smith
>>
>> J Smith
>>
>> Jeremy Smith
>>
>> Ms J M Smith
>>
>> Ms J Smith
>>
>> K C Smith
>>
>> K L Smith
>>
>> K M Smith
>>
>> K N Smith
>>
>> K R Smith
>>
>> K Smith
>>
>> K T Smith
>>
>> Kelvin Smith
>>
>> Ms K Smith
>>
>> L A Smith
>>
>> L C Smith
>>
>> L J Smith
>>
>> L R Smith
>>
>> L Smith
>>
>> Les Smith
>>
>> Ms L C Smith
>>
>> Ms L Smith
>>
>> M J Smith
>>
>> M K Smith
>>
>> M Smith
>>
>> M W Smith
>>
>> Marilyn Smith
>>
>> Matthew Smith
>>
>> Max Smith
>>
>> Melissa Smith
>>
>> Ms M Smith
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't be bothered looking up how many additionals there are in the
>> complementary 8-year file.
>>
>>
>>
>> How long do you figure it would take to be 99% sure you had determined
>> how many unique trainers are in the 43 names (and of course thus form a
>> tiny part of the required table)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Then do the same for at the other 11,378 names? Then match to the 8-year
>> file?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *sean mclaren
>> *Sent:* Monday, 28 January 2019 8:54 AM
>> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>>
>>
>>
>> And I should add that names of jockeys or trainers can be easily overcome
>> in excel via look-up tables or in access via a table. The fuss escapes me.
>> Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable. The challenge
>> for mine is placing a value on a jockey or a trainer that's in sync with
>> the scale of my type of performance rating. Which is why leaving them in
>> their raw state, as Roman does, is still quite appealing. Apart from its
>> simplicity, it shouldn't be ignored that a degree of randomness is created
>> by default and in a chaotic space (ie a horse Race) that could translate
>> into better prices because of unfashionable jockeys / trainers. Just some
>> thoughts.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:55 Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com wrote:
>>
>> Roman ? my response to Len wasn?t intended as having a shot at you, and
>> your assertion, but more to show that the values were aligning, at least in
>> the case of SGuymer and his 115/1.15.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally, I like to involve the exposed values of runners engaged in
>> the upcoming race and minimize, if I can, the magical
>> addings/dividings/other things needed to construct a rank.
>>
>> Let?s call it evidence based handicapping.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do use the market ? firstly, if you divide the place dividend by the
>> win dividend and rank the result you can see at a glance those runners
>> which have a disproportionate sum plonked for the win ? my cut off value is
>> 41% - the place dividend is 41% of the win, which is the ?normal? range for
>> most out to $9, then the place div % falls away, the longer divs out there
>> in the badlands are being bet/hunted by somebody.
>>
>>
>>
>> Caulfield R7 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 4AlGayel 48% from
>> $1.5/$2.5 ? skinny I know but you get the gist.
>>
>> Caulfield R8 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 8Manolo 50% from
>> $1.4/$2.8 ? skinny etc.
>>
>> Randwic R9 yesterday  - there are two selections over 41% - 1ST and 2ND
>>  $1.80/$1.5
>>
>> Randwic R8 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sondelon 42% from
>> $1.4/$3.3
>>
>> Randwic R7 yesterday -  there are two selections over 41% - Unp and Unp ?
>> so it is not perfect.
>>
>> Randwic R6 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sei Stella 58% from
>> $1.5/$2.6
>>
>>
>>
>> SunCoast R8 yesterday- the winner was ranked 11, the 2nd was ranked 4,
>> and the 3rd was ranked 10th
>>
>> So it is not perfect.
>>
>>
>>
>> See the story of JIM, Jim and jim about scoring off these types of bets.
>> jim (all lowercase) has been known to move
>>
>> $1k on these until he accumulates his daily take ? it was $1700 ? and
>> never less than $1k if the pool is large (enough)
>>
>>
>>
>> I rank the quinella dividends then countif those runner numbers involved
>> in the first 10 ? this may include up to 5 or more horses.
>>
>> My feeling was that, when I commenced doing that, that astuteness from
>> others caused them to select their bets and I could benefit from that.
>>
>> Those other punters had made an effort I considered, in isolation though.
>> Now the inclusion of flexi betting has affected that a lot but it still
>>
>> ?seems to be? a good strong lead. You need access to a matrix, not always
>> allowed now.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can do it with exacta divs as well ? it is much of a muchness.
>>
>>
>>
>> All of the data above was from final dividends. In the sometimes frantic
>> betting scene before a race, with data changing 3 times a second, you have
>> to take a stab occasionally, and to hope that your selection holds it?s
>> value, they normally do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers]
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *Roman
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 5:51 AM
>> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his.
>> That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck?
>> with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.
>>
>>
>>
>> The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call
>> ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times
>> than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure
>> is linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than
>> $7 chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is
>> correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this
>> premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of
>> whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a
>> fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who
>> think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win.
>> As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?.
>> Nevertheless that can be factored in.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710
>> for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst
>> Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.
>>
>> So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set
>> you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a
>> better figure.
>>
>>
>>
>> These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal
>> interpretation if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less
>> covering all trainers the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided
>> by 8.1% give a figure or should it be vice versa.
>>
>>
>>
>> Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or
>> less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some
>> jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir,
>> Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, all said above is just one way!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Roman
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
>> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *Tony Moffat
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
>> *To:* racing at ausrace.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>>
>>
>>
>> Len ? thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I
>> have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
>> promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).
>>
>>
>>
>> I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
>> the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their
>> presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not
>> uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had
>> included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that
>> ran and have reverted to this input now.
>>
>>
>>
>> My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking
>> forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.
>>
>>
>>
>> The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t
>> have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
>> but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance
>> and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is
>> best.
>>
>>
>>
>> Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying
>> the places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears
>> to be strong information, and has always been.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
>> but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
>> subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
>> from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as
>> -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three)
>> came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1)
>> came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this
>> runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5
>> to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the
>> limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The
>> best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered
>> the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated
>> weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.
>>
>>
>>
>> I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a
>> few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the
>> selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a
>> quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella
>> inclusions.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do
>> soon, and include it here only for information and comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>> FROM THE ARCHIVES
>>
>> From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com
>> <ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com>] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM
>>
>> To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'
>>
>> <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne
>>
>>
>>
>> I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
>> discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
>> A2E (think POT betting to prices).
>>
>> However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
>> A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.
>>
>>
>>
>> Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW
>>
>> A2E
>>
>> Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%
>>
>>    Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
>> -15%
>>
>>       Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%
>>
>>       Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518
>> -18%
>>
>>    Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026
>> -12%
>>
>>      Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%
>>
>>      Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%
>>
>>
>>
>> AN
>>
>>
>>
>> Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all
>> start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
>> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
>> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>>
>>
>>
>> "Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices -
>> it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll
>> back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you
>> list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000
>> rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
>> considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
>> markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):
>>
>>
>>
>> Best returns @ SP:
>>
>>
>>
>> SThornton       101
>>
>> MJWalker        103
>>
>> WD'Avila        103
>>
>> CParnham        104
>>
>> VWong           104
>>
>> DMoor           105
>>
>> PWells          105
>>
>> DWBallard       107
>>
>> SFawke          113
>>
>> SGuymer         115
>>
>> JOliver         117
>>
>>
>>
>> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers
>> like 125/1 winners:
>>
>>
>>
>> JPStanley       100
>>
>> JPracey-Holm    100
>>
>> JTaylor         100
>>
>> MWeir           100
>>
>> RFradd          100
>>
>> RonStewart      100
>>
>> KWalters        102
>>
>> SLisnyy         102
>>
>> LJMeech         103
>>
>> TPannell        103
>>
>> CGallagher      104
>>
>> RMaloney        106
>>
>> CHall           107
>>
>> BWerner         108
>>
>> DWBallard       108
>>
>> JLyon           109
>>
>> PWells          109
>>
>> SThornton       109
>>
>> CNutman         110
>>
>> VBolozhinsky    112
>>
>>
>>
>> Worst returns @SP:
>>
>>
>>
>> LGHenry          21
>>
>> JeffKehoe        31
>>
>> DPitomac         33
>>
>> TJeffries        33
>>
>> SBayliss         34
>>
>> JMissen          36
>>
>> MJStephens       37
>>
>> ABadger          38
>>
>> NRose            38
>>
>> SStarley         38
>>
>> ECockram         39
>>
>> JKeating         39
>>
>> MHackett         39
>>
>> RYetimova        39
>>
>> SParnham         39
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
>> LGHenry is in a class of her own):
>>
>>
>>
>> LGHenry          27
>>
>> MJStephens       32
>>
>> SBayliss         36
>>
>> CBryen           41
>>
>> JMissen          43
>>
>> SGalvin          45
>>
>> SStarley         45
>>
>> ABadger          46
>>
>> DPitomac         46
>>
>> BPowell          47
>>
>> MHackett         47
>>
>> SParnham         47
>>
>> BStower          48
>>
>> PaulPayne        49
>>
>> CQuilty          50
>>
>>
>>
>> The big gaps -  All  "in market"
>>
>>
>>
>> SFawke          113     79
>>
>> WD'Avila        103     75
>>
>> MJWalker        103     76
>>
>> JOliver         117     91
>>
>> BMertens         88     63
>>
>>
>>
>> JTaylor          69    100
>>
>> NPunch           60     95
>>
>> JeffKehoe        31     72
>>
>> SLisnyy          61    102
>>
>> CHall            66    107
>>
>> VBolozhinsky     70    112
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *Roman
>> *Sent:* Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
>> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
>> tonymoffat at bigpond.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
>> literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
>> much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a
>> solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not
>> figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the
>> horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100
>> rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a
>> fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two
>> jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an
>> on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the
>> ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with
>> leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of
>> figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and
>> placings.
>>
>>
>>
>> I look forward to Len?s reply.
>>
>>
>>
>> Roman Koz
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
>> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
>> *To:* tonymoffat at bigpond.com; racing at ausrace.com
>> *Subject:* [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony,
>>
>>
>>
>> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
>> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>>
>>
>>
>> LBL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>>
>> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>>
>> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
>> advanced
>>
>> on some others in this race.
>>
>>
>>
>> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>>
>> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>>
>> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>>
>> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off
>> a
>>
>> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
>> good
>>
>> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4
>> -
>>
>> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor
>> is
>>
>> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>>
>> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>>
>> that value to it early in the calculation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>>
>> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there
>> is a
>>
>> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>>
>> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>>
>> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct,
>> and
>>
>> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into
>> all
>>
>> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>>
>> individually determine an iv.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>>
>> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants,
>> dividends
>>
>> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>>
>>
>>
>> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>>
>> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>>
>> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>>
>> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
>> again
>>
>> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>>
>> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
>> the
>>
>> overall stat picture
>>
>>
>>
>> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same
>> as
>>
>> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>>
>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>>
>> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>>
>> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>>
>> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to
>> win
>>
>> a race
>>
>> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>>
>> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>>
>>
>>
>> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>>
>> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>>
>> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Racing mailing list
>> Racing at ausrace.com
>> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Racing mailing list
>> Racing at ausrace.com
>> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190129/7053f161/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Tue Jan 29 10:44:18 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:44:18 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
Message-ID: <007501d4b763$63a46330$2aed2990$@ozemail.com.au>

My data base has horses trained by "G Waterhouse & A", "Ms G Waterhouse" or "G & A Waterhouse" racing at 210 different tracks, including ADELAIDE RIVER, CAIRNS, BERRI, BROOME, TENNANT CREEK, TALMOI, MARBLE BAR??.

 

Now maybe GW did float/fly her horses there, or much more likely horses that she used to train ran there and whoever records the trainers had not updated the records. Of course there are various commercial data bases but they, I am told, basically source their data from the same place, and while "MARBLE BAR" would raise a red flag, other errors might not.

 

I check jockeys every day, matching them from 2 sources; that does not guarantee accuracy, but it improves it - on official State Racing sites I see a jockey next to a horse that according to the Stewards report was replaced; TAB sites report different jockeys?.  Checking trainers is a step too far for me. 

 

 

                      

 

From: L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au> > 
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2019 1:49 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: RE: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Easily via tables BUT " Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable". Tough indeed.

 

Even with top trainers, I have problems as discussed earlier:

 

D Hayes         

D J Hayes       

D & B Hayes & T 

David Hayes     

David Hayes & To

D, B & T Hayes &

 

G Waterhouse & A

Ms G Waterhouse 

G & A Waterhouse

 

WORSE, in a complementary data-base separately sourced, for only the last 8 years, I have additionals:

 

DHayes          

D&BHayes        

 

and:

 

GWaterhouse     

G&AWaterhouse       

MsGWaterhouse     

 

 

 

Then what about this tiny non-random sample of 43 trainers out of the 11,421 I have in my current (non-archived) data base?

 

A D Smith       

A F Smith       

A J Smith       

A L Smith       

A Smith         

Ms A J Smith    

Ms A Smith      

Ms Alison Smith 

J A Smith       

J B Smith       

J C Smith       

J E Smith       

J L Smith       

J Smith         

Jeremy Smith    

Ms J M Smith    

Ms J Smith      

K C Smith       

K L Smith       

K M Smith       

K N Smith       

K R Smith       

K Smith         

K T Smith       

Kelvin Smith    

Ms K Smith      

L A Smith       

L C Smith       

L J Smith       

L R Smith       

L Smith         

Les Smith       

Ms L C Smith    

Ms L Smith      

M J Smith       

M K Smith       

M Smith         

M W Smith       

Marilyn Smith   

Matthew Smith   

Max Smith       

Melissa Smith   

Ms M Smith      

 

I can't be bothered looking up how many additionals there are in the complementary 8-year file.

 

How long do you figure it would take to be 99% sure you had determined how many unique trainers are in the 43 names (and of course thus form a tiny part of the required table)?

 

Then do the same for at the other 11,378 names? Then match to the 8-year file?

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> > On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2019 8:54 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

And I should add that names of jockeys or trainers can be easily overcome in excel via look-up tables or in access via a table. The fuss escapes me. Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable. The challenge for mine is placing a value on a jockey or a trainer that's in sync with the scale of my type of performance rating. Which is why leaving them in their raw state, as Roman does, is still quite appealing. Apart from its simplicity, it shouldn't be ignored that a degree of randomness is created by default and in a chaotic space (ie a horse Race) that could translate into better prices because of unfashionable jockeys / trainers. Just some thoughts. 

 

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:55 Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com>  wrote:

Roman ? my response to Len wasn?t intended as having a shot at you, and your assertion, but more to show that the values were aligning, at least in the case of SGuymer and his 115/1.15.

 

Personally, I like to involve the exposed values of runners engaged in the upcoming race and minimize, if I can, the magical addings/dividings/other things needed to construct a rank. 

Let?s call it evidence based handicapping.

 

I do use the market ? firstly, if you divide the place dividend by the win dividend and rank the result you can see at a glance those runners which have a disproportionate sum plonked for the win ? my cut off value is 41% - the place dividend is 41% of the win, which is the ?normal? range for most out to $9, then the place div % falls away, the longer divs out there in the badlands are being bet/hunted by somebody.

 

Caulfield R7 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 4AlGayel 48% from $1.5/$2.5 ? skinny I know but you get the gist.

Caulfield R8 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 8Manolo 50% from $1.4/$2.8 ? skinny etc.

Randwic R9 yesterday  - there are two selections over 41% - 1ST and 2ND  $1.80/$1.5

Randwic R8 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sondelon 42% from $1.4/$3.3

Randwic R7 yesterday -  there are two selections over 41% - Unp and Unp ? so it is not perfect.

Randwic R6 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sei Stella 58% from $1.5/$2.6

 

SunCoast R8 yesterday- the winner was ranked 11, the 2nd was ranked 4, and the 3rd was ranked 10th 

So it is not perfect. 

 

See the story of JIM, Jim and jim about scoring off these types of bets. jim (all lowercase) has been known to move

$1k on these until he accumulates his daily take ? it was $1700 ? and never less than $1k if the pool is large (enough)

 

I rank the quinella dividends then countif those runner numbers involved in the first 10 ? this may include up to 5 or more horses.

My feeling was that, when I commenced doing that, that astuteness from others caused them to select their bets and I could benefit from that.

Those other punters had made an effort I considered, in isolation though. Now the inclusion of flexi betting has affected that a lot but it still

?seems to be? a good strong lead. You need access to a matrix, not always allowed now.

 

I can do it with exacta divs as well ? it is much of a muchness.

 

All of the data above was from final dividends. In the sometimes frantic betting scene before a race, with data changing 3 times a second, you have to take a stab occasionally, and to hope that your selection holds it?s value, they normally do.

 

Cheers]

 

Tony

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> ] On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:51 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi Tony,

I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his. That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck? with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

 

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7 chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.

 

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?. Nevertheless that can be factored in.

 

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.

So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a better figure.

 

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure or should it be vice versa.

 

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir, Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

 

However, all said above is just one way!!

 

Cheers

Roman

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> 
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Len ? thanks

 

Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

 

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have reverted to this input now.

 

My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.

 

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices, but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that. 

 

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is best. 

 

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to be strong information, and has always been.

 

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.

 

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions. 

 

I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon, and include it here only for information and comment.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com>  [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com <mailto:ausrace at ausrace.com> >; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au> >

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne

 

I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.

 

Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448    -15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%

 

AN

 

Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like 125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> > On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >; tonymoffat at bigpond.com <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> 
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len?s reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com;  <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

 


 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virus-free.  <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

 

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com <mailto:Racing at ausrace.com> 
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190129/b4d9015d/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 29 11:13:35 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:13:35 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <007501d4b763$63a46330$2aed2990$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <007501d4b763$63a46330$2aed2990$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-RQJ3C_asSOKy4WMqBEczM+Wf_LBQAfDzM1zGe0r_5gww@mail.gmail.com>

Count TRAINER                  Starters State
1 A D Smith                 43 NSW
2 A D Smith                 18 WA
3 B J Smith                 140 QLND
4 B S Smith             5 NSW
5 B Smith            79 NSW
6 B Smith             10 QLND
7 C Smith                   242 QLND
8 D A Smith             45 WA
9 D J Smith             34 NSW
10 D S Smith                 28 NSW
11 D Smith              12 NSW
12 D Smith                137 VIC
13 D W Smith             17 QLND
14 F E Smith                 70 QLND
15 G C Smith                 15 VIC
16 G Smith               20 QLND
17 J D Smith                 25 SA
18 J Smith              25 NSW
19 K C Smith                 15 NSW
20 Kelly Smith               12 NSW
21 L Smith                   249 WA
22 M J Smith                 49 ACT
23 M K Smith                 6 QLND
24 M Smith             239 NSW
25 M W Smith                 5 VIC
26 Ms A J Smith              40 WA
27 Ms A Smith                44 NSW
28 Ms H J Smith              24 NSW
29 Ms J Smith                9 VIC
30 Ms M Smith                12 SA
31 P A Smith                 17 NSW
32 P Smith               79 NSW
33 P Smith               51 VIC
34 R G Smith                 14 WA
35 R Smith            185 NSW
36 S L Smith                 24 NSW
Len

between 07/04/2018 and 31/12/2018.

nationally i have 137606 runs.

in a database , that has it's limitations.

it is not in Access. it is a supplementary database. updated for a specific
purpose.

it took 1 hour and 17 mins. unattended to do the above query. yes that's
how slow it is.

the odd dates are simply because i arrived back home and pressed stop.

that being said it may have stopped midway though the day of 7/4/2018.

i have spent roughly 30 mins on it in excel to generate the above 36 unique
smith's.

checking trainers is not something i do either.

the purpose of this email is to simply highlight that extracting unique
trainer name's is not a bridge too far.



















On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:44 AM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> My data base has horses trained by "G Waterhouse & A", "Ms G Waterhouse"
> or "G & A Waterhouse" racing at 210 different tracks, including ADELAIDE
> RIVER, CAIRNS, BERRI, BROOME, TENNANT CREEK, TALMOI, MARBLE BAR??.
>
>
>
> Now maybe GW did float/fly her horses there, or much more likely horses
> that she used to train ran there and whoever records the trainers had not
> updated the records. Of course there are various commercial data bases but
> they, I am told, basically source their data from the same place, and while
> "MARBLE BAR" would raise a red flag, other errors might not.
>
>
>
> I check jockeys every day, matching them from 2 sources; that does not
> guarantee accuracy, but it improves it - on official State Racing sites I
> see a jockey next to a horse that according to the Stewards report was
> replaced; TAB sites report different jockeys?.  Checking trainers is a step
> too far for me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 January 2019 1:49 PM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Easily via tables BUT " Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not
> insurmountable". Tough indeed.
>
>
>
> Even with top trainers, I have problems as discussed earlier:
>
>
>
> D Hayes
>
> D J Hayes
>
> D & B Hayes & T
>
> David Hayes
>
> David Hayes & To
>
> D, B & T Hayes &
>
>
>
> G Waterhouse & A
>
> Ms G Waterhouse
>
> G & A Waterhouse
>
>
>
> WORSE, in a complementary data-base separately sourced, for only the last
> 8 years, I have additionals:
>
>
>
> DHayes
>
> D&BHayes
>
>
>
> and:
>
>
>
> GWaterhouse
>
> G&AWaterhouse
>
> MsGWaterhouse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Then what about this tiny non-random sample of 43 trainers out of the
> 11,421 I have in my current (non-archived) data base?
>
>
>
> A D Smith
>
> A F Smith
>
> A J Smith
>
> A L Smith
>
> A Smith
>
> Ms A J Smith
>
> Ms A Smith
>
> Ms Alison Smith
>
> J A Smith
>
> J B Smith
>
> J C Smith
>
> J E Smith
>
> J L Smith
>
> J Smith
>
> Jeremy Smith
>
> Ms J M Smith
>
> Ms J Smith
>
> K C Smith
>
> K L Smith
>
> K M Smith
>
> K N Smith
>
> K R Smith
>
> K Smith
>
> K T Smith
>
> Kelvin Smith
>
> Ms K Smith
>
> L A Smith
>
> L C Smith
>
> L J Smith
>
> L R Smith
>
> L Smith
>
> Les Smith
>
> Ms L C Smith
>
> Ms L Smith
>
> M J Smith
>
> M K Smith
>
> M Smith
>
> M W Smith
>
> Marilyn Smith
>
> Matthew Smith
>
> Max Smith
>
> Melissa Smith
>
> Ms M Smith
>
>
>
> I can't be bothered looking up how many additionals there are in the
> complementary 8-year file.
>
>
>
> How long do you figure it would take to be 99% sure you had determined how
> many unique trainers are in the 43 names (and of course thus form a tiny
> part of the required table)?
>
>
>
> Then do the same for at the other 11,378 names? Then match to the 8-year
> file?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *sean mclaren
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 January 2019 8:54 AM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> And I should add that names of jockeys or trainers can be easily overcome
> in excel via look-up tables or in access via a table. The fuss escapes me.
> Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable. The challenge
> for mine is placing a value on a jockey or a trainer that's in sync with
> the scale of my type of performance rating. Which is why leaving them in
> their raw state, as Roman does, is still quite appealing. Apart from its
> simplicity, it shouldn't be ignored that a degree of randomness is created
> by default and in a chaotic space (ie a horse Race) that could translate
> into better prices because of unfashionable jockeys / trainers. Just some
> thoughts.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:55 Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com wrote:
>
> Roman ? my response to Len wasn?t intended as having a shot at you, and
> your assertion, but more to show that the values were aligning, at least in
> the case of SGuymer and his 115/1.15.
>
>
>
> Personally, I like to involve the exposed values of runners engaged in the
> upcoming race and minimize, if I can, the magical addings/dividings/other
> things needed to construct a rank.
>
> Let?s call it evidence based handicapping.
>
>
>
> I do use the market ? firstly, if you divide the place dividend by the win
> dividend and rank the result you can see at a glance those runners which
> have a disproportionate sum plonked for the win ? my cut off value is 41% -
> the place dividend is 41% of the win, which is the ?normal? range for most
> out to $9, then the place div % falls away, the longer divs out there in
> the badlands are being bet/hunted by somebody.
>
>
>
> Caulfield R7 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 4AlGayel 48% from
> $1.5/$2.5 ? skinny I know but you get the gist.
>
> Caulfield R8 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 8Manolo 50% from
> $1.4/$2.8 ? skinny etc.
>
> Randwic R9 yesterday  - there are two selections over 41% - 1ST and 2ND
>  $1.80/$1.5
>
> Randwic R8 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sondelon 42% from
> $1.4/$3.3
>
> Randwic R7 yesterday -  there are two selections over 41% - Unp and Unp ?
> so it is not perfect.
>
> Randwic R6 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sei Stella 58% from
> $1.5/$2.6
>
>
>
> SunCoast R8 yesterday- the winner was ranked 11, the 2nd was ranked 4,
> and the 3rd was ranked 10th
>
> So it is not perfect.
>
>
>
> See the story of JIM, Jim and jim about scoring off these types of bets.
> jim (all lowercase) has been known to move
>
> $1k on these until he accumulates his daily take ? it was $1700 ? and
> never less than $1k if the pool is large (enough)
>
>
>
> I rank the quinella dividends then countif those runner numbers involved
> in the first 10 ? this may include up to 5 or more horses.
>
> My feeling was that, when I commenced doing that, that astuteness from
> others caused them to select their bets and I could benefit from that.
>
> Those other punters had made an effort I considered, in isolation though.
> Now the inclusion of flexi betting has affected that a lot but it still
>
> ?seems to be? a good strong lead. You need access to a matrix, not always
> allowed now.
>
>
>
> I can do it with exacta divs as well ? it is much of a muchness.
>
>
>
> All of the data above was from final dividends. In the sometimes frantic
> betting scene before a race, with data changing 3 times a second, you have
> to take a stab occasionally, and to hope that your selection holds it?s
> value, they normally do.
>
>
>
> Cheers]
>
>
>
> Tony
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] *On Behalf Of *Roman
> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 5:51 AM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his.
> That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck?
> with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.
>
>
>
> The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call
> ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times
> than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is
> linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7
> chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is
> correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.
>
>
>
> Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this
> premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of
> whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a
> fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who
> think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win.
> As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?.
> Nevertheless that can be factored in.
>
>
>
> In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710
> for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst
> Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.
>
> So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set
> you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a
> better figure.
>
>
>
> These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation
> if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers
> the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure
> or should it be vice versa.
>
>
>
> Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or
> less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some
> jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir,
> Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.
>
>
>
> However, all said above is just one way!!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Roman
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *Tony Moffat
> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
> *To:* racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Len ? thanks
>
>
>
> Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I
> have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you
> promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).
>
>
>
> I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive
> the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their
> presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not
> uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had
> included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that
> ran and have reverted to this input now.
>
>
>
> My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking
> forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.
>
>
>
> The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t
> have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices,
> but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that.
>
>
>
> Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance
> and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is
> best.
>
>
>
> Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the
> places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to
> be strong information, and has always been.
>
>
>
> As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places
> but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then
> subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score
> from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as
> -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three)
> came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1)
> came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this
> runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5
> to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the
> limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The
> best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered
> the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated
> weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.
>
>
>
> I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a
> few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the
> selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a
> quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella
> inclusions.
>
>
>
> I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon,
> and include it here only for information and comment.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> FROM THE ARCHIVES
>
> From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com
> <ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com>] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix
>
> Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM
>
> To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com>; 'L.B.Loveday'
>
> <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
>
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne
>
>
>
> I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and
> discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better
> A2E (think POT betting to prices).
>
> However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and
> A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.
>
>
>
> Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW
>
> A2E
>
> Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%
>
>    Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448
> -15%
>
>       Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%
>
>       Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518
> -18%
>
>    Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%
>
>      Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%
>
>      Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%
>
>
>
> AN
>
>
>
> Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all
> start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> "Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices -
> it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll
> back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.
>
>
>
> Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you
> list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.
>
>
>
> Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000
> rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only
> considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP
> markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):
>
>
>
> Best returns @ SP:
>
>
>
> SThornton       101
>
> MJWalker        103
>
> WD'Avila        103
>
> CParnham        104
>
> VWong           104
>
> DMoor           105
>
> PWells          105
>
> DWBallard       107
>
> SFawke          113
>
> SGuymer         115
>
> JOliver         117
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers
> like 125/1 winners:
>
>
>
> JPStanley       100
>
> JPracey-Holm    100
>
> JTaylor         100
>
> MWeir           100
>
> RFradd          100
>
> RonStewart      100
>
> KWalters        102
>
> SLisnyy         102
>
> LJMeech         103
>
> TPannell        103
>
> CGallagher      104
>
> RMaloney        106
>
> CHall           107
>
> BWerner         108
>
> DWBallard       108
>
> JLyon           109
>
> PWells          109
>
> SThornton       109
>
> CNutman         110
>
> VBolozhinsky    112
>
>
>
> Worst returns @SP:
>
>
>
> LGHenry          21
>
> JeffKehoe        31
>
> DPitomac         33
>
> TJeffries        33
>
> SBayliss         34
>
> JMissen          36
>
> MJStephens       37
>
> ABadger          38
>
> NRose            38
>
> SStarley         38
>
> ECockram         39
>
> JKeating         39
>
> MHackett         39
>
> RYetimova        39
>
> SParnham         39
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said
> LGHenry is in a class of her own):
>
>
>
> LGHenry          27
>
> MJStephens       32
>
> SBayliss         36
>
> CBryen           41
>
> JMissen          43
>
> SGalvin          45
>
> SStarley         45
>
> ABadger          46
>
> DPitomac         46
>
> BPowell          47
>
> MHackett         47
>
> SParnham         47
>
> BStower          48
>
> PaulPayne        49
>
> CQuilty          50
>
>
>
> The big gaps -  All  "in market"
>
>
>
> SFawke          113     79
>
> WD'Avila        103     75
>
> MJWalker        103     76
>
> JOliver         117     91
>
> BMertens         88     63
>
>
>
> JTaylor          69    100
>
> NPunch           60     95
>
> JeffKehoe        31     72
>
> SLisnyy          61    102
>
> CHall            66    107
>
> VBolozhinsky     70    112
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *Roman
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
> *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>;
> tonymoffat at bigpond.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey
> literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.
>
>
>
> I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that
> much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a
> solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not
> figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the
> horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100
> rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a
> fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two
> jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an
> on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the
> ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with
> leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of
> figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and
> placings.
>
>
>
> I look forward to Len?s reply.
>
>
>
> Roman Koz
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com
> <racing-bounces at ausrace.com>] *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
> *To:* tonymoffat at bigpond.com; racing at ausrace.com
> *Subject:* [AusRace] Jockeys generally
>
>
>
> Tony,
>
>
>
> Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different
> rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.
>
>
>
> LBL
>
>
>
>
>
> 790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to
>
> expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame
>
> covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40%
> advanced
>
> on some others in this race.
>
>
>
> No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than
>
> that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a
>
> horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for
>
> statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a
>
> calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a
> good
>
> ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -
>
> .6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).
>
>
>
> Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is
>
> 0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is
>
> .31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign
>
> that value to it early in the calculation.
>
>
>
> Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of
>
> all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is
> a
>
> jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank
>
> jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so
>
> that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and
>
> I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all
>
> the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I
>
> individually determine an iv.
>
>
>
> There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is
>
> not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends
>
> in the sub $2 range, most of us really.
>
>
>
> This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under
>
> the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in
>
> 1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually
>
> Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is
> again
>
> divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These
>
> numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of
> the
>
> overall stat picture
>
>
>
> Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as
>
> jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I
>
> multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.
>
> Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)
>
> Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win
>
> a race
>
> Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.
>
> Dylan Dunn = 1.1
>
>
>
> There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.
>
> This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting
>
> in it, nor do I suggest you do.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190129/13350dbd/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Tue Jan 29 11:43:45 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:43:45 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-R8af3Ye=ge6nGoVoE=nDfbC-m0OfJPHin7JY2XwNBecQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>	<00a301d4b5f4$02c1f3e0$0845dba0$@bigpond.com>	<CAOBDE-SniqOAjr-dJOritaADFF0vgBr4zo1nBt_OuXHTchLuUQ@mail.gmail.com>	<000c01d4b6b4$154997a0$3fdcc6e0$@ozemail.com.au>	<CAOBDE-T9q-Ap5PnVsA6rvDcDLh0xtk+jXSj4HZm1LgXMA4oh5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBDE-R8af3Ye=ge6nGoVoE=nDfbC-m0OfJPHin7JY2XwNBecQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007f01d4b76b$b2370180$16a50480$@ozemail.com.au>

Sean,

 

I ran my program to count runs per trainer and it took 5 seconds to run - the program was pre-written (by me) and so the only time required on my part is keying "DO ADDTN". (And then COPY & PASTE the output to here). The file of 5 million runs that I extracted the data from was likely in a buffer, so it may take a few seconds longer if I booted up the computer and then ran it as my first job.

 

But my point is not time to extract, but that there is next-to-zero chance that the 211 unique trainer-names with the surname Smith in my database are discrete people, and the process of determining whether, and when, A Smith is the same trainer as Ms A Smith and, or, Ms Alison Smith (A Smith and Ms A Smith are listed at different times as trainer of the same horses, as are Ms A Smith and Ms Alison Smith - did different people train the horses at different times, or do the 3 names represent 1 discrete person, or 2?) is just a bridge too far for me, and the alternatives are to run with all-but certain wrongly-derived statistics or leave trainers out of the rating process:

 

A D Smith           359

A F Smith            80

A J Smith            58

A L Smith            66

A Smith             198

B B Smith            56

B G Smith           432

B J Smith           458

B M Smith            70

B S Smith           129

B Smith            3324

Ben Smith           538

Bob Smith (rj)        1

Brad Smith          409

C G Smith           126

C L Smith          2565

C P Smith            12

C Smith            2167

Colin Smith         155

Craig Smith        2876

D P Smith          4892

D S Smith           596

D Smith             313

Damien Smith         17

Dane Smith          542

David A Smith       251

David J Smith       190

David Smith         249

David W Smith        81

F E Smith          1149

F J Smith           183

Francis Smith        28

G C Smith          1248

G D Smith             5

G M Smith             1

G Smith              46

Gareth Smith        309

Garry Smith          30

Geoff Smith          39

Gregory Smith        44

H J Smith           281

J A Smith           524

J B Smith          2470

J C Smith           112

J E Smith            65

J L Smith           197

J Smith              33

Jeremy Smith        399

K C Smith           489

K L Smith           267

K M Smith            47

K N Smith           511

K R Smith           459

K Smith              68

K T Smith           524

Kelvin Smith        558

L A Smith           115

L C Smith            88

L J Smith          1010

L R Smith            77

L Smith            4368

Les Smith            86

M J Smith          1259

M K Smith           260

M Smith             624

M W Smith           281

Marilyn Smith         3

Matthew Smith      2552

Max Smith            50

Melissa Smith         2

Ms A J Smith          2

Ms A Smith         1836

Ms Alison Smith    1829

Ms C Smith           34

Ms D Smith          360

Ms F Smith          167

Ms H Smith           93

Ms J M Smith        140

Ms J Smith          263

Ms K Smith            6

Ms L C Smith        540

Ms L Smith           80

Ms M Smith          241

Ms R Smith           70

N T Smith            70

O R Smith            46

O Smith               5

P A Smith           243

P J Smith            24

P R Smith             7

P Smith             364

Paul Smith          763

Peter Smith        1016

R G Smith            67

R J Smith           147

R K Smith           107

R L Smith           154

R R Smith            52

R Smith             202

Rochelle Smith      944

Ronald Smith         41

Russell Smith        30

S G Smith            72

S J Smith             3

S L Smith           224

S M Smith           258

S Smith              88

T A Smith             6

T J Smith           313

T Smith             140

T T Smith            54

Trevor J Smith       11

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2019 2:06 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

hello again

 

ignore the final column called Runs.

 

i had not cross checked. 

 

the initial query for Dec 18 generated 16460 runs for trainers nationally.

 

the smiths were extracted as a sub set.

 

thanks

 

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:49 AM sean mclaren <seanmac4321 at gmail.com <mailto:seanmac4321 at gmail.com> > wrote:


trainer

state

runs


A D Smith                

NSW

5


A D Smith                

WA

1


B J Smith                

QLND

11


B S Smith            

NSW

3


B Smith            

QLND

3


C Smith                  

QLND

35


D J Smith            

NSW

1


D S Smith                

NSW

5


D Smith             

NSW

2


D Smith             

VIC

18


F E Smith                

QLND

5


G Smith              

QLND

2


J Smith             

NSW

2


K Smith              

NSW

1


L Smith                  

WA

3


M J Smith                

ACT

6


M Smith            

NSW

16


Ms A J Smith             

WA

3


Ms A Smith               

NSW

8


Ms J Smith               

VIC

1


P A Smith                

NSW

2


P Smith              

NSW

1


P Smith              

VIC

1


R G Smith                

WA

3


R Smith           

NSW

22


S L Smith                

NSW

6

 

hello Len

 

national Dec 2018 numbers for the unique Smiths.

 

35 mins. total

 

near 10 mins waiting for the query. Export to excel. Query, Sort, Format count etc etc

 

i can offer no further comment.

 

Thanks Sean

 

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:50 PM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au> > wrote:

Easily via tables BUT " Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable". Tough indeed.

 

Even with top trainers, I have problems as discussed earlier:

 

D Hayes         

D J Hayes       

D & B Hayes & T 

David Hayes     

David Hayes & To

D, B & T Hayes &

 

G Waterhouse & A

Ms G Waterhouse 

G & A Waterhouse

 

WORSE, in a complementary data-base separately sourced, for only the last 8 years, I have additionals:

 

DHayes          

D&BHayes        

 

and:

 

GWaterhouse     

G&AWaterhouse       

MsGWaterhouse     

 

 

 

Then what about this tiny non-random sample of 43 trainers out of the 11,421 I have in my current (non-archived) data base?

 

A D Smith       

A F Smith       

A J Smith       

A L Smith       

A Smith         

Ms A J Smith    

Ms A Smith      

Ms Alison Smith 

J A Smith       

J B Smith       

J C Smith       

J E Smith       

J L Smith       

J Smith         

Jeremy Smith    

Ms J M Smith    

Ms J Smith      

K C Smith       

K L Smith       

K M Smith       

K N Smith       

K R Smith       

K Smith         

K T Smith       

Kelvin Smith    

Ms K Smith      

L A Smith       

L C Smith       

L J Smith       

L R Smith       

L Smith         

Les Smith       

Ms L C Smith    

Ms L Smith      

M J Smith       

M K Smith       

M Smith         

M W Smith       

Marilyn Smith   

Matthew Smith   

Max Smith       

Melissa Smith   

Ms M Smith      

 

I can't be bothered looking up how many additionals there are in the complementary 8-year file.

 

How long do you figure it would take to be 99% sure you had determined how many unique trainers are in the 43 names (and of course thus form a tiny part of the required table)?

 

Then do the same for at the other 11,378 names? Then match to the 8-year file?

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> > On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2019 8:54 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

And I should add that names of jockeys or trainers can be easily overcome in excel via look-up tables or in access via a table. The fuss escapes me. Agreed the work upfront is a tough but not insurmountable. The challenge for mine is placing a value on a jockey or a trainer that's in sync with the scale of my type of performance rating. Which is why leaving them in their raw state, as Roman does, is still quite appealing. Apart from its simplicity, it shouldn't be ignored that a degree of randomness is created by default and in a chaotic space (ie a horse Race) that could translate into better prices because of unfashionable jockeys / trainers. Just some thoughts. 

 

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:55 Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com>  wrote:

Roman ? my response to Len wasn?t intended as having a shot at you, and your assertion, but more to show that the values were aligning, at least in the case of SGuymer and his 115/1.15.

 

Personally, I like to involve the exposed values of runners engaged in the upcoming race and minimize, if I can, the magical addings/dividings/other things needed to construct a rank. 

Let?s call it evidence based handicapping.

 

I do use the market ? firstly, if you divide the place dividend by the win dividend and rank the result you can see at a glance those runners which have a disproportionate sum plonked for the win ? my cut off value is 41% - the place dividend is 41% of the win, which is the ?normal? range for most out to $9, then the place div % falls away, the longer divs out there in the badlands are being bet/hunted by somebody.

 

Caulfield R7 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 4AlGayel 48% from $1.5/$2.5 ? skinny I know but you get the gist.

Caulfield R8 yesterday ? the one runner over 41% is 8Manolo 50% from $1.4/$2.8 ? skinny etc.

Randwic R9 yesterday  - there are two selections over 41% - 1ST and 2ND  $1.80/$1.5

Randwic R8 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sondelon 42% from $1.4/$3.3

Randwic R7 yesterday -  there are two selections over 41% - Unp and Unp ? so it is not perfect.

Randwic R6 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sei Stella 58% from $1.5/$2.6

 

SunCoast R8 yesterday- the winner was ranked 11, the 2nd was ranked 4, and the 3rd was ranked 10th 

So it is not perfect. 

 

See the story of JIM, Jim and jim about scoring off these types of bets. jim (all lowercase) has been known to move

$1k on these until he accumulates his daily take ? it was $1700 ? and never less than $1k if the pool is large (enough)

 

I rank the quinella dividends then countif those runner numbers involved in the first 10 ? this may include up to 5 or more horses.

My feeling was that, when I commenced doing that, that astuteness from others caused them to select their bets and I could benefit from that.

Those other punters had made an effort I considered, in isolation though. Now the inclusion of flexi betting has affected that a lot but it still

?seems to be? a good strong lead. You need access to a matrix, not always allowed now.

 

I can do it with exacta divs as well ? it is much of a muchness.

 

All of the data above was from final dividends. In the sometimes frantic betting scene before a race, with data changing 3 times a second, you have to take a stab occasionally, and to hope that your selection holds it?s value, they normally do.

 

Cheers]

 

Tony

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> ] On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:51 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi Tony,

I respect the fact you have your way that works for you as Sean has his. That?s how the punt goes for those keen enough to go past ?pluck a duck? with a cursory ten minute look or listen to various tipsters.

 

The one constant I can quote is that the racetrack market is what I call ?linear?. I assume that?s the correct term where I mean favs win more times than 2nd favs who win more than 3rd favs and so on. Thus the SP figure is linear in that $2.50 chances win more than $4 chances who win more than $7 chances and so on. I am sure we all agree that this general premise is correct in the high 90?s percentage wise.

 

Therefore, the rating of jockeys and trainers can be aligned to this premise and their LOT or POT should give a reasonably clear picture of whether they are up to the market assessment. Where this can go asunder a fraction is that top trainers runners are overbet by a lazy public who think the likes of Waller Hayes and Weir can train every favourite to win. As most on this site realise many of their horses are ?unders?. Nevertheless that can be factored in.

 

In the file I have DKWeir 7516 runners for minus 23.8%LOT, D Hayes 4710 for -17.6% LOT however at $3 or less Weir 1053 runners for -5.1% whilst Hayes with 529 runners is -11.2%.

So, if betting all odds, as I assume you do, you would use the larger set you would credit Hayes with more points. The favs punters would give DKW a better figure.

 

These figures are, of course, open to all sorts of personal interpretation if I add that overall from 7513 runners at $3 or less covering all trainers the LOT is 8.1%. I am not sure but would 5.1 divided by 8.1% give a figure or should it be vice versa.

 

Naturally, a similar process for jockeys would find some riders of $3 or less chances, for instance, better than others. From there some jockey/trainer combos would be another facet i.e. Yendall/Weir, Allen/Weir, Bowman/Waller et al but a downside for some combos would be not enough runs.

 

However, all said above is just one way!!

 

Cheers

Roman

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 1:59 AM
To: racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> 
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Len ? thanks

 

Kozzi?s  assertion that the iv are poles apart does not hold up here ? I have similar scores to yours. I leave mine at 1.15 for Guymer and you promote him by multiplying by a hundred (de-decimate?) to get 115 (I guess).

 

I wanted a score in the here and now and that is how/why I came to derive the iv, it is contemporaneous with other riders in this race, their presence affects its score somewhat, a little, and never majorly. It is not uniquely mine, by the way. It involves the use of all the placings, I had included the win record only, then added second place(s) to see how that ran and have reverted to this input now.

 

My calculations are in the mould of ?ok, what can you do?, looking forward, and others can be described as ?look what I done?.

 

The inclusion of performance at price bands might be the best but I don?t have that data, the prices of past endeavors.  I can access it, the prices, but choose not to manually enter it, and who would do that. 

 

Yes, I do iv for jockeys (as you know) and also trainer, horse, distance and form and multiply these to get a value for each runner ? highest is best. 

 

Form is a two part process. I involve their last 4 runs by multiplying the places together, remove the worst result, then rank that ? this appears to be strong information, and has always been.

 

As a factor in a weight rating process used, I again involve their places but this time I start from a base of 9 (the worst there can be) then subtract each succeeding run from the previous product until I get a score from which I can calculate a rating to win. So 6214, comes out as -3,-4,-1,3 and when summed this is -3+-4+-1+3 = -5. The -3(minus three) came from 6-9 = -3, the -4 (minus 4) came from 6-2 = -4, the -1 (minus 1) came from 2-1 =-1, and the (+)3 came from 4 minus 1 = +3. The -5 for this runner, and the calculated scores for all runners is then multiplied by 1.5 to give a weight rating variation and this product is then added to the limit weight for this race and the allocated weight deducted from that. The best result, the highest/biggest number resulting from that is considered the best for this race, and you can zero that against the other calculated weights to sort out the weight rated best ranking.

 

I use a variation of this method in my own punting, having streamlined a few of the calculations, but the principles are the same, and the selections also. I back more than one runner in each chosen race, often a quinella now, and for several years, with a saver on some of the quinella inclusions. 

 

I don?t use or include the iv selections in my punting yet, I may do soon, and include it here only for information and comment.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

FROM THE ARCHIVES

From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com>  [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Nick at Twonix

Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 1:29 PM

To: 'AusRace Mailing List' <ausrace at ausrace.com <mailto:ausrace at ausrace.com> >; 'L.B.Loveday'

<lloveday at ozemail.com.au <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au> >

Subject: Re: [AusRace] Michelle Payne

 

I did an analysis of 271 K Aus races rides over last 2-3 years and discovered that Male jockeys have a 2% better strike rate and a 3% better A2E (think POT betting to prices).

However Apprentices ( both Male and Female) have the same Strike Rate and A2E . Licensed Male jockeys have a 6% better A2E compared to Female jockeys.

 

Category              Rides                   Wins    S/Rate  ExpW

A2E

Aus Races                271,662         35,340  13%       40,474  -13%

   Female                    40,478          4,626    11%       5,448    -15%

      Apprentice          21,840          2,549    12%       2,930    -13%

      Licensed              18,638          2,077    11%       2,518    -18%

   Male                       231,184        30,714  13%       35,026  -12%

     Apprentice           54,329          6,789    12%       7,840    -13%

     Licensed              176,855         23,925  14%       27,186  -12%

 

AN

 

Len, I was able to distinguish Female jockeys in AAP data as they all start with "Ms ". I am assuming that MS Dhoni doesn't ride in Aus :-)

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:50 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

"Raw wins and wins and placings" don't mean much in absence of prices - it's easy to back winners; just back every runner at 1/1 or less and you'll back around 56% of winners, and "just" lose about 5.5%.

 

Nor is just looking at past returns enough - factors such as those you list, and eg, track, trainer should be considered.

 

Here's a simplistic look at some figures that could be used:

 

 

Considering the last 1000 rides for jockeys who have had at least 1000 rides in the past 14 years (a somewhat different picture arises if only considering since the advent of SOP rather than traditional SP as SOP markets have lower market%s, especially away from Sydney/Melbourne tracks):

 

Best returns @ SP: 

 

SThornton       101

MJWalker        103

WD'Avila        103

CParnham        104

VWong           104

DMoor           105

PWells          105

DWBallard       107

SFawke          113

SGuymer         115

JOliver         117

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" - gets rid of outliers like 125/1 winners:

 

JPStanley       100

JPracey-Holm    100

JTaylor         100

MWeir           100

RFradd          100

RonStewart      100

KWalters        102

SLisnyy         102

LJMeech         103

TPannell        103

CGallagher      104

RMaloney        106

CHall           107

BWerner         108

DWBallard       108

JLyon           109

PWells          109

SThornton       109

CNutman         110

VBolozhinsky    112

 

Worst returns @SP:

 

LGHenry          21

JeffKehoe        31

DPitomac         33

TJeffries        33

SBayliss         34

JMissen          36

MJStephens       37

ABadger          38

NRose            38

SStarley         38

ECockram         39

JKeating         39

MHackett         39

RYetimova        39

SParnham         39

 

 

Considering only rides on horses "in the market" (as I've previously said LGHenry is in a class of her own):

 

LGHenry          27

MJStephens       32

SBayliss         36

CBryen           41

JMissen          43

SGalvin          45

SStarley         45

ABadger          46

DPitomac         46

BPowell          47

MHackett         47

SParnham         47

BStower          48

PaulPayne        49

CQuilty          50

 

The big gaps -  All  "in market"

 

SFawke          113     79

WD'Avila        103     75

MJWalker        103     76

JOliver         117     91

BMertens         88     63

 

JTaylor          69    100

NPunch           60     95

JeffKehoe        31     72

SLisnyy          61    102

CHall            66    107

VBolozhinsky     70    112

 

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> > On Behalf Of Roman
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2019 9:34 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >; tonymoffat at bigpond.com <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> 
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Hi all,

The fascination of it all is that two raters could have the same jockey literally poles apart depending on criterias chosen.

 

I have never rated jockeys nor trainers as I wonder if there is all that much between a number of them at the top level. If the SP figures is a solid determinant of the overall structure of horse racing does it not figure those jockeys that ride well on well fancied horses are giving the horses the chance of winning the market determines. Say Jockey A has 100 rides in races in town on favs and scores 35% of the time is he not a fraction better than Jockey B who rides 32%. So the next time the two jockeys meet on say favs at 2/1 and 9/4 (close) but the 32% jockey rides an on pacer and the 35% jockey rides a chronic get back type where does the ratings look now. It would be best to rate them all on their ability with leaders, on pacers, mid fielders and get back types and another set of figures comes up far more accurate, imho, than just a raw wins and wins and placings.

 

I look forward to Len?s reply.

 

Roman Koz

 

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 6:12 PM
To:  <mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com> tonymoffat at bigpond.com;  <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally

 

Tony,

 

Did not get to me and I just saw it in the archives - a very different rating method to mine; I'll evaluate and comment anon.

 

LBL

 

 

790*150-93-96 is the revealed racing stat for Linda Meech tomorrow - to

expand this Ms Leech has had 790 rides for 150 wins in the time frame

covered by this stat. My IV for that is 1.4, essentially she is 40% advanced

on some others in this race.

 

No rider gets less than 1, although the calculation is often less than

that, John Keating has .6 (scores a one in the scheme). Why? - he is on a

horse in the race and Bradbury's have happened, although I use the 1 for

statistical pureness, and to get rid of some decimals. To be factual, off a

calculation, Keating is somewhere like 80% more unlikely of producing a good

ride than Meech - he has 395*17-25-33 and is .6 against Meech at 1.4 (1.4 -

.6 is the basis of the claim for 80%).

 

Jason Maskiell is also on 1.4 in this race, off 347*54-46-41. The factor is

0.300552251 (the average of all jockeys riding) and my fall back value is

.31 - if a jockey can't be rated (the data is missing e.g.) then I assign

that value to it early in the calculation.

 

Roger Biggs wrote that he used .2595, which may be the statistical base of

all jockey placings across many rides. This has changed somewhat, there is a

jockey db. on RB Ratings. I am unaware of another method to rate and rank

jockeys against all their rides. They can only ride one horse in a race so

that the iv concocted from a large number of rides seems to be correct, and

I total all the rides for all jockeys in the race then divide that into all

the places achieved by all the jockeys, and from that sub-total I

individually determine an iv. 

 

There is a place system for ranking jockeys when on favorites, but that is

not the jockey at all. Another time perhaps. Who likes, or wants, dividends

in the sub $2 range, most of us really. 

 

This upcoming race has riders which have achieved 4708 rides totally under

the period of review, and of those rides those riders scored, placed, in

1415. So, 1415/4708 = .300552251 is the factor to be used. Individually

Keating has 395*17-25-33 (17+25+33/395 = .1898734) and this product is again

divided by the total score .3005522512 to give the score of .6. These

numbers seem minimal, mickey mouse almost, but are a significant part of the

overall stat picture

 

Trainers may have two or more runners in the race. I score them the same as

jockeys, total rides into total places (123) and develop a iv score from

that.

 

Involving riders and trainers, getting a score from them combined, I

multiply their ivs and work with the product, ranking that.

Meech 1.4, trainer 1.3 (1.4 * 1.3 = 1.82)

Keating 1, trainer 1 (1 * 1 =1) actually .6 * .1. The trainer is yet to win

a race

Maskiell 1.4, trainer 1 (1.4 * 1 = 1.4.

Dylan Dunn = 1.1

 

There is some upside to Linda Meech ability, trainer ability.

This is R2 Kyneton tomorrow, a maiden and I'm not betting

in it, nor do I suggest you do.

 

 


 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. www.avg.com 

 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>  

 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> _______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> _______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190129/6ab3f840/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 29 12:18:28 2019
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:18:28 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] Jockeys generally
In-Reply-To: <007f01d4b76b$b2370180$16a50480$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <003601d4b158$ab9f9df0$02ded9d0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<002b01d4b174$deba21d0$9c2e6570$@bigpond.com>
	<006101d4b1f4$bdacc4e0$39064ea0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<005c01d4b3f5$47265180$d572f480$@bigpond.com>
	<001801d4b42e$ee8cb0c0$cba61240$@bigpond.com>
	<00a301d4b5f4$02c1f3e0$0845dba0$@bigpond.com>
	<CAOBDE-SniqOAjr-dJOritaADFF0vgBr4zo1nBt_OuXHTchLuUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<000c01d4b6b4$154997a0$3fdcc6e0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAOBDE-T9q-Ap5PnVsA6rvDcDLh0xtk+jXSj4HZm1LgXMA4oh5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBDE-R8af3Ye=ge6nGoVoE=nDfbC-m0OfJPHin7JY2XwNBecQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<007f01d4b76b$b2370180$16a50480$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-T=X+gphzKupFYSWCbF-v-NF=eh8CEFSX=mZhMdkqdyVA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello again Len

"but that there is next-to-zero chance that the 211 unique trainer-names
with the surname Smith in my database are discrete people".

With all due respect , I simply answered your original question about the
Smith's, in part.

I have simply stated that nationally, there are 36 unique Smith's that
raced horses between 07/04/2018 to 31/12/2018.

The above comment, about your own database; is your assertion Len, not mine.

As a courtesy, I had sent you an email off list earlier.

Perhaps they crossed paths in cyberspace.

I miss Powdered Toast Man.

Keep smiling.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190129/43709d97/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Wed Jan 30 08:53:25 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:53:25 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] In case you've not read
Message-ID: <009d01d4b81d$11322b90$339682b0$@ozemail.com.au>


Victorian Police sports integrity unit swoop on Darren Weir stable


Leo Schlink and Mark Buttler, EXCLUSIVE, Herald Sun

January 30, 2019 7:13am

Subscriber only

*  

Champion Australian trainer Darren Weir and two other men have been arrested
after police seized a gun and a taser during dawn stable raids.

Detectives from the Sporting Integrity Intelligence Unit executed warrants
at properties at Warrnambool and Miners Rest, Ballarat as part of an ongoing
investigation.

Police executed warrants from just before 6am.

 

Police at the Darren Weir stables at Miners Rest, Ballarat, this morning.
Picture: Josh FaganDarren Weir celebrates Prince Of Penzance's win in the
2015 Melbourne Cup. Picture: Jay Town

Weir is one of Australia's most successful trainers, training the 2015
Melbourne Cup winner Prince of Penzance.

Detectives from the Ballarat Divisional Response Unit and members of the
Australian Federal Police were also involved in this morning's operation.

Three people have been arrested including a 48-year-old Miner's Rest man, a
38-year-old Yangery man and a 26-year-old Warrnambool man.

It is believed tbe men will now be interviewed in relation to sporting
integrity matters.

They include attempt obtain financial advantage by deception, engaging in
conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of event or event
contingency, use of corrupt conduct information for betting purposes, and
attempt to commit indictable offence namely obtain financial advantage by
deception.

The Herald Sun is not suggesting the allegations are true, only that they
have been made.

The Herald Sun understands a number of items including a firearm and what is
believed to be a "conducted energy device" (a taser) were also seized from
the properties.

The investigation remains ongoing and has also been assisted by Racing
Victoria.

Allegations at the centre of the inquiry have been under investigation for
months.

There have been persistent suggestions video from inside a stable has been a
key element of their investigation.

The Herald Sun has chosen not to report on the inquiry because of police
concerns the probe might be impacted.

Weir, who has training facilities at Maldon, Ballarat and Warrnambool, is
Australia's most successful trainer.

He last season prepared a Commonwealth record of 491 winners with combined
prizemoney earnings of more than $31 million.

Previously based in Stawell, Weir has won the past five Victorian
metropolitan premierships since creating "Weir-Town" in Ballarat.

His meteoric rise has been repeatedly questioned by some in racing, and
applauded by others.

He leads Winx's trainer Chris Waller by almost 90 wins in this season's
national trainer's premiership.

Weir, 48, started out working for other stables, learning his trade as a
farrier, strapper and track rider.

He is now one of the largest employers in racing and has hundreds of horses
on his books.

Victoria police has in recent years beefed up its commitment to fighting
sports corruption.

The sports integrity unit has run investigations in harness racing, tennis
and cricket.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190130/28370a9c/attachment.html>

From norsaintpublishing at gmail.com  Wed Jan 30 09:03:23 2019
From: norsaintpublishing at gmail.com (norsaintpublishing at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:03:23 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] In case you've not read
In-Reply-To: <009d01d4b81d$11322b90$339682b0$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <009d01d4b81d$11322b90$339682b0$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAJfP4b246XBjLP30NDBKYSOo2ThphUg6UEKiqhNs2GOVy21YuA@mail.gmail.com>

The stormtroopers have swooped.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:54 AM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Victorian Police sports integrity unit swoop on Darren Weir stable
>
> Leo Schlink and Mark Buttler, EXCLUSIVE, Herald Sun
>
> January 30, 2019 7:13am
>
> Subscriber only
>
> ?
>
> Champion Australian trainer Darren Weir and two other men have been
> arrested after police seized a gun and a taser during dawn stable raids.
>
> Detectives from the Sporting Integrity Intelligence Unit executed warrants
> at properties at Warrnambool and Miners Rest, Ballarat as part of an
> ongoing investigation.
>
> Police executed warrants from just before 6am.
>
>
>
> Police at the Darren Weir stables at Miners Rest, Ballarat, this morning.
> Picture: Josh FaganDarren Weir celebrates Prince Of Penzance?s win in the
> 2015 Melbourne Cup. Picture: Jay Town
>
> Weir is one of Australia?s most successful trainers, training the 2015
> Melbourne Cup winner Prince of Penzance.
>
> Detectives from the Ballarat Divisional Response Unit and members of the
> Australian Federal Police were also involved in this morning?s operation.
>
> Three people have been arrested including a 48-year-old Miner?s Rest man,
> a 38-year-old Yangery man and a 26-year-old Warrnambool man.
>
> It is believed tbe men will now be interviewed in relation to sporting
> integrity matters.
>
> They include attempt obtain financial advantage by deception, engaging in
> conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of event or event
> contingency, use of corrupt conduct information for betting purposes, and
> attempt to commit indictable offence namely obtain financial advantage by
> deception.
>
> The *Herald Sun* is not suggesting the allegations are true, only that
> they have been made.
>
> The *Herald Sun* understands a number of items including a firearm and
> what is believed to be a ?conducted energy device? (a taser) were also
> seized from the properties.
>
> The investigation remains ongoing and has also been assisted by Racing
> Victoria.
>
> Allegations at the centre of the inquiry have been under investigation for
> months.
>
> There have been persistent suggestions video from inside a stable has been
> a key element of their investigation.
>
> The *Herald Sun* has chosen not to report on the inquiry because of
> police concerns the probe might be impacted.
>
> Weir, who has training facilities at Maldon, Ballarat and Warrnambool, is
> Australia?s most successful trainer.
>
> He last season prepared a Commonwealth record of 491 winners with combined
> prizemoney earnings of more than $31 million.
>
> Previously based in Stawell, Weir has won the past five Victorian
> metropolitan premierships since creating ?Weir-Town? in Ballarat.
>
> His meteoric rise has been repeatedly questioned by some in racing, and
> applauded by others.
>
> He leads Winx?s trainer Chris Waller by almost 90 wins in this season?s
> national trainer?s premiership.
>
> Weir, 48, started out working for other stables, learning his trade as a
> farrier, strapper and track rider.
>
> He is now one of the largest employers in racing and has hundreds of
> horses on his books.
>
> Victoria police has in recent years beefed up its commitment to fighting
> sports corruption.
>
> The sports integrity unit has run investigations in harness racing, tennis
> and cricket.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190130/b8517a8a/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Wed Jan 30 09:27:07 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:27:07 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Today's make-believe bookmaker
Message-ID: <00ac01d4b821$c646fe80$52d4fb80$@ozemail.com.au>

Just for fun, this morning I put the following $1 bets on with
Sportsbetting:

 

Mornington 2/11 @ $3.45, considered, accepted and immediately turned to
$2.95

Gosford 4/3 @ $5.10, considered, accepted and immediately turned to $4.55

Ascot 7/2 @ $5.60, considered, accepted and immediately turned to $4.80

Launceston 5/1 @ $73.0, considered, accepted and immediately turned to $53.0

 

Just in case you missed the first line, they were all $1 bets!

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190130/f773008c/attachment.html>

From creel1958 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 30 09:51:33 2019
From: creel1958 at gmail.com (Ashley Latham)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:51:33 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Today's make-believe bookmaker
In-Reply-To: <00ac01d4b821$c646fe80$52d4fb80$@ozemail.com.au>
References: <00ac01d4b821$c646fe80$52d4fb80$@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <5c50d8f6.1c69fb81.a3132.9079@mx.google.com>

I had a similar experience, but used a different method to create the online bookie ripple.

Accidently clicked Betfair screen on a busy Sat morning, which happened to be a nothing race in NZ. No real harm, $15 on at 16.0, let it ride bravado. Checked online price out of curiosity, 26.0, lesson learned. However staggered to see the online bookie reaction, all shortened 1 to 2 turns moments later.

I?m embarrassed to say it won of course.

Ashley

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: L.B.Loveday
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:27 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List'
Subject: [AusRace] Today's make-believe bookmaker

Just for fun, this morning I put the following $1 bets on with Sportsbetting:

Mornington 2/11 @ $3.45, considered, accepted and immediately turned to $2.95
Gosford 4/3 @ $5.10, considered, accepted and immediately turned to $4.55
Ascot 7/2 @ $5.60, considered, accepted and immediately turned to $4.80
Launceston 5/1 @ $73.0, considered, accepted and immediately turned to $53.0

Just in case you missed the first line, they were all $1 bets!



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190130/60d2d3cf/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Wed Jan 30 22:22:20 2019
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 22:22:20 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] In case you've not read
In-Reply-To: <CAJfP4b246XBjLP30NDBKYSOo2ThphUg6UEKiqhNs2GOVy21YuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <009d01d4b81d$11322b90$339682b0$@ozemail.com.au>
	<CAJfP4b246XBjLP30NDBKYSOo2ThphUg6UEKiqhNs2GOVy21YuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00fe01d4b88e$120d5f00$36281d00$@ozemail.com.au>

The stormtroopers have swooped. 

 

It isn't nicknamed Victoristan for nothing!

 

They have misrepresented the device as a "taser" (TM). I have a number of ?conducted energy devices? (great present for vulnerable daughters Lindsay!) and I and ancient mates, some with stents and by-passes, have zapped ourselves - it's similar to the shock we got back in the days of fiddling with ignition coils, distributors, leads as DIY "mechanics". Grand-nephews 8 & 12 ditto, although their 10yo sister passed.

 

If that is what the police are calling "charges that relate to animal cruelty"  they should round up every one who has used a choker collar to train a dog. And just about every pig farmer. And everyone who uses Ratsak - rats are smarter, like pigs, more resourceful and independent than horses - I prefer them as creatures to horses, but no betting on rats - but you can buy Warfarin at Coles and subject rats to days of agony from internal bleeding. I have seen rats jump into a garden pond to try to relieve the agony only to drown when they have not been able to get out.

 

 

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of norsaintpublishing at gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2019 9:03 AM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] In case you've not read

 

The stormtroopers have swooped. 

 

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:54 AM L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au <mailto:lloveday at ozemail.com.au> > wrote:


Victorian Police sports integrity unit swoop on Darren Weir stable


Leo Schlink and Mark Buttler, EXCLUSIVE, Herald Sun

January 30, 2019 7:13am

Subscriber only

*  

Champion Australian trainer Darren Weir and two other men have been arrested after police seized a gun and a taser during dawn stable raids.

Detectives from the Sporting Integrity Intelligence Unit executed warrants at properties at Warrnambool and Miners Rest, Ballarat as part of an ongoing investigation.

Police executed warrants from just before 6am.

 

Police at the Darren Weir stables at Miners Rest, Ballarat, this morning. Picture: Josh FaganDarren Weir celebrates Prince Of Penzance?s win in the 2015 Melbourne Cup. Picture: Jay Town

Weir is one of Australia?s most successful trainers, training the 2015 Melbourne Cup winner Prince of Penzance.

Detectives from the Ballarat Divisional Response Unit and members of the Australian Federal Police were also involved in this morning?s operation.

Three people have been arrested including a 48-year-old Miner?s Rest man, a 38-year-old Yangery man and a 26-year-old Warrnambool man.

It is believed tbe men will now be interviewed in relation to sporting integrity matters.

They include attempt obtain financial advantage by deception, engaging in conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of event or event contingency, use of corrupt conduct information for betting purposes, and attempt to commit indictable offence namely obtain financial advantage by deception.

The Herald Sun is not suggesting the allegations are true, only that they have been made.

The Herald Sun understands a number of items including a firearm and what is believed to be a ?conducted energy device? (a taser) were also seized from the properties.

The investigation remains ongoing and has also been assisted by Racing Victoria.

Allegations at the centre of the inquiry have been under investigation for months.

There have been persistent suggestions video from inside a stable has been a key element of their investigation.

The Herald Sun has chosen not to report on the inquiry because of police concerns the probe might be impacted.

Weir, who has training facilities at Maldon, Ballarat and Warrnambool, is Australia?s most successful trainer.

He last season prepared a Commonwealth record of 491 winners with combined prizemoney earnings of more than $31 million.

Previously based in Stawell, Weir has won the past five Victorian metropolitan premierships since creating ?Weir-Town? in Ballarat.

His meteoric rise has been repeatedly questioned by some in racing, and applauded by others.

He leads Winx?s trainer Chris Waller by almost 90 wins in this season?s national trainer?s premiership.

Weir, 48, started out working for other stables, learning his trade as a farrier, strapper and track rider.

He is now one of the largest employers in racing and has hundreds of horses on his books.

Victoria police has in recent years beefed up its commitment to fighting sports corruption.

The sports integrity unit has run investigations in harness racing, tennis and cricket.

 

_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com <mailto:Racing at ausrace.com> 
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20190130/7892473e/attachment.html>