[AusRace] Jockeys generally
sean mclaren
seanmac4321 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 07:31:58 AEDT 2019
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>
More information about the Racing
mailing list