[AusRace] Jockeys generally
sean mclaren
seanmac4321 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 25 10:56:10 AEDT 2019
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>
More information about the Racing
mailing list