[AusRace] Jockeys generally

Tony Moffat tonymoffat at bigpond.com
Sun Jan 27 14:54:31 AEDT 2019

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

Randwic R8 yesterday -  the one runner over 41% is 8Sondelon 42% from

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


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.





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!!





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.







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


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

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

      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%




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




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.





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



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.




paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 


This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
-------------- 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>

More information about the Racing mailing list