[AusRace] Jockeys generally
sean mclaren
seanmac4321 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 01:49:02 AEDT 2019
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>
More information about the Racing
mailing list