[AusRace] Jockeys generally

Tue Jan 29 10:44:18 AEDT 2019

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>