Culling fields which stat do you use???

[Twodogs]

For sometime now I have been fiddling around with different culling methods. Time is my enemy each week and if possible would love to find one or two ways of culling the fields down into smaller numbers. Would to hear other peoples opinions.

Thanks
Twodogs

[topsy99]

cull anything that has not placed or won a listed or group race.
then work from the most recent start.
you will actually get some days off.
e.g. i notice another forum member criticising helenus and kusi.
when did they last place in a listed race compared to their opposition.
i suggest we wait for them to re-qualify rather than be on them by co-incidence or fluke.

[tragic]

make sure you check my tips before you do your form ,eliminate them and you will be on your way to backing many many winners...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tragic on 2003-09-29 21:09 ]</font>

[tragic]

i like your logic topsy99 if i can just supress my cynicism and think rationaly for a little bit i shall ponder your lead

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tragic on 2003-09-29 21:22 ]</font>

[Twodogs]

Thanks for your thoughts but I was thinking more along the lines of a common filter applied to most races which culls the field without losing too many winners. Examples like top 6 average prizemoney, Wizard Wrat >=81, Zipform ratings etc.

Thanks
Twodogs

[topsy99]

dont create too much work.
my system evolved from chasing form and creating activity but at the end of the day not making any money.
my having a common culling process e.g. top 6 prizemoney winners. where do you cut off.
at $100000. or $10 every race has a top 6 money earners
this leads to doing every race and it will drive you crazy.
in becareful's words. Be Careful

[Dale]

For me it has to be pre post odds,take the top 6(or more if you wish)and go from there.

[stebbo]

Hi Twodogs,

personally I think that culling the field can be dangerous, and you're better off culling the races... ie investigate ALL runners in a smaller number of races.

I'm very new to form analysis, but this is my tactic at the moment... By analysing the entire field, you can sometimes spot something that you'd miss if you just concentrate on "the contenders".

If you are going to cull the field, then my personal favorite at the moment is looking at the jockey. With my own "form selections", I don't back anything that's being ridden by a jockey with a poor strike rate.

[umrum]

On 2003-09-29 20:49, topsy99 wrote:
cull anything that has not placed or won a listed or group race.
then work from the most recent start.
you will actually get some days off.
e.g. i notice another forum member criticising helenus and kusi.
when did they last place in a listed race compared to their opposition.
i suggest we wait for them to re-qualify rather than be on them by co-incidence or fluke.

whats ur point topsy

[crash]

Thinking about last Saterday. 80% of all races in all states were won by the first four averaged prize money and from the top four Zip lines from the Sportsman.

Worth keeping in mind if you want to cull hard and spend the min. time on form. Look for a top jock and/or trainer and bobs your uncle for a not at all scary selection method that will bag enough winners to keep a fellows dignity intact.

Cheers.

Cheers.

[topsy99]

good day umrum.
what i am suggesting is that good horses that run in good races generally keep performing. in helenus case it is some time now (i think the rosehill guineas) since it placed in top company. I will be waiting for it to place again at least in group class before i would back it.
otherwise i am implying the horse could be enigmatic and hard to catch otherwise.
hope this explains the point i am making.

[crash]

I think you will be waiting a long time Topsy. The nag has not come up again this year. It happens. Move on I reckon.

Cheers

[umrum]

On 2003-09-30 17:02, topsy99 wrote:
good day umrum.
what i am suggesting is that good horses that run in good races generally keep performing. in helenus case it is some time now (i think the rosehill guineas) since it placed in top company. I will be waiting for it to place again at least in group class before i would back it.
otherwise i am implying the horse could be enigmatic and hard to catch otherwise.
hope this explains the point i am making.



oh right. just wondering what you meant when u said a forum member criticised kusi and helenus. both are finished. helenus has a better future in front of him as a pro rooter

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: umrum on 2003-10-07 13:56 ]</font>

[sportznut]

On 2003-09-30 17:02, crash wrote: Thinking about last Saterday. 80% of all races in all states were won by the first four averaged prize money and from the top four Zip lines from the Sportsman.

Do you mean that 80% of winners were in the first four in EITHER the ave prizemoney or Zip ratings, OR were they in the first four in BOTH???

[Twodogs]

Gidday Crash,

Does that stat stand up each week?

Twodogs

On 2003-09-30 17:02, crash wrote:

Thinking about last Saterday. 80% of all races in all states were won by the first four averaged prize money and from the top four Zip lines from the Sportsman.

Worth keeping in mind if you want to cull hard and spend the min. time on form. Look for a top jock and/or trainer and bobs your uncle for a not at all scary selection method that will bag enough winners to keep a fellows dignity intact.

Cheers.

Cheers.

[Twodogs]

Hello Stebbo,

I somewhat agree with you re culling but when time is your enemy it is great to be able to fine down the chances without losing too many winners.

Twodogs

On 2003-09-30 10:34, stebbo wrote:
Hi Twodogs,

personally I think that culling the field can be dangerous, and you're better off culling the races... ie investigate ALL runners in a smaller number of races.

I'm very new to form analysis, but this is my tactic at the moment... By analysing the entire field, you can sometimes spot something that you'd miss if you just concentrate on "the contenders".

If you are going to cull the field, then my personal favorite at the moment is looking at the jockey. With my own "form selections", I don't back anything that's being ridden by a jockey with a poor strike rate.

[Twodogs]

A couple of other stats that I have come across 80% of winners are in the top 4 of the market 5 minutes before the start and 74% of winners are priced <=$13 in the prepost market.

Cheers
Twodogs

[crash]

Sportsnut,

The first four lines from both. However it is worth mentioning that as far as Zip goes the first four lines might include more than four runners as often there is 2 on the second line and 3 or 4 on the third line. Not often but worth mentioning.

Moe yesterday: 3 wins from the top rater, 2 wins from 2nd. 3 from 3rd. 1 fourth and a 5th that dead heated with a top rater [9 races].
There is a system there somewhere [useing both Zip and average prize money].
Add decent handicapping and it aint a bad way to go. I still look at all runners though in case I miss something. So I wouldn't call it a system.

Cheers.

Know what you are thinking there Two Dogs [and perhaps Sportsnut too], but sorry to say no it dosn't stand up all the time but it does most of the time. Enough to make a system out of it ? I have been working on it for some time. The top 4 Zip lines are the problem. They may include up to eight runners in larger fields. I have just been using them for hadicapping [with some success]. Been looking for another criteria to add to the mix. Any ideas ?







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-01 10:38 ]</font>

[Twodogs]

Crash,

I suppose I am at the same stage, looking for that filter that will move me forward. Have you looked at the Wizard Wrat >=81? its strike rate is >70%

Twodogs

[sportznut]

Crash,

I wonder if instead of the Zipform ratings, you could use the ratings displayed on the Unitab website??? I think they seem to do fairly well.

[crash]

The wizard is somthing I have been thinking about. I'm not very fond of it, but they do have some good stats. will have a look at some sort of Zip, Wrat/trat combo Twodogs.

Hadn't thought about Unitab Sportsnut. Will check it out.

I have a terrible sinking feeling about systems though. I have often wondered, with all the info etc. at their fingertips and all their experience, why arn't the Professionals useing systems instead of all the work they put in [for 2 to 10% POT a year] keeping up with form, endlessly swapping e/m. about track condt., bias and many hours at the pc. and the tracks etc. ?
I know being born in the right bed and suburb helps [and good luck to them] with their starting bank [very big to live off 2 to 10%] though and I bet not many [or none] started out as blue collar workers either. Not now days anyway.

Worth pondering.

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-01 17:28 ]</font>

[tragic]

do you think the horse knows he has no option but win when
1..he was a last start winner
2..won at track and distance
3..had last run in last fourteen days
i doubt it but i understand the logic of system users .these things are not for me i prefer kenchars mode of attack ,be as informed as you can,understand class,study video replays,be wary of media hype.get streetsmart,as i said in a earlier post 'even a blind chook can find a grain of wheat if it keeps pecking long enough' and to my mind system punters keep pecking away hoping they stab a winner before thier bank runs out ,i could be wrong (i was wrong once) but thems me thoughts for what its worth..........

[topsy99]

pecking for wheat or not. i dont think it can be done.
in an 8 horse race the odds of picking a winner are 7/1 "pittsburgh phil)

[tragic]

me no understand topsy99

[topsy99]

sorry. shouldnt try to be funny.
last week i thought converge was a good thing. it hadnt qualified in listed/group company so i couldnt back it.
this turned out to be a good decision.
on its last run it should have won. but you cant tell. i dont think you can pick the eyes out of races a culling and systematic approach delivers winners over time.
being clever and zeroing in on good things probably needs inside knowledge.
sorry to write cheeky posts.

[Chrome Prince]

On 2003-10-01 17:58, tragic wrote:
do you think the horse knows he has no option but win when
1..he was a last start winner
2..won at track and distance
3..had last run in last fourteen days
i doubt it but i understand the logic of system users .these things are not for me i prefer kenchars mode of attack ,be as informed as you can,understand class,study video replays,be wary of media hype.get streetsmart,as i said in a earlier post 'even a blind chook can find a grain of wheat if it keeps pecking long enough' and to my mind system punters keep pecking away hoping they stab a winner before thier bank runs out ,i could be wrong (i was wrong once) but thems me thoughts for what its worth..........


Hi tragic,

Guess it's what suits one's style - neither approach is wrong or right as long as it works for you.

Do you think a coin knows whether it last landed on heads or tails?
Doesn't alter the fact of the odds of it landing on heads is still 50%.
:smile:

[kenchar]

Hi Tragic,
Thanks for the mention I still believe if one wants to win you have to go to the track.I know its everyone to their own but from what I can see from all the systems, ratings etc dont produce constant winning days.I hear this POT that LOT etc, I dont care what my POT is as long as I come home with more than I went with.
Here is a little thing for anyone that wants to bother going to the track that WORKS.

1/ MINIMUM 8 STARTERS

2/ LOOK AT BOOKIE ODDS

3/ CHECK TOTE PLACE PRICE

4/ IF TOTE PLACE PRICE IS +50% OF BOOKIES PRICE IT IS A BET FOR THE PLACE

IVE GIVEN MY GUTS ON ONE THING I DO AT THE TRACK,SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO BOTHER GOING GIVE IT A GO.

Think of the value here 1/2 bookie odds and 3 chances of collecting.

Oh dont worry how big the odds are (the horse dont know)

Today I couldnt sniff out anything except place bets.

RESULTS

8 BETS

AD RC1 NO6 BOOKS $26 TOTE $14.90 PLACE
AD RC2 NO5 BOOKS $12 TOTE $5.70 PLACE
AD RC3 NO4 BOOKS $4.2 TOTE $2.70 PLACE
BR RC4 NO3 BOOKS $5.5 TOTE $3.70 PLACE

RETURN 27
BET 8
PROFIT 19

Cheers

[sportznut]

On 2003-10-01 15:16, sportznut wrote:
Crash, I wonder if instead of the Zipform ratings, you could use the ratings displayed on the Unitab website??? I think they seem to do fairly well.



I actually checked the results from Saturday and the Unitab ratings didn't really do all that great. However, in the past I think they've gone okay, especially the horses top rated at 100. I think it might have been Bhagwan who posted some stats about them on here somewhere.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2003-10-02 11:20 ]</font>

[Twodogs]

Crash,

I am not suggesting a system as such (a list of mechanical rules) my belief is that you can use your time better if either your working with good ratings??? or your able to fine a field down and then apply your magnifing glass to whats left.

Cheers
Twodogs



On 2003-10-01 17:25, crash wrote:
The wizard is somthing I have been thinking about. I'm not very fond of it, but they do have some good stats. will have a look at some sort of Zip, Wrat/trat combo Twodogs.

Hadn't thought about Unitab Sportsnut. Will check it out.

I have a terrible sinking feeling about systems though. I have often wondered, with all the info etc. at their fingertips and all their experience, why arn't the Professionals useing systems instead of all the work they put in [for 2 to 10% POT a year] keeping up with form, endlessly swapping e/m. about track condt., bias and many hours at the pc. and the tracks etc. ?
I know being born in the right bed and suburb helps [and good luck to them] with their starting bank [very big to live off 2 to 10%] though and I bet not many [or none] started out as blue collar workers either. Not now days anyway.

Worth pondering.

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-01 17:28 ]</font>

[strawb]

G'day everyone,
I'll put my eggs in the basket
with Kenchar&Twodogs ect.It comes down to what the indivdual feels comfortable with.Myself, I prefer to look at angles.When situations arise that appeal to me I have a go at them.Thats where I think the system bettors can fall in a hole.Plus it seems to me to be a whole lot of time to invest in something that may or may not work.
To have a basic understanding of statistics is important,however a lot of statistics that are printed in regards to racing are basically useless.When the system builders figure out which is which I've no doubt they can and do make some money.The main "but"about systems though is they all fail when the weight money is to great.(same as weight ratings)

When someone tries to use mathematics and times ie.certanties in an uncertain game I reckon you've got to be doomed to failure.
Both of these do have there uses though,that being all hores are divisable into different classes(times )and the mathematics can tell you what's good value.Thats all I'll use these measures for.Cheers strawb

[umrum]

also stats can support anything. a bit of shane warne tweak and you can have an undeniable statistic.

while stats can show past trends, thats all they are. past trends, which may or may not continue to occur.

While maths can be used for gambling, horse racing itself is not a science. I think to win long term you need to limit your bets to say 4 or 5 a week. Then have a few tri's or $5 bets for fun.

As i've said before it depends what your comfort zone is. The problem with horse racing is the uncertainty of racing."the only certainty in racing is the uncertain".

[kenchar]

If anyone is interested in the place method in my post on this thread.
Today until I left the track at 3.30 there were 4 place bets for 3 results for a total of 8.9.

Cheers

[crash]

I like it Kenchar. Avoid the pie stall and bus stop above all ealse ?

Shane Warne tweak Umrum [?] How about a Chappell underarm ?

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-02 18:52 ]</font>

[Privateer]

Haven't posted for a long time but wanted to reply to those of you who don't believe that a "system" (or "method" as I prefer to call it) can be developed and be regularly profitable for a long period.

I developed my own method through the intensive analysis of 2 years worth of racing statistics, around 18 months ago and shared some of my ideas on this forum. I then introduced 2 new principles and dropped 2 and monitored this for 6 weeks before committing cold, hard cash.

Since then, my longest losing streak has been 5 races and I am able to make quite a healthy living from punting without needing to work.

Of course I don't want to give away all that I've learned but here are a few pointers for those interested:

Only bet on Metropolitan race meetings. Ideally, select the Metro meeting(s) which has/have the best class of race. eg tomorrow, you wouldn't touch Brisbane or Adelaide with a barge pole.

Never, ever bet on rain affected tracks. Doesn't matter if your selection has webbed feet, don't do it.

Try and concentrate your selections around the top 6 saddlecloths.

Down in class and up in weight is better than up in class and down in weight.

Barrier positions do not play as big a part in the result as often as people think.

The place strike rate % is a better guide to a horses chances than the win strike rate %

Always, always, always look for value with your bets. (I won't bet on anything under $4)

When betting each way, always bet on a 1 win/3 place ratio.

The often touted "within 3 lengths of the winner last start" or similar alleged guide to selections, is NOT a valid theory.

Average prizemoney (Top 5) is an excellent base to work with.

Good luck to all.

Privateer

My method notwithstanding....tomorrow I like

Thorn Park in Sydney
Belus & Sylvaner in Melbourne



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Privateer on 2003-10-03 19:04 ]</font>

[Merriguy]

Welcome back, Privateer. Trust it will not only be a short visit!

Thanks too for the form tips. Much wisdom there.

[crash]

I tend to agree about barriers but Thorn Park from 18 ? Boss on deck might help but the distance is the real worry.

Great post and spot on advice re systems.

[Chrome Prince]

Privateer,

A lot of wise information and advice there. Glad to see you're winning.
I'll just add a couple of things which may help some punters.

The beaten margin is far more accurate in assessing a horse's chances than actual placings.

Average prizemoney is more powerful if you use the average prizemoney won over the last three starts and compare it with the overall API.
The last three starts API should also be massively larger than the career API - if it's not then your horse is in very poor form!

Barriers have very little to do with a horse's winning chances unless you can specifically pick out a reason for a barrier not suiting your horse's pattern of racing.

Average lengths beaten over last three starts is far stronger than lengths beaten last start.

Track and distance stats for your horse are pretty useless UNLESS you assess the failures rather than the wins.

Did you know that less than 15% of races are won by horses with 100% track or distance record?

[Twodogs]

Great advice Chrome Prince and Privateer!!!

Whether your selections are a mechanical method or based on experience I think the main thing is that your foundations are based on facts. Stats that stand up week in week out.

Twodogs

[crash]

As we are talking Saterday meetings, go straight to what the top Jocks are riding. The top ones will get on the best rides regardless of Trainer [the good trainers just happen to have the best horses most of the time].
Cory Brown won the three Sydney Group 1 races [in a row] yesterday.
Bowman, Beadman, Cassidy, Quinn, Munce, Beasley and Brown x3 won all the races. In Melb. Prebble won a treble [had to get that one in], Baster, Nikolic, King. Oliver and Findlay the last race.
Jockey's do the form and you usely find a top jock on the winners because they get the first choice of rides. Forget the apprentices [except for Zac Purton] on Sat.

Cheers.

[Twodogs]

Evening Crash,

I think it's important to also look at trainer/jock combo's!! Got to be careful of some of the lesser lights.

Twodogs

[Privateer]

I personally consider jockeys to be much of a muchness. Put say, NSW country jockey Greg Ryan or Vic jockey Peter Mertens on Saturdays winners and I doubt whether the result would be much different. It is mainly about opportunities.

Consider Scott Seamer. A few years ago he was riding at Ballina, Murwillumbah, Coffs Harbour etc. He's given an opportunity and wins the Caulfield & Melbourne Cups and a string of other Group 1's. In my view, Seamer is one of the top 3 jockeys in Australia behind Oliver (clearly best) and W.A's Paul Harvey.

These 3 have the ability to make very quick decisions during a race and are able to sum up situations extremely well. For example, many jockeys persist in trying to gain runs between horses and may well obtain the run but often lose ground by waiting for that to occur. Oliver, Harvey & Seamer won't waste any time doing that if they believe the process will slow them down at all. They will quickly pull the horse out into clear ground and give it every chance unimpeded.

Horses make jockeys and trainers look good. Plenty of cashed up owners and sheer weight of numbers ensure the best bred horses go to the "top" trainers who have many qualified supporting staff to help out.

Would Lohnro still be a great horse if he was trained by John Morrissey in Canberra? I'd think so.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is try and not get too wrapped up in jockeys and trainers. (I don't bother with them at all) If they are influencing factors for you however, ensure that you place as much weight on the form of the horse as you do on the jockey/trainer and don't simply rely on a jockey, a trainer or a combination of both to win money. In most cases, it is the horse that is first past the post!

* DURRAH in Sydney today.

[stebbo]

With regard to jockeys, I think that great horses will win regardless of the jockey... Donkeys will run last regardless of who's riding them.

But there are a lot of inbetweens where the jockey makes a big difference. A few weeks ago I saw an average jockey make a mistake midrace that cost the horse the race. I had $100 on it at 12's, and I wasn't happy - it went down by a nostril in a photo. Could a top jockey have made the same mistake? Certainly! But the average / poorer jockeys are more likely to make those mistakes in my opinion.

Privateer, you say that the top jockeys will make their decisions much quicker... How much quicker? One or two strides could mean the difference between a win and a 4th in a lot of races.

If it's a contest between an average horse with a good jockey, and a good horse with an average jockey, I know which one I'll put my money on every time.

Cheers,
Chris.

[Privateer]

G'day Chris...

How much quicker? I've seen thousands and thousands of races over the years as I expect many of us have.

With the 3 jockeys I mentioned, their summation of a situation, decision making process and reflexes all seem to be instinctive and pretty much immediate. They seem to be able to read ahead, if that makes sense. Whereas others may wait for the miracle split for 50 metres or so, they'll look, sum it up, decide "no" and look for other options seemingly within a few strides. That, I feel, is the difference.

For what it's worth, BOSS crucified Classy Dane on Saturday. Looking for rails runs when the horse hates others around it. If he comes to the outside in the straight, it wins. His effort on Thornhill wasn't much better. Be on both next start.

[crash]

Know what you are saying and mostly agree but not on good horses making good jockeys in your earlier post Privateer.

By the time I do the form and decided on my winning chance to plonk money on, I will usualy find it has a good jockey riding it [if not it is usualy my mistake in doing the form and I probably have done my dough].
The top jocks do the form long before we do and with more info. They get offered and pursue the best chances in the race. They get there by being very good selectors as well as riders. Good horses rack up wins regardless, but top jocks remain top jocks even on crappy mounts that can't win.

So what comes first the chicken or the egg ?

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-06 16:11 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-06 16:13 ]</font>

[Chrome Prince]

On 2003-10-06 16:06, crash wrote:
The top jocks do the form long before we do and with more info. They get offered and pursue the best chances in the race. They get there by being very good selectors as well as riders. Good horses rack up wins regardless, but top jocks remain top jocks even on crappy mounts that can't win.
Cheers.


Hi crash,
Afraid I disagree with your post in the most part - sorry.
Most jockeys are very poor tipsters, they get the mounts because the owners and trainers seek them out (the top ones that is).
The rest have to try and do form and make phone calls to plead their case.
Good jockeys are not good because of their ability to pick winners, but rather make split second judgements, have a feel for what needs to be done in a situation by instinct rather than thought.
These are the jockeys that are snapped up by the good stables and offered good horses.
I've seen many good horses slaughtered by apprentices and even average jockeys.
That's not to say that the top jocks get it wrong sometimes, but less than the others.
A top jock on a crappy horse, won't be any better than a crap rider on a crap horse.
Good horses are often robbed of racking up wins because of poor judgement by an inexperienced or less talented jockey.

[Bhagwan]

The UniTAB Wt. Ratings can be useful.
80% winners come from Mules with 100-93 Pts.

If your selection is less than this 100-93 Pts , proceed with caution E.g.you might place a half bet on these ,if the price is right.

The 100 Pt. system I posted some time ago , is still showing a profit.

[crash]

Howdy Chrome,

Then you would also believe that a top race car driver would do no better that a average driver in a crappy car ? Don't think so.
Good jocks make mistakes but far less than poor ones. Races are often taken from a great horse with a poor or inexperienced rider by an average horse with a top jock because he/she is making all the right moves and judgements while the poor rider progresses from one poor judgement to another. We see it again and again.

What comes first the chicken or the egg [?],was addressing the notion that top horses make top jockeys. As absurd as top race cars make top drivers from poor ones. Same rationality.
My other point was what happens to top jocks when they can only get poor rides [Harry White comes to mind] and as a result get very few winners [and I watched Harry bring home some long priced winners just through riding ability, not wipping ability]. Are they suddenly no longer great Jockeys with ability, or just no longer getting the good rides to demonstrate those abilities ?

After training as a chef I eventualy became a chef de party at a five star hotel but left to own and drive a Melb. Cab [until recently]. Do you think I suddenly became a poor cook when I left the trade ?

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-07 10:26 ]</font>

[crash]

Ho Bhagwan,

Are those ratings just based on weight ? If so and the % is as you have provided, then what does that say about so many factors beside weight that we all attribute various degrees of importance too ? Collectivly far more than 20% importance anyway if you get my drift.

If it isn't too much trouble, what were your system's rules ?

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-07 10:39 ]</font>

[Chrome Prince]

On 2003-10-07 10:24, crash wrote:
Then you would also believe that a top race car driver would do no better that a average driver in a crappy car ? Don't think so.
[/quote}

It depends entirely in the ability of the car. Put Skaife in a Torana against the current V8's and see how he goes. But I get what you are driving at now.
The top race driver will finish better than the rookie driver in the Torana, but will he finish in the top three against the current supercars - doubt it greatly I'd give over 100/1.
[quote]
Good jocks make mistakes but far less than poor ones. Races are often taken from a great horse with a poor or inexperienced rider by an average horse with a top jock because he/she is making all the right moves and judgements while the poor rider progresses from one poor judgement to another. We see it again and again.


Agree 100%.

What comes first the chicken or the egg [?],was addressing the notion that top horses make top jockeys. As absurd as top race cars make top drivers from poor ones. Same rationality.


Yes I see your point.
I'll give you my take on it...
It is a chicken or egg scenario.
The jockeys don't get the outstanding rides unless they have proven to be superior in talent prior to obtaining the good horse.
So why would you put a 3kg apprentice from Cranbourne on Northerly for example.
Northerly may win in spite of the jockey, but it's not worth the risk of the apprentice ballsing it up.
I think it's a case of the top jockeys getting the better rides because of inherent talent, if they didn't have it to begin with, then they wouldn't get the better rides. The whole thing is a rolling snowball, so the more opportunites to ride good horses the better the jockey does, but it wouldn't happen as successfully if the jockey didn't already display his prowess.


My other point was what happens to top jocks when they can only get poor rides [Harry White comes to mind] and as a result get very few winners [and I watched Harry bring home some long priced winners just through riding ability, not wipping ability]. Are they suddenly no longer great Jockeys with ability, or just no longer getting the good rides to demonstrate those abilities ?


Good ole handbrake Harry.
:lol:

Another talent was R.J. Skelton at the longer races, he had the inner judgement far superior to some jockeys over distance.


After training as a chef I eventualy became a chef de party at a five star hotel but left to own and drive a Melb. Cab [until recently]. Do you think I suddenly became a poor cook when I left the trade ?


Not at all.

By the way,
Are you Jamie (pukka) Oliver?

:lol:

[umrum]

[quote]
So why would you put a 3kg apprentice from Cranbourne on Northerly for example.
Northerly may win in spite of the jockey, but it's not worth the risk of the apprentice ballsing it up.
[quote]

also begs the question why would you put patrick payne on when you can have childs!

interesting topic. good jocks on good horses. bad jocks on good horses. probably get the same result 9/10.

good jocks on bad horses . bad jocks on bad horses. probably get the same result 3/10

[Privateer]

My earlier comment was in fact "Horses make jockeys and trainers look good" and I'll stick to that. Vo Rogue, Cyril Small and Vic Rail are one example.

Regards to the comment "why would you put Payne on a horse instead of Childs" (or similar) The reason is, that Payne is a heavyweight jockey whereas Childs is able to ride at a much lighter weight. If a horse has a big weight, it often makes more sense to have the horse carry as much "live" weight as possible as opposed to "dead weight" in the form of lead.

[umrum]

what i meant is payne is no good and childs is/was undefeated on northerly.

payne slaughtered northerly not once(c.f orr) not twice(manion cup) but three times(bmw).

[Privateer]

Sorry Umrum...misunderstood you!

[crash]

Payne has lost it [if he ever had it]. Gone to la la land.

Cheers.

[Luckyboy]

Hi All,

Haven't posted for a while but found some of the replies to this topic very interesting.

From my analysis of the past 30 months of racing (metropolitan S/M/B/A) here are a few tips I wish to share:

1. Sportsman's Zipform is a very reliable tool. Over 80% of winners are rated within four points of the top-rated horse;
2. Ranking the above horses by Average Prize Money and the first prize money on offer in the race is a good class measurement tool;
3. Place percentage is the best indicator of racing consistency;
4. On average over 80% of winners have an average place strike-rate greater than 45%;
5. This average rises for higher quality races;
6. Only consider weight fluctuations for horses weighted above 56kgs. Like Privateer said ensure a rise in weight is matched by a drop in class or at worst the same class;
7. Last start beaten margin is irrelevant;
8. Jockey's are irrelevant- except in Sydney, wherein the top 5 jockeys account for the bulk of winners.
9. Wide barriers only matter to on-pace runners;
10. On-pace runners account for greater than 70% of all winners.

I hope some of you find this of interest and can continue this excellent thread...


Regards,
Lucky




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Luckyboy on 2003-10-08 18:06 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Luckyboy on 2003-10-08 18:08 ]</font>

[Chrome Prince]

Hi Luckyboy,
Agree with everything except points 7 and 8.


7. Last start beaten margin is irrelevant;
8. Jockey's are irrelevant- except in Sydney, wherein the top 5 jockeys account for the bulk of winners.


Last start beaten margin is not irrelevant in my opinion, but the last three beaten margins are perhaps more relevant.
Do some stats on horses beaten by more than 3 lengths then by more than 5 lengths at their last start and you'll see what I mean.

It depends on your system or method.
If you statistically choose your runners, then jockeys don't really come into it.
But I will not have any confidence in some selections when a known duffer is aboard my horse.

[stebbo]

Luckyboy wrote...
8. Jockey's are irrelevant- except in Sydney, wherein the top 5 jockeys account for the bulk of winners.

Hi Luckyboy,

agree with most of your post, but find the above statement illogical. "Jockeys are irrelevant" - meaning that jockeys don't matter at all.... "except in Sydney"... meaning that ooopsss, yes they do!!!

I have a simple question for you...

You are going to punt on a horse tomorrow... Formline of 423 for it's past 3 starts, all reasonable runs, it has a real show and you expect it to start at around $3 or $4... It's a swoooper, so you know it'll get back in traffic...

You have a choice of two jockeys...

Jockey 1 has had 378 rides in the last 12 months for 19 wins.. a s/r of 5%. s/r in the last 3 months is slightly better, at 6%.

Jockey 2 has had 686 rides in the last 12 months for 145 wins.. a s/r of 21%. s/r in the last 3 months is slightly worse at 18%.

Q: Which jockey would you prefer to be riding your money around the track?

Cheers,
Chris.

[wjp]

Hi All.
I'd like to tell about jockeys.
Long time ego when Mick Ditman was a jockey
one saturday he have 6 rides 5 top selection and 1 donkey.I back them all up for place.
and I've lost because he won 1 race on 33/1 DONKEY the rest was UNPLACED.
Now is the same Look C.B and others they winning on FAVORITES when they HAVE TO.
VALUE is the key
Good Luck.

[Luckyboy]

Hi All,

Sorry I couldn’t get back to your feedback last night...

Just to a follow up on a few points. The 'beaten margin last start' is an irrelevant statistic to look at in isolation. This was my inference and supported by a recent post from Chrome Prince


On 2003-10-04 11:45, Chrome Prince wrote:
Average lengths beaten over last three starts is far stronger than lengths beaten last start.


I guess the real point I make by my statement is to look thoroughly at a horse’s current form. Last start failures can be overlooked if there are mitigating circumstances.

With regard to my point about jockeys, I stand by this finding. Whilst my use of the English language may have seemed illogical - the fact remains Sydney is the only racing area where there are OVER DOMINANT trainers and OVER DOMINANT stable jockeys.

I remain hopeful that with further success and increasing stable numbers trainers like Gerald Ryan and John O'Shea will bring about a more even spread of winning trainers.

And to answer your question Chris, the statistics indicate a current above average performance for Jockey 1. Does this make a difference to me? If I had to choose between two horses ridden by these respective jockeys in a Sydney race and one of the jockeys was in the Top 5 it would make a difference.

So do we open up the debate? I really enjoy socialising my viewpoints against others. It is a great learning environment.


Regards,
Lucky

[stebbo]

I think a very interesting point about jockeys can be seen from the following table

<pre>
Good Jockeys
Name Rides Wins 2nds 3rds
C Brown 903 137 125 121
N Callow 686 145 100 75
G Childs 515 66 59 35
C Munce 623 106 56 68

Not As Good Jockeys
Name Rides Wins 2nds 3rds
A Findlay 465 36 55 39
S Wynn 378 19 23 22
T Uchiyama 226 26 32 34

</pre>

With the first set of jockeys, they ride more winners than 2nds and 3rds....
The second group ride more 2nds and 3rds than winners.
Munce's win vs place strike rate is extraordinary to say the least....

I don't necessarily agree that just because they're good jockeys they get the plum rides... I think quite often owners / trainers will seek out the good jockeys on the hope that they will win on their donkey, and it doesn't always happen. And a good jockey wants to fill his riding card just as much as the next jockey.

I also agree that jockeys can have their off days just like horses. Munce's short term strike rate is well off at the moment, a very ordinary 8% vs a long term of 14%.

Cheers,
Chris.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: stebbo on 2003-10-09 10:24 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: stebbo on 2003-10-09 10:26 ]</font>