OCTOBER 17, 2009
The Jockey as a Handicapping Factorby Steve Zacks
For most of my handicapping career I regarded the jockey factor as incidental. Still I could never escape the feeling after many of the tough beats that are a part of the game that I was the victim of a poor ride, and that maybe the jockey factor really did matter more than I was prepared to give it credit for.
I recently explored the jockey as a handicapping tool to see if a jockey-based method of play could be found or if the jockey factor could aid in deciphering those otherwise unfathomable handicapping puzzles that so often creep into the serial bet sequences.
After spending too many hours and not getting the hoped for results, I did reach several conclusions. The jockey is a very significant factor in the handicapping/decision-making process; one way or another they influence the outcome of every race that is run, either through clever or plain-bad riding.
I did not find a consistent way to use the jockey factor automatically. With the proper judgment, discipline, effort and bankroll, a workable and profitable methodology might be devised that starts (and ends) with the jockey factor. There are in fact winning players who focus on every handicapping tool using them profitably -- be it pace, speed, trainer and work patterns and more.
I assembled and explored dozens of ideas; after paring the numbers and getting them into a manageable format I tested the final group at Del Mar and Saratoga, thinking that if ever riders wanted to do well and gain a higher profile these summer meetings were ideal. You can likely add in any of the other major boutique or high-profile meetings. The longer the meeting, the more likely swings in and out of form are likely to occur.
My judgments were soft and personal, intending to capture the intent of the law. I research by hand and have no programming skills so I am limited in the data I accumulate. I do not track the number of starters, only the winners. I use my powers of observation to make judgments and do not rely just on the simple numbers!
The sample covered the 703 non-steeplechase races run at Del Mar and Saratoga in 2009. Maiden races accounted for 158 of these and 57 of the maiden subset were won by first-time starters. About 15 percent of winners paid $20 or more and almost 40 percent paid off at 5-1 or higher.
Right Questions
If one looks simultaneously through the windows of the trainer, the jockey's agent and the handicapper, you should ask most of the right questions. Some handicappers and race observers might even like to throw the horse into the mix as well.
Sometimes the questions will be hard to answer; that fact alone could send up a warning flag. When you see a top-five rider on a ship-in or from a low-key outfit does it hint of a sharp performance today or does it mean that that outfit has a promising young horse in the barn? What should you think when the leading rider from another circuit ships to ride a seemingly overmatched horse in Saturday's stakes race? Is the horse live, or does the rider simply want to ride at Saratoga?
Finding plausible answers to these questions will help you to decide whether a horse has a legitimate chance. Just as you, the handicapper, wants to win races and cash bets, so do trainers and jockeys. The latter, with their agents, are only as good as the live horses they ride in the right spots. An agent's job is political; his job is as much about managing other horses and future races as it is finding the right horse today.
A trainer might ask:
-- I have a ready horse, who is the best rider I can get?
-- that horse ran big for the bug-boy, maybe I can get a top rider for him today. He is doing really well and might even have a better race in him.
-- I have a really nice two-year-old or a European stakes shipper...who will do me a favor with this one to get on that other later?
An owner might think:
-- I have guests coming on Saturday and want to impress them; which high-profile rider can I get?
-- Do I want to interfere with or make demands on my trainer?
The horse might think like this, and a good trainer should do it for him:
-- I like to run my races in a certain way, which rider do I have confidence in? I need soft hands, I need to be allowed to settle, I hate being inside etc... Which rider will give me the best ride so that I can run my best and win?
An agent has a lot of questions to ask:
-- I have a top rider, which horse do I want to ride in today’s race?
-- Will my steady customers allow me to ride another horse today, so I can ride their new prospect later on? Or will I lose the barn if I go elsewhere today?
-- That horse ran a big race with the 10-pound bug up; there is a good race for him next week; I am open so I will see the trainer to get the mount (for the meet's leading rider).
As a handicapper:
-- Does the outfit care about riders? Does this rider fit their normal profile?
-- I like this horse in a race, which riders would I like to see? And which others will I accept to make a bet?
-- Will this rider make any difference to the way my horse runs today?
-- Does this rider produce wake-up performances when he rides a new horse?
-- What story did a trainer have to give the agent to ride this horse today; after all the last race was not too good, and/or it is taking a big class rise, and/or it is coming off a layoff with a non-descript work tab and so on? If this coincides with a top rider riding for a non-client or non-descript trainer it may take on greater significance and if one of the rider's regular customers has a live horse in the same race maybe this is a live long shot?
Winning Profiles
Here are eight ideas that frequently show up in the profiles of winners. The problem with them is that so many of the horses share one or more of these concepts that it has little direct value in terms of winner selection. Rarely is there only one in a race. What may be the most significant of all is the fact only about 10 percent of the winners had none of the jockey-related factors on their resume for their winning race. More than three-quarters of the winners had more than one factor.
1) Hot Trainer: I wanted to know if trainer status was important. It is. At the recently concluded Saratoga meeting, names such as Alan Jerkens, Bruce Levine and Tom Albertrani were cold as ice. Riders need live and well-meant horses to win races. That is when smart rides really matter.
A trainer was "hot" if at the time the race was run the trainer was (a) one of the meet's leading trainers (b) a high-percentage outfit (20%+) but not on the leading trainers' list due to limited starters or (c) a trainer had won at least one race within a few days of today's race (I chose to leave many doors open; determining when short cycles begin and end is an art form and mostly guesswork). Some stables are historically slow or fast starters or win races in bunches; some just pick their spots. More than 400 winners, or almost 60 percent, were won by jockeys riding for live outfits that fit these parameters.
2) Hot Rider: This is a potent factor as almost 70 percent of the winners at both meetings fit my definition of a hot rider. I included every rider who had won a race within the last three racing days. The condition book influences the flow of races, thus a trainer's or jockey's win patterns. The meet leaders generally qualify as they have recent wins; occasionally a top rider might qualify for some of his wins and not for others; this is frequently the case for trainers. At Saratoga, several top 10 riders went for a week or more without a win. Frequent updating allows you a better understanding of whether fallow periods relate to the rider being cold or the improbable horses he was riding. If you are using this factor and playing 20 tracks, the statistics will likely have to speak for themselves.
Two peculiar situations occur regularly: one is when a certain rider wins three or more races. Twenty-five times a rider scored three wins, and on seven occasions there were four (evenly divided between meets). If you think a rider may be in the midst of one of these days, he may be worth including in serial plays or take a look at the win price and bet any overlays. Occasionally a rider ships in for a day. Jeremy Rose held a hot hand on everything he rode at Saratoga. Justin Sheppard shipped into Lone Star for a day and scored five wins on the card. While these days are usually unpredictable in advance, it can produce dividends to be alert when these events are in progress.
3) Winning Combination: Horse and Rider: The rider has won with the horse in the past. I based this on the last 10 starts; if you have particular local knowledge you may qualify a horse if the rider has won with the horse at any time. Both approaches work well. Based on the races for winners, more than 40 percent of the winners had been ridden by jockeys who had won with them before. Of these winning combinations, 25 percent switched riders for today's race while 75 percent had ridden them last time.
4) Go-To Rider: Trainer and Rider: BRIS reports "trainer with jockey" for the past 60 days in many of their PPs. Many outfits use multiple riders on their winning horses. Your definition of "go-to" will influence the qualifying horses. I included those with a past win on the horse, regardless of the timing as well as those with one win from five or fewer starts, or more than one from six or more starts in the BRIS stats for the last 60 days. Using these definitions, go-to riders rode about 60 percent of the winners.
5) Rider Switch: Excluding debut winners, about half the races were won with a rider switch and half with a returning rider. Did today's winning jockey ride the horse last time, was he riding the horse for the first time or had he ridden the horse in the past and was switching back today? Did the switch entail the move from a lesser rider to a top-five, or go-to rider, or back to a winning combination? This may be one of the more fertile areas for exploration and tinkering for a playable method. This was the best factor for 10-1+ winners; 65 of the 109 had rider switches.
More than a quarter of all winners were repeaters, and 33 percent of them switched riders (many were shipping to a different circuit) and 67 percent were ridden by the same. While one would have expected more of the switches to have come at Saratoga, because of several injuries to top jockeys at Del Mar, they were almost evenly balanced.
Paying attention to a rider switch makes sense, though a switch can also fool you. When a rider vacates a last-out winner or a dropping horse in good form, what does it say about that horse or the other horse he is riding today? Success with this idea is dependent upon making the right judgment. A rider may have ridden a winner for one of his occasional customers and may be vacating that one to ride for one of his regulars today. The new barn may have a promising young horse or a stakes horse to ride later on. What you see in these situations may not always be what you see on the surface.
On the day after the Travers (G1), third-leading rider Rajiv Maragh jumped off back-to-back winner Beneath the Crown (Regal Classic); he left the Timmy Hills horse to ride a non-descript looking, allowance horse, Piazza Di Spagna (Lycius), for Gary Sciacca. Maragh guided him home to a $20+ win mutuel.
On September 18 at Belmont, Kent Desormeaux switched off a live Bill Mott second-time starter Show the Way (Forest Camp) to ride a first-time starter Peteloveshisboots (Texas Glitter) for A.J. Bizelia and Paul Pompa Jr. Desormeaux had ridden several first-time turf winners for Mott at the Spa. Mott's horse won at generous odds. There is a strong likelihood that Peteloveshisboots has a future and might be worth another shot -- especially if Desormeaux rides him back.
Rider switches are a productive source of winners at good prices! Asking why the rider is on the horse today is an interesting approach when a top rider shows up on a morning-line long shot, or for some relatively unknown or low-profile trainer. It is more interesting when one of his prime connections has a seemingly live horse entered in the same event.
6) Top-Five Rider: Statistical: The top five riders frequently win 50 percent of the races at any given meeting. The makeup of the list can be in constant flux as occurred this summer past. The intent of the rule is to focus on riders who are riding well and for live outfits. One can focus on this group.
Most trainers with fit and ready runners try to get the best rider they can especially at these boutique meets where everybody wants to win. A rider attracts attention by winning a lot of races or a high-profile event or two. Then his agent gets more live calls. Success breeds success. Trainers and owners want live riders; agents with hot riders get live mounts far more easily than for a rider with one win from 25 mounts.
The Top Five won close to 50 percent at both meetings. Del Mar totals were influenced by injuries to two top prospects. Saratoga had eight constantly vying for several of the top five spots so counts could vary.
7) A Personal List: One of the ideas I experimented with was to make up a personal list of top riders. This works better if you know the jockey colony well. The list might include some of the top five riders, some of the unappreciated lesser-profile riders and some specialists and is flexible and variable and personal. Where did you put Edgar Prado going into the Saratoga meeting after the rather quiet Belmont? He came alive at Saratoga but has been quiet again back at Belmont. Jose Lezcano was in the top five at the Belmont spring meeting and while he had had good success over the winter at Gulfstream and had made a successful transition to Belmont in the spring it was uncertain that his profile and client base would keep him up top.
If there is a very strong rider colony such as there was at Saratoga, limiting the list to four or five may be self-defeating. Variable lists for fast, slop, turf, routes and sprints will work in some cases. The list changes as riders heat up or cool off. The list is your perception of the various riders on your circuit.
A lesser-known or lower-profile rider with talent who is underappreciated by the betting public is a great addition to your list. A few years back a friend suggested I pay serious attention to Alan Garcia when he came to New York; it did not take long for me to jump on his bandwagon and he has been paying dividends since. While Dominguez was on my radar a long, long time ago, he is too popular at the windows; while you rarely get a generous overlay on him, you do get a reliably good ride very consistently. Maragh, now in the top-five rankings, still rides numerous generously-priced winners.
Due to a couple of accidents involving top riders at Del Mar, the numerical and personal lists were in a state of flux. Alonso Quinonez made my personal list as under-appreciated and rewarded me with several long-shot winners I might not otherwise have played.
Each should bring your own ideas to this process. The more personal the approach the more likely it is to be a little outside the norm and therefore have some wager value attached to it.
8) Top Rider: 10-1 Odds: While it is dependent upon your skill and decision-making, there is one nugget that comes close to a profitable and semi-automatic play. It is to pick one or several top riders (you can also do this with a list of trainers) and play that rider automatically when the horse goes off at odds of 10-1 or higher. To make it automatic you would have to rely on the morning line and live with the fact that some will be bet down too low and that you may miss a few which could turn the angle either positive or negative at any given meeting.
I find that you can select a couple that make the top five list; it is also useful if you have a name or two that flies under the radar, but who you think is capable but underrated.
At Del Mar, leading rider Joel Rosario was productive with four $20 + winners; Tyler Baze had two, Joey Talamo scored six winners mostly near 10-1, Garret Gomez a trio. Two under the radar riders there, Michael Baze won four and Quinonez five to lead the bomb squad.
At the Spa, second leading rider Garcia hit the $20 number five times, as did Javier Castellano and the steady, though not-in-fashion Mike Luzzi, a year-round New York mainstay. Desormeaux won a trio of races at 10-1+ and all were first time on the turf; leading rider Dominguez scored two, Robby Albarado and Maragh had four baggers.
Conclusion
When all is said and done, whether you are an owner, a trainer, or simply a handicapper with an opinion on a horse in a race, your fate ultimately rests with the jockey and the decisions he or she makes during the running of the race.
As a player, no one single factor is likely to frustrate you as much as some of the rides you get! Just how important the jockey factor should be to you is a decision you must make to suit your own game. The better the jockey the lower the odds are likely to be; you must tie your tolerance for poor rides to your desire for higher odds.
In the process of using the jockey factor one must learn to separate the horse and his training from the blame the rider game. Losses are frequently the horse’s fault as it will not run inside or lacks the athleticism/turn-of-foot to explode through the holes when they open. Big stables have a much better chance of schooling their horses in the mornings. Young horses can go out in sets of five or six and can train inside, outside and between others and can learn to take dirt in their faces. If one exercise rider does not get along with a horse, then maybe another will. The smaller stables frequently lack these opportunities and the horses get their in-company experience in their early races. If a trainer knows any of these quirks of a particular horse it is his responsibility to warn the rider of its foibles.
In evaluating horses, rides and trips, one should appreciate all of these factors along with stable intent. If the trainer's win percentage is 12 percent with debut runners and 28 percent with second-time starters, it may not be a bad ride if the horse fails to get there in time. The intent was to give the horse an education.
Five decades of racing experiences in all facets of the game teach that the jockey cannot win the race without the horse. The best horse can win without the best ride and a less-than-best horse can win a lot of races with a good ride and/or when the best horse gets a poor ride. So many races are very contentious that the trip along with the luck of the draw and the various rides in the race determine who is in the photo. Saving ground and expending the horse's energy at the right time are usually crucial. Along with their other skills, the better riders do this more frequently than the less successful ones. A lot has to do with the horses they ride, but the cream normally rises to the top.
Most of the top outfits go out of their way to get top riders, or a rider with a particular style that suits the horse. Why put in so much time and effort and then leave the last detail to chance? When every effort has been made to get a horse properly prepared they tend to go for the best in terms of athletic skill and in-race judgment.
The better riders have better physical skills and a better style of race riding. They make fewer errors in judgment. They try to save ground and save horse and avoid trouble. Generally the top riders make the right decisions more often than do the lesser riders. Thus they get the choice of the better mounts. Simply put: the good jockeys lose fewer races on the best horse. They tend to understand the surface they are riding over, find ways of getting the horse the good trip and avoiding trouble.
Using the rider as an entry point is never an easy game. After two weeks of the Belmont Championship fall meeting, three of the names atop the Saratoga final list are not near the top, while a couple of those who are usually near the top, but who could not be found at the Spa seem to be back riding in better form. Some of this relates to trainers who were not productive at Saratoga but are winning races on Long Island.
Paying particular attention to jockeys, those who are riding well, those who are cold and those who fly beneath the public radar are all worthwhile endeavors that will add to your bottom line.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no easy or simple or work-free way to use the jockey as a key handicapping factor. That said, any time you can get 10-1 or more on a top rider, along with any reason that helps to explain why he is there, you might be on to something. At the current Belmont meeting, the vast majority of the $15 to $40 winners have been ridden by those who are near the top of the jockey standings. Sometimes it works...but alas...not always!
Good Luck!
No comments:
Post a Comment