chances mike smith off in the belmont

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by ELA

For RA?

yes,

MTB a 107

So yes he IMPROVED off that run in the Derby.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Mike Smith gave a better ride today than Borel could have.

Today's race proved, once again, that horses win races and not riders.

Originally Posted by CSC

add to that I would say horses win races, whereas riders lose races.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So would I.

Do you agree that some riders are more likely to "lose races" than others?

If you do agree that some riders are more likely to lose races than others, then whether you say riders win races or riders lose races is only a matter of whether you prefer insulting riders or praising them. Either way, you'd rather have one rider than another on your horse and either way, you will be adding some rider factor into your capping, right?

I guess I don't get the amount of disparagement heaped on the jockey's contribution to the race outcome.

--Dunbar

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Do you agree that some riders are more likely to "lose races" than others?

If you do agree that some riders are more likely to lose races than others, then whether you say riders win races or riders lose races is only a matter of whether you prefer insulting riders or praising them. Either way, you'd rather have one rider than another on your horse and either way, you will be adding some rider factor into your capping, right?

I guess I don't get the amount of disparagement heaped on the jockey's contribution to the race outcome.

--Dunbar

Obcourse a jockey influences your decision making process, however there's a difference in blinding picking a horse just because 'Jerry Bailey' is riding.

It's no secret I am not one of Mike Smith's biggest fans, however I can see through the bias to still bet a horse I like the price is right. Ie. alot of my plays in the preak were keyed on Mine That Bird, so in essence I did practice what I said.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Do you agree that some riders are more likely to "lose races" than others?

If you do agree that some riders are more likely to lose races than others, then whether you say riders win races or riders lose races is only a matter of whether you prefer insulting riders or praising them. Either way, you'd rather have one rider than another on your horse and either way, you will be adding some rider factor into your capping, right?

I guess I don't get the amount of disparagement heaped on the jockey's contribution to the race outcome.

--Dunbar

Fair enough, but I guess that sometimes I take for granted that people fully understand what is going through my head, so let me try to explain it. For the most part, the riders at the higher level tracks are extremely competent. Sure, some are better than others, but mostly their results are a function of the horses they ride, and thus since the better riders tend to get better mounts, they may appear better than they are due to the abilities of their mounts. When I look over a race for the first time, I take note of who is riding which horses and if this is a change from the previous rider(s). In most cases, at least in NY, the riders are good, so I don't worry about it and move on. In the few cases where the riders are weak, or there is a significant change one way or another, I make note of it and will refer back to it if the horse becomes one I am considering in my play. At the right odds, I don't care who rides a horse, as I am getting paid and am thus willing to take my chances.

So, what I am trying to say is that while clearly a rider can, and sometimes does, have an affect on an outcome, as horseplayers we can't control this, and have to hope for the best. Most of the time, we only notice riders when we perceive them to have screwed up. Much of this time, we are wrong, and are laying the blame in the wrong place. I feel similarly about when people praise riders, as most of the time they rode the best horse, or perhaps were in a position to take advantage of a given situation, and the simple fact is that most of the riders ( at least in NY ) would have given the same good ride. I mean this as a compliment to the group, not an insult to the individual, and this is perhaps what I have failed to get across.

Simply put, I feel riders get too much credit for winning, and WAY too much blame for losing. That is why I say they are in an ultimately unenviable position, as even the best ones lose over 75% of the time.

[the_fat_man]

I think that even someone as dominant in his sport as Lance Armstrong would admit that if his team, those 'working' for him, don't get him to the key point in a race in the right way, then he basically has little chance of winning. Put another way, if any number of competent cyclists, with a talent level below that of Armstrong, are gotten to a key point in the race in a 'better' way than Armstrong, chances are, they'll beat him. Now, obviously, much planning goes into getting the star the best possible setup. And Armstrong is thus able to win more than he loses. Not nearly as much goes into getting a horse a good setup, however. In the sense that a jockey has a major portion of the control over whether a horse gets the proper setup, then, a jockey can significantly affect the performance of a horse in a race; both positively and negatively. As such, I pay close attention to the strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies of the jockeys in the circuits I follow, and I definitely consider the jockey when I bet. There are jocks I just won't bet -- it's just not worth the aggravation. There are others I'll bet less than my normal amount on. And there are those I'll bet with confidence. In fact, I do more handicapping of jocks than I do of trainers. Bad trainers typically ride bad jocks, it seems. Of course, trainer stat handicappers would disagree.

[Dunbar]

First, thanks very much for the thoughtful response. I have a couple of comments that I've interspersed below.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Fair enough, but I guess that sometimes I take for granted that people fully understand what is going through my head, so let me try to explain it. For the most part, the riders at the higher level tracks are extremely competent. Sure, some are better than others, but mostly their results are a function of the horses they ride, and thus since the better riders tend to get better mounts, they may appear better than they are due to the abilities of their mounts. When I look over a race for the first time, I take note of who is riding which horses and if this is a change from the previous rider(s). In most cases, at least in NY, the riders are good, so I don't worry about it and move on. In the few cases where the riders are weak, or there is a significant change one way or another, I make note of it and will refer back to it if the horse becomes one I am considering in my play. At the right odds, I don't care who rides a horse, as I am getting paid and am thus willing to take my chances.

Isn't the key there "at the right odds"? Those odds will be a little lower for me when Gomez is riding than when [fill in your own least fav Cal rider] rides.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So, what I am trying to say is that while clearly a rider can, and sometimes does, have an affect on an outcome, as horseplayers we can't control this, and have to hope for the best.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. We can't control the race outcome, yet we still bet on the race if the odds are appealing, right? Likewise, the chance that a rider will either positively or negatively affect the outcome is something we can estimate. We can control how we weight the rider's abilities when we cap the race. We can upgrade a horse's chances when the rider is one who makes few mistakes and we can downgrade a horse's chances when the rider seems generally clueless.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Most of the time, we only notice riders when we perceive them to have screwed up. Much of this time, we are wrong, and are laying the blame in the wrong place. I feel similarly about when people praise riders, as most of the time they rode the best horse, or perhaps were in a position to take advantage of a given situation, and the simple fact is that most of the riders ( at least in NY ) would have given the same good ride. I mean this as a compliment to the group, not an insult to the individual, and this is perhaps what I have failed to get across.

Very well put!

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Simply put, I feel riders get too much credit for winning, and WAY too much blame for losing. That is why I say they are in an ultimately unenviable position, as even the best ones lose over 75% of the time.

I see jockies as athletes who need strength, finesse and judgement to excel. Like any group of athletes, some will be better than others, even within an elite group like the NY colony. That said, I probably don't put that much more emphasis on riders than you do. That's because of the difficulty I have in evaluating and weighting the differences rather than feeling like the differences are small.

--Dunbar

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Mike Smith gave a better ride today than Borel could have.

Today's race proved, once again, that horses win races and not riders.

How exactly is the 1st part true? You've never seen Borel come wide (or between) on a horse?

And, what exactly is the point of the 2nd part? You need to expand, please.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Mike Smith gave a better ride today than Borel could have.

Today's race proved, once again, that horses win races and not riders.

If you are somehow trying to say that MTB would have still won the Derby without Borel.....you are WRONG.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

If you are somehow trying to say that MTB would have still won the Derby without Borel.....you are WRONG.

I hope you are kidding as this kind of thinking is absolute crap and one of the best things about the Preakness is that this was proven. Mine That Bird won the Derby by seven lengths.

Now, if someone can prove that every other rider would have had him chasing the pace, and not last, then it's a different discussion. But, that's impossible to legitimately claim. Borel rode him well in the Derby.....but the horse won by seven lengths.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I hope you are kidding as this kind of thinking is absolute crap and one of the best things about the Preakness is that this was proven. Mine That Bird won the Derby by seven lengths.

Now, if someone can prove that every other rider would have had him chasing the pace, and not last, then it's a different discussion. But, that's impossible to legitimately claim. Borel rode him well in the Derby.....but the horse won by seven lengths.

Thats exactly my point....Borel is the only one that rides like that.
I agree that it is Horseracing...not jockeyracing. However, I agree that MTB would have run a good race in the Derby whomever rode... But its a joke to think he would have won by 7 lengths if you take away the Borel tatics.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Why? What did he do wrong?

you know its a derby trail ritual to blame him whenever his mount loses.

[_ed_]

I don't think he did anything wrong, can't blame him for the traffic problems at the turn.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Why? What did he do wrong?

not a gd thing.