shut your eyes at the last

[Posts: 446Joined: 24 Mar 2002, 17:04Location: bristol]

no im not on about jim mccrath but about having money on a horse coming to the last ridden by richard johnson, over the years ive seen countless times a mount of his blunder away a chance of winning at the last and blow me he did it again on menorah at ascot yesterday

[Posts: 4075Joined: 07 Dec 2002, 17:02Location: Talbot Green]

How did I think that this was about Dickie before I read it?

Colin

[Posts: 58Joined: 16 Oct 2009, 19:15]

Poor ride, but a great one by Walsh made easier by the blunder.

[Posts: 1054Joined: 01 Oct 2007, 01:52Location: Solitary confinement, east London.]

Walsh on an inferior animal will still be dangerous. AP McCoy will tell you the ins and outs, and Dicky will be waiting just behind him to explain the same thing.

Nothing any of them could have done about it, mind. The better jocky with superior race riding skills and awareness will always be there in the event of the lesser mans blunder.

Dickie chose to follow a couple of hard pullers in desperate ground, while Ruby sat tight off the pace. Put Ruby on the fav and he'd have won on three legs.

They'll find a way to lose. Ruby will find a way to win.

[Posts: 145Joined: 23 Dec 2009, 19:19Location: Dublin]

Acting purely as devils advocate i decided to test the scenario where the three mentioned jockeys (McCoy, Walsh & Johnson) have been involved in a head to head (with all three involved).

In all races since 1997 the following is the outcome.

Total Races (where all 3 involved) - 675
McCoy Winners - 96 (14.2%)
Johnson Winners - 57 (8.4%)
Walsh Winners - 122 (18.1%)

If you change this slightly and make it that all 3 were on a horse with a realistic chance (10/1 or less) you get the following.

Total Races (where all 3 involved and every jockey rode a 10/1 shot or less) - 220
McCoy Winners - 37 (16.9%)
Johnson Winners - 29 (13.2%)
Walsh Winners - 44 (20%)

Therefore, i believe this is pretty conclusive proof of the ability of Walsh in comparison to the other two. Similarly showing McCoy is superior to Johnson.

Anyone disagree?

[Posts: 1054Joined: 01 Oct 2007, 01:52Location: Solitary confinement, east London.]

Acting purely as devils advocate i decided to test the scenario where the three mentioned jockeys (McCoy, Walsh & Johnson) have been involved in a head to head (with all three involved).

In all races since 1997 the following is the outcome.

Total Races (where all 3 involved) - 675
McCoy Winners - 96 (14.2%)
Johnson Winners - 57 (8.4%)
Walsh Winners - 122 (18.1%)

If you change this slightly and make it that all 3 were on a horse with a realistic chance (10/1 or less) you get the following.

Total Races (where all 3 involved and every jockey rode a 10/1 shot or less) - 220
McCoy Winners - 37 (16.9%)
Johnson Winners - 29 (13.2%)
Walsh Winners - 44 (20%)

Therefore, i believe this is pretty conclusive proof of the ability of Walsh in comparison to the other two. Similarly showing McCoy is superior to Johnson.

Anyone disagree?

I wouldn't have a clue what site you went to in order to produce those stats, and while stats can never be completely conclusive, they certainly can't be argued with.

These ones are very interesting indeed, and merely support what I and many others suspect. His decision making during a race is sublime, and would only be this way through complete and utter confidence in his own abilities as a Jockey. Watching him operate at this level is a total joy to behold.

Roll on Cheltenham.

[Posts: 3334Joined: 01 Feb 2004, 19:54]

Wouldn't the quality of the horses they were on have a bearing, which would surely skew thw figures Ruby's way anyway?

[Posts: 2611Joined: 08 Apr 2009, 03:03]

Huge difference between being involved in a finish and doing the impossible which AP has done more times that most of us have eaten Xmas pudding.

Quite easy to get involved in a tight finish on a good horse if you've messed up during the race.

How many of these horses shouldn't even have been involved in a finish?

Ruby is my fav jockey of all time but no matter what figures are thrown at me he's nowhere near as strong or as effective as AP on the run to the line. IMO of course.

As far as Menorah is concerned, he's been stuffed twice and beat an under par Bellvano...lump of lard wins nothing at Chelters.

[Posts: 411Joined: 12 Jan 2008, 10:22]

Total Races (where all 3 involved and every jockey rode a 10/1 shot or less) - 220
McCoy Winners - 37 (16.9%)
Johnson Winners - 29 (13.2%)
Walsh Winners - 44 (20%)

Therefore, i believe this is pretty conclusive proof of the ability of Walsh in comparison to the other two. Similarly showing McCoy is superior to Johnson.

Anyone disagree?

In order to draw any hard and fast conclusions, you'd need to weight these figures, to allow for average SP of the three jockeys' respective mounts, more precisely.

For example, if the average odds of Walsh winners was 3/1, those of McCoy 4/1 and Johnson 5/1, that would make a significant difference to the statistical validity of your conclusion. At the moment your "proof" doesn't hold water.

[Posts: 4075Joined: 07 Dec 2002, 17:02Location: Talbot Green]

It is well known that some jockeys ride a lot more winners than others. That might be because they are better jockeys, but it might be because they are riding better horses or just riding a lot more often than the other jockeys. Some jockeys have many followers, so horses they ride, tend to have SPs which are shorter than they otherwise would be. Some jockeys have few followers so their mounts tend to have SPs which are longer than they otherwise would be. What is important for the backer (or layer) is to know whether a particular jockey performs better or worse than expected according to the SPs of the horses that they ride. For example, does Jockey A tend to perform better or worse than Jockey B on 10-1 shots.

These ratings are an attempt to indicate which jockeys are better or worse than average, taking into account the SPs of the horses that they ride.

The ratings are calculated as follows :

Firstly, by analysing a lot of races, I have calculated the average finishing position of horses at all different values of SP. The finishing positions are expressed in 3 different ways :

Win Percentage. For example, Horses with a SP of 3-1 on average may win 23% of the time.
Place Percentage. For example, Horses with a SP of 6-4 on average may be placed 62% of the time.
Percentage of Other Horses Beaten. For example, in an 11 runner race, the winner has beaten 100% of the other horses, the horse on last place has beaten 0% of the other horses, while the horse in 6th place has beaten 50% of the other horses (5 in front and 5 behind). It may be that horses with a SP of 2-1 beat 78% of the other horses on average while horses at 10-1 beat 37%.
Secondly, the finishing position of each of a particular jockey's mounts are compared to the average for horses at that SP. Taking an average of these comparisons gives a rating for the jockey. A rating greater than 100 indicates that the jockey tends to finish in a better position than average, while a rating less than 100 indicates that the jockey tends to finish in a worse position. Jockeys with higher ratings should give better value to the backer.
***************************************
The above is the way Adrian Massey rates jockeys on his site.

Adrian's latest figures for the three riders under discussion (bearing in mind the higher the figure the better return for the punter, or "value" if you like! )

RICHARD JOHNSON 141 (VERY GOOD)

RUBY WALSH 126 (BETTER THAN AVERAGE)

A.P. McCOY 82 (BLOODY AWFUL!)

Make of that what you will.

Colin

[Posts: 4Joined: 21 Apr 2009, 20:06]

I did a comparison of McCoy and Walsh and reached similar conclusions - Walsh is the better jockey. Interestingly, fewer horses fall for McCoy than Walsh though.

http://www.scepticalpunter.com/?p=184