Re: Compromised How? (906 Views)
Posted by:
HP (IP Logged)
Date: August 23, 2002 06:01PM
Aly,
You are eager to say I am an 'enemy of the decent.' That may be a crown I would wear with great joy, but again, I would have to clarify before my coronation.
I never said "jockey stats were worthless". I said jockey/ROI stats were worthless. I can see other stats bearing on jockeys that I think would have more value. Do they have a pronounced edge in results in sprints vs. routes, on turf, on a particular course, with certain trainers? - this kind of thing. As with trainers, I think it's valuable (as a side dish) to know what a jockey does best. Jockey/ROI is something anybody with a racing form or a daily newspaper with jockey standings for a meet can estimate for comparative purposes. How can you emphasize an angle based on what everybody else knows? This is why I started using sheets in the first place. I heard enough of that 'Cordero is on the six' crap to last me a lifetime.
How much weight you put on jockeys in your handicapping? For me it's less than 10%. I'm more interested in the trainer angles and of course, my crazy preoccupation, the actual horse itself. Reading Michael's posts, I guess there's a world where Rudy Rodriguez would have turned Secretariat into a high-priced claimer. Conversely, Bailey can actually speed horses up, and bring Jacques Who in first for a change.
If you tell me you lean on jock/ROI, tell me how you make money on it. If you don't lean on it, why are you arguing this point (asides from your obvious joy in casting me as some kind of villian)?
Finally, if you think this stat is so valuable, let me know what you're willing to pay for it. My guess? Not much. It's probably not even the fifth or sixth thing you look at in the TG data. I also find it hard to believe that this will inspire as much passion as the ever-popular 'most important length' debate. Heh. HP