Would you play away from Nakatani's Horses

[docicu3]

As far as angles go I am curious about the feeling the jury here has about a recently injured jock and whether you would steer clear of sub jocks on C Nak's mounts for the next few days...

As many of you here know C Nak was injured breaking a clavicle during a spill early Saturday AM that will keep him from honoring his mounts for some period of time to be determined.

Obviously a superior horse would have to be taken into account but where do you draw this line??? Not that C Nak was tearing it up of late....

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by docicu3

As far as angles go I am curious about the feeling the jury here has about a recently injured jock and whether you would steer clear of sub jocks on C Nak's mounts for the next few days...

As many of you here know C Nak was injured breaking a clavicle during a spill early Saturday AM that will keep him from honoring his mounts for some period of time to be determined.

Obviously a superior horse would have to be taken into account but where do you draw this line??? Not that C Nak was tearing it up of late....

Been drawing a line thru most of his mounts because they have not been fast enought to win.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

Been drawing a line thru most of his mounts because they have not been fast enought to win.

I've been drawing a line through his mounts because his head aint in the ballgame 90% of the time.

[docicu3]

Given that CN gets quite abit of favorable press and comment I am surprised how far he has fallen from favor here.....so lets amend this to CN is riding a horse that looks otherwise playable for price expected and or part of a tri or super your putting together.....given the limited time a replacement jock would have with his mount are you still crossing out or are there horses you would actually include because the jock replacing him is an upgrade.....

[GPK]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

IMO getting away from a mount because a guy like Nakatani is on is a mistake. The horse is what I bet. Obviously a huge upgrade is noted in my handicapping, but has little to no impact on my wagers and it shouldn't.

Im the opposite....and it goes for both Vertical and Horizontal bets. Vertically,(Exacta's only. I don't play tri's or supers) im more likely to leave him out, especially on short priced horses. I have seen him quit too many times to have a ton of confidence in him. Horizontally, I am more apt to use him, but rarely will I single. I realize this is based only on personal experience...but it's my two cents worth.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

IMO getting away from a mount because a guy like Nakatani is on is a mistake. The horse is what I bet. Obviously a huge upgrade is noted in my handicapping, but has little to no impact on my wagers and it shouldn't.

It is all about the horse. Who knows you might get a guy replacing Nak riding for a trainer for the first time. You would think the jock would do anything he could to start riding for Oneill or Dollasce etc. Plus I also think that you might get better odds on the horse if say Matt Garcia was on instead of Nak. I think BTW says it all the time, the jock is not as important as alot of people make them out to be.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

It is all about the horse. Who knows you might get a guy replacing Nak riding for a trainer for the first time. You would think the jock would do anything he could to start riding for Oneill or Dollasce etc. Plus I also think that you might get better odds on the horse if say Matt Garcia was on instead of Nak. I think BTW says it all the time, the jock is not as important as alot of people make them out to be.

I disagree with "the jock is not important"....while it is certainly true that a good jock cannot make a bad horse perform any better than it's talent will allow....but a solid jock replacing a less skilled one on a solid horse may make the difference between 1st, 2nd or 3rd.....Garcia today had a horse predicted to be competitive ES in the 8th at the Big A....Cotto didn't take or didn't have the advantage of GoGo Shoot's ES shown again today 12/12/07 (8).

Garcia stayed clear of Ramon and Maragh, the other jocks busy eliminating two other contenders in the race one by check the other by foul in the top of the stretch and the ES advantage does the rest....If Ramon doesn't come over on Hill the race might have been slightly different but Garcia rode the winner today and deserves the credit for allowing the horse to perform....some call it racing luck but it certainly is not totally random or we are all wasting our time playing the inner in the winter.....bias sure random no!!

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Alan Garcia deserves the credit? The horse was the fastest early and got loose on a track that carried speed all weekend. He ran a deceptively good race last out, getting the worst of it 3 wide. Today, against softer, he outbroke Accredit and it was over on that track. Of course I wasn't bright enough to bet him, I used All Expenses Paid.

I think the result would have been the same if DrugS was riding the horse.

I think if DrugS was riding Accredit the race would have been run a little differently.

[blackthroatedwind]

IMO, the entire notion of this thread is a perversion of reality. The rides that most horses get are random, and are a waste of time to even attempt to predict, not to mention distracting. You handicap the horses in a race and make your decisions on whether or not to bet, or who to bet, based on the merits of the horses......and not your convaluted ideas of what kind of ride they may get.

Now, when you are handicapping the race you should take into account the trip, which may involve the ride, the horse has gotten recently. You then make your best guess as to what kind of trip it will get in today's race and simply hope for the best. Of course sometimes you will see a horse going from a weaker rider to a better rider, and if this horse has been compromised recently by its rider, then perhaps it is reasonable to assume the horse is slightly more likely to get a better ride today. However, it is the horse that still needs to be good enough to win the race, not the rider on his back.

Bad riders are winning races left and right on the inner track at Aqueduct. Today Rajiv Maragh's utter incompetence eliminated any chance Accredit may have had in today's feature. Yesterday he rode Icabad Crane to victory in the 7th race. He did little right early in the race, saved ground smartly later in the race, benefited from CC Lopez's ineptitude when he needlessly swung He Aint Easy wide on the second turn, and got the win on much the best horse. Was his ride good? Somewhat. Was he helped by the ineptitude of others? Somewhat. But, make no mistake, it was the horse that won the race.

Jockeys lose races....they don't win them.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I think if DrugS was riding Accredit the race would have been run a little differently.

Would it have ended like this one or something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzacCr9-4Es

(Thanks for the link, ed).

[GPK]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

IMO, the entire notion of this thread is a perversion of reality. The rides that most horses get are random, and are a waste of time to even attempt to predict, not to mention distracting. You handicap the horses in a race and make your decisions on whether or not to bet, or who to bet, based on the merits of the horses......and not your convaluted ideas of what kind of ride they may get.

Now, when you are handicapping the race you should take into account the trip, which may involve the ride, the horse has gotten recently. You then make your best guess as to what kind of trip it will get in today's race and simply hope for the best. Of course sometimes you will see a horse going from a weaker rider to a better rider, and if this horse has been compromised recently by its rider, then perhaps it is reasonable to assume the horse is slightly more likely to get a better ride today. However, it is the horse that still needs to be good enough to win the race, not the rider on his back.

Bad riders are winning races left and right on the inner track at Aqueduct. Today Rajiv Maragh's utter incompetence eliminated any chance Accredit may have had in today's feature. Yesterday he rode Icabad Crane to victory in the 7th race. He did little right early in the race, saved ground smartly later in the race, benefited from CC Lopez's ineptitude when he needlessly swung He Aint Easy wide on the second turn, and got the win on much the best horse. Was his ride good? Somewhat. Was he helped by the ineptitude of others? Somewhat. But, make no mistake, it was the horse that won the race.

Jockeys lose races....they don't win them.

Would you agree that there are jocks out there, that if they don't feel they have a chance to win coming down the stretch, they don't ride out their mounts to insure the best placing possible?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by GPK

Would you agree that there are jocks out there, that if they don't feel they have a chance to win coming down the stretch, they don't ride out their mounts to insure the best placing possible?

Unpredictably.

You hope for the best. And you watch races carefully for next time.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Would it have ended like this one or something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzacCr9-4Es

(Thanks for the link, ed).

I saw that happen to Angel Cordero 30 years ago on Bajapa at Saratoga. Good, bad, mediocre.....it makes no difference.

[docicu3]

[quote=blackthroatedwind]IMO, the entire notion of this thread is a perversion of reality. The rides that most horses get are random, and are a waste of time to even attempt to predict, not to mention distracting. You handicap the horses in a race and make your decisions on whether or not to bet, or who to bet, based on the merits of the horses......and not your convaluted ideas of what kind of ride they may get.


In the words of a knowledgeable friend of mine......JesusTapDancing Christ!!

At no point in the thread was there ever a mention of minimizing the necessity for handicapping horse talent or race shape.....they remain crucial elements.

The discussion had to do with Jockey performance and your take on all these other elements of handicapping just completely distorts the subject matter.
Of course the most important element of handicapping a race is the blessed horse Andy........If ignoring the jockey is working for you Andy more power to you but I find it simplistic and falable to suggest that the Jockey riding the horse is an edge of no merit. If jockeys were all alike and places from mounts were nothing more than statistical random events then why are some jocks in such demand while others starve.....you call some of these things random I call them racing luck the difference is trivial but if I happen to be successful staying away from certain jocks or playing against certain false favorites successfully it doesn't make it a "perversion of reality" to be right on occasion

Use what you can and leave the rest just because it's different from you doesn't make it wrong....

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Alan Garcia deserves the credit? The horse was the fastest early and got loose on a track that carried speed all weekend. He ran a deceptively good race last out, getting the worst of it 3 wide. Today, against softer, he outbroke Accredit and it was over on that track. Of course I wasn't bright enough to bet him, I used All Expenses Paid.

I think the result would have been the same if DrugS was riding the horse.

I thought All Expenses Paid got fouled when Ramon seemed hell bent on hip checking him into the fence as he tried to advance on the rail. IMO when I watched the replay he seemed to make a space available smaller. GoGo was not running against Grand Minstrel today but those were decent horses in the 8th today some at more of a advantage in form cycle than others.

As you probably saw today on another thread I thought Garcia was an upgrade that would be felt in the race which turned out correct. I still think that some jocks find ways to win races close in talent and some find ways MORE OFTEN to lose.....it's really not any deeper than that. You give me two essentially equal in ability horses and stick Freddie Fong on one and Gomez on the other and I'll take Gomez. I don't see what is so "perverse from reality" here.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by GPK

Would you agree that there are jocks out there, that if they don't feel they have a chance to win coming down the stretch, they don't ride out their mounts to insure the best placing possible?

I never will forget Tyler Baze standing up before the wire and getting beat for show by a nose and cost me a $6k trifecta. He was on the favorite trying to wire the field. He gets passed by my 18-1 shot whips the horse, then passed by my 35-1 shot and gives up. Stands up in disgust and gets caught at the wire. Had it twice for $1 with him in it. 2nd choice that I didn't (saved money) like nips him because he quit riding. sure the horse was done but did he have to stand up before the wire?

If I see Tyler up I don't bet 'em. (then he leads the meet)

on topic of Corey Nakatani.. I usually bet the horse. I think Victor Espinoza got one of his mounts and won the race.

[alysheba4]

cn has lost it..........he rode at something like 6% at hollywood. completely overrated. head north to golden gate.

[tiggerv]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

If I see Tyler up I don't bet 'em. (then he leads the meet)

on topic of Corey Nakatani.. I usually bet the horse. I think Victor Espinoza got one of his mounts and won the race.

When was the Tyler incident? He has been great the last 6 months and if anything I consider it a positive when he is on a mount especially at long odds. One of the reasons I covered that bomb in the 1st yesterday in the Pick 4 was because Tyler took it.

As far as CN, I don't think he has been getting many good mounts since Del Mar. Don't know what the reason is, it may just be because Gomez and Bejarano are in town and everybody gets bumped down the totem poll. I certainly wouldn't toss anything just because Corey is on. He will still bring the bombs home on the turf. As far as his current mounts, Flores and Bejarano seem to have picked up the better ones. Espinoza may have gotten some too. If a Rosario or Quinonez takes it then you can probably safely toss but the PPs probably already told you that.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

IMO getting away from a mount because a guy like Nakatani is on is a mistake. The horse is what I bet. Obviously a huge upgrade is noted in my handicapping, but has little to no impact on my wagers and it shouldn't.

How are those dime supers treating you champ? Any 3 figure scores??

[freddymo]

[quote=docicu3]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

IMO, the entire notion of this thread is a perversion of reality. The rides that most horses get are random, and are a waste of time to even attempt to predict, not to mention distracting. You handicap the horses in a race and make your decisions on whether or not to bet, or who to bet, based on the merits of the horses......and not your convaluted ideas of what kind of ride they may get.


In the words of a knowledgeable friend of mine......JesusTapDancing Christ!!

At no point in the thread was there ever a mention of minimizing the necessity for handicapping horse talent or race shape.....they remain crucial elements.

The discussion had to do with Jockey performance and your take on all these other elements of handicapping just completely distorts the subject matter.
Of course the most important element of handicapping a race is the blessed horse Andy........If ignoring the jockey is working for you Andy more power to you but I find it simplistic and falable to suggest that the Jockey riding the horse is an edge of no merit. If jockeys were all alike and places from mounts were nothing more than statistical random events then why are some jocks in such demand while others starve.....you call some of these things random I call them racing luck the difference is trivial but if I happen to be successful staying away from certain jocks or playing against certain false favorites successfully it doesn't make it a "perversion of reality" to be right on occasion

Use what you can and leave the rest just because it's different from you doesn't make it wrong....

I haven't read the rest of the thread... But I am pretty sure Serling is going to agree wih 90% of the post