[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