Just in case anyone still thinks Prado can ride

[hockey2315]

Pretty much. . . there's a difference between having a role in the win and being the reason for it, but no - a jockey can't make a horse - or at least his horse win.

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Pretty much. . . there's a difference between having a role in the win and being the reason for it, but no - a jockey can't make a horse - or at least his horse win.

So if a jock has to make a decision... ahhh lets say a turf race turning for home. And the best decision for winning consists of two options:
1. to stay closer to the rail and get trapped or wait for a hole to open up as horses tire and move
versus

2. swinging wide and having a clear run but possibly sacrificing the horses chances to win by running further and using more energy

So there is no way for a jock to make the right decision because the right decision is always a known at that very point in time when the decision is made. Or there is no such thing at a particular point in time for two possible decisons to both have equivalent values. It is always clear that one is better than the other at that point in time (ie not after the race is over)

So that in watching any race, if a jock has to make a decision, a good handicapper knows what that decision should be at that very point in time?

[hockey2315]

A jockey can make the right decision but he still needs the HORSE to pull it off. . . He doesn't make the horse win, he just gives the horse the opportunity to win.

Originally Posted by hockey2315

A jockey can make the right decision but he still needs the HORSE to pull it off. . . He doesn't make the horse win, he just gives the horse the opportunity to win.

So jockeys can make correct decisions or wrong decisions?

[hockey2315]

But they can't be the reason for the horse winning. . . They can be the reason for the horse not losing.

Originally Posted by hockey2315

But they can't be the reason for the horse winning. . . They can be the reason for the horse not losing.

So if a jock gets lucky and makes 3 good decisions during a difficult race (crowded or some other scenario) and the horse wins... handicappers should say he allowed the horse to win. One would never conclude (if a jock made multiple correct decisions in a number of tough spots) that a horse could not have won if it were not for those correct decisions.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So if a jock gets lucky and makes 3 good decisions during a difficult race (crowded or some other scenario) and the horse wins... handicappers should say he allowed the horse to win. One would never conclude (if a jock made multiple correct decisions in a number of tough spots) that a horse could not have won if it were not for those correct decisions.

You're looking at it backwards, though. It's not about the jockeys. . . the jockey may have given his horse the best chance to win - but he didn't/can't win it. On the contrary, superior horses can overcome an inept ride. A jockey can't make a bad horse win (unless the rest of the horses are worse or their jockeys make mistakes). Jockeys are like refs/umpires - they can only make mistakes - they're supposed to make the right calls.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So if a jock gets lucky and makes 3 good decisions during a difficult race ......

I defy you to name this happening just once, ever, anywhere!