althought not a science, jockey bookings for me are the first port of call when in search of winners.
however, since there was a week off recently, i read from a follower that ''until December only jockeys that have ridden less than 25 winners this year can ride too after the week off''
given the look of some of the jockey's riding today/yesterday, he may speak some truth, but i'd like further clarification.
i realise i am answering my own question in a sense, because on thursday, at lingfield to name but one, Robbie Hornswoggle is riding, he's bagged 64 winners this year alone, but that the initial point raised does have some legs it seems - so again clarification if possible?
i am asking before TWO TEMPTING gets the assistance of Kev Stott, a jockey with only 1 ride for Portman over the previou 12 months, given Hornby is his main man, and was on last time when going close, i figured off top weight, off today's rating, he can be overlooked despite the half decent price.... however i don't want to publicly discount him based on an incorrect line of thinking ... stott himself has 32 winners so again what info i got doesn't make total sense but to be go round in a circle, the jockeys out today are relative inexperienced compared to what is typical, so perhaps it does have legs....
what's the crack, thankyou kindly.
however at Lingfield tomorrow, there is no restrictions given all the regulars are riding so, that suggests what 'we' say isn't accurate..... so kind of still clueless.
9 – 19 Nov
Eight-day Flat break following the Saturday staging the
November Handicap, extended for the busiest jockeys by a
further three-days of rider restricted meetings. ''
i see that after copying your message into google, and although i can't find it - i did see a card that included 'restricted riders' in the race name, but i can't see to find it, kempton (on sporting life) doesn't note it either... and given racing only resumed monday, and i can't find the 'restrited riders' tag i spoke of, fook knows.
https://media.britishhorseracing.com/bha/Fixture_List/Headline_Measures_2025_Fixture_List.pdf
Stott rode one winner from 1st October 2024 to the end of 2024, and three after the end of September 2025, so 31 for this calendar year, minus 3 for after the closing of the window plus 1 after the opening of the window = 28. So below the maximum allowed within the window.
I remember last year a couple of prolific Irish riders exploited the rule to run in these. Can't recall who it was.
Then you claim he's a "total write off but still, opposable" I'm not sure I understand the way that sentence works.
In the last post you asked "how bad can jockies [sic] be" - well you answered that yourself in the opening post - "the jockeys out today are relative[ly] inexperienced compared to what is typical"...
You've made a decent case for TT being a bet, including recognising the potential value available, then tied yourself in knots finding reasons not to back it; although I'm not sure that you actually did find reasons in the end.
I've no inside track on this, but it wouldn't surprise me if the presence of these "more experienced" riders on fancied horses, if not engineered to qualify, then at least represent more than an afterthought. As I said earlier, the Irish were exploiting the conditions last year.
my angle was, two tempting was only 2nd on regular rider last time, so i made a post asking about the available jockey's before discounting him, it turned out it was exceptional circumstances as to why Stott was on board - meaning writing him off for that alone wasn't the play. Turned out the script writers booked a good day for Kevin too.
yes TT was on his last winning mark but hadn't won at the track for over 2 years and was as you say on a pretty high mark for him despite winning off 96 before, under normal circumstances, he was opposable given Hornswoggle had stepped off - but we got to the bottom of that...
his sectionals last time actually suggested he was an unlucky loser, a contact of mine provided me with some good insight:
''Key Insight: TWO TEMPTING’s sectionals (37.87s) were significantly better than winner FIRST PRINCIPLE’s (40.79s) despite finishing second. This suggests Two Tempting was unlucky with the run of the race and should reverse the form on a fair track like Kempton.''
so it isnt worth going on about, i was just looking for as to why Hornby wasn't on, we found a legit reason pointing towards him being a nice each-way play in the end... pre-off looking at LOCAL HERO's last race, he didn't look to do it overly easily and going back 2 back isn't a common occurence, despite being well-weighted... he had a nice posi but got pished all over.
as for your point regarding finding a ''good thing'' and then tying myself in knots - well yes, that is exactly what i do on the regular.
not saying this is a good example, but i find good things and then it seems too obvious and given my pessimistic outlook of the sport, i try to find something more obscure, not realising 90% of punters may not be digging at all so the bookies don't care if those that do cash in - given the money gained from others.
And sorry I didn't work out the "but" for the "and", I know the feeling. My own fingers are fatter than burnt out candles.
Nov 19, 2025 -- 10:38PM, steerforth wrote:
Overthinking is a curse MGY, its comes of beating yourself up backing losers that you know in your gut (no pun intended) weren't good bets. If you tend towards pessimism you remember them more than you do the winners where your instincts proved to be right. To win at this game, you need to go with the flow and relax about being wrong. And sorry I didn't work out the "but" for the "and", I know the feeling. My own fingers are fatter than burnt out candles.
my gut pick picks that i do not back have the best strike-rate of anyone, anywhere, and of that much i am certain. i say a horse, think of, the price, unlikely blah blah blah then check results and am pig sick, and it isn't aftertiming. i know it sounds crazy to say, but it is almost as if there is a gambling god listening and just doing it to fook my off big style...... and of that, i am almost certain too lol.
i have always tried to unearth bigger priced obscure horses. losing out on the more obvious winners that someone with such time spent seem too obvious given the shenanigans i've seen.
i mean, i need either stop, or back myself, as you say the gut pick after years of betting is really fine tuned..
just yesterday as i mentioned john berry, i see a distance flat race, over 5 years ago i knew the guy, he'd use fay macmanoman et al, perhaps another, but yeah i see him near the top of the market yesterday, again a goldie horse never done the distance and recently beat.... and its 4/1.. i look through the card and struggle to find a pick, so take a punt.. and of course the obvious merrigjig for berry and pearson win.. it's like why do i ever bother investing the time then doing that because it's too straightforward as i say.. its only straightforward to those of us looking at results daily years on years.. oh well :D - truth be told i suppose its because im not really in the game anymore, and im not betting with my bankroll money, if you have a betting bankroll you can just slap the bet on and it always balances out... scared money no good lost my bottle. not had a 3 figure bet in years.
But yeah, you absolutely have to have the bankroll. When I set aside a bank, I thought of it as money that is absolutely acceptable to lose - written off for anything else, if you like, one big bet designed to last a while and be broken down into lots of smaller bets.
With that mentality I started to worry less about losers, they're a step in the journey. Then I set a time limit, a year to measure success, then replenish and start again.
That way I can enjoy the reward (or lament the loss), rather than it just becoming one endless pot that has no connection to reality and never seeing any benefit for my input.
Self belief is vital and fretting over missed opportunities or hindsight scuppers that belief like a ship sinking beneath the waves.
