Do the star jockeys create turnover?

The date was October 4, 2015, and Typhoon Mujigae was blowing through the South China Sea with enough ferocity to be diverting air traffic away from Hong Kong.

One of the planes which went north east towards Taiwan instead was a flight from Sydney carrying superstar jockeys Zac Purton and Joao Moreira back from Group One rides at Royal Randwick the previous day.

The powerful typhoon had made it unsafe to land in Hong Kong and now the Hong Kong Jockey Club's two biggest drawcard riders would spend their day in Taipei, instead of competing at Sha Tin.

In the wash up, betting turnover at Sha Tin was down by $HK 77 million - around 5.5 per cent on the comparison meeting a year earlier - and around $10 million worth of jockey challenge wagers were returned as that bet type was cancelled for the afternoon.

While the absence of Purton and Moreira was blamed for the turnover drop, it was also a miserable, unpleasant day weatherwise, which may have made some contribution.

Perhaps it was right to blame the freak late scratching of the two riders but it seemed a modest percentage change for the two riders who so dominated the stage at that time - between them, Moreira (168) and Purton (80) won almost a third of the races run that season.

So, when New Zealand racing authorities offered incentives to attract Australian horses to compete at the big Karaka Millions race meeting last weekend, some commentators there had wondered aloud if incentives for attracting horses were a poor promotional option.

Wouldn't it be better to spend any budget for appearance fees on star jockeys to drive up betting turnover?

As it turned out, no added incentives were really needed as Australian-trained Dream Roca won the $NZ 1 million Karaka Millions juvenile event and Jigsaw took the G1 $NZ 700,000 Sistema Railway Stakes.

But the discussions beforehand had put some attention on one of those arguments that is always handed down as obvious and logical but with which I have long had issues - whether the top jockeys make turnover happen?

Years ago, when Hong Kong's simulcasts of overseas racing were somewhat infrequent by comparison with the regular World Pool schedule now, there was a popular theory that the HKJC was keen for its top licensees to compete at these meetings to help simulcast turnover.

It seemed that view, even expressed in the media at times by racing club administrators, was based on little more than gut feeling, though.

I examined the figures, and published my findings in the South China Morning Post, that Hong Kong's visiting jockeys - the likes of Darren Beadman or Brett Prebble, at that time - had little impact on simulcast figures when they travelled back to ride in Australia. In fact, their mounts were often longer odds in Hong Kong's isolated simulcast pools than in local betting at the host venue.

On Sunday at Sha Tin, current Longines World's Best Jockey titleholder James McDonald flew in to continue his partnership with Romantic Warrior, and between McDonald and Purton, the riders' mounts carried $HK 124 million of the day's $HK 307 million in win bets, or a tick over 40 per cent.

Those who back the "star jockeys make turnover" argument would point to that as proof that Purton and McDonald stimulate betting. Alas, the whole day's betting was down around $HK 112 million or nearly 7 per cent, so neither the star visiting jockey nor the appearance of Hong Kong's best three horses was able to inspire the betting public.

Anyway, like most things, the closed nature of Hong Kong racing allows us a better environment in which to study ideas like this - not perfect but better - and I thought I might have a look at a couple of scenarios that might suggest the "top jockeys cause turnover" theory has no weight.

Both centre around Purton - once when he was injured last season for a significant period and also looking at meetings he has missed in the past through suspension.

The suspension argument isn't that easy to assemble as Purton is rarely suspended, but his 11 days suspended from racing in Hong Kong over the past 5 years have produced a small turnover increase .

Some big increases by the Jockey Club's own published comparisons with the year before, but some significant drops as well.

Still, it would be fair to say that this table doesn't show a clear pattern either way.

The absence through suspension of the champion - the far and away dominant jockey - has basically been turnover neutral.

So that's what happened when Purton was out for a meeting here and there but what about when he is out for a significant period?

When he fell and was injured on February 9 last year, Purton didn't ride again until April 2.

If it's the presence of the superstar jockey that creates betting turnover, wouldn't turnover suffer when he is sidelined for almost two months?

While it isn't totally like for like as 4 meetings had an extra race compared to a year earlier - an automatic turnover increase - the total rise in betting figures on those 14 meetings was $HK 1.67 billion or just over 6 per cent.

Admittedly, the forces at work on turnover figures are complex, with no single contributing factor but up 6 per cent when your talisman rider is absent doesn't suggest a punting public reliant on His presence.

When all's said and done, I think it's a nonsense view that turnover is in any way tied to the presence of top jockeys.

Punters are not rolling out of bed on race morning, picking up the formguide to scan for Zac Purton's name then, upon failing to find it, deciding not to bet.

But, you say, his mounts carry so much support?

Yes, because he doesn't create turnover but he, and the other star jockeys, give turnover a direction. The top jockeys draw big support from betting money that was already going to be spent, so they might play a part in the decision-making process at that stage, but not in whether people bet or not.