Derby Point Races 2018

MySaladDays
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:25 am

Dick Powell actually does the foaling date breakdowns every year for Twinspires ... he did the breakdown on foaling dates ;) , but also included dosage indexes this year as well:

https://www.twinspires.com/blog/2018/4/ ... sage-index
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4392
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:12 am

I don't think it really brings a whole lot to the handicapping table but it's fun to look at historical trends I suppose. I do think generally the emergence of February foals is probably the long term result of the breeding industry shifting to produce earlier foals, which I think could be partially due to the increasingly massive emphasis on sales. A January or February foal is gonna look a lot more mature at a Select yearling sale in August, and even September, than a May foal would. (And you do hear people saying they've delayed a horse's sales appearance partly for this reason).

thanks for the link, MSD, I am particularly fascinated by dosage index, given recent Derbies seem to have turned its conventional wisdom on its head. I do find it interesting he failed to point out that while there is only one May winner, there have been no January winners in the past 20 years, and only 2 overall. I might try to look at some of his past foaling date breakdowns to see if there is a trend or if it's just a numbers game.

ETA: funnily enough I just happened to look at Pioneerof the Nile's page and he was foaled May 5th... and the 3rd place finisher was also a May foal, so May foals swept the trifecta led by Mine That Bird, that year. (4th and 5th place Papa Clem & Chocolate Candy were February foals).
Last edited by Treve on Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
BigDonOKC
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:11 am

Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:21 am

Treve wrote:I don't think it really brings a whole lot to the handicapping table but it's fun to look at historical trends I suppose. I do think generally the emergence of February foals is probably the long term result of the breeding industry shifting to produce earlier foals, which I think could be partially due to the increasingly massive emphasis on sales. A January or February foal is gonna look a lot more mature at a Select yearling sale in August, and even September, than a May foal would. (And you do hear people saying they've delayed a horse's sales appearance partly for this reason).

thanks for the link, MSD, I am particularly fascinated by dosage index, given recent Derbies seem to have turned its conventional wisdom on its head. I do find it interesting he failed to point out that while there is only one May winner, there have been no January winners in the past 20 years, and only 2 overall. I might try to look at some of his past foaling date breakdowns to see if there is a trend or if it's just a numbers game.
:roll: I to believe the best stud were born in February - after all I was born in February :P
BigDonOKC
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:11 am

Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:42 am

explain the numbers DP = 3-1-2-0-0 (6) DI = 5.00 CD = 1.17

what CD?
what DI?
what each numbers in the DP stand for?
stark
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:52 am

BigDonOKC wrote:explain the numbers DP = 3-1-2-0-0 (6) DI = 5.00 CD = 1.17

what CD?
what DI?
what each numbers in the DP stand for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosage_Index
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4392
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:56 am

BigDonOKC wrote:
Treve wrote:I don't think it really brings a whole lot to the handicapping table but it's fun to look at historical trends I suppose. I do think generally the emergence of February foals is probably the long term result of the breeding industry shifting to produce earlier foals, which I think could be partially due to the increasingly massive emphasis on sales. A January or February foal is gonna look a lot more mature at a Select yearling sale in August, and even September, than a May foal would. (And you do hear people saying they've delayed a horse's sales appearance partly for this reason).

thanks for the link, MSD, I am particularly fascinated by dosage index, given recent Derbies seem to have turned its conventional wisdom on its head. I do find it interesting he failed to point out that while there is only one May winner, there have been no January winners in the past 20 years, and only 2 overall. I might try to look at some of his past foaling date breakdowns to see if there is a trend or if it's just a numbers game.
:roll: I to believe the best stud were born in February - after all I was born in February :P
:lol: As was I, best month to be born in ;)
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
BigDonOKC
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:11 am

Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:14 pm

looks like no one know what CD, DI AND DP are :?
stark
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:17 pm

BigDonOKC wrote:looks like no one know what CD, DI AND DP are :?
The Dosage Index is a mathematical figure used by breeders of Thoroughbred race horses, and sometimes by bettors handicapping horse races, to quantify a horse's ability, or inability, to negotiate the various distances at which horse races are run. It is calculated based on an analysis of the horse's pedigree.

Interest in determining which sires of race horses transmit raw speed, and which sires transmit stamina (defined as the ability to successfully compete at longer distances) to their progeny dates back to the early 20th century, when a French researcher, Lt. Col. J. J. Vullier, published a study on the subject (called Dosage), which was subsequently modified by an Italian breeding expert, Dr. Franco Varola, in two books he authored, entitled Typology Of The Race Horse and The Functional Development Of The Thoroughbred.

However, these observations attracted little interest from the general public until 1981, when Daily Racing Form breeding columnist Leon Rasmussen published a new version of Dosage developed by an American scientist and horse owner, Steven A. Roman, Ph.D., in his analysis of the upcoming Kentucky Derby for that year. The new approach, which was more accessible to owners, breeders and handicappers and was supported by solid statistical data, rapidly caught on, and the term "Dosage Index" has been a fixture in the lexicon of horse racing ever since. The details of Dosage methodology have been summarized in Dr. Roman's book entitled Dosage: Pedigree & Performance published in 2002.

The index itself is compiled by noting the presence of certain influential sires, known as chefs-de-race (French for "chiefs of racing," or, more esoterically, "masters of the breed") in the first four generations of a horse's pedigree. Based on what distances the progeny of the sires so designated excelled in during their racing careers (the distance preferences displayed by the sires themselves while racing being irrelevant), each chef-de-race (the list released in the early 1980s identified 120 such sires, and 85 more have been added as of April 2005) is placed in one or two of the following categories, or "aptitudinal groups": Brilliant, Intermediate, Classic, Solid or Professional, with "Brilliant" indicating that the sire's progeny fared best at very short distances and "Professional" denoting a propensity for very long races on the part of the sire's offspring, the other three categories ranking along the same continuum in the aforementioned order. If a chef-de-race is placed in two different aptitudinal groups, in no case can the two groups be more than two positions apart; for example, Classic-Solid or Brilliant-Classic are permissible, but Brilliant-Solid, Intermediate-Professional and Brilliant-Professional are not.

If a horse's sire is on the chef-de-race list, it counts 16 points for the group to which the sire belongs (or eight in each of two categories if the sire was placed in two groups); a grandsire counts eight points, a great-grandsire four, and a great-great-grandsire two (female progenitors do not count directly, but if any of their sires etc. are on the chef-de-race list points would accrue via such sires).

This results in a Dosage Profile consisting of five separate figures, listed in order of Brilliant-Intermediate-Classic-Solid-Professional. Secretariat, the 1973 Triple Crown winner, for example, had a Dosage Profile of 20-14-7-9-0. To arrive at the Dosage Index, the first two figures plus one-half the value of the third figure are added together, and then divided by one-half of the third figure plus the sum of the last two figures. In this case, it would be 37.5 (20 + 14+ 3.5) divided by 12.5 (3.5 + 9 + 0), giving Secretariat a Dosage Index of exactly 3.00 (the figure almost always being expressed with two places to the right of the decimal point and rounded to the nearest .01).

A second mathematical value, called the Center of Distribution, can also be computed from the Dosage Profile. To determine this value, the number of Brilliant points in the profile is doubled, and added to the number of Intermediate points; from this is then subtracted the number of Solid points and twice the number of Professional points. The result is then divided by the total number of points in the entire profile, including the Classic points. In Secretariat's case, this would work out as 54 (40 + 14) minus 9 (9 + 0) divided by 50 (20 + 14 + 7 + 9 + 0), yielding a Center of Distribution of 0.90 (the figure nearly always being rounded to the nearest 100th of a point, as with the Dosage Index).

High Dosage Index (and Center of Distribution) figures are associated with a tendency to perform best over shorter distances, while low numbers signify an inherent preference for longer races. The median Dosage Index of contemporary North American thoroughbreds is estimated at 2.40 (the average figure being impossible to calculate because some horses have a Dosage Index of "infinity," a scenario which arises when a horse has only Brilliant and/or Intermediate chef-de-race influences in its Dosage Profile). The average Center of Distribution for modern-day North American race horses is believed to be approximately 0.70 (both Dosage Index and Center of Distribution figures tend to be lower for European thoroughbreds because in Europe the races are longer on aggregate and European breeders thus place greater emphasis on breeding their horses for stamina rather than speed).

Retroactive research conducted at the time the term "Dosage Index" first became common knowledge revealed that no horse having a Dosage Index of higher than 4.00 had won the Kentucky Derby since at least 1929 (a year chosen because by then the number of available of chefs-de-race on which to base the figures was thought to have reached a critical mass), and that over the same period only one Belmont Stakes winner (Damascus in 1967) had such a Dosage figure. It was also determined at that time that few horses with no chef-de-race influences in the two most stamina-laden groups, Solid and Professional, had won major races at distances of 1¼ miles or longer even if the horse had a sufficient Classic presence in its pedigree to keep the Dosage Index from being over 4.00 (when Affirmed won the Triple Crown in 1978, for instance, he became the first horse with no Solid or Professional points in his Dosage Profile to win either the Kentucky Derby or the Belmont Stakes since the 1930s). In recent years, however, several horses with no Solid or Professional chefs-de-race in the first four generations of their pedigrees — and indeed, a few with Dosage Indexes of above 4.00 — have managed to win the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes, highlighting the issue of increasing speed and decreasing stamina in contemporary American thoroughbred pedigrees. For example, 1999 Kentucky Derby winner Real Quiet had a Dosage Index of 6.02, while 2005 Kentucky Derby winner Giacomo has a Dosage Index of 4.33 and no Solid or Professional points in his Dosage Profile. As a result of these "anomalies," the theory's usefulness has been questioned by some, at least with regard to the Kentucky Derby. The system's defenders, however, point out that in recent times a large proportion of U.S.-bred horses with low Dosage figures have been sent to race in foreign countries where the distances of races are longer, resulting in most horses competing in the Kentucky Derby and similar American races having relatively high Dosage numbers and/or lacking Solid or Professional chef-de-race representation. Yet the statistical foundation of Dosage remains compelling and the theory accurately differentiates Thoroughbred pedigree type for large populations of horses competitively performing over a range of distances, track surfaces and ages.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4876
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:32 pm

Treve wrote:I don't think it really brings a whole lot to the handicapping table but it's fun to look at historical trends I suppose. I do think generally the emergence of February foals is probably the long term result of the breeding industry shifting to produce earlier foals, which I think could be partially due to the increasingly massive emphasis on sales. A January or February foal is gonna look a lot more mature at a Select yearling sale in August, and even September, than a May foal would. (And you do hear people saying they've delayed a horse's sales appearance partly for this reason).
I actually expected to see more of a shift to the earlier foals because of this trend in the breeding industry. I suppose the points system could blunt that a bit because the 2 year old races no longer have as much influence over who qualifies for the Derby. It would be interesting to keep track of this longer.
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4392
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:05 pm

So here was our winners total by month since the aughts...
2000 - 2017
January: 0
February: 9
March: 3
April: 5
May: 1

And here is the breakdown by field... Directly below are All fields since the beginning of the point system (I am separating them to see if that has a discernible impact).

Total winners since the points system:
January: 0
February: 4
March: 1
April: 0
May: 0

2018 field
January: 2
February: 3
March: 8
April: 2
May: 5
Order of Finish:
* on the bubble - Snapper Sinclair (March) & Blended Citizen (May)

2017 field
January: 1
February: 4 [Winner]
March: 10
April: 4
May: 1
Finish Order: February, January, March, March

2016
January: 1
February: 4
March: 7 [Winner]
April: 6
May: 2
Finish Order: March, February, March, May

2015
January: 2
February: 4 [Winner] (side note, Carpe Diem was foaled on Feb 29th :D )
March: 6 (*International Star, El Kabeir, Stanford were all March foals but scratched before the race)
April: 6
May: 0
Finish Order: February, January, February, April

2014
January: 0
February: 4 [Winner]
March: 8
April: 5
May: 2 (*Hoppertunity is a May foal but was scratched)
Finish Order: February, March, April, April

2013
January: 2
February: 4 [Winner]
March: 5
April: 4 (*Black Onyx is an April foal but was scratched)
May: 4
Finish Order: February, May, February May

What's interesting here is that 2018 marks the first time since the beginning of the points system that we will have over 4 May foals in the field, to represent a full fifth of the field. Another thing that is interesting is that in the only other year that there were more than two May foals, half of them hit the board (in the exacta and the super) and in 2015 there were no May foals at all... hard to hit the board then. There also haven't been more than 2 January foals to start at a time. What is more puzzling from a purely numbers perspective is that February has had no more than 4 starters in every renewal but they've won 4 out of the 5 even though March has had as many as 6 starters more (and more starters than February in every renewal), and they've hit the board in every race since the beginning of the points system. In spite of having a numerical advantage in every single field, March foals have only hit the board three out of five times. April foals have been on even terms as February foals or slightly higher but only hit the board twice. May foals while at a numerical disadvantage most of the time (safe in 2013 when they were on even terms with February and April) have also hit the board twice. Likewise with January, they've managed to hit the board twice in spite of having no more than two starters at any time.

I will breakdown 2000-2012 a little later I've got some stuff to do!
Last edited by Treve on Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4876
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:27 pm

Very interesting, Treve.

Holy moly, Equibase looks very different! That's going to take some getting used to.

If Gronk drops out, that's going to change a lot of broadcast plans. Instilled Regard would get in, an April 6 foal.

Blended Citizen, number 22 on the list, is also a May foal (May 1). :D
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4392
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:36 pm

Good point, I posted this before seeing the Quip defection, so I edited the 2018 field to reflect accordingly... 6 May foals now and back down to 4 February (which if it stand as is will be the 6th year in a row that February has 4 starters).

I'm glad I'm not going crazy I thought I had somehow pressed something on Equibase that was making it look so different :lol: (I mean I still got the info I wanted so I didn't panic too much!)
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4876
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:51 pm

Treve wrote:Good point, I posted this before seeing the Quip defection, so I edited the 2018 field to reflect accordingly... 6 May foals now and back down to 4 February (which if it stand as is will be the 6th year in a row that February has 4 starters).

I'm glad I'm not going crazy I thought I had somehow pressed something on Equibase that was making it look so different :lol: (I mean I still got the info I wanted so I didn't panic too much!)
I think it's 5 May foals for now. Someone else has to drop out, along with Gronk, for Blended Citizen to get in.
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4392
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:07 pm

Ah good catch, I just looked back at the list on twinspires and hadn't noticed he already had Combatant but hadn't removed Quip so I counted Combatant twice :roll:
Gronk is still up in the air I believe they said they would know where he stands in 24 hours so I guess we will get our final answer then?
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4876
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:17 pm

Alicia Wincze Hughes @BH_AHughes
36s37 seconds ago
Per release, Gronkowski is officially OUT of the KY Derby. "Phoenix Thoroughbreds’ Kentucky Derby hopeful Gronkowski has incurred a slight infection and will not be able make the international journey to America and participate as scheduled in the Run for the Roses."
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4392
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:36 pm

Too bad for Gronk... Hope he gets well soon. Wonder what they'll do with the rest of his career?

An interesting bit on Flameaway
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing ... artnership
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
BigDonOKC
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:11 am

Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:22 pm

stark wrote:
BigDonOKC wrote:looks like no one know what CD, DI AND DP are :?
The Dosage Index is a mathematical figure used by breeders of Thoroughbred race horses, and sometimes by bettors handicapping horse races, to quantify a horse's ability, or inability, to negotiate the various distances at which horse races are run. It is calculated based on an analysis of the horse's pedigree.

Interest in determining which sires of race horses transmit raw speed, and which sires transmit stamina (defined as the ability to successfully compete at longer distances) to their progeny dates back to the early 20th century, when a French researcher, Lt. Col. J. J. Vullier, published a study on the subject (called Dosage), which was subsequently modified by an Italian breeding expert, Dr. Franco Varola, in two books he authored, entitled Typology Of The Race Horse and The Functional Development Of The Thoroughbred.
Ok tell me what show you a long or short distance---
However, these observations attracted little interest from the general public until 1981, when Daily Racing Form breeding columnist Leon Rasmussen published a new version of Dosage developed by an American scientist and horse owner, Steven A. Roman, Ph.D., in his analysis of the upcoming Kentucky Derby for that year. The new approach, which was more accessible to owners, breeders and handicappers and was supported by solid statistical data, rapidly caught on, and the term "Dosage Index" has been a fixture in the lexicon of horse racing ever since. The details of Dosage methodology have been summarized in Dr. Roman's book entitled Dosage: Pedigree & Performance published in 2002.

The index itself is compiled by noting the presence of certain influential sires, known as chefs-de-race (French for "chiefs of racing," or, more esoterically, "masters of the breed") in the first four generations of a horse's pedigree. Based on what distances the progeny of the sires so designated excelled in during their racing careers (the distance preferences displayed by the sires themselves while racing being irrelevant), each chef-de-race (the list released in the early 1980s identified 120 such sires, and 85 more have been added as of April 2005) is placed in one or two of the following categories, or "aptitudinal groups": Brilliant, Intermediate, Classic, Solid or Professional, with "Brilliant" indicating that the sire's progeny fared best at very short distances and "Professional" denoting a propensity for very long races on the part of the sire's offspring, the other three categories ranking along the same continuum in the aforementioned order. If a chef-de-race is placed in two different aptitudinal groups, in no case can the two groups be more than two positions apart; for example, Classic-Solid or Brilliant-Classic are permissible, but Brilliant-Solid, Intermediate-Professional and Brilliant-Professional are not.

If a horse's sire is on the chef-de-race list, it counts 16 points for the group to which the sire belongs (or eight in each of two categories if the sire was placed in two groups); a grandsire counts eight points, a great-grandsire four, and a great-great-grandsire two (female progenitors do not count directly, but if any of their sires etc. are on the chef-de-race list points would accrue via such sires).

This results in a Dosage Profile consisting of five separate figures, listed in order of Brilliant-Intermediate-Classic-Solid-Professional. Secretariat, the 1973 Triple Crown winner, for example, had a Dosage Profile of 20-14-7-9-0. To arrive at the Dosage Index, the first two figures plus one-half the value of the third figure are added together, and then divided by one-half of the third figure plus the sum of the last two figures. In this case, it would be 37.5 (20 + 14+ 3.5) divided by 12.5 (3.5 + 9 + 0), giving Secretariat a Dosage Index of exactly 3.00 (the figure almost always being expressed with two places to the right of the decimal point and rounded to the nearest .01).

A second mathematical value, called the Center of Distribution, can also be computed from the Dosage Profile. To determine this value, the number of Brilliant points in the profile is doubled, and added to the number of Intermediate points; from this is then subtracted the number of Solid points and twice the number of Professional points. The result is then divided by the total number of points in the entire profile, including the Classic points. In Secretariat's case, this would work out as 54 (40 + 14) minus 9 (9 + 0) divided by 50 (20 + 14 + 7 + 9 + 0), yielding a Center of Distribution of 0.90 (the figure nearly always being rounded to the nearest 100th of a point, as with the Dosage Index).

High Dosage Index (and Center of Distribution) figures are associated with a tendency to perform best over shorter distances, while low numbers signify an inherent preference for longer races. The median Dosage Index of contemporary North American thoroughbreds is estimated at 2.40 (the average figure being impossible to calculate because some horses have a Dosage Index of "infinity," a scenario which arises when a horse has only Brilliant and/or Intermediate chef-de-race influences in its Dosage Profile). The average Center of Distribution for modern-day North American race horses is believed to be approximately 0.70 (both Dosage Index and Center of Distribution figures tend to be lower for European thoroughbreds because in Europe the races are longer on aggregate and European breeders thus place greater emphasis on breeding their horses for stamina rather than speed).

Retroactive research conducted at the time the term "Dosage Index" first became common knowledge revealed that no horse having a Dosage Index of higher than 4.00 had won the Kentucky Derby since at least 1929 (a year chosen because by then the number of available of chefs-de-race on which to base the figures was thought to have reached a critical mass), and that over the same period only one Belmont Stakes winner (Damascus in 1967) had such a Dosage figure. It was also determined at that time that few horses with no chef-de-race influences in the two most stamina-laden groups, Solid and Professional, had won major races at distances of 1¼ miles or longer even if the horse had a sufficient Classic presence in its pedigree to keep the Dosage Index from being over 4.00 (when Affirmed won the Triple Crown in 1978, for instance, he became the first horse with no Solid or Professional points in his Dosage Profile to win either the Kentucky Derby or the Belmont Stakes since the 1930s). In recent years, however, several horses with no Solid or Professional chefs-de-race in the first four generations of their pedigrees — and indeed, a few with Dosage Indexes of above 4.00 — have managed to win the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes, highlighting the issue of increasing speed and decreasing stamina in contemporary American thoroughbred pedigrees. For example, 1999 Kentucky Derby winner Real Quiet had a Dosage Index of 6.02, while 2005 Kentucky Derby winner Giacomo has a Dosage Index of 4.33 and no Solid or Professional points in his Dosage Profile. As a result of these "anomalies," the theory's usefulness has been questioned by some, at least with regard to the Kentucky Derby. The system's defenders, however, point out that in recent times a large proportion of U.S.-bred horses with low Dosage figures have been sent to race in foreign countries where the distances of races are longer, resulting in most horses competing in the Kentucky Derby and similar American races having relatively high Dosage numbers and/or lacking Solid or Professional chef-de-race representation. Yet the statistical foundation of Dosage remains compelling and the theory accurately differentiates Thoroughbred pedigree type for large populations of horses competitively performing over a range of distances, track surfaces and ages.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4876
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:44 pm

So far, vague on future plans.

Gronkowski Ruled Out of Derby With Infection
http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/gr ... n-question

Jay Privman @DRFPrivman
26m26 minutes ago
This am, @BloomRacing said it was sticking with its plan to run Snapper Sinclair in American Turf, and though that remains likely plan, @JRBloom3 this afternoon described Derby as "unlikely, but a possibility." As a result, we have put Snapper Sinclair back on points list, at 21.

RLT, @JRBloom3 said he wanted to talk it over with his trainer (Asmussen) and "confirm what the game plan will be." Bottom line, doesn't need to make decision yet. Said American Turf still most most logical, but "wouldn't rule out" Derby. Until they rule him out, he's on list.

Snapper Sinclair was foaled on March 17.
BigDonOKC
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:11 am

Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:33 pm

BigDonOKC wrote:
stark wrote:
BigDonOKC wrote:looks like no one know what CD, DI AND DP are :?
The Dosage Index is a mathematical figure used by breeders of Thoroughbred race horses, and sometimes by bettors handicapping horse races, to quantify a horse's ability, or inability, to negotiate the various distances at which horse races are run. It is calculated based on an analysis of the horse's pedigree.

Interest in determining which sires of race horses transmit raw speed, and which sires transmit stamina (defined as the ability to successfully compete at longer distances) to their progeny dates back to the early 20th century, when a French researcher, Lt. Col. J. J. Vullier, published a study on the subject (called Dosage), which was subsequently modified by an Italian breeding expert, Dr. Franco Varola, in two books he authored, entitled Typology Of The Race Horse and The Functional Development Of The Thoroughbred.
Ok tell me what show you a long or short distance---
However, these observations attracted little interest from the general public until 1981, when Daily Racing Form breeding columnist Leon Rasmussen published a new version of Dosage developed by an American scientist and horse owner, Steven A. Roman, Ph.D., in his analysis of the upcoming Kentucky Derby for that year. The new approach, which was more accessible to owners, breeders and handicappers and was supported by solid statistical data, rapidly caught on, and the term "Dosage Index" has been a fixture in the lexicon of horse racing ever since. The details of Dosage methodology have been summarized in Dr. Roman's book entitled Dosage: Pedigree & Performance published in 2002.

The index itself is compiled by noting the presence of certain influential sires, known as chefs-de-race (French for "chiefs of racing," or, more esoterically, "masters of the breed") in the first four generations of a horse's pedigree. Based on what distances the progeny of the sires so designated excelled in during their racing careers (the distance preferences displayed by the sires themselves while racing being irrelevant), each chef-de-race (the list released in the early 1980s identified 120 such sires, and 85 more have been added as of April 2005) is placed in one or two of the following categories, or "aptitudinal groups": Brilliant, Intermediate, Classic, Solid or Professional, with "Brilliant" indicating that the sire's progeny fared best at very short distances and "Professional" denoting a propensity for very long races on the part of the sire's offspring, the other three categories ranking along the same continuum in the aforementioned order. If a chef-de-race is placed in two different aptitudinal groups, in no case can the two groups be more than two positions apart; for example, Classic-Solid or Brilliant-Classic are permissible, but Brilliant-Solid, Intermediate-Professional and Brilliant-Professional are not.

If a horse's sire is on the chef-de-race list, it counts 16 points for the group to which the sire belongs (or eight in each of two categories if the sire was placed in two groups); a grandsire counts eight points, a great-grandsire four, and a great-great-grandsire two (female progenitors do not count directly, but if any of their sires etc. are on the chef-de-race list points would accrue via such sires).

This results in a Dosage Profile consisting of five separate figures, listed in order of Brilliant-Intermediate-Classic-Solid-Professional. Secretariat, the 1973 Triple Crown winner, for example, had a Dosage Profile of 20-14-7-9-0. To arrive at the Dosage Index, the first two figures plus one-half the value of the third figure are added together, and then divided by one-half of the third figure plus the sum of the last two figures. In this case, it would be 37.5 (20 + 14+ 3.5) divided by 12.5 (3.5 + 9 + 0), giving Secretariat a Dosage Index of exactly 3.00 (the figure almost always being expressed with two places to the right of the decimal point and rounded to the nearest .01).

A second mathematical value, called the Center of Distribution, can also be computed from the Dosage Profile. To determine this value, the number of Brilliant points in the profile is doubled, and added to the number of Intermediate points; from this is then subtracted the number of Solid points and twice the number of Professional points. The result is then divided by the total number of points in the entire profile, including the Classic points. In Secretariat's case, this would work out as 54 (40 + 14) minus 9 (9 + 0) divided by 50 (20 + 14 + 7 + 9 + 0), yielding a Center of Distribution of 0.90 (the figure nearly always being rounded to the nearest 100th of a point, as with the Dosage Index).

High Dosage Index (and Center of Distribution) figures are associated with a tendency to perform best over shorter distances, while low numbers signify an inherent preference for longer races. The median Dosage Index of contemporary North American thoroughbreds is estimated at 2.40 (the average figure being impossible to calculate because some horses have a Dosage Index of "infinity," a scenario which arises when a horse has only Brilliant and/or Intermediate chef-de-race influences in its Dosage Profile). The average Center of Distribution for modern-day North American race horses is believed to be approximately 0.70 (both Dosage Index and Center of Distribution figures tend to be lower for European thoroughbreds because in Europe the races are longer on aggregate and European breeders thus place greater emphasis on breeding their horses for stamina rather than speed).

Retroactive research conducted at the time the term "Dosage Index" first became common knowledge revealed that no horse having a Dosage Index of higher than 4.00 had won the Kentucky Derby since at least 1929 (a year chosen because by then the number of available of chefs-de-race on which to base the figures was thought to have reached a critical mass), and that over the same period only one Belmont Stakes winner (Damascus in 1967) had such a Dosage figure. It was also determined at that time that few horses with no chef-de-race influences in the two most stamina-laden groups, Solid and Professional, had won major races at distances of 1¼ miles or longer even if the horse had a sufficient Classic presence in its pedigree to keep the Dosage Index from being over 4.00 (when Affirmed won the Triple Crown in 1978, for instance, he became the first horse with no Solid or Professional points in his Dosage Profile to win either the Kentucky Derby or the Belmont Stakes since the 1930s). In recent years, however, several horses with no Solid or Professional chefs-de-race in the first four generations of their pedigrees — and indeed, a few with Dosage Indexes of above 4.00 — have managed to win the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes, highlighting the issue of increasing speed and decreasing stamina in contemporary American thoroughbred pedigrees. For example, 1999 Kentucky Derby winner Real Quiet had a Dosage Index of 6.02, while 2005 Kentucky Derby winner Giacomo has a Dosage Index of 4.33 and no Solid or Professional points in his Dosage Profile. As a result of these "anomalies," the theory's usefulness has been questioned by some, at least with regard to the Kentucky Derby. The system's defenders, however, point out that in recent times a large proportion of U.S.-bred horses with low Dosage figures have been sent to race in foreign countries where the distances of races are longer, resulting in most horses competing in the Kentucky Derby and similar American races having relatively high Dosage numbers and/or lacking Solid or Professional chef-de-race representation. Yet the statistical foundation of Dosage remains compelling and the theory accurately differentiates Thoroughbred pedigree type for large populations of horses competitively performing over a range of distances, track surfaces and ages.
[
I have a copy of this read it before - again you did not say where and what also how they come up with the numbers :roll:
stark
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:48 pm

BigDonOKC wrote: I have a copy of this read it before - again you did not say where and what also how they come up with the numbers :roll:
http://www.teamvalor.com/dosage/dosage.htm
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Post Reply