dosage indices

[sbcaris]

Over the last 15 years the Belmont winners show the following dosage patterns:

7 of the winners had a dosage range between 2.10 and 2.83
5 of the winners had a dosage range between 3.00 and 3.16
2 of the winners had a dosage index of 4.27 and 4.50.
1 of the winners had a dosage index of 1.75.

Note: 6 of the last 7 Belmont winners had a dosage range between 2.00 and 2.99. That might or might not be a trend but it seems interesting that 6 of the last 7 all carried and index somewhere in the 2.00-2.99 range.

This year those within the 2.00-2.99 range include Frosted, Materiality, Tale of the Verve and Keen Ice.

[SkunkApe]

How many of the the Belmont contenders has dosage in the 2.00-2.99 range?

A statistic of winners without comparison to the contenders is meaningless. I see this error all the time on the horse racing forums.

For example:

In 9 of the last ten years, the person who shot the most birds in my hunting camp was a white male over 40 years of age.

However, in 9 of the last 10 years, ALL of the hunters in my camp were white males over 40 years of age.

[f2tornado]

Also, it's rare to have a horse win Belmont with less than 12 dosage points. American Pharoah and Mubtaahij have 8 and 4 respectively. In fact, AP's dosage is quite mediocre to Belmont historical average. Winners of the last 20 renditions had at least 8 classic points. Potential runners this year with at least 8 classic points include Carpe Diem, Frammento, Frosted, Keen Ice, Madefromlucky, and Tale of Verve. If I was wagering strictly by dosage it would be a Frosted/Keen Ice bomb.

[f2tornado]

How many of the the Belmont contenders has dosage in the 2.00-2.99 range?

A statistic of winners without comparison to the contenders is meaningless. I see this error all the time on the horse racing forums.

For example:

In 9 of the last ten years, the person who shot the most birds in my hunting camp was a white male over 40 years of age.

However, in 9 of the last 10 years, ALL of the hunters in my camp were white males over 40 years of age.

Fair point. One can look at the numbers and do whatever. Last year the tri was made up of 3 of the top 4 highest total dosage points and classic dosage point totals. Not the same in 2013

2014 http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/2014/2014_belmont_contenders.htm

2013 http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/2014/2014_belmont_contenders.htm

2012 http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/2012/2012_belmont_contenders.htm

2011 http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/2011/2011_belmont_contenders.htm

2010 http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/2010/2010_belmont_entries.htm

[RXB]

We can pick any single nugget of info that seems to favour a particular horse or horses over the others.

Northern Dancer as the dam's sire line has been very successful in the Belmont Stakes over the past couple of decades. This year that would be American Pharoah, Materiality, Frosted, Keen Ice. Would I want to use that one factor to tower over everything else? Of course not. A race is a puzzle of many pieces.

Strictly talking pedigree... I repeat, only considering pedigree... when I look at everything in total, my top pedigree choice would be Keen Ice.

[Cratos]

How many of the the Belmont contenders has dosage in the 2.00-2.99 range?

A statistic of winners without comparison to the contenders is meaningless. I see this error all the time on the horse racing forums.

For example:

In 9 of the last ten years, the person who shot the most birds in my hunting camp was a white male over 40 years of age.

However, in 9 of the last 10 years, ALL of the hunters in my camp were white males over 40 years of age.
Your post might make "TrifectaMike" proud; it is a very astute observation

[LemonSoupKid]

As far as I can tell, the best performance in the last 15 years was Point Given, who had a -83 fig by Roman, followed by Lemon Drop Kid (-76), Afleet Alex (-70), Birdstone (-67) and Summer Bird (-65). I don't have other figures from before then, but I'm sure Touch Gold was up there with A.P Indy if I had to guess. Anyway, check out (I haven't looked yet as I write this) the dosage profiles, which I'm guessing will confirm what Roman has said in articles and over communications I've had with him. That is, the best performances will come from those that are bred classic distances. And not just here, but in the Derby as well as the Preakness. Here we go:

Point Given 8-0-8-0-0 DI 3.00
Lemon Drop Kid 13-4-21-0-0 DI 2.62
Afleet Alex 5-0-9-0-0 DI 2.11
Birdstone 3-4-9-0-2 DI 1.77
Summer Bird 4-4-7-1-0 DI 2.56

AP Indy 13-6-16-3-0 DI 2.45
Touch Gold 4-3-17-0-0 DI 1.82

Based on times, I would guess top 3 are Point Given with Touch Gold and AP Indy but can only verify Point Given, who interestingly has the highest dosage of all of these.

I hope you found this interesting. It seems in more modern days, yes, it's all about the classic points and how little speed is bred in up top in the Brilliant category.

[sbcaris]

I agree with many of you above that you need to know the percent of starters vs the percent of winners to see if one type of index is better than another in the Belmont Stakes.

Since in 6 of the last 7 years the Belmont winner carried an index that was between 2.00 and 2.99 and the percent of starters with such an index over that 7 year period that was between 2.00 and 2.99 is approximately 34%, the impact value is a solid 2.50 (85% winners divided by 34% starters equals 2.50. This means that horses with an index between 2.00 and 2.99 are winning the Belmont 2 1/2 times more often than statistical expectation.

One might say the above is much too small a sample size to draw any conclusions however, when one looks at a little more data it becomes more interesting.

In 2014 The winner, Tonalist (2.82), the place horse, Commissioner ((2.60) and the show horse, Medal Count (2.13) comprised the trifecta. Note: There were only 5 horses in the 11 horse Belmont that year that had a dosage index between 2.00 and 2.99 and 3 of the 5 comprised the Trifecta.

In 2013 there were 12 horses in the Belmont stakes and ONLY two of them carried a dosage index between 2.00 and 2.99. These two comprised the EXACTA: Palace Malice ( 2.82) and Oxbow (2.75).

In 2012 there were 5 horses in the 11 horse field that carried a dosage index between 2.00 and 2.99. Three of these 5 comprised the trifecta: Union Rags 2.33) won, the place horse Paynter had a DI of 2.75 and the show horse Atigun had a dosage index of 2.50.

The above data certainly supports the idea that the 2.00-2.99 dosage index range seems to be part of a recent trend that gets runners to the Belmont winner circle.

I will look over some more years to see if this trend holds water.

[nijinski]

Also, it's rare to have a horse win Belmont with less than 12 dosage points. American Pharoah and Mubtaahij have 8 and 4 respectively. In fact, AP's dosage is quite mediocre to Belmont historical average. Winners of the last 20 renditions had at least 8 classic points. Potential runners this year with at least 8 classic points include Carpe Diem, Frammento, Frosted, Keen Ice, Madefromlucky, and Tale of Verve. If I was wagering strictly by dosage it would be a Frosted/Keen Ice bomb.

American Pharoah's dosage didn't qualify for the Derby either so he is
in a category of his own .

[f2tornado]

American Pharoah's dosage didn't qualify for the Derby either so he is in a category of his own .

Yes and no. AP's dosage was relatively high for the Derby but still within recent thresholds (lower than Mine That Bird, Charismatic, Real Quiet, and same as Giacomo). Some will say AP outran his pedigree but I contend he simply outran inferior competition, horses that on a good day might get a 100 BSF. His Derby Beyer and Brisnet figures were sub par and the Preakness was painfully slow, albeit in the mud. In the end, one horse has to cross the line first. It is obvious dosage no longer holds the same water it used to in the Derby. I would still pay attention to it but would not toss out a solid contender anymore simply because the DI is above 4.00. I've made some decent use use of DI to sort out the sprinters from the routers in races before the Derby. There are a few Belmont winners with DI>4 but fewer than the Derby over the last 30 years. This suggests pedigree still matters to some extent in a 12F race. Can AP win the Belmont with his relatively lousy dosage profile? Certainly. The field is nothing special yet I would not at all be shocked if the horse barely hits the board either. One of the best bets in horse racing since 1979 is to bet against a TC contender in the Belmont. I don't think AP is any more special than previous horses attempting the feat. Kuddos if he beats me. Fatter wallet if he doesn't.

[Steve R]

Yes and no. AP's dosage was relatively high for the Derby but still within recent thresholds (lower than Mine That Bird, Charismatic, Real Quiet, and same as Giacomo). Some will say AP outran his pedigree but I contend he simply outran inferior competition, horses that on a good day might get a 100 BSF. His Derby Beyer and Brisnet figures were sub par and the Preakness was painfully slow, albeit in the mud. In the end, one horse has to cross the line first. It is obvious dosage no longer holds the same water it used to in the Derby. I would still pay attention to it but would not toss out a solid contender anymore simply because the DI is above 4.00. I've made some decent use use of DI to sort out the sprinters from the routers in races before the Derby. There are a few Belmont winners with DI>4 but fewer than the Derby over the last 30 years. This suggests pedigree still matters to some extent in a 12F race. Can AP win the Belmont with his relatively lousy dosage profile? Certainly. The field is nothing special yet I would not at all be shocked if the horse barely hits the board either. One of the best bets in horse racing since 1979 is to bet against a TC contender in the Belmont. I don't think AP is any more special than previous horses attempting the feat. Kuddos if he beats me. Fatter wallet if he doesn't.
Dosage was never meant to be a static metaphor for Derby-winning pedigrees. That was a creation of a turf media with both simplistic and limited data interpretation skills. Rather, Dosage was always intended as a methodology for monitoring the evolution of speed in the Thoroughbred. That said, I suggest you look at the web page Kentucky Derby Winner Dosage (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/derby_dosage.htm) and scroll down to the charts at the bottom. Note the trend lines for Dosage figures in the Derby since 1940, especially the one for the CD (Center of Distribution) which has always been cited as the more accurate statistical tool. Note particularly that the last two Derby winners have a CD that falls almost exactly on the 75-year trend line. Furthermore, the 75-year DI trend line suggests that, barring an unlikely change in direction for American breeding, fully half of all Derby winners could be expected to exceed the DI 4.00 figure within a decade or two. Similar trends apply to the Preakness and the Belmont. It's funny how a simple observation made 30 years ago that, at the time, no Derby winner HAD a DI over 4.00 (which was true) was translated by the media to mean no horse with a DI over 4.00 COULD win the Derby. In fact, the same trend line even in 1981 projected that half of all Derby winners would have a DI over 4.00 within the next 30 years, and apparently that's the direction we are heading. In any case, it may well be that American Pharoah's pedigree is representative of the future of American classic pedigrees. At the same time it is instructive to note that as the Dosage figure trend lines among classic winners have risen, the Beyer Figure trend line of classic winners has fallen in almost matching fashion.

[Blenheim]

"Furthermore, it confirms that the CD is a more accurate measure of relative distance potential than is the DI." http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/dp_patterns_2015.htm (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/dp_patterns_2015.htm)Last sentence, first paragraph.

For those interested, take a look at the Dosage Index and Center of Distribution for Tonalist :11: in the Belmont Stakes last year (scroll down).http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/belmont_dosage.htm

DI and CD, dead on. Maybe never see that again, but I'll be a double checkin' just to make sure I don't miss another one like that one. I was lucky enough to be there, placed a win bet on that horse, horse went off at something like 9/1. I took a picture of the winning ticket. Still get a good laugh when I think about it.

I've cashed quite a few similar to that one based on Roman's principles, that one there sure was the sweetest.:cool:

Nothin' like the Belmont Stakes.





(http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/dp_patterns_2015.htm)

[f2tornado]

For those interested, take a look at the Dosage Index and Center of Distribution for Tonalist :11: in the Belmont Stakes last year (scroll down).http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/belmont_dosage.htm

DI and CD, dead on. Maybe never see that again, but I'll be a double checkin' just to make sure I don't miss another one like that one.


In addition to meeting historical average DI and CD to perfection Tonalist had Buckpasser-x and conduit mare Rambling Rose in tail female. It was a gimme that I should have loaded up on. Keen Ice most closely matches the average DI and CD this year. The irony if Kenny D busts a TC bubble.

[nijinski]

"Furthermore, it confirms that the CD is a more accurate measure of relative distance potential than is the DI." http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/dp_patterns_2015.htm (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/dp_patterns_2015.htm)Last sentence, first paragraph.

For those interested, take a look at the Dosage Index and Center of Distribution for Tonalist :11: in the Belmont Stakes last year (scroll down).http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/belmont_dosage.htm

DI and CD, dead on. Maybe never see that again, but I'll be a double checkin' just to make sure I don't miss another one like that one. I was lucky enough to be there, placed a win bet on that horse, horse went off at something like 9/1. I took a picture of the winning ticket. Still get a good laugh when I think about it.

I've cashed quite a few similar to that one based on Roman's principles, that one there sure was the sweetest.:cool:

Nothin' like the Belmont Stakes.





(http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/dp_patterns_2015.htm)


What do you make of Conquistador Cielo ? Crème Fraiche ?

Has to be a Woody Stephens training method :lol:

[pandy]

In addition to meeting historical average DI and CD to perfection Tonalist had Buckpasser-x and conduit mare Rambling Rose in tail female. It was a gimme that I should have loaded up on. Keen Ice most closely matches the average DI and CD this year. The irony if Kenny D busts a TC bubble.


Tonalist was my Best Bet last year and people forget that using the Bris speed figures, Tonalist, not California Chrome, had the highest speed figure of any horse in the race (based on the Peter Pan, which was at Belmont). And in the Peter Pan he had romped winning handily along a dull rail over a tiring muddy track that favored outside closers. Lots of good handicapping angles plus his pedigree was very good for this type of race, regardless of how you analyze pedigrees.

Another important factor when handicapping these types of races, you have to try to project speed figures for the horses that may not have peaked yet.


In my analysis, I pointed out that California Chrome had raced 12 times. and had consistently been running about the same speed figure. To me, that indicated that we had already seen his best. Eight of the horses in last year's Belmont had raced 8 times or less and Tonalist had only raced 4 times. So there was more room for improvement With Tonalist than the other horses, plus there was more room for improvement from the other horses and Tonalist compared to California Chrome. Of course if Chrome had been running big figures it would be a moot point, but he hadn't.

This is often an overlooked aspect of handicapping young, lightly raced horses. The less starts a horse has, the greater the possibility that it could jump up with a new "top" figure or lifetime best. For instance, California Chrome's best speed figure was an 89 until his 5th career start, when he exploded to a 101.

When handicapping the Belmont this year, which horses, or horses are likely to make a forward move on figures?

[Blenheim]

In addition to meeting historical average DI and CD to perfection Tonalist had Buckpasser-x and conduit mare Rambling Rose in tail female. It was a gimme that I should have loaded up on. Keen Ice most closely matches the average DI and CD this year. The irony if Kenny D busts a TC bubble.

I knew I had a live one when I saw those numbers, when I got a visual on the horse in the paddock, I had to bet him. I was there when Smarty ran for it, this one was even better.

You've probably seen Roman's 2015 Belmont Stakes Contenders web page . . . http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/2015/2015_belmont_stakes_contenders.htm

Good thing about the Belmont, plenty of time to give the numbers a good look. I've reviewed them a couple of times, but only briefly. What stood out was the 3F for American Pharoah. Last two PFs one point off, but the 3F suggests the horse is weakening. At this point I'm leaning towards Frosted but the horse from the UAE gives me trouble. I'll be giving Keen Ice a look.

[DeltaLover]

Tonalist was my Best Bet last year and people forget that using the Bris speed figures, Tonalist, not California Chrome, had the highest speed figure of any horse in the race (based on the Peter Pan, which was at Belmont). And in the Peter Pan he had romped winning handily along a dull rail over a tiring muddy track that favored outside closers. Lots of good handicapping angles plus his pedigree was very good for this type of race, regardless of how you analyze pedigrees.

Another important factor when handicapping these types of races, you have to try to project speed figures for the horses that may not have peaked yet.


In my analysis, I pointed out that California Chrome had raced 12 times. and had consistently been running about the same speed figure. To me, that indicated that we had already seen his best. Eight of the horses in last year's Belmont had raced 8 times or less and Tonalist had only raced 4 times. So there was more room for improvement With Tonalist than the other horses, plus there was more room for improvement from the other horses and Tonalist compared to California Chrome. Of course if Chrome had been running big figures it would be a moot point, but he hadn't.

This is often an overlooked aspect of handicapping young, lightly raced horses. The less starts a horse has, the greater the possibility that it could jump up with a new "top" figure or lifetime best. For instance, California Chrome's best speed figure was an 89 until his 5th career start, when he exploded to a 101.

When handicapping the Belmont this year, which horses, or horses are likely to make a forward move on figures?


Since you are mentioning last year's Belmont, I am tempted to say that my pick (and my bet on it) was nobody else than Commissioner.


It looked to me the obvious bet..

His 5X5 FFI pattern is extremely strong, duplicating the Busanda female family (going back to LA TROIENNE) in both his sire and dam sides..

( For the history, Commisioner came second at 27-1 and I managed to not cash a single ticket, simplty left with another bad beat story with a lot of woulda coudla shoulda)

[pandy]

Since you are mentioning last year's Belmont, I am tempted to say that my pick (and my bet on it) was nobody else than Commissioner.


It looked to me the obvious bet..

His 5X5 FFI pattern is extremely strong, duplicating the Busanda female family (going back to LA TROIENNE) in both his sire and dam sides..

( For the history, Commisioner came second at 27-1 and I managed to not cash a single ticket, simplty left with another bad beat story with a lot of woulda coudla shoulda)



I had the exacta, the pedigree certainly stood out, as you pointed out... here is what I said about Commissioner in my analysis

COMMISSIONER is a grinding horse and sometimes these horses that are bred to run long upset in this race, simply by going at the same speed, then passing tired horses. This horse has the perfect pedigree for the Belmont stakes, and I mean, perfect. Look at his breeding. He is by a Belmont stakes winner, A P Indy. Both of his grandsires, Touch Gold and Seattle Slew, also won the Belmont, and his great, great grandsire is Secretariat, who ran the biggest Belmont ever!

[tanner12oz]

Since you are mentioning last year's Belmont, I am tempted to say that my pick (and my bet on it) was nobody else than Commissioner.


It looked to me the obvious bet..

His 5X5 FFI pattern is extremely strong, duplicating the Busanda female family (going back to LA TROIENNE) in both his sire and dam sides..

( For the history, Commisioner came second at 27-1 and I managed to not cash a single ticket, simplty left with another bad beat story with a lot of woulda coudla shoulda)

I had every dime on medal count win place so I know the feeling

[f2tornado]

When handicapping the Belmont this year, which horses, or horses are likely to make a forward move on figures?

The obvious question, if any of them. And if the horse does move forward will it be enough?

One thing we do know is what we're likely to get with AP. His Brisnet speed figures from oldest to most recent are as follows: 84, 103, 99, 99, 102, 100, 100. Mud or no mud, 8.5F or 10F, no matter the track, pretty much the same number beyond his first start. I'd be somewhat surprised if he finds a new top in the Belmont as his late pace was pretty pedestrian in the previous jewels.

[pandy]

The obvious question, if any of them. And if the horse does move forward will it be enough?

One thing we do know is what we're likely to get with AP. His Brisnet speed figures from oldest to most recent are as follows: 84, 103, 99, 99, 102, 100, 100. Mud or no mud, 8.5F or 10F, no matter the track, pretty much the same number beyond his first start. I'd be somewhat surprised if he finds a new top in the Belmont as his late pace was pretty pedestrian in the previous jewels.

Very similar to C. Chrome last year. Chrome had jumped from an 89 to a 101 and then basically kept running the same race, which was good enough, until the Belmont. It seems unlikely that AP will run better than a 103, his career best, and could run a 99 or 100. At a likely 2/5 that does not seem like good value when all it may take is for one of these other colts to run somewhere between 100 and 104 to beat him.

Some horses are so perfectly suited to the Belmont, that they can really step up. I loved Easy Goer in the Belmont because he was a big, burly kind of horse who was not as handy as Sunday Silence. But the wider turns and longer distance at Belmont figured to help him and he was by Alydar, who ran a huge race in the Belmont.

Tonalist had that perfect Belmont pedigree and is a long striding horse.

[LemonSoupKid]

Pandy, who are you leaning to, then?

You can't overlook Frosted.

On purely a dosage point of view, it's clearly AP and Frammento who are not like others (in a bad way) as well as Mubtaahij, who might be bred for distance but we just don't know (not many dosage points at this time).

How does AP hold up in the last 1/4 and 1/8?

Maybe I'm just getting older and wiser, having seen what I've seen, but this is the first time I've seen some nice performances but been fairly sure the TC potential's chances are clearly less than 50% to win (I'd say they are roughly 25%). My fair line on him would be maybe just a shade under 3-1.

ps - I forgot to add Jazil to my original post, who had a DI of 3.00, and ran the 3rd best PF (-74) in the last 15 years. His CD was 0.89, if interested.

[pandy]

I'm not sure yet. I'll wait for the final pps to make my decision. Hopefully it's a fast track.

[Bennie]

Pandy - that is how I caught the Barbaro/Bluegrass cat exacta back around 2006, I think it was. Bluegrass Cat was just one of those steady speed and just keeps on running types. When some others got tired he just kept running and took the place spot.

[pandy]

Pandy - that is how I caught the Barbaro/Bluegrass cat exacta back around 2006, I think it was. Bluegrass Cat was just one of those steady speed and just keeps on running types. When some others got tired he just kept running and took the place spot.


Yep. If you could figure out which one of those sustained types is going to be closest to the pace you could get a lot of winners in routes.

[sbcaris]

I looked over the last 40 years and recorded the dosage index of Belmont winners. Here are the results:

20 winners------------------------2.00-2.99
11 winners------------------------3.00-3.99
5 winners-------------------------1.00 or less
4 winner---------------------------4.00 or higher

It certainly looks like 2.00-2.99 is the best index because the percentage of Belmont starters with that range is approximately 38%

[SkunkApe]

I looked over the last 40 years and recorded the dosage index of Belmont winners. Here are the results:

20 winners------------------------2.00-2.99
11 winners------------------------3.00-3.99
5 winners-------------------------1.00 or less
4 winner---------------------------4.00 or higher

It certainly looks like 2.00-2.99 is the best index because the percentage of Belmont starters with that range is approximately 38%

How many horses that RAN in the Belmont had dosage indexes of 2.00-2.99?

If the answer is "about 38%", this statistic is meaningless.

It's meaningless as it is, without knowing the dosage indeces of all contenders, not just the winners.

[LemonSoupKid]

In the last 7 years only 1 horse wasn't (Drosselmeyer 1.75) ... in the last 20, 12 weren't but 4 horses had exactly 3.00 dosage. Since 2003 (Empire Maker 1.88 and CD 0.42) the CD has been between 0.42 and 0.89, with an average CD of 0.62

I think this is more indicative in that lower dosage and CD are coming out as that much more important given the trend in speed breeding and how long this is as an unusual route nowadays.