dosage index

[sbcaris]

To all: In the last 27 years there were 12 Belmont winners that a dosage index anywhere from 2.00- 2.99. This group makes up approx 29% of the starters and 44.4% of the winners which translates into an impact value of 1.53 Horses in the 2.00-2.99 goup are winning the Belmont 53% more often than statistical expectation.

Note: There are only two horses in this years Belmont with a dosage index in the 2.00-2.99 range: Wild About Deb and Stradivari.

I am not saying they are the only horses to wager on but they are the horses with the best dosage index for winning the Belmont over the last 27 years.

Here is a summary of the last 27 Belmont winners:

4.00 or higher ----------4 winners
3.00-3.99----------------6 winners
2.00-2.99---------------12 winnners
1.00-1.99----------------5 winners

[sbcaris]

I missed Forever d'oro who has a 2.29 dosage index and he too is a possibility to run in the Belmont stakes.

[pandy]

To all: In the last 27 years there were 12 Belmont winners that a dosage index anywhere from 2.00- 2.99. This group makes up approx 29% of the starters and 44.4% of the winners which translates into an impact value of 1.53 Horses in the 2.00-2.99 goup are winning the Belmont 53% more often than statistical expectation.

Note: There are only two horses in this years Belmont with a dosage index in the 2.00-2.99 range: Wild About Deb and Stradivari.

I am not saying they are the only horses to wager on but they are the horses with the best dosage index for winning the Belmont over the last 27 years.

Here is a summary of the last 27 Belmont winners:

4.00 or higher ----------4 winners
3.00-3.99----------------6 winners
2.00-2.99---------------12 winnners
1.00-1.99----------------5 winners

Stan, do you know what the impact value is for the 1.00 to 1.99 range? How many horses actually had that low a dosage? The 12 winners in the 2 to 2.99 range makes perfect sense.

[whodoyoulike]

To all: In the last 27 years there were 12 Belmont winners that a dosage index anywhere from 2.00- 2.99. This group makes up approx 29% of the starters and 44.4% of the winners which translates into an impact value of 1.53 Horses in the 2.00-2.99 goup are winning the Belmont 53% more often than statistical expectation.

Note: There are only two horses in this years Belmont with a dosage index in the 2.00-2.99 range: Wild About Deb and Stradivari.

I am not saying they are the only horses to wager on but they are the horses with the best dosage index for winning the Belmont over the last 27 years.

Here is a summary of the last 27 Belmont winners:

4.00 or higher ----------4 winners
3.00-3.99----------------6 winners
2.00-2.99---------------12 winnners
1.00-1.99----------------5 winners

This doesn't seem correct that the 12 winners made up 29% of the starters which would be only 41.4 total number of starters in the last 27 Belmonts.

Wouldn't it be more informative if you compared the number of winners to the total in each rating segment?

I don't know how many actually started in each Belmont but wouldn't something like .....


4.00 or higher ----------4 winners out of xxxx
3.00-3.99----------------6 winners out of xxx
2.00-2.99---------------12 winners out of 20
1.00-1.99----------------5 winners out of xx

be more informative?

I have a question about dosage indexes.

Do they ever change for the horses from one race to the next race or are they established from day 1 of the horse's maiden race?

[pandy]

This doesn't seem correct that the 12 winners made up 29% of the starters which would be only 41.4 total number of starters in the last 27 Belmonts.

Wouldn't it be more informative if you compared the number of winners to the total in each rating segment?

I don't know how many actually started in each Belmont but wouldn't something like .....


4.00 or higher ----------4 winners out of xxxx
3.00-3.99----------------6 winners out of xxx
2.00-2.99---------------12 winners out of 20
1.00-1.99----------------5 winners out of xx

be more informative?

I have a question about dosage indexes.

Do they ever change for the horses from one race to the next race or are they established from day 1 of the horse's maiden race?


I think I can answer the last part, the dosage index for a particular horse will stay the same if the sire's chef de race rating doesn't change. If the sire of the horse is reclassified, then the horse's dosage rating will change. I can't remember how far back they go. I think that if the grandsire's rating changes it would also change the horse's dosage rating.

[sbcaris]

Pandy: The data I listed above illustrates the best dosage index range to be 2.00-2.99.

You asked about the impact value for the 1.00-1.99 range. Only 5 horses since 1989 had that range. I know its a bad dosage range for the Belmont because my research from 1979-2003 regarding dosage (which appeared in my book-Impact Values Lead To Derby, Preakness and Belmont winners which was published by American Turf Monthly) illustrates just how bad it was in that time frame. That research follows:

1979-2003
Dosage Range-----Winners----Win%---Starters----%Starters-----Impact Value
1.00-1.99----------4 of 25-----16%-----70 of 251-----27.9%---------.57

From the data above one can say that horses with a dosage index in the 1.00-1.99 have won the Belmont stakes 43% less often than statistical expectation.

It makes sense because horses need a reasonable amount of early speed to win the Belmont. There are exceptions: Jazil comes to mind as a deep closer but as rule most Belmonts are won near the front or within 5 or 6 lengths of the leader early on.

[whodoyoulike]

I think I can answer the last part, the dosage index for a particular horse will stay the same if the sire's chef de race rating doesn't change. If the sire of the horse is reclassified, then the horse's dosage rating will change. I can't remember how far back they go. I think that if the grandsire's rating changes it would also change the horse's dosage rating.

Okay. As you can tell, I have very little knowledge of dosage index and I'm just trying to gather info not necessarily from you but from anyone.

Now, why would the grandsire and the sire's chef de race rating change since they are no longer racing?

So, is the dosage index of Exaggerator and Destin back in 09/15, the same for both the Derby and Belmont and is that the case?

[pandy]

Okay. As you can tell, I have very little knowledge of dosage index and I'm just trying to gather info not necessarily from you but from anyone.

Now, why would the grandsire and the sire's chef de race rating change since they are no longer racing?

So, is the dosage index of Exaggerator and Destin back in 09/15, the same for both the Derby and Belmont and is that the case?


Yes, the dosage will be the same for the Derby and Belmont. What happens, if a sire gets hot and some of his foals become champions or win a bunch of
Gr1 races at longer distances, then the sire's dosage rating can be changed. If the sire is elevated to a chef de race, which I believe means that the sire has become more productive, then all of the horses who are by that sire will have their dosage index changed.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Yes, the dosage will be the same for the Derby and Belmont. What happens, if a sire gets hot and some of his foals become champions or win a bunch of
Gr1 races at longer distances, then the sire's dosage rating can be changed. If the sire is elevated to a chef de race, which I believe means that the sire has become more productive, then all of the horses who are by that sire will have their dosage index changed.

A horse rarely gets raised to chef.

Only the elite of the elite.

[pandy]

Perhaps someone can refresh my memory, but there was a great horse who had a high dosage and then it got lowered when they renamed its sire a chef de race...anyone remember?

[Tom]

Strike the Gold, I believe - he was a 5.0 going in.

[pandy]

Thanks Tom.

[sbcaris]

Strike the gold had a dosage index of 9.00 before running in the Derby of 1991. Some years later Dr. Roman made Alydar a Classic chef de race and his dosage index was lowered to 2.60. His original dosage profile was 10-6-4-0-0 which gave him a 9.00. When his sire, Alydar, became a Classic chef his profile became 10-6-20-0-0 and his DI became 2.60. His sire Alydar as a Classic chef added 16 Classic points to his profile.

[pandy]

Strike the gold had a dosage index of 9.00 before running in the Derby of 1991. Some years later Dr. Roman made Alydar a Classic chef de race and his dosage index was lowered to 2.60. His original dosage profile was 10-6-4-0-0 which gave him a 9.00. When his sire, Alydar, became a Classic chef his profile became 10-6-20-0-0 and his DI became 2.60. His sire Alydar as a Classic chef added 16 Classic points to his profile.

Yes, now I remember, LOL. Although I like to look at dosage, there is a certain degree of error in dosage, just as there is in speed figures and other ratings that are based on a formula that is open to interpretation.

[f2tornado]

Winners and dosage here (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/belmont_dosage.htm).

[RXB]

A horse rarely gets raised to chef.

Only the elite of the elite.

Chef-de-race is about a sire having a discernible impact on the distance preferences of future generations, not about whether or not a sire is elite. Most of them are elite but not all. By no means do they have to be elite-of-the-elite.

Chief's Crown, Codex, Lost Code, just three examples of chefs who were not elite sires. Storm Cat is not a chef, nor is Seeking The Gold and those were certainly elite-of-the-elite sires.