View Full Version : Derby Chat with the King of the World
Tonight, May 2, 7pm EDT.
http://forums.prospero.com/dr-chat/chat
the little guy
05-02-2006, 09:54 AM
It should really be a webcast.....probably live on all the networks.
I agree, it would be very nice if modern technology was used.
Can I be guaranteed another free-for-all Andy Beyer discussion like last year?
I have so few pleasures in life these days, that wuz good readin!! :lol:
I agree, it would be very nice if modern technology was used.
At DRF, this IS modern technology.!
Looking at the transcript tonight - a couple of neat nick names used -
"Soup and a burger"
"isitingood"
and our own Chuckles the Clown!
Small world. :D
Beyer is always the most entertaining. My favorite quotes:
Alas, this is not always an exact science.
Dosage was always a fraud,
I give no credence to jockeys' opinions.
The sheikh's management of his horses has been pretty irrational, but not this irrational.
You've got to be kidding. I'm not sure Smith could win if he were on the reincarnation of Secretariat. He was riding so poorly at Gulfstream this winter that the strongest handicapping angle at the meeting was "Mike Smith off."
delayjf
05-04-2006, 03:50 PM
Dosage was always a fraud
Why does Beyer think dosage has always been a fraud?? I won't argue that there has been a paradiam shift in breeding toward more speed, and that dosage has lost some of its effectiveness as an indicator, but in the past, it was uncanny at the horses it pointed to.
One thing I've noticed is that most of the horses entered in the derby are within the required dosage range.
Probably because he never figured out how to use it effectively.
When it first came out as a tool. many horses, including many favorites, adn many Lukas horses, were way beyond the 4.00 guidline and failed. Back then, there were not nearly as many horses meeting it as today. Must be a reason why?
twindouble
05-04-2006, 04:31 PM
Why does Beyer think dosage has always been a fraud?? I won't argue that there has been a paradiam shift in breeding toward more speed, and that dosage has lost some of its effectiveness as an indicator, but in the past, it was uncanny at the horses it pointed to.
One thing I've noticed is that most of the horses entered in the derby are within the required dosage range.
When horses get down to my level is no longer a factor.
When we talk in terms of dosage today, in most cases it's not about breeding. :D
T.D.
kenwoodallpromos
05-04-2006, 04:59 PM
Probably because he never figured out how to use it effectively.
When it first came out as a tool. many horses, including many favorites, adn many Lukas horses, were way beyond the 4.00 guidline and failed. Back then, there were not nearly as many horses meeting it as today. Must be a reason why?
Tom- my wild guess is more people are buying young ones based on dosage, so breeding today leans more toward it, therefore the prep winners who cannot repeat!!
You know good old Andy just HAD toi get a word in about "dosage", whether or not it had to do with dopind by over- dosing or not!! LOL!!
(TLG that was a joke- I like almost everything Beyer said this time!)
I'd like to know if he or other racing personalities ever bet "savers" or to get back to even for the day? From what little I've read, he does not make stupid emotional-based bets very often. I assume he Could write a book about exotic betting.
When we talk in terms of dosage today, in most cases it's not about breeding. :D
T.D.
LOL, I think thats true! :lol:
I haven't read the transcript yet, I'm looking forward to doing that tonight! I love the way Andy Beyer makes his comments.
RaceIsClosed
05-04-2006, 11:15 PM
Probably because he never figured out how to use it effectively.
When it first came out as a tool. many horses, including many favorites, adn many Lukas horses, were way beyond the 4.00 guidline and failed. Back then, there were not nearly as many horses meeting it as today. Must be a reason why?
It might be more because Dosage was "discovered" in 1981 and the numbers were retrofitted more or less back to 1929, using the Derby itself from each year as data to compile the method.
Then, in 1991, Strike the Gold won the Derby without being a qualifier, and that opened the floodgates, but not before they gave chef-de-race status to his sire (I think it was Alydar), bringing his numbers in line as well. Since 1991, several non-qualifiers have won, and that's a much more realistic result of this "system" than the phantom results before 1981.
It might be more because Dosage was "discovered" in 1981 and the numbers were retrofitted more or less back to 1929, using the Derby itself from each year as data to compile the method.
Then, in 1991, Strike the Gold won the Derby without being a qualifier, and that opened the floodgates, but not before they gave chef-de-race status to his sire (I think it was Alydar), bringing his numbers in line as well. Since 1991, several non-qualifiers have won, and that's a much more realistic result of this "system" than the phantom results before 1981.
Do I have to give back the money?
As I've posted before, breeding stats HAVE to be changed as more data comes to light. I have no issue with Strike the Gold - but I threw him out for being too high. Tough luck. As a predictor for several races, not just the Derby, the results still stand impressive -bet before the races with no back fitting - just the data as it existed at the time.
RaceIsClosed
05-05-2006, 04:34 AM
Do I have to give back the money?
As I've posted before, breeding stats HAVE to be changed as more data comes to light. I have no issue with Strike the Gold - but I threw him out for being too high. Tough luck. As a predictor for several races, not just the Derby, the results still stand impressive -bet before the races with no back fitting - just the data as it existed at the time.
Impressive, yes, but not the god-like "system" that it was being touted as in 1981 based on the backfitted results. It was only a matter of time before non-qualifiers started winning, and most starters were qualifying. Lots of systems can produce great profits for 5-10 years, but this thing was trying to claim 52.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.