Breeding rating's...grass/dirt...who's better/best

[sammy the sage]

Bris or DRF or other

sometimes there are sharp disagreements on whether a horse will like turf or not....as far as breeding...

Yes I know...there are stallion books out there...but one has not enough time to go over every 1ster (on turf let's say) racing in a day to correctly get a feel...

just looking for best quick accurate assessments...

And of course we all know....the horse itself sometime's...just don't give a damn about ma,pa,grandma and grandpa...ect...

[nobeyerspls]

I'm a surface handicapper so turf preference is part of my game. First of all there are no quick assessment tools and the Tomlinson numbers in the Form are far from accurate. My advice is to review the Average Earnings Index for sires and broodmare sires for dirt and grass. The Bloodhorse is a good source. Then identify the nuances of short (Red Ransom et.al.) and long (Dynaformer et.al.) among those that qualify as grass sires.
As to individual entrants the breeding preference is top&bottom, bottom, and top in that order. Surface influence is most pronounced from the dam's side. All of this helps with the first attempt on grass and Saratoga is now writing two-turn races for two year olds on the turf. The opportunities for box car payouts are there.
A few horses perform contrary to their breeding like a Kipper Kelly going long or a Capote on the grass but the influence is strong enough in most cases to be useful. Often a poor race on one surface, i.e sloppy, underscores a preference for turf. A brand new surface play involves polytrack. Harlem Rocker was off the board at a short price on the Woosbine poly and then came back to win the Prince of Wales on the dirt. In that race the winner of the Queen's Plate on poly was out of the money on dirt.
Favorable surface change is a goldmine and well worth the arduous effort required to master it.

[jonnielu]

Bris or DRF or other

sometimes there are sharp disagreements on whether a horse will like turf or not....as far as breeding...

Yes I know...there are stallion books out there...but one has not enough time to go over every 1ster (on turf let's say) racing in a day to correctly get a feel...

just looking for best quick accurate assessments...

And of course we all know....the horse itself sometime's...just don't give a damn about ma,pa,grandma and grandpa...ect...

One smart way to go about this, when the subject is first time starters, is to respect your ignorance, and consider the opinions of a couple of experts that are likely to have given consideration to breeding with respect to the upcoming race.

The first expert to bring in for consultation is the trainer, he is in charge of starting the horse off in a situation where it might be likely to succeed. He would probably be starting the animal on grass, because he believes that the breeding would suggest that surface as the most suitable for success.

Check the trainer's record for being right in these consideration. And, look for whether or not, when right, the stable is in the habit of slipping a few bucks in themselves and then find it on the board before you head to the window.

A smart fellow that has proper respect for his ignorance here would also want a second opinion, see what the track handicapper thinks as you consult with him through the ML too. If he is favoring one first timer seriously over the other, it is most likely because of breeding and his/her knowledge of the stable's skills.

Also consider who is riding, a top jock may have taken the mount, because of all of the above, and he agrees that we could have a winner here.

Double check this by looking for rider and animal to work together as a single unit during a solid warmup.

If the public ignores all of this evidence, assume that the people that have thorough knowledge of the horse have done all of the proper breeding research and are acting on their strong opinions, as you step lively to the windows.

Remember, when doing any serious wagering, never get in line behind a girl, you can chat her up later by telling how you did a lot of research on the winner's breeding.

jdl

[HEY DUDE]

Well spoken jonnielu. I also have used both the numbers in BRIS and DRF as a guide. It is not exact, but I think that they are close enough to use as a gauge in determing wether or not the horse is suitable for the distance and surface.

[46zilzal]

It is the INDIVIDUAL and not the breeding theoretical that dictates success on one surface or the other. Old Bob Bowers would never been known for any breeding if it weren't for his amazing son.

[Robert Fischer]

Surface influence is most pronounced from the dam's side.

I have been looking for something along these lines.

Been unable to get any opinions on which side is dominant in surface preference, and beyond that, if either side influences hoove size and confirmation more than the other.

[Marlin]

It is the INDIVIDUAL and not the breeding theoretical that dictates success on one surface or the other. Old Bob Bowers would never been known for any breeding if it weren't for his amazing son.The breeding theoretical will dictate the probability that an INDIVIDUAL has success on a given surface.

[46zilzal]

Do you know the number of permutations and combinations during cross over and meiosis? It is in the BILLIONS......same gene loci too.

The individual trumps the theoretical or these siblings would have been big time just like them.

Northern Dancer had about 5 full ones by the same parents...any one of them show the same stuff? NOPE...Lots of Ribot clones did the same thing: NOTHING.

The Bride is the most famous but there are many others such as
full siblings
Lit De Justice - Colonel Collins
Grindstone - Pershing, Perception
Alysheba - Titanic
Ta Wee- Captivate, Aforethought
Damascus- Arlene Frances
Tasso - Pechita
Spend a Buck - Ocala Buck
Alydar - Hopefully
Affirmed - Silent Fox
Conquistador Cielo - Mr. Prosperous
Nasrullah - Rivaz, Nazami II
Manila - Sister Sass
Dancing Brave - Baletta

[Tom]

I had good results with the DRF's Tomlinsons when I used them. Never had much use to the ones in BRIS.

[cj's dad]

I had good results with the DRF's Tomlinsons when I used them. Never had much use to the ones in BRIS.

Are the first thing I look at with firsters or lightly raced turfers; then go on from there. TW is pretty accurate IMO.

[jonnielu]

It is the INDIVIDUAL and not the breeding theoretical that dictates success on one surface or the other. Old Bob Bowers would never been known for any breeding if it weren't for his amazing son.

What is it with you 46? People don't want to know what it is on grass. Otherwise they'd have given up on this breeding nonsense years ago.

They are happy to have a chance to hobknob in the manner of the elitists and talk breeding to relieve the monotony of the day. It's like a relaxing game of trivial pursuit, let them have their fun.

jdl

[46zilzal]

What is it with you 46? People don't want to know what it is on grass. Otherwise they'd have given up on this breeding nonsense years ago.


When I first delved into breeding I was taken by how many TOP NOTCH breedings produced NOTHING....

Nothing has changed.

[cmoore]

When I first delved into breeding I was taken by how many TOP NOTCH breedings produced NOTHING....

Nothing has changed.

You don't have a clue what your talking about. Pedigree matters in the following races. Mdns, Turf, Non Firm turf and mud. Especially in younger horses trying different distances and surfaces. Breeding informatin helps. You just don't have the right information.

[juanepstein]

When I first delved into breeding I was taken by how many TOP NOTCH breedings produced NOTHING....

Nothing has changed.


its soaking wet in australia this time of year. disregard the wet track sires and see how well you do.

http://www.racenet.com.au/stats/WetSires.asp

[sammy the sage]

""TW is pretty accurate IMO.""

?????

[cj's dad]

""TW is pretty accurate IMO.""

????? If you don't know TW- then you don't know, sorry, can't divulge- shouldn't have mentioned.

[WinterTriangle]

Race 5 Saratoga 8/07. Maiden Special Weight: $2 EXACTA paid $1,247.00
Selva and Gemswick Park had the highest speed/stamina ratings.

Next 3 were Just Whistle Dixie, In a Fine Nettle, and All About Us.
Playing Just Whistle w/ the top 2 in a trifecta would have given you $5,431.00

I always take a glance at breeding for any kind of maiden race before looking at the PPs.

[classhandicapper]

It is the INDIVIDUAL and not the breeding theoretical that dictates success on one surface or the other. Old Bob Bowers would never been known for any breeding if it weren't for his amazing son.

Except for the fact that some of the time you don't know whether the horse "as an individual" will prefer turf, dirt, slop, artificial, going long, going short etc.., until they actually do it. Fortunately, it appears that these qualities are passed down from generation to generation with enough consistently to be statistically significant. That allows people with superior insights to exploit people that think breeding doesn't matter or that focus their attention on other aspects of the game.

Breeding is one of the big holes in my game. But unlike you I'd be the first to admit that I wish I knew more because I know that there are people making money off that factor even though I can't. That seems to be a recurring theme with you. You refuse to acknowledge that anything that you don't do or understand matters. Whether it's workouts, breeding etc... it never matters despite the fact that some people are making money using those factors. Some day it might sink in that a factor doesn't have to be perfect to be effective. It just has to be accurate or useful enough to make you money.

I find your attitude comical in that even the best figure makers in the world acknowledge that their are loads of problems and inaccuracies with their work (especially with pace figures). That doesn't stop people, including you, from using pace oriented figures effectively.

[46zilzal]

You don't have a clue what your talking about. Pedigree matters in the following races. Mdns, Turf, Non Firm turf and mud. Especially in younger horses trying different distances and surfaces. Breeding informatin helps. You just don't have the right information.
Study the overt randomness of meiosis and cross-over during same and get back to me with how accurate the randomness of breeding is

[46zilzal]

In the 70's I did a serious study about breeding and was amazed at how pitiful the accuracy of theoretically great breedings SHOULD be, but rarely were.

I was astounded at how many from the great sire Mr. Prospector never even got to the races, let alone performed well and for YEARS he was leading sire.

The only correlation with even a weak alignment was in what made a turf horse tick, but still it is the individual and not the theoretical match up 11 months earlier that does the running and should be objectively evaluated.

[Tom]

If we were betting on thoe event, it might be worth while to study them.
However, we are betting on races and using breeding rating as a predictor. The only study needed is how well do the number predict race finishes.

I find it hilarious that you come up with this off the wall stuff to try to convince someone who is using and winnning with breeding stats that it can't be done. I'm not sure if this is igorance or stubborness......but it sure is funny!:lol:

[46zilzal]

I find it hilarious that you come up with this off the wall stuff to try to convince someone who is using and winnning with breeding stats that it can't be done. I'm not sure if this is igorance or stubborness......but it sure is funny!:lol:
No years and years of study in the area of genetics and genetics as it relates to heritable traits in both disease and health....If YOU actually studied it, you MIGHT understand partial penetrance, recombinants through meisosis etc, but then I am not going to hold my breath

[Light]

I've seen this argument with 46 on the issue of breeding a couple of times and again now. I've usually sided with the breeding stats folks but no longer,at least in certain cases. For example,what would you do with a horse trying the turf for the 1st time,where his last dirt race has the highest or 2nd highest SR (when compared to the turf horses SR's) in the field for the present class and distance. Lets say this dirt horse has poor turf sire stats.Under 5% wins. I always use to avoid these like the plague until they beat me enough. Plus these type usually get a decent price because the public shy's away from unknowns. It has taken some anti conditioning on my part to play horses with 5% success rate or a 1-50 sire on turf, but I have been much more successful with 1st time turfers since doing this! Believe it or not. Stats are a double edged sword. They can help but also hurt.

My theory for this inconsistency on turf and turf stats is the different type of turf courses and various lengths the grounds crews keep them at. It could be an 18% turf sire actually prefers his or her grass long and lush where others may prefer the short,almost golf course style of turf course like Dmr. We know some prefer yielding or soft especially Europeans.There are no stats to differentiate what type of grass course a horse does well at.Nor are there stats that show a 1-50 sire on turf may be 50% ITM with a certain type of turf course which would make him an obvious contender.

[Tom]

Sorry, zilly, I study WINNERS. Anything else is noise. :lol::lol:You kill me!!!

[classhandicapper]

In the 70's I did a serious study about breeding and was amazed at how pitiful the accuracy of theoretically great breedings SHOULD be, but rarely were.

I was astounded at how many from the great sire Mr. Prospector never even got to the races, let alone performed well and for YEARS he was leading sire.

The only correlation with even a weak alignment was in what made a turf horse tick, but still it is the individual and not the theoretical match up 11 months earlier that does the running and should be objectively evaluated.

Some of the things you say make me question whether you are actually a winning player. To not recognize that some genetic lines pass down statistically significant racing preferences suggests a level of ignorance that will certainly impact betting results in a very negative way.

If you said it's possible to win without any expertise in breeding, I think almost everyone would agree with you.

If you said the vast majority of races don't require any knowledge of breeding because the horses have complete enough records to analyze, I think almost everyone would agree with you.

If you said that a large percentage of offspring don't have a level of ability anywhere near their parents, I think almost everyone would agree with you.

However, if you say that all else being equal you aren't better off backing a horse with solid turf pedigree on both sides vs. one with poor turf pedigree on both sides when they both make their turf debuts against each other, you are a nut job. The same is true of distance and mud questions.

It's a factor that needs to be weighed despite the fact that the handicapper knows full well that the correlations aren't anywhere near perfect. It's the ability to recognize these preferences before the masses catch on and/or weigh them properly that is the skill that generates profits.

Guys like me understand that breeding information is important in some instances where we don't have the insights or skill to evaluate it all properly. So we avoid those situations. We don't tell people that win that way that what they are doing doesn't work. That's idiotic! We try to learn what they are doing so we can add their tools to our own games.

[cmoore]

Race 5 Saratoga 8/07. Maiden Special Weight: $2 EXACTA paid $1,247.00
Selva and Gemswick Park had the highest speed/stamina ratings.

Next 3 were Just Whistle Dixie, In a Fine Nettle, and All About Us.
Playing Just Whistle w/ the top 2 in a trifecta would have given you $5,431.00

I always take a glance at breeding for any kind of maiden race before looking at the PPs.

Selva was out of Forest Wildcat..The top sprint sire in that race.

[proximity]

Bris or DRF or other

sometimes there are sharp disagreements on whether a horse will like turf or not....as far as breeding...

Yes I know...there are stallion books out there...but one has not enough time to go over every 1ster (on turf let's say) racing in a day to correctly get a feel...

just looking for best quick accurate assessments...
.

i'm not a big turf bettor, but i'd say thorograph would probably be the best thing to have for a situation like this. i believe their sheets have stats that show the exact numbers that the sire's offspring run both overall and first time on turf. tg sheet users can correct me if i'm wrong.....

[nobeyerspls]

No years and years of study in the area of genetics and genetics as it relates to heritable traits in both disease and health....If YOU actually studied it, you MIGHT understand partial penetrance, recombinants through meisosis etc, but then I am not going to hold my breath

Breed the best to the best and hope for the best. The reason the word "hope" is in there is because it doesn't always work. If breeding produced a completely random result, perhaps all stalions would stand for $20k. The wide disparity in stud fees is the market's way of assigning value to bloodlines (sometimes irrationally) and the Average Earnings Index for sires and broodmare sires underscores that value. Mean is a better indicator than average as one high earner can skew the number to the right. A simple bell curve for sires will demonstrate success and failure but, if you owned a mare and I gave you your choice of sires, I doubt that you would select one using the dartboard method.

[46zilzal]

The INDIVDUAL, the horse standing right in front of you, is the major reason to consider in every race, not some theoretical "possible, probable, might be" genetic statistic.
IF the INDIVIDUAL has not raced, how he does or does not do, is a guess.

[cmoore]

The INDIVDUAL, the horse standing right in front of you, is the major reason to consider in every race, not some theoretical "possible, probable, might be" genetic statistic.
IF the INDIVIDUAL has not raced, how he does or does not do, is a guess.

Your right, it is a guess..It's a guess using statistical information. For example..There were 19 two year old mdn races on Saturday. Posse won 2 of them at 7-1 and 8-1. That sire is one of the top sprint sire producers in the last 3 years in wins. If you want to ignore these stats, that's fine by me. Stick to your closed minded approach.

Malibu Moon was a sire that at one time was hitting 50% 1st time out winners over the last 3 years. That sire has tapered off a little. But statistics like that add good odds can't be ignored.

[douglasw32]

Not sure about the posting links rule.. so google
breedingwinners (dot) com

[classhandicapper]

The INDIVDUAL, the horse standing right in front of you, is the major reason to consider in every race, not some theoretical "possible, probable, might be" genetic statistic.
IF the INDIVIDUAL has not raced, how he does or does not do, is a guess.

It's pretty clear that you have a very serious mental block when it comes to some issues. It almost has to be impacting your results negatively even though you don't realize it. I don't even have to see your results to know that.

Anyone that can't comprehend the usefulness of a factor that is statistically significant for a group just because all individual horses in the group will not perform well/poorly, is missing some vital information some of the time and quite frankly probably not even understanding their own tools very well.

For your own good, perhaps at some point you'll stop and think and begin to comprehend that sometimes (in fact much of the time) we have imperfect and incomplete information about individual horses. In those cases, generalities about a group to which that specific horse belongs can have huge value. Your view would only be valid if we knew everything about every individual horse. We don't.

[sammy the sage]

tell me 46...

I'm white...both parents under 5.8ft tall

My friend is Black...his mom 5.10ft and dad 6.6ft tall

at birth...which of us do supposed WAS GENETICALLY pre-disposed to be a very good BASKETBALL player...

WHO would you've BET FUTURE'S ON...

From your previous arguments...you would've bet on me because of odds...AND LOST....as my friend was in the NBA...

YOU SIR....have MADE MY DAY...laughter is good for the soul :faint: :lol: :D

[WinterTriangle]

It's the ability to recognize these preferences before the masses catch on

Biggie right there. These quickly become *chalk*.

Sale-toppers at Fasig-Tipton or Keenland are not made by somebody throwing their money to the wind; that Kimgmambo produces Archipenko's, Student Council's, and HenrytheNavigator's isn't completely accidental.

Nick Ratings predict best crosses and are decent predictors of stakes success. Looking at the % winners of progeny of particular *nicks*, you start to see a pattern emerging.

Not a guarantee. Just a probability. Which is what all handicapping is based on.

[46zilzal]

Anyone that can't comprehend the usefulness of a factor that is statistically significant for a group just because all individual horses in the group will not perform well/poorly, is missing some vital information some of the time and quite frankly probably not even understanding their own tools very well.

For your own good, perhaps at some point you'll stop and think and begin to comprehend that sometimes (in fact much of the time) we have imperfect and incomplete information about individual horses. In those cases, generalities about a group to which that specific horse belongs can have huge value. Your view would only be valid if we knew everything about every individual horse. We don't.
I studied breeding till the proverb cows came home, was a member of the Thoroughbred Owner's and Breeders Association, studied nicking, out crosses, AEI, comparable indices, turf sires, slop sires, etc etc. and found it irrelevant in relation to the way evaluate a race. ME not one else.

The real epiphany, the difference between my being merely a competent handicapper to becoming a career handicapper was making it SIMPLE, leaving out extraneous factors that complicated the head to head individual competition that is a horse race and NOT the theoretical potentials of things that may or may not happen. I get repeated disparaging comments about the origin of that epiphany, the book BLINK, but I could give a poop.

It boils down to what makes the parimutuel game the attraction it is: "Two roads diverged in the woods and I, I took the one less traveled and it has made all the difference."

[46zilzal]

tell me 46...

I'm white...both parents under 5.8ft tall

My friend is Black...his mom 5.10ft and dad 6.6ft tall

at birth...which of us do supposed WAS GENETICALLY pre-disposed to be a very good BASKETBALL player...

WHO would you've BET FUTURE'S ON...


Don't touch races, nor basketball players for that matter, who haven't told me they can play through OBSERVATIONS of their play.

I have met many brothers to the individuals you describe who are COMPLETELY the opposite to their athletic siblings. One would realize their individual differences once they played too.Merely having the THEORETICAL potential to be a certain height means nothing about their play as the first set of parents could produce a Bob Cousy or Steve Nash and the latter could produce a tall thin uncoordinated intellectual.

There was a race today at Woodbine, the 5th for maiden two year olds, with five first time starters. Only one of them, Force of Gravity, the 7/1 winner, showed the individual performance typical of a maiden graduate: commanding front end speed. The potential, whatever it might have been, for the other first timers in the race might have been whatever all those stats MIGHT tell you, but the simple performance said this one would graduate. It happens all the time: THE HORSE, no one or anything else, is what tells you who has a true shot to win.

[jonnielu]

I studied breeding till the proverb cows came home, was a member of the Thoroughbred Owner's and Breeders Association, studied nicking, out crosses, AEI, comparable indices, turf sires, slop sires, etc etc. and found it irrelevant in relation to the way evaluate a race. ME not one else.

The real epiphany, the difference between my being merely a competent handicapper to becoming a career handicapper was making it SIMPLE, leaving out extraneous factors that complicated the head to head individual competition that is a horse race and NOT the theoretical potentials of things that may or may not happen. I get repeated disparaging comments about the origin of that epiphany, the book BLINK, but I could give a poop.

It boils down to what makes the parimutuel game the attraction it is: "Two roads diverged in the woods and I, I took the one less traveled and it has made all the difference."

Way to go 46 :ThmbUp:, there is always hope for the many when one goes over the wall.

jdl

[cmoore]

Don't touch races, nor basketball players for that matter, who haven't told me they can play through OBSERVATIONS of their play.

I have met many brothers to the individuals you describe who are COMPLETELY the opposite to their athletic siblings. One would realize their individual differences once they played too.Merely having the THEORETICAL potential to be a certain height means nothing about their play as the first set of parents could produce a Bob Cousy or Steve Nash and the latter could produce a tall thin uncoordinated intellectual.

There was a race today at Woodbine, the 5th for maiden two year olds, with five first time starters. Only one of them, Force of Gravity, the 7/1 winner, showed the individual performance typical of a maiden graduate: commanding front end speed. The potential, whatever it might have been, for the other first timers in the race might have been whatever all those stats MIGHT tell you, but the simple performance said this one would graduate. It happens all the time: THE HORSE, no one or anything else, is what tells you who has a true shot to win.

Actually I passed that race because those were all Ontario Bred and none of the 1st time starters had any significant stats enticing me to wager on. You took the 7 who already had ran and had shown front speed. Every squirel finds a nut once in awhile. Keep betting those mdn races without the sire information and see how far you get.

[jonnielu]

Actually I passed that race because those were all Ontario Bred and none of the 1st time starters had any significant stats enticing me to wager on. You took the 7 who already had ran and had shown front speed. Every squirel finds a nut once in awhile. Keep betting those mdn races without the sire information and see how far you get.

No doubt, passing a Mdn event that is loaded with firsters can never be a "bad" or ill-advised move. That being said, such events can represent opportunities for those that feel they have enough valid info to make a betting decision.

As for the amount of info, a very small bit, can be enough, it is the validity of the info that should come under scrutiny. One consideration to make here, is the reality that the average player is leaning heavily on any information available as to lineage, most of the time. Most of the time, the average player, if he/she elects to bet on these events, loses that bet.

One can assume that the consideration of lineage is not helping out a great deal, on the average.

Since lineage is so widely observed, and just as widely supported at the windows as a deciding factor, I would expect average payoffs to be a little less.

There are two parts to bringing a firster in to win on purpose, lineage can tell all of us that there is good raw material to work with, and that is one part. The other part is, has the trainer worked well with this raw material, and has that work enabled him to make the right decisions for starting this horse with a win.... on purpose? He/she knows the lineage, has he/she instilled the performance?

That question is usually not well answered with consideration of lineage, but it can be the only question that needs to be answered in the affirmative.

jdl

[nobeyerspls]

Don't touch races, nor basketball players for that matter, who haven't told me they can play through OBSERVATIONS of their play.

I have met many brothers to the individuals you describe who are COMPLETELY the opposite to their athletic siblings. One would realize their individual differences once they played too.Merely having the THEORETICAL potential to be a certain height means nothing about their play as the first set of parents could produce a Bob Cousy or Steve Nash and the latter could produce a tall thin uncoordinated intellectual.

There was a race today at Woodbine, the 5th for maiden two year olds, with five first time starters. Only one of them, Force of Gravity, the 7/1 winner, showed the individual performance typical of a maiden graduate: commanding front end speed. The potential, whatever it might have been, for the other first timers in the race might have been whatever all those stats MIGHT tell you, but the simple performance said this one would graduate. It happens all the time: THE HORSE, no one or anything else, is what tells you who has a true shot to win.

I'll make it a double redboard by telling you that I bet that horse for different reasons. He was a second lifetime start with a change of equipment and he had worked well since his debut. My use of breeding with maidens involves surface and distance. If you ignore breeding completely you do so at your own peril.
Lastly, when I bought yearlings at the September sale, breeding was secondary to conformation. I tried to get as much pedigree as I could afford in a well made horse. Full brothers/sisters to a stakes performer were avoided like the plague. I know from other threads that we agree on that.

[cmoore]

I'll make it a double redboard by telling you that I bet that horse for different reasons. He was a second lifetime start with a change of equipment and he had worked well since his debut. My use of breeding with maidens involves surface and distance. If you ignore breeding completely you do so at your own peril.
Lastly, when I bought yearlings at the September sale, breeding was secondary to conformation. I tried to get as much pedigree as I could afford in a well made horse. Full brothers/sisters to a stakes performer were avoided like the plague. I know from other threads that we agree on that.

I just looked up his last work..13/65..But for 2 year olds in the last 7 days..It was even better..17/105..WOW!! I let that little stat get by..Nice hit you two..

[Robert Fischer]

When you handicap a lot, and pay attention to the breeding, that you develop certain generalizations. Of course you study the individual with an open mind.


"Oh thats a _ _ _ _ _. Just what we need, another cheap POS:mad: who wants to go wire-to-wire everytime and can't stay a route :eek: "
(maybe it's a siphon out of a cheap mare, first time out for a speed trainer?)

or

"(Trainer Name) is getting another _ _ _ _ _, he has probably been tryi9ng to get him to rate, the 5f works actually aren't too bad can't believe he is 7-1"
(maybe Melnyk sent Albertrani another nice AP Indy)





you know the stock and you know the way the common strengths and weaknesses they display. You even know the trainers that get a lot of those sires offspring from certain owners, and the tendancies of how the trainers develop them.

[46zilzal]

Actually I passed that race because those were all Ontario Bred and none of the 1st time starters had any significant stats enticing me to wager on. You took the 7 who already had ran and had shown front speed. Every squirel finds a nut once in awhile. Keep betting those mdn races without the sire information and see how far you get.
Races like that, where the crowd is swayed by a certain barn, workout tab or breeding have made 4 out of the 5 highest mutuels I EVER received walk my way in maiden contests. The horse that shows what they can do most often DO, the theoretical MIGHT.

[46zilzal]

I'll make it a double redboard by telling you that I bet that horse for different reasons. He was a second lifetime start with a change of equipment and he had worked well since his debut. My use of breeding with maidens involves surface and distance. If you ignore breeding completely you do so at your own peril.

Lastly, when I bought yearlings at the September sale, breeding was secondary to conformation. I tried to get as much pedigree as I could afford in a well made horse. Full brothers/sisters to a stakes performer were avoided like the plague. I know from other threads that we agree on that.

Funny, then Davodiwitz, Cramer, Sartin, Dr. Z, Ainsle, Brohammer, Scott, Quinn, Mitchell, Quirin etc etc, in presenting examples of angles that worked to prove a point are ALL redboarders. What an enormously STUPID concep.

In the second situation, you are choosing the individual.

[classhandicapper]

I studied breeding till the proverb cows came home, was a member of the Thoroughbred Owner's and Breeders Association, studied nicking, out crosses, AEI, comparable indices, turf sires, slop sires, etc etc. and found it irrelevant in relation to the way evaluate a race. ME not one else.

The real epiphany, the difference between my being merely a competent handicapper to becoming a career handicapper was making it SIMPLE, leaving out extraneous factors that complicated the head to head individual competition that is a horse race and NOT the theoretical potentials of things that may or may not happen. I get repeated disparaging comments about the origin of that epiphany, the book BLINK, but I could give a poop.

It boils down to what makes the parimutuel game the attraction it is: "Two roads diverged in the woods and I, I took the one less traveled and it has made all the difference."

I can agree with comments like these because you are suggesting that YOU couldn't find relevance and profits there. But you typically make it sound like those that do find relevance and profits are simply wrong because you couldn't do it. That's obviously not the case if they can present the statistics and/or profits to back up their views and techniques. That's why you sometimes attract disparaging comments.

I can't find profits using breeding yet either, but I have seen the statistically significant stats and know people that have made money that way. So rather than tell everyone else they are wrong, I ask for their help.

[46zilzal]

Differing opinions, even based on long study usually meet with resistance because other don't want to t give up on the dogma. Fine by me. et them believe it.

[jonnielu]

I can't find profits using breeding yet either, but I have seen the statistically significant stats and know people that have made money that way. So rather than tell everyone else they are wrong, I ask for their help.

So, how many years do you want to chase it? Have you ever considered that those making money, don't want to cut you in, it is your money that they are making after all.

If breeding is the answer, it seems that handicappers would get turf. A check of the average payoffs for 20 races at any track would suggest that maybe handicappers, in general, don't get turf.

If it is in the breeding, what specifically could it be? What makes the better grass runner, a better grass runner? Chase that instead of breeding, and you could come up with something that will have you getting turf.

Once you "get" turf, you can take your turn telling everybody about breeding.

jdl

[GARY Z]

at the risk of sounding like a politician:

Breeding equals zero if the horse you are betting is not ready for a
race based on conditions or the competition this horse is facing, who
could be superior based upon their ability to compete on today's surface
or distance.

Secondly, buying a horse based on conformation only helps if you are pinhooking, and you have a fashionably bred horse the buyers fancy
at the time of sale.


Firsters attracting $ in their maiden race with blazing and properly
spaced works do consider special attention based on their breeding,
but this info must be tempered by trainer stats with firsters,
post position, and how the track is playing to the perceived running
style of the well bread/meant firster.


As for 3 yo's and up, I do look at breeding in tandem with the above factors,
only with respect to the exotics if I feel the breeding is being overlooked
and the speed/pace #'s make the horse a contender.


for a chuckle, Blood Horse now contains an ad for the Green Monkey
as a breeding prospect. :)

Sent to all of you today from the SPA, where I'm gearing up
t'm'w for, hopefully, a clear "damp" track

[classhandicapper]

So, how many years do you want to chase it? Have you ever considered that those making money, don't want to cut you in, it is your money that they are making after all.

If breeding is the answer, it seems that handicappers would get turf. A check of the average payoffs for 20 races at any track would suggest that maybe handicappers, in general, don't get turf.

If it is in the breeding, what specifically could it be? What makes the better grass runner, a better grass runner? Chase that instead of breeding, and you could come up with something that will have you getting turf.

Once you "get" turf, you can take your turn telling everybody about breeding.

jdl


For me, it hasn't been a matter of trying and failing. It has been a matter of not trying. At various times in my development I put most of my energy into making/understanding speed and pace figures, developing classing techniques, undertanding bias/trips/race develpment, and looking for trainer patterns. I focused my energy there because those things are highly relevant a lot of the time.

Pedigree is typically only relevant with lightly raced horses that are trying something new (horses stretching out in distance, switching surfaces, first time starters etc.. ) It was too small an area for me to start with.

I am pretty sure that having some specialized insights into pedigree is an important part of achieving profits in those types of races. Since I don't have them, I simply turn the page and don't bet. I think competing against people that know more than I do is not a very good idea.

However, that doesn't mean I'm not looking to expand my horizons and gain some insights that could lead to a few more profitable betting opportunities. So I am wide open to breeding insights. Recently, I learned that some attributes are more likely to be passed on from the female side than the male side. That's a pretty interesting insight because most people focus on the sire - which in turn means they are probably underbetting or overbetting some horses.

[Robert Fischer]

If breeding is the answer, it seems that handicappers would get turf. A check of the average payoffs for 20 races at any track would suggest that maybe handicappers, in general, don't get turf.

I think you are blurring Pedigree Handicapping, and Turf Handicapping. They are two separate disciplines.
If you want to test this with science, you have to filter only the scenarios where breeding would have a major influence on a turf race.


fictional example

"OUT OF PLACE has a -$1.70/2 ROI overall as broodmare sire on turf

LAST 360DAYS: 1stonTurfers w/ OUT OF PLACE as broodmare sire 150 13-9-17 -$1.75 ROI

LAST 360DAYS: 1stonTurfers <5-1ODDS w/ OUT OF PLACE as broodmare sire 60 4-5-6 -$1.95 ROI"

[nobeyerspls]

Funny, then Davodiwitz, Cramer, Sartin, Dr. Z, Ainsle, Brohammer, Scott, Quinn, Mitchell, Quirin etc etc, in presenting examples of angles that worked to prove a point are ALL redboarders. What an enormously STUPID concep.

In the second situation, you are choosing the individual.

I wasn't serious about the redboard as I appreciate those who disclose reasons for selecting a winner that the public overlooked. Others on here are quite sensitive about it though. Also, I don't understand your charts and don't expect you to explain them.
Woodbine maidens have been a goldmine for me these last two years. Certain barn/trainer connections are overbet and the large fields provide value in the exotics. As I recall from some of your other posts, you do well at that track too.

[46zilzal]

A little tidbit to show how VARIABLE the outcome of a mating can be, from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 13th ed. p. 340-341:"The independent assortment of chromosomes into gamates during meiosis produces an ENORMOUS diversity among the possible genotypes of the progeny. For each 23 (human) pairs of chromosomes, there are 2 to the 23rd power DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS of chromosomes that COULD occur in a gamate, and the likelihood that ONE set of parents will produce two offspring with an identical complement (my comment OR EVEN CLOSE to identical) of chromosomes is 1 in 2 to the 23rd power or 1 in 8.4 million (ASSUMING NO MONOZYGOTIC TWINS)."

Predicting the phenotype (runner having one trait or another) by following the parents? GOOD LUCK

[cj]

Recently, I learned that some attributes are more likely to be passed on from the female side than the male side. That's a pretty interesting insight because most people focus on the sire - which in turn means they are probably underbetting or overbetting some horses.

I'd be curious to hear what those are. Biologically speaking, it seems that would be awfully hard to prove.

[46zilzal]

Mitochondrial DNA, limited to the cytoplasm of the female ovum does NOT code for any structural proteins. Geneology is Equal from male to female except in the case of sex linked (Y chromosome) problems like color blindness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

In archeological studies it has been used to follow the origins and movements of ethnic peoples since all from the same female line will have like mitochondrial DNA but it makes up such a small portion of the whole it is used as a key only.

[46zilzal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_genetics


better explanation of its functions.

[Robert Fischer]

these people buying $500,000 thoroughbreds are morons.


They could buy a THOUSAND healthy, well formed, no-name $500 thoroughbreds for the same investment.

Buy "just" 200 a year for 5 years. The first crops would already be breeding with their super racing resumes by the time the last crop was eating up training and stable fees.

They have exactly the same chances for success as the 500k ap indy colt, only 1000x the opportunities.

Brilliant.

[46zilzal]

these people buying $500,000 thoroughbreds are morons.


.
No they are rolling the dice and GUESSING like the rest of us who understand the randomness of breeding: Snaffi Dancer (10.2 million, a joke and sterile too), Imperial Falcon (8.25 million made 8K), Jareer (7.1 million, made $5,591), Seattle Dancer (13.1 million made $152,413), Laa Etab (7 million, UNRACED), Tasmanian Tiger ( 6.8 million, ONE win in Ireland $10, 655) Amjaad (6.5 million, unplaced), Alajwad (5.5 million, no wins $1,348), Obligato (5.4 million unplaced), King's Consul (5.3 million 424,600), Wassl Touch (5.1 million, $30,168), Parlando (4.6 million, unraced), Professor Blue (4.6 million $5,171), Moon's Whisper (4.4 million, unraced), Shah ehan (4.4 million $158,457), Empire Glory (NOT HOUSEHOLD NAMES ARE THEY????) purchased for 4.25 millon $35,420), Foxboro ( 4.25 million unplaced), Distinction (4.2 million $41,878) ETC. etc.

[Robert Fischer]

on a serious note,

horseplayers in general are extremely ignorant not only to breeding in general, but to the real results of breeding. breeding isn't an abstraction.

Most of us would have a hard time telling the difference between a stud and a runt.

What the hell does hoove size matter? I honestly don't know one way or the other. Some people claim that hoove size is a huge factor for surface preference especially on turf and off tracks.
We are so ignorant about hoove size. I couldn't tell you who has bigger proportioned hooves between Big Brown, Curlin, and Red Rocks. Maybe using google now, but not off the top of my head. I couldn't tell if it is even important if a First time turfer has huge hooves or smallish hooves.
That is embarassing for someone who thinks they know something about the game.

What about the horses basic way of going, does he have "high knee action"??

most horseplayers don't even notice these things or even look for them.

These type of things need to be studied in relation (if any) to bloodlines,sires,broodmare sires, even dams, as well as to aptitude and preference in general.

[46zilzal]

These type of things need to be studied in relation (if any) to bloodlines,sires,broodmare sires, even dams, as well as to aptitude and preference in general.
you did not read the quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine: you cannot predict these things as much as breeders would like to claim you can.

The individual, the one performing right in front of you, trumps the theoretical of breeding 98 times out of a hundred easily.

[Robert Fischer]

No they are rolling the dice and GUESSING like the rest of us who understand the randomness of breeding[/B]: Snaffi Dancer...


exactly, it is completely random. Pedigree means nothing, which is proven
again by your list of high priced failures.

The Five Hundred Dollar no-name horse will rule racing in 5 years.

[Robert Fischer]

you did not read the quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine: you cannot predict these things as much as breeders would like to claim you can.

The individual, the one performing right in front of you, trumps the theoretical of breeding 98 times out of a hundred easily.

i printed harrison on a roll of charmin.

i have my fathers eyes and my mothers ears. I share a genetic mutation with my mother. Your nose looks nothing like mine, but resembles your father's. Any physicallity expert, or even a trip handicapper or pace guy could pick us out between parents, and could probably get 7 out of 10 random familys correct.
We didn't need identical compliments of chromosomes to express traits of our parents. Baby's usually look like their parents, even without carbon-copy traits.

A horse doesn't need to be born with Danehill's exact hoove and buttocks! He just needs to have hooves and ass like him (or his mother or whoever is passing down the goods).

put down the google, and back away from the wikipedia!:lol:

[Jeff P]

Actually you CAN use breeding data to predict race outcomes.

Below is what I have in my Q3 2008 database for all horses making a start in a Maiden Claiming race at a distance of 1 mile or longer:
Class Descriptor: M

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 7908.10 7934.10 7800.60
Bet -10782.00 -10782.00 -10782.00
Gain -2873.90 -2847.90 -2981.40

Wins 637 1264 1873
Plays 5391 5391 5391
PCT .1182 .2345 .3474

ROI 0.7335 0.7359 0.7235
Avg Mut 12.41 6.28 4.16
Note the win rate and roi for the sample. Not particularly encouraging. But I should point out the sample size: just over 5,000 horses.

Here is what that same sample looks like when the horses are broken out by rank for BRIS's Distance Pedigree Rating:
By: PEDRating Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -215.20 1448.00 0.8514 122 724 .1685 1.4261
2 -358.70 1346.00 0.7335 106 673 .1575 1.3330
3 -189.40 1402.00 0.8649 87 701 .1241 1.0503

4 -446.40 1344.00 0.6679 74 672 .1101 0.9319
5 -520.50 1380.00 0.6228 74 690 .1072 0.9076
6 -320.90 1232.00 0.7395 63 616 .1023 0.8655
7 -531.00 1112.00 0.5225 45 556 .0809 0.6850
8 -37.30 726.00 0.9486 33 363 .0909 0.7694
9 -125.20 458.00 0.7266 20 229 .0873 0.7391
10 -78.30 234.00 0.6654 9 117 .0769 0.6510
11 -55.40 86.00 0.3558 3 43 .0698 0.5904
12 6.40 12.00 1.5333 1 6 .1667 1.4105
13 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
14 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19+ 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
Pedigree as a stand alone factor won't turn the aspiring player into a winner. As has been stated in this thread, other factors (early speed for one) are more important.

But to say Pedigree doesn't or can't make a difference to the aspiring player isn't exactly the truth.

Win rate and roi are clearly better when the horse has one of the top 3 Pedigree Ratings.


-jp

.

[46zilzal]

But to say Pedigree doesn't or can't make a difference to the aspiring player isn't exactly the truth.

.
Another factor that clouds the issue that it is the individual and not the theoretical that actually runs the race.

[Jeff P]

:bang: :bang: :bang:

-jp

.

[46zilzal]

one of the things that Sartin always used to hound people on: IF there is an old horsey idea that will allow a person to put in a modifier to the information about the horse THAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM, they will make the decision more complicated by a subjective modification to WHAT IS.

PRIME example of what he was talking about.

[Jeff P]

Look at the data. Then ask yourself the following question:

What would your own plays look like when broken out by a Pedigree Rating?

I'll make the argument that some segment of the plays made by almost every player in Maiden Claiming races are losing bets that could be avoided provided the player made the effort to consider pedigree in the decision making process.

I believe very strongly in the following statement:

No matter what handicapping methodology is employed, eliminating sets of losing plays from the set of overall plays happens to be a very good way of improving overall results.


-jp

.

[46zilzal]

funny stuff. Just when does it matter and when doesn't it?

THEORETICAL and not actual running data remains THEORETICAL

[Gallop58]

Does the same trending hold true for fast,wet and importantly to the original thread, Turf, BRIS Ped ratings?


I assume it would otherwise what's the use in the BRIS rating.... If it was just noise and didn't really trend at all wouldn't be worth much.

What is interesting is that most pedigree evaluations shy away from assigning a number as it makes evaluation easier and hence makes performance verifiable.
Thanks for the above snapshot of data. Interesting.

[46zilzal]

Often, very often, breaking something down into disjointed parts,DOES NOT enliven understanding of the whole the race right in front of you.

A horse's record in isolation does not tell you how a horse will fit in today's match up on any level.

[Jeff P]

funny stuff. Just when does it matter and when doesn't it?When the data itself shows statistical relevance... it matters. And to me the data is the ONLY thing that matters.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Does the same trending hold true for fast,wet and importantly to the original thread, Turf, BRIS Ped ratings?


I assume it would otherwise what's the use in the BRIS rating.... If it was just noise and didn't really trend at all wouldn't be worth much.

What is interesting is that most pedigree evaluations shy away from assigning a number as it makes evaluation easier and hence makes performance verifiable.
Thanks for the above snapshot of data. Interesting.

I've found the turf and wet pedigree ratings from Bris to be a little weaker roi-wise than their distance pedigree rating. But each holds similar statistical relevance when win rate is evaluated. And situations certainly exist where each can be used to improve overall results.

-jp

.

[Jeff P]

THEORETICAL and not actual running data remains THEORETICAL The data sample I posted... 5000 starters in Maiden Claiming Routes so far this quarter... it shows one very clear trend: Higher win rate and roi belong to the horses with the highest pedigree ratings.

Tim, if what you say were true - if there were no correlation whatsoever between pedigree rating and win rate (and roi) it would have to show up in the data wouldn't it?

How can you call hard data theoretical?

If you said YOU won't use pedigree or prefer not to consider it. Fine. If you said you were happy with your own results without using pedigree - again, fine. I could live with that.

And I'd be the first one to wish you success with what it is you use.

But to call pedigree theoretical makes absolutely no sense. Tim, I didn't make the stats up. It's hard data. And it very solidly says the concept of pedigree is anything but theoretical when it comes to predicting race outcomes.


-jp

.

[cmoore]

No they are rolling the dice and GUESSING like the rest of us who understand the randomness of breeding[/B]: Snaffi Dancer (10.2 million, a joke and sterile too), Imperial Falcon (8.25 million made 8K), Jareer (7.1 million, made $5,591), Seattle Dancer (13.1 million made $152,413), Laa Etab (7 million, UNRACED), Tasmanian Tiger ( 6.8 million, ONE win in Ireland $10, 655) Amjaad (6.5 million, unplaced), Alajwad (5.5 million, no wins $1,348), Obligato (5.4 million unplaced), King's Consul (5.3 million 424,600), Wassl Touch (5.1 million, $30,168), Parlando (4.6 million, unraced), Professor Blue (4.6 million $5,171), Moon's Whisper (4.4 million, unraced), Shah ehan (4.4 million $158,457), Empire Glory (NOT HOUSEHOLD NAMES ARE THEY????) purchased for 4.25 millon $35,420), Foxboro ( 4.25 million unplaced), Distinction (4.2 million $41,878) ETC. etc.


I don't think you understand. The amount a horse cost has little bearing whether I bet it or not. The public does overbet the more expensive ones. Breeding matters in lightly raced horses. No doubt about it. Your old school and need to accept the fact that your research you did is outdated. Times have changed and whether you want to do the homework is up to you. I'll bet 1st time starters out of Dance Master all day long. Total Dirt wins in the last 3 years is 65 and 57 of them have won at 6 furongs or less. That's an 88% clip. There are a few that have a higher percentage but less times out. The most overlayed 1st time starter I've seen. It's all about looking for value. If the breeding statistics lead me into horses that offer good value, then they are the play. I have a question for you. What sire has produced the most turf sprint winners at 7.5 furlongs or less over the past 3 years?

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=cmoore]I don't think you understand. The amount a horse cost has little bearing whether I bet it or not. The public does overbet the more expensive ones. Breeding matters in lightly raced horses./QUOTE]
These were Northern Dancers, Slews, Nijinsky's, Storm Cat's etc. those that are THEORETICALLY at the top of the guessing game that is breediing.

[cmoore]

[QUOTE=cmoore]I don't think you understand. The amount a horse cost has little bearing whether I bet it or not. The public does overbet the more expensive ones. Breeding matters in lightly raced horses./QUOTE]
These were Northern Dancers, Slews, Nijinsky's, Storm Cat's etc. those that are THEORETICALLY at the top of the guessing game that is breediing.

Here are some of the worst 2 year old 1st time starter sires. How much these sires cost or thier runners doesn't matter to me..It's the stats that matter..This is over the last 3 years.

Devil His Due...1 for 25 = 4%

High Brite........1 for 15= 6.7%

Marquetry.......0 for 15 = ZERO%

Scatmandu......0 for 15= Zero%

Storm Creek...1 for 17 = 5.9%

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

Here are some of the worst 2 year old 1st time starter sires. How much these sires cost or thier runners doesn't matter to me..It's the stats that matter..This is over the last 3 years.

Devil His Due...1 for 25 = 4%

High Brite........1 for 15= 6.7%

Marquetry.......0 for 15 = ZERO%

Scatmandu......0 for 15= Zero%

Storm Creek...1 for 17 = 5.9%
There are a myriad of factors that could over-ride these stats in isolation

[cmoore]

[QUOTE=cmoore]
There are a myriad of factors that could over-ride these stats in isolation

3 for 87 between the 5 of them..So your saying..Each race broken down by itself could over ride those stats in whole..Your a funny dude..Anyone ever tell you that..

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

3 for 87 between the 5 of them..So your saying..Each race broken down by itself could over ride those stats in whole..Your a funny dude..Anyone ever tell you that..
you can only be between TWO things, ....you are AMONG more than two.

I know from years of study where I stand.

[cmoore]

[QUOTE=cmoore]
you can only be between TWO things, ....you are AMONG more than two.

I know from years of study where I stand.

That's the problem..Your studying the wrong data..

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

That's the problem..Your studying the wrong data..
Blood Horse
Owner-Breeder
Thoroughbred Digest


AMONG these sources, I don't think so

[Robert Fischer]

correct me if i am wrong

I am thinking that Cmoore's camp doesn't care why the FTS with those pedigrees lose in individual situations , as long as they continue to lose.

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=cmoore]
Blood Horse
Owner-Breeder
Thoroughbred Digest


AMONG these sources, I don't think so
typo Thoroughbred Record

[Robert Fischer]

If I see stats that say one thing, I want to relate that to something physical with the individual horse. Is it something simple like precocious sales speed? Do they have larger hooves or smaller hooves? Are they big beasts or small quick horses? IF we know what traits are correlated to the performance enhancement, then we can deal with each individual. "hypothetical = Theatricals love the turf , because of their giant hooves, but this FTS has tiny hooves. He isn't showing the trait..."

I guess that kind of bridges what 46 is saying(about individuals) with someone playing strictly ratings.

Everybody puts their money in the pot, and I have to make low-estimates on this animals chance to win as well as his final odds. I want to see the horse, I want to know his barn, I want to have a mastery of every bit of available information about every horse in the race.

[cmoore]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

Here are some of the worst 2 year old 1st time starter sires. How much these sires cost or thier runners doesn't matter to me..It's the stats that matter..This is over the last 3 years.

Devil His Due...1 for 25 = 4%

High Brite........1 for 15= 6.7%

Marquetry.......0 for 15 = ZERO%

Scatmandu......0 for 15= Zero%

Storm Creek...1 for 17 = 5.9%

Let's look a bit deeper..Out of those 5 sires in the last 3 years.

High Brite has won 6 of 39 as a first time starter as a 3 year old..15.4%..More then 2x better then as a 2 year old.

Scatmandu and High Brite are both pretty good at producing sprint winners..Scatmandu 50 of 80 wins have come at 6F or less..High brite 104 of 154 have come at 6F or less.

So if I saw these sires in 2 year old races. Passing would be wise. Now High Brite as a 3 year old, could be considered much more.

[Jeff P]

One more data sample. After that I'm done with this thread. :bang: :bang:

I just ran the following query against my calendar year 2007 database:

Maiden Claiming Races only, all distances, first time starters only - broken out by Pedigree Rating Rank.

First, here are the results for all FTS in the sample:
Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Filters Applied: LT1+

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*) (
From Index File: C:\2007\pl_Complete_History.txt
Class Descriptor: M

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 10449.90 10058.60 9423.90
Bet -14350.00 -14350.00 -14350.00
Gain -3900.10 -4291.40 -4926.10

Wins 557 1144 1741
Plays 7175 7175 7175
PCT .0776 .1594 .2426

ROI 0.7282 0.7009 0.6567
Avg Mut 18.76 8.79 5.41
Not very encouraging. The player would lose almost 28 cents for every dollar wagered by limiting play to FTS in Maiden Claiming Races and betting a flat $2.00 to win on every one of them.

Next, here are the same horses broken out by rank for the Bris Distance Pedigree Rating:
By: PEDRating Rank

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -278.90 1726.00 0.8384 104 863 .1205 1.5523
2 -167.20 1568.00 0.8934 75 784 .0957 1.2323
3 -246.80 1750.00 0.8590 86 875 .0983 1.2661

4 -605.40 1712.00 0.6464 58 856 .0678 0.8728
5 -202.90 1716.00 0.8818 74 858 .0862 1.1110
6 -502.00 1640.00 0.6939 50 820 .0610 0.7855
7 -649.70 1532.00 0.5759 43 766 .0561 0.7231
8 -500.80 1040.00 0.5185 31 520 .0596 0.7679
9 -327.60 784.00 0.5821 20 392 .0510 0.6572
10 -243.60 486.00 0.4988 10 243 .0412 0.5301
11 -193.40 262.00 0.2618 2 131 .0153 0.1967
12 14.40 98.00 1.1469 3 49 .0612 0.7887
13 -24.00 24.00 0.0000 0 12 .0000 0.0000
14 27.80 12.00 3.3167 1 6 .1667 2.1469
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19+ 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
Could there actually BE a little statistical validity going on here? Or is this data just the result of random noise?

IMHO, the player weighing whether or not to use a FTS on a ticket has the ability to substantially increase the chances of cashing by considering pedigree as opposed to ignoring it.


-jp

.

[Tom]

Funny, then Davodiwitz, Cramer, Sartin, Dr. Z, Ainsle, Brohammer, Scott, Quinn, Mitchell, Quirin etc etc, in presenting examples of angles that worked to prove a point are ALL redboarders. What an enormously STUPID concep.

In the second situation, you are choosing the individual.


YOU of all people accuse someone of being a RED BOARDER?????

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Tom]

I was astounded at how many from the great sire Mr. Prospector never even got to the races, let alone performed well and for YEARS he was leading sire.



I suspect those that never made it to the races comprise one of those losing subsets Jeff tried to tell you about. My records clearly show that horses who do not race seldom win, let alone pay off. Maybe your problem is that you have been betting on horses that are not running. That might explain your inability to understand pedigree as a handicapping factor.

[classhandicapper]

I'd be curious to hear what those are. Biologically speaking, it seems that would be awfully hard to prove.

There was a discussion (actually debate) about it on the TG board. Obviously, I'm not a geneticist. So I can't be sure who was right. I'm not even sure I just spelled "geneticist" right. :lol: The people discussing it seemed very informed though.

It seems the idea is that certain attributes are more likely to be inherited from the female side. I believe the discussion took place just prior to Belmont stakes.
It was mostly about stamina and Big Brown. A couple of people totally dismissed the notion that he might not be well suited to 12F because of the female side. But it wasn't like they were looking at both sides and weighing them. The idea was that the female side was dominant in determining stamina and he looked great from that perspective.

[classhandicapper]

funny stuff. Just when does it matter and when doesn't it?

THEORETICAL and not actual running data remains THEORETICAL

You have some kind of very serious mental block. I don't mean that to be insulting. I'm pointing it out again because it almost has to be costing money you at the windows.

The answer is it doesn't matter if you know when it will matter. You just have to know that it will matter a statistically significant percentage of the time!

That's the whole point!!!.

Given 100 potential plays that are absolutely identical in every way except for the fact that 50 are very well bred for turf and 50 are very poorly bred for the turf, the well bred ones are going to win in their turf debut more often than the others even though some of the well bred ones will turn out to be terrible on turf and some of the poorly bred ones will turn out to be very good.

This is so basic it shouldn't even have to be discussed except with a total novice in his first week of handicapping.

Now in the real world, you have to weigh pedigree information vs. ability demonstrated so far on dirt vs. the trainer's success with first time turfers vs. many other factors vs. the odds. That's a very difficult task. That's what makes profitability so difficult.

HOwever, the factor is meaningful. If you are not weighing it at all you are probably making some poor plays on or against horses making their debut on turf. The solution to that problem for many people (including myself) is to skip most races with a lot of first time turf horses because I know I can't evaluate the races and odds as well as some of my gambling competition. (I make some exceptions with especially skilled trainers)

[classhandicapper]

If I see stats that say one thing, I want to relate that to something physical with the individual horse. Is it something simple like precocious sales speed? Do they have larger hooves or smaller hooves? Are they big beasts or small quick horses? IF we know what traits are correlated to the performance enhancement, then we can deal with each individual. "hypothetical = Theatricals love the turf , because of their giant hooves, but this FTS has tiny hooves. He isn't showing the trait..."

I guess that kind of bridges what 46 is saying(about individuals) with someone playing strictly ratings.

Everybody puts their money in the pot, and I have to make low-estimates on this animals chance to win as well as his final odds. I want to see the horse, I want to know his barn, I want to have a mastery of every bit of available information about every horse in the race.

Now this actually makes some sense.

If you dig deeper into generalized stats and understand them even better (like hoof size or other conformation issues for example), you are likely to get an even bigger edge from that increased understanding. However, that doesn't negate the usefulness of generalized stats the way 46 is suggesting. Sometimes, very detailed info is not available.

[classhandicapper]

I'd be curious to hear what those are. Biologically speaking, it seems that would be awfully hard to prove.

CJ,

This is a link to the beginning of the discussion I was talking about. It starts with my admission (FKACH) that I am basically clueless about pedigree, but cites my concerns about Big Brown being as effective at 12F at he was at 10 furlongs based on a couple of other things.

The response came from a guy called ALM who talks about stamina coming from the dam side. He was attacked by one person, but supported by others and some data. Read through the thread.

IMO, he seemed to be really on top of the latest data and genome issues regarding horses, but like I said, I am clueless. I am currently casually looking at things like this to see if I notice anything.

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,44546,44575#msg-44575

[sammy the sage]

46's rambling's aside...back to original topic...

Drf's superior to Bris on turf rating's....HOW-EVER...

if you get the Bris edition that also post's Dam/Sire offspring win%...well that's superior...PROVIDED

you pay attenttion...for example...in 4th at Delmar on the 13th of Aug....horse name the Greatest.

Has highest Bris turf fig. in breeding...YET...D/S offspring win % in single digits...RATHER LOW...a TOTAL CONTRADICTION.

Drf has Warren Jack V...highest turf background...yet also a low D/S offspring win% combined...WEIRD

By the way...not betting this race...just using it to gain insight into breeding rating's.

I really did not mean for this thread to turn the way it did...just trying to KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID :kiss:

I could CARE LESS if one thinks breeding is a waste of time...IF YOU THINK SO...then don't post in this thread...

We'll all feed you...right! :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

But to call pedigree theoretical makes absolutely no sense. Tim, I didn't make the stats up. It's hard data. And it very solidly says the concept of pedigree is anything but theoretical when it comes to predicting race outcomes.In the "no surprise at all" play of the day, 46 completely ignores this Jeff P reply.

[nobeyerspls]

I told my trainer that my filly might turf because of her hoof size and he had a good response. He cited that rare instance when a horse can win in the slop and on the grass. He asked if they changed from small, pointy hooves that are good in the slop to the big, saucer type that help on grass. I had no answer.

As a younger man who thought that research could empower me in any field, I attended my first yearling sale at Keeneland with confidence. It's a lot of work with your day beginning at sun-up and long, uphill walks through the barn area. One afternoon I joined an oldtimer under the shade of tree near one of the more remote barns. He wound some advice around his Kentucky hospitality that I will never forget. Seeing the sales book I was carrying he told me that it would tell me all I need to know about a horse's lineage and inspection of the horse would reveal conformation strengths and weaknesses. Then he said that those two pieces of information were a distant second and third to the most important, the six inches between the horse's ears, the contents of which would not be revealed until the horse raced.

I was privileged to watch Northern Dancer race as a two year old. He was the type who would not bring a price at a sale, too small and his sire was a limited sprinter. A huge heart (and the right stuff in those six inches) got him the Derby and the Preakness. Some say that lousy strategy cost him the Triple Crown. He then had to prove himself a second time as a sire. Remember that he started in Maryland and moved up to Kentucky only after he produced some nice offspring. For those he think that breeding is random, given a free season at that time to breed to him or a $1k stallion, who would you choose?

Breeding is a fascinating topic. In the end though, it's ruled by a fairly efficient market. A few low-priced horses make the TC trail and even more high-priced ones are awol. In my opinion, the middle-market is the most efficient. I would rather have three tries with $80k yearlings than one shot with one at $240k.

[46zilzal]

In the "no surprise at all" play of the day, 46 completely ignores this Jeff P reply.
irrelevant not ignores it

[Tom]

Ignores what, capitals and punctuation????:lol:

[46zilzal]

unless a specific gene leaves out a protein or enzyme in a specific biochemical process leading to an established genetic disorder, i.e. Thalassemia for example, the complex, and highly interactive genotypic make up of MULTIPLE factors that COULD produce a specific phenotypic result are NOT KNOWN. There could be, and probably are, multiple genotypes that produce phenotypes that bode well for running in turf for example. Then again that genotype could be transmitted to an offspring along with an operator gene that did not allow it to be transcribed so as to make that expression inert. The degree to which a phenotype can express turf potential can be the result of two negative aspects that counteract one another (my friend trained a swayback who was a great sprinter because he also had very short legs: TWO negative traits, when found together, making a positive). During reproduction in meiosis there can be structural abnormalities, deletions, repetitions, fragile site whch are known to be sources of copy error (Fragile X syndrome), chromatin inactivation of loci, trisomy, unilateral disomy, etc. etc.

Rasmussen and Roman used to write in Owner Breeder all the time that the vast majority of nicking patterns, the holy grail of the breeding industry, were based on too small a sampling. There is not enough understanding that the majority of traits expressed by the genes of a mating DO NOT transmit in straight Mendelian fashion. Then there is the added aspect of introns varying the length of the parts of coding sections, and their variation again, move the genes to differing physical positions along a gene making them MORE susceptible to cross over (restriction fragment length polymorphisms or variable number of tandem repeats). Yet another layer of variation and complexity coming from the SAME parents.
.
For the sake of discussion, let's say that ONE factor amongst many for a good turf offspring is a broad shaped foot (THAT ALONE is not enough) and to get that hoof, the offspring has to receive genes 12,47, 91, 134. These are linked in order to be expressed in the make up of the coffin bone, the quality of protein in the hoof wall, etc. BOTH parents have all of these genes as both did well on turf. The chances that the ova and sperm of this mating will give to that offspring the full complement of these four genes is highly variable due to cross over, gene deletion, etc. during meiosis and that is ONLY ONE FACTOR in making a turfer. Since their phenotypic expression would require the full complement for expression, receiving only three, the offspring would not have that trait.

So to tell us that with all these variations in gamates from the SAME parents are going to give us an accurate appraisal of the complex relationship to produce a specific phenotype is, well, very suspect at best.

[Tom]

Talk about totally IRRELEVANT.

Not one thing you have posted has anything at all to do with pedigree ratings and their predictive value in racing. You have your head in your genes. you can post all the speculation and what ifs you want to, but none of it has the weight of Jeff's statistiaclly valid data. Bluster is subordinate to data.

You past-post all the time about how great ealry speed is ( in races that suit your needs) and then poo poo statistical correlation on a topic you do not understand. Do you have an explanation for what it is about Fort Erie's track that carries early speed? Or do you relay on how your ealry ratings PREDICT the winners there?

:4::6:......you are a MUSTERBATOR!

[46zilzal]

Ah the ignorant don't even know who they are.

[Tom]

Statistically speaking, that would be you.
I have a similar study to Jeff's, with a different pedigree rating that once again shows it to be predictive in identifying winners.

I now leave you alone in your ignorance and denial to use your limited handicapping skills, as Doc Sartin once said, like a one-ball juggler.

[46zilzal]

no wonder the old statement stays around IGNORANCE is bliss,,,,,,

Genetics is far far from even being close to an exact science but hey guys with databases know more than the leading genetics scientists and Blood stock writers: Rasmussen et al

[Tom]

pssst.....we have the money. :lol::lol::lol:

[Robert Fischer]

basically 46 ,

You have to prove that a full complement is needed.

If an offspring only needs a similar complement and not a full complement to carry similar traits of their parents...

or in other words, if whatever happens to pass on similar positive or negative traits as their parents is relatively common - then your theory is scientifically proven wrong.

You have the burden of proof, because your theory is not in line with skilled observation, or data. A scientific paper on what may or may not matter with passing down turf aptitude is not enough.

your opinion that the individual trumps the theoretical is correct. - Provided you have the talent to understand the concepts involved and assess the individual as to whether or not he is above or below the theoretical mean.

However, the limited, repetitive psuedo-science side argument just doesn't stand on it's own strength.

[46zilzal]

If direct quotes from one the leading medical texts in the world aren't enough to prove randomness in the passage of genetic traits to offspring, than you are beyond hope, WHICH, with this unenlightened crowd, hardly surprises me in the least

[Robert Fischer]

If direct quotes from one the leading medical texts in the world aren't enough to prove randomness in the passage of genetic traits to offspring, than you are beyond hope, WHICH, with this unenlightened crowd, hardly surprises me in the least

no, you must prove that the medical texts show that they are addressing the correct and exact type of thing that relates to passing positive or negative chances for success in horses. I have big ears like my father(ladies love big EARS). All my brothers have big ears. My grandfather has big ears. My neighbor wears thick glasses. His son and daughter wears thick glasses.
ARe we 1 out of 8MILLION oddities who randomly aquired these positive and negative traits?? Or could you be reading about something a little more exact than necessary. Maybe we didn't need rare EXACT complements (as what you seem to be quoting in your science papers), but some dominant/recessive trait or something, or maybe similar but not exact complements will pass down a similar Trait that is enough to be a positive or negative performance enhancement.
When introducing a scientific fact as part of your proof there should be some supporting and explanatory explanation. Excuse me if i haven't studied genetics since the last time I cloned a stegasaurus.

[46zilzal]

Try NEVER having studied it because you certainly have no idea what you are trying to discuss here. GO BACK TO SCHOOL, read, absorb, then come back in a few years so you can at least debate intelligently.

[Robert Fischer]

Try NEVER having studied it because you certainly have no idea what you are trying to discuss here. GO BACK TO SCHOOL, read, absorb, then come back in a few years so you can at least debate intelligently.

That is a really cowardly response.

Why do my brothers and I have huge dumbo ears just like pops and granpa??

Why do my neighbor's kids have 'his' poor eyesight?

did we hit the genetic lotto??

You have the burden of proof 46. It is your claim that is unconventional and disagrees with skilled observation, and data.

[Robert Fischer]

Intercontinental

Banks Hill

Dansili

Cacique

Champs Elysees

:D

[46zilzal]

Begin your new education in looking up and digesting the concept of polymorphism...I am not here to be your teacher,,you will have to educate yourself.

Once that is under your belt try to understand the concept of epigenetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Do another search to appreciate meiosis and cross over.

Read and comprehend partial penetrance of genes,
http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap02/sex_link.html
quoting:Partial Penetrance and Variable Expressivity

In real pedigrees of real people, inheritance of any trait (dominant or recessive) is often confounded by partial penetrance or by variable expressivity of a trait.

* Penetrance is the percentage of individuals with a genotype who actually show the trait. If only 80% of people with the genotype actually develop the trait, then you could pass on a trait without showing it -- even if the trait is "dominant"!
* Expressivity is the degree of the trait. For example a genetic defect causing mental retardation (such as Fragile X) can result in individuals with a very wide range of intellect; and you cannot predict the degree of expression.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O8-completepenetrance.html

IF you do your home work, you find that randomness is a compounding factor in genetics...OUT OF OUR CONTROL even with the best of planning

[cmoore]

I didn't know we had the Einstein on breeding at PA .Too bad he can't transfer all that knowledge into a postive roi at the window.

[Tom]

It's Eintstein in this case! :lol:


Get ready fo some quotes from leading bankers!:bang:

[46zilzal]

I didn't know we had the Einstein on breeding at PA .Too bad he can't transfer all that knowledge into a postive roi at the window.
He does it daily by looking at the individuals in front of him, just like the 14 in th off the turf 6th at Saratoga.

[cmoore]

He does it daily by looking at the individuals in front of him, just like the 14 in th off the turf 6th at Saratoga.

post that before the race...thats twice know u have posted winners after the race has ran..

[46zilzal]

post that before the race...thats twice know u have posted winners after the race has ran..
funny thing about calculated data: IT never changes whether it is an hour old or an hour before (which wouldn't have worked here with all the late scratches)

TWICE? much more than that...to make a handicapping point I show an example just like all the examples in the books by Ainsle, Quirin, Quinn, Beyer, Davidowitz, Brohammer, Cramer, Mithchell, Sartin, Scott etc. etc.

[cmoore]

funny thing about calculated data: IT never changes whether it is an hour old or an hour before (which wouldn't have worked here with all the late scratches)

TWICE? much more than that...to make a handicapping point I show an example just like all the examples in the books by Ainsle, Quirin, Quinn, Beyer, Davidowitz, Brohammer, Cramer, Mithchell, Sartin, Scott etc. etc.

That race was off the turf hours ago..Quit making excuses..

[Robert Fischer]

i looked at the links and they are just very basic general websites on things like penetrance and epigenetics.

I think that maybe you don't have an answer to my questions.

[46zilzal]

That race was off the turf hours ago..Quit making excuses..
the late scratches weren't...but again the data through the program doesn;t change

[46zilzal]

i looked at the links and they are just very basic general websites on things like penetrance and epigenetics.

I think that maybe you don't have an answer to my questions.
as I thought, you didn't learn a thing about polymorphism, meiosis and cross over

[cmoore]

the late scratches weren't...but again the data through the program doesn;t change

whatever 46..any day u want to go heads up..just holler..

[cmoore]

whatever 46..any day u want to go heads up..just holler..

I can just feel an excuse coming..Here it comes..

[46zilzal]

whatever 46..any day u want to go heads up..just holler..
Wow big surprise, testosterone from every pore,,I bet against the crowd same as anyone else...I proved competence to myself long ago and the crowd is my only adversary.

[Robert Fischer]

Why don't you guys do Thursday's card at the Spa ?

[cmoore]

Wow big surprise, testosterone from every pore,,I bet against the crowd same as anyone else...I proved competence to myself long ago and the crowd is my only adversary.

you afraid of a little fun..Put your picks where your mouth has been running for the last few months. You know so much about breeding. Let's just see how knowledgeable you are. It's not that tough.The picks you usually make can just be posted. I think u can handle that. Let's make it a week long contest starting tomorrow. you get 5 wp picks per day. No max..I'll start the thread..all u have to do is say ok..

[46zilzal]

the program, written by the late Guy Wadsworth, is smarter than any I have every used.

9th race - Suffolk Downs - August 13, 2008
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
11 Spooky Forest 24.00 9.20 7.40
5 Golden Elegance 4.20 3.20
4 Looney Boone 13.00

[Robert Fischer]

lol!

[cmoore]

the program, written by the late Guy Wadsworth, is smarter than any I have every used.

9th race - Suffolk Downs - August 13, 2008
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
11 Spooky Forest 24.00 9.20 7.40
5 Golden Elegance 4.20 3.20
4 Looney Boone 13.00

now u jumped to suffolk..another winner after the fact..you scan all the tracks and look for winner to post..your killin me..

[46zilzal]

close one..winner appears outside and not the favorite

[46zilzal]

close one..winner appears outside and not the favorite

9th race - Saratoga - August 13, 2008
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
8 Mani Bhavan 19.40 9.40 5.60
3 Doremifasollatido 8.00 6.10
7 Pretty Prolific 7.10

$2 Daily Double 6-8 35.20

Data doesn't change before or after the race.

[cj]

How is someone supposed to surmise you had the 8 based on that graph?

COMPLETED: 02863835019340 SAR (http://www.twinspires.com/cgi-bin//results_tracks.cgi?affid=2800&track=SAR&race=9&type=1) #9 (http://www.twinspires.com/cgi-bin//results_tracks.cgi?affid=2800&track=SAR&race=9&type=1) $60 Win 8 Min Odds 5/1 @ 0 MTP $ 60.00 $ 582.00 + $ 522.00

[46zilzal]

How is someone supposed to surmise you had the 8 based on that graph?

COMPLETED: 02863835019340 SAR (http://www.twinspires.com/cgi-bin//results_tracks.cgi?affid=2800&track=SAR&race=9&type=1) #9 (http://www.twinspires.com/cgi-bin//results_tracks.cgi?affid=2800&track=SAR&race=9&type=1) $60 Win 8 Min Odds 5/1 @ 0 MTP $ 60.00 $ 582.00 + $ 522.00
says right above, for all to read, match up showing computed beaten lengths. When you project to be near the lead and then that RED number one appears, my goodness it is clear to eveyone else I have ever shown it to.

THAT and I said the winner was OUTSIDE: that is usually the higher numbered posts.

Whenever babies project in the top two going short, they are usually near the winners circle.

[cj]

Why couldn't you just say that? In this case, words are worth a thousand pictures.

Amazing I was able to come up with that horse without that 1973 graph.

[46zilzal]

Why couldn't you just say that? In this case, words are worth a thousand pictures.

Amazing I was able to come up with that horse without that 1973 graph.
That program did not exist before 2002 and there is no one way to find a pace horse.

[46zilzal]

Why couldn't you just say that? In this case, words are worth a thousand pictures.

Amazing I was able to come up with that horse without that 1973 graph.
There are many other types of wagering than WIN only you know as well. The program usually gives me "splitzactas' (first and third) all the time and I fill in the missing pieces

[Tom]

Highly predictable: 46 is backed into corner, proved once again to be a TOTAL FOOL and proven wrong by hard data, to which he can only do one thing......CHANGE THE TOPIC AND THROW POOP LIKE A ZOO MONKEY.

Jeff shows a large amount of data to illustrate how breeding stats DO work, and 46 poo poos it and minimalizes it with "you database guys..." and then offers 3 stupid, unrelated examples of races to prove his point - a database of 3 UNRELATED races to disprove a database of thousands of races (ys 46, you used a database.....and btw, where do you think your precious Doctor references get thier conclusions? From Chicken Pot Pies????? NO, from DATABASES!!!!!). :lol::lol::lol:

46....you are pathetic, you MUSTERBATOR.

[46zilzal]

Spoken like the brain dead fool you continue to prove yourself to be.

[nobeyerspls]

I should know your position on breeding but I don't. Do you hold that it is completely random? Are you saying that the market for sires is a scam? I know that you can show that high-end breeding can produce non-performers but what about the totality of a given sire or broodmare sire's progeny.
Do you ignore breeding for first timers on the turf?
Your knowledge of genetics seems impressive but then again you could use made up terms and still impress me as I am ignorant on the topic. When a majority of a given sire's offspring perform well at a certain distance or on a certain surface, it seems reasonable to take that in to account even if we know that the "individual before us" might be in the minority.

[46zilzal]

I should know your position on breeding but I don't. Do you hold that it is completely random? Are you saying that the market for sires is a scam? I know that you can show that high-end breeding can produce non-performers but what about the totality of a given sire or broodmare sire's progeny.
Do you ignore breeding for first timers on the turf?
Your knowledge of genetics seems impressive but then again you could use made up terms and still impress me as I am ignorant on the topic. When a majority of a given sire's offspring perform well at a certain distance or on a certain surface, it seems reasonable to take that in to account even if we know that the "individual before us" might be in the minority.
No but it is not a sure as many make it out to be knowing what I know and have written here about.
Giogle any of the terms I have used here. ONLY IF THE PROCESSES NAME CHANGED, which happens often in science would they not be there.

[Tom]

Read Jeff P's post in this thread - he knows what he is talking about and can back it up. This guy has no clue as to how to use breeding info in race handicapping. He hasn't even got a clue as how strong a factor we regard it, as evidenced by his reply to you. Total ignorance on this topic is all 46 has to offer. And his usually crudeness and hostility.

Here's a tip - if you ever see him climb a water tower, or go into a mall with a long package, hit the road. :lol:

[46zilzal]

I forgot more about breeding than most here would ever even begin to digest (the old Agha Khan and is frst "dosage" theory, Tessio, Bull Hancock, Leslie Combs, Joe Taylor and Winfields, etc,) then coupled that with medical genetics to come to the conclusion that at BEST,it is an educated GUESS. STRESS guess, To which I included documented data.

Parimutuels by the way, have nothing to do with alleles.

[sammy the sage]

C'mon 46...get yore story straight...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49732

:eek: :p :lol:

[nobeyerspls]

I forgot more about breeding than most here would ever even begin to digest (the old Agha Khan and is frst "dosage" theory, Tessio, Bull Hancock, Leslie Combs, Joe Taylor and Winfields, etc,) then coupled that with medical genetics to come to the conclusion that at BEST,it is an educated GUESS. STRESS guess, To which I included documented data.

Parimutuels by the way, have nothing to do with alleles.

Let's do a real-time handicapping event involving two year old maidens on the turf. Woodbine's 2nd and 6th today are MSW contests with many first timers. A full sister to Shakespeare is the consensus best bet in the 2nd so you should like taking a stand against that one. You, the database guys, and others can join me in the selections section and the guy who started this thread can use the two programs he mentioned in order to compare them.
Look for the Two Year Olds On Turf thread which I will post right after this.

[sammy the sage]

since liable to washed off or crappy...let's try again in week when that whole area dries out...

whole N.E> a total mess right now weather wise...and will be for several more days...so not wasting time there...till it dries out...

then I can LOSE...fair & square... :bang: :lol:

[cmoore]

Let's do a real-time handicapping event involving two year old maidens on the turf. Woodbine's 2nd and 6th today are MSW contests with many first timers. A full sister to Shakespeare is the consensus best bet in the 2nd so you should like taking a stand against that one. You, the database guys, and others can join me in the selections section and the guy who started this thread can use the two programs he mentioned in order to compare them.
Look for the Two Year Olds On Turf thread which I will post right after this.

I don't see your turf thread. You still gonna post it..

[nobeyerspls]

Sorry. Just did. It turned out to be longer than originally planned.

[nobeyerspls]

I'm looking out my window in Fort Erie (80 miles south of Woodbine) and the sun is shining in a sky of blue. I handicapped for a firm turf and will be surprised if it isn't.

[PaceAdvantage]

I forgot more about breeding than most here would ever even begin to digest...If you do say so YOURSELF! :lol:

[46zilzal]

If you do say so YOURSELF!
My pathology instructor, the best professor I ever had, astounded us all one day as we were reviewing genitourinary pathology (Wilm's tumors, transitional cell carcinomas etc) when he said; "The micropathology of benign prostatic hyperplasia was completely unknown, UNTIL I DISCOVERED IT!"

Off to the Index Medicus (long before the internet) and lo and behold, the lead article in one of the leading pathology journals of the day, the COVER ARTICLE NO LESS, was a review of a newly discovered differential cellular stain that brought out a heretofore unknown structure, authored by my professor.

Was Dr. M boasting? No he was just reporting fact.

Learn from the best.

[46zilzal]

I'm looking out my window in Fort Erie (80 miles south of Woodbine) and the sun is shining in a sky of blue. I handicapped for a firm turf and will be surprised if it isn't.
I would be at the FORT everyday.....as a matter of fact, I will be there Tuesday August 26th visiting the Telephoto crew up in the press box.

[cj]

I would be at the FORT everyday.....as a matter of fact, I will be there Tuesday August 26th visiting the Telephoto crew up in the press box.

I am sure they can hardly wait.

[46zilzal]

I am sure they can hardly wait.
That's NOT what they told me.

[nobeyerspls]

I'll look for you. I'm an ugly old guy with glasses and the little hair I have left is gray. I'll stand down near the finish line on the clubhouse side after a few races.

[46zilzal]

I'll look for you. I'm an ugly old guy with glasses and the little hair I have left is gray. I'll stand down near the finish line on the clubhouse side after a few races.
wear a hat of a distinct color or something: that description is fairly generic for a race track crowd. I will try to wear a B.C. Standardbred Breeder's Hat

[Tom]

And one latex white glove. :eek:

(He learned from a PROSTRATE Dr.!!!)

[nobeyerspls]

There's not much of a crowd on Tuesday and I usually show up for the 4th race. After the third I'll stand next to the winner's circle on the clubhouse side and watch them take the picture of the winner. I'll know you by your BC hat.