Dosage

[Valuist]

More evidence that this angle is silly as a handicapping angle for the Derby and Triple Crown races: ONE horse in the race had a dosage of over 4.00, suggesting the pedigree was too sprint oriented; that horse? Mine That Bird. If I remember correctly, when Strike the Gold won the Derby as a runner who's dosage was well over 4.00, the bloodlines folks re-worked his breeding numbers so he fit. Look for the same to happen here.

[dutchboy]

Strike The Gold dosage for the 1991 Ky Derby was 9.0 Mine That Bird was at 5.40

More evidence that this angle is silly as a handicapping angle for the Derby and Triple Crown races: ONE horse in the race had a dosage of over 4.00, suggesting the pedigree was too sprint oriented; that horse? Mine That Bird. If I remember correctly, when Strike the Gold won the Derby as a runner who's dosage was well over 4.00, the bloodlines folks re-worked his breeding numbers so he fit. Look for the same to happen here.

[toussaud]

yes and no.

I think the theory of the dosage is extremely sound. I think the problem is the application of the theory in the sense that, just becuase like in mine that bird's instance, your sire and damsire aren't chef's yet, they don't throw ANY influence whatsoever.


according to his pedigree, all of his points occur 3 generations back and father. Birdstone, smart strike and grindstone are not accounted for whatsoever in his dosage becuase they aren't "influental enough"

I think you can learn alot by looking at a horses pedigree. I think trying to turn a hores pedigree into a mathematical forumla as you can see.. has it's flaws.

[AlanBaze]

I don't argue with that point. I believe there are many big scores available when you use a horses pedigree. Do you have any suggestions on a proper way to use pedigree. Or know of other sites that can help with this style of handicapping. I use very basic ideas when it comes to pedigree handicapping, and am just trying to broading my processes. Thanx:confused:

[toussaud]

I equate using dosage when using pedigree to using tip sheets when trying to handicap. you miss alot of the details when you look at the pedigree itself.

I looked at the horses pedigree before the race and it shocked me to realize that his dosage was that high. he's bred to run 3 miles. birdstone was a belmont winner, grindstone was a classic winner, smart strike was a 2 turn graded stakes winner, etc

and you just have to watch enough races to know what sires used to like. Birdstone won a 2YO race on an offtrack and smart strike's take a liking to an offtrack (curlin in the breeders cup classic)

If anything I want to know where in the hell that turn of foot came from. I know where the distance came from.

with that said, I would not have bet this horse on pedigree, but you wuld be a plump fool to throw him out on pedigree.

[thruncy]

yes and no.

I think the theory of the dosage is extremely sound. I think the problem is the application of the theory in the sense that, just becuase like in mine that bird's instance, your sire and damsire aren't chef's yet, they don't throw ANY influence whatsoever.


according to his pedigree, all of his points occur 3 generations back and father. Birdstone, smart strike and grindstone are not accounted for whatsoever in his dosage becuase they aren't "influental enough"Yeah, just like the variant business....Pulling the horse with THEIR cart.

I think you can learn alot by looking at a horses pedigree. I think trying to turn a hores pedigree into a mathematical forumla as you can see.. has it's flaws.Yeah,just like the variant business....Pulling the horse with THEIR cart. Dat be hoses not hoes.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I equate using dosage when using pedigree to using tip sheets when trying to handicap. you miss alot of the details when you look at the pedigree itself.

I looked at the horses pedigree before the race and it shocked me to realize that his dosage was that high. he's bred to run 3 miles. birdstone was a belmont winner, grindstone was a classic winner, smart strike was a 2 turn graded stakes winner, etc

and you just have to watch enough races to know what sires used to like. Birdstone won a 2YO race on an offtrack and smart strike's take a liking to an offtrack (curlin in the breeders cup classic)

If anything I want to know where in the hell that turn of foot came from. I know where the distance came from.

with that said, I would not have bet this horse on pedigree, but you wuld be a plump fool to throw him out on pedigree.

Check the charts "http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/CD050209USA.pdf"
Every dirt winner comment or analysis was "rail; inside; angled out to pass"
There was a major inside bias near the rail all day. I guess Borel was the only one to notice among the jockeys.
Look at the PP's and charts as flow charts, not snapshots.

[toussaud]

Check the charts "http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/CD050209USA.pdf"
Every dirt winner comment or analysis was "rail; inside; angled out to pass"
There was a major inside bias near the rail all day. I guess Borel was the only one to notice among the jockeys.
Look at the PP's and charts as flow charts, not snapshots.
dont' tell me how to handicap sir

[Tom]

Dosage over 4.0 = 5 in decades. Guess that makes it silly?????
5 of last 30. Compare that to the record of favorites.

[kenwoodallpromos]

dont' tell me how to handicap sir
Sorry. I should have added that IMO the turn of foot did not come from the pedigree or the dosage. Or maybe just said that!!

[W2G]

I think the theory of the dosage is extremely sound. I think the problem is the application of the theory in the sense that, just becuase like in mine that bird's instance, your sire and damsire aren't chef's yet, they don't throw ANY influence whatsoever.


according to his pedigree, all of his points occur 3 generations back and father. Birdstone, smart strike and grindstone are not accounted for whatsoever in his dosage becuase they aren't "influental enough"

I think you can learn alot by looking at a horses pedigree. I think trying to turn a hores pedigree into a mathematical forumla as you can see.. has it's flaws.

Well said. Dosage points are a moving target. Looking for high dosage indices > 4.00 as an exclusion point is not a valid substitute for a detailed qualitative examination of pedigree. In MTB's case there is every reason to suspect his dosage will be revised accordingly as new chefs are named.

I'd imagine Saturday's race will stand as a classic case study in correctly applying dosage theory to handicapping the Derby. Of course, having quickly tossed MTB with only a cursory glance at his PPs, I never even bothered to look at his pedigree beyond noting his sire.

In addition to the possibility that MTB "freaked" on the off-going, there is a more interesting possibility that he freaked going 10 furlongs.

[kenwoodallpromos]

6 of 8 Unbridled's greatgrandparents, and Grindstone's dam!

[thruncy]

6 of 8 Unbridled's greatgrandparents, and Grindstone's dam!Came by accident and out of necessity. Borel said when he got bounced around at the break "I just took a good hold of him and decided to make one run." ...Whadda run!