Dosage Points

[Midnight Cruiser]

No Kentucky Derby winner has had less than 16 dosage points. Uncle Mo has 8. Could this be the year that less than 16 wins? Im betting the dosage point angle holds and my top three all qualify. Soldat, Master of Hounds and Archx3.

Anyone out there gunna try and beat the dosage?

[PhantomOnTour]

Mucho Macho Man fails to meet the minimum as well.
He's a contender in my book.
Is this just another of the old rules that's gonna fall?
Hell, I don't know...i am going against Mo, but will most likely use MMM on my tickets. If not on top then definitely in exotics.
How have these 'non-qualifiers' fared in the exotics...anyone know?

[Plain Steve]

One thing seems certain. This will be the year one of those "no horse.....has ever won the Derby" will fall. Unless I've missed something, EVERY horse in the field has a bug-a-boo of one sort or another, be it Dosage, class, running style, finishing position in last race, days between last race and Derby, number of 3yo races, and on and on.

Strangely, the likely fave, Dialed In, had only one race as a 2yo, a 6f sprint.

Shakleford, a big colt, with a shiny Chestnut coat and a free running style. Does anyone remember a horse he resembles???

[Longshot]

In the following years there were no horses in the Super with less than 16 Dosage Points.

1987-1994, 1996-1997, 1999, 2002-2003, 2006, 2008, 2010

1986--Bold Arrangement 2nd--12 pts
1995--Jumron--4th--14 pts
1998--Indian Charlie--3rd--12 pts
2000--Impeachment--3rd--14 pts
2001--Thunder Blitz--4th--12 pts
2004--Imperialism--3rd--14 pts
2005--Closing Arguement--2nd --10 pts, Afleet Alex--3rd--14 pts
2007--Imawildandcrazyguy--4th--14 pts
2009--Musket Man--3rd--10 pts

Last 25 years--10 of the 100 horses in the Super--Two 2nd, Five 3rd, Three 4th had less than 16 Total Dosage Points

[PhantomOnTour]

Thanks Longshot :ThmbUp:
Good info...doesn't bode well for Macho Man and Uncle Mo

[keithw84]

You have to remember that as more stallions are identified as chefs de race, dosage figures could change retroactively. One # I often look at is if the highest point total is in the classics category.

[tribecaagent]

No Kentucky Derby winner has had less than 16 dosage points. Uncle Mo has 8. Could this be the year that less than 16 wins? Im betting the dosage point angle holds and my top three all qualify. Soldat, Master of Hounds and Archx3.

Anyone out there gunna try and beat the dosage?

What compromises the point system?

[PhantomOnTour]

Dosage is totally sunk now. Their last bastion was total dosage points, but that went down with Animal Kingdom and his 8 points.

[Pell Mell]

Dosage is totally sunk now. Their last bastion was total dosage points, but that went down with Animal Kingdom and his 8 points.

I handicap a lot by pedigree in the 3yr old races. I don't put too much stock in dosage points as a rule because I don't like the way Roman assigns the points.

When I looked at AK's pedigree I wondered how a horse with so much ND blood and his sire's sire being Candy Stripes and ND on his dam's side could have so few points. I chalked it up to the German blood being introduced to the ND line.

Anyone that studies pedigrees knows that the ND line is prepotent and usually shines through. JMO

[Plain Steve]

It did have a classic shape though. Shackleford's leaned towards speed, but did have 2 in the stamina wing. Perhaps that's what helped him carry his speed.
JMO but I thought he ran big.

[Steve R]

Dosage is totally sunk now. Their last bastion was total dosage points, but that went down with Animal Kingdom and his 8 points.
You need to do some homework. Count Fleet won the TC with 4 points in 1943 and Middleground won the Derby with 12 in 1950. Between them there were Derby winners with 40, 32, 24, 44, 50 and 40. Whoever made up that rule just didn't know what they were talking about. But that's typical. Apparently some people believe the horses know how many points they have. OTOH, $2 win bets on all this year's Derby starters with a DI of less than 2.00 (i.e., the 7 most stamina-bred horses) returned $43.80 on $14 wagered and required 30 seconds of "handicapping". In fact, over the last 10 Derbies the same strategy yields 50% winners and an ROI of over 20% with an IV of 2.2. Again, with no handicapping at all. So before you make uninformed statements, you should recognize that there are plenty of people making good profits using Dosage as a fundamental component of their approach to handicapping at all levels. You just don't know $#*! about it.

[Midnight Cruiser]

You need to do some homework. Count Fleet won the TC with 4 points in 1943 and Middleground won the Derby with 12 in 1950. Between them there were Derby winners with 40, 32, 24, 44, 50 and 40. Whoever made up that rule just didn't know what they were talking about. But that's typical. Apparently some people believe the horses know how many points they have. OTOH, $2 win bets on all this year's Derby starters with a DI of less than 2.00 (i.e., the 7 most stamina-bred horses) returned $43.80 on $14 wagered and required 30 seconds of "handicapping". In fact, over the last 10 Derbies the same strategy yields 50% winners and an ROI of over 20% with an IV of 2.2. Again, with no handicapping at all. So before you make uninformed statements, you should recognize that there are plenty of people making good profits using Dosage as a fundamental component of their approach to handicapping at all levels. You just don't know $#*! about it.

So in 137 runnings of the Derby, only 3 horses have won with less than 16 DP's correct? Bummer, cuz I used total dosage points as my auto toss this year and that prevented me from playing AK. Was alive in 2 pik 3's to 6 horses and had 80 to win on those same 6. Back to the drawing board. No Raise a Native and a winner with under 16 DPs. I noticed AK had only 2 starts in 2011 and that seems to be a common trait in the winner. Well, I have 364 days to figure out plan B....

[Irish Boy]

At this point, dosage is slightly more accurate than reading chicken entrails at predicting Derby winners, and nowhere near as fun. Pseudoscience is worse than no science at all.

[MNslappy]

surely though, you must believe in the efficacy of pedigree analysis when it comes to 3 year olds running classic distances, no?

[Irish Boy]

In fact, over the last 10 Derbies the same strategy yields 50% winners and an ROI of over 20% with an IV of 2.2.
Yes, when you retrofit strategies to find a profitable angle, you can often be successful.

I have a system that I've never talked about before where I always bet on trainers in the derby that have "Jr." as a suffix in their names. It has been fantastically successful, with no handicapping whatsoever!

[Irish Boy]

surely though, you must believe in the efficacy of pedigree analysis when it comes to 3 year olds running classic distances, no?
Sure, no doubt. I don't think anyone denies that. And dosage is probably a useful heuristic insofar as you take a bunch of good horses and say "if this starter has these horses in his pedigree, he has a good chance." But the whole operation is entirely backfitted to create a set of results, and once the system solidified, subsequent results have torn the system apart. This isn't unusual for overdetermined mathematical systems based on small sample size and easily manipulated; football sabermatricians fall into the trap all the time.

[Quesmark]

Yes, when you retrofit strategies to find a profitable angle, you can often be successful.

I have a system that I've never talked about before where I always bet on trainers in the derby that have "Jr." as a suffix in their names. It has been fantastically successful, with no handicapping whatsoever!

It used to be horses required a "dosage index" under 4,now SR talks about those under 2,and BTW was Animal Kingdom weighted on the experimental free handicap?
This is Gasper Moschera methodology,pick multiple runners[7 of this years Derby starters with a DI under 2],and declare success when 1 wins.