Dosage: A practical Approach

[karlskorner]

Steven Roman, Phd. creator of the Dosage Index has up dated his theory as of 11/03/03

www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/review.htm

[andicap]

Roman writes
3. Three winners of the Kentucky Derby since 1940 (Strike the Gold, Real Quiet and Charismatic), and five winners of the Belmont Stakes over the same time frame (Damascus, Conquistador Cielo, Creme Fraiche, Commendable and Sarava) have had a DI above 4.00. This is in direct contrast to dirt stakes winners in general, of which about one-fourth to one-third have a DI greater than 4.00 and for which the average DI is slightly below 4.00. The combination of Dosage and our observation that 21 winners of the Kentucky Derby since 1972 were ranked as a juvenile within 10 pounds of the high weight on the Experimental Free Handicap or were named juvenile champion in another country has become an especially powerful tool in isolating the true classic contenders. In the seven Derbies where a "dual qualifier" (i.e., DI and two-year-old form) failed to win, three finished second, and in four of those races, a qualifier subsequently won either the Preakness or Belmont Stakes.

----------
But in the past 10 years, what is the true Impact Value of the dosage/dual qualifiers? Most Derby horses qualify under dosage rules so it's no surprise most Derby winners slide in under the dosage Mendoza line.
And why have so many recent horses won above the dosage guidelines?
Is it because dosage is like any other handicapping sytem that runs in streaks and then suddenly stops working?
I thought Roman had been discredited and this voodoo was hoo-doo.

[so.cal.fan]

Andy writes:
"Is it because dosage is like any other handicapping sytem that runs in streaks and then suddenly stops working"?


Perhaps,OR..............do the drugs EPO and Clenbuterol make one wonder?????????

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sprint dosage looks interesting. Remember the difference in track speed and condition this year of the KY Derby and the Belmont Stakes- how much can you rely on any one method or system with the great variations in various races? Just to mention distance, track condition or speed, and pace or strategy and the variation is tremendous! I think although very similar race situations can be handicapped somewhat similarly, most levels of races demand variable situationable handicapping including stakes held at many tracks under various track conditions. / Those who limit their handicapping style limit their profit potential. / (Note: this thread is about Roman UPDATING his theories concerning dosage!!).

[highnote]

I think Dosage is very useful. SoCalFan makes a good point -- maybe drugs help horses outrun their pedigrees.

One thing Roman wrote that I really liked was -- no matter what type a horse is; if it is a quitting rat at 10 furlongs and can only win at 4 furlongs or is capable of winning over 12 furlongs but has no turn of foot, both types of horse are expressing their valid genetic potential.

Since then, I am never critical of a horse for not being effective at a particular distance. It's kind of like criticising Babe Ruth for not being a great marathon runner.

A few years back there was a son of Phone Trick running in the Ky Derby. I think it was Pulpit (correct me if I'm wrong). Roman said sometheing to the effect that "Pulpit did not have the correct Dosage profile to win the Derby, but he may be classy enough to outrun his pedigree and that's why we put them on the track."

Dosage is not a hard and fast rule, it's a guideline. Just because a few horses won the Derby with a Dosage above 4.0 does not mean Dosage is invalid. That's like saying that just because someone loses 4 win bets in a row they're a lousy handicapper.

A good paper about Dosage and the Ky Derby is the one by Bain, Hausch and Ziemba at:

http://www.econ.ucy.ac.cy/~echalias/seminars/ziemba.pdf

Also, check out:

http://www.gamblingtimes.com/writers/wziemba/wziemba_summer2002.html

[highnote]

It was not Pulpit. It was Favorite Trick.