Steven Roman - Dosage Index, Leaving the game

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by clocker7

1. Human breeding is not as severely goal-oriented as Thoroughbred breeding.
2. Human generations are much longer than Thoroughbred ones.

The most obvious fact in Thoroughbred history is that the breed has gotten faster. Much faster. Why? Because the incentive was there, and generally you get what you reward.

Then how come the 7 furlong record has stood just as long as the 1 1/4 mile record?

[dilanesp]

I thought of another counter-example to this.

The Belmont Stakes is 1 1/2 miles. You would expect that if Mr. Roman was correct, we would see a bunch of slow Belmonts now because the breed has lost its stamina. Right?

Well, there HAVE been some slow Belmonts. But there have also been, since 1988, several of the fastest Belmonts of all time.

Now, obviously, nobody has come closer than 2 seconds to Secretariat's 2:24 flat. That race is sui generis. But at the time Secretariat did that, the record he broke was by a Hall of Fame router known for his stamina, Gallant Man at 2:26 3/5.

Here's the thing: since 1988, there have been FIVE Belmonts as fast or faster than Gallant Man's 2:26 3/5:

Risen Star, 2:26 2/5
Easy Goer, 2:26 flat
A.P. Indy, 2:26 flat
Point Given, 2:26 2/5
American Pharoah, 2:26 3/5

I especially like the last one because American Pharoah was just one year ago, didn't have the dosage, and nonetheless managed to run the 6th fastest Belmont in history and faster than 10 of the 11 other Triple Crown winners.

How do you explain all these fast Belmonts if nobody is breaking route records because nobody is bred to go 1 1/2 miles anymore?

EDIT: To be clear, I suspect the explanation for all of these small sample size phenomena is simply a run of random variance. But if someone's going to start extrapolate conclusions from a handful of races, it seems to me they are responsible for explaining all of the counter-examples.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by reckless

Is it the same as this... my favorite Seinfeld scene, of many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7APrz5K1YI

Ha, that is good. Probably in part because of the racetrack, I refer to more people as maestro than I do as doctor.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Of ALL the things you said in this thread, Cratos, this is the most wrong. (It's basically the informal fallacy of "appeal to authority".)

MANY of the people brought up on charges of snake oil medicine and related fraud changes every year have doctoral degrees. Having a doctoral degree proves NOTHING about the actual truth of what a person says, when you are outside of the "doctor's" particular academic or vocational specialty.

But thank you for proving my original point-- which was you were deliberately using "DOCTOR Roman" to make this guy sound more credible than he was.

In reading the posts you have submitted to this thread about Dr. Roman’s Dosage Methodology I have found that you have taken your disdain for his methodology to a personal criticism of him and you might have valid reasons to do so, but you have yet to explain your animosity toward Dr. Roman; and I am not asking you to do so.

However I will stick to what I have said about PhDs for two reasons: (1) Having personally gone through the PhD qualifying process and (2) there are 3 of my associates who have PhDs and they earned them from some very good and respected engineering schools.

Therefore believe whatever, because we definitely have a difference of opinion about this issue and I am not deliberately prefacing Roman’s name with “Dr” to give him credibility; I am doing it because of his stated academic achievement.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Cratos

... However I will stick to what I have said about PhDs for two reasons: (1) Having personally gone through the PhD qualifying process and (2) there are 3 of my associates who have PhDs and they earned them from some very good and respected engineering schools. ...

Just curious, because I've read you're retired.

Whether retired or when working did/do you address the 3 associates as Dr. each and every time when you got together at work or informal gatherings?

I used to work with a number of PhD coworkers and none of them expected or asked that they be addressed as doctor at work. We all respected each others ideas. Maybe, it was the informal atmosphere. A couple of us were friends and I've called them other things to their faces but never doctor. These two friends were professors at the local University teaching classes at night after work.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I guess many of you have never known a PhD...

Like I said, some of you are piling on just for the sake of it...this is a ridiculous discussion. It's commonplace to refer to most people who hold doctorate degrees as DOCTOR, whether medical or otherwise (psychologists come immediately to mind). Lawyers are one of the lone exceptions I can think of (Juris Doctor degree).

You're incorrect on the first sentence but, I won't continue the banter because I see your point about piling on which was never my intention in my previous response.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Just curious, because I've read you're retired.

Whether retired or when working did/do you address the 3 associates as Dr. each and every time when you got together at work or informal gatherings?

I used to work with a number of PhD coworkers and none of them expected or asked that they be addressed as doctor at work. We all respected each others ideas. Maybe, it was the informal atmosphere. A couple of us were friends and I've called them other things to their faces but never doctor. These two friends were professors at the local University teaching classes at night after work.

A good question; the PhDs that is part of my handicapping group are friends whom I have known for many years and in conversations with them I address them without the “Dr” preface, but if I was introducing either of them to you I would preface their names with “Dr” when I introduced them to you.

[The Judge]

Gallant Man raced 11 times after the Belmont winning 7 placing 2 and 3rd 1 time, and once out of the money.

Risen Star's Belmont was career ending, he never raced again. A.P Indy raced 3 times, Point Given raced 2 times, Easy Goer raced 8 ties winning 6 placing 1, third 1. American Pharoah raced 3 times after the Belmont.

Let's face it Roman was also saying horses today are breed to win early and don't last. They go from Maiden wins into Stakes races horses don't RUN through their conditions anymore. NO more NW1, NW2, NW3 minor Stakes then the big time.

People even say the old days the horses were a different Breed. Yes I know about these economic times of horse racing has changed and it's business and not a sport.

[nijinski]

American Pharoah had a DI of 4.33 and wins the TC .
He was not a dual qualifier either And I believe Roman thought the Derby would not be easy for him either ..

[Blenheim]

Thanks Dr. Roman for all of your good work. Dosage has been a great joy over the years. You've got my vote for The Eclipse Award of Merit.

[reckless]

Does anyone here think that the good people in the NYRA racing office just might have read Steve Roman's sad goodbye letter recently, especially about the lack of races run at 1 1-8 miles and longer?

Four races at 9 furlongs are carded today at Belmont, and one on Sunday. Two are on main track and three on turf.

I believe that the average fan and player simply likes longer races, imo.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I thought of another counter-example to this.

The Belmont Stakes is 1 1/2 miles. You would expect that if Mr. Roman was correct, we would see a bunch of slow Belmonts now because the breed has lost its stamina. Right?

Well, there HAVE been some slow Belmonts. But there have also been, since 1988, several of the fastest Belmonts of all time.

Now, obviously, nobody has come closer than 2 seconds to Secretariat's 2:24 flat. That race is sui generis. But at the time Secretariat did that, the record he broke was by a Hall of Fame router known for his stamina, Gallant Man at 2:26 3/5.

Here's the thing: since 1988, there have been FIVE Belmonts as fast or faster than Gallant Man's 2:26 3/5:

Risen Star, 2:26 2/5
Easy Goer, 2:26 flat
A.P. Indy, 2:26 flat
Point Given, 2:26 2/5
American Pharoah, 2:26 3/5

I especially like the last one because American Pharoah was just one year ago, didn't have the dosage, and nonetheless managed to run the 6th fastest Belmont in history and faster than 10 of the 11 other Triple Crown winners.

How do you explain all these fast Belmonts if nobody is breaking route records because nobody is bred to go 1 1/2 miles anymore?

EDIT: To be clear, I suspect the explanation for all of these small sample size phenomena is simply a run of random variance. But if someone's going to start extrapolate conclusions from a handful of races, it seems to me they are responsible for explaining all of the counter-examples.

It might be interesting to look at turf times also.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I thought of another counter-example to this.

The Belmont Stakes is 1 1/2 miles. You would expect that if Mr. Roman was correct, we would see a bunch of slow Belmonts now because the breed has lost its stamina. Right?

Well, there HAVE been some slow Belmonts. But there have also been, since 1988, several of the fastest Belmonts of all time.

Now, obviously, nobody has come closer than 2 seconds to Secretariat's 2:24 flat. That race is sui generis. But at the time Secretariat did that, the record he broke was by a Hall of Fame router known for his stamina, Gallant Man at 2:26 3/5.

Here's the thing: since 1988, there have been FIVE Belmonts as fast or faster than Gallant Man's 2:26 3/5:

Risen Star, 2:26 2/5
Easy Goer, 2:26 flat
A.P. Indy, 2:26 flat
Point Given, 2:26 2/5
American Pharoah, 2:26 3/5

I especially like the last one because American Pharoah was just one year ago, didn't have the dosage, and nonetheless managed to run the 6th fastest Belmont in history and faster than 10 of the 11 other Triple Crown winners.

How do you explain all these fast Belmonts if nobody is breaking route records because nobody is bred to go 1 1/2 miles anymore?

EDIT: To be clear, I suspect the explanation for all of these small sample size phenomena is simply a run of random variance. But if someone's going to start extrapolate conclusions from a handful of races, it seems to me they are responsible for explaining all of the counter-examples.

I know you specially speak of The Belmont Stakes, but in 1978 Nasty and Bold, a 3 year-old, won the 1 1-2 miles Brooklyn Handicap in stakes record time of 2:26 flat.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It might be interesting to look at turf times also.

Absolutely. Great point.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by reckless

Does anyone here think that the good people in the NYRA racing office just might have read Steve Roman's sad goodbye letter recently, especially about the lack of races run at 1 1-8 miles and longer?

Four races at 9 furlongs are carded today at Belmont, and one on Sunday. Two are on main track and three on turf.

I believe that the average fan and player simply likes longer races, imo.

I suspect that the casual player probably likes a variety of races-- e.g., cards full of 6 furlong races are not much fun, but neither are cards full of nothing but 6 furlong and 1 1/16 mile races. Throw in a 4 1/2 furlong dash, a 1 7/8 mile turf marathon, a 1 1/4 mile race for claimers, etc. Keep things interesting.

More serious handicappers want interesting betting races. While it's not ideal to have mostly sprints, I doubt any serious bettor wants more route races if they are going to be 5 and 6 horse fields and the sprints will draw more horses.