Steven Roman - Dosage Index, Leaving the game

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Fair enough. I probably shouldn't have posted anything publicly...I kind of assumed you would post about it publicly or question why your post was deleted, so I decided to beat you to it.

It's a learning process.

I would think the line between demerit and no demerit is fairly bright. If the post offers no contribution to the discussion at hand, if its primary, if not only, purpose is to criticize another member, then you get sanctioned. Although Dilan and I were having a spirited discussion about DI, it was equally opinionated on both sides, and ultimately brought to a conclusion without any gratuitous name calling. If Fager wanted to pop in with an opinion, he was welcome. Instead he made the ad hominem/ad populum attack and offered nothing on the topic. Because he thought he was right about me being arrogant, he felt the attack was justified. I'd disagree with that.

That being the case, I'd agree that simply deleting the post without public comment is fine. But it did deserve to be deleted. A private note would be appropriate if there was a need to make the sanction emphatic.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by WoxFan

I was interested in the Performance Figures that he had worked on and was posting. Anything that is out of the box and takes a different look at measuring the performance interests me.
In general, anytime someone walks away from this game that had a lot of passion for it at one point is a shame.

I remember a thread a while ago started by him or someone else on here.

Was he walking away from the game or was it he had decided to stop publishing his DI #'s and opinions?

The way I read it. He was doing the latter. He had a lot of passion for his numbers and don't see why he would just walk away.

But, someone a long time ago mentioned that Brohamer decided to take up fishing and if it is true he also had a lot of passion for this game.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I would think the line between demerit and no demerit is fairly bright. If the post offers no contribution to the discussion at hand, if its primary, if not only, purpose is to criticize another member, then you get sanctioned. Although Dilan and I were having a spirited discussion about DI, it was equally opinionated on both sides, and ultimately brought to a conclusion without any gratuitous name calling. If Fager wanted to pop in with an opinion, he was welcome. Instead he made the ad hominem/ad populum attack and offered nothing on the topic. Because he thought he was right about me being arrogant, he felt the attack was justified. I'd disagree with that.

That being the case, I'd agree that simply deleting the post without public comment is fine. But it did deserve to be deleted. A private note would be appropriate if there was a need to make the sanction emphatic.

You're the last person who should be commenting. I thought you'd have the good sense to drop it after we did (including me not commenting to your last comment). Show some humility. There is a reason why half a dozen people of late refer to your patronizing way. You're doing it again here.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

You're the last person who should be commenting. I thought you'd have the good sense to drop it after we did (including me not commenting to your last comment). Show some humility. There is a reason why half a dozen people of late refer to your patronizing way. You're doing it again here.

You're right. I'll respond privately.

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

To do with what? That it's died? What does shortening of races or a horse's inability to go a distance have to do with this either? I think people haven't paid the little formula much mind in the past 20 years (if they ever paid it much mind prior except for whatever Derby rule it had that then was broken regularly ever since).

Because nobody can go these longer distances anymore without embarrassing themselves and therefore the breed - remember Mom's Command's 30-seconds-plus last quarter when winning the 1 1/2-mile CCA Oaks in 1985? - the powers that be caved in and shortened the distances, rather than telling the breeders to clean up their act.

And while everybody focused on the 4.00 DI figure, often just as important is whether a horse has at least some Solid and/or Professional chef-de-race influences in its Dosage Profile. Mecke, for example, had a 5.22 DI but some stamina-side chef-de-race influences, and was a G1 winner at a mile and half - while Groovy, who had a 1.75 DI but no stamina-wing representation, needed an oxygen mask to go six and a half furlongs.

[Fager Fan]

I can't argue that we're breeding for shorter distances than we used to. I forgot exactly what I was responding to though.

[Thomas Roulston]

But will new chefs-de-race be added going forward?

If not, then Dosage is truly dead.

[devilsbag]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

But will new chefs-de-race be added going forward?

Bobby Flay is noticeably absent from the list.

[Thomas Roulston]

Dosage information can still be found here:

http://www.pedigreequery.com

Which begs the question: Are new chefs-de-race still being added?

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

One thing to remember is it's entirely possible to do a study of whether Dosage correlates with performance im the Derby. You can even correlate it to last Beyer post time odds, or some other metric. (Note, no study that just looks at winners is valid.)

The fact that nobody has ever produced such a study is VERY telling.

Do it.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by highnote

Do it.

I don't need to. I think the record is obvious that the method has no serious predictive value.

But a dosage enthusiast would have no problem constructing the study if she really believed it would vindicate the theory.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't need to. I think the record is obvious that the method has no serious predictive value.

But a dosage enthusiast would have no problem constructing the study if she really believed it would vindicate the theory.

A simple internet search turned up two academic articles about using Dosage to predict the outcome of the Ky Derby and the Belmont Stakes:

Bain et al 2006 and Gramm & Ziemba 2008.

To the best of my knowledge Dosage is a breeding theory, not a handicapping theory. If you were a breeder and wanted to try to breed a Ky Derby winner Dosage would be a great place to start.

For example, Favorite Trick was the 2 year old horse of the year -- undefeated over several sprint and route distances and over different tracks both muddy and fast. He was one of the favorites for the Ky Derby. His Dosage Index is 4.60. He had no stamina points in his profile. Like most three year olds in the Ky Derby he had never run 10 furlongs. Steve Roman himself was a fan of Favorite Trick and thought he had a chance of winning. He said sometimes horses outrun their breeding and said that's why we put them on the track.

I had visited the farm where Favorite Trick's sire, Phone Trick, was stabled. Phone Trick was a short, stubby, runt of a horse and was a popular quarter horse sire.

Favorite Trick was slight of build and on the smallish size, certainly nothing like Secretariat's giant son, Risen Star.

Now, Favorite Trick's Dosage Index was not far from the 4.00 cutoff for the Derby, but knowing what I knew about his sire I was confident he would not stay 10 furlongs. His sire was better suited to producing precocious two year olds who could win early than late-maturing stout horses who could run all day.

Dosage would indicate to breeders wanting to produce Derby winners that Phone Trick was probably a poor choice. However, on occasion he could produce a runner with some stamina perhaps if bred to a mare with stamina points. Statistically, Phone Trick tended to produce sprinters.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by highnote

A simple internet search turned up two academic articles about using Dosage to predict the outcome of the Ky Derby and the Belmont Stakes:

Bain et al 2006 and Gramm & Ziemba 2008.

To the best of my knowledge Dosage is a breeding theory, not a handicapping theory. If you were a breeder and wanted to try to breed a Ky Derby winner Dosage would be a great place to start.

For example, Favorite Trick was the 2 year old horse of the year -- undefeated over several sprint and route distances and over different tracks both muddy and fast. He was one of the favorites for the Ky Derby. His Dosage Index is 4.60. He had no stamina points in his profile. Like most three year olds in the Ky Derby he had never run 10 furlongs. Steve Roman himself was a fan of Favorite Trick and thought he had a chance of winning. He said sometimes horses outrun their breeding and said that's why we put them on the track.

I had visited the farm where Favorite Trick's sire, Phone Trick, was stabled. Phone Trick was a short, stubby, runt of a horse and was a popular quarter horse sire.

Favorite Trick was slight of build and on the smallish size, certainly nothing like Secretariat's giant son, Risen Star.

Now, Favorite Trick's Dosage Index was not far from the 4.00 cutoff for the Derby, but knowing what I knew about his sire I was confident he would not stay 10 furlongs. His sire was better suited to producing precocious two year olds who could win early than late-maturing stout horses who could run all day.

Dosage would indicate to breeders wanting to produce Derby winners that Phone Trick was probably a poor choice. However, on occasion he could produce a runner with some stamina perhaps if bred to a mare with stamina points. Statistically, Phone Trick tended to produce sprinters.

Neither of those studies is properly constructed. You need a large sample size (which means you can't just look at winners) and to control for horses' ability. Dosage advocates have deloberately not done that study.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Neither of those studies is properly constructed.

What have you accomplished in your life that makes you an expert in Dosage Theory and a worthy critic that everyone should listen to?