- This topic has 441 replies, 57 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have backed three at this stage and don’t expect to add any more.
Rip Van Winkle…I think he will stay, dam was speedy but dosage is positive and that does not yet include Galileo influence. Form is good (not brilliant), stable confidence is significant form this quarter and the numbers are promising.
Kite Wood…I was at Doncaster and I was very impressed with him physically and on the track. Ascot was encouraging and is in good hands.
Age Of Aquarius… i love his pedigree and was impressed with his performaqnce at Dundalk, missed some big engagements which was a bit worrying but I thought he showed well on awful ground late in the season in France. Looking for a good show in Ballysax/Derrinstown or maybe Dante. Huge winner for me.
jeez, don’t some of these horses breed young? Montaff’s Great-granddam is Midway Lady. I not only backed her for the 1,000 guineas, but got a forecast double up with her on Oaks day. Shame about Scimmitarra, but I think she was kept for breeding purposes. (It was that Oaks wasn’t it? I’m getting a bit blurry – earlier today I couldn’t remember if Door Latch did or did not win the SGB, did or did not win the Grand National, and whether he did or did not win the SGB before or after he did or did not win the Grand National.)
dosage is positive
Hi Shabby, you know a bit about dosage? Are there any authors or websites you can recommend, for someone who knows what the dosage index is, but that is all?
‘a bit’ is about right Gerald, http://www.chef-de-race.com is a good site and pretty much the bible. The guys on there are really helpful and I have had a number of informative and entertaining email exchanges with Steve Roman. It takes a long time to work out the numbers yourself so http://www.pedigreequery.com is invaluable for getting the numbers quickly, for every horse in recent history.
A couple of words of warning firstly dosage should only be used in attendance with good form or prospect of form.
Secondly, admitting you think it has any value will often bring a large deluge of ridicule from many on a horse racing forum.I have found it to be very profitable particularly in 3 races…the 2000 Guineas, The Derby & the St Leger. The Kentucky Derby has been a bit patchy in last 10 years but previously was very informative.
I also developed it as a useful tool and you can do a sort of reverse engineering process in late 2-y-o races. The Racing Post Trophy has proved fruitful for me.
In fairness, I had a lot of success between 2000 and 2005 but it has been a bit barren, apart from Authorized, in the last 3 years.A couple of words of warning firstly dosage should only be used in attendance with good form or prospect of form.
Secondly, admitting you think it has any value will often bring a large deluge of ridicule from many on a horse racing forum.Deservedly so. Tony Morris provided an erudite demolition of the dosage theory in his "Q & A", still available on here.
A couple of words of warning firstly dosage should only be used in attendance with good form or prospect of form.
Secondly, admitting you think it has any value will often bring a large deluge of ridicule from many on a horse racing forum.Deservedly so. Tony Morris provided an erudite demolition of the dosage theory in his "Q & A", still available on here.
Run for cover if you want to talk up the Dosage Index. And I’m first on your trail!
In practice, if someone did a Dosage Index analysis, how would it differ from this:-
Let’s assess RVW’s claims as a July Cup sprinter.
Sire = 10-12f top class performer, good influence for stamina (50% of pedigree)
Dam = Sprinter/miler, unable to win over 6f.
Damsire = Excellent sprinter, slightly disappointing sire (25%)
Granddam = miler, producer of miler. (25%).
Dam’s family = Middle-distance flat, or jumps.I’m running for cover . . .
Gosh, how did you do that? I didn’t know you could lift a quote from one thread and use it in another . . . I could have a lot of fun with that later on . . .
Lol, i thought it wouldn’t take long.
I understand why many don’t like it but it has proved profitable for me down the years. I like an ante post punt and it is often invaluable in ruling out false favourites as well as narrowing contenders a wee bit.Incidenatlly, whilst I very much enjoy Tony Morris and have to disagree that he gave an ‘erudite demolition’ of dosage in his Q&A. In this particular case he made two points… the first a simplistic generalisation of the theory and the second a bizarre comparison of human and thoroughbred breeding. Unless they do things very different in the Morris household, humans are not bred to any specific attributes. Whereas racehorses are bred to exhibit two main attributes…speed and stamina. In these circumstances it is possible the diversity found amongst children might be reduced or controlled in breeds with a limited performance target.
In fairness though, when given more space I have seen TM raise some very valid points on the short comings of dosage and point out some difficult problems with the theory.
Still, dosage is something I find interesting and another factor to weigh and consider in the long weeks between the Racing Post Trophy and the 2000 Guineas.
Okay
I better be fair to everyone.
I haven’t read Tony Morris’s criticism of DI.
My reading of the situation is this:-
Looking at the various parts of the lineage of a horse, and taking account of a horse’s running style, is a more qualitative approach, but may be subject to subjectivity. It also takes into account the female contribution to a horse’s make-up.
DI only takes account of a mare’s contribution to her progeny via her own male antecedents. DI is quantitative as it reduces the answer down to a number, or numbers.
In this regard, DI is no more valid or invalid than relying solely on form ratings to find the Cheltenham Gold Cup winner, or on using trend analysis to find the Grand National winner.
But people who use DI, then use their own judgment to choose between the candidates that have been selected out, and look at fringe candidates too, in much the same way as people who use form or speed ratings, or trend analysis do.
Is that okay, or do I have to run for cover?
PS, can I go back to Handicap class. . I feel a bit outclassed in Listed company?
Yet another credulous person in thrall to the bogus "science" of dosage.
A swift perusal of the Ladybird Book Of Genetics and the Ladybird Book Of Arithmetic ought to be more than enough for even the dimmest to realise it’s all baloney.
Regarding "chefs de race", you do realise, don’t you, that there are no objective criteria which determine a stalion’s possible ennoblement to "chefdom"? The sole criterion is that Dr Roman says so (I am not joking).
Next week: "Nick Ratings – How To Make Lots Of Money From Suggestible People".
In practice, if someone did a Dosage Index analysis, how would it differ from this:-
Let’s assess RVW’s claims as a July Cup sprinter.
Sire = 10-12f top class performer, good influence for stamina (50% of pedigree)
Dam = Sprinter/miler, unable to win over 6f.
Damsire = Excellent sprinter, slightly disappointing sire (25%)
Granddam = miler, producer of miler. (25%).
Dam’s family = Middle-distance flat, or jumps.This would differ from dosage in that:
Sire – Galileo is not a chef-de-race, so would not be included in the major calculations.
Dam – the female line is not included in the calculations.
Damsire – Stravinsky is not a chef-de-race, so would not be included in the major calculations.
Grandam and tail female line – not included in the calculations.So basically, dosage ignores all the factors I included in my assesment – the subject animal’s closest ancestors. Seems a basic flaw to me.
Having said that, I do find dosage quite interesting, and elements can be useful. Those sires that are marked as chef-de-race are usually accurate. But, particularly from a European viewpoint the problems are:
1) A strong American slant, not always suitable for European pedigrees.
2) Too slow to react to new sires, so many influences are ignored.
3) Reduces all the subtleties and individuality down to one over-simplistic number.
4) Ignores the tail female line completely – a cardinal sin.Regarding "chefs de race", you do realise, don’t you, that there are no objective criteria which determine a stalion’s possible ennoblement to "chefdom"? The sole criterion is that Dr Roman says so (I am not joking).quote]
Yes, I do realise the dosage numbers are driven from selections of sires which are not objective. I think most people do. However they are not ‘arbitory’ selections of sires which is how Tony Morris described them in his Q&A. That is I think, quite different.
I have tried to gain some experience in a number of handicapping tools, speed ratings, collateral handicapping and dosage are few examples. What struck me about them all is just how much of the numbers based approaches are subjective and are down to individual interpretation, inclusion and ommission.
I could spend hours for example doing speed ratings on a big meeting and then just have to make a decision whether or not I believed a big number which was out of kilter with the rest of the card. Often I would rely on subjective factors like my eye or the trainers post race comments.
Dosage is interesting, limited and useful …it is a handy tool and has brought me some success and some failures when used on a tiny number of races. Whilst the failures have outnumbered the successes because they have been ante post successes the odds have been in my favour.
As to Dosage being scientific…no, not by the standards of actual science but in the context of horse racing where tiny sample sizes are used to fill page after page of newspaper analysis and tipping on trends, ground conditions are often unknown or deliberatly mis-stated and race distances which are regularly incorrect to use just a few examples, it has nothing to be ashamed of.
The rabidity of its critics is also amusing.Look up Colonel Vuillier and the botanist Hugo de Vries’ work on saltationary evolution to understand why dosage came about.
Look up Colonel Vuillier and the botanist Hugo de Vries’ work on saltationary evolution to understand why dosage came about.
I’d rather not, to be honest.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.