What Does A Nick Rating Really Evaluate?

Patuxet · Postby **Patuxet** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:53 am

Is it merely a reflection of the positive results obtained in previous combinations of elements in the two pedigrees, or does it also downgrade a mating because when those elements have been brought together in previous matings they've repeatedly failed to fire?

brogers · Postby **brogers** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:41 am

Depends on the system you look at

TrueNicks uses the Jockey Club information to look at all the foals, runners and stakes winners from around the world to calculate its results. The grades are reflective of the strength of the sireline/broodmare sireline affinity when compared to how the sireline and broodmare sireline has done with all other matings other than the cross in question.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/truenick ... /faqs.aspx

As far as I am aware the ENicks calculation just looks at the stakes winners and creates its rating based on hypothetical chance. It does not consider the number of foals or runners bred on a cross in its calculation.

dublino · Postby **dublino** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:02 am

True Nicks is better.

It gives an overall reflection and analysis not just stakes performers.

Patuxet · Postby **Patuxet** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:25 am

Thanks, Byron.

This undoubtedly helps explain the wide rating disparities the same mating can often engender.

Allison

da hossman · Postby **da hossman** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:50 pm

While nicks are tools, be aware of their shortcomings - nicks do not consider the females in the pedigree, huge deficit as that only considers 50% of the pedigree at best. When one consider that nicks really evaluate the results of the grandsires or great-grandsires when combined in a mating, the "nick" really only considers 25% or less of the pedigree.

Realize also that many so-called nicks could be better described as line-breeding - Slew/Mr. P is linebreeding to Myrtlewood - Northern Dancer/Mr. P is linebreeding to Native Dancer, etc.

merse · Postby **merse** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:54 am

This is the Monday Morning Quarterback speaking....

I had intended to run all the TrueNicks (free ones) of the Breeders Cup entrants before and after the races to see how winning purses of that size would affect their results.... alas, maybe next year.

Bohemia · Postby **Bohemia** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:42 am

Merse, here's an example of how one top performer can change a TrueNicks rating: Originally, Forever Together's cross (Belong To Me x Constant Companion, by Relaunch) was an "F" nick. Now, that is an "A" nick.

da hossman · Postby **da hossman** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:48 am

Kinda reminiscent of how Dosage re-categorized "Chefs de race" after Strike The Gold & others won the Derby, isn't it? :lol:

brogers · Postby **brogers** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Bohemia wrote:Merse, here's an example of how one top performer can change a TrueNicks rating: Originally, Forever Together's cross (Belong To Me x Constant Companion, by Relaunch) was an "F" nick. Now, that is an "A" nick.

Actually Forever Together was NEVER an F Nick with TrueNicks. She was always an A nick with Truenicks but she is an F with ENicks which makes her one of only a handful of horses that is the absolute opposite with the two companies.

Here is something else that is worth reading.

http://thoroughbredreview.com/nickingcomparison.htm

llbean · Postby **llbean** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:22 pm

Byron,

I found the chart in that article highly confusing.

It's described as showing: "As mentioned earlier, our original intent was to identify a significant sample size of yearlings that carried a favorable rating from one nicking model (in this case, a B or higher), and an unfavorable rating from the other model (a C+ or lower)."

But then the list includes a bunch of examples where one Nick System gives and A and the other a B.

For example the first horse on the list, Welcome Cat, is hown as getting an A+ with Werk and a B+ with TrueNicks.