Toll Fee by Topsider-Toll Booth 2nd dam of Tonalist

[Keith]

Settling Mist by Pleasant Colony-Toll Fee produced this years Belmont winner Tonalist.
Easter Brunette by Carson City-Toll Fee produced 2011 Horse of the Year Havre De Grace.

[stancaris]

Toll Fee's dam, Toll Booth was Broodmare of the Year in 1991 and she produced 7 stakes winners including Grade 1 winners Plugged Nickel and Christiecat. In fact, the great Buckpasser fathered three daughters that were Broodmares of the Year: Relaxing (1989 Broodmare of the Year) and Toll Booth were Kentucky Broodmares of the Year and Passing Mood was Broodmare of the Year in Canada in 1989.

In fact, the Great Buckpasser in the X passing position had a tremendous effect on this years Belmont Stakes: Tonalist, the winner, Commissioner the place horse, Wicked Strong and California Chrome who dead heated for fourth all carry Buckpasser in the X passing position.

In fact, In all three legs of the Triple Crown this year the Exactas were comprised of horses that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position. Derby--California Chrome and Commanding Curve. Preakness --California Chrome and Ride On Curlin. The Belmont--Tonalist and Commissioner.

[DDT]

Stan

I know you said you will not respond to any of my posts, however, i want to point out here that both Tonalist and Commissioner did not qualify under your rules published in your book and neither did Commanding Curve. Are you now saying that having Buckpasser in an X passing position is all that is necessary to count them for playing exactas in the Classic races?

DDT

[Keith]

Easy Goer by Alydar-Relaxing by Buckpasser spoiled Sunday Silence's chance of winning a Triple Crown . Touch Gold by Deputy Minister-Passing Mood by Buckpasser spoiled Silver Charms chance at a Triple Crown. Silver Charm by Silver Buck-Bonnie's Poker by Poker is a grandson of Buckpasser through his sire. Poker his broodmare sire is also the broodmare sire of Seattle Slew.

[Pan Zareta]

In fact, the Great Buckpasser in the X passing position had a tremendous effect on this years Belmont Stakes: Tonalist, the winner, Commissioner the place horse, Wicked Strong and California Chrome who dead heated for fourth all carry Buckpasser in the X passing position.

In fact, In all three legs of the Triple Crown this year the Exactas were comprised of horses that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position. Derby--California Chrome and Commanding Curve. Preakness --California Chrome and Ride On Curlin. The Belmont--Tonalist and Commissioner.

In fact, your obvious premise that the x chromosome, especially Buckpasser's, is of major importance to elite performance is contradicted by formal and informal reports of results from genome-wide association studies of elite performance in the TB. Your various claims that such information as was reported directly to you in another thread at this forum is ambiguous or contradictory are clearly self-serving and not at all persuasive.

In support of this false premise you present only circumstantial evidence heavily selected for confirmatory value. In this case it's the fact that the 5 horses who account for the 1st & 2d place finishes in the 2014 TC races all have Buckpasser in an x passing position.

Among the non-confirmatory evidence you omit is the fact that the large majority of starters in all 3 TC races this year have at least one cross of Buckpasser somewhere in their pedigree, about as often in x passing as not, and that 4 of the 5 horses you name have multiple crosses of him in x-passing and non x-passing positions, and other, probably more significant, commonalities as well. Only 5 starters in the TC races had Buckpasser in x passing position alone and among them Ride On Curlin's 2d place finish in the Preakness was the best result, by far.

You're still "over-rating" the x chromosome.

[stancaris]

Pan Zareta wrote: "You're still "over-rating the X chromosome."

That's your opinion and it certainly is not the opinion of all my customers on American Turf Monthly which subscribed to my picks on the Belmont stakes which follows:

First I mentioned that California Chrome was not likely to win the Belmont because the last 11 that tried to capture the Triple Crown had all failed because running 3 big races in 5 weeks has a detrimental effect.

I gave a brief description of the following 3 horses as likely win candidates: Wicked Strong, Tonalist, Commanding Curve.

Then I listed 5 horses as likely longshots to hit the board: Ride On Curlin, Medal Count, Commissioner, Matterhorn, and Matuszak.

My Recommendations were as follows:

1) A win wager on Wicked Strong. Lost

2) An exacta box of California Chrome, Tonalist, Commanding Curve, and Commissioner and Medal Count. The $2 exacta returned $348.

3) A Trifecta Key of Tonalist in the win position with Ride On Curlin, California Chrome, Medal Count, Matterhorn, Commanding Curve, Commissioner, and Matuszak in the place and show positions.

The $1 Trifecta returned a whopping $3,390.50.

4) A superfecta key of Tonalist in the win position with Wicked Strong, California Chrome, Ride On Curlin, Medal Count, Matterhorn, Commanding Curve, Commissioner, and Matuszak in the place, show and fourth position.

The superfecta key of Tonalist over Commissioner second, Medal Count third, and Wicked Strong fourth returned $573 for 10 cents and the other superfecta returned $380 with California Chrome (since Chrome and Wicked Strong dead heated for fourth).

I also recommended the following three horses as longshots: Tonalist, Commissioner, and Commanding Curve. Tonalist won and paid $20 to win.

Wagers on each of the above returned over $4,000 and that was with 4 of the first five horses carrying Buckpasser in the X passing position: Tonalist, the winner, Commissioner the place horse, Wicked Strong and California Chrome, both of whom dead heated for fourth.

Your still "under-rating" the X chromosome.

[DDT]

If you recommended a win wager on Wicked Strong why was he not the key or a co-key in the win position for your trifectas and supers? It makes no sense at all not to recommend him as a win co-key. By not including him in the win position, if he had won the race the tris and supers would be dead in the water, the bets that required the real money, not just a win ticket. Like I said, it makes no sense unless the amount wagered to win on Wicked Strong covered the costs of your tris and supers.

DDT

[DDT]

Not counting Buckpasser in the pedigree but only runners with Buckpasser in an X passing position in the pedigree, the 2014 Triple Crown races have the following breakdown. In the Derby there were 10 out of 20, or 50% of the runners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position, in the Preakness there were 4 out of 10, or 40% of the runners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position, in the Belmont there were 7 out of 11, or 63% of the runners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position. With those numbers it is easy to see why these runners did so well in those races. It is important to note that Buckpasser appears in the pedigrees in the 4th generation and beyond in an overwhelming number of these runners which indicates that the influence of genes carried on his X chromosome could be nothing more than insignificant or minor at best.

DDT

[Pan Zareta]

Pan Zareta wrote: "You're still "over-rating" the X chromosome."

That's your opinion...

That was a direct quote from remarks made specifically to you by an eminently credible source on the subject of genome-wide association studies of elite performance in the TB and you are well aware of that fact.

Your still "under-rating" the X chromosome.

Who are you quoting? Yourself?

Your opinion in that regard has no credibility, not to be taken seriously while you refuse to accept the fact that variants on other chromosomes are far more relevant to elite performance than anything on the x.

Buckpasser appears much more frequently in pedigrees via daughters than sons so is more likely to appear in x passing positions than other sires of his generation who appear about as often via sons as daughters, or those that appear more often via sons. You believe the major reason for this is something about Buckpasser's x but the genome-based evidence proves the variants most relevant to elite performance aren't on the x. It alone cannot explain his frequency and distribution in pedigrees though it may be a minor factor therein.

Furthermore, it's highly unlikely that genetic factors alone explain the fact that Buckpasser usually appears in pedigree via daus. That was in no small measure ordained by his performance as general sire and the environment at the top tier of the TB breeding population.

[stancaris]

Pan Zareta wrote: "You're still over-rating the X chromosome." "That was a direct quote from remarks made specifically to you by an eminently credible source on the subject of genome wide association studies of elite performance in the TB and you are well aware of that fact."

I am very well aware of what he said but what he said is by no means a FACT that the X chromosome at best ONLY plays a minor role in broodmare sire success. If you still think the X chromosome at best only plays a minor role in broodmare sire success, you are turning a blind eye to a very good handicapping method for the Triple Crown events, a method that has strong impact values and ROIs in all three legs of the Triple Crown. A method that was so good to my customers that if they followed my recommendations they would have hit the 2 DOLLAR $374 BELMONT STAKES EXACTA, THE 1 DOLLAR $3,390.50 TRIFECTA AND TWO SUPERFECTAS ($573 AND $380 FOR A DIME).

Furthermore, that eminently credible source stated that there are variants on the X chromosome that relate to elite performance. That eminently credible source also stated that he wouldn't call the alleles on the X "supergenes" but would refer to them as "important alleles".

The genomic evidence cited by Byron Rogers supports my opinion that the X chromosome is important to broodmare sire success.

[Pan Zareta]

The genomic evidence cited by Byron Rogers supports my opinion that the X chromosome is important to broodmare sire success.

Sure. That's why terms like "over-rating" and "overstate" came up in his replies to you. You want to quote him ("important alleles") but refuse to maintain the original context in which that term was used. When confronted with the full text of his remarks you claim there is ambiguity and contradiction, where there is actually neither, because they show that the x just isn't as important as you think it is.

You're simultaneously using and contradicting your source. That's misrepresentation. Shall I repost the full text of the remarks to this thread too, or can we skip that step this time?

[DDT]

You may have given your clients good betting strategy for the Belmont, however you did not follow the rules contained in your book. In formulating the methods presented in that book you utilized the factors that each of the 4 previous Derby winners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position had in common. Each and every indicator was formulated to reduce the number of losers that had Buckpasser in a X passing position in order to increase the win percentage and lower the number of qualified wagers, which in turn kept the ROI on a positive side. This year the actual qualifiers in the Belmont finished in a dead heat for 4th, or off the board. Standing alone and including results for 2013 and 2014 there have been 6 winners of the Derby, 5 qualified under your method and 1, Orb in 2013, became the first Derby winner that had Buckpasser in an X passing position without qualifying. During this period of time there have been at least 60 runners with Buckpasser in an X passing position entered in the Derbies, with 6 winners, that is a win percentage of 10%. Wagering $2.00 on each of them produces a negative ROI and has no impact value. Results for the Preakness and the Belmont also do not do well without qualifying.

DDT

[stancaris]

Pan Zareta: You can post, repost, or refer us to any of Byron Rogers statements. Those statements are an OPINION, NOT FACT. When Mr. Rogers states that I am over-rating the X chromosome; that is an opinion, NOT a FACT. Genomic research does NOT prove that the X chromosome as you say plays only a minor role in broodmare sire success

[Keith]

Alydar like Buckpasser has had some successful broodmares but neither are that successful as a sire of sires.

[Pan Zareta]

Alydar like Buckpasser has had some successful broodmares but neither are that successful as a sire of sires.

The remarkable success and popularity of that other son of Raise A Native, Mr. Prospector, may have made Alydar's sons somewhat less attractive to KY stud farms. Easy Goer probably had the best opportunity among them but died young.

Buckpasser's branch of the Phalaris tribe wasn't as notable for producing 'sires of sires' as others were. His sons were simply not as desirable to the major farms as sons of Bold Ruler, Northern Dancer, or Mr. P., but most of his daughters were eminently eligible consorts for the latter two.