Dub not trying to take a swipe at you but can I be nosey.
Who is the Graded Stakes horse and other winners you are responsible for breeding? And do you own or race any horses?
I understand if you choose not to name them.
Cost Inflation in the Industry
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
lol ur funny did you copy and paste that?
As they are not my horses and I am not down as the breeder anything I say can't be verified.
I will however post details hopefully towards the end of this year as I plan to purchase something of my own, fingers crossed if I can get what I want within budget and its more likely to be in the US - so you will all have a chance at critiquing then.
As they are not my horses and I am not down as the breeder anything I say can't be verified.
I will however post details hopefully towards the end of this year as I plan to purchase something of my own, fingers crossed if I can get what I want within budget and its more likely to be in the US - so you will all have a chance at critiquing then.
Edited by Moderator
Have paid anywhere from $15-20 a bale for hay this winter in California. Thankfully I've been blessed and it's not a great burden to feed my horses.
I'm thankful that I can afford $20 hay in California. If the economy in Kentucky is commenserate with $4 or $5 a bale hay, then I'm thankful to be here in California.
Any reasonable person considers nicking patterns. Considering the great expense involved breeding, racing Thoroughbred horses, not considering every angle would be foolish. Look at the wins/ stakes wins/graded stakes wins of those who boast about ignoring nicking patterns. That tells the story.
I'm thankful that I can afford $20 hay in California. If the economy in Kentucky is commenserate with $4 or $5 a bale hay, then I'm thankful to be here in California.
Any reasonable person considers nicking patterns. Considering the great expense involved breeding, racing Thoroughbred horses, not considering every angle would be foolish. Look at the wins/ stakes wins/graded stakes wins of those who boast about ignoring nicking patterns. That tells the story.
dublino wrote:I think it's a bit simpler than that.
Most people that are getting out behind have made bad decisions and are blaming others for their "misfortune" or "bad luck".
Luck is a word used by losers to justify bad decisions, luck does not exist.
If you take a poor mare and breed her to a first season unproven sire or breed on a D nick or worse and expect good results you are delusional.
There are people posting about mares and potential stallion prospects on this board and people offering advice about these to breed to, horses who once won a small Graded race and ended up in claimers and people saying yeah might be good to breed to etc. geld the animal.
Poor mares with no winners under 2 or 3 generations and people saying I love the Buckpasser in the fourth generation.
Or the eight dam produced nice runners, cull the mare.
It might be hard to hear and it might be pissing on someone's dreams but its good financial advice.
What's more important having a shitty mare and foals by no name stallions or money to feed your family????
Hi Dub,
I believe good horsemanship and a fair amount of being in the right place at the right time helps....I'm inclined to call it luck, but I don't feel it would be applied in the context of what you think luck is (an excuse for loser's bad decisions). In this business luck is brought about by hard work and good horsemanship to turn ordinarily bred horses into decent hard knocking race horses. They don't have to be regally bred...they have to be regally bred in your eyes and A rated in your personal hands on experience and knowledge....it's done all the time. Here's this season's story. You could call it a stroke of luck for the breeder's of Vyjack, when the deal to re-sell Vyjack's dam fell through (they bought her for $4,500 to re-sell). So they kept her and booked her to Bernstein. Now I don't want to say it was luck again but what would you call it? Maybe karma or possibly fate, when their mare was ready to be bred to Bernstein, but Berstein wasn't ready for her, after a particularly hard day in the saddle:>). They had a 2 hour window to come up with a substitute. So in a panic, they got on the phone and started making calls...eventually going to Into Mischief who was much less costly than the late Berstein's stud fee. Guess what I'm trying to say is, no one know's for sure when they will breed a top horse...heck, not just in breeding, but being in the right place at the right time was responsible for some of our top trainers all over the world...call it what you will....I'll call it luck. If all you had to do was breed the best to the best it would be an easy game loaded only with the elite bluebloods as it was in the beginning. They get lucky too with some great horses....but most won't continually breed that champion and their pockets eventually run dry too....just takes them longer. Yet every day, now and in the beginning, we see stories like Vyjack's show up in the business. A nice horse on the low end of the scale...B-21, I-15 N-10, ...BINGO! It happens at every level every day and you never know for certain when or where:>). TJ
Hard work and good horsemanship isn't luck. That's years of experience, what most people call failure is called gaining experience.
I don't prersonally believe its all about blue bloods but racing class in mare or immediate family helps hugely.
When you go out and buy a car do you go buy a Rolls Royce?
No you buy something that fits your needs and your budget.
You check the safety ratings, the mpg the size of the boot.
How much it costs to insure.
Why not put the same thought into breeding a horse, heck it costs more to buy and run/maintain.
Into Mischief/Bernstein both Storm Cat line would have nicked similar?
TJ age must be catching up with you if your mentioning BINGO
I don't prersonally believe its all about blue bloods but racing class in mare or immediate family helps hugely.
When you go out and buy a car do you go buy a Rolls Royce?
No you buy something that fits your needs and your budget.
You check the safety ratings, the mpg the size of the boot.
How much it costs to insure.
Why not put the same thought into breeding a horse, heck it costs more to buy and run/maintain.
Into Mischief/Bernstein both Storm Cat line would have nicked similar?
TJ age must be catching up with you if your mentioning BINGO
Edited by Moderator
dublino wrote:I think it's a bit simpler than that.
Most people that are getting out behind have made bad decisions and are blaming others for their "misfortune" or "bad luck".
Luck is a word used by losers to justify bad decisions, luck does not exist.
If you take a poor mare and breed her to a first season unproven sire or breed on a D nick or worse and expect good results you are delusional.
There are people posting about mares and potential stallion prospects on this board and people offering advice about these to breed to, horses who once won a small Graded race and ended up in claimers and people saying yeah might be good to breed to etc. geld the animal.
Poor mares with no winners under 2 or 3 generations and people saying I love the Buckpasser in the fourth generation.
Or the eight dam produced nice runners, cull the mare.
It might be hard to hear and it might be pissing on someone's dreams but its good financial advice.
What's more important having a shitty mare and foals by no name stallions or money to feed your family????
sysonby wrote:In Northern California, you really need an allowance class runner to make money and those are fairly elite. Declining foal crops means that there is no such thing as a Calbred allowance any more up North - you have two shots at the open first condition often running against KY breds brought North by Mandella, O'Neill, Puype etc. So it's not enough to just put foals on the ground- they need to be quality runners to be competitive.
But that is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself IMO.
I agree with both dub and sysonby. I race in northern California, and I breed all the horses I race. You can make money on the norcal circuit, but if you breed to race, and have a successful claimer, you will lose the horse. I had one I bred, she broke her maiden for $8k, won her next start for $16k, came in 2nd for $20k, 4th for $16k, then we dropped her back to $12k and we lost her. Total net to me was about even, including breeders' awards. She has won twice since the claim, and she is generating breeders awards, but if I had lost her in that first race, for $8k, I would have lost money on her. The claiming game doesn't really work for small breeders.
On the other hand, her younger sister just broke her maiden first out in a msw. Calbred owners awards of over $8k are added to the purse, and a one time calbred bonus of $10k is given to the winner of the msw. If you have a quality horse that can compete even at the higher claiming levels, you can make a go of it. The money that is added to the purses for the upper level calbreds in norcal is significant and meaningful. It makes up for the fact that they rarely card a race there that is restricted to calbreds, as they do in southern California.
And it makes a difference in the quality of mare that is bred, and the stallion that is selected to go with that mare. The stud fee is not the issue, in California, in finding a good mating. The top priced stud fee in CA is $6500 (with the exception of Unusual Heat). To pay a little more for a stallion that suits the mare seems better to me than to breed the mare to a cheaper stallion that perhaps has a great cross in the 4th generation and a double of La Troienne. If that cross didn't do anything for the stallion when he was racing its not going to do anything for the mare. The great expenses come in the training of the young horse, and if that horse is going to be a $4k claimer a breeder just can't hang in there and make any money.
This weekend was fairly instructive. There were 5 races at Golden Gate with purses over $20k and none were restricted to Calbreds. Two were won by Darley with a Bernardini and a Distorted Humor. Two were won by Tribal Rules (of the $6500 stud fee alluded to by docjocoy). The $34000 allowance had graded SW Halo Dolly running against the boys.
It's a circuit that gets overlooked but you really need a lot of bullets in the gun to be profitable. Southern California is miles tougher but at least there are Calbred specific races. Unfortunately for the little guys, those races are full of high priced Baffert, Sadler, O'Neill versions of Calbreds -especially KYbred Calbreds-to get by.
It's a circuit that gets overlooked but you really need a lot of bullets in the gun to be profitable. Southern California is miles tougher but at least there are Calbred specific races. Unfortunately for the little guys, those races are full of high priced Baffert, Sadler, O'Neill versions of Calbreds -especially KYbred Calbreds-to get by.
Sysonby wrote:This weekend was fairly instructive. There were 5 races at Golden Gate with purses over $20k and none were restricted to Calbreds. Two were won by Darley with a Bernardini and a Distorted Humor. Two were won by Tribal Rules (of the $6500 stud fee alluded to by docjocoy). The $34000 allowance had graded SW Halo Dolly running against the boys.
It's a circuit that gets overlooked but you really need a lot of bullets in the gun to be profitable. Southern California is miles tougher but at least there are Calbred specific races. Unfortunately for the little guys, those races are full of high priced Baffert, Sadler, O'Neill versions of Calbreds -especially KYbred Calbreds-to get by.
The calbred races are nice in SoCal, the NoCal calbred races never seem to fill. But what really steams me is the rule we have in CA that if a mare drops her foal in CA it instantly becomes a calbred. So we have Bernardinis, Distorted Humors, et al, running with the calbreds as calbreds. It is very discouraging to a small breeder to be beaten in a calbred race by a KY sired calbred. I've been vocal about this issue to all the CA powers that be, but am mostly swatted away or patronized. Because we have this rule on the books, I suppose if I had the resources I would also take advantage of it, but since I don't, I can't, and just remain disgruntled.
I don't know of too many Bernardini and Distorted Humor Calbreds because those horses have so much intrinsic worth as KY breds they don't need the cachet of being in a statebred program. (The two I talked about were Darley KY breds running in an open against Calbreds.)
My point is that the Calbred awards are quite lucrative but you have to finish first, second or third to earn them. In the last few years because of consolidation of racing days North and South that has meant that Calbreds get thrown into the deep end of the pool especially at the first condition level and NoCal breeders might have to run their stock against Darley, the Mosses, Mandella clients etc to earn those awards. With the dearth of good stallions in the state, the KYbred Calbred has become a sort of norm (Im thinking specifically of Unzip Me, Lava Man, Amazombie, and Evening Jewel) which is pushing up competition even more. So a breeder really has to be judicious and careful with his and her investments because its not easy money to be sure and especially if you are competing anywhere under allowance levels.
FWIW I had a KYbred Calbred who just got her 6th win in Pennsylvania- she couldn't pay her way in Northern California running solid Beyers in the 60s. If a breeder has to have runners Beyering in the 70s to make money consistently, that's fairly elite and something a sober eyed breeder should take into account.
OTOH quality is what breeding programs are supposed to encourage. It just can be a little tough on the individual trying to make ends meet with average stock.
My point is that the Calbred awards are quite lucrative but you have to finish first, second or third to earn them. In the last few years because of consolidation of racing days North and South that has meant that Calbreds get thrown into the deep end of the pool especially at the first condition level and NoCal breeders might have to run their stock against Darley, the Mosses, Mandella clients etc to earn those awards. With the dearth of good stallions in the state, the KYbred Calbred has become a sort of norm (Im thinking specifically of Unzip Me, Lava Man, Amazombie, and Evening Jewel) which is pushing up competition even more. So a breeder really has to be judicious and careful with his and her investments because its not easy money to be sure and especially if you are competing anywhere under allowance levels.
FWIW I had a KYbred Calbred who just got her 6th win in Pennsylvania- she couldn't pay her way in Northern California running solid Beyers in the 60s. If a breeder has to have runners Beyering in the 70s to make money consistently, that's fairly elite and something a sober eyed breeder should take into account.
OTOH quality is what breeding programs are supposed to encourage. It just can be a little tough on the individual trying to make ends meet with average stock.
hi dublino...hi all
Bravo re hard work and good horsemanship.
Does luck or lack thereof (to varying degrees), not come into play though?
What do you call it when a horse (example: Fort Larned) stumbles at the break, loses the rider...and grabs a quarter (to boot)?
Maybe Luck (when it comes to the world of thoroughbreds) would be an interesting (if not worthwhile) topic.
Thoughts?
Best to ya.
Respectfully
dublino wrote:Hard work and good horsemanship isn't luck. That's years of experience, what most people call failure is called gaining experience.
Bravo re hard work and good horsemanship.
Does luck or lack thereof (to varying degrees), not come into play though?
What do you call it when a horse (example: Fort Larned) stumbles at the break, loses the rider...and grabs a quarter (to boot)?
Maybe Luck (when it comes to the world of thoroughbreds) would be an interesting (if not worthwhile) topic.
Thoughts?
Best to ya.
Respectfully
Sysonby wrote:My point is that the Calbred awards are quite lucrative but you have to finish first, second or third to earn them.
FWIW I had a KYbred Calbred who just got her 6th win in Pennsylvania- she couldn't pay her way in Northern California running solid Beyers in the 60s. If a breeder has to have runners Beyering in the 70s to make money consistently, that's fairly elite and something a sober eyed breeder should take into account.
OTOH quality is what breeding programs are supposed to encourage. It just can be a little tough on the individual trying to make ends meet with average stock.
Shock horror Breeders awards for horses finishing in the first 3.
What would you prefer a participation trophy?
A beyer in the 60's is a slow horse.
You have found a slot for your horse in PA, ship the mare there and breed PA breds sit back and cash in.
CA KY and FL are now for KY breds - PA NY LA and IN are for smaller local breeders with added casino money - times have changed adapt with them and cash in or sit back become disgruntled and talk about the good old days.
Edited by Moderator
hi dublino...hi all
Maybe you have a mysterious/wondrous telepathy
...after all, you speak as if you know that Fort Larned was over anxious 
.
Some may connect/define LUCK to/as some mysterious force in the universe, as you have suggested. In general that's not where I'm coming from. When it comes to an occurrence that has something to do with chance (for example), or maybe improbability (another example, if you will), etc...I find the word LUCK, coupled with good/bad/not so good/not so bad, may sometimes be just the right word or words.
Hard work and horsemanship (your words), may be enough, if not everything, for some; and, may very well enhance ones' chances to be/get lucky. That said, so much (re the world of thoroughbreds anyway) seems to happen by chance...and be beyond one's control; so why not welcome a measure of Good LUCK...any time?
In the case of Fort Larned (in the Gulfstream Park Handicap), seems to me he was UNLUCKY. Doesn't mean he would have won (or not) had he not stumbled though; but, arguably others in the race were Lucky (as a result of his being unlucky).
Maybe it's semantics...but (to my way of thinking) a measure of Good LUCK is always welcome.
I'll never forget one particular big race that we won some time ago. We actually finished 2nd, and the horse that got to the wire first was clearly MUCH the best. BUT...the inquiry sign started flashing, and soon thereafter (as you might expect) so was the Objection sign. After quite some time, the stewards took the previously apparent winner's number down. Replay after replay after replay (over and over and over) didn't show much in the way of contact
...but who am I to argue , or question the stewards.
Suddenly the lights stopped flashing, and was MUCH surprised to see our number moved up to the winner's spot. Call it what you want, as far as I was concerned...that was Luck.
Hopefully your experiences with thoroughbreds (whether breeding, racing, or whatever direction you choose) will be all you want them to be.
Respectfully.
dublino wrote:FOS wrote:What do you call it when a horse (example: Fort Larned) stumbles at the break, loses the rider...and grabs a quarter (to boot)?
It's called a bad step, it's caused by the horse being over anxious rather than some mysterious force "luck" in the universe.
Maybe you have a mysterious/wondrous telepathy
...after all, you speak as if you know that Fort Larned was over anxious .
Some may connect/define LUCK to/as some mysterious force in the universe, as you have suggested. In general that's not where I'm coming from. When it comes to an occurrence that has something to do with chance (for example), or maybe improbability (another example, if you will), etc...I find the word LUCK, coupled with good/bad/not so good/not so bad, may sometimes be just the right word or words.
Hard work and horsemanship (your words), may be enough, if not everything, for some; and, may very well enhance ones' chances to be/get lucky. That said, so much (re the world of thoroughbreds anyway) seems to happen by chance...and be beyond one's control; so why not welcome a measure of Good LUCK...any time?
In the case of Fort Larned (in the Gulfstream Park Handicap), seems to me he was UNLUCKY. Doesn't mean he would have won (or not) had he not stumbled though; but, arguably others in the race were Lucky (as a result of his being unlucky).
Maybe it's semantics...but (to my way of thinking) a measure of Good LUCK is always welcome.
I'll never forget one particular big race that we won some time ago. We actually finished 2nd, and the horse that got to the wire first was clearly MUCH the best. BUT...the inquiry sign started flashing, and soon thereafter (as you might expect) so was the Objection sign. After quite some time, the stewards took the previously apparent winner's number down. Replay after replay after replay (over and over and over) didn't show much in the way of contact
...but who am I to argue , or question the stewards.
Suddenly the lights stopped flashing, and was MUCH surprised to see our number moved up to the winner's spot. Call it what you want, as far as I was concerned...that was Luck.
Hopefully your experiences with thoroughbreds (whether breeding, racing, or whatever direction you choose) will be all you want them to be.
Respectfully.