Stan
While it is true that the Belmont angle produced a fine ROI of 78%, one should keep in mind the fact that the ROI is a function of closing odds which have nothing to do with the power of the angle. I have admitted that my assumption concerning the Belmont angle was wrong. Your research of all Belmonts ever run points out that there have been 10 winners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position out of 50 eligible runners producing a 20% win percentage. When one takes note of the fact that only one of those winners, Easy Goer, ran in all 3 Triple Crown races, the remaining 9 were all fresh runners who did not suffer the effects of running in all of the Triple Crown races. In addition to that, with the possible exception of Summer Bird, the remaining 9 runners were sired by leading or top stallions and/or produced by superior mares. Considering those facts it is very difficult to assume that having Buckpasser in an X passing position was a primary influence for the wins.
DDT
Secretariat and Buckpasser
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, Lucy
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: You are unbelievable. First you make the assumption that Buckpasser in the X is not a good angle because you believe that by itself it would not get a positive ROI. Then I prove it to you that you are wrong and by itself with no other handicapping factors at all wagering on all horses that had Buck in the X passing position gets an ROI of 78%. You go on by nitpicking irrelevant facts as a means to degrade my method once again.
The impact value for having Buckpasser in the X passing position ALONE is a strong 1.74 thru history (43.5% winners divided by 25% of the starters equals 1.74). Since there were 10 winners in 23 years the win percentage for this method is 43.5%. Note: There were only 23 years in which at least one qualifier with Buck in the X started in the Belmont stakes. This means that runners who carry Buck in the X are winning the Belmont stakes 74% more often than statistical expectation.
The impact value for having Buckpasser in the X passing position ALONE is a strong 1.74 thru history (43.5% winners divided by 25% of the starters equals 1.74). Since there were 10 winners in 23 years the win percentage for this method is 43.5%. Note: There were only 23 years in which at least one qualifier with Buck in the X started in the Belmont stakes. This means that runners who carry Buck in the X are winning the Belmont stakes 74% more often than statistical expectation.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
I thought the numbers were 10 out of 50 during the period 1970-2014, now you are saying over a 23 year period, how are you arriving at the win percentage, now are you back to using only the runners that qualify or all horses with Buckpasser in an X passing position. That is okay Stan, I get it now, you do not count all of the runners in each race that have Buckpasser in an X passing position because only one can win unless there is a dead heat, so even though there were 50 that qualified they only ran in 23 races.
I do not consider that the fact that the ROI is a result of closing odds is a form of nitpicking.
DDT
I thought the numbers were 10 out of 50 during the period 1970-2014, now you are saying over a 23 year period, how are you arriving at the win percentage, now are you back to using only the runners that qualify or all horses with Buckpasser in an X passing position. That is okay Stan, I get it now, you do not count all of the runners in each race that have Buckpasser in an X passing position because only one can win unless there is a dead heat, so even though there were 50 that qualified they only ran in 23 races.
I do not consider that the fact that the ROI is a result of closing odds is a form of nitpicking.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Are you guys really good friends off this site? Just wondering.... 
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: Hail Buckpasser in the X passing position because that ALONE can be used as a powerful handicapping tool to point out Belmont winners. A strong impact value and a strong ROI speaks loud and clear for Buckpasser in the X passing position.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
There are many factors involved with winning the Belmont, having Buckpasser in an X passing position, or for that matter, in any position in a 5 generation pedigree could be significant. My stand on the subject is your continued implication that genes on his X chromosome are a primary reason for his success as a sire of elite runners without considering the influence the genes carried on the 31 autosomes he passed along that are actually the primary reason for his success, especially at distance races such as the Belmont. His dam beat the boys at a mile and three quarters more than once and he himself was a great runner, especially at distance races. Given the fact that he sired many elite sons along with his elite daughters only adds support that genes carried on his X chromosome are not of primary importance because his sons did not have the benefit of his X chromosome. He is tail male to three Derby winners and all three of them did not have the benefit of his X chromosome. Genetic science has proven that genes carried on the X chromosome provide a minor influence to elite performance. It is always about right or wrong with you, and in this case you are wrong as long as you continue to imply that genes carried on Buckpasser's X chromosome are a primary reason for his success as a sire of elite runners and his success as a broodmare sire.
DDT
There are many factors involved with winning the Belmont, having Buckpasser in an X passing position, or for that matter, in any position in a 5 generation pedigree could be significant. My stand on the subject is your continued implication that genes on his X chromosome are a primary reason for his success as a sire of elite runners without considering the influence the genes carried on the 31 autosomes he passed along that are actually the primary reason for his success, especially at distance races such as the Belmont. His dam beat the boys at a mile and three quarters more than once and he himself was a great runner, especially at distance races. Given the fact that he sired many elite sons along with his elite daughters only adds support that genes carried on his X chromosome are not of primary importance because his sons did not have the benefit of his X chromosome. He is tail male to three Derby winners and all three of them did not have the benefit of his X chromosome. Genetic science has proven that genes carried on the X chromosome provide a minor influence to elite performance. It is always about right or wrong with you, and in this case you are wrong as long as you continue to imply that genes carried on Buckpasser's X chromosome are a primary reason for his success as a sire of elite runners and his success as a broodmare sire.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: In this thread on July 3, 2014 DDT wrote:
"Statistics confirm that having Buckpasser in the X passing position is an insignificant factor because standing alone it produces a very low winning percentage, a negative ROI, and no impact value at all."
You never did any research at all to support these FALSE statements. The above is just manufactured stuff.
I proved you absolutely wrong on each of the above as follows:
1) Standing alone Buckpasser in the X produces a win percentage of 43.5 percent (10 winners in the last 23 years in which at least one horse raced in the Belmont stakes that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position.
2) Standing alone Buckpasser in the X produces an ROI of 78 percent profit thru the history of the Belmont stakes.
3) Standing alone Buckpasser in the X produces an impact value of 1.74 thru the history of the Belmont stakes (43.5 percent winners divided by 25 percent of the starters equals 1.74). Belmont stakes runners that have Buckpasser in the X are winning the Belmont 74 percent more often than statistical expectation.
"Statistics confirm that having Buckpasser in the X passing position is an insignificant factor because standing alone it produces a very low winning percentage, a negative ROI, and no impact value at all."
You never did any research at all to support these FALSE statements. The above is just manufactured stuff.
I proved you absolutely wrong on each of the above as follows:
1) Standing alone Buckpasser in the X produces a win percentage of 43.5 percent (10 winners in the last 23 years in which at least one horse raced in the Belmont stakes that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position.
2) Standing alone Buckpasser in the X produces an ROI of 78 percent profit thru the history of the Belmont stakes.
3) Standing alone Buckpasser in the X produces an impact value of 1.74 thru the history of the Belmont stakes (43.5 percent winners divided by 25 percent of the starters equals 1.74). Belmont stakes runners that have Buckpasser in the X are winning the Belmont 74 percent more often than statistical expectation.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
I have admitted that my assumption concerning the Belmont and the ROI, win percentage and impact value was wrong, you want to continue to attack that assumption, how about all of the misleading and posts in error that you have made concerning many things, two recent errors or misleading posts by you concern the publication date of your book and your statement that ATM was offering your completed worksheets and your selections as an incentive to purchase the book which they would not do if you had not agreed to that tactic or much worse, initiated it. You would rather point out my wrong assumptions than offer comments that I have made concerning all of the other factors involved in winning the Belmont.
DDT
I have admitted that my assumption concerning the Belmont and the ROI, win percentage and impact value was wrong, you want to continue to attack that assumption, how about all of the misleading and posts in error that you have made concerning many things, two recent errors or misleading posts by you concern the publication date of your book and your statement that ATM was offering your completed worksheets and your selections as an incentive to purchase the book which they would not do if you had not agreed to that tactic or much worse, initiated it. You would rather point out my wrong assumptions than offer comments that I have made concerning all of the other factors involved in winning the Belmont.
DDT
-
Pan Zareta
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2074
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
- Location: west TX boonies
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
hpkingjr wrote: Evidently the X passing position didn't work when Buckpasser was closer up in the pedigree and had a more realistic influence on a horse. It appears that the X has to regress in the pedigree to be effective. Counter intuitive to me.
Where Belmont starters are concerned, you're quite right.
From 1972 (the year Buckpasser's first crop turned 3) through and including 1991, 14 Belmont S. starters had Buckpasser in their pedigree, 6 in x-passing position (Coastal, Comptroller, Slew o'Gold, Easy Goer, Triple Buck, Unbridled) and 8 in non x-passing positions (Paristo, Coax Me Chad, Fast Acccount, Personal Flag, Awe Inspiring, Rock Point, Hansel, and Corporate Report). Among these 14, Buckpasser is found no further back in pedigree than third generation in all but one case (Unbridled). Paristo is the only one of Buckpasser's own progeny that ever started in a running of the Belmont S.
From and including 1992 through and including 2014, 98 starters have had at least one cross of Buckpasser in their pedigree, 29 of them with one or more exclusively x-passing crosses, 52 of them with one or more exclusively non x-passing crosses, 17 with at least one x-passing cross and at least one non x-passing cross. (In other words, the x-passing:non x-passing distribution is pretty close to even.) Fourteen of the 98 have at least one cross of Buckpasser in 3d gen. or closer (or equivalent inbreeding). Fifteen of them have no cross of Buckpasser closer than 6th generation.
The further back in pedigree Buckpasser gets, the more 'effective' he seems, x-passing and otherwise. This is also true of him as a broodmare 'sire of sires'. The most successful sires in whose pedigrees he appears, AP Indy, Unbridled, Danehill, Galileo, all have him in 3d or 4th gen, not in majority x-passing position.
In these interminable x chromosome-centric threads it's easy to forget that Buckpasser had a sire. He may be Tom Fool's main conduit but he's certainly not the only one. In addition to Buckpasser, Tom Fool is found in the pedigrees of Belmont starters 1972-2014 via multiple occurrences of four other sons and at least three daughters.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
You posted on July 4, 2014 that standing alone Buckpasser in the X passing position achieved a 43.5% winning percentage, how can that be fair if you count the percentage of runners entered on one side of the equation but only count the winners versus the number of races on the other? If you only count the winners versus the number of races, the fresh horse factor is an excellent angle. During the period 1979-2014 there have been 36 Belmonts and 24 of them have been won using the fresh horse factor. During the period 1992-2014 there have been 23 Belmonts and 17 of those have been won by a fresh horse. During the period 2000-2014 there have been 15 Belmonts and 13 of those have been won by a fresh horse. All of these facts produce a very good winning percentage. During the most recent period, 2000-2014 there have been 115 runners that qualify as a fresh horse, a $2.00 win wager on all 115 qualifiers would cost $230.00, the 13 winners generated a pay out of $528.90 producing a profit of $298.90. I believe these facts adequately illustrate the power of the fresh horse factor, and is more than likely the primary factor involved when handicapping the Belmont, not having Buckpasser in an X passing position.
DDT
You posted on July 4, 2014 that standing alone Buckpasser in the X passing position achieved a 43.5% winning percentage, how can that be fair if you count the percentage of runners entered on one side of the equation but only count the winners versus the number of races on the other? If you only count the winners versus the number of races, the fresh horse factor is an excellent angle. During the period 1979-2014 there have been 36 Belmonts and 24 of them have been won using the fresh horse factor. During the period 1992-2014 there have been 23 Belmonts and 17 of those have been won by a fresh horse. During the period 2000-2014 there have been 15 Belmonts and 13 of those have been won by a fresh horse. All of these facts produce a very good winning percentage. During the most recent period, 2000-2014 there have been 115 runners that qualify as a fresh horse, a $2.00 win wager on all 115 qualifiers would cost $230.00, the 13 winners generated a pay out of $528.90 producing a profit of $298.90. I believe these facts adequately illustrate the power of the fresh horse factor, and is more than likely the primary factor involved when handicapping the Belmont, not having Buckpasser in an X passing position.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: Your reference to fresh horses in the Belmont is irrelevant to my Buckpasser in the X passing position statistics.
See my post on July 5th, 2014 at 4:10PM. I challenge you to find any other stallion that would get as good statistics as Buckpasser in the X passing position STANDING ALONE WITH NO OTHER HANDICAPPING FACTORS AT ALL in the Belmont stakes thru history.
See my post on July 5th, 2014 at 4:10PM. I challenge you to find any other stallion that would get as good statistics as Buckpasser in the X passing position STANDING ALONE WITH NO OTHER HANDICAPPING FACTORS AT ALL in the Belmont stakes thru history.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
I know the only thing that is relevant to you is Buckpasser in the X passing position. You have your opinions and you are welcome to express them over and over again. The statistics for the fresh horse angle far out perform Buckpasser in the X passing position. What makes you think that because there are no other stallions that match Buckpasser's influence in the Belmont somehow gives the angle more strength?
DDT
I know the only thing that is relevant to you is Buckpasser in the X passing position. You have your opinions and you are welcome to express them over and over again. The statistics for the fresh horse angle far out perform Buckpasser in the X passing position. What makes you think that because there are no other stallions that match Buckpasser's influence in the Belmont somehow gives the angle more strength?
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: See my above post on July 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM. If Buckpasser was just an incidental factor that is only a minor influence as you said it was then I challenge you to find a substitute for Buckpasser in the X passing position with any other stallion in the X passing position that could get as solid results as Buckpasser did thru the history of the Belmont stakes with regard to ROI, Impact Values, and Percentage of Winners.
The Buckpasser in the X passing position ALONE is a strong angle.
The Buckpasser in the X passing position ALONE is a strong angle.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
You have your opinion and I have mine. You continue to spin off in all directions. I challenge you to explain how impact values have any meaning whatsoever to predicting the outcome of a horse race, living, breathing animals that are controlled by humans from the time of inception until retirement and even then. I challenge you to explain why you think the ROI can be affected by the handicapping method developed in your book. I challenge you to remain on topic. I challenge you to explain why you set the time period covered in your book for the Preakness and the Belmont from 1992 to 2012. It would be nice if you could just answer some of my questions instead of going off on a tangent.
DDT
You have your opinion and I have mine. You continue to spin off in all directions. I challenge you to explain how impact values have any meaning whatsoever to predicting the outcome of a horse race, living, breathing animals that are controlled by humans from the time of inception until retirement and even then. I challenge you to explain why you think the ROI can be affected by the handicapping method developed in your book. I challenge you to remain on topic. I challenge you to explain why you set the time period covered in your book for the Preakness and the Belmont from 1992 to 2012. It would be nice if you could just answer some of my questions instead of going off on a tangent.
DDT
-
Pan Zareta
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2074
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
- Location: west TX boonies
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Obviously, the focus has been narrowed from all three TC races to just one of them, and the 'look back' period for that race limited to 1992-present, to be as bias-confirming as possible.
As for other stallions found more frequently in x-passing position in the Belmont stakes through history, that list would begin with (but certainly not be limited to) Buckpasser's broodmare sire War Admiral, then his broodmare sire Sweep, then his broodmare sire, Domino, then his broodmare sire, Enquirer, then his broodmare sire, the immortal Lexington, and among others at the summit of this x-passing pantheon would be the broodmare sire of Domino's 2d and 3d broodmare sires, *Glencoe who, before he left the old world for the new, got Pocahontas, she the first focus of Marianna Haun's fractured fairy tales which are the reason the less discerning try to caricature Buckpasser in terms of a single chromosome.
Good luck finding a modern TB without at least one x-passing path to *Glencoe. Whatever, if anything, was advantageous about his x chromosome is by now fixed in the population. Buckpasser was a very good broodmare sire but he is not the second coming of *Glencoe, not even close, nor ever likely to be.
As for other stallions found more frequently in x-passing position in the Belmont stakes through history, that list would begin with (but certainly not be limited to) Buckpasser's broodmare sire War Admiral, then his broodmare sire Sweep, then his broodmare sire, Domino, then his broodmare sire, Enquirer, then his broodmare sire, the immortal Lexington, and among others at the summit of this x-passing pantheon would be the broodmare sire of Domino's 2d and 3d broodmare sires, *Glencoe who, before he left the old world for the new, got Pocahontas, she the first focus of Marianna Haun's fractured fairy tales which are the reason the less discerning try to caricature Buckpasser in terms of a single chromosome.
Good luck finding a modern TB without at least one x-passing path to *Glencoe. Whatever, if anything, was advantageous about his x chromosome is by now fixed in the population. Buckpasser was a very good broodmare sire but he is not the second coming of *Glencoe, not even close, nor ever likely to be.