TRUENICKS.....

[brogers]

Well....after three years of development, testing and refinement TrueNicks is finally ready to launch!

http://truenicks.com

Unlike other ratings that are calculated on the basis of hypothetical opportunity among a limited group of horses, the TrueNicks rating utilizes the database of The Jockey Club – the world’s most complete records of Thoroughbreds and their performance — to produce a sophisticated rating based on all foals for a given cross.

A TrueNicks rating is derived from two statistical elements: a Sire Improvement Index (SII) and a Broodmare Sire Improvement Index (BSII). Both of them compare the percentage of progeny stakes winners to starters. An SII of 2.0 indicates the sire/sire line has twice the percentage of stakes winners out of mares by the broodmare sire/sire line as he does when bred to all other mares. A BSII of 3.0 indicates that that the percentage of stakes winners out of a stallion’s daughters when bred to the chosen sire/sire line is 3.0 times as high as the percentage of stakes winners produced by the same mares when bred to all other studs.

The TrueNicks rating is then calculated by multiplying the SII by the BSII, effectively recognizing the real opportunity and performance of the given cross. In the example above, an SII of 2.0 and a BSII of 3.0 would result in a TrueNicks variant score of 6.0, indicating that the nick performs six times better than average opportunity, translating to an A+ TrueNicks rating

With the entire database of The Jockey Club at its disposal during development, the TrueNicks rating was calibrated on a test group of over 100,000 horses of racing age. Converting the raw TrueNicks score to a letter rating – A to D and F, as in the academic system – reveals some intriguing results that verify the existence of nicks across a whole population. For example:

1. While only 13% of the entire Thoroughbred population earn “A” rankings (A to A++), 37% of the stakes winners rate as “A’s.”

2. Horses rated “B” or better (B to A++) represent just 30% of the entire population, yet 3 out of 4 (77%) stakes winners rank “B” or better.

3. Almost half of Thoroughbreds in general–44%–are on the low end of the scale (rated “C” through “F”), yet only two in 25 stakes winners (8%) have these lower rankings.

[tinners way]

If I use the example shown on the website, Rags to Riches, and then go to enicks and pull up Rags to Riches, both are an A+. What am I missing, for $20 a report, the only thing that i see differently is a I get a list of others bred on the same cross. If it happened to be Kingmambo over Sadlers Wellls mares, would that entire list be given, or just the successful crosses. i.e. if I got the entire listing it would give me something to research, but if I only get the successes, than it is no better than what Roger Lyons has done.

[brogers]

Yes, Rags to Riches rates an A+ on both systems, but a lot of horses don't rate the same and our ratings are updated daily to reflect what has happened across the entire thoroughbred population, not just a group of stakes winners. On Truenick ratings, which are calibrated across a population, only 13% of the entire Thoroughbred population earn “A” rankings (A to A++). Werk has a good product, but we feel that our system discriminates a little better.

We are going to expand the report to give a lot more information so I appreciate your feedback. Adding more than 5 horses is one idea that we will look to implement.

[Worksoplad]

If I use the example shown on the website, Rags to Riches, and then go to enicks and pull up Rags to Riches, both are an A+. What am I missing, for $20 a report, the only thing that i see differently is a I get a list of others bred on the same cross. If it happened to be Kingmambo over Sadlers Wellls mares, would that entire list be given, or just the successful crosses. i.e. if I got the entire listing it would give me something to research, but if I only get the successes, than it is no better than what Roger Lyons has done.

I agree! $20 a search is way, way over the top. As for the hypo matings I get as many as I want from this pedigreequery site for $100.00 per year, and most stud farms have free access to Enicks. What is the incentive to pay $20 a search? During the decision making time for my four mares, I make hundreds of hypomatings and Enick searches.

[shanova]

Why not offer several free reports to individuals so they may have the opportunity to evaluate them for themselves before having to pay $$$ for them?

Marketing...if companies are so sure of their product, don't they give away
free samples, trials, etc...hey, you can also write it off your taxes as advertising.

[brogers]

I agree! $20 a search is way, way over the top. As for the hypo matings I get as many as I want from this pedigreequery site for $100.00 per year, and most stud farms have free access to Enicks. What is the incentive to pay $20 a search? During the decision making time for my four mares, I make hundreds of hypomatings and Enick searches.

You will find that if you have to buy an Enick it is $20. The same price.

We will have subscribed stallions on Truenicks. We have some already signed and will be adding more throughout the year. Importantly they will be available via http://www.stallionregister.com as well so you will be able to look at the statistics on the stallion at the same time you run a rating.

[tinners way]

Is the current stallion list published anywhere? Has it been offered to farms as of yet? For 2008 I do not see how it can be a competitive product based on what you have indicated so far.

[fletch621]

Well, I think this is a step in the right direction as far as research capability goes.... but the thing that irks me the most about this is that we as breeders are required to spend the money to register our foals with the Jockey Club, then they hold all this information hostage and turn around and demand that we pay even more money for essentially basic information. There are solutions to this, but in the nickle and diming world of thoroughbreds I don't see them ever being put in place. Having said that, I did run a TrueNick report today just to see what type of information it would provide to me.... and was extremely disappointed in the product as of this moment. What I would expect to see for $20 is a complete listing of all horses bred on the same nick that I am researching, that includes claimers and registered horses that never ran a race in their lives. I would expect to see information pertaining to earnings and a break down of percentages of foals running at various levels of the game. Further, with total access to a database such as this I would expect to see a more "fuzzy" nicking break-down, for example.... a nick between two sire lines might look appealing, but who's to say that it specifically isn't a nick between particular female familes that exist in those two particular sire lines. Having access to the complete database would provide you patterns of that nature. Again, a step in the right direction but a grossly overpriced product at this time. Mr. Rogers, please don't take this the wrong way, I just think that more can be done here with the amount of information that is now available to you. I do note on the truenicks.com website that additional products will be appearing, so perhaps this is all in the works.

EDIT: BTW, it was very interesting that the Werk eNick report I ran for my Beau Genius mare in foal to Slew City Slew came out to be an F rating and it is a B+ rating on the TrueNicks system... My goal is Sis City part deux, so the B+ rating does make me happier than the F rating

[shanova]

I am not sure I clearly understand this....

I was just reading through BloodHorse's Data Digest on the January Keeneland Sale when I came across the article introducing TrueNicks. I also happened to notice our colt was one of the "A" yearlings. I then went to your website looking for information explaining the "Variant Score"...

I now have to ask, based solely on the variant score of your nicks what would you say the difference is between the following 2 yearlings:
1) "A" with a variant score of 2.66 & 2) "A" with a variant score of 3.85

Other than individual placement in the catalog, which by the way, #1 is placed over 800 hips before #2; am I understanding that based on truenicks, yearling #2 has a higher probabilty of success than the yearling #1?

If you would, please explain the difference between the two yearlings above based on TrueNicks as I now have a real interest in understanding.

An interesting statement on your website ...

only 13% of the entire Thoroughbred population earn “A” rankings (A to A++), 37% of the stakes winners rate as “A’s.”

[spex4me]

I'm not sure I'm entirely happy I just paid $20 to find out my filly is a "D" Realistically I would like to see more information as stated above for $20. And how about posting what the great horses grade out at. I have a general wonder if any really good racer graded at an "F".

[Worksoplad]

I agree! $20 a search is way, way over the top. As for the hypo matings I get as many as I want from this pedigreequery site for $100.00 per year, and most stud farms have free access to Enicks. What is the incentive to pay $20 a search? During the decision making time for my four mares, I make hundreds of hypomatings and Enick searches.

You will find that if you have to buy an Enick it is $20. The same price.

We will have subscribed stallions on Truenicks. We have some already signed and will be adding more throughout the year. Importantly they will be available via http://www.stallionregister.com as well so you will be able to look at the statistics on the stallion at the same time you run a rating.

I was quoted $10 a search for the Enicks and hypo-mating by Werk for stallions not already available from the stud farm itself. I balked at that, since most of the stallions I am interested in are available free, and I get the hypo-mating service as part of my annual subscription fee.

[Rokeby Forever]

sire lines might look appealing, but who's to say that it specifically isn't a nick between particular female familes that exist in those two particular sire lines.

Whatever happened to female tail inbreeding? Does sire X/sire Y mean more that being inbred to Natalma, Busanda, or any of the great broodmares?

[fletch621]

Roke, you are exactly right about inbreeding to great broodmares. But maybe it isn't even inbreeding, perhaps particular female lines work best with other female lines... period. That was my point about why sire line nicks may look appealing, it might have nothing at all to do with that sire line and everything to do with a female line that happens to exist within it. I don't think it is a coincindince at all that the same female names appear over and over and over again within graded stakes winning pedigrees. An example, Con Game and her sons Fast Play (Seattle Slew line) and Seeking the Gold (Mr. Prospector line). Now I have two different sire lines, but the same female family... both produced graded stakes winners, so conventional wisdom is that I have two seperate nicks here, one between Seattle Slew line and some stallion and one between Mr. Prospector and some stallion. What if it is looked at from the perspective of Con Game and her female family? Maybe that is the true "nick", Con Game female line with some other blood on the other half of the pedigree.... and it might not even be another female. Another example. The two race mares Power Play and Gold Tiara, the first by Fast Play, the second by Seeking the Gold. Both have Con Game as the sire's dam, and in addition, Power Play's second dam is by Solo Landing, a son of First Landing, Gold Tiara's second dam is by Riva Ridge a son of First Landing. This is just an example that I found very quicly and I have not researched fully.... but who is to say that Con Game over First Landing isn't a real nick? Anyway... what disgusts me the most is having total access to such a powerful database of information and simply using it to further this whole sire-line over sire-line tunnel vision.

[jagger]

I think Goldmine/VGS has more to offer than either e-nicks or truenicks. JMHO

[spex4me]

There needs to be a system that figures in values for both sire and dam lines. Look around at people. Do they all look like one parent or another? I think relying too heavily on just the sire or dam lines is wee bit much. But I still feel, IMHO, the dam has more to offer, if you're just going to focus on one. But again , even as a novice breeder, I would be foolish to not look at the WHOLE picture as opposed to just a section of it. What is Goldmine? Does it take into account more than what nicks does?