TJ: If you use a CD of 1.25 as the cutoff point you could only eliminate one Derby starter on that basis over the last 17 years and that horse was Bob Black Jack in 2008 who came in at a CD of 1.25. All the other Derby starters in the last 17 years had a CD under 1.25.
So in the last 17 years approximately 99.99% of all Derby starters had a CD under 1.25.
What value does a cut-off point of 1.25 have if virtually all the starters in the Derby have a CD of 1.24 or less?
What is the impact value for carrying a CD of less than 1.25 over the last 17 years. 100% winners divided by 99.99% of the starters or 1.00 which is meaningless for handicappers. Its similar to saying what is the Ky Derby impact value for being a 3 year old. (100% winners divided 100% of the starters equals an impact value of 1.00) which is useless to handicappers trying to select the Derby winner.
The Rebel Stakes GR II
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
Re: 1.25 is the cutoff
stancaris wrote:TJ: If you use a CD of 1.25 as the cutoff point you could only eliminate one Derby starter on that basis over the last 17 years and that horse was Bob Black Jack in 2008 who came in at a CD of 1.25. All the other Derby starters in the last 17 years had a CD under 1.25.
So in the last 17 years approximately 99.99% of all Derby starters had a CD under 1.25.
What value does a cut-off point of 1.25 have if virtually all the starters in the Derby have a CD of 1.24 or less?
What is the impact value for carrying a CD of less than 1.25 over the last 17 years. 100% winners divided by 99.99% of the starters or 1.00 which is meaningless for handicappers. Its similar to saying what is the Ky Derby impact value for being a 3 year old. (100% winners divided 100% of the starters equals an impact value of 1.00) which is useless to handicappers trying to select the Derby winner.
Hi Stan,
This isn't necessarily a handicapping model and it isn't something I use as a end all deciding factor in coming up with a Derby winner. We can't change the parameters set forth by Romans' for what he says would afford the horse the inherent ability needed to go 1 1/4 miles. It's his research and I'm good with that. The cutoff has always been a combination of the DI 4.00 or under and the CD 1.25 and under. In Romans theory a perfect blend of speed and stamina would be a DI of 1.00 and a CD of 0.00. TJ
EFH
TJ: Dr. Roman's dual qualifier system combined the 4.00 DI or less with a CD of 1.25 or less with an EFH weighting within 10 pounds of the highest weighted horse. It worked great from 1972-1987 with 100% winners from only around 20% of the starters. The main thrust of the above system is not dosage index or CD but rather the elite nature of horses that were weighted within 10 pounds of the EFH high weight. Essentially for a the above time frame these thoroughbreds were the cream of their crops and that is why they were often found in the Derby winner's circle. The DI of 4.00 or less and the CD of 1.25 or less is characteristic of over 90% of all Derby starters since 1940. So those two factors had little to do with why these dual qualifiers frequently found the Derby winner's circle. They made up over 90% of the Derby fields to begin with.
However, since 1997 Roman's dual qualifier system has only selected 3 Derby winners: Silver Charm, Street Sense and Super Saver.
One of the reasons for the dramatic change above is the way in which trainers are pointing for the Derby with elite horses today that are more fragile and less durable. So they are lightly raced at age 2 and sometimes do not even compete in graded stakes at age 2 and therefore do not fit within 10 pounds of the EFH high weight. The last 6 Derby winners also made only 2 starts as 3 year olds. So you can see where we are at in 2012 which is certainly a far cry from what took place in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
However, since 1997 Roman's dual qualifier system has only selected 3 Derby winners: Silver Charm, Street Sense and Super Saver.
One of the reasons for the dramatic change above is the way in which trainers are pointing for the Derby with elite horses today that are more fragile and less durable. So they are lightly raced at age 2 and sometimes do not even compete in graded stakes at age 2 and therefore do not fit within 10 pounds of the EFH high weight. The last 6 Derby winners also made only 2 starts as 3 year olds. So you can see where we are at in 2012 which is certainly a far cry from what took place in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
Re: EFH
stancaris wrote:TJ: Dr. Roman's dual qualifier system combined the 4.00 DI or less with a CD of 1.25 or less with an EFH weighting within 10 pounds of the highest weighted horse. It worked great from 1972-1987 with 100% winners from only around 20% of the starters. The main thrust of the above system is not dosage index or CD but rather the elite nature of horses that were weighted within 10 pounds of the EFH high weight. Essentially for a the above time frame these thoroughbreds were the cream of their crops and that is why they were often found in the Derby winner's circle. The DI of 4.00 or less and the CD of 1.25 or less is characteristic of over 90% of all Derby starters since 1940. So those two factors had little to do with why these dual qualifiers frequently found the Derby winner's circle. They made up over 90% of the Derby fields to begin with.
However, since 1997 Roman's dual qualifier system has only selected 3 Derby winners: Silver Charm, Street Sense and Super Saver.
One of the reasons for the dramatic change above is the way in which trainers are pointing for the Derby with elite horses today that are more fragile and less durable. So they are lightly raced at age 2 and sometimes do not even compete in graded stakes at age 2 and therefore do not fit within 10 pounds of the EFH high weight. The last 6 Derby winners also made only 2 starts as 3 year olds. So you can see where we are at in 2012 which is certainly a far cry from what took place in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
Hi Stan,
I know all this stuff your telling me....as I said, dosage is not a handicapping system in my eyes or the way I apply it to the business of horse racing or handicapping in general. I don't know how we got to this handicapping angle....but there are other very important factors dosage is useful for in me way of looking at it. It's like the racing form....we all have the same one, but all see what is in there from our own perspective. Personally I've never subscribed to EFH Highweight....never even look at it. First thing I look at is past performance, then soundness (works, time between races), then appearance (in my eye), then breeding (4 gen pedigree for certain sires or dams I like), then dosage (especially individual wings, DC and CR), then RF, then number of points in a particular wing that determine's, in my way of thinking...if a horse is running within his inherent distance capability. Finally if I like a horses and he is light on numbers I look to the number of dual chefs he has in his pedigree....this is the single most factor why many have fallen through the cracks. No one theory has ever worked forever....but if they ever did work, it is something that should be considered. Bottom line, there are so many factors to be sorted out in any given race and it's up to us to sift through them all and now and then we call one right:>) My Derby predictions over that same period of time you mentioned concerning Roman since 1997, I had 9 of those Derby winners and most were confirmed through dosage and the way I look at it. Silver Charm (DC), Charismatic (RF to Somethingroyal), Fusaichi Pegasus (dam's RF to Almahmoud and adjusted DP due to dual chefs), Funny Cide (appearance...saw him train, CR, 5x5 to Ribot), Smarty Jones (past performance, dual chef anomoly), Barbaro (appearance...watched him train, past performance CR), Street Sense (appearance...saw him train, DC, RF to Natalma) Big Brown (appearance...saw him train, past performance, DC, Nureyev line and 4x5 Round Table) Super Saver (appearance, saw him train, past performance, Dual Chef anomoly, ADC, Borel Factor:>) Close but no cigar the last two even though Animal Kinddom had DC, 4x4 Lyphard, outstandin DI and CD. I wouldn't bite because I thought he was a turf horse. TJ
one question
TJ: I have one question. On page 41 of Dr. Roman's book-Dosage-Pedigree and Performance he compares two horses that he says have dramatic differences in DP, DI and CD. The two horses are Hero's Honor with a DI of 1.70 and a CD of .44 and Mr. Greeley who has a DI of 4.85 and a CD of 1.11. Roman says that Heros Honor was a grade 1 winner up to 11 furlongs whereas Mr. Greeley was a pure sprinter who came in second in the BC Sprint of 1995. Their CDs certainly could be used to predict their aptitudes for distance. A high CD of 1.11 usually spells sprinter whereas a low CD of .44 usually spells router.
Roman clearly states that a CD of 1.11 is usually that of a sprinter whereas a CD of .44 is usually that of a distance runner. Notice that I use the word usually in the above discussion because there are exceptions.
However, if you adhere to the CD as being significant in handicapping the Kentucky Derby then how do you account for the success of 7 of the last 15 Derby winners having a CD of .94 or higher. It is a known fact that the average CD of stakes winners going 10 furlongs is around .60 However, those 7 Derby winners certainly suggest that a high CD is not a disadvantage going 10 furlongs in the run for the roses. If it were a disadvantage then one would not expect to get almost 50% Derby winners over the last 15 years carrying a CD of .94 or higher.
I do not think a CD number of .90-1.10 in any way inhibits a runner from winning the roses and the stats I presented above certainly lead one to that conclusion. 7 winners in the last 15 years carried CDs in that high range of .90 to 1.10
Roman clearly states that a CD of 1.11 is usually that of a sprinter whereas a CD of .44 is usually that of a distance runner. Notice that I use the word usually in the above discussion because there are exceptions.
However, if you adhere to the CD as being significant in handicapping the Kentucky Derby then how do you account for the success of 7 of the last 15 Derby winners having a CD of .94 or higher. It is a known fact that the average CD of stakes winners going 10 furlongs is around .60 However, those 7 Derby winners certainly suggest that a high CD is not a disadvantage going 10 furlongs in the run for the roses. If it were a disadvantage then one would not expect to get almost 50% Derby winners over the last 15 years carrying a CD of .94 or higher.
I do not think a CD number of .90-1.10 in any way inhibits a runner from winning the roses and the stats I presented above certainly lead one to that conclusion. 7 winners in the last 15 years carried CDs in that high range of .90 to 1.10
Re: one question
stancaris wrote:TJ: I have one question. On page 41 of Dr. Roman's book-Dosage-Pedigree and Performance he compares two horses that he says have dramatic differences in DP, DI and CD. The two horses are Hero's Honor with a DI of 1.70 and a CD of .44 and Mr. Greeley who has a DI of 4.85 and a CD of 1.11. Roman says that Heros Honor was a grade 1 winner up to 11 furlongs whereas Mr. Greeley was a pure sprinter who came in second in the BC Sprint of 1995. Their CDs certainly could be used to predict their aptitudes for distance. A high CD of 1.11 usually spells sprinter whereas a low CD of .44 usually spells router.
Roman clearly states that a CD of 1.11 is usually that of a sprinter whereas a CD of .44 is usually that of a distance runner. Notice that I use the word usually in the above discussion because there are exceptions.
However, if you adhere to the CD as being significant in handicapping the Kentucky Derby then how do you account for the success of 7 of the last 15 Derby winners having a CD of .94 or higher. It is a known fact that the average CD of stakes winners going 10 furlongs is around .60 However, those 7 Derby winners certainly suggest that a high CD is not a disadvantage going 10 furlongs in the run for the roses. If it were a disadvantage then one would not expect to get almost 50% Derby winners over the last 15 years carrying a CD of .94 or higher.
I do not think a CD number of .90-1.10 in any way inhibits a runner from winning the roses and the stats I presented above certainly lead one to that conclusion. 7 winners in the last 15 years carried CDs in that high range of .90 to 1.10
Hi Stan,
I never talked about dosage and the Derby in the same sentence when I replied to Dublino. We were talking about Chefs de Race. You are the one that brought up Roman's and the Derby. Dosage is a tool just like a racing form, I use it as such. Hard and fast rules are made to be broken....but when they are broken it's time to take a look and see why. The Derby distance cutoff is DI 4.00 or under and a CD 1.25 and under.....if you have a problem with that you can e-mail Dr. Roman directly and talk to him about it....he will respond. I'm not trying to prove or disprove Romans research...or Varola for that matter.....I'm happy with it, you aren't. Dosage is not the end all for me, just one of many factors I incorporate in handicapping and the business of horse racing. Rasmussen Factor is another theory I subscribe to. Those seven derby winners you speak of were in the realm under 1.25.....according to Dr. Roman research, that is acceptable. TJ
99% are acceptable
TJ: Well then I guess you do not use the CD at all as a handicapping factor in the Kentucky Derby because 99.99% of all the Derby starters over the last 15 years have a CD of 1.25 or under.
Re: 99% are acceptable
stancaris wrote:TJ: Well then I guess you do not use the CD at all as a handicapping factor in the Kentucky Derby because 99.99% of all the Derby starters over the last 15 years have a CD of 1.25 or under.
Hi Stan,
Hmmm....99.99%, that's almost as high a number as RAN sire lines in the Derby. To answer your question...yes, I use CD and I use DI and I use CR, DC, RF, Beyer number's, fractional times, final 1/4's, Final 3/8ths, track variant, track bias, workouts, time off, Performance Figures, Sheet Numbers, Daily Racing Form, Equibase, equipment changes, medication, appearance, trainer's, owner's, jockey's and maybe another 15-20 other factors to handicap the Derby and every other race I look at that I'm interested in. TJ
your statement is wrong
TJ: Your statement, " Hmm....99.99% that's almost as high a number as the RAN sire lines in the Derby is definitely wrong. I researched the percent of RAN sire lines in the Kentucky Derby from the very first horse to carry the RAN sire line to the present (1969 Majestic Prince wqs the first and then I counted all the RAN sire line starters up to and including 2012). The percentage of male line descendents of RAN in all those Derbies is 25.3%. Specifically there were 155 RAN sire line runners from 612 total starters from 1969-2012. I think you should at least concede that you were wrong in this regard.
Lets face the facts regarding CDs. Basically the 4.00 and 1.25 method was never used by Dr. Roman or Leon Rasmussen by itself. They combined the DI of 4.00 or less with a CD of 1.25 or less with a weighting within 10 pounds of the EFH high weight. That was the method that was so successful from 1972-1987 and became known as the dual qualifier system. Actually its a triple qualifier (DI plus CD plus EFH weighting)
Since 99% of all Derby starters have a CD of 1.25 or less and since 90% of all Derby starters have a DI of 4.00 or less the main factor for the success of that system was found in its ability to identify elite 2 year olds that performed very well in stakes at that age. These elite 2 year olds were the cream of the crops from 1972-1987. That is why so many of them won the roses. It had little or nothing to do with their DI or CD.
Times have changed and the dual qualifier system has only identified 3 Derby winners since 1997 (Silver Charm, Street Sense and Super Saver).
All I am saying is that the dual qualifier system is no longer a good system. Are you at least willing to agree with that. Or are you going to talk around this idea by saying you use sheet numbers, workouts and performance figures etc. Thats OK but what is your view on using DIs and CDs?
Lets face the facts regarding CDs. Basically the 4.00 and 1.25 method was never used by Dr. Roman or Leon Rasmussen by itself. They combined the DI of 4.00 or less with a CD of 1.25 or less with a weighting within 10 pounds of the EFH high weight. That was the method that was so successful from 1972-1987 and became known as the dual qualifier system. Actually its a triple qualifier (DI plus CD plus EFH weighting)
Since 99% of all Derby starters have a CD of 1.25 or less and since 90% of all Derby starters have a DI of 4.00 or less the main factor for the success of that system was found in its ability to identify elite 2 year olds that performed very well in stakes at that age. These elite 2 year olds were the cream of the crops from 1972-1987. That is why so many of them won the roses. It had little or nothing to do with their DI or CD.
Times have changed and the dual qualifier system has only identified 3 Derby winners since 1997 (Silver Charm, Street Sense and Super Saver).
All I am saying is that the dual qualifier system is no longer a good system. Are you at least willing to agree with that. Or are you going to talk around this idea by saying you use sheet numbers, workouts and performance figures etc. Thats OK but what is your view on using DIs and CDs?
Re: your statement is wrong
stancaris wrote:TJ: Your statement, " Hmm....99.99% that's almost as high a number as the RAN sire lines in the Derby is definitely wrong. I researched the percent of RAN sire lines in the Kentucky Derby from the very first horse to carry the RAN sire line to the present (1969 Majestic Prince wqs the first and then I counted all the RAN sire line starters up to and including 2012). The percentage of male line descendents of RAN in all those Derbies is 25.3%. Specifically there were 155 RAN sire line runners from 612 total starters from 1969-2012. I think you should at least concede that you were wrong in this regard.
Lets face the facts regarding CDs. Basically the 4.00 and 1.25 method was never used by Dr. Roman or Leon Rasmussen by itself. They combined the DI of 4.00 or less with a CD of 1.25 or less with a weighting within 10 pounds of the EFH high weight. That was the method that was so successful from 1972-1987 and became known as the dual qualifier system. Actually its a triple qualifier (DI plus CD plus EFH weighting)
Since 99% of all Derby starters have a CD of 1.25 or less and since 90% of all Derby starters have a DI of 4.00 or less the main factor for the success of that system was found in its ability to identify elite 2 year olds that performed very well in stakes at that age. These elite 2 year olds were the cream of the crops from 1972-1987. That is why so many of them won the roses. It had little or nothing to do with their DI or CD.
Times have changed and the dual qualifier system has only identified 3 Derby winners since 1997 (Silver Charm, Street Sense and Super Saver).
All I am saying is that the dual qualifier system is no longer a good system. Are you at least willing to agree with that. Or are you going to talk around this idea by saying you use sheet numbers, workouts and performance figures etc. Thats OK but what is your view on using DIs and CDs?
Hi Stan,
It was a joke Stan....just a joke. If it makes you happy I'll admit I was wrong about the RAN thingy...that is if you don't want to believe I was joking. OK. Other than that I'm tired of talking about dosage....time to e-mail Dr. Roman and you can ask him....because for some reason I feel like I'm stuck in a revolving door...that's another joke:>) TJ