Dr Roman tabs Master of Hounds in Derby

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Hi!

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by reese

Team Valor is another one of those syndicates that just like to go to the Derby regardless of the condition of the horse.

I saw Dr Greenfield almost "collapse from fright or anxiety" at the 2001 Belmont Stakes.

I was sitting about 20 feet diagonally behind the starting gate almost on the rail for the 2001 Belmont. The sound from the grandstand was deafening....sounded like a coming tornedo...the ground was shaking from the reverberation of 100,000 people screaming and pounding.
Dr. Greenfield was shaking so hard, I though he was going to "die of fright". He had a hard time loading into the gate and never did get off well.
Poor thing was a skinny guy too boot.
Anyone with eyes could see this horse was ill prepared for this race. And the Team Valor syndicate had scores of people running around with stethascopes around necks

.......was at the 04 belmont, so loud down the stretch it hurt your ears. then it went kinda silent when SJ got passed.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by alysheba4

.......was at the 04 belmont, so loud down the stretch it hurt your ears. then it went kinda silent when SJ got passed.

Got real quiet at my house as well, can't tell you how much I was rooting for him...wasn't a matter of bets...I only had a few bucks invested, but I had followed him since the beginning!

[joeydb]

That Dosage Index stuff does have a decent, if not perfect record, right?

[slotdirt]

It does? When was the last time a "dual qualifier" won the Derby?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

It does? When was the last time a "dual qualifier" won the Derby?

Various aspects of his research have fallen out of favor, dual qualifiers lost their edge with so many precocious 2yo's who didn't hold their form at three. DI/CD guidelines have suffered again largely due to breeding practices. Keep in mind that dosage was not developed as a handicapping tool. The angle of a horse needing 16 points in DP still remains strong with no horse winning since 1950. His PF's are a valuable tool in major stake races. All in all, this stuff can be used as one of many tools, keeping in mind that no angle is foolproof.

[tector]

Good to hear. Now, do you have the views of Dr. Seuss, Dr. Strangelove and Dr. Vinny Boombotz?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by tector

Good to hear. Now, do you have the views of Dr. Seuss, Dr. Strangelove and Dr. Vinny Boombotz?

Too funny.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Cardus

For those who analyze Dosage Figures, consider that Dialed In and Nehro have two of the three highest figures in the field.

Yeah, when I think of Mineshaft, I think BC turf sprint, all the way.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The angle of a horse needing 16 points in DP still remains strong with no horse winning since 1950.

There is no angle. This is the same BS that dosage was 20 years ago.
Take a result, find a number that fits the result without any consideration of the percentage of runners that fall above or below the number and give no credit to runners who may have been below the level and ran a good race.

When Middleground won the derby suddenly it was apparent that 16 was the number for the DP and his victory was an abberation.17 is a good number but the problem with 17 is that while someone was scanning through the results of the last 50 years 17 came up quite a few times and that would not fit the system.

Now if it was proven that >16 runners consistently outperformed <16 runners for 2nd,3rd etc., then the DP may have some merit. Until someone shows me proof of that it's nothing more than voodoo.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

There is no angle. This is the same BS that dosage was 20 years ago.
Take a result, find a number that fits the result without any consideration of the percentage of runners that fall above or below the number and give no credit to runners who may have been below the level and ran a good race.

When Middleground won the derby suddenly it was apparent that 16 was the number for the DP and his victory was an abberation.17 is a good number but the problem with 17 is that while someone was scanning through the results of the last 50 years 17 came up quite a few times and that would not fit the system.

Now if it was proven that >16 runners consistently outperformed <16 runners for 2nd,3rd etc., then the DP may have some merit. Until someone shows me proof of that it's nothing more than voodoo.

Gee, you talk about facts yet you state 17 came up quite a few times....no winner has ever had 17! Since 1940, the first year dosage was used, 9 horses have had a DP with less than 20 points. Count Fleet (1943) had only 4 and Middleground (1950) had 12....since then 16 is the lowest number and has occurred 5 times (Mine that Bird the last in 2009), no winner has had 17 or 19, two (Gato Del Sol in 1982 and Monarchos in 2001) had 18. You can dismiss DP, that's your choice as it is mine to consider it but get your "facts" straight!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Yeah, when I think of Mineshaft, I think BC turf sprint, all the way.

Not sure what Mineshaft has to do with the topic as he really didn't develop into a great horse until his four year old season, he was clearly bred for the dirt, a son of AP Indy. His dosage numbers....15-15-24-1-1 (56) 3.00/0.75. 56 is slightly more points than 16, and he was a classically bred horse and a champion so I don't see the connection here.

[somerfrost]

DP angle goes down as Animal Kingdom had but 8 points (second smallest to the great Count Fleet)...of course so did the must have 5 races angle (only had 4), the race within six weeks angle, and the idea that a horse has to have raced at least once on dirt. All in all, a hard horse to get to....congrats to those who had the wisdom to pick him!

[LARHAGE]

If the clowns from Ireland had actually shipped this colt over and given him time to acclimate and train he could have been a factor, he ran
surprisingly well, he took the dirt in his face and was weaving his way around horses in the stretch, it was comical the way he was prepared for the Derby.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by LARHAGE

If the clowns from Ireland had actually shipped this colt over and given him time to acclimate and train he could have been a factor, he ran
surprisingly well, he took the dirt in his face and was weaving his way around horses in the stretch, it was comical the way he was prepared for the Derby.

I agree, with better preparation he could have been right there, dirt wasn't the problem.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Gee, you talk about facts yet you state 17 came up quite a few times....no winner has ever had 17! Since 1940, the first year dosage was used, 9 horses have had a DP with less than 20 points. Count Fleet (1943) had only 4 and Middleground (1950) had 12....since then 16 is the lowest number and has occurred 5 times (Mine that Bird the last in 2009), no winner has had 17 or 19, two (Gato Del Sol in 1982 and Monarchos in 2001) had 18. You can dismiss DP, that's your choice as it is mine to consider it but get your "facts" straight!

You just proved my point. My point is(and was) that after the results are analyzed a threshold is determined. In this case 16 was the lowest number and has occurred 5 times, so to make the "system" valid 16 is included to prove the system works. Choose the next highest # any winner has had above 16 and at some point in time that number was a threshold in which no contender could have been considered until a horse with a 16 won the derby.

Since you have all the facts about DP, when you get time inform me how these numbers perform top to bottom (first place to last) over the years rather than just the winner; in fields that are more than likely top loaded with "system fitting" horses.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

You just proved my point. My point is(and was) that after the results are analyzed a threshold is determined. In this case 16 was the lowest number and has occurred 5 times, so to make the "system" valid 16 is included to prove the system works. Choose the next highest # any winner has had above 16 and at some point in time that number was a threshold in which no contender could have been considered until a horse with a 16 won the derby.

Since you have all the facts about DP, when you get time inform me how these numbers perform top to bottom (first place to last) over the years rather than just the winner; in fields that are more than likely top loaded with "system fitting" horses.

I use the DP number in regards to winner only (which is all I ever said), I have no idea, indeed no interest in how it effects overall performance. I doubt anyone has ranked every horse in every Derby using same...for what purpose? If one claims it is an indicator of overall performance, that would be a different story, but since I (and others) use it strictly as an indicator of a horse's chance of winning....the only data of interest to me is it's performance regarding winners. After yesterday, only 3 horses since 1940 have won with less than 16 points, only one since 1950. One last time, this is one of a large number of factors I use in attempting to pick a winner, this year it didn't work, neither did a race within 6 weeks, 5 or more lifetime starts (which did apply to post time favorite as well) and having at least on race on dirt...probably why the winner paid $48+. It's horse racing and no person, and no set of facts is an absolute. Next year, if I'm still alive and in control of my facilities, I'll use DP again as one factor, and you clearly won't. I am not under any obligation to defend the dosage system, feel free to ask Dr Roman if my answer falls short of expectations.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I use the DP number in regards to winner only (which is all I ever said), I have no idea, indeed no interest in how it effects overall performance. I doubt anyone has ranked every horse in every Derby using same...for what purpose? If one claims it is an indicator of overall performance, that would be a different story, but since I (and others) use it strictly as an indicator of a horse's chance of winning....the only data of interest to me is it's performance regarding winners. After yesterday, only 3 horses since 1940 have won with less than 16 points, only one since 1950. One last time, this is one of a large number of factors I use in attempting to pick a winner, this year it didn't work, neither did a race within 6 weeks, 5 or more lifetime starts (which did apply to post time favorite as well) and having at least on race on dirt...probably why the winner paid $48+. It's horse racing and no person, and no set of facts is an absolute. Next year, if I'm still alive and in control of my facilities, I'll use DP again as one factor, and you clearly won't. I am not under any obligation to defend the dosage system, feel free to ask Dr Roman if my answer falls short of expectations.

Feel free to use whatever system you wish. I simply have pointed out to those who may not understand that the "system" is slanted toward success.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

Feel free to use whatever system you wish. I simply have pointed out to those who may not understand that the "system" is slanted toward success.

Fair enough! Life would be dull if we all thought the same.

[somerfrost]

You made me curious, so I took the time to check in the money (1-3) finishers since 1999....before this year, 0 winners, 1 place finisher (Closing Argument with 10 in 2005) and 5 show finishers (Musket Man with 10 in 2009, Denis of Cork with 14 in 2008, Afleet Alex with 14 in 2005, Imperialism with 14 in 2004, and Impeachment with 14 in 2000). Obviously, DP less than 16 is worthless in predicting show finishers, reasonable in predicting place. In fact with only 41 horses failing to reach 16 since 1999, 5 of 41 is a higher % than the total fields %. Again, did this out of curiosity as I'm only concerned with winners.