Sire Stats 2009
 

This is another great tool you can get from www.tsnhorse.com Cost is $40.00 and gives update data on strengths and weaknesses of over 5,000
stallions. The only book of its kind that gives an A+ list of top synthethic sires based on wins over the Polytrack,Tapeta,and Cushion tracks.

Broken down in to five categories, the ratings are strict requirements on win% and minimum starts.

Anyone who was using this to Cap Saturdays G-2 Louisiana Derby would have easily had the winner and the tri and super.

Bobp;)

Bob,

Can you suggest how the sire info helped you tighten up the betting choices for some of those bets (e.g. how the #8 was possibly a win or place contender, or how the #3 was neither). I know you wrote saying the whole gang was right there, which it was for me too, though I chose not to bet it.

Thanks,

Ted

Attachment 15693

Attachment 15694

Breedings are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to one another

all from Natalma
1961 NORTHERN DANCER,c,Nearctic 2 18 14 2 2 580,647 81.91
DP = 8-16-15-3-0 DI = 3.00 CD = 0.69
At 2 Won Remsen S (25,000), Coronation Futurity (20,000), Summer S
(10,000), Carleton S (7,500), 2nd Cup And Saucer S (15,000), Vandal S
(7,500)
At 3 Won Preakness S (150,000), Kentucky Derby *Nt (125,000), Flamingo S
(100,000), Florida Derby (100,000), Queen's Plate (50,000), Blue
Grass S (25,000), 3rd Belmont S (125,000)

1963 Arctic Dancer,f,Nearctic 1 2 0 1 0 2,500 3.68
DP = 8-16-15-3-0 DI = 3.00 CD = 0.69
At 2 2nd My Dear S (10,000)

1966 Northern Native,c,Nearctic 2 13 4 1 3 19,150 3.19
DP = 8-16-15-3-0 DI = 3.00 CD = 0.69
At 3 2nd Plate Trial (10,000), 3rd Toronto Cup H (10,000)
1967 Barren
1968 Northern Ace,c,Nearctic 3 22 5 4 3 15,960 1.52
DP = 8-16-15-3-0 DI = 3.00 CD = 0.69

same "theoretical" genes but NOT the same outcome

You can repeat the breedings over and over
=broodmare ROMANELLA (ITY), 1943, =El Greco (Ity)- =Barbara Burrini (Ity) by *Papyrus.

1952 *RIBOT,c,=Tenerani (Ity)
DP = 2-6-2-2-2 DI = 1.80 CD = 0.29
At 2 Won Gran Criterium (ITY), Criterium Nazionale (ITY)
At 3 Won Prix De L'arc De Triomphe (FR), Pr Del Jockey Club (ITY), Pr
Emanuele Filiberto (ITY), Pr Pisa (ITY), Pr Besana (ITY)
At 4 Won Pr Del Piazzale (ITY), Prix De L'arc De Triomphe (FR), King
George 6th & Queen Elizabeth S (ENG), Gp Di Milano (ITY)

1957 =Rosselina (Ity),f,=Tenerani (Ity) Unraced
DP = 2-6-2-2-2 DI = 1.80 CD = 0.29
1958 *Rousseau 2nd,c,=Owen Tudor (Gb) Unraced
DP = 8-8-10-4-2 DI = 1.91 CD = 0.50
1961 =Romagnola (Gb),f,=Tenerani (Ity) Unraced
DP = 2-6-2-2-2 DI = 1.80 CD = 0.29

The randomness of genes at cross over make their expression in the same phenotype a guessing game.

4 or 5 breedings between Fair Play and Mahuba produced two stakes winners:Man O'War and his good sister who won minor stakes.....

pace and performance gets the same outcome. out of the top four, three hit the board.

Tim,

That makes it soo much clearer :rolleyes:. And so relevant to this race, as well...

Bob - your thoughts?

Ted

Tim,

As a moderator, I'm telling you in plain language that you cannot post like this. Your 5 preceding posts in which you supply 'DATA' to document your point of view that breeding stats are fraught and not part of the Methodology (despite sharing Doc's point of view), are 4 posts too many. We get the point! 1 post should do - the rest are, with respect, a form of high class (though tangential) SPAM, what to speak of over-kill. I don't even want to get into a discussion about why you should want to make your point like this over and over and over again. It feels like a sledge-hammer.

You succeeded in blowing the original poster out of the water, hogging and effectively shutting down the discussion. And that is not acceptable. Please tell me which 4 of your posts you would like me to delete. If you have no preference, I will delete them all after the first one (excepting the one with the screenshot).

No need to cry censorship - this is censorship. Your present style of expressing dissenting opinion is unacceptable for these Forums and you need to figure out a different way to do it. Starting real soon, please.

Ted

Thanks, Ted

man...I just woke up at 6:30am and started to catch up on yesterdays post...
I'm now rubbing my eyes, scratching my head....I just wanna jump back in bed and put my head under the pillow :eek:

****

***

mike

Tim Y posts deleted
 

4 posts of Tim Y were deleted, per above warning.

Ted

Thank you Ted,

Bill

And as RDSS shows Friesan Fire had beaten the 2,3,6,7 10 in the previous two stakes races at FG.. It appeared that no one could match him from the stretch run to the wire.
In checking sire stats SPI (Sire Production Index) FOR FRIESAN FIRE

AP INDY Sire SPI 5.0 (very high)
Off Track A +
Mud Starts A +
AVERAGE WINING DISTANCE 8.2 f (RLEATED TO CD IN DOSGAE INEXES)
TURF STARTS
ALL WEATHER TRACKS(POLY) A

NO ONE ELSE CAME CLOSE EXCEPT THE 8 AND YOU KNOW HE COLLARED HIM IN THE STRETCH AND WON GOING AWAY BY 71/4 .

So if your looking for added strength you great program here it is.

Bob

sorry about the mispells in the last sentence.

So if your looking for added strength to your great program, here it is.

Works great in turf races and Stakes

Bobp

So there ya go TC and thanks for ***

Bob,

As I mentioned in my email, I can add the Sire's Sire and the Dam's Sire and folks interested can do with that what they choose. I will most probably not add anything else re breeding to RDSS.

For the most part, I happen to agree with Tim Y (and with Doc, in general) that breeding data is less impactful overall to sorting the likely contenders than core Methodology concepts, and (along with copious stats re trainers and jockeys) can serve to cloud the analyst's judgement as much as it occasionally serves to shed light. I salute you though if your stats helped in this case elevate the #8 Papa Clem to win or place contender.

Though I would not advise newcomers to the racing game to spend any time understanding and analysing the effects of pedigree, I remember that Doc was never dogmatic on the topic, as Bob Cochran has mentioned elsewhere, and indeed he suggested that folks check out the writings of Mike Helm on the topic, perhaps if they need something to make sense of 2 year olds, or first time turfers, etc (e.g. for unavoidable legs of Pick 3,4,6 wagers).

Again, perhaps it depends on what one's overall goal is and where you are in the process. If someone is still trying to reach consistent profit, I'd say focus on pace, matchup, incremental energy disbursement - then wagercapping. If those are now a staple of your method, and you're trying to get that next 5% extra long-term ROI (e.g. on top of your first 25%...), then sure - add whatever extra tools work after examining your records. Just beware the old 'too clever by half' syndrome...

Cheers,

Ted

Ted, As always I appreciate your comments. honesty ans uselfish sharing of youe time.

For me Breeder Stats are just re-imforcement of what I see when handicapping and sometimes just turns on the light for that race. As I mentioned they work well for me
in turf races and Graded Stakes.

Going to a Turf example was yesterday's 8th Race at Fairgrounds.

#2 Martins Bay was rated by RDSS # 1 1f you use the 6F race figure she figures to wire the field,

Her turf stats were the highest in the field and the only turf horse in the Race with an A
Turf Rating. The only ones close to her rating were 7 Skilled and 8 Swamp Willow . They ran 2,3 to complete the Tri for $74.00
Here are the ratings:


#2 Martins Bay SPI 1.42 TURF =A
#7 Skilled SPI 1.17 TURF- D 2ND
#8 Swamp Willow SPI 1.19 TURF C 3RD
#5 Sweet Aptitude SPI 1.17 TURF D 4TH
#4 APTISIENO SPI 1.17 TURF D RAN LAST

ALL OTHER HORSES WERE RATED WELL UNDER 1 IN THE SPI Results: She wired the field and paid $7.00 to win and trigered a $33.60 Exacta. Nothing spectacular, but nice if you are cherry picking.

BOB