Curlin to be m/l fav

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I actually think there are quite a few horses in this year's field that fit those four angles.

Yes, there are:
Circular Quay...2 starts
Chelokee...16 dp points
Curlin...3 lt starts, 0 2yo starts
Dominican...16 dp pts, 2 starts
Great Hunter...2 starts
King of the Roxy...10 dp pts, 2 starts
Stormello...2 starts
Street Sense...2 starts
Tiago...4 lt starts
(DP pts...prefer over 16)

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Yes, there are:
Circular Quay...2 starts
Chelokee...16 dp points
Curlin...3 lt starts, 0 2yo starts
Dominican...16 dp pts, 2 starts
Great Hunter...2 starts
King of the Roxy...10 dp pts, 2 starts
Stormello...2 starts
Street Sense...2 starts
Tiago...4 lt starts
(DP pts...prefer over 16)

OK, it's been a long day so maybe I'm lost, but how does Circular Quay and others fit your angle list with only 2 starts as a 3 year old?

1...3 preps as a three year old
2...raced at two
3...16 points or more in DP
4...at least 5 starts prior to derby

Initially I thought you meant the winner must have all 4, but I'm still wondering how a horse with only 2 preps is fitting your angles.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

OK, it's been a long day so maybe I'm lost, but how does Circular Quay and others fit your angle list with only 2 starts as a 3 year old?

1...3 preps as a three year old
2...raced at two
3...16 points or more in DP
4...at least 5 starts prior to derby

Initially I thought you meant the winner must have all 4, but I'm still wondering how a horse with only 2 preps is fitting your angles.

Those are the horses that DON'T fit his angles.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Those are the horses that DON'T fit his angles.

Yeah I realized that but he replied to a guy saying there were a lot of horses who did fit them. (and yes, I initially thought the original poster was saying that all 4 angles needed to be met not just a combo)

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Yeah I realized that but he replied to a guy saying there were a lot of horses who did fit them. (and yes, I initially thought the original poster was saying that all 4 angles needed to be met not just a combo)

I know... I had to read it twice too. I need another pepsi...

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I know... I had to read it twice too. I need another pepsi...

Coke is better!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Coke is better!

No way... don't get me started. <:-)

[Pedigree Ann]

Forget dosage points. As currently formulated, it doesn't keep up with the emergence of new sires. Moreover, it ignores the importance of the females in the pedigree and that was important in Barbaro's case - his dam was by distance-limited Carson City, but she was an atypical Carson City in that she was successful at distances beyond 9f. Roman Dosage worked for about 10 years, but because he limited his outlooke to 4 generations, it quickly went out of date.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Forget dosage points. As currently formulated, it doesn't keep up with the emergence of new sires. Moreover, it ignores the importance of the females in the pedigree and that was important in Barbaro's case - his dam was by distance-limited Carson City, but she was an atypical Carson City in that she was successful at distances beyond 9f. Roman Dosage worked for about 10 years, but because he limited his outlooke to 4 generations, it quickly went out of date.

Barbaro fit the dosage profile (and then some.)

14-8-21-2-1 (46) DI = 2.41

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Forget dosage points. As currently formulated, it doesn't keep up with the emergence of new sires. Moreover, it ignores the importance of the females in the pedigree and that was important in Barbaro's case - his dam was by distance-limited Carson City, but she was an atypical Carson City in that she was successful at distances beyond 9f. Roman Dosage worked for about 10 years, but because he limited his outlooke to 4 generations, it quickly went out of date.

Exactly. What most people don't seem to recongnize is that all dosage points mean at this point is how close in your pedigree you are to the old time stallions. They have become completely obsolete.

[Mortimer]

Come back in 7 days.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by merasmag

i am runnin on fumes here---WHO fits?

Any Given Saturday
Cowtown Cat
Hard Spun
Liquidity
Nobiz
Sam P.
Scat Daddy
Sedgefield
Storm in May
Zanjero
Xchanger - if he goes.
Teuflesberg - if he makes it in.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Yes, there are:
Circular Quay...2 starts
Chelokee...16 dp points
Curlin...3 lt starts, 0 2yo starts
Dominican...16 dp pts, 2 starts
Great Hunter...2 starts
King of the Roxy...10 dp pts, 2 starts
Stormello...2 starts
Street Sense...2 starts
Tiago...4 lt starts
(DP pts...prefer over 16)

It's also said that it's an advantage if a horse has more points in the middle category (classic) than the others. I like to see at least 8 points in the classic category. That would leave the following contenders out of the ones that already fit the 4 angles you mentioned (I put the number of points they each have in that classic category after their names):

Any Given Saturday (10)
Cowtown Cat (8)
Hard Spun (24)
Liquidity (14)
Nobiz (12)
Sam P. (14)
Scat Daddy (11)
Sedgefield (11)
Storm in May (11)
Zanjero (8)
Xchanger (12) - if he goes.
Teuflesberg (9) - if he makes it in.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

It's also said that it's an advantage if a horse has more points in the middle category (classic) than the others. I like to see at least 8 points in the classic category. That would leave the following contenders out of the ones that already fit the 4 angles you mentioned (I put the number of points they each have in that classic category after their names):

Any Given Saturday (10)
Cowtown Cat (8)
Hard Spun (24)
Liquidity (14)
Nobiz (12)
Sam P. (14)
Scat Daddy (11)
Sedgefield (11)
Storm in May (11)
Zanjero (8)
Xchanger (12) - if he goes.
Teuflesberg (9) - if he makes it in.

No offense to u but any "formula", "angle", "system", etc., that can include Teuflesberg, Storm in May, Sedgefield, Sam P., and Liquidity in it........but can't include Circular Quay and Curlin..........should be thrown out of the nearest window. Now, just because it does include Nobiz, Hard Spun and Scat Daddy, should one of those three win, I don't think it can be said that the angle was correct. They could have won no matter if CQ and Curlin had met every criteria. At some point, shouldn't what u see with your eyes take over and all of this silly angle stuff be left alone? Anyone on here old enough to remember when horses were judged by how good THEY were, not by some silly formulas, speed ratings, or curses?

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

No offense to u but any "formula", "angle", "system", etc., that can include Teuflesberg, Storm in May, Sedgefield, Sam P., and Liquidity in it........but can't include Circular Quay and Curlin..........should be thrown out of the nearest window. Now, just because it does include Nobiz, Hard Spun and Scat Daddy, should one of those three win, I don't think it can be said that the angle was correct. They could have won no matter if CQ and Curlin had met every criteria. At some point, shouldn't what u see with your eyes take over and all of this silly angle stuff be left alone? Anyone on here old enough to remember when horses were judged by how good THEY were, not by some silly formulas, speed ratings, or curses?

LOL!!!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

No offense to u but any "formula", "angle", "system", etc., that can include Teuflesberg, Storm in May, Sedgefield, Sam P., and Liquidity in it........but can't include Circular Quay and Curlin..........should be thrown out of the nearest window. Now, just because it does include Nobiz, Hard Spun and Scat Daddy, should one of those three win, I don't think it can be said that the angle was correct. They could have won no matter if CQ and Curlin had met every criteria. At some point, shouldn't what u see with your eyes take over and all of this silly angle stuff be left alone? Anyone on here old enough to remember when horses were judged by how good THEY were, not by some silly formulas, speed ratings, or curses?

It's an angle, KG, not a definite rule of thumb. For the record, I don't like Quay or Curlin, but my reasoning isn't because of dosage points.