Curlin to be m/l fav

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I may be the only one on here that doesn't know but......what the hell is a RAN curse? I've been in this game for over 20 years and have never heard of that until I read that phrase on here a week ago. Anyone care to fill me in?

Well, a newbie with only 20 years of experience can't be expected to know such things (that's a joke!). Seriously, as Juliette Lewis would say, "since you asked!":
RAN Curse refers to breeding lines. RAN (Raise A Native) is arguably one of the greatest sires of the 20th century, if you check the Derby winners over the past couple of decades, you'll note that a huge number have RAN in their sire's sire line. I haven't checked but I wouldn't be surprised if about half the runners in this year's Derby have same. Despite that huge success and his production of successful broodmare sires, until Barbaro "broke the curse" last year, no runner with RAN in his dam's sire line had won the Derby. Wonderful horses such as Point Given had failed. There are breeding theories (LH+, stamina from dam) that could explain this...anyway, I would still be cautious of a horse with RAN in dam's sire line in the Derby...doesn't apply so much to other races although both the Preakness and Belmont have fewer winners than one would expect.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Well, a newbie with only 20 years of experience can't be expected to know such things (that's a joke!). Seriously, as Juliette Lewis would say, "since you asked!":
RAN Curse refers to breeding lines. RAN (Raise A Native) is arguably one of the greatest sires of the 20th century, if you check the Derby winners over the past couple of decades, you'll note that a huge number have RAN in their sire's sire line. I haven't checked but I wouldn't be surprised if about half the runners in this year's Derby have same. Despite that huge success and his production of successful broodmare sires, until Barbaro "broke the curse" last year, no runner with RAN in his dam's sire line had won the Derby. Wonderful horses such as Point Given had failed. There are breeding theories (LH+, stamina from dam) that could explain this...anyway, I would still be cautious of a horse with RAN in dam's sire line in the Derby...doesn't apply so much to other races although both the Preakness and Belmont have fewer winners than one would expect.

Thank u. I guess I have never heard of it because I think breeding and dosage stuff is the most overrated and useless information one can use in handicapping.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Thank u. I guess I have never heard of it because I think breeding and dosage stuff is the most overrated and useless information one can use in handicapping.

I wish I felt the same way... how do you bet first time starters?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I wish I felt the same way... how do you bet first time starters?

Usually, I don't. But when I do, I like to look at workouts, the riders and the trainers. I will say this though about breeding. In the case of first time starters and in the case of a horse trying something for the first time (say a dirt runner trying grass for the first time), then I do give a look to breeding. I think that is the only time it can be helpful, when trying to figure what a horse may be able to do. But once they have run, especially a few times, and shown what kind of ability they have, I throw it out of the window.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I wish I felt the same way... how do you bet first time starters?

I don't. Is there a rule you have to? ;>)

Do you think using dosage and other breeding info is going to give you more info than those who are close to the 1st time starters have? There's always inside info, but it's most dangerous, and IMO insurmountable, for 1st-time-starters.

--Dunbar

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't. Is there a rule you have to? ;>)

Do you think using dosage and other breeding info is going to give you more info than those who are close to the 1st time starters have? There's always inside info, but it's most dangerous, and IMO insurmountable, for 1st-time-starters.

--Dunbar

Inside information is usually unavailable to most of us, breeding and dosage aren't. I'd love to know what every first timer's connections know prior to wagering...trends can tell you a lot (trainer's record with that owner, with first timers etc.) but otherwise, you are on your own...breeding and dosage MAY help!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't. Is there a rule you have to? ;>)

Do you think using dosage and other breeding info is going to give you more info than those who are close to the 1st time starters have? There's always inside info, but it's most dangerous, and IMO insurmountable, for 1st-time-starters.

--Dunbar

Well... I don't pay attention to dosage for most races, but I do look at the pedigree on first time starters. Let's say there's a Smart Strike or a Lemon Drop Kid on the weeds for the first time... I can promise you that I'll give that horse a second look based upon their 'turfy' pedigree. Sorry, but I find the whole pedigree angle fascinating. I agree that once a horse has had a few starts, you can't really base anything on their pedigrees, but how many of these horses have run 10 panels in a race before the Kentucky Derby? You don't think their pedigree has ANY bearing at all on how far they can go? I do.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Thank u. I guess I have never heard of it because I think breeding and dosage stuff is the most overrated and useless information one can use in handicapping.

Everybody's different...RAN is a very influential sire though, in fact two of your "top horses", King Glorious and Smarty Jones descend from RAN in male tail or sire's sire line.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I sort of agree with this. Dosage definitely, I don't think I have ever looked at it and breeding is a bit overated tool. It's useful for stuff like trying to figure out who might like turf, or in baby races who is more apt to be precocious, but after that I think it takes a back seat to trip handicapping and handicapping the race itself.

Pretty much agree with the exception of the Derby and some BC races (for foreign horses...example will a horse running on grass in Europe take to dirt?). In the Derby, you have a lot of horses who have never faced each other...breeding (RAN and other factors) and dosage can help! Belmont also...so few 12 furlong dirt races in the US, breeding can often provide a clue!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I see what you are saying, I just disagree. What figure will tell me if a turf based Euro will take to the dirt or not? You never know. And we all know in the Derby like everything else, the best horse doesn't always win. Trips and pace matter IMO, not the RAN or dosage. I think of them like the Juvenile jinx, useless.

Well, breeding will tell you a lot about surfaces....Giant's Causeway wasn't a surprise in the BCC because we pretty much knew the dirt would be no problem. The best horse doesn't always win any race, from maiden to BCC...again, tools are just that, part of a very large and complex puzzle. Handicappers have always looked to breeding...off tracks, grass etc. The fact that no winner of the BCJ has won the Derby isn't a jinx, it's a fact! There must be reasons...among the possible ones are early development and difficulty with subsequent prep scheduling. Bottom line...these angles are useful and speak for themselves...maybe this year Curlin will win and the 125 year gap since the last winner who didn't race at 2 will be no more as well as the 89 year gap since a winner had less than 5 starts...if you want to bet the farm on Curlin though, I personally think you'd want to at least be aware of those facts!

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The fact that no winner of the BCJ has won the Derby isn't a jinx, it's a fact!

Skewed data in my book, the Derby has been run exactly how many times compared to the BCJ? 131 to 22

I agree this stuff is fun to look at but it's kind of narrow sighted. First time I saw it Funny Cide won, made me think well exactly how many geldings have ran in the Derby compared to colts. I'm sure if the ratio was reversed we'd have #5 as beware of colts in the derby.

[cassie]

without reading this 6 page thread what horses in this years derby have this ran curse sounds like a mummy movie

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by cassie

without reading this 6 page thread what horses in this years derby have this ran curse sounds like a mummy movie

I posted them before...since you obviously only want to ridicule the concept I feel no obligation to list them again for you.

[cassie]

sorry you took it as ridicule didnt mean for it to cme across like that found the thread thanks for the information

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Where did I say I liked Curlin or was going to bet him? Giant's Causeway wasn't a surprise because he was arguably the best horse in the race. He won something like 6 group 1 races in a row in Europe, which at that point was a record. He was a monster.
Like I said, I look to breeding when trying to figure out if a horse will like the turf, but they aren't the end all be all. But bottomline I trust my instincts and eye when I bet. Not some number someone has figured out. I don't proclaim ridiculous betting wins or that I make a living doing it. But I think I do okay. Do you bet Somer?

Yes I bet and I was using Curlin as the example cause this is a thread about him. Again, I post the angles and people can use them or not...no skin off my back.