Not raced at two results

[todko]

It's not a statistically significant sample. The sample is too small.

Some of those horses could also have won in different years.

I'll take Curlin any day over some of these with the obvious phyical issues and 2 preps at 3.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by todko

It's not a statistically significant sample. The sample is too small.

Some of those horses could also have won in different years.

I'll take Curlin any day over some of these with the obvious phyical issues and 2 preps at 3.

Again, your call! Consider them or not, but being "statistically significant" is pretty much irrelevant in horse racing due to an almost unlimited number of intervening variables (yes, I had graduate level statistics too).

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by todko

It's not a statistically significant sample. The sample is too small.

Some of those horses could also have won in different years.

I'll take Curlin any day over some of these with the obvious phyical issues and 2 preps at 3.

And...when commenting on sample size, keep in mind that the list is from 1956 to present, there were 74 years prior to 1956 without a winner also!