Does the Dosage Index matter?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cardus

He responded that he thought the using Dosage Theory was dead.

Was it ever really alive?

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Was it ever really alive?

DrugS, I am with Cardus on this one. While I greatly respect your knowledge of the game and your handicapping abilities, I think the dual qualifier and especially dosage index had merit when handicapping the Derby...once upon a time. No longer. Roman has just done too much tweaking to his chef-de-race list in an effort to make sure it holds true that it is now useless.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Though there are numerous Dual Qualifiers -- which adds the "Experimental Handicap", a ridiculous media exercise -- the following Kentucky Derby winners were not favored to win (since 1970, with DI in parentheses):

Genuine Risk (2.57)
Gato Del Sol (1.77)
Ferdinand (1.50)
Alysheba (3.80)
Unbridled (1.12)
Sea Hero (1.12)
Go For Gin (1.00)
Thunder Gulch (4.00)

While there were various reasons for them not to be favored, they still won, and had low Dosage Indices. There are plenty of other horses who rounded out the exotics at big prices who had a inherent ability to get the classic distances.

So, yes, I think it was once alive. Perhaps it is no longer relevant, but to say that it was never alive is inaccurate.

Are these #'s AS OF the Derby, or right now?

The Dosage is about as ridiculous as the guy who told me Funny Cide couldn't win the Derby "because he was a New York Bred"

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by philcski

Are these #'s AS OF the Derby, or right now?

The Dosage is about as ridiculous as the guy who told me Funny Cide couldn't win the Derby "because he was a New York Bred"

Indeed. Dosage is just about as useful as those always useless Derby "angles."

[Thunder Gulch]

Does it matter??? Yes and no- just like any other handicapping factor. If you take the time to really understand the process and use it, it can assist in the overall picture. People citing specific examples of why it doesn't matter are glossing over the larger picture. Would those of you quick to downplay the validity of the dosage index as a handicapping factor consider speed figures important? Of course they are, but they are only one component of an infinate puzzle that handicapping horse races is.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

Does it matter??? Yes and no- just like any other handicapping factor. If you take the time to really understand the process and use it, it can assist in the overall picture. People citing specific examples of why it doesn't matter are glossing over the larger picture. Would those of you quick to downplay the validity of the dosage index as a handicapping factor consider speed figures important? Of course they are, but they are only one component of an infinate puzzle that handicapping horse races is.

Using your puzzle example I would say that speed figs are a very important piece in the real 1000 piece puzzle that is handicapping. Meanwhile, the dosage index is a piece in a one of those 8-piece childrens' puzzles that has nothing at all to do with solving the bigger puzzle.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Using your puzzle example I would say that speed figs are a very important piece in the real 1000 piece puzzle that is handicapping. Meanwhile, the dosage index is a piece in a one of those 8-piece childrens' puzzles that has nothing at all to do with solving the bigger puzzle.

Understand...but isn't a tool underutilized by the masses what creates an overlay? I'm not going to tell you I look at Dosage Indexes often, but pedigree analysis is a legitimate factor and DI's can often point you in the right direction, same as Tomlinson's or other figures created to place a numerical value on a horse's suitability to specific distances/surfaces. As discussed, most here don't need Dr.Roman to tell them AP Indy's are more inclined to handle routes or Lee Tomlinsin to tell you Danehill's are good on the turf, but when you are dealing with more obscure first generation sires, I think their work is helpful.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

Understand...but isn't a tool underutilized by the masses what creates an overlay? I'm not going to tell you I look at Dosage Indexes often, but pedigree analysis is a legitimate factor and DI's can often point you in the right direction, same as Tomlinson's or other figures created to place a numerical value on a horse's suitability to specific distances/surfaces. As discussed, most here don't need Dr.Roman to tell them AP Indy's are more inclined to handle routes or Lee Tomlinsin to tell you Danehill's are good on the turf, but when you are dealing with more obscure first generation sires, I think their work is helpful.

I think for the few horses out there that have older sires and broodmare sires that have already been categorized as chef-de-races they could be used as a tool. That is an extremely small percent though and way too many people that use them try and apply them to everyone. It would be like if Beyer figures were only useful at 7 furlongs on cushion track yet everyone used them for all distances on all surfaces.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

The dosage is basically a point ratio - of speed points versus stamina points - and it relys only on the most prominant names of stallions through the pedigree.

In my opinion, it's nothing than a simple one glance guide, assigning a naked number to rate the speed versus stamina of pedigree - many of the ratings are tremendously flawed - and anyone with even the most moderate understanding of a pedigree could make a better judgement than the dosage number.

I look at thousands and thousands of pedigrees every year - and I can honestly say not once recently have I bothered to look at a dosage.