Dr Roman tabs Master of Hounds in Derby

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by alysheba4

.......was at the 04 belmont, so loud down the stretch it hurt your ears. then it went kinda silent when SJ got passed.

Got real quiet at my house as well, can't tell you how much I was rooting for him...wasn't a matter of bets...I only had a few bucks invested, but I had followed him since the beginning!

[joeydb]

That Dosage Index stuff does have a decent, if not perfect record, right?

[slotdirt]

It does? When was the last time a "dual qualifier" won the Derby?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

It does? When was the last time a "dual qualifier" won the Derby?

Various aspects of his research have fallen out of favor, dual qualifiers lost their edge with so many precocious 2yo's who didn't hold their form at three. DI/CD guidelines have suffered again largely due to breeding practices. Keep in mind that dosage was not developed as a handicapping tool. The angle of a horse needing 16 points in DP still remains strong with no horse winning since 1950. His PF's are a valuable tool in major stake races. All in all, this stuff can be used as one of many tools, keeping in mind that no angle is foolproof.

[tector]

Good to hear. Now, do you have the views of Dr. Seuss, Dr. Strangelove and Dr. Vinny Boombotz?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by tector

Good to hear. Now, do you have the views of Dr. Seuss, Dr. Strangelove and Dr. Vinny Boombotz?

Too funny.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Cardus

For those who analyze Dosage Figures, consider that Dialed In and Nehro have two of the three highest figures in the field.

Yeah, when I think of Mineshaft, I think BC turf sprint, all the way.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The angle of a horse needing 16 points in DP still remains strong with no horse winning since 1950.

There is no angle. This is the same BS that dosage was 20 years ago.
Take a result, find a number that fits the result without any consideration of the percentage of runners that fall above or below the number and give no credit to runners who may have been below the level and ran a good race.

When Middleground won the derby suddenly it was apparent that 16 was the number for the DP and his victory was an abberation.17 is a good number but the problem with 17 is that while someone was scanning through the results of the last 50 years 17 came up quite a few times and that would not fit the system.

Now if it was proven that >16 runners consistently outperformed <16 runners for 2nd,3rd etc., then the DP may have some merit. Until someone shows me proof of that it's nothing more than voodoo.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

There is no angle. This is the same BS that dosage was 20 years ago.
Take a result, find a number that fits the result without any consideration of the percentage of runners that fall above or below the number and give no credit to runners who may have been below the level and ran a good race.

When Middleground won the derby suddenly it was apparent that 16 was the number for the DP and his victory was an abberation.17 is a good number but the problem with 17 is that while someone was scanning through the results of the last 50 years 17 came up quite a few times and that would not fit the system.

Now if it was proven that >16 runners consistently outperformed <16 runners for 2nd,3rd etc., then the DP may have some merit. Until someone shows me proof of that it's nothing more than voodoo.

Gee, you talk about facts yet you state 17 came up quite a few times....no winner has ever had 17! Since 1940, the first year dosage was used, 9 horses have had a DP with less than 20 points. Count Fleet (1943) had only 4 and Middleground (1950) had 12....since then 16 is the lowest number and has occurred 5 times (Mine that Bird the last in 2009), no winner has had 17 or 19, two (Gato Del Sol in 1982 and Monarchos in 2001) had 18. You can dismiss DP, that's your choice as it is mine to consider it but get your "facts" straight!

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Gee, you talk about facts yet you state 17 came up quite a few times....no winner has ever had 17! Since 1940, the first year dosage was used, 9 horses have had a DP with less than 20 points. Count Fleet (1943) had only 4 and Middleground (1950) had 12....since then 16 is the lowest number and has occurred 5 times (Mine that Bird the last in 2009), no winner has had 17 or 19, two (Gato Del Sol in 1982 and Monarchos in 2001) had 18. You can dismiss DP, that's your choice as it is mine to consider it but get your "facts" straight!

You just proved my point. My point is(and was) that after the results are analyzed a threshold is determined. In this case 16 was the lowest number and has occurred 5 times, so to make the "system" valid 16 is included to prove the system works. Choose the next highest # any winner has had above 16 and at some point in time that number was a threshold in which no contender could have been considered until a horse with a 16 won the derby.

Since you have all the facts about DP, when you get time inform me how these numbers perform top to bottom (first place to last) over the years rather than just the winner; in fields that are more than likely top loaded with "system fitting" horses.