Pedigree Query

[Kotkijet]

[Istabraq]

Cheers Istabraq.

I'm probably more a 'stream of consciousness' than a pure stats type of person and generally use data as a tool rather than see it as gospel. Nevertheless, I will most likely continue to contribute to the Triumph Hurdle thread as the season progresses.

I would also be happy to create and maintain a general juvenile hurdle thread on this forum if you don't mind it being something of a fixture?

I think your efforts will be a valued asset to the forum, crack on !!!

[Kotkijet]

Excellent stuff Kotkijet.
Can I assume you’ll be doing race calculations nearer the time ?

Cheers Istabraq.

I'm probably more a 'stream of consciousness' than a pure stats type of person and generally use data as a tool rather than see it as gospel. Nevertheless, I will most likely continue to contribute to the Triumph Hurdle thread as the season progresses.

I would also be happy to create and maintain a general juvenile hurdle thread on this forum if you don't mind it being something of a fixture?

[Istabraq]

Excellent stuff Kotkijet.
Can I assume you’ll be doing race calculations nearer the time ?

[Kotkijet]

I would say, what a fantastic post, but I don't understand half of it It's beyond my intellect, as I've never got stuck into Dosage Index.

I realise what it is used for, but I just check the back pedigree of each horse individually when looking at a potential bet, without using math.

Is using DI a profitable way to bet? There seem to be many that use or have an understanding of it, but ultimately I only want the bank balance to look good if that can be achieved without additional information (from what I already use) then I probably wouldn't spend more time learning more about it. That said, I have no qualms learning new things, they just have to be worth it in the long run.

I think it has been noted on here, albeit without such a solid and informative post as yours Kotkijet, that the top juveniles tend to end up as more staying types. That said, I would imagine there wouldn't be many 2m novice hurdlers that stay at 2m throughout their career either, so wonder how this would look against the juveniles using the above?

Thanks for the kind words and intriguing questions.

Insofar as whether or not dosage indexes are profitable when it comes to juveniles, I honestly could not say as I am not a punter myself. However, the figures in the previous post have shown that dosage indexes can be a factor in success even if they are not a hard and fast guide. Given that it is such an underutilised tool then like any other obscure angle, if you have an insight that the market is overlooking then you are probably going to encounter positive value in the long run.

I have had a bit of a look into how juveniles perform beyond their first season but the sample sizes are a bit low. Nevertheless, they offer an introduction to the notion of whether top juveniles can still perform over two miles as they mature but it would require a much more concerted research effort before any strong conclusions can be drawn...

Firstly, I used the leading juveniles with the highest and lowest dosages of the seasons between 2011/12 and 2016/17 - the latter season chosen to allow the form to mature. The table shows Name/DI/Sire/Sire's DI/Highest RPR/Season/Three highest RPRs achieved after the juvenile season and the distances at which they were achieved/Average distances of top performances/Difference between top juvenile RPR and subsequent RPR - A larger the figure may be demonstrative of "training on".



I am not sure that the forum's format is conducive to presenting the table in this post but hopefully the link to the image will still be there. The sample size is probably too small but two ideas that can be taken from these figures are that horses with higher DIs seem to be better adept at training on and that while those with higher DIs tend to stick at the minimum trip, those with the lowest largely only step up a half mile in trip. Although it is worth noting that the two who fared best enjoyed success at three miles and beyond and it could well be that the placing of these horses played a greater role than genetics. It goes without saying that considerably more research would be necessary before drawing any firm conclusions. Nevertheless, I applied this format in a similar fashion to the Triumph Hurdle winners with the highest and lowest DIs in the RPR era. There are some horses whose best RPRs were equally attained over a range of distances. In these instances, I used an average figure whenever applicible.



Here, in contrast to the previous table, those with the lower DIs enjoy far greater success after the triumph than their more speedily bred counterparts. However, of the stoutly bred winners, only Commanche Court, Paddy's Return and Tiger Roll would establish themselves as bona fide stayers and while the likes of Mysilv and Celestial Halo ran close to or at their bests over three miles, they were equally capable at two miles. Zarkandar, the most successful of the speedier sorts would also perform well over both two and three miles which may suggest that for many high quality horses, the difference between two and three miles can be much of a muchness.

And finally, there were forty horses who posted RPRs of 150+ over jumps last season whose careers began in the juvenile division. (This will not include those who exclusively raced at three or four in France). The figures below are RPR/Distance RPR achieved/DI/Sire's DI/Age/Horse.

155 24.0 1.00 1.10 08 Apple's Jade
150 16.5 0.71 1.22 06 Ballywood
156 20.0 0.85 0.90 08 Ben Dundee
174 25.5 1.12 1.10 09 Bristol De Mai
158 17.8 0.85 0.76 07 Call Me Lord
178 24.0 1.22 0.93 08 Clan Des Obeaux
156 16.5 0.90 1.78 05 Coeur Sublime
159 15.8 2.20 1.29 06 Cornerstone Lad
171 15.5 1.00 1.29 07 Defi Du Seuil
163 17.0 1.00 1.22 08 Diego Du Charmil
166 15.5 1.40 0.93 07 Dolos
152 20.5 0.74 1.78 07 Ex Patriot
165 16.0 1.00 0.93 05 Fakir D'oudairies
165 26.0 0.86 0.94 08 Footpad
167 20.5 1.67 1.00 08 Frodon
153 15.5 0.71 0.71 05 Fusil Raffles
155 15.5 0.71 1.00 06 Grand Sancy
154 16.5 0.33 1.00 06 Gumball
153 22.0 0.71 0.90 11 Mala Beach
155 17.0 0.50 0.53 09 Marracudja
150 22.5 2.08 2.16 07 Mengli Khan
156 15.5 1.00 1.00 06 Monsieur Lecoq
153 15.8 1.00 1.29 06 Nube Negra
157 15.5 0.77 1.04 05 Pentland Hills
150 16.5 2.00 1.48 05 Pic D'Orhy
157 16.0 1.40 1.40 05 Quel Destin
151 21.0 0.67 0.71 08 Romain De Senam
161 16.5 0.40 0.58 05 Saldier
150 20.0 1.07 1.77 08 San Benedeto
168 16.5 1.40 1.67 08 Sceau Royal
166 16.5 1.86 1.67 07 Sharjah
157 16.2 1.67 4.00 07 Silver Streak
154 20.5 2.56 1.48 07 Siruh Du Lac
154 19.5 2.08 3.67 05 Song For Someone
150 18.3 1.00 1.04 06 Stormy Ireland
155 30.0 0.58 0.62 10 Tiger Roll
159 20.3 0.88 1.11 09 Top Notch
155 25.0 1.13 1.24 07 Tout Est Permis
156 20.0 1.00 1.29 08 Voix Du Reve
154 20.5 3.00 1.82 08 Who Dares Wins


Top 40 ex-juveniles 2019/20 MEAN/MEDIAN
________Total Age RPR ____DI SDI Dist Age RPR DI SDI Dist

_____ALL 40 7.03 157.95 1.18 1.31 19.0 7.0 156 1.00 1.11 17.40
Distance
15.5-17.8 21 6.24 158.57 1.09 1.28 16.2 6.0 157 1.00 1.22 16.20
18.3-21.0 11 7.45 154.82 1.41 1.51 20.1 8.0 154 1.00 1.29 20.30
22.0-30.0 08 8.50 160.63 1.09 1.12 24.9 8.0 155 1.06 1.02 24.50
DI
0.33-0.90 16 7.19 155.63 0.70 0.97 19.2 7.0 155 0.71 0.92 17.40
1.00-1.29 12 7.17 160.50 1.05 1.18 19.7 7.5 156 1.00 1.16 19.15
1.40-3.00 12 6.67 158.50 1.94 1.88 18.0 7.0 157 1.93 1.58 16.50

While it is only a sample size of forty, there is really nothing to glean from these figures other than the fact that no current high-class graduate-juvenile has a dosage index exceeding 3.00

[ComplyOrDie]

I would say, what a fantastic post, but I don't understand half of it It's beyond my intellect, as I've never got stuck into Dosage Index.

I realise what it is used for, but I just check the back pedigree of each horse individually when looking at a potential bet, without using math.

Is using DI a profitable way to bet? There seem to be many that use or have an understanding of it, but ultimately I only want the bank balance to look good if that can be achieved without additional information (from what I already use) then I probably wouldn't spend more time learning more about it. That said, I have no qualms learning new things, they just have to be worth it in the long run.

I think it has been noted on here, albeit without such a solid and informative post as yours Kotkijet, that the top juveniles tend to end up as more staying types. That said, I would imagine there wouldn't be many 2m novice hurdlers that stay at 2m throughout their career either, so wonder how this would look against the juveniles using the above?

[Kotkijet]

I have just done a bit of research pertinent to juvenile hurdlers that may of may not be of interest. Any questions, comments or suggestions etc would be more than welcome.

The data is taken from those who raced over hurdles as juveniles from the 2011/12 season onwards and the first set will concern those who raced at least four times during their initial campaign. Four runs would provide more accurate data than one or two runs and although the success rates will be skewed accordingly, there is still a healthy sample size of 1587.

The rows are the dosage indexes in bands and the columns are total horses in each band, number of winners amongst them, winner:runner rate, average wins per horse in the band, average run and strike rate, mean Dosage Index, median Dosage Index, mean peak RPR, median peak RPR.

________Total Wnrs W:R Wins Runs SR Mn DI Md DI Mn RPR Md RPR
0.00-0.50 139 080 57.55% 0.84 5.07 16.57% 0.40 0.42 109.94 111.0
0.51-0.75 239 135 56.49% 0.93 5.11 18.20% 0.63 0.63 109.89 110.0
0.76-0.99 212 098 46.23% 0.77 5.21 14.78% 0.84 0.85 106.53 108.0
1.00-1.00 139 067 48.20% 0.77 5.26 14.64% 1.00 1.00 104.59 103.0
1.01-1.25 156 074 47.44% 0.70 5.12 13.67% 1.16 1.17 105.21 104.5
1.26-1.50 167 071 42.51% 0.69 5.08 13.58% 1.39 1.40 101.58 104.0
1.51-1.99 207 090 43.48% 0.62 5.02 12.35% 1.65 1.67 097.76 105.0
2.00-2.49 152 069 45.39% 0.64 5.23 12.24% 2.19 2.20 100.36 103.5
2.50-3.00 113 054 47.79% 0.64 5.43 11.79% 2.85 3.00 098.10 099.0
3.01-15.0 063 015 23.81% 0.46 5.27 08.73% 4.75 4.00 100.03 103.0
ALL____ 1587 753 47.45% 0.74 5.20 14.23% 1.42 1.15 104.58 106.0

This is about as good as I could make this table look using underscores and zeros... Rather delightfully, the fact that there are discernible patterns as opposed to a completely chaotic assortment of numbers show that these efforts have not been a complete waste of time. In the simplest terms, the overarching finding is that the lower the dosage index, the better. This is shown almost perfectly in the race for race strike rate as with the exception of the lowest band, the percentage strike rate constantly decreases as the DI increases. Juveniles with sub 1.00 DIs also achieve higher RPRs than their more "brilliant" and "intermediate" counterparts. The figures follow the trend in a faithful manner for the most part with the blips within an acceptable range of variance. If one was to speculate on the wandering, perhaps it might be while a horse's class might be enough to win the occasional lesser race or place in a stronger one, a lack of stamina might make the difference between victory and defeat in the better races?

Still looking at the horses with more than three runs as a juvenile, if we split the winners from the maidens or those who achieved RPRs exceeding 105 from those who did not, we find an almost identical contrast, telling us that a winning juvenile or an above average performing one will have a dosage index approximately 0.2 lower than its less successful counterparts;-

________Total Mean Median
RPR >105_ 796 1.31 1.00
RPR <106_ 791 1.52 1.22
Winners___753 1.30 1.00
Maidens___834 1.52 1.22

Now for every juvenile since 2011/12 to have achieved a three digit RPR. This would ensure that the horses demonstrated some level of form and provides us with a sample size of 1673. The horses have been split into a band of 164-140 then bands of ten pounds thereafter. The columns show the amount of horses in each band followed by the mean and median DIs;-

(164-140) 085 1.04 0.88
(139-130) 189 1.18 1.00
(129-120) 286 1.25 1.00
(119-110) 497 1.32 1.11
(109-100) 616 1.34 1.12

For greater accuracy, here are the same bands but with horses who raced only once eliminated;-

(164-140) 084 1.04 0.89
(139-130) 184 1.19 1.00
(129-120) 269 1.25 1.00
(119-110) 449 1.35 1.13
(109-100) 544 1.34 1.12

And again but with horses with more than two runs qualifying;-

(164-140) 077 1.07 0.90
(139-130) 169 1.21 1.00
(129-120) 238 1.28 1.00
(119-110) 383 1.38 1.18
(109-100) 429 1.38 1.18

These figures consistently demonstrate that a lower DI is a common feature among the classier juvenile hurdlers. While it would be folly to proclaim any grand truths when it comes to the study of form and ludicrous to do so where breeding is concerned, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that stamina, particularly in the classier races, is a prerequisite to success in juvenile hurdles. Particularly as during this time period, only two of the eighty-five horses to have achieved an RPR of 140 or above had DIs exceeding 3.00. Neither of them were amongst the sixty-three on 142 or above.

It is worth bearing in mind that as a horse's stamina tends to increase as it ages (or if you prefer, it loses its speed), a lack of staying power as a juvenile would not preclude a fruitful career in the long term over jumps. Also, there will always be exceptions and anomalies and as the dosage index will not paint the entire picture of a horse's genetic predisposition to distances, it is also crucial to consider the pedigree of each horse on its own merit. The two aforementioned juveniles who performed with higher DI provide fine examples. Charlie Parcs grandsire is Anabaa, a capable source of stamina and while the sires on his dam's side were predominantly milers, the damsire Nikos was a crack National Hunt stallion counting the likes of Encore Un Peu, Nononito and Master Minded amongst his own and Apple's Jade, Houblon des Obeaux and Cokoriko as products of his dams. Fox Norton has a DI of 3.00 due in most part to the fact that his chefs-de-race forefathers (the ancestors whose presence determines the dosage index) only begin to appear on the fourth line of his pedigree.

Furthermore, certain sire-lines will carry attributes which make them more than capable of producing good juvenile hurdlers despite a comparative lack of stamina. The precocious sprinter Danehill Dancer was capable of producing good hurdlers but apparently even better at producing sires of juveniles such as Jeremy, Mastercraftsman and Fast Company.

[Outlaw]

a kind of related question - do many on here use proform racing? Is it worth it?

It's very expensive in my opinion vs the likes of geegeez/horse race base/rating the races. Proform is very much for the databoys can get very deep and can be a bit overwhelming if no prior experience with databases. Others mentioned are more user friendly but again only my opinion.

[OverTheLast]

a kind of related question - do many on here use proform racing? Is it worth it?

[Outlaw]

I don't use breeding as part of my regular form study but I do for the Festival and for a select number of specific races over the year. The main Sire influences over the different trips and course types are plain to see.

The Attheraces Cheltenham microsite gives a good update each year, and you'll see how much influence the main sires have over strike rate and distance:

https://cheltenham.attheraces.com/fe...nd-specialists

There is a guy on Twitter who sells a book/Ebook geared around this just for the fez for anyone who likes to delve into that side of things.

[Spectre]

I don't use breeding as part of my regular form study but I do for the Festival and for a select number of specific races over the year. The main Sire influences over the different trips and course types are plain to see.

The Attheraces Cheltenham microsite gives a good update each year, and you'll see how much influence the main sires have over strike rate and distance:

https://cheltenham.attheraces.com/features/trendspotting/sires-and-specialists

[Quevega]

And Noble Prince a couple of days later.

Yes
I enjoyed both of them very much.

[archie]

The sire was Montjeu I reckon. Scorpions dad ?

Then the Fly came to town.

And Noble Prince a couple of days later.

[Quevega]

The sire was Montjeu I reckon. Scorpions dad ?

Then the Fly came to town.

[archie]

There was a sire, whose name escapes me, who had sired hundreds of graded race winners but none of his progeny had won at Cheltenham highlighting a flaw with the bloodline and their ability to act at the track, whatever that reason might be.
This was eventually put right but there's no question a sire can produce, for example, multiple Betfair Hurdle and King George winners without producing a Champion Hurdle or Gold Cup winner, and is therefore worth noting...

I suspect you're thinking of Scorpion, Isty. "They don't run up the hill."

This was finally broken by Might Bite but not exactly convincingly.

I tend to have generalised views about sires that I allow to be flexible for individual cases. It's usually based on an experience with an individual horse that I might look into further to see if there's a pattern. I'd say there are often trends but no hard and fast rules.

I do tend to go with the dam's record of producing winners and the general pattern as to favoured trip and soundness of the progeny.