Epsom Derby 2012

I am clearly failing to get my point across.

What is the point of using dosage at all if, when writing a piece based primarily on dosage (which is how it is sold at least), you choose two horses to fill the first three places which your dosage analysis eliminates?
 
Zenyatta said:
I don't expect Steve to use incomprehensible statistical techniques which the majority will not understand. I do expect him to actually use the results that he draws from the dosage analysis to arrive at his conclusions. Otherwise what is the point in doing the analysis in the first place?
Click to expand...

You are clearly refusing to read what I've taken the trouble to explain. If you and the Spook want to have a go knock yourselves out.
 
Zenyatta said:
I am clearly failing to get my point across.

What is the point of using dosage at all if, when writing a piece based primarily on dosage (which is how it is sold at least), you choose two horses to fill the first three places which your dosage analysis eliminates?
Click to expand...

Have you not seen my answer to this above. What is it you don't get?
 
Zenyatta said:
It's not an 'attack' at all. It is a criticism, which I have voiced here, about the piece. The use of dosage strikes me as being limited in the first place (I am a sceptic), but I find it very strange when one of its proponents seems to all but dismiss it as a tool by ignoring what dosage analysis says in favour of his own opinion which is no doubt influenced by form and other factors. I fail to understand why this is dressed up as dosage analysis.

I don't expect Steve to use incomprehensible statistical techniques which the majority will not understand. I do expect him to actually use the results that he draws from the dosage analysis to arrive at his conclusions. Otherwise what is the point in doing the analysis in the first place?
Click to expand...

Fair points Zenyatta,

Although I think you could of handled the comments about Steve being "laughable opposition" a little better even if you did voice a strong and honest point.

EC1 said:
Spook's way of looking at races knocks anything i've read on most forums into a cocked hat..yer talkin nonsense Bruce..absolute nonsense
Click to expand...

He's alright from what I've read the last couple of months although I do find there really is never a definitive answer with him and tends to look for things that aren't really there.

Good race reader I give you that.
 
Steve has excluded horses which dosage tells him won't get the trip.

Imperial Monarch will get this trip and more. Bonfire we don't know about.
 
I'd expect to be able to throw out horses at the head of the market if i believed the dosage was an effective method

its as simple as that..if any method can't be used to eliminate front market horses then there is not much point using that method..whatever it is
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
I'd expect to be able to throw out horses at the head of the market if i believed the dosage was an effective method

its as simple as that..if any method can't be used to eliminate front market horses then there is not much point using that method
Click to expand...

Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't
 
SteveM said:
Have you not seen my answer to this above. What is it you don't get?
Click to expand...

You have basically said that you use dosage in conjunction with other factors to arrive at a conclusion. I think I am right in saying that.

I am saying that you don't 'use' dosage at all because you include in your conclusion about the first three places two horses that fail to meet the requirements. I don't get why you do this.
 
Zenyatta said:
You have basically said that you use dosage in conjunction with other factors to arrive at a conclusion. I think I am right in saying that.

I am saying that you don't 'use' dosage at all because you include in your conclusion about the first three places two horses that fail to meet the requirements. I don't get why you do this.
Click to expand...

I do this because I am asked to come up with the likeliest result, using the tools at my disposal.
 
EC1 said:
I'd expect to be able to throw out horses at the head of the market if i believed the dosage was an effective method

its as simple as that..if any method can't be used to eliminate front market horses then there is not much point using that method..whatever it is
Click to expand...

Sometimes it can though, obviously not always. Which is why I opposed the Derby favourite with Pour Moi last year and have put up plenty of double-digit horses against favourites that won't stay (or have the wrong blend of speed/stamina).
 
Last edited:
H0: µ = Dosage Index will be a more significant indicator to finding the winner of the Epsom Derby than general knowledge for Steve M.
H1: µ = Dosage Index will be a less significant indicator to to finding the winner of the Epsom Derby than general knowledge Steve M.

Go figure the error Steve has made, is it Type 1 or Type 2.

I'll give you a clue.
 
Last edited:
I fail to understand how you can claim to 'use' dosage analysis. You make perfectly clear which horses the dosage analysis selects but you also make perfectly clear your lack of faith in the dosage analysis by proceeding to select two horses which the analysis eliminates as finishing 2nd and 3rd. These are horses that do not having the appropriate stamina profile for the race according to dosage.

You are not 'using' dosage analysis if you select these two horses because they have been eliminated by the analysis. You are doing the dosage analysis, looking at the conclusions, then ignoring them and picking two horses for other reasons who fail on dosage.
 
Zenyatta said:
I fail to understand how you can claim to 'use' dosage analysis. You make perfectly clear which horses the dosage analysis selects but you also make perfectly clear your lack of faith in the dosage analysis by proceeding to select two horses which the analysis eliminates as finishing 2nd and 3rd. These are horses that do not having the appropriate stamina profile for the race according to dosage.

You are not 'using' dosage analysis if you select these two horses because they have been eliminated by the analysis. You are doing the dosage analysis, looking at the conclusions, then ignoring them and picking two horses for other reasons who fail on dosage.
Click to expand...

I am using Dosage analysis to select qualifiers, but I'm not using it exclusive of other factors. I'm using these other factors as an overlay to the Dosage.

What you do with any system is to look at what it's telling you and decide what is significant. All the pseudo babble in the world won't bail you out if you cannot exercise judgement.
 
Last edited:
This sums up Steve's reasoning perfectly, not that he should have to!

SteveM said:
You see that's where you're going wrong. I'm writing a piece which incorporates Dosage without excluding other factors. However, If it were purely on Dosage I've also identified those that are selected:

The best matches this year are: Camelot (DI 0.94), Cavaleiro (1.00), Astrology (1.00), Thought Worthy (1.34) and Minimise Risk (1.40).

However, we're talking about a race, not an academic exercise and my final selections take everything together.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think we are getting anywhere here.

I find it laughable that a Weekender piece that I paid to read specifically on dosage can put forward two horses to finish in the top three that fail to qualify on the dosage requirements as set out in that very piece.

I find it laughable that a blog piece on a page entitled "Dosage: Pedigree & Performance" can put forward two horses to finish in the top three that fail to qualify on the dosage requirements as set out in that very piece.

I cannot see the point in using dosage at all if its conclusions are completely ignored. I must confess that I struggle to see the point of using it at all. What I find most curious is that you, Steve, as one of its key protagonists seem to have as little faith in dosage as a tool of analysis as I do.

I cannot for the life of me understand how you can come to the conclusions that you do whilst continuing to maintain that dosage is important. If you are happy to dismiss its findings in favour of other factors then perhaps your Weekender piece and website ought to be re-branded so as not to give off the impression of being primarily based on dosage.

I completely understand your argument that it is important to use all factors. The weight I attach to dosage is to look at it and think it is good if it supports my idea, and ignore it if it doesn't. That is because I think it is of minimal use. The strangest thing is how you seem to have the same attitude.

It appears that our view on the use of dosage is really quite similar, use it when it suits and not when it doesn't, but, I say that I think it is not very useful, whilst you write magazine articles and a website based on its use.

I think it is this which I struggle to understand. The banners and such like that surround your pieces give off the impression that you are a strong advocate of the use of dosage analysis as a tool for finding winners. The content of those pieces suggests that you are, like me (unfortunately!), a sceptic who, like we all do, chooses to use various tools to support an argument that we are trying to make.
 
Last edited:
Dosage identifies a horse's likely optimum distance not ability. No point suggesting a horse will be placed in the Derby if it has the perfect dosage index for 12f but can't run better than 110 at 12f. Better to look for others with prospects of hitting 120 or so with DIs better suited to 11f or 13f.
 
Can't really argue with someone who goes to Cambridge University that's a pretty high accolade, you make some strong points too.
 
Back
Top