St Leger

[Bar the Bull]

How do you draw these conclusions when Camelot was ridden too far off the pace and had no chance to run to his true level?

If Queally rode Frankel like a mile horse over a mile and six furlongs Frankel might even run a few pound below par...

Have we really established that he was too far off the pace? Was he not just a length behind the winner turning for home? In my book, if you were to criticise the pilot, it would be for putting him behind a wall of horses in the last few furlongs, and allowing the winner first run.

 

[Marble]

Have we really established that he was too far off the pace?

Yes, I think one or two of us has, Bar. He should have been ridden more prominently, as if he would get home quite comfortably against that lot, rather than if he was up against a Nijinsky.

In my book, if you were to criticise the pilot, it would be for putting him behind a wall of horses in the last few furlongs, and allowing the winner first run.

This is of course, was the iceing on the cake.

Imo, both contributed to Camelots performance. I can buy if he was given a good ride he still might have only just won and even then may have ran a couple of pounds below his best, but its hard enough (as is abundantly clear by reading this forum) to draw conclusions on his performance, without trying to put a good figure on it.

It's like measuring my performance after a few pints, no one really knows if its any better or worse.

 

[Grey]

Neutral ratings don't tell you whether a horse should have won, they are telling you what the standard of the race winner was, and how the other horses in the race rate based on their finishing positions. Therefore if you believe Camelot was badly ridden and should have won, you should be agreeing with Desert Orchid that the outcome of his performance on Saturday was below his best.

 

[Gamla Stan]

I think when reviewing any performance, it's important to be aware of the facts beforehand. The last thing you should do, is take a single piece of form in isolation when there are lots that proceed it that will provide a fuller picture of a horses ability/attitude/racing style etc.

I thought what you said on Twitter was spot on. He did stay, Joseph didn't do much wrong, he probably was the best horse in the race but not on the day.

 

[Marble]

Neutral ratings don't tell you whether a horse should have won, they are telling you what the standard of the race winner was, and how the other horses in the race rate based on their finishing positions. Therefore if you believe Camelot was badly ridden and should have won, you should be agreeing with Desert Orchid that the outcome of his performance on Saturday was below his best.

No Grey, what I'm saying is quite different to Desert Orchid - I think its a hugely subjective argument to give a rating to an animal, a Guineas and Derby winner, in the St Leger, when he's been on a leash for most of the way and then let loose too late.

Yes, if he'd ran 9 pounds better he would have won. The same way if David Milliband had become Labour leader he might have been Prime Minister in 2015.

It's much more to do with what actually happend in the race, tactics, positioning etc than a rating I think.

I've no axe to grind with the jockey. It was worse than an amateurish ride though.

It doesn't affect me in anyway, it's all just for arguments sake of course.

 

[Ardross]

How do you draw these conclusions when Camelot was ridden too far off the pace and had no chance to run to his true level?

If Queally rode Frankel like a mile horse over a mile and six furlongs Frankel might even run a few pound below par...

True - he rode him like a quarter horse in the St james's Palace last year and nearly got him beat .

I don't buy Julian Muscat's suggestion that he did not stay . I suspect they were sucked in by John Gosden's pre -race comments into believing that Dartford would set a better gallop than he did . I don't think JPOB did much wrong except there is always risk sitting on the inside in the Leger that you will be held up in your run - look at Fallon and Quiff for a past example but Encke was able to pick up more quickly from a better position and Camelot whilst closing him down could never quite pick up well enough .

With a stronger gallop Camelot might well have won but we will never know . Nijinsky however he ain't ! and would not have been even if he had won.

 

[SteveM]

Steve, you look to me like you are cherry picking statistics. Of course the tool isn't completely useless, which enables you to do so.

But you haven't answered my questions as to why there is no noticeable difference in the DI between recent winners of the Leger, Ascot Gold Cup and Derby.

Missed this earlier... A number of factors contribute to this (discussed previously). Not least that horses with DIs of below 1 and negative CDs are far less common than those with DIs of 1 and above and it can be the case that there is no ideal representation in any given race. In the absence of these types something has to win and the average is consequently affected. This is why I have urged to look beyond the average to the ‘right types’, which typically score below these averages in such races.

Nevertheless in such races as the St Leger and Gold Cup the horses near to the top of the table show a high correlation with the actual result. To illustrate:

2012 St Leger contenders
Horse Sire/dam sire Profile DI CD
Michelangelo Galileo/Darshaan 3-0-12-5-2 = 22 0.69 -0.14
Ursa Major Galileo/Shirley Heights 5-1-14-6-4 = 30 0.76 -0.10
Camelot Montjeu/Kingmambo 6-1-17-8-0 = 32 0.94 0.16
Thomas Chippendale Dansili/Sadler’s Wells 3-2-12-4-1 = 22 1.00 0.09
Encke Kingmambo/Sinndar 9-3-21-10-1 = 44 1.05 0.20
Guarantee Authorized/Cadeaux Genereux 3-1-9-3-0 = 16 1.13 0.25
Thought Worthy Dynaformer/Diesis 6-2-23-1-2 = 34 1.34 0.26
Dartford Giant’s Causeway/Kris S 6-2-31-1-0 = 40 1.42 0.33
Main Sequence Aldebaran/Pivotal 8-3-11-1-1 = 24 2.20 0.67

Encke won this year’s race and was fifth in the table despite showing 11 stamina points. The next three in the race occupied the top three positions in the table. Just three in the race had DIs of below 1 (the second, third and fourth).
Last year the top four in the table finished in the top four in the race. Only two in the race had DIs below 1 (including the winner).

2011 St Leger contenders
Horse Sire/dam sire Profile DI CD
Masked Marvel Montjeu/Mark Of Esteem 2-0-9-4-1 = 16 0.68 -0.13
Seville Galileo/Silver Hawk 3-0-16-5-2 = 26 0.73 -0.12
Brown Panther Shirocco/Unfuwain 3-0-6-1-2 = 12 1.00 0.08
Sea Moon Beat Hollow/Alleged 4-2-12-5-1 = 24 1.00 0.13
Genius Beast Kingmambo/Sinndar 9-3-21-10-1 = 44 1.05 0.20
Wonder Of Wonders Kingmambo/Sadler’s Wells 12-2-26-12-0 = 52 1.08 0.27
Blue Bunting Dynaformer/Linamix 3-2-18-0-1 = 24 1.40 0.25
Buthelezi Dynaformer/Quiet American 5-6-22-0-1 = 34 1.83 0.41
Census Cacique/Selkirk 4-2-8-0-0 = 14 2.50 0.71

Likewise in this year’s Gold Cup the first three in the race occupied three of the top four slots in the table. The other slot was taken by Fame And Glory (the previous year’s winner). All of these have DIs of below 1 together with negative CDs.

2012 Ascot Gold Cup contenders
Horse sire/dam sire Profile DI CD
Colour Vision Rainbow Quest/Monsun 8-0-20-14-4 = 46 0.64 -0.13
Fame And Glory Montjeu/Shirley Heights 3-1-14-6-4 = 28 0.65 -0.25
Opinion Poll Halling/Shirley Heights 5-1-13-4-5 = 28 0.81 -0.11
Saddler’s Rock Sadler’s Wells/Groom Dancer 7-1-22-8-4 = 42 0.83 -0.02
Askar Tau Montjeu/Acatenango 3-0-9-4-0 = 16 0.88 0.13
Overturn Barathea/Kris 8-1-9-5-3 = 26 1.08 0.23
Memphis Tennessee Hurricane Run/Cozzene 2-2-9-2-1 = 16 1.13 0.13
Bridge Of Gold Giant’s Causeway/Doc’s Leader 2-1-24-0-1 = 28 1.15 0.11
Caucus Cape Cross/Sadler’s Wells 4-7-11-4-0 = 26 1.74 0.42
Lacateno Green Tune/Acatenango 6-0-6-2-0 = 14 1.80 0.71
Nehaam Nayef/Roi Danzig 5-3-8-2-0 = 18 2.00 0.61

In 2011 the top two in the race occupied two of the top three positions in the table. Both with DIs below 1 and negative CDs.
2011 Ascot Gold Cup contenders

Horse sire/dam sire Profile DI CD
Blue Bajan (Montjeu/Darshaan) 2-0-11-5-2 = 20 0.60 -0.25
Fame And Glory (Montjeu/Shirley Heights) 3-1-14-6-4 = 28 0.65 -0.25
Opinion Poll (Halling/Shirley Heights) 5-1-13-4-5 = 28 0.81 -0.11
Duncan (Dalakhani/Danehill) 2-2-12-4-2 = 22 0.83 -0.09
Askar Tau (Montjeu/Acatenango) 3-0-9-4-0 = 16 0.88 0.13
Geordieland (Johann Quatz/Highest Honor) 3-1-10-4-0 = 18 1.00 0.17
Tastahil (Singspiel/Shaadi) 5-4-17-7-1 = 34 1.06 0.15
Royal And Regal (Sadler’s Wells/Smarten) 6-3-19-8-0 = 36 1.06 0.19
Motrice (Motivator/Affirmed) 5-0-9-4-0 = 18 1.12 0.33
Holberg (Halling/Assert) 5-2-4-4-1 = 16 1.29 0.38
Manighar (Linamix/Rubiano) 3-4-11-4-0 = 22 1.32 0.27
Kasbah Bliss (Kahyasi/Double Bed) 4-0-6-2-0 = 12 1.40 0.50
The Betchworth Kid (Tobougg/Runnett) 3-1-4-2-0 = 10 1.50 0.50
Brigantin (Cozzene/Poliglote) 3-6-14-3-0 = 26 1.60 0.35
Fictional Account (Stravinsky/Indian Ridge) 6-9-15-0-0 = 30 3.00 0.70
Aaim To Prosper (Val Royal/Ahonoora) 7-4-5-2-0 = 18 3.00 0.89

Consequently those at or near the top of the tables in such distance races have a high correlation with the race result. Of course it doesn’t always work, but by using common sense as a filter we can improve again on the edge the system hands to us.

 

[Bar the Bull]

Rumh ran in the 2011 Leger, and she had the lowest CD. Why have you omitted her?

 

[SteveM]

As I said at the time: “The points score for the supplemented Rumh are too low to provide a meaningful reading and are therefore excluded”.

 

[EC1]

would taking the stamina points as a % of the total points not be a fairer way of weighing up stamina?

Enke had 44 points so 11 is 25% whereas others had a higher %

you could i assume have a horse with 80 points and 11 stamina points which would suggest that horse had more speed as 69 points are not in the stamina part

just using the number of points alone seems not representative imo

 

[SteveM]

would taking the stamina points as a % of the total points not be a fairer way of weighing up stamina?

Enke had 44 points so 11 is 25% whereas others had a higher %

you could i assume have a horse with 80 points and 11 stamina points which would suggest that horse had more speed as 69 points are not in the stamina part

just using the number of points alone seems not representative imo

This is of course what the Dosage index does... it is a simple ratio of stamina points vs. speed points. Despite the high number of stamina points, these are balanced by a high number of speed points. Nevertheless, as you infer, Encke’s chances at the trip were greater than his headline DI and CD made obvious. Also if Sinndar becomes recognised as a cdr influence for stamina (which he may well be at some point) Enke would be higher up the table anyway. I tried to draw attention to this in what I said (although I can’t claim that I recognised him as the winner):

“Godolphin has won five St Legers and is represented by Encke from Mahmood Al Zarooni’s yard. The Kingmambo colt had to settle for third in the Great Voltigeur behind Thought Worthy and Main Sequence. He derives good stamina from his dam side and has some chance of reversing form with these at this longer trip... Encke [is] decent and has proven resolute at 12 furlongs”.

 

[EC1]

This is of course what the Dosage index does... it is a simple ratio of stamina points vs. speed points. Despite the high number of stamina points, these are balanced by a high number of speed points. Nevertheless, as you infer, Encke’s chances at the trip were greater than his headline DI and CD made obvious. Also if Sinndar becomes recognised as a cdr influence for stamina (which he may well be at some point) Enke would be higher up the table anyway. I tried to draw attention to this in what I said (although I can’t claim that I recognised him as the winner):

“Godolphin has won five St Legers and is represented by Encke from Mahmood Al Zarooni’s yard. The Kingmambo colt had to settle for third in the Great Voltigeur behind Thought Worthy and Main Sequence. He derives good stamina from his dam side and has some chance of reversing form with these at this longer trip... Encke [is] decent and has proven resolute at 12 furlongs”.

fair comment Steve..but you put up 5 choices which didn't win

to be fair i could write analysis of each horse in the Leger and give each one a slight positive which i could focus on afterwards..i'm not having a go at you ..just saying that its easy to latch on to a positve later...to be fair when you give 5 choices and none wins including a 1/2 fav i wouldn't really be trying afterwards to suggest that on this particular occasion the dosage has somehow been that successfull..there wasn't that many runners in the race really was there either?

as i've said in the past..i'm no expert on the dosage...and i'm also no casual knocker of it... but a few years ago i did a fair bit of analysis trying to find an edge in maiden races using the dosage and I found too many examples where the outliers were confounding the distance expectations for it to make a profit from it. Maybe i tried in the wrong races or i'm not much good at knocking it into shape..which just left me feeling it wasn't a tool i would personally rely on too much.

Then again many think the same about using the clock/sectionals etc ....its punters for courses really i think

 

[SteveM]

fair comment Steve..but you put up 5 choices which didn't win

...I know I got it wrong (although in fairness I wasn’t alone in this). Imperial Monarch was a non runner, so my first three were Camelot, Michelangelo and Ursa Major. They finished second, third and fourth in the race.

 

[Hamm]

Yes, except backing your first 3 choices is taking out an enormous portion of the market and you still didn't win, so I am not sure of your point?

 

[SteveM]

Yes, except backing your first 3 choices is taking out an enormous portion of the market and you still didn't win, so I am not sure of your point?

My point is I got it wrong (I'm agreeing with EC). Nevertheless the system has helped to identify those with a stamina advantage. It doesn't always get it right of course. What system does...

 

[Hamm]

No, but even though it took out an enormous % of the market you are trying to claim it was good because it got the 2nd, 3rd and 4th - that makes no sense. It's clear from reading the above that the system patently does not work, like almost/all systems.

 

[Bar the Bull]

I don't think you have done enough analysis to say that, Hamm.

Thanks for your clarifying point on Rumh, SteveM. I will respond.

 

[EC1]

its not really it doesn't work..because you could say that about any method when it selects a loser

many of Gigilo's horses don't win but i would say..not checked this ..that just by backing them at the best prices and not laying back would show a profit..there is no method that does not give losers. When losers do come though i don't see much point in trying to make excuses for them..just move on to the next race you use that method.

as i've said the envelope of horses that the dosage gives can be very broad..for instance i can't see how a stamina tool can say a horse is suited by a mile..mile and half and a mile and a mile threequarters...thats broad enough to be of no use at all in predicting a distance requirement.

Good tools should narrow a race down to something like 3 possible winners of a race..then if you have other tools which can do the same and overlap them..maybethrow in some basic analysis you might have some success..but even then nothing is guaranteed..same as if you just look at a race and run your normal mental analysis over it.

 

[Desert Orchid]

For me the point isn't about finding the outright winner. It's about narrowing the field down to the most likely stayers. I really thought and hoped Camelot would win but din't think he was a value price. Although Encke didn't top the charts on the dasage he did seem to have plenty of stamina points compared to those above him so I arrived at the opinion that 40/1 made him a very good value bet to be placed (behind Camelot) but I don't like throwing away the win portion of each-way bets. I didn't have the cojones to back him outright in that sense but I was more than happy to avail myself of the 16/1 without Camelot.

A bit of me - the greedy baskit bit - feels I've missed a 24/1 winner but I wouldn't have backed Encke at all without those dosage figures. Cheers, Steve.

 

[EC1]

encke has similar speed and stamina points DO..how does that suggest he has more stamina than speed?

 

[Desert Orchid]

That's not what I said, though. Given his overalll DI & CD, he still had more stamina points than those above him in the table. My form ratings for him were pretty much on a par with the other market principals (bar Camelot) but he had more stamina points yet was significantly longer than them in the betting. It was just a value angle I was fortunate enough to latch on to.

 

[EC1]

I don't see how having a lot of stamina points means a horse will be suited by a stamina test ..the actual number alone is meaningless imo without looking where the balance point is. The thing is a seesaw and stamina is suggested by comparing one side to the other..when speed points and stamina ones are similar then it doesn't suggest a horse has more stamina..its just balanced between both

A horse with 5 stamina points would be more significant than one with 11 for instance.. if it only had 2 speed points

Just counting one side and ignoring the other is like comparing bare time performances of horses imo...it tells you nothing without the full picture

 

[SteveM]

I don't see how having a lot of stamina points means a horse will be suited by a stamina test

You could could have a horse with few or no stamina points with the points concentrated in the middle that had a similar or same headline DI. The spread or distribution of Encke's points is very different. It suggests that he has good stamina influences (in addition to good speed influences) and rather than cancel each other out may have more than one string to his bow. This is why we shouldn't always look at the DI in isolation, but the CD and Profile also.

 

[SteveM]

A bit of me - the greedy baskit bit - feels I've missed a 24/1 winner but I wouldn't have backed Encke at all without those dosage figures. Cheers, Steve.

Kicking myself also, but you can't back em all. Backed Michelangelo and Ursa Major for a place and Camelot and Michelangelo in the forecast in addition to a bit of ante-post on Camelot.

 

[SteveM]

its not really it doesn't work..because you could say that about any method when it selects a loser

Like all systems it doesn't always work, but has pointed us to big-priced winners in the past and left us in profit more often than not... I can verify this as I keep a record of all bets. Also as I've also said by using common sense as a filter for the gaps in the system you can improve the results.

With some horses it is of no help at all, but when it clearly indicates something it is invariably right for that individual. It helps you to see past received 'wisdom'.