REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

In 1999 the great, and I dont use this term loosely, Andy Beyer was fielding questions before the Belmont Stakes in an internet chat when he was asked the following question:

When playing the horses this time around, I came across this dosage index issue. How safe is it to rely on this? Apparently Menifee was not supposed to be able to run a mile and a quarter in the Derby, according to the index. It sure seemed to run well to me. Is there a particular dosage index rating or level that I should look for in a Triple Crown horse? Or is this just another inaccurate measure helping me throw my money away?

His answer was thus:

In my opinion, Dosage is useless as a handicapping tool. Its proponents claim that it had been right about the Derby every year from 1929 into the 1990s, but the system was devised in the 1980s and then retrofitted to the past results. When Dosage is correct, it tells you what you would know anyway from a common-sense analysis of a horse's pedigree. But when it defies common sense it's usually wrong--as when it said that Strike the Gold (who seemed to have a solid distance running pedigree) didn't qualify for the Derby. I could go on and on about this subject; suffice it to say that Dosage is junk science.

I have also heard him call it "voodoo handicapping".

I should state that I am seriously biased towards most anything the man says on matters horse racing.

While I might not be that strong opinioned on it, I've spent some time in the past looking at this before I ever knew Steve M existed and could never get my head around the fact that their list of stallions was at that time fairly outdated. Personally I discarded it completely as anything that could give me some sort of edge over other ways of handicapping.

<blockquote data-quote="brendanr" data-source="post: 2405877" data-attributes="member: 65800">In 1999 the great, and I dont use this term loosely, Andy Beyer was fielding questions before the Belmont Stakes in an internet chat when he was asked the following question:When playing the horses this time around, I came across this dosage index issue. How safe is it to rely on this? Apparently Menifee was not supposed to be able to run a mile and a quarter in the Derby, according to the index. It sure seemed to run well to me. Is there a particular dosage index rating or level that I should look for in a Triple Crown horse? Or is this just another inaccurate measure helping me throw my money away? His answer was thus:In my opinion, Dosage is useless as a handicapping tool. Its proponents claim that it had been right about the Derby every year from 1929 into the 1990s, but the system was devised in the 1980s and then retrofitted to the past results. When Dosage is correct, it tells you what you would know anyway from a common-sense analysis of a horse&#039;s pedigree. But when it defies common sense it&#039;s usually wrong--as when it said that Strike the Gold (who seemed to have a solid distance running pedigree) didn&#039;t qualify for the Derby. I could go on and on about this subject; suffice it to say that Dosage is junk science. I have also heard him call it &quot;voodoo handicapping&quot;. I should state that I am seriously biased towards most anything the man says on matters horse racing.While I might not be that strong opinioned on it, I&#039;ve spent some time in the past looking at this before I ever knew Steve M existed and could never get my head around the fact that their list of stallions was at that time fairly outdated. Personally I discarded it completely as anything that could give me some sort of edge over other ways of handicapping.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="brendanr, post: 2405877, member: 65800"] In 1999 the great, and I dont use this term loosely, Andy Beyer was fielding questions before the Belmont Stakes in an internet chat when he was asked the following question: [I]When playing the horses this time around, I came across this dosage index issue. How safe is it to rely on this? Apparently Menifee was not supposed to be able to run a mile and a quarter in the Derby, according to the index. It sure seemed to run well to me. Is there a particular dosage index rating or level that I should look for in a Triple Crown horse? Or is this just another inaccurate measure helping me throw my money away? [/I] His answer was thus: [I]In my opinion, Dosage is useless as a handicapping tool. Its proponents claim that it had been right about the Derby every year from 1929 into the 1990s, but the system was devised in the 1980s and then retrofitted to the past results. When Dosage is correct, it tells you what you would know anyway from a common-sense analysis of a horse's pedigree. But when it defies common sense it's usually wrong--as when it said that Strike the Gold (who seemed to have a solid distance running pedigree) didn't qualify for the Derby. I could go on and on about this subject; suffice it to say that Dosage is junk science. [/I] I have also heard him call it "voodoo handicapping". I should state that I am seriously biased towards most anything the man says on matters horse racing. While I might not be that strong opinioned on it, I've spent some time in the past looking at this before I ever knew Steve M existed and could never get my head around the fact that their list of stallions was at that time fairly outdated. Personally I discarded it completely as anything that could give me some sort of edge over other ways of handicapping. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?