Louis
we all have our methods, and none of them are very reliable. That was brought out very well in a recent post listing the winnings of the top sales horses from a 2009 high end sale.
Another stat that bothers me is is only about 50% [+/-] of the get of the big name stallions ever race a single race and of the 50% +/- that do race, only about 50% +/- ever win a race.
Experts are paying huge stud fees and buying high end 2 YOs for hundreds of thousands of dollars when the stats say only around 30% of the get of high end stallions ever win a race; i.e., the other 70% +/- either never race or never break their maidens. Hell, I can get better odds than that playing the slots.
We,collectively, seem to do the same thing over and over and each time we expect or hope for something different. Yes there are breeders and race owners that make money in this business, lots of money, but I doubt very many are posting on this site.
For the record most of my foals are FB; however, I am trying to get away from line breeding in the first 5 generations, especially no more Mr P if the mare is 3S X 4D to Mr P. I will have a 4S X 4D to Mr P next year but the mare started and finished 42 races and the stallion started and finished 68 races. Neither are stakes horses but then I don't believe the parents of Seattle Slew were either.
Hope springs eternal but I agree with my wife in that you nave to be crazy to play this game.
griff
The fallacy of nicking products
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
When you have a mare that is a NFB with an outcross pedigree, & is bred to a FB stallion, your chances of breeding a sound tb are greater than breeding a FB mare to a FB stallion.
I have seen the degeneration of our breed from over inbreeding to breed a sales topper thru Fashion Breeding. The breeder gets the $, & the buyer gets a fragile tb. I like your outcross breeding in your Cryptoclearance mare, Good Luck with her.
I have seen the degeneration of our breed from over inbreeding to breed a sales topper thru Fashion Breeding. The breeder gets the $, & the buyer gets a fragile tb. I like your outcross breeding in your Cryptoclearance mare, Good Luck with her.
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Louis Finochio
Louis Finochio
griff
This is not the first time you have mentioned a 50% starter to foal ratio, and I believe the national average is somewhere around 67%, still very bad. The top 150 sires average around 72-76% starters from foals. Even so, what that means is on average out of every 100 foals, 67 make to at least 1 race in their career. The winner average from starters has held at about 50% for a long while, so that means out of the 67 starters, half of them, 33-34 will never win a race. Out of the 33-34 winners, only about half or 16-17 win at least 2 or more races in their career with maybe 1 or 2 stakes winners out of the average 100 foals. Your wife is absolutely, positively right when she wonders why anyone would play this game. You look at the racing performance of sales graduates and it makes me wonder why anyone would try that avenue to success. The reason must be because there could be a Seattle Slew out there, or I'll Have Another.
To answer your question, both the dam and sire of Seattle Slew were stakes winners.
DDT
This is not the first time you have mentioned a 50% starter to foal ratio, and I believe the national average is somewhere around 67%, still very bad. The top 150 sires average around 72-76% starters from foals. Even so, what that means is on average out of every 100 foals, 67 make to at least 1 race in their career. The winner average from starters has held at about 50% for a long while, so that means out of the 67 starters, half of them, 33-34 will never win a race. Out of the 33-34 winners, only about half or 16-17 win at least 2 or more races in their career with maybe 1 or 2 stakes winners out of the average 100 foals. Your wife is absolutely, positively right when she wonders why anyone would play this game. You look at the racing performance of sales graduates and it makes me wonder why anyone would try that avenue to success. The reason must be because there could be a Seattle Slew out there, or I'll Have Another.
To answer your question, both the dam and sire of Seattle Slew were stakes winners.
DDT
-
Barcaldine
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:55 pm
- Location: KY
DDT
you are probably correct as I have not recently looked in depth, I do remember something like on 50% +/- of a high end stallion's reported foals even run a single race.
I like to give myself plenty of lead way so lets say +/- is +/- 10% and take a look at a really high end stallion like Giant's Causeway, and determine the % of his 2008 reported foals ever raced and then check and see how many of those that did run ever broke their maiden.
One very high end stallion with one years crop should limit thesearch.
And I am not trying to end run you; i.e., I have not looked to see if I am anywhere close to by my off-the-wall "70% +/- of the reported live foal get of high end stallions never break their maiden." I'm talking about foals where a stud fee was paid.
I suspect your figures are correct, and I'll have to eat crow; however, I'm not going to eat crow if I'm close.
Again, my point, and it does not matter if your stats are correct and mine are off, is that breeding thoroughbreds or buying high end thoroughbreds will not pass most business models.
And not many sanity tests either.
Still, I stay with it knowing I can get better odds playing the slots. This, my wife points out, is not good business and also not very smart.
Speaking only for me, not others.
What do you think Louis?
griff
you are probably correct as I have not recently looked in depth, I do remember something like on 50% +/- of a high end stallion's reported foals even run a single race.
I like to give myself plenty of lead way so lets say +/- is +/- 10% and take a look at a really high end stallion like Giant's Causeway, and determine the % of his 2008 reported foals ever raced and then check and see how many of those that did run ever broke their maiden.
One very high end stallion with one years crop should limit thesearch.
And I am not trying to end run you; i.e., I have not looked to see if I am anywhere close to by my off-the-wall "70% +/- of the reported live foal get of high end stallions never break their maiden." I'm talking about foals where a stud fee was paid.
I suspect your figures are correct, and I'll have to eat crow; however, I'm not going to eat crow if I'm close.
Again, my point, and it does not matter if your stats are correct and mine are off, is that breeding thoroughbreds or buying high end thoroughbreds will not pass most business models.
And not many sanity tests either.
Still, I stay with it knowing I can get better odds playing the slots. This, my wife points out, is not good business and also not very smart.
Speaking only for me, not others.
What do you think Louis?
griff
"We has met the enemy and he is us" [Pogo]
griff
I did not say that certain high end stallions have your type of figures, and Giant's Causeway is the worst of the top stallions. He sires about 44% winners from starters. In 2011 he was ranked 4th by progeny earnings, he had 351 runners with 156 winners, 52 repeat winners and 19 stakes winners. His current racing age versus starter percentage is 70%. However, his 19 stakes winners last year won 28 stakes with 3 Grade 1 victories and enough earnings to place him 4th overall. I would not breed to him for free.
DDT
I did not say that certain high end stallions have your type of figures, and Giant's Causeway is the worst of the top stallions. He sires about 44% winners from starters. In 2011 he was ranked 4th by progeny earnings, he had 351 runners with 156 winners, 52 repeat winners and 19 stakes winners. His current racing age versus starter percentage is 70%. However, his 19 stakes winners last year won 28 stakes with 3 Grade 1 victories and enough earnings to place him 4th overall. I would not breed to him for free.
DDT
OK, lets pick another high end stallion and:
[1] look at the specific percentage of starters fro live foal.. I suggest we look at 2 YO and 3 YO starters but if you wish we can look at 4 YO starters as well.
[2] THEN look at the number of winners from starters.
in summary, pick one of the top 5 stallions in order of total winnings so far this year and lets see what the percentage of starters is from reported live foals
Then list the stats as :
[1] percent starters from reported live foals
[2] percent winners in from starters in 2011 and 2012
Your choice, pick any one of the top five and lets see what happens.
I have a feeling my 50% +/- starters from reported live foals and 50% +/- winners from starters will be in the ball park.
griff
[1] look at the specific percentage of starters fro live foal.. I suggest we look at 2 YO and 3 YO starters but if you wish we can look at 4 YO starters as well.
[2] THEN look at the number of winners from starters.
in summary, pick one of the top 5 stallions in order of total winnings so far this year and lets see what the percentage of starters is from reported live foals
Then list the stats as :
[1] percent starters from reported live foals
[2] percent winners in from starters in 2011 and 2012
Your choice, pick any one of the top five and lets see what happens.
I have a feeling my 50% +/- starters from reported live foals and 50% +/- winners from starters will be in the ball park.
griff
"We has met the enemy and he is us" [Pogo]
LB
I got my numbers from the Bloodhorse Stallion Register and the PDF summary posted for each individual stallion listed, I assume the Jockey Club gets its data from the same source, so I guess I can't read very well. Not one of the listed stallions in the top 150 sires has a 68 winner from starters percentage and certainly not a 50% winners from foals. All of the other numbers are pretty close to what were given as averages.
DDT
I got my numbers from the Bloodhorse Stallion Register and the PDF summary posted for each individual stallion listed, I assume the Jockey Club gets its data from the same source, so I guess I can't read very well. Not one of the listed stallions in the top 150 sires has a 68 winner from starters percentage and certainly not a 50% winners from foals. All of the other numbers are pretty close to what were given as averages.
DDT
LB
I double checked the top 150 list of stallions by progeny earnings for 2011 and there are a few that hit at 60% led by the ill fated Saint Liam with 40 winners from 59 starters. I am not saying that there are no stallions with a 68% winners from starters, or from foals, what I am saying is there were none on the list in 2011. One of my all time favorites is the Maryland sire Not For Love, his 81% starters from foals and 65% winners from foals, both figures way above average for the breed and even at his age he is worth the fee.
DDT
I double checked the top 150 list of stallions by progeny earnings for 2011 and there are a few that hit at 60% led by the ill fated Saint Liam with 40 winners from 59 starters. I am not saying that there are no stallions with a 68% winners from starters, or from foals, what I am saying is there were none on the list in 2011. One of my all time favorites is the Maryland sire Not For Love, his 81% starters from foals and 65% winners from foals, both figures way above average for the breed and even at his age he is worth the fee.
DDT
DDT
we are not that far apart; i.e., 50% +/- vs 67%. Both support our point that you have to be nuts or an addict to expect to make money at this game.,
My wife says I am both. I was once into QH racing but got out because too much bad stuff was going around on the back side and I am easily lead, and probably more important, the USAF implemented project Golden Flow.
I stayed clean for around 10 years but ran into a really good deal on some brood mares about five years ago and my then partner has 12,000 acres down in NC. And now I'm again looking at too many brood mares, too many new borns, too many yearlings and too many 2 YOs while I'm trying to get two 3 YO's started. In addition, I have a PABRED 3 YO at Penn national that has yet to hit the board and the well is running dry.
Maybe I should try to find a 12 step program for Horse Racing Addicts, but that will probably require a 28 day detox and i'm not ready for that yet.
griff
we are not that far apart; i.e., 50% +/- vs 67%. Both support our point that you have to be nuts or an addict to expect to make money at this game.,
My wife says I am both. I was once into QH racing but got out because too much bad stuff was going around on the back side and I am easily lead, and probably more important, the USAF implemented project Golden Flow.
I stayed clean for around 10 years but ran into a really good deal on some brood mares about five years ago and my then partner has 12,000 acres down in NC. And now I'm again looking at too many brood mares, too many new borns, too many yearlings and too many 2 YOs while I'm trying to get two 3 YO's started. In addition, I have a PABRED 3 YO at Penn national that has yet to hit the board and the well is running dry.
Maybe I should try to find a 12 step program for Horse Racing Addicts, but that will probably require a 28 day detox and i'm not ready for that yet.
griff
"We has met the enemy and he is us" [Pogo]
DDT wrote:LB
I double checked the top 150 list of stallions by progeny earnings for 2011 and there are a few that hit at 60% led by the ill fated Saint Liam with 40 winners from 59 starters. I am not saying that there are no stallions with a 68% winners from starters, or from foals, what I am saying is there were none on the list in 2011. One of my all time favorites is the Maryland sire Not For Love, his 81% starters from foals and 65% winners from foals, both figures way above average for the breed and even at his age he is worth the fee.
DDT
I think the difference in the figures we are looking at is that the ones I used measured a horse's entire career, while you're looking at a single year.
For example, I have 2 fillies both of whom ran at the end of their 2yo years and neither won. So both appeared as non-winners for their sire (that year). Both came back at 3 and won several times. Both raced again at 4. One of them won additional races and one did not. So the second filly again appeared as a non-winner for her sire (that year) even though (lifetime) she had won 3 races and does indeed add to his percentage of winners. Does that make sense?
LB
I wanted to check your numbers using the top 150 sires but I used their totals for foals of racing age throughout their career, as far as I know those figures are up to date. As an example, Medaglia D'oro commands a 100K fee but his overall numbers are nothing to shout about. Out of the top 30 only 4 manage a winner to racing age foals of 60%. I say again, I do not know where the 68% comes from but it is not evidenced by the statistics.
DDT
I wanted to check your numbers using the top 150 sires but I used their totals for foals of racing age throughout their career, as far as I know those figures are up to date. As an example, Medaglia D'oro commands a 100K fee but his overall numbers are nothing to shout about. Out of the top 30 only 4 manage a winner to racing age foals of 60%. I say again, I do not know where the 68% comes from but it is not evidenced by the statistics.
DDT