Pedigree Query

The Futurity is always a key race to determine top class talent. This year, however, there are only a few high GSV horses in the field. I do realize that California racehorses are full of drugs from bute on, so it is possible vets may determine the outcome more than talent and training. That said, here is my analysis of the race [horses are in post position order]:

1 Sierra Sunset 60.47 by Bertrando...that says it all
2 Massive Drama 52.58 by Kafwain...good tail-female speed but a very obscure pedigree that should not get beyond 7 furlongs in top company on oats and water.
3 Overextended 69.31...by Monarchos, solid pedigree; good GSV #
4 Eaton's Gift 61.31...by Johannesburg, hot sire that's all
5 Indian Sun 65.89...by Indian Charlie, excellent speed in family
6 Slew's Tiznow 59.92...by Tiznow, family good Cal-breds
7 Tres Borrachos 67.46...by Ecton Park out of a Matchmaker product that had lots of talent; sentimental attachment
8 Colonel John 64.20...by Tiznow out of a Turkoman mare. Turkoman mares are golden producers yet little recognized as such. Big Shot as dad was no slug either
9 Shore Do 71.24... highest GSV by Include out of a Dynaformer mare. It should be noted that Dynaformer did not have a good year in 2007 as a broodmare sire.
10 Monba 69.54...by Maria's Mon out of an Easy Goer mare and solid family. It should be noted that Easy Goer had a very good year as a broodmare sire; this could be icing on the cake.
11 Old Man Buck 57.12... by Hold That Tiger; says it all
12 Into Mischief 64.98...by Harlan's Holiday, a Matchmaker product now doing fairly well at stud so another sentimental attachment
13 Meal Penalty 62.59...by Tale of the Cat good sire out of Big Dreams family that makes anything possible when it hits
14 Referee 69.68...by top sire Distorted Humor who throws foal after foal that race in top class races and the second highest GSV makes him a good pick




I've posted links to free race cards for both Golden Gate and Hollywood for the 21st and 22nd on my website

http://www.members.shaw.ca.thematchmaker

Willing to go out on the limb to improve our knowledge of thoroughbreds

Wasn't the Handicapping Forum created for posts and threads just like this?

George William Smith wrote:9 Shore Do 71.24... highest GSV by Include out of a Dynaformer mare. It should be noted that Dynaformer did not have a good year in 2007 as a broodmare sire.

I have no idea what the above comment means. This horse has the highest GSV, but Dynaformer is having an off year as a broodie sire. So, if the horse wins, we conclude that it was because of the high GSV, but if it loses, it's because the broodmare sire is having a subpar year?

George William Smith wrote:13 Meal Penalty 62.59...by Tale of the Cat good sire out of Big Dreams family that makes anything possible when it hits

Now, if I want to bet this race using your system, what does this comment mean? The horse has a low GSV compared to the others, but you say that because of the pedigree, "anything (is) possible when it hits." Is this horse a "hit" or miss? It doesn't do me much good to find out after they cross the wire.

George William Smith wrote:8 Colonel John 64.20...by Tiznow out of a Turkoman mare. Turkoman mares are golden producers yet little recognized as such. Big Shot as dad was no slug either

Now, the way I read your GSV calculations, this horse's GSV sucks for this race - it's 8th best out of 14. But yet, you write that this horse has a "big shot." When am I to interpret when a horse is valued 8th out of 14 that it has no shot?

George William Smith wrote:1 Sierra Sunset 60.47 by Bertrando...that says it all

I'm going to assume that you don't like this horse very much. However, you write:

George William Smith wrote:I do realize that California racehorses are full of drugs from bute on, so it is possible vets may determine the outcome more than talent and training.

So, if Sierra Sunset wins this race, I should conclude that he had 3 needles stuck up his butt and a tube shoved into him? That kinda takes the fun out of rooting for a horse like this...don't you think?

Hi Roke,
Give the guy the benefit of the doubt. It's a new category, so maybe he just didn't notice it yet. TJ

Hi TJ,

Um....OK. Beside, it's Christmas season.

George which one runs the best in hip waders?

George William Smith wrote:4 Eaton's Gift 61.31...by Johannesburg, hot sire that's all

Even if this horse runs well with hip waders, I'm wondering how the GSV system concludes that Johannesburg is a "hot" sire. J-Burg's second crop (2 year olds of 2007) has a total of 221 foals and only 1 stakes winner, and it's a turf stakes winner in Ireland. If 1 SW (none on dirt) out of 221 foals is 'hot," then that girl that plays Ugly Betty on TV must be a real hottie!

Rokeby Forever wrote:

George William Smith wrote:4 Eaton's Gift 61.31...by Johannesburg, hot sire that's all

Even if this horse runs well with hip waders, I'm wondering how the GSV system concludes that Johannesburg is a "hot" sire. J-Burg's second crop (2 year olds of 2007) has a total of 221 foals and only 1 stakes winner, and it's a turf stakes winner in Ireland. If 1 SW (none on dirt) out of 221 foals is 'hot," then that girl that plays Ugly Betty on TV must be a real hottie!

1. Johannesburg ($65,000 Ashford Stud, KY) - Look below the top tier and you'll find a plethora of investors put out of the business by the progeny of Johannesburg. Currently getting less than 5% stakes winners from starters, median earnings of $6,301, and drags his mares down considerably (1.31 vs. 1.81). Ashford needs to drop one of those zeros off his 2008 fee.

worst value between 50k-75k per american thoroughbred review

Sure a lot of postings under handicapping. And this is a race and that is why I posted it on this grouping.

Rokeby, are you that simple that you cannot separate my opinion from the GSV? Apparently, you are.

Now get this straight: The GSV is just a tool and gives you a measurement of predicted genetic strength. It can be wrong and is, often, but this does not make it meaningless.

Since you had trouble separating something you don't like from the author, blinkers is an appropriate term and the problem is the trainer's fault 99.9% of the time not the horse as my dad used to say.

I gave the horses by post position order, then the sire, and commented on how the sire is doing and whether there is a family or reason to favor the horse from its pedigree....After all, it is a pedigree site and racing grouping.

My comments did not necessarily what the GSV indicated might be there from the pedigree, but what is likely from my opinion....my opinion.....my opinion....get it! The GSV is a number. It is not my opinion...my opinion it is not.

Tale of the Cat is a good stallion so one must respect one of his runners in a quality event.

Johannesburg is the definition of a hot stallion!

"• #1 Second Crop Sire of Winners (62) in 2007

• #1 Freshman Sire of Winners (31) & SWs (7) in 2006

• First crop includes:

• SCAT DADDY, winner of the Champagne S. (G1) & Florida Derby (G1) TEUFLESBERG, winner of the Woody Stephens S. (G2) BARONESS THATCHER, GSW/G1-placed

• LA TRAVIATA, brilliant GSW sprinter

Rokeby: Put aside your agenda's and let people think and start thinking yourself. How many of your 5000 plus postings contained such inane thought?

I was offended by what you said and the methods you employed as you said it, though you did it in a politically correct methodology of this forum that gets by as being constructive thought. It was not.

Now that I have broken the rules of this list by getting it personal and dishing it back, I hereby disconnect the link to the forum so that I will not place the moderator in a position to take action.....

No further messages are needed, I go out just having attained the status as Starters Handicap. Unfortunately, not off to stud....too old and no mares booked....

Geroge,

the point is, you made a 3 paragraph post about your system and picking the winner, and you never picked a winner. you gave me a reason that why every horse could win.. and some of the reasons are weak. Beatrando says it all? when is the last time you seen a good horse by Bertrando?

since when is Monarchos a great pedigree? Any real handicapper would throw overextended out and not think twice about it off his last two... he is a speed horse that can't carry his speed at a grade 1 level.

you make some very good points.. like easy goer being a good broodmare, and he is a GREAT one if you ask me.. broodmare of corinthian among others. but WTF does that have to do wit this race? we aren't juding maidens.

this is a very, very, very hard race to handicap. I dont' even like doing 2Yo races beaause the horses aren't close to done developing. If you put a gun to my head and told me to make a bet, i'd go with colonel john. but I can literarly see 7 horses winning this race and that is no exageration and becuase I"m not touching this race wit a 10 foot pole i'm not oging to waste my time handicapping it.

Oh George.....why so defensive? All I did was ask questions - I made no statements as part of an "agenda." As for my using a "politically correct methodology," that would be a first for me. LOL!

I received no answers to my questions, other than to have you write that your own personal opinion will often contradict the GSV values. Noone wrote or even implied that the GSV values are "meaningless" - but if this system is sold as a handicapping tool (as you promoted it for BC day), and by your own conclusion, "It can be wrong and is, often," of what real value is it? If this system assigns a crummy GSV rating but your opinion is that a horse stands a good chance of winning a race despite the rating, where does the value of the GSV in handicapping come into play? I'm not making a statement - I'm posing a question.

So let me understand your definition of a "hot sire." I gave J-Burg's 2nd crop statistics above and, frankly, they're awful. His first crop gave us some nice horses out of the 200+ foals from it, but being able to mention THREE horses out of a 200+ first crop just doesn't cut it for anyone looking at J-Burg objectively. It should also be noted that from his first crop, two of his three BEST offsping didn't show their best until they were three years old - Teuflesburg won/placed in Graded stakes as a 3 year old and La Traviata didn't even race as a two year old. The stake at Santa Anita is for two year olds, so how do these horses help to bolster J-Burg as a positive influence in this race? That's simply a question, George.

Clearly, J-Burg had a better first crop result in December, 2006, than a second crop result in December, 2007. Indeed, J-Burg did have 7 SWs in his first crop in 2006, but he's had only ONE SW from his second crop in 2007. Just ONE! Argue if you like that J-Burg sired 62 second crop winners to date and 93 total winners to date, but he has 485 offspring in his first two crops to race. Or, does that matter to your way of thinking?

Looking at your analysis of Shore Do:

George William Smith wrote:9 Shore Do 71.24... highest GSV by Include out of a Dynaformer mare. It should be noted that Dynaformer did not have a good year in 2007 as a broodmare sire.

Agreed - Dynaformer had a disappointing 2007 as a broodmare sire. But how did J-Burg NOT have a disappointing 2007 with his second crop with only ONE stakes winner from it, when he had 7 in his first crop at this time last year? It was off the first crop results that his fee skyrocketed from $20,000 to $65,000. The braintrust at Ashford didn't think J-Burg was "hot" enough to warrant another hike in fee - would you suggest that another increase is due in 2008 based on his second crop results? That's a question, George - not a statement.

George William Smith wrote:Tale of the Cat is a good stallion so one must respect one of his runners in a quality event.

George, when I look at TOTC's numbers, I wonder how you come to that conclusion. In 2007, TOTC had only one Grade 2 winner, and lifetime from 1,010 foals of racing age, he's sired 17 Graded Stakes winners (1.7%) and 44 total stakes winners (4.4%). After seeing these numbers, why "must" I respect a foal of TOTC in a quality event?

A while ago, you boasted on another thread:

George William Smith wrote::D
The GSV and GSV2 continued to show why it is the thoroughbred industry standard to measure genetic strength.

Every major 3yo race has been won by the highest or second highest GSV2 score in the race since the numbers were produced by me from my GRASP databank.

Since you are selling this information, is it unfair to question your evaluations? If I go to an auto dealership or appliance store, the salesman there will answer any question that I have.

George William Smith wrote:Now that I have broken the rules of this list by getting it personal and dishing it back, I hereby disconnect the link to the forum so that I will not place the moderator in a position to take action.....

George....'tis the season to be jolly - you should be wearing a smile at this time of year. I am...and I would ask that Roguelet not "take action." Every day above ground is a good one, George!

This is a brand new forum (hence not very many posts yet) but it was created for just this type of discussion; so the topic has been moved.

Enjoy, handicappers!

Thanks, Roguelet!

Colonel John (Tiznow) really took to two turns in his most recent race. Five lengths back of a crawling slow pace, he came home in 29-4 to win going away.

He would be my WIN play if the odds aren't too low (less than 5-to-2). Wheel him 1-2 in the exacta and tri.

Because I know very little about handicapping in general, am I to assume that the top three according to GSV will be :

Shore Do, Refree, and Monba????

I would think GSV would be more of a tool to help in races that aren't on paper as close as this one, but again what do I know...... Okay I am going to play those 3 for the fun of it. If I lose I will be the first one with my Rokeby for President sign!!

Should prove to be verrrrrrry interesting........

The problem I have with this system is it is based on Genetics, yet your opinions are also based on genetics and you contradict your system. That doesn't make any sense to me. If you believe in your system to the point of wanting people to pay for it, wouldn't your opinions which are also based on genetics compliment your system's choices?

Why do your personal opinions condradict your system?

winds