The final nail in the nick coffin..... article

[Sam]

I wonder how many of those became "A" nicks after they won those stakes?

Jesus Christ, here we go again.

The answer, Madelyn, is "none" -- at least not in the manner you are implying -- but trying convincing you or anyone else otherwise is pointless. All the nicks are updated at least 3 times a year. Some go up, some go down. They are dependent on the relevant data and guess what -- every time there is a new stake race, that means there is new data. The ONLY way a nick would never change again is if we stopped running stakes races.

When are you people going to get it through your heads that 'nicks', be they "Trunicks", "eNicks" or the Bloodhorse nicks, are STATISTICS. Statistics are a record of PAST events, not predictors of future events. STATISTICS CHANGE. It's pretty bloody stupid to think that a nick grade or any other STATISTIC would never change.

Do you think a guy who bats .315 his first year in the majors is always going to bat .315? Because that's what you're saying every time you whine about a nick changing. Every time one of you goes off about a changing grade, you show how little you actually know about statistics.

[bdw0617]

I wonder how many of those became "A" nicks after they won those stakes?

Do you think a guy who bats .315 his first year in the majors is always going to bat .315? Because that's what you're saying every time you whine about a nick changing. Every time one of you goes off about a changing grade, you show how little you actually know about statistics.

you are right but wrong in the assumption. when a Major League team pays a player 10 million dollars, he is doing so because thoose statistics are supposed to be an indicator of the indiviual players talent and a broad sense of what he is and is not capable of achieving.



While you are right in the sense that they are in fact, statistics and are a reference as to what a person has done in past events (in this case the matings of horses), they would not bundle the software and sell it if not for the reasonable expection of the past being a good predictor of future progeny's matings successes.

In other words, going back to your .315 analogy, first of all you would be a plump fool to pay 10 million dollars to a person who batted .315 for one season. so you have to take into account just how many different example matings you have. if you based a 5 figure mating off of the sacle of a handful of matings or an amount that is lower than a normal threshold shame on you.

But while I would not expect a person to bat exactly .315 for his entire career, a person who bats .315 can hit a little and that's the point we are all trying to get out.

We aren't looking for degreeses of success, we are looking for SUCCESS PERIOD. A horse is not a failure if he has an A nick and is only an allowence horse. I am sure many peole would take day in and day out.

But if you keep going with nicks that are going to be around an A rating, and you keep getting horses that couldn't win a 2000 claimer at portland meadows, after a while you have to say that the ratings aren't living up to past expections.

[Sam]

But if you keep going with nicks that are going to be around an A rating, and you keep getting horses that couldn't win a 2000 claimer at portland meadows, after a while you have to say that the ratings aren't living up to past expections.

If the ratings aren't 'living up to expectations' it's because there are people out there whose expectations are too high and don't know what they hell they are doing or what the nick rating actually represents.

If people are going to blindly follow a nick rating then they get what they deserve. Nicks, excluding the ones the Bloodhorse puts out, are a statistic based rating of STAKES WINNERS. Nothing else. They are sireline to broodmare sireline based. Anyone who breeds Doppler to Bopolene and thinks they are going to get a multiple G1 winning European champion because the nick rating is an A shouldn't even own a Shetland pony.

The bottom line is that nicks are statistics. NO ONE who produces any kind of numbers system -- be it nicks, dosage or Bill's conduit mares -- has EVER said that a horse with a low grade/score will never be anything better than a claimer or a horse with a high grade/score will be a champion. That is the "expectation" put on the systems by idiots looking for a quick answer without really understanding the answer they get.

Anyone who thinks nicks won't or shouldn't change is too stupid to own a horse, never mind breed one.

[bdw0617]

But if you keep going with nicks that are going to be around an A rating, and you keep getting horses that couldn't win a 2000 claimer at portland meadows, after a while you have to say that the ratings aren't living up to past expections.

If the ratings aren't 'living up to expectations' it's because there are people out there whose expectations are too high and don't know what they hell they are doing or what the nick rating actually represents.

If people are going to blindly follow a nick rating then they get what they deserve. Nicks, excluding the ones the Bloodhorse puts out, are a statistic based rating of STAKES WINNERS. Nothing else. They are sireline to broodmare sireline based. Anyone who breeds Doppler to Bopolene and thinks they are going to get a multiple G1 winning European champion because the nick rating is an A shouldn't even own a Shetland pony.

The bottom line is that nicks are statistics. NO ONE who produces any kind of numbers system -- be it nicks, dosage or Bill's conduit mares -- has EVER said that a horse with a low grade/score will never be anything better than a claimer or a horse with a high grade/score will be a champion. That is the "expectation" put on the systems by idiots looking for a quick answer without really understanding the answer they get.

Anyone who thinks nicks won't or shouldn't change is too stupid to own a horse, never mind breed one.

you are right about that. i'm not saying you are wrong, just hitting on the practical use of statistics

[LC]

I think a good question would be: What percentage of A++ nicks become 1-race horses 2-winning race horses 3-stakes placed horses 4-stakes winners 5-graded stakes placed horses 6-graded stakes winners & the same for A+, A, B....... etc.

[AscotStud]

When? This quarter, next quarter...when the foal is born or mare is bred or maybe when it makes it's first or last start. You can never get a finite answer to that question, since the letter grade is an ever evolving virus.

And anyone who would use the answer to that question to breed a mare should get what they deserve if they don't get a good horse.

[LC]

I never said anything about using the info for a mating. Just thought it would be interesting to compare against the averages for the breed.

[AscotStud]

I was joking, any question or knock on the nick is usually followed up with a comment like that. But since they are always changing you will never get a true answer to that question, because what could be an A+ in Jan could be an A in Nov then an A++ the following year

[Sam]

I was joking, any question or knock on the nick is usually followed up with a comment like that. But since they are always changing you will never get a true answer to that question, because what could be an A+ in Jan could be an A in Nov then an A++ the following year

Yeah, stats do that. Most people are intelligent enough to figure out that stats change based on the continuous accumulation of data. It's only the idiots of the world who get confused when you stop calling it a statistic and start calling it a nick. For some reason, some people apparently believe a stat should be static. It's really sad when the shouting of someone with an axe to grind drowns out critical thinking.

I'm beginning to suspect there is a larger than normal percentage of idiots involved in this industry... it would certainly explain somethings.

[newyorkmary]

We bought a mare last year and she was an A++ nick with a local stallion we were considering. Jump to this year and it's an F nick. That's not statistics.

[AscotStud]

Yeah, stats do that. Most people are intelligent enough to figure out that stats change based on the continuous accumulation of data. It's only the idiots of the world who get confused when you stop calling it a statistic and start calling it a nick. For some reason, some people apparently believe a stat should be static. It's really sad when the shouting of someone with an axe to grind drowns out critical thinking.

I'm beginning to suspect there is a larger than normal percentage of idiots involved in this industry... it would certainly explain somethings.

It seems to me that anytime somebody questions the usefulness of the nick they are called idiots and confused and stupid. If there are that many dumb people in this business you should jump in and take it over since you seem to be the only person with a brain out there. It's sadder when people can't objectively discuss a system without being called idiots by someone with an axe to grind against those who don't like said system.

There are 2 people out there, those people who understand it and maybe choose to look a little more into a mating than sirelines, I personally think it's stupid not to look at the whole pedigree instead of getting all warm and fuzzy because the cross 3 generations back on the sire and 4 generations back on the mare worked. Then there are those who only want to know what the letter is and stallion managers who love to tell those people about the A++ nick.

Everybody understands that stats change, but maybe the system would be a little more credible or worthwhile if the number of crosses were shown and the percentage of stakes winners. Maybe even showing how successful the cross works the further back you go instead of just shifting a letter. The problem I think most of the people have is not the stats behind the letter, it's that a letter isn't a stat.

[Sam]

I don't care if people believe in them, use them, or even understand them. I don't have anything to do with the company so I'm not making any money from them. Personally, I tend to watch sireline to female family trends more than sireline to sireline. I find it's more consistent.

What I do care about is the lack of critical thinking that is inherent in people blaming the nicks for their own short-sightedness or, in your case Ascot, blaming Jack because someone else is an idiot.

People want quick, easy, simple answers. What they really need to get through their thick skulls is just because THEY run a nick doesn't mean Werk endorses the mating. NO ONE is going to call you after you run a nick and say "Yeah, that's a decent enough grade, but it's not really a good match." NO ONE behind any of the current breeding systems (be it enicks, truenicks, dosage, Bill's conduit or George's GSV) encourage people to breed based solely on the nick. If people are, then they shouldn't even own a horse, let alone breed one.

Place the blame where it belongs, Ascot -- on the people who refuse to do a little work instead of blindly following a numbers system, ANY numbers system, be it one for breeding or handicapping and the stallion managers who know how gullible some breeders are and know they can be easily baffled.

[AscotStud]

someone needs to chillax a little...there's a difference between blaming someone or something and being critical towards it. There are many other people in this thread commenting on a great article about what most of us think about Nicks.

Nobody is saying that these companies are encouraging people to breed because of a rating (none of which I care to look at). What the people here are saying is that the ratings don't matter, so why bother.

Place the blame where it belongs, Ascot -- on the people who refuse to do a little work instead of blindly following a numbers system, ANY numbers system, be it one for breeding or handicapping and the stallion managers who know how gullible some breeders are and know they can be easily baffled.

So blame everyone, but the system. That's what is so funny about this stupid debate. Call the people stupid, but don't call the system stupid. Sounds pretty stupid.

[Sam]

someone needs to chillax a little

Someone needs to learn to speak English.

there's a difference between blaming someone or something and being critical towards it.

right....

I wonder how many of those became "A" nicks after they won those stakes?

sounds like more bullshit, this guy has fleeced the industry and people keep lapping up his crap, Werk Nicks are the biggest joke in the world.

...isn't being critical of the system, it's attacking the person behind the system.

[AscotStud]

This just in!!! my degree has been revoked, damn I never should have combined Chill out and relax on a breeding Forum. All that hard work down the drain...at least I had a good time.

If I was attacking someone it wouldn't be able to be posted on here, one way or another I could care less what the hell you think. Stop crying every time somebody says they don't like Nicks. Every thing I said that you pulled up is valid. People were discussing an article before you came back in and started up an argument that you backed your way out of a long time ago.