average earnings index (AEI)
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, Lucy
-
mightyhijames
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:15 am
average earnings index (AEI)
i've read a lot of discussion about nicks and dosage but i'm wondering about the AEI number. i've played around with the nicking feature on equineline w/differnt mares to stallions and would like to know how much to read into the AEI number that appears w/some crosses.
-
Shammy Davis
- Chef de Race: Classic
- Posts: 4451
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:23 am
I personally think AEI is one of the most important criteria to consider, especially with the mainstream stallions. Another important factor to look at is % of stakes winners. These are true indicators that a stallion is producing winning racehorses. Why would you book a mare to stallion that was not producing winners? Ed Bowen has written many historical TB racing books, and I've noticed that he always includes % of stakes winners when discussing producing horses.
Calumet Farm in KY during its most profitable period had the worst luck with its homebred stallions. Whirlaway was a complete failure with only 3 or 4% stakes winners and sold to breeders in France. Citation was a poor producer and hardly had 5% stakes winners. I don't recall whether he continued to stand or not. There most productive breedings were using outside stallions like Blenheim at Clairborne Farm. Alydar by Raise A Native was probably their most productive stallion. He had over 10% stakes winners. It makes sense because he was the son of a top producing stallion. Citation and Whirlaway were by lower quality stallions out of good to excellent producing mares, as I recall.
Warren Wright, when he entered the TB business, realized that he would have to race his homebreds to be successful. I think initially he had a great deal of luck and two very fine trainers in Ben and Jimmy Jones. They were different times though and he was a very rich man. If he couldn't produce it, he could buy it. The hay days of Calumet, Belair, Brookmeade, Spendthrift, and many others are long past.
Pedigree studies are interesting and I enjoy them myself but they are useless if you don't consider $$ bottom line. I hear a great many remarks about "so and so bred to so and so makes and interesting match," but if it doesn't bring in the $$, it is a waste of time from a racing point of view. AEI's IMO is extremely important to consider.
Calumet Farm in KY during its most profitable period had the worst luck with its homebred stallions. Whirlaway was a complete failure with only 3 or 4% stakes winners and sold to breeders in France. Citation was a poor producer and hardly had 5% stakes winners. I don't recall whether he continued to stand or not. There most productive breedings were using outside stallions like Blenheim at Clairborne Farm. Alydar by Raise A Native was probably their most productive stallion. He had over 10% stakes winners. It makes sense because he was the son of a top producing stallion. Citation and Whirlaway were by lower quality stallions out of good to excellent producing mares, as I recall.
Warren Wright, when he entered the TB business, realized that he would have to race his homebreds to be successful. I think initially he had a great deal of luck and two very fine trainers in Ben and Jimmy Jones. They were different times though and he was a very rich man. If he couldn't produce it, he could buy it. The hay days of Calumet, Belair, Brookmeade, Spendthrift, and many others are long past.
Pedigree studies are interesting and I enjoy them myself but they are useless if you don't consider $$ bottom line. I hear a great many remarks about "so and so bred to so and so makes and interesting match," but if it doesn't bring in the $$, it is a waste of time from a racing point of view. AEI's IMO is extremely important to consider.
-
mightyhijames
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:15 am
i poked around some and found an article that talked about AEI but said that it should be used in conjunction with CI (i can't remember what the C stands for), which, i believe, is the production rate of the mares that have been bred to that stallion. i notice that the CI isn't as readily available as the AEI.
-
Shammy Davis
- Chef de Race: Classic
- Posts: 4451
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:23 am
Citation and Whirlaway were by lower quality stallions out of good to excellent producing mares, as I recall.
I made the above comment in error. Actually Blenheim was Whirlaway's sire. So much for my memory again.
I think a stallion named Saggy was Citation's sire. He was of little import. Blenheim stood at Claiborne Farm and Warren Wright owned a quarter share in him.
I must confess that I'm not as familiar with CI, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can bring both of us up to speed.
-
mightyhijames
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:15 am
Shammy Davis wrote:Citation and Whirlaway were by lower quality stallions out of good to excellent producing mares, as I recall.
I made the above comment in error. Actually Blenheim was Whirlaway's sire. So much for my memory again.
I must confess that I'm not as familiar with CI, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can bring both of us up to speed.
Saggy was a contemporary of Citation. Saggy sired Carry Back.
-
Shammy Davis
- Chef de Race: Classic
- Posts: 4451
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:23 am
dococoy posted:
Boy, I am off the page with my pedigree memory. CITATION'S sire was BULL LEA. I do remember he led the Sire's list four or five times. I think it is time for me to keep my posts short and to the point and not rely too heavily on my memory.
I'm pretty sure when I said Warren Wright owned Calumet that I was right. If I'm wrong, well . . . oops again.
. . . Saggy was a contemporary of Citation. Saggy sired Carry Back.
Boy, I am off the page with my pedigree memory. CITATION'S sire was BULL LEA. I do remember he led the Sire's list four or five times. I think it is time for me to keep my posts short and to the point and not rely too heavily on my memory.
I'm pretty sure when I said Warren Wright owned Calumet that I was right. If I'm wrong, well . . . oops again.
-
mightyhijames
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:15 am
i scrolled way down and came to the pdf version of the article about AEI & CI. unfortunately, i have the attention span of a fruit fly so i'll have to read it again (and again) but, basically speaking, AEI & CI sound like valuable tools for planning a date to the prom for my mare. thanks for the input.
I'll give you a short version of AEI and CI.
Every year the JC or one of its subsidiaries crunches the numbers on what every TB in NA earns at the races. The average for all these runners is deemed to be equal to 1. A horse that earns 80% of average then gets an AEI of 0.80 and one that earns 200% of average gets and AEI of 2.00. The beauty of this system is that purse levels fluctuate from year to year and have inflated over time. By converting earnings to an index you can compare stallions that were born 30 years apart and have a common basis for establishing their relative strength.
The CI or comparative index corrects the AEI for the input of the mare. The CI is specific to a stallion not the progeny or the mares. Where the AEI is generated by all the foals sired by a stallion, the CI is generated by all their half siblings (out of the same mares). This means that if the AEI is greater than the CI, the stllion is making the mares he is bred to look good. If the AEI is less than the CI then the mares are making the stallion look good.
Therefore only breed to stallions who have an AEI greater than the CI, unless you have a compelling reason to believe that the produce from your mare will break the mold for the stallion.
Every year the JC or one of its subsidiaries crunches the numbers on what every TB in NA earns at the races. The average for all these runners is deemed to be equal to 1. A horse that earns 80% of average then gets an AEI of 0.80 and one that earns 200% of average gets and AEI of 2.00. The beauty of this system is that purse levels fluctuate from year to year and have inflated over time. By converting earnings to an index you can compare stallions that were born 30 years apart and have a common basis for establishing their relative strength.
The CI or comparative index corrects the AEI for the input of the mare. The CI is specific to a stallion not the progeny or the mares. Where the AEI is generated by all the foals sired by a stallion, the CI is generated by all their half siblings (out of the same mares). This means that if the AEI is greater than the CI, the stllion is making the mares he is bred to look good. If the AEI is less than the CI then the mares are making the stallion look good.
Therefore only breed to stallions who have an AEI greater than the CI, unless you have a compelling reason to believe that the produce from your mare will break the mold for the stallion.
-
mightyhijames
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:15 am
Dave C wrote:I'll give you a short version of AEI and CI.
Every year the JC or one of its subsidiaries crunches the numbers on what every TB in NA earns at the races. The average for all these runners is deemed to be equal to 1. A horse that earns 80% of average then gets an AEI of 0.80 and one that earns 200% of average gets and AEI of 2.00. The beauty of this system is that purse levels fluctuate from year to year and have inflated over time. By converting earnings to an index you can compare stallions that were born 30 years apart and have a common basis for establishing their relative strength.
The CI or comparative index corrects the AEI for the input of the mare. The CI is specific to a stallion not the progeny or the mares. Where the AEI is generated by all the foals sired by a stallion, the CI is generated by all their half siblings (out of the same mares). This means that if the AEI is greater than the CI, the stllion is making the mares he is bred to look good. If the AEI is less than the CI then the mares are making the stallion look good.
Therefore only breed to stallions who have an AEI greater than the CI, unless you have a compelling reason to believe that the produce from your mare will break the mold for the stallion.
so if i run a hypo-foal on equineline and the interactive nick between the stallion and mare's sire shows an AEI of 3.50, that's the AEI for that stallion bred only to mares w/the same sire, correct? is there someplace i can do the same thing and get the CI?
mightyhijames wrote:so if i run a hypo-foal on equineline and the interactive nick between the stallion and mare's sire shows an AEI of 3.50, that's the AEI for that stallion bred only to mares w/the same sire, correct? is there someplace i can do the same thing and get the CI?
An AEI is a statistic, meaning it represents only past matings that have resulted in a racehorse. If they are reporting an AEI of 3.50 it is likely there is only one foal from that cross and that foal was a stakes winner. It is entirely probable that the next ten from that cross will be bottom claimers. Statistics are very powerful tools but only if they are used within very limited boundaries. The CI should be listed there as well.
-
mightyhijames
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:15 am
I'm a real fan of AEI and CI. The ratio between the two is the key. A similar stat calculated a little differently is the SPI sire index. There are some nice horses that can be spotted early by seeing an AEI significantly higher than the CI, with enough foals out there to be statistically
meaningful.
The link below on Brisnet opens reports that can be based on SPI. Birdstone is hitting at over 6 this year, but unfortunately these are not lifetime, but annual reports. Still its easy to see who's hot. Albert the Greats 3.83 is pretty impressive as well.
The real key would be something based on medians, that would take out the ability of one big horse to bias the averages.
jm
meaningful.
The link below on Brisnet opens reports that can be based on SPI. Birdstone is hitting at over 6 this year, but unfortunately these are not lifetime, but annual reports. Still its easy to see who's hot. Albert the Greats 3.83 is pretty impressive as well.
The real key would be something based on medians, that would take out the ability of one big horse to bias the averages.
jm
Run the race - the one that's really worth winning.
-
mightyhijames
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:15 am
Joltman wrote:I'm a real fan of AEI and CI. The ratio between the two is the key. A similar stat calculated a little differently is the SPI sire index. There are some nice horses that can be spotted early by seeing an AEI significantly higher than the CI, with enough foals out there to be statistically
meaningful.
The link below on Brisnet opens reports that can be based on SPI. Birdstone is hitting at over 6 this year, but unfortunately these are not lifetime, but annual reports. Still its easy to see who's hot. Albert the Greats 3.83 is pretty impressive as well.
The real key would be something based on medians, that would take out the ability of one big horse to bias the averages.
jm
joltman, PQ shows ATG's AEI as 1.33, CI 1.26. i'm assuming you got your numbers from brisnet (link please)? why is there such a discrepancy between the two or am i not, in fact, getting it?