Yup, 2 1/2 months early. I always seem to start with Dosage and this year will be no different. For now though, no details, just more of a history lesson. Bare with me though, it gets interesting.
I first was exposed to Dosage thru Dick Downey (thedowneyprofile.com).....Dick is/was a lawyer and judge in Ky. He also was a horse owner and race lover and has run his horse betting site since 2003. It's still operating on a limited basis, and now he just concentrates on the Derby. Before, it was the entire Triple Crown. He's aging now, and has had some health issues along with aging parents, etc. so he's producing much less content.
The site is still great though, and there's tons of past info that is substantial in content. I've pretty much posted his picks every year, in one way or another. The week of the Derby, he's at the track at 4:30AM talking to trainers, clockers, workers, etc. Everyone know him and he gets access to things we might never know about. In his process of deciding who he likes, one of his methods is a chart listing certain facts and assigning a value to each item- and then analyzes each horse to those items. My point is, Dosage used to be one of his most important criteria. Over the years it has become less and less important and now has been totally dropped as one of the criteria items. It's statistically not relevant anymore, in his eyes.
Fair enough, many have done the same thing. Dosage Index was the key number: The Dosage Index is a mathematical figure used by breeders of Thoroughbred race horses, and sometimes by bettors handicapping horse races, to quantify a horse's ability, or inability, to negotiate the various distances at which horse races are run. It is calculated based on an analysis of the horse's pedigree. The pedigree is described by the Dosage Profile. Years ago most of the Derby winners had a Dosage Index under 3.00, then the accepted number was raised to 4.00. Then horses started winning with D.I.'s of 11.00, 7.00, and 5.00- just in the last 10 years. And Dosage was thrown in the trash by everyone. It became a non-issue and irrelevant.
It's human nature to try and find something we can quantify, with a number- it's becomes easier to understand and compare numbers between horses. People screamed how Dosage is useless, and don't bother with it. Dick Downey was one of those people too. Go to his website, its all there.
In 2015, I found and read an article written by a Japanese professor (or statistician) analyzing that the main problem with Dosage is the Mare, or female side of breeding, is not considered in the Dosage numbers- only the sire (male) side and thats where the problem lies. He stated, through his very detailed analysis, horses gather 60% of their ability from the female side and only 40% from the male side. So, no wonder Dosage formulas were not working, less than half of the important stuff was not being connsidered. When I find the article again, I will post it. I found it last night, and can't seem to find it right now.
Part 2 next......