Dosage / CD / Dosage Points Past Belmont Winners 1970 to Now

I think that to an extent it matters. I think using "exact" chef dosage numbers in evaluation is very tricky because the mares numbers are not being accounted for. With the addition of the "Reines-de-Course" numbers the colt can be looked at from both angles in his chart. I like to view them in categories and have found that the most advantaged runners to win the Belmont stakes range between 2.10 and 3.00. Breeding is still evolving since 1970 as well, and colts are being geared more to speed than to stamina which is making their chefs index rise as well. This is not to say that I think using a colt over 3.00 in the top slot is ever a good idea but American Pharoah is one that burned me bad. And finally, when reading these numbers, I am a firm believer in looking at the entire set and not just one or two aspects. In the case of Secretariat, his chefs numbers were:

DP = 20-14-7-9-0 (50) DI = 3.00   CD = 0.90.

That 3.00 index is held by thousands and thousands of colts and the CD is fairly normal as well. The profile itself and the points total is magnificent but it is also not extremely rare to see. (But I will say, if that profile were running today, there would be no question at all as to who to single!) But what really makes Secretariat stand out with the Belmont stakes with that 3.00 index was his mares numbers:

Mare Profile = 2-6-4-8-8   Speed = 8   Stamina = 16   Index = 0.50   Triads = 12-18-20.

Those triads stand out big time below that 3.00 chef index. The fact is that if you took the Chef profile at face value, the 20 in the speedy early short 4-6f slot is very dominant but his mares counteracted that with a boatload of stamina.

I am not sure if you read this article here - https://www.thedirtyhorseclub.com/blog/historical-dosage-the-belmont-stakes - but it goes a little more in depth about choosing at least 4 horses to make up the superfecta as opposed to finding just the single winner. In most cases, the top will consist of the 2.10 to 3.00 guys and the rest of the super will be filled with a combo of speed and stamina guys. A few years (like last year) it will be completely dominated by those 2.10 to 3.00 guys. But in all of those cases, I do believe that the mares numbers were more significant to them as opposed to the CD.

I noticed in the Triads of Secretariat .... Triads = 12-18-20. That first number 12 ... pretty average first number , right ? Are the Triads part of the horse or the sire / dam ? ... I noticed in the Dosage points on Secretariat the first number being 20 ...which is high ....yet the Triads first number of 12 is considered average ??? I 'm trying to learn is all ...thx for the help !!

The first set of numbers belongs strictly to the Chefs. The second line is strictly the mares. Triads combine a mares 5 digit profile down to only 3 numbers. Basically the first number of the triads combine the Brilliant plus the Intermediate plus the Classic. The second number combines the Intermediate the classic and the Solid. And then finally, the third number combines the Classic plus the Solid plus the Professional. And then you get a three slot triad set. A set of triads like 17-17-18 would indicate that the colt inherited a balanced distance capacity from his mares. A set of triads like 18-14-13 would indicate that the colt inherited a more distance challenged capacity from his mares and would be best at shorter distances. A set of triads like Secretariat's (or Vino Rosso) 12-18-20 indicates a strong inheritance from the mares in stamina. Everything builds to the right.

The meaning of the words: Brilliant is about 4-6f. Intermediate is about 7-9f. Classic is about 10-12f. Solid is about 13-15f and then finally Professional is about 16f+.

I have just started to write a new article which deals with reading the mares numbers. Chefs numbers and mares numbers are two separate things. But when you read them together and combine them, the true picture of the colt begins to emerge.

Excellent work Lisa ... thank you very much for the explanation !!!

Since 1971

There have been 9 Won Belmont / 9 Placed Belmont with the exact Dosage of 3.00 or .... 18 / 94 possible 1st or 2nd place spots or 19 % ....

Last 2 Winners of the Belmont have had exact 3.00 Dosage ....interesting ....

Horses with Exact Dosage of 3.00 this year

Justify

Blended Citizen

Tenfold

Bandua

Seahenge

Noble Indy

Gronkowski

will add info to this ...

Since 1970 ... there have been 9 horses who won the Belmont with the Exact number Dosage of 3.00 ....of those 9 ...8 out of those 9 horses had a CD ( Center Distribution ) below 1.00 .... all those 8 horse's had a Total of Dosage Points of 26 or above .... so that's 8 out of 8 had their CD between 0.65 and 0.99 ...

You want a laughable chance of beating Justify ....this is it .....

Justify ..................... 5-6-8-1-0 (20) ...... notice the number 20 ...that's the Dosage Points of Justify ...you add 5-6-8-1-0 all up to get the Dosage Points ....

Justify's Dosage is 3.00 and CD 0.75 ....

His Dosage Points ( 20 ) are below the past winners of Belmont Stakes Winners Dosage Points of ( 26 )

Probably a fluke ...watch Justify win by 15 ...but if tailing this laughable angle ... Justify won't win !!!!!

Your call ....

also ...all these can finish 2/3/4/5

Blended Citizen ... the same issue ... 3.00 Dosage / CD 0.71 .... only 24 Dosage Points

Gronkowski ..........the same issue ... 3.00 Dosage / CD 0.80 ...only 10 Dosage Points

Noble Indy ...........the same issue ... 3.00 Dosage / CD 0.72 ...only 18 Dosage Points

The only horse that qualifies with the Dosage 3.00 / CD 0.69

Tenfold 26 Dosage Points .... only issue I saw with him is that he has over 7 % Secretariat in his line breeding which is a negative ( No horse has won the Belmont since 2000 with 5% or more of Secretariat in his line breeding ) ....Can happen though ....

I like the idea of using both sets of numbers to get a more balanced picture. Lisa's work here is what drew my initial interest and it's incredibly helpful. I usually to do a qualitative review of the female side, but her approach is more quantitative and I think there may be a great deal of merit in it. I plan to follow it closely in the future.

I do think there may be some danger in comparing single numbers in the profiles and using them as elimination factors. The entire profile tells the story. The biggest danger for me has always been falling in love with the numbers and not insisting on demonstrated performance to back it up. It's like everything else in handicapping. There is no one single answer. The great thing about dosage is that it is a significant factor that is relatively overlooked by most bettors. Anyone can watch Hofburg's Derby and see how compromised he was by his trip, but he still lost by 10 or so lengths. Can a better trip make up 10 lengths? Probably not, but a better trip for a horse who is running his optimum distance for the first time can; especially if it's against horses who are challenged by the distance.