Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miraja2
I'll probably be accused of belonging to a "little clique" for posting this, but I happen to think that this chart tends to confirm what I already believed regarding DI. It is basically useless in this regard.
Is there a trend in the numbers? Sure, but only someone with very little knowledge of statistical analysis would look at this chart and argue that it proves that DI is of any use whatsoever.
If you took an average handicapper with a moderate amount of pedigree knowledge, and asked him or her simply to assign every horse a DI-type number by looking only at the names of the horses in the first two generations, I am confident that the long-term chart numbers would be similar (like DI, there would be an obvious relationship, but not a particularly insightful one).
In terms of determining stamina, I think most people agree that DI is pretty pointless.
|
Not to mention that the chef-de-races are arbitrarily chosen to fit the data. Of course they can make an argument going back to 1983. If you wanted to cap a race from 1983 it would be a great tool. For 2008 it is useless. For a true analysis run it for all of 2008 before they get the chance to adjust the chef-de-race list. I bet you'll find it to have no correlation at all.