Do you take pedigree into account?

[my miss storm cat]

I was wondering who does and who doesn't when capping a race.....

A yes or no will due, reasons optional.

[Pointg5]

In maiden races, it has to be accounted for, but other than that they're worthless, just like weight and jockeys...

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

In maiden races, it has to be accounted for, but other than that they're worthless, just like weight and jockeys...

I think it also has to be taken into account for... 1st turf, added distance, mud, and on occasion trainer choices (when a trainer has been effective with certain families or sires)

First timers... Once I see em, I got em, along with useful RUNNING numbers.

This pedigree stuff is a British Colony vestigial silliness. They are very into lineage. While agree with the idea with breed the best with the best and hope for the best... the hope for the best clearly indicates its a genetic crap shoot.

[randallscott35]

Just a little. More for turf.

And another thing that is not looked at closely is a lot of these stallions may produce graded winners, but how many donkey's? If you got a horse that puts off a very high % of good runners (not necessarily graded winners) v. donkeys (and a large number of total offspring), with many diff. mares including mares that are not highly reguarded... Then I am more apt to say there is clearly many genetic components that this sire has to put out good runners.

All I can say is I am glad people put so much emphasis on pedigree.

Pedigree is more important than any handicapping factor other than current form. I cannot imagine not taking it into account. BBB

[King Glorious]

Pedigree is the most overrated thing in racing if u ask me. Like, there are some that say that Smarty Jones got beat in the Belmont because of his pedigree. I think that's crazy. Pedigree is good as a HINT of something a horse might be able to do before they try it. But once they step on the track and show their abilities, the pedigree is useless. And it's especially silly, IMO, to not try certain horses at certain things simply because their pedigree suggests they may not like it. I say that u let the horses themselves show what they can and can't do before deciding. Pedigree is extremely overrated, IMO, and is NEVER a factor in my handicapping a race.

[2Hot4TV]

Now that polytrack is in your future you better learn how to spot good turf pedigree. I love it when the betters say they don't consider Pedigree, Jockey or Weights when they handicap a race.

[pmayjr]

I agree with paisjpg-
It should be taken into account for first turf, and somewhat for maiden races.

But even in Maiden races, look at trainer stats with maidens, first-time starters, 2nd starts, etc etc more than the pedigree.

[sumitas]

Pedigree rules for first timers. For 3 year olds it says a lot about whether they can get a distance. Especially the Belmont.

Instead of just breeding the best with the best and getting a lot of crap, a serious mating produces a much higher rate of success. By serious I mean at least the first 5 gens and the linebreeding chart for 9 gens. A good student of pedigree can separate the wheat from the chaff in a lot of instances.

[Thunder Gulch]

Pedigree figures in my handicapping prominently for lightly raced horses and surface/ distance changes. Other than those specific situations, I give it only a glance.

I know too much about genetics to see the horrible fallacies associated with pedigree handicapping. If someday the horse genome is mapped and we got genes associated with particular traits that we know aid running ability in someway, then I would be more comfortable. Otherwise, crapshoot. You got to look at a horse doing what they are supposed to do, RUN. You dont need to know what granmammy did on the track unless you are desperate.

Again I believe this is a British Royality hold over pile o crap. My daddy was a Duke. So what.

[Pedigree Ann]

So if you see a first time starter, you don't check whether his sire gets a high percentage of first out winners or not? You don't care if he is by Carson City (18% first out, speed sire) or by Deputy Commander (4% first out, distance sire)? . I am a statistician and understand that for all the breed's variability, different strains of the breed have well-defined proclivities, as reflected in accumlated statistics. If you have a Meadowlake out of a Mt. Livermore mare you will expect a precocious, speedy sprinter/miler; a Kingmambo out of a Lord at War mare would be expected to excell over a distance of ground, probably on turf, and likely to be later maturing.

[Linny]

Any time a horse is asked to do something new, I look at pedigree. Certain stallions seem to sire horses with a distinct set of talents. Mud, grass, "win early", route abilities all seem to be carried by sires. Does every Carson City love mud? Nope. But the odds are better that a CC will mud than many other sires.

[Seattleallstar]

I look at breeding, purchase price

[repent]

I will look at it for a first timer or for a horse thats trying something new for the first time(turf, stretching out)
its just a factor though.



Repent

[GPK]

I take it into account...for sure. But I play more turf races than your average bettor and I think breeding is more prevalent in turf racing....IMO

[PSH]

Especially in baby races and in older horses in two ways:

Racing on the turf especially for the first or second time and also looking at a sire and how much their offspring progresses from 2 to 3 to 4....

PSH

I obviously love all things Slew, so I pay attention to just that line in terms of pedigree. Beyond that, I look at what the horse has actually done. It just so happens that two of the top horses are Slews, so it is rewarding for me personally; it is not rewarding financially, however. What can I collect on Bernardini and Lava Man!