TrueNicks : Products

Broodmare Analysis Report Unveiled

sgillies — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:36:00 GMT

The new Broodmare Analysis Report provides an efficient and comprehensive way to analyze the crosses of multiple mares against multiple stallions. ...(read more)

Reader Q&A: Can TrueNicks Be Used in Thoroughbred Handicapping?

brogers — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 04:09:00 GMT

Byron responds to a reader's question about using TrueNicks as a handicapping tool -- and discusses a couple of upcoming TrueNicks research projects....(read more)

Reader Q&A: Can TrueNicks help the regional stallion?

brogers — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:20:00 GMT

The owner of a regional sire asks how TrueNicks might help to improve the stallion's stud career....(read more)

TrueNicks Joins MarketWatch and Owner-Breeder

admin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:07:00 GMT

Alan Porter recently commented on the newly-announced merger of powerhouse Thoroughbred industry newsletters Owner-Breeder International and TBH MarketWatch.

"Having been publisher of Owner-Breeder International for the last seven years, I'm delighted by the recent merger of the publication with MarketWatch. The move will both bring the work of OBI's current stable of writers to a wider audience, and give OBI subscribers the opportunity to enjoy the unique in-depth statistical analysis that has been a hallmark of MarketWatch."

There are several other new benefits for subscribers of the merged publication. Readers will have the informative Data Digest Select, a market update and guide to the auction that is produced for dozens of sales each year, delivered direct to their e-mail boxes.

They will also receive a pedigree e-newsletter featuring the latest entries from the TrueNicks and The Five-Cross Files blogs plus weekly analysis from pedigree experts Alan Porter and Avalyn Hunter.

Alan was also eager to point out that "through the association with TrueNicks, this valuable resource will also contain a monthly stakes winners report, complete with family connections and TrueNicks ratings. This feature is unique to the e-newsletter, which will be the only publication to supply nick ratings for a comprehensive report of stakes winners worldwide."

Subscribers can also look forward to TrueNicks ratings starting to appearing in wide range of other articles, reports and analysis in the combined MarketWatch/OBI publication.

Moving Houses... And More

admin — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:07:00 GMT

In the upcoming months, TrueNicks has a number of innovations and new products to unveil.

Some will be quite visible while the others more subtle. One of the changes in the latter category will be the migration of this site in a couple of days from the current standalone platform you see today onto the powerful Blood-Horse Community Server where the blog aspect of the site will integrate with other blogs that are produced there. This will mean that the postings made on this site by Alan, Byron, and the growing team at TrueNicks will reach a much wider audience of industry participants than it currently does. BloodHorse.com traffic averages over 150,000 unique visitors per month, with a current peak topping 285,000 unique viewers and an interesting posting within the blog stable on BloodHorse.com has already racked up close to 20,000 page views. That is correct: one post from one blog author has already counted up 19,983 individual views to be precise. Moving the site to the community server has some further benefits. It will allow you, our readers, to make comments on the posts that we make and share these posts with other like-minded individuals. While these will be moderated (mainly to stop spam!) we would love to hear your thoughts on what we post.

The blog is one of the more active parts of our Web site, but it is not the entire focus of the site. Further down the track we are looking at launching a pedigree newsletter which will include the best from this site and other pedigree information sources as well as severalTrueNicks broodmare and stallion products that are being developed in response to demand from our customers.

We are building these products around you, our readers - and (we hope) customers - so if you have any feedback or ideas please don't hesitate to contact us.

To Region or Not to Region

admin — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:04:00 GMT

We were recently forwarded an e-mail containing an advertisement from another pedigree consultancy that mentioned "... other pedigree information services that attempt to dazzle you with vast database resources without discriminating the information that matters from the information that doesn't ...." It also asserts that it chooses not to include the results of restricted stakes - even though that can include such valuable and prestigious races as the Canadian Queen's Plate or the Japanese Derby.

Without conjecturing whether or not this refers to TrueNicks, it is certainly the case that TrueNicks has "vast database resources." However, TrueNicks - developed by industry professionals with extensive international experience in all aspects of racing and breeding - certainly knows how to sort and provide the information that matters.

In any case, the comments do raise some interesting points. One is that the fundamental difference between the TrueNicks database - that of The Jockey Club Information Services - and others is not so much that it is vast, but that it is thorough. It is this comprehensive database that allows TrueNicks to take into account all starters and foals bred on a cross, thus reflecting true - as opposed to hypothetical - opportunity. (As a bonus, it also means that TrueNicks ratings are always calculated using the most current data possible.)

Other nicking services work from a selective database that includes some stakes winners, from some countries, over some time period - and have devised convoluted arguments to explain away shortcomings in their data.

In fact, they strain to make a virtue out of a vice, and suggest that examining hypothetical opportunity among a select class of runners is going to yield more accurate results than comparing real achievement with real opportunity across all known foals and starters. Of course, this is patently false. The email cited earlier also alleges that

"... patterns of successful breeding are evident only in runners of genuine quality"
"... certain methods of inbreeding, sire-line crosses, or combinations of ancestors that never yield a listed stakes winner may often show up among the winners of restricted stakes"

The first assertion is patently wrong: patterns of successful breeding turn up in good and bad runners alike (as do less successful ones), and it is only when looking at all foals that we can determine how successful a cross or pattern is relative to opportunity. TrueNicks factors in both frequency of attempts and quality of material involved.

The second contention needs to be looked at in two parts. Firstly, let's consider the assumption that the unrestricted races included in our competitors' compilations of stakes winners are always going to be superior to restricted stakes winners. Upon even a surface examination, their criteria produce some strange anomalies.

For example, a horse would not qualify for their calculations by winning the Japanese Derby (a restricted race) - but a Japanese gr. III winner, who was soundly defeated in the same race, would qualify. It is also strains credulity to believe that all stakes winners in countries such as New Zealand, Italy (including Sicily), and Germany, or all gr. III winners in Chile or Peru, would be superior to the winners of, say, the Canadian classics. Even looking at Australia, where racing is of a generally higher standard, the winner of a race such as the Tasmanian Derby at Hobart (a group event), would in most cases struggle to get anywhere near the winner of the Canadian restricted turf classic, the Breeders' Stakes.

Similar anomalies apply when we consider racing in the U.S. There are restricted stakes at major tracks where the winning performances are clearly superior to open company stakes events at some smaller tracks. With these inconsistencies in mind, it should be clear why TrueNicks chooses to follow the industry standard and considers all winners of black type events as determined by the International Cataloguing Standards.

It's true that restricted and regional stakes winners are drawn from a wider gene pool, and as result sometimes have inbreeding via ancestors different from those found in more commercial pedigrees. However, in our experience of studying Thoroughbred pedigrees - which now extends back more than 35 years - nicks, crosses, or pedigree patterns that consistently work at the highest level tend to be beneficial further down the tree. For example, Giant's Causeway has done very well with Mr. Prospector-line mares, so we might expect that his brothers Freud and Roar of the Tiger (TrueNicks, SRO) (who stand in New York and Florida, respectively), would benefit from being bred to Mr. Prospector-line mares in those regions. The reverse can also be true: a nick that establishes itself in a regional program, and with modest stock, may well be worth recreating with higher-quality individuals.

Moreover, the sheer quality of individuals found at the higher levels can often compensate for lower degrees of pedigree affinity, a fact that highlights a major flaw in selectively-compiled databases.

For those who argue that it's problematic to compare highly-commercial sons of a particular stallion with less-renowned sons of the same sire, and to help breeders determine the level at which a nick has success, the TrueNicks page has a unique feature - a list of the top five horses bred on the given nick.

Last but not least, omitting restricted stakes winners severely limits competing products' suitability to be relevant to regional breeders. Unlike TrueNicks, they are not able to accurately identify and report specific regionally-successful nicks .

TrueNicks, with its comprehensive database, is the new industry standard in nick ratings.

Research is a Mare Owner's Best Investment

admin — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:03:00 GMT

Amy from Lexington asks Alan: I work for a small farm in Lexington and have been helping to plan matings. I really enjoy pedigree research and learning all the theories behind different nicks / crosses inbreeding / outcrossing, etc. The main problem I have run into had been finding a way to figure out what lines broodmare sires cross with. I was hoping you could shed some light on finding a good approach to look at a mare's sire and gather information on what that horse has accomplished as a broodmare sire, and with what lines he has made those accomplishments. I would appreciate any advice you can give me.

I also wanted to tell you that I love your website. It is very informative, and makes for an easy read. Thank you for your time.

Alan responds: Hi Amy, thank you for your question.

The Jockey Club's equineline.com has several products that will help you analyze a mare and find out the stallions that have worked best with her broodmare sire.

Product 61 (view sample) gives all the foals out of mares by a broodmare sire, along with the sire of those foals, and their race records (including whether or not they are black type performers). Product 62 gives the best performers out of a mare by a chosen broodmare sire, along with their sire.

Another report, product 91 (view sample) allows you to enter a mare and obtain a list of all sires out of mares by her sire, and number of foals, starters, winners, black type winners, total earnings and AEI, all with percentages.

Using these products will enable you to tell the sires that have worked with the broodmare sire. From there it is possible to consider one of the stallions that have worked, or another horse from the same sire line (The Blood-Horse Stallion Register lists stallions by sire, and has charts of stallions arranged by sire lines).

Of course, when the possible horses have been selected, the potential matings can be run on TrueNicks hypo-mating (with many leading commercial stallions subscribing to give breeders complimentary access to nick ratings, and others available for a $20 report fee - a wise purchase when considering that most stud fees are five figures).

In the coming months TrueNicks will be releasing products that enable a broodmare owner to enter a mare and obtain a list of stallions in a chosen price range and location, sorted by TrueNicks rating.

A New Look for TrueNicks Reports

admin — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:02:00 GMT

As part of the TrueNicks commitment to ongoing improvement of our product line, we are pleased to unveil a new look for the basic Hypothetical Mating and Named Foal reports (click on the report names to see samples).

The new presentation is designed to be easier to read and interpret, and includes all the same features that users have found on the reports previously.

So, what has changed?

First, you'll notice that the TrueNicks letter grade and variant scores are more prominent. The location in the upper corner of the report assures that the rating is visible on your browser without having to scroll.

Second, the name of the horse (for Named Foal reports) or the sire-dam (for Hypothetical Mating reports) is clearly noted at the top of the report, along with the sire line / broodmare sire line cross used for the report.

Third, the breeder's name and location are included for all Named Foal reports, an enhancement that was suggested by our users.

Fourth, we've changed the notation for listed stakes races from (LR) to (L) in the listing of "Best Horses Bred on This Cross."

If you'd like to compare the reports, you can view the previous formats: view the Hypothetical Mating (older format) or the Named Foal (older format) reports.

The sample reports again feature popular filly Rags to Riches as the named horse, and a Street Sense-Rags to Riches cross for the hypothetical match. You might find it interesting to note the minor changes in variant scores in the five weeks since the previous samples were run. As you can see, the overall rating was unaffected in both cases. Why is this important? It confirms that TrueNicks ratings are always based on the most recent information, and that additional success (or lack thereof) of a given sire line / broodmare sire line cross will affect the ratings. Importantly, though, once a nick rating has been established, new foals bred on the same cross tend to validate the rating over time. The date stamp on the upper right corner of the report lets you know that the rating you're reviewing was calculated with the most recently available data.

As Easy as A, B, C ?

admin — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:01:00 GMT

Stallion managers and broodmare owners have offered some interesting insights since the release of TrueNicks.

One stallion manager told me that he would come across clients who would reject matings that rated A on another nicking product because they wanted A++. In an e-mail conversation regarding a prospective mating, a broodmare owner told me that a planned mating that had a very clever pedigree had a "disappointing TrueNick rating." When, I looked, however, that rating was a B, with a variant of 1.60 - that is, 60% better than might have been expected by opportunity.

It's clear from interactions such as these that there is often some misunderstanding about what a nick rating is and isn't. TrueNicks is an expression of one specific aspect of the pedigree, that of the sire line/broodmare sire line cross. From our studies in developing TrueNicks, looking at over 100,000 horses, it is clear that there is a strong correlation between the sire line affinities and success, as expressed by wins in stakes events.

That said, there are a number of reasons not to blindly follow a rating without due consideration of class, conformation, and aptitude. While the rating is a wonderful tool to apply when trying to determine primus inter pares - first among equals - common sense must be used when considering the class of the pedigree.

For example, all other factors being similar, a yearling by Storm Cat, Distorted Humor (TrueNicks, SRO), or A.P. Indy, out of a grade I winning mare, with a TrueNicks rating of B has more chance of becoming a high-class runner than a yearling by a $5,000 regional stallion out of an inexpensive mare. When it comes to choosing between horses of similar class backgrounds, the system does reflect rather efficiently.

For example, around 42% of Distorted Humor's foals are TrueNicks rated A or better, and 62% are rated B or better. Looking at his stakes winners, however, we find that 74% are A or better (a 76% improvement on opportunity) and 85% are B or better (a 37% improvement on opportunity).

Mention of the "B or better" group for Distorted Humor underlines something else. That is, while very high variants are appealing, they are often the result of some good results generated from a relative small number of attempts. So, while A++ ratings are highly positive, A+, A, B+ and even B ratings represent a significant improvement over opportunity. What also has to be taken into account, from the pedigree perspective, is the presence of positive inbreeding and linebreeding in the pedigree (the interpretation of which is admittedly a somewhat subjective exercise). For example, the mating that our breeder friend described as giving a "disappointing" rating (actually a B), gave an intriguing inbreeding to the excellent mare Wild Applause, 3 x 3 through three-parts brother and sister.

In our book, a B with a powerful inbreeding pattern is a very positive mating. TrueNicks was calibrated to show more C and D - or even F - results than A's and B's, so there's never a question of a B being anything other than an above-average rating.

The TrueNicks program provides additional information to give even greater flexibility in interpreting the rating, as the TrueNicks page for a named horse or hypothetical mating is the only one to give the top five horses bred on a cross. This sometimes reveals a good individual bred on a sire line/broodmare sire line cross that has generally provided modest results. Exploration of that individual might determine that it is worth taking the opportunity to emulate a specific successful version of a cross that in general has provided disappointing results.

After all, we must never forget that at the end of the day, we are attempting to breed racehorses and not ratings.

Curiouser and Curiouser

admin — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:01:00 GMT

"Curiouser and curiouser" cried Alan. The anomaly of widely differing nick ratings on an identical cross is a very strange one.

When TrueNicks rates Unbridled's Song (TrueNicks, SRO) with a Miswaki mare, the result is a "D," based on the direct cross of Unbridled's Song with Mr. Prospector-line mares, as there is insufficient evidence (opportunity) to rate matings between Unbridled's Song and mares by Miswaki himself. The top five horses bred on the cross include Silver Lord, who became a first time stakes winner at the weekend.

When we consider Value Plus (TrueNicks, SRO)-another son of Unbridled's Song-with a Miswaki mare, the TrueNicks rating rises to a "C" as there are some sons of Unbridled's Song who have stakes winners on the cross, improving the stakes production rate relative to opportunity.

I looked at the same crosses as rated by a competing product, and ran a hypothetical pedigree for Value Plus with a Miswaki mare: the program returned the mating as an "A" rated nick (based on the Unbridled/Miswaki cross), albeit on the basis of just one stakes winner. It might be expected that the one stakes winner would be Silver Lord, who is by Unbridled's Song out of a Miswaki mare. This, however, is where things get very "Alice in Wonderland."

Looking at that system's list of stakes winners from this cross, the only one we see is Awfully Smart, who is by Anees (a son of Unbridled) out of a mare by Black Tie Affair (IRE) (by Miswaki). So this means, were one to enter Unbridled's Song with the dam of Silver Lord, one would presumably get the same "A" rating; would be told that the rating is based on one stakes winner (something which I would think is a pretty shaky premise for a rating)-but the one stakes winner wouldn't be Silver Lord, who in fact is the only stakes winner bred on the Unbridled's Song/Miswaki cross, but another horse, who is neither by Unbridled's Song nor out of a Miswaki mare!

I think the problem must be that the system is not updated anywhere near as frequently as is the TrueNicks program (which includes new stakes winners within a matter of hours), and so is "unaware" that there is actually a stakes winner bred on the Unbridled's Song/Miswaki cross. This might be regarded as a serious failing, as, if you are going to rate horses on the basis of one stakes winner, it would probably be better if that stakes winner were the horse actually bred on the cross!

"No Rating" Doesn't Equal "No Meaning"

admin — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:00 GMT

A reader wrote in to ask for clarification on the No Rating return after running a TrueNicks hypo-mating report for Niigon with a Richter Scale mare. Niigon is a son of Unbridled, by Fappiano, by Mr. Prospector. Richter Scale is a son of Habitony, by Habitat, by Sir Gaylord.

Question: I just purchased a TrueNicks hypothetical mating and received a report with No Rating. Hardly worth the $20. I presume this is because of insufficient data. Not much value here so why charge for it? By the way, another nicking product had this mating at A+. Why the difference? -Breeder in Canada

Answer:

Scot: Your question is an important one, and the answer involves the way nicks are calculated in different rating systems.

The TrueNicks No Rating score is actually a valid and meaningful return. It indicates that this cross has not yet had 15 runners or stakes winners from at least two different dams, even taking into account the third generation on the sire side and the fourth generation on the broodmare sire side. In effect, a No Rating return tells you that you're in uncharted territory. While the cross has not been proven or disproven, it is one that has had insufficient opportunity to determine a statistically well-founded evaluation-which is, in itself, useful to know.

TrueNicks avoided the practice of digging further back in the pedigree or "relaxing" the grading standards for less-common crosses, because such procedures devalue the calculation. While it might feel reassuring to see a letter grade, it really isn't much help to score such distant relatives as Mr. Prospector over Sir Gaylord, for example. (For what it's worth, the TrueNicks score of Fappiano over Doubledoor-effectively, the grandsire of Niigon over a full sister to Habitat, Richter Scale's grandsire-yields a "B," with a 1.99 variant score that is right at the cusp of "B+.")

In the particular cross of Niigon over a Richter Scale mare, we see some promise for future attempts at the broader cross. Your TrueNicks report shows the five best foals from this cross, including a grade III-placed mare and another stakes-placed mare-fairly impressive given limited opportunity.
Alan: Firstly, I would argue that the TrueNicks page actually gives more information than other nicking products, whilst essentially coming to a very similar conclusion.
Both reports give a five generation pedigree, with a dosage profile, the TrueNicks page also listing inbreeding.

We have the TrueNicks score as NO RATING. This means that-even when one goes back to the Fappiano/Habitat cross-that there is insufficient evidence on which to base a rating (specifically: there have been fewer than 15 starters and/or two stakes winners out of unique mares). The other nick product shows A+, but note that this is accompanied, in parentheses, by the notation (1 SW). This means that there has only been one stakes winner on the cross. Thus the other product rates this mating an A+ on the evidence of only one stakes winner. At this point, it is important to note that the other program does not know how many times this mating has been tried, so the A+ rating could be based on one stakes winner from one foal, 10 foals, or 100 foals-so, I would suggest it has little validity. It also doesn't tell us anything about the standard of the stakes winner or other foals bred on the cross.

When we come to the TrueNicks report page, however, we have the additional information which tells us that the one stakes winner bred on the cross is a graded stakes winner, and that there is also a stakes-placed horse bred on the cross. A little research also tells us that the third horse on the list has won almost $150,000 with a best BRIS Speed Figure of 94. We now know that the cross has produced three useful or better horses from a maximum of 14 attempts.

With this knowledge, if I liked other aspects of the mating, I may well consider it worth trying.

So, I would suggest that the TrueNicks page actually provides all of the information that other nicking products provide and more-other than a rating which is based on only one stakes winner.

Keeneland January Preview: Day Seven

admin — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:01:00 GMT

Alan Porter has been asked to preview each day of the Keeneland January horses of all ages sale. His comments appear on BloodHorseNOW.com, including a special page in that publication’s daily PDF newsletter, which is distributed each day at the salegrounds.

As part of Alan’s notes, he has provided a Top 10 list of the short yearlings offered each day, and another Top 10 list of the sale’s “carried foals”–all according to their TrueNicks variant score.

Here’s a free preview: Keeneland January: Day Seven.

Check in each day for the most current Top 10 lists and commentary.

Keeneland January Preview: Day Six

admin — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:01:00 GMT

Alan's Day Six preview: Keeneland January: Day Six

Keeneland January Preview: Day Five

admin — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:01:00 GMT

Alan's Day Five preview: Keeneland January: Day Five

Keeneland January Preview: Day Four

admin — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:01:00 GMT

Alan's Day Four preview: Keeneland January: Day Four