Nicks v G1 Goldmine

I think Nicks is based on dosage?

Don't think so mate.

I take zero notice of either, particularly as the proponents of at least one quite deliberately don't rate stallions whose management haven't signed up (ie paid cash) to ensure a rating.

It's hard to soar with eagles...

Cheers

I love the goldmine version they use on stud sites.

Just ran one on my mares through coolmores stallions, she is a 20/20 with every stallion bar tale of the cat

How much does Goldmine cost to join? Tried enicks a few years back and came to the same conclusion as most......not a lot of point to it at all. Sounds like the other may be an interesting TOOL.

Owners think they're trainers,trainers think they're jockeys and jockeys don't think

I've tested a few of these kinds of formula based analysis tools and found plenty of anomalies. You still need to impart your own judgment and commons sense to the process.

One thing I like about e-Nicks is providing examples of stakes winners with the same cross. Saves plenty of research time.

bradjm wrote:

I love the goldmine version they use on stud sites.

Just ran one on my mares through coolmores stallions, she is a 20/20 with every stallion bar tale of the cat

that is because coolmore have slackened the 20/20 criteria for their website. I have g1 and the difference between my version and coolmores is unbelievable

Breeding by the book or computer is like buying on pedigree alone.

It ignores type.

Do that at your peril!

You can't train a page. And you can't make a silk purse blah blah.

I certainly agree that no one should use them solely for their choice on breeding, they are great for as someone else said for finding stakes performers bred similarly. My question is why is a stud given a different version to individuals?

its not the majority of studs, just one in particular that stands out that have changed the system. I think the lesson is do your own research dont trust a system on the big players website. Of course coolmore are going to tell you their stallions are best.

With the breeding season coming up fast , I was wondering if anybody has any views on e nicks vs Goldmine. It was a long time ago that this thread was started and commented on , so I was interested to see if things have changed. Data and information gathering has no doubt improved.

I do my own analysis.

Those nicking programs are imo worthless.

In my work twice I came up with 87% unappealing pedigrees (my analysis) on big tests (over 1,000,000 test-matings).

But I can not say if that would be reflected in reality.

A while back I looked at all the yearlings sold at an important yearling sale.

How did they fare afterwards?

I had to find out the name each yearling was given, and then their racing record.

A Yearling Sale………….………..Lots……….Earnings €……….Price €………..Profit/Loss €……….P/L each €

Profit pre training (top 10)……10……….3,018,866…...….408,500……..…..2,610,366……....….261,037

Profit pre training……………….…52……….1,585,503……..….649,700…....……..935,803……......….17,996

Loss pre training………….....….242……….1,196,896……….5,195,000………..-3,998,104…...…….-16,521

Unraced / Untraced…………....130……....…….0,000…..…….1,624,300………..-1,624,300……..….-12,495

Withdrawn ……………..….…..…..28……...…...….0,000………...….….0,000………….……..0,000…...…….0,000

All lots at sale…………...….…..462……..….5,801,265…..…….7,877,500………..-2,076,235……...….-4,494

average for yearlings……...……1………..….12,557………….…….17,051…….………………....…….……….-4,494

Deduct about 40,000+ from the P/L each number to find the real profit (2 x 20k training).

Only 18 horses made a profit over €40k (race earnings minus auction price).

My guess is most of the unraced/untraced were not good enough to go on the track.

The median rating was 69, average 68.4.

The strangest nugget was the two most profitable lots were bought by the same person.

Nicks v G1 Goldmine - Event Date: 07 Apr 2010 - 07 Jun 2010