Mating Advice

[louie cullen 0]

Hi

I got a Cape Cross mare out of Last Tycoon mare shes a half sis to Mako and out the family of MAHOGANY i just want to get the breedin buffs idea were to go my budget is up to 20k

[Ruby 160]

I hope someone comes on and offers some advice for you - enough have viewed!

[louie cullen 0]

thats what i was thinking :confused

[Dopey 214]

this is not advice for our $20K....

but you could focus on a strong female in Best in Show...e.g. have a look at Per incanto over her and see the nice duplpication of Best in Show. It might have been better if Last tycoon was the 1st dam.

You have two very nice stallions in the first two dams.

[Ruby 160]

Have you had a look at any of the stud websites? Cambridge Stud for example - you can just see the hypothetical pedigree that shows several generations then if something takes your fancy talk with the stud directly.

[brogers 0]

A couple of thoughts for you

POUR MOI

THEWAYYOUARE

ROAD TO ROCK

TAVISTOCK

Thewayyouare is a clever mating on paper but I like Pour Moi a little more as he had more class. Obviously paper doesn't run very fast so you would like to hope that you are considering how the mare and stallions look before making any decision.

[Scotchmist 1]

Ever since I found out Harold Hampton had picked Bonecrusher out of the sales catalouge on the line breeding his pedigree contained, I have been reading/studying line breeding theories.

From my own experiences and those of others I know, I can tell you this.

For every good linebred galloper, there are 100 useless linebred gollopers, at least half I have bred have not even made it to the races.

After 20 or more years trying to breed a champion on line breeding theories, I have never bred a stakes winner.

Looking back, I think some of the best advice I received was from a chap that used to frequent Race Cafe named BUCKPASSER. Very simply it was to breed to proven stallions regardless of what the paper pedigree tells you.

The example of a value proven stallion Buckpasser used was Shinko King for $5000 Still leaving winners every week.

I am not sure of fees, but a few stallions that are well proven include; Thorn Park, Keeper, Captain Rio,Ekraar,Faltaat,No Excuse Needed and Towkay.

Towkay considering his success in Asia and his popularity with Asian buyers has to be the best VALUE sire in the catalouge at the moment for those with a smaller budget.

I would be happy with a horse by any of the above sires.

Considering there is at least some linebreeding in every pedigree these days,I think some people tend to place too much faith in "paper pedigrees"and can get a bit carried away with it all.

An up and coming sire that would not off had the best of mares to start with ,but is going quite well is Sth Islander Coats Choice, also proving popular with buyers.

My advice is to breed to type and breed to proven stallions.

[reng 0]

Regardless of who you choose, remember this:

Of all unproven stallions, only 6/10 will leave a stakes winner. Those odds are pretty terrible, so if you want to produce a racehorse, let someone else punt their mare to the unproven brigade.

There are plenty of proven horses that have already shown they can leave something with talent. Then you just need to do the hard yards, research what has already worked with them, and find one that has produced something decent to a mare that is similar to yours.

I'm not going to recommend a specific stallion, as I'm completely unfamiliar with what is at stud in NZ.

[diomed 26]

Anecdotal examples of inbreeding failures e.g. "a full sibling of a top horse was useless" is a sample of two.  

To see the bigger picture you need bigger data.

Here are a few extracts from work I did on inbreeding in six generation pedigrees in early 2017.

It is similar to the work of Harold Hampton and Clive Harper but modern computers made the work much easier e.g. my program analysed 51 horses a second.

I think it shows the robustness of the groundbreaking research by Harold Hampton and Clive Harper.  They deserve every credit.

I do not show below the data for the different types of inbreeding e.g matched inbreeding of a son and daughter of a duplicated sire.

 

type	occ	groups	count
colts	0	90.05	876
colts	1	91.44	4974
colts	2	92.42	9889
colts	3	93.74	10803
colts	4	95.24	6826
colts	5	98.07	2662
colts	6	100.15	812
colts	7	104.66	189
colts	8	110.92	24
colts	9	86.00	2

Average 2.770 groups

 

For colts the more inbreeding groups (or if you like you can call it linebreeding or duplications) the higher average running rating.  Colts average rating 93.78.

 

type	occ	groups	count
geldings	0	72.89	1052
geldings	1	74.35	7372
geldings	2	74.88	15017
geldings	3	74.59	14778
geldings	4	74.26	8439
geldings	5	73.65	2857
geldings	6	71.91	684
geldings	7	70.45	124
geldings	8	87.75	8
geldings	9	65.00	2
geldings	10	76.50	2

Average 2660 groups

For geldings more inbreeding groups did not equal higher ratings for a reason (reason will be given below).   Geldings average rating 74.45.

 

type	occ	groups	count
fillies	0	70.86	1534
fillies	1	73.00	9867
fillies	2	74.10	20512
fillies	3	74.63	21228
fillies	4	75.42	12490
fillies	5	75.54	4665
fillies	6	77.21	1246
fillies	7	79.07	240
fillies	8	75.91	43
fillies	9	74.80	5

Average 2.748 groups

For fillies more inbreeding groups did equal slightly higher ratings. Fillies average rating 74.43.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................

For duplicated sires I analysed the inbreeding into nine different groups.  Five types of group were positive (one very positive).

Types include:

[0] duplication groups (groups)

[1] son & daughter of a sire (s_mf)

[2] two sons of a sire (s_mm)

[3] two daug of a sire (s_ff)

[4] 3+ sons & daug of a sire (s_mmff)

[5] 3+ sons of a sire (s_mmmm)

[6] 3+ daug (s_ffff)

[7] support horses (s_supp)

[8] full-siblings (s_sibl)

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reasons for differences between the colts and the geldings in MY sample. 

s_mf … 0.816 average for colts; 0.754 for geldings (-7.6%) …. s_mf is a positive inbreeding type, geldings have less
s_mm … 0.738 colts; 0.792 geldings (+7.3%) … s_mm is a negative breeding type, geldings have more
s_ff … 0.415 colts; 0.363 geldings (-12.5%) … s_ff is a positive inbreeding type
s_mmff … geldings -12.7% … s_mmff is a positive inbreeding type
s_mmmm … geldings +12.1%  … s_mmmm is a negative inbreeding type e.g. three or more sons of a duplicated sire.  I have seen 12 sons of Northern Dancer in a 6 gen pedigree.
s_ffff … geldings -29.8% … s_ffff is a positive inbreeding type
s_supp … geldings -8.4% … support horses are positive (a support horse is the sire of a duplicated sire or the dam of a duplicated sire)
s_sibl … geldings -28.7%  (full siblings not half siblings) … this is the most desirable inbreeding type (full siblings).

Inbreeding on one side of a pedigree (s_one) has zero effect as far as I can see.

 

Full sibling inbreeding (colts in my sample)

type	occ	s_sibl	count
colts	0	92.75	24008
colts	1	92.44	4121
colts	2	95.5	4747
colts	3	96.93	2201
colts	4	99.64	1121
colts	5	101.93	532
colts	6	105.67	195
colts	7	106.45	95
colts	8	116.16	19
colts	9	124.55	11
colts	10	112.25	4
colts	11	131.5	2
colts	12	134	1

Here the occ (occurence) is not a count of inbreeding groups but a count of the full sibling individuals.

e.g. Pharos four times and his full sibling brother Fairway twice in a six generation pedigree is an occ of 6.

The count of 1 full sibling is not an error.  The other full sibling is a full sibling sister (the above data only shows duplicated sire inbreeding)

 

[PRea 5]

I just don't get this line breeding theory and here is why. 4 stallions and  maybe 50 ...70 mares close to 300 years ago, and bang, the book was slammed shut . So every thoroughbred has 999.999% identical genes without question.. 9 out of 10 foals are quite hopeless , 9 out of 10 well bred million dollar babies are quite hopeless too. It is a game of chance. I acknowledge the potency of proven stallions to change the odds a little (but they are getting winning mares to act upon) but there will still be a truck load of useless Frankel's at 220 live foals a year (anyone  figures out there?)

[diomed 26]

One reason foals are hopeless is the champion mare is sent to the champion stallion.  The aim is to get the sale topping price, not to breed a good horse.

My estimate from matching (on paper/computer program) broodmares in IRE, GB, FR with stallions in IRE, GB, FR is between 87% and 90% of mares could not produce a good horse with any of the stallions.  Of the mares that could produce a good horse with the 500+ stallions the mare might match well with two or three stallions.

If you want to do a bit of work you could take all the offspring of a sire, get the rating of each of his runners, get the rating of each mare that produced the runner, subtract the runner rating and mare rating to find out which runners were the biggest gainers over their dam, and which runners were the biggest losers compared to their dam rating.

I was asked to comment on a sire.  I did the above for that sire.  His two biggest gainers (runner rating minus dam rating) had the same pedigree inbreeding feature, and none of the others had it.

A comment that 9 out of 10 million dollar babies are hopeless is a comment on the pedigree analysis abilities of the buyers of those lots.  Agents and trainers who get commission will not be looking for low priced horses.  People buy on appearance, on catalogue page, on fashion.

An example of the problems of black type in catalogues is a horse by the 4th dam that has black type.  How much in common has that horse with black type got with the sale lot?  The sale lot has 30 ancestors in 4 generations (2+4+8+16=30).  The horse with black type by the 4th dam has 1 horse in 30 (3.3%) (the 4th dam) in common with the sales lot (he she could more in common).

I analysed all 462 yearlings at a sale in Europe about ten years ago.  I looked up websites and learned the names they yearlings were later given.  Then I looked up the race records, listed their wins and earnings.  130 yearlings "disappeared",  probably never raced (bought by experts?).  About 10 of the 462 lots made enough to cover training.  The other 452 were lossmakers, big lossmakers if training costs of 30k or 40k were added to the loss (auction price minus race earnings).

One buyer bought five lots, three of those lots did alright, and two of the lots were the two most profitable at the sale (earnings minus auction price).   One was a classic winner bought cheaply.  That buyer has a record of past success with reasonably priced purchases.

 

[Abernant 37]

Shocking looks a very good match in fact G1 20/20 match and they going very well at moment 

 

[Abernant 37]

Looking e Nick's. Circus Maximus triple A+++

Based on 

 

[diomed 26]

Why did Urban Sea produce a top runner and sire, Galileo, with Sadler's Wells?

Galileo's pedigree is unusual, and you will only see the difference when you compare his inbreeding to other horses, champions and moderate animals.

 

These are the 58 inbreeding groups in the 10 generation pedigree of Galileo (1998)

dupl	duplication name	sex	offspring
01dup	NATIVE DANCER1950	m	f.m
02dup	NASRULLAH1940	m	m.mf
03dup	HYPERION1930	m	mf.ff
04dup	BLENHEIM1927	m	mf.m
05dup	BLUE LARKSPUR1926	m	mf.ff
06dup	LA TROIENNE1926	f	m.f
07dup	PHAROS1920	m	mmmf.m
08dup	ASTERUS1923	m	f.m
09dup	ROSE RED1924	f	f.f
10dup	PAPYRUS1920	m	f.f
11dup	BULL DOG1927	m	mff.mfff
12dup	BLANDFORD1919	m	f.mmf
13dup	FLAMBETTE1918	f	f.f
14dup	ABBOT'S TRACE1917	m	f.m
15dup	MAN O' WAR1917	m	ff.mm
16dup	STEFAN THE GREAT1916	m	f.f
17dup	GAY CRUSADER1914	m	f.ff
18dup	LADY COMFEY1913	f	f.m
19dup	PHALARIS1913	m	m.mf
20dup	TEDDY1913	m	ff.mmf
21dup	THE TETRARCH1911	m	ff.m
22dup	BRULEUR1910	m	m.f
23dup	SUNSTAR1908	m	mf.ff
24dup	SAINT JUST1907	m	f.f
25dup	HARRY OF HEREFORD1910	m	mf.f
26dup	BRIDGE OF EARN1906	m	f.f
27dup	ULTIMUS1906	m	mm.mf
28dup	DARK RONALD1905	m	mm.mmmmmmm
29dup	FAIR PLAY1905	m	m.ff
30dup	FRIZETTE1905	f	ff.f
31dup	PETER PAN1904	m	mf.m
32dup	SPEARMINT1903	m	mfff.mff
33dup	ADAM1902	m	ff.f
34dup	BROOMSTICK1901	m	f.mmf
35dup	PRETTY POLLY1901	f	f.ff
36dup	CHAUCER1900	m	f.f
37dup	RABELAIS1900	m	mmmmf.f
38dup	ROCK SAND1900	m	f.f
39dup	SUNDRIDGE1898	m	ffff.mm
40dup	WILLIAM THE THIRD1898	m	f.mffff
41dup	CONCERTINA1896	f	f.ff
42dup	DESMOND1896	m	f.f
43dup	GADFLY1896	f	f.m
44dup	CONCLUSION1894	f	m.f
45dup	CYLLENE1895	m	f.mmm
46dup	BEN BRUSH1893	m	f.m
47dup	FLORIZEL1891	m	m.mmfff
48dup	ST FRUSQUIN1893	m	f.fffff
49dup	ISINGLASS1890	m	ff.mff
50dup	MEDDLER1890	m	ff.f
51dup	DONOVAN1886	m	f.f
52dup	AYRSHIRE1885	m	f.fff
53dup	KENDAL1883	m	ff.m
54dup	MELTON1882	m	f.f
55dup	ST SIMON1881	m	mff.mm
56dup	TRENTON1881	m	f.f
57dup	BEND OR1877	m	m.mm
58dup	GALOPIN1872	m	ff.f

 

 

What is important is not the duplicated sire (or dam) e.g. Native Dancer,

but the sex of the offspring of the duplicated horse.

There is female offspring in every duplicated sire group in the first 27 duplication groups of Galileo. In contrast, the majority of modern horses have a duplicated sire group producing sons only close up, often the 1st duplication group, and modern runners often have a number of sire duplication groups producing all sons. Galileo was not bred by Coolmore, and his favourable inbreeding groups are probably good fortune.

[Abernant 37]

Diomed you seem to be very knowledgeable in this subject indeed. When breeding we all have to make a choice in the end, there seems lots of ideas how to do it. I have the utmost respect for breeding buffs and of course a lot charge for that knowledge and advice. But I think Louie Cullen in this case is looking for suggestions and ideas of a stallion for his mare. I dont have any shares or associations with any studs. We could go round and around with merits of breeding  etc but if I'm not wrong he's looking for a sire and name he can look into and make a decision. You look like you have a vast knowledge in this,  is Circus Maximus a good choice or not,even I'm intrested in this and what sire or sires would you recommend.

[SavetheShire 61]

2009	30/09/09	br	filly	Unnamed	Handsome Ransom (AUS)	G G James & T E Jamison
2010	17/10/10	br	filly	Unnamed	Handsome Ransom (AUS)	D J Phillips
2011	28/10/11	br	filly	Cilla Cross	Colombia	"
2012	-	-	-	(not served)	-
2013	22/11/13	br	colt	Unnamed	Bachelor Duke (USA)	J A Mabbett
2014	-	-	-	(not served)	-
2015	13/10/15	br	colt	Red Mitzy	Redwood (GB)	R J Burt
2016	-	-	-		El Roca (AUS)	"
No further returns received.   Unfortunately the answer to that Abernant, would only be hypothetical.

[Abernant 37]

Not true because the breeding buffs have generations of info at there disposal. That's why they do it, we can all say after the facts yes savabeel a good sire etc. That's why his stud fee is $100 k. Yes I agree it is hypothetical but does the pedigrees stack up to all the Nick's and inbreeding outcross etc that the breeding buffs spend all the time on.

[Abernant 37]

SavetheShire I have no idea what you are showing this is some breeding chart of a mare. Not the sire born 2016 in Ireland 

Circus Maximus (IRE) 2016 sire

[Abernant 37]

I see now  SavetheShire what you are saying the broodmare Moldovian  she only 18 ?

[diomed 26]

9 hours ago, Abernant said:

Diomed you seem to be very knowledgeable in this subject indeed. When breeding we all have to make a choice in the end, there seems lots of ideas how to do it. I have the utmost respect for breeding buffs and of course a lot charge for that knowledge and advice. But I think Louie Cullen in this case is looking for suggestions and ideas of a stallion for his mare. I dont have any shares or associations with any studs. We could go round and around with merits of breeding  etc but if I'm not wrong he's looking for a sire and name he can look into and make a decision. You look like you have a vast knowledge in this,  is Circus Maximus a good choice or not,even I'm intrested in this and what sire or sires would you recommend.

I live in Co Tipperary, Ireland.  I was contacted by an Australian about a year back asking about stallions for mares.  I did some work picking stallions, and discussing back and forth the pros and cons.  It was often necessary to suggest stallions with a few pedigree negatives.  But I first prepared a file of all Australian and New Zealand stallions, and used it for the test-matings.  My preference is to ignore suggested stallions (Question: Is stallion Xxxxxx a good match?) and analyse the mare with all stallions, and give the results.

The problem with the post by Louie Cullen is the name of the mare is not given.   From the opening post you could guess at the pedigree but why guess.  "Cape Cross mare out of Last Tycoon mare shes a half sis to Mako and out the family of MAHOGANY".  Who is a half sister to Mako?  Is it the Cape Cross mare or the Last Tycoon mare?

QUESTION: Is Circus maximus a good match for this mare (pedigree uncertain to me)?  I don't have enough info about the mare.  But why make a yes/no decision based on one stallion? 

My method before buying was to make up test-matings of all the broodmares on offer at the breeding stock sales (IRE; GB; FR ) with all the stallions (IRE; GB; FR) and pick the best combination, then buy the mare and send her to the stallion of choice.

You might be successful at the sales with a yearling by Circus Maximus.  I ignore sales median and averages, ratios of sale averages to stallion fees (profitability), recent Group winners by the sire, stallion book size (throw enough darts and you will hit the bullseye once).  My only concern is does the test-mating foal have the ingredients that in the past have produced good runners.  Of course there is variability in breeding.  You can have good ingredients and a bad result.

 

A few weeks ago I went on to the Coolmore website and using their nicking option tried my two mares (and one 2yo filly) against all their stallions.  I still have the A4 page before me where I wrote down all the nick ratings for each mare.

They had 22 stallions listed.  One of my mares got A+++ with six of the stallions.  I would not mate her with any of the six.  Why?  I already test-mated her with them and about 500 other European stallions and the six were not mapped.  I noticed the six stallions were either established expensive or were new expensive stallions (Gustav Klimt the exception);  Australia; Churchill; Circus Maximus; Gleneagles; Gustav Klimt; Highland Reel.  I find it strange that 6 stallions from 22 stallions are a perfect match for my inexpensive mare (cost under 10k).   Is the A+++ a real result of nicking analysis or is it a marketing result to promote that stallion?

Another problem I have with nicking (I have paid for reports) is it is mostly a nick between the stallion on offer and the broodmare sire (the sire of my mare).  They might have the full mare pedigree but they concentrate on the sire of the mare.  That ignores 50% of the pedigree of my mare.  Why would you breed a foal using 50% of the available information?  One feature I like with my mare is the stallions of the daughters on her dam line (3rd; 4th; 5th dams); Northern Dancer; Rainbow Quest; Sir Ivor.  Nicking software afaik would ignore these daughters of sires.  With all the sons of Northern Dancer in stallions at stud I have the ingredient on the dam line of my mare for balanced inbreeding to him, his daughter.

 

[Abernant 37]

Well diomed you have got me. I would like to know how to use your expertise?  and won the inaugural running of the Derby in 1780. 

My only problem is the comment (test-mating foal have the ingredients that in the past have produced good runners. Of course there is variability in breeding.  You can have good ingredients and a bad result.)  The best commercial stallions get the best race performed horses does this not bias the results ? 

[diomed 26]

2 hours ago, Abernant said:

Well diomed you have got me. I would like to know how to use your expertise?  and won the inaugural running of the Derby in 1780. 

My only problem is the comment (test-mating foal have the ingredients that in the past have produced good runners. Of course there is variability in breeding.  You can have good ingredients and a bad result.)  The best commercial stallions get the best race performed horses does this not bias the results ? 

There are many accepted ideas about producing top horses. 

I prepared a database of all Group winners for IRE, GB, FR, GER, ITY, USA (Grade 1 only) from 1900 to 2015 and did not think there was enough link between group winning dams and group winning runners (about 7 out of 8 Group winners were out of dams who did not win a group race).  The sales companies also give black type to Listed winners (a number almost equal to all group winners) and black type to placed horses.

Another analysis was to compare ratings of runners to their dams.  Was there a connection?  Yes, a strong connection.  I banded the dams in 10 point bands e.g. 0-9; 10-19; ..... 50-59; 60-69; 70-79 ...... 120-129 and so on.  For every rise in dam band rating there was an increase in runner average rating.  But there is great variability in runner ratings withing each band.

You read ideas about birth rank affecting success, but that analysis ignores factors such as the quality of stallions used throughout a mare's breeding career.  My guess is more expensive stallions are used earlier.  Many ideas reach conclusions using a data sample of hundreds.

I examined Dosage.  The classification of chef-de-race sires is a bit of a mystery, especially split category sires (disagreement between two people).  When I looked at the average winning distance of Group winners (see above) by chef-de-race sires I though many sires were incorrectly classified.

The work of Joe Estes also confused.  His little book (put together after his death from notes and lecture notes) was short on detail.

You also get comments about stallions upgrading their mares.  If stallion A is bred to mare Z, and stallion B is bred to mare Z then if the A+Z mating gives a runner rated 95 and B+Z gives a runner rated 80 then stallion A is superior to B.  I tried this and the difference between stallions was marginal.  A much better way to produce a good horse is to use a mare with a high rating.  The problem here is a Group 3 winning mare costs 6 figures and a Group 1 winning mare cost 7 figures (a few Gr 2 winners sold for 2 to 3 million recently).

I have a Racing Post Weekender article from about 20 years ago that ranked 14 times champion sire Sadler's Wells in 15th place on this type of analysis (how he did perform with mares vs how other stallions did with mares he covered?).   Coolmore keep a band of very high class broodmares for their top stallions.

 

Abernant's comment

The best commercial stallions get the best race performed horses does this not bias the results ? 

Yes.  If you have a stallion rated 130 and a mare rated 110 you will probably get an above average horse (average is about 68 in UK).  There will be regression to the mean of 68.

I am not saying that I can take a mare rated 70 and breed her to a stallion rated 115 and breed a superstar.  My aim is to breed a horse better than its dam by matching the stallion and mare pedigrees through correct inbreeding, and do it on a small budget.

The best commercial stallions and mares- why are they the best?  Often there is a inbreeding feature in their pedigrees.  The problem is the significant feature may be hard to spot.

Examples are Dark Angel (2005) whose fee went from a low of 7,000 went up to 80,000 (now 60,000).  His running rating was 114.  What is important in my opinion is he has the sire Khan Bahadur (m) on his dam line as sire of his 7th dam Bawn (f).  Khan Bahadur is a full sibling brother of English Derby winner Mahmoud (race record time) who was a very successful sire.

French sire Kendargent's stud fee went from 1,000 to 22,000 (now 17,000).  On the Racing Post website he has five horses rated 100+ out of mares by Indian Rocket from 15 mares.  With Galileo mares he has one horse rated 100+ from 12 mares.   Kendargent with Indian Rocket mares is the only NICK I know of in recent years, and it is explained by inbreeding if you look.

With both these stallions it is the dam lines in the pedigree, and the dams that are important.  Often it is full sibling sisters that are important, or one on the dam line whose brother was a sire.

If money is not a problem buy a mare for five million and breed her to a stallion at a cover cost of half a million.   This approach produce a good number of duds.  If you want an example of a good racemare producing duds look at champion sprinter Habibti (1980) rated 132.  She produced horses rated 67; 82; NR; 45; 33; 79; 25; 68; 73 to top stallions Green Desert (x3); Hector Protector (x2); Sadler's Wells (x2); Dayjur (x1); Woodman (x1).

What I am trying to do is find out the ingredients that produced good horses, and the ingredients that produced bad horses, and breed a runner with the good ingredients and without the bad ingredients.  In my many projects the only useful factor I found producing good horses is inbreeding.  It helps if you can afford good breeding material.

To return to the question by Abernant at the top of this section .......... I counted all the horses with a characteristic (e.g. two duplicated sires in 6 generation each producing a son and daughter) and calculated the average rating for all those horses. I did the same for the next (e.g. three duplicated sires in 6 generation each producing a son and daughter), and did the same for four, five, six until there were no horses with say, seven duplication sire groups producing a son & daug.   When you see rising average ratings with rising count of the feature you know that is a desirable feature.  When you see falling ratings with increase in a feature you know that is one to avoid.  What I found was a few inbreeding types are favourable in a runner, a few are a negative in a runner.

I should point out that I do not record/note the stallion who produced the runner, nor do I record the duplicated stallion that e.g. produced a son & daughter in the 6 generation pedigree of the runner.  Unsuccessful stallions tend not to be duplicated in pedigrees.  The market filters them out by not sending mares to them

My aim was to breed a runner with the favourable inbreeding and without the negative inbreeding.  I took all the broodmares on offer at the 2018 breeding stock sales (3,000+), compared them with 550+ stallions (3000 x 550 = 1,650,000 test-mating "foals").  I also analysed the foals the mares were carrying in utero (about 2,000) and the foals those in utero foals could produce in the future (assuming all in utero foals were born female).  The analysis was of 2,346,120 "foals".  I bought the mare that provided a good match with five stallions.  You do not want to buy a mare who matches well with only one stallion.

A final few lines might point to the source of my belief in inbreeding.  In March 1998 I bought The Thoroughbred Breeders' Handbook from Jack Glengarry (New Zealand).  I flew from Dublin to the UK to attend the English Oaks and English Derby.  Before I flew out I analysed the pedigrees of the two fields.  I backed Shahtoush in the Oaks at 20/1 and 25/1 (8 runners).  She won.  I backed City Honours in the Derby at 11/1.  He was 2nd beaten a head.  A few weeks later I spent Saturday analysing the pedigrees of 90+ runners at the local races on Sunday.  I backed consecutive 16/1 winners (Group races).

[Breeder 609]

Fascinating reading diomed. You have clearly put a huge amount of work into your research and equally you obviously have great computer/database skills.

I also have Clive Harper's Thoroughbred Breeders' Handbook and I go back and read parts of it quite often. My ideas about breeding have changed over the years and I have looked at other people's theories but I have come to realise they all have the same basic idea when you boil them all down --they just express them in different ways. Those basics are what Clive Harper and co. wrote about all those years ago.

Do you mind if I ask what was the name of the mare you bought?

[diomed 26]

10 hours ago, Breeder said:

Do you mind if I ask what was the name of the mare you bought?

Beatisa (2014) (f) by Intikhab out of Bea Menace, 6,000 guineas at Tattersalls breeding stock sale, Newmarket.  She was rated RPR 73 (Racing Post Rating) and OR 67 (official rating), one win and 3 places from 10 races in the lowest company.  A bad race record equals a cheap price.

Beatisa has a 2yo filly by Scissor Kick in training (not run yet, offset cannon bones, going into faster work), and a filly foal by Camacho at foot.  She is expecting to Cotai Glory for c. April 2023.  The Cotai Glory in utero foal is very interesting to me.  There is a lot going on in the pedigree.  All the sires cost under 10k a cover.  The sires were selected before I bought Beatisa.

[Breeder 609]

Very interesting choices diomed. I will try to follow them as their careers progress.

There was a prominent poster on here some years ago , Don Skelton, who posted under the name "nod'. He has passed away now, I think, but he was quite a successful small time breeder and I remember his advice to new entrants to the breeding game was to always buy a mare to suit the stallion you like, just as you have done. It is so sensible but most do it the other way around.

 I think Don owned a very successful plant breeding business, so he knew a bit about genetics.