Bye Bye Steward Bred's

[The Steward]

Everyone Else: Bickering back and forth about not succeeding without Steward Breds

Me & Danny: THERE IS A SET LIMIT AMOUNT ON HOW MANY NICE HORSES THERE ARE PER GAME CROP/YEAR?! I really just want to know how the game knows which horses to nerf down to allowance or productive or whatever. Like... Is it random? Is there a set formula? Does it reconfigure the random slide on all horses whenever a horse is born?

THIS!! I have been quietly stalking this thread and I am dying to know more about how that works. Like, is leasing nice mares late in the season pointless because they're all going to be nerfed and give you utter junk? Eeek!

I'm pretty sure there's loads of evidence that when you breed doesn't matter, because late season leases/break breedings still turn out plenty of nice horses.

[Mike Springer]

Another thing that I think players haven’t really considered yet in their responses,

is that there are only a certain number of “good“ horses per year on the bell curve of all horses bred per year.

If I breed 90% stakes horses, that number will get spread out amongst all the players instead. So let’s say the system targets 1000 stakes gallops a year, if you take my 300 out then that gets trickled down to everyone else on the “slide” too.

So theoretically, breeding all 30 of my mares in 1 day would be a bad idea, compared to spreading them out over the whole year?

[Mr. Lord Rich]

Just a bunch of thoughts running in my head regarding this new can of worms introduced to us today.

I remember the steward once saying that a horses racing ability and mare rating are generated at birth.

To me this means that if that bell curve freak limit or stake limit gets filled early on, there won’t be any left for the late breeders.

However above she says that there is plenty of evidence that late season breedings still turn out.

So this either means that the early bred horses get pushed down the scale when the new ones come in which means the horses ability might not really be generated at birth.

What about those seasons where the steward bred 90% of her mares the last 2-3 days of the season? All of our potential freaks that we bred earlier in the season were downgraded to make room for the steward freaks?

[Brian Leavitt]

Just a bunch of thoughts running in my head regarding this new can of worms introduced to us today.

I remember the steward once saying that a horses racing ability and mare rating are generated at birth.

To me this means that if that bell curve freak limit or stake limit gets filled early on, there won’t be any left for the late breeders.

However above she says that there is plenty of evidence that late season breedings still turn out.

So this either means that the early bred horses get pushed down the scale when the new ones come in which means the horses ability might not really be generated at birth.

What about those seasons where the steward bred 90% of her mares the last 2-3 days of the season? All of our potential freaks that we bred earlier in the season were downgraded to make room for the steward freaks?

Somehow I feel like things are more complicated than stated and that hyperfixating on this here doesn't actually mean all that much when many of us that are commenting on this thread have nonetheless bred stakes and freaks under a multitude of circumstances, regardless of if we spread out breedings or clump a bunch of them together at certain times.

[Mr. Lord Rich]

Just a bunch of thoughts running in my head regarding this new can of worms introduced to us today.

I remember the steward once saying that a horses racing ability and mare rating are generated at birth.

To me this means that if that bell curve freak limit or stake limit gets filled early on, there won’t be any left for the late breeders.

However above she says that there is plenty of evidence that late season breedings still turn out.

So this either means that the early bred horses get pushed down the scale when the new ones come in which means the horses ability might not really be generated at birth.

What about those seasons where the steward bred 90% of her mares the last 2-3 days of the season? All of our potential freaks that we bred earlier in the season were downgraded to make room for the steward freaks?

Somehow I feel like things are more complicated than stated and that hyperfixating on this here doesn't actually mean all that much when many of us that are commenting on this thread have nonetheless bred stakes and freaks under a multitude of circumstances, regardless of if we spread out breedings or clump a bunch of them together at certain times.

However you breeding a freak takes away the ability for another to breed one

[Ronnie Dee]

Just a bunch of thoughts running in my head regarding this new can of worms introduced to us today.

I remember the steward once saying that a horses racing ability and mare rating are generated at birth.

To me this means that if that bell curve freak limit or stake limit gets filled early on, there won’t be any left for the late breeders.

However above she says that there is plenty of evidence that late season breedings still turn out.

So this either means that the early bred horses get pushed down the scale when the new ones come in which means the horses ability might not really be generated at birth.

What about those seasons where the steward bred 90% of her mares the last 2-3 days of the season? All of our potential freaks that we bred earlier in the season were downgraded to make room for the steward freaks?

Somehow I feel like things are more complicated than stated and that hyperfixating on this here doesn't actually mean all that much when many of us that are commenting on this thread have nonetheless bred stakes and freaks under a multitude of circumstances, regardless of if we spread out breedings or clump a bunch of them together at certain times.

I disagree. Things are much simpler. A horse's ratings are numeric. The gallop comment is just a categorical summary of the set of ratings. It is very easy to simply adjust the gallop category cutoffs. A slightly more complicated way would be to adjust all the numerical ratings when foals become yearlings.

[Shannon Hunt]

I disagree. Things are much simpler. A horse's ratings are numeric. The gallop comment is just a categorical summary of the set of ratings. It is very easy to simply adjust the gallop category cutoffs. A slightly more complicated way would be to adjust all the numerical ratings when foals become yearlings.

When you say this, it's so obvious that I don't understand why it didn't cross my mind earlier. The numbers are what they are, but the gallops are the description of how those numbers stack up against the other horses... a freak's only a freak because it's at the tippy top of the crop. Breed a hundred horses, get a freak. Breed ten thousand, get a few more. Admin can set an estimate for what number makes a freak and also easily change that - as with the gallop adjustments a little while back, suddenly "all" the trotter freaks were gone, but no horse changed numbers, just description of how that number stacks up against the others.

[Dom Behan]

I guess there are sub levels within each classification ? So some 2nd tier horses may well be freaks.

[Laura Smith]

I disagree. Things are much simpler. A horse's ratings are numeric. The gallop comment is just a categorical summary of the set of ratings. It is very easy to simply adjust the gallop category cutoffs. A slightly more complicated way would be to adjust all the numerical ratings when foals become yearlings.

When you say this, it's so obvious that I don't understand why it didn't cross my mind earlier. The numbers are what they are, but the gallops are the description of how those numbers stack up against the other horses... a freak's only a freak because it's at the tippy top of the crop. Breed a hundred horses, get a freak. Breed ten thousand, get a few more. Admin can set an estimate for what number makes a freak and also easily change that - as with the gallop adjustments a little while back, suddenly "all" the trotter freaks were gone, but no horse changed numbers, just description of how that number stacks up against the others.

I was under the impression that the cutoffs for gallop levels are generally static and only adjusted when needed in order to "fix" an imbalance. These adjustments tend to come with announcements and are followed by lots of forum discussion. I'd be really surprised if they were adjusted on the fly every season in order to keep the bell curve in place.

But WAIT. What if my understanding of the mechanic of gallop stats is wrong in the first place? I was always under the impression that it went by the horse's numbers, i.e. anything that's a 16 or higher on the 20 point scale is a freak (just a guess, who knows.)

If it's not like that, but instead a percentage of the crop, i.e. the program starts calculating with the top tier horses. The top 2% or whatever are designated freak. The next 10% are stakes. Whatever. And so on. If that were the case, it would definitely leave more "room" in the top 2% for player-breds if Stew-breds were out of the picture.

Iiiiiiif that is the case, then mass breeders might notice a blip in their results in their foals from years that the Steward leases out her mares instead of breeding them herself. Those leases always produce fewer stakes/freaks than of the same mares had been bred by the Steward. Does anyone who breeds, say, 1000 or more TB foals a year have time to take a look at their gallop % from crops of y51 (the last big lease year that I can remember) as compared to the surrounding years?

It's early and I haven't had coffee yet but I think that sounds reasonable, and if it's true, we can all take a deep breath because no one's A+ homebred by James Dean out of their favourite mare that they bred W16 got "nerfed."

[Laura Smith]

Would also explain why less-developed divisions tend to have fewer stakes/freaks. It's not that less people are breeding TS in the stakes/freak range of numbers- I mean, that's true- but the more developed divisions like DR occupy so much of the top percentages that only the very best horses from less developed divisions sneak into the "freak" category.

[Jon Xett]

Summary: yes there is math involved. Tedious, someone smarter than me did it for fun type of unfathomable math that could change in an instant.
Bright side: sometimes your boring mare produces an amazing horse in a lower level of the equestrian kingdom. Enjoy it and know that the bell curve doesn't care who you are or whence your mare came from.
Caution: if the wizard of sim behind the curtain reveals too much, the movie will be over and the flying monkeys take flight
Sensical: we all know that the thrill is in the random just like real life aspect of SIM because freak plus freak always begetting freak is too easy and dull
Conventional wisdumb (sic): I've done just fine not fretting about all the leaked rule gems that most follow and have played the Sinatra way. My style
Life: too short to worry so speak up, stand up, but don't forget to contribute positively to your work / life / SIM balance. Quietly, jX

[Durzo Blint]

So this could work the other way as well? I'm going to want to breed all my bad mares to cheap sires just to push my other promising foals up the bell curve? So we want as many mass breeders as possible?

Additionally, are the gallop comments then just for that year? For example, if in Y54 the Steward and other top players breed 30% less horses and I end up with a homebred freak because of this phenomenon. But, in Y55, the Steward and top players all breed a lot more horses and now my foal this year gallops a stakes. Is it possible that my Y55 stakes is better than my Y54 freak just because of the bell curve in each given year?

[Dylan Christensen]

I might be missing something but I feel like this whole limit on good horses per year freak out is way unnecessary. The SIM has never really had any just entirely broken mechanics as far as I know and I don’t think something as big as breeding would hold one. I personally feel like it would make since if there’s just a certain percentage of horses that get certain slides(maybe like slide categories?)and at birth that horse is just given one of those categories based on what category statistically needs to be assigned next, when Em breeds hers she could have the system assign more of these good slides to her causing more of those lesser slides to be assigned to player breds. I’m probably totally wrong but like I said, I don’t think anything super broken would ever be in such a big aspect of the game such as when you breed making a difference.

[Glenn Escobar]

Everyone Else: Bickering back and forth about not succeeding without Steward Breds

Me & Danny: THERE IS A SET LIMIT AMOUNT ON HOW MANY NICE HORSES THERE ARE PER GAME CROP/YEAR?! I really just want to know how the game knows which horses to nerf down to allowance or productive or whatever. Like... Is it random? Is there a set formula? Does it reconfigure the random slide on all horses whenever a horse is born?

Rest assured, it was not just "you and Danny" who noticed. Far, far from it.

But you also probably worried too much about how the categorization is done. In that, in might just be "you and Danny", I don't know.

Just think of it this way.............every horse gets a number at birth, and all the horses line up in numerical order. The number scale truly does not matter. But let's just say they get assigned a number from 0-100.

The 100's all get in the front of the line, followed by the 99's and so on. It does not matter when the horse was bred, in terms of sequence relative to other horses. It doesn't matter, honestly, who bred it - so The Steward isn't intrinsically taking up spots, she's just breeding exceptionally great mares.

And then, all the Foals from a given Crop just line up numerically against one another.

Then, the SIM designates the top 1% (or whatever) to be "Freaks". The next 3% are Stakes, IDK it's just numbers, but the point is, the Gallops are just reflections of how they stack up to one another. This is important, because we aren't saying "all the 100s, 99s, and 98s are Freaks", we are just saying that the top percentile are Freaks.........so it's wholly dependent on how many horses are bred, and at what quality. And you know this, from practical experience. Go look at workout times over the years. Tell me what a "fast Allowance" ran 20 or 15 or 10 or 5 SIM Years ago. They've gotten faster, because little bits at a time, the bloodlines push the horses into faster and faster outcomes.

And for crying out loud...........THE GALLOPS CHANGE!!! Remember a few weeks ago when everyone was all excited because the late bloomers had XYZ# of gallop changes? So they're not even set in stone, anyhow. I had Allowances moving up to Stakes as a Gallop readout, and Stakes moving up to Freak. And they are Thoroughbreds, because I know someone will ask that question.

My advice? Play as you've been playing. You're still playing against the same players, using the same system.

[Laura Smith]

I don't really want to resurrect this, but I had a thought this morning.

The Steward tends to breed to a variety of sires, including less-popular sires, much more than the rest of us do. She rarely breeds a mare back to the same sire, and I've never seen her just cycle a mare through the two or three current hottest sires, as many of us tend to do.
Would See You Bye ever have gone to Sepia Tint to produce SYM if Em hadn't done so? I doubt it. I probably wouldn't have. His stats and hypos were average. But thanks to SYM, the Sea the Stars sireline is not only alive and well, but will probably perpetuate itself for many years so come.
Gunmetal Grey, Composer, Gentle Touch, all are by stallions that had little to no commercial appeal before they were bred, but because of them (and pretty much only because of them) their sirelines will persist. They would probably never have existed if we'd been breeding those mares, and those sirelines would have died out.

I can only really speak to turf sprinters because that's obviously what I've been paying attention to for the last however many years, but this is interesting. We as a population are quickly moving (especially since the addition of hypo mates) towards a reality where the best mares are only ever bred to the same few sires. It doesn't take much searching to find player-owned "true blue hens" who have six or seven foals, all by the same two or three sires who result in a flat A hypo, and because the rest of the options are only A-, they'll likely never get a shot. See You Bye has eleven foals by 11 different sires, a huge variety of sirelines, and while not all of those horses were superstars on the track, they are all viable breeding animals and will pass on their outcross sirelines to the next generation, at least to some degree.

So what happens when Em stops breeding? Even looking at the TS foals she's bred this year, more than half are by horses who I would classify as relatively commercially unpopular, i.e. not in the top two "ranks" of hypoers and probably producing less than 4-5% of stakes gallopers. Probably very few or none of us can say that, if we owned those same mares, we'd also send them to $5,000 stallions. Considering that Stew-breds are generally very good, and make up the majority of successful active studs (at least in TS) then, when they aren't around anymore, are we just going to paint ourselves into a genetic corner? Then have to be rescued by introduced outcrosses, like what happened in mixers, which we will then complain about because they're "too good"?

Should we all be making more of an effort to breed our best mares to a larger variety of sires? Probably, but who would do that? If Horse A strikes at 15% stakes and Horse B at 3%, and you only maybe get eight chances from one amazing mare, statistically you'll come out ahead by breeding to Horse A eight times. But at what cost to the gene pool?

Food for thought.