TB Gallop Thresholds Adjusted?

[Danny Derby]

Apparate spoke to him for you, told me that Mandalorian told him that Mandalorian was done, wanted to retire young so he could enjoy his family, and that you should just retire him now.

Well if Apparate said it then it must be true!

[Nena Olson]

Apparate spoke to him for you, told me that Mandalorian told him that Mandalorian was done, wanted to retire young so he could enjoy his family, and that you should just retire him now.

Well if Apparate said it then it must be true!

[Gwen Morse]

3 Freaks DS (Escobar), TM (Beau) TR (Moulay El Hassan)

Congrats Dave .

[Anthony Zappulla]

Can I get Obama care instead of whomever we use?

[Anthony Zappulla]

I did however insure 2 horses before the flip, I was 1 for 2 so I still saved 15k. That's how I roll lol

[Laura Smith]

I would love a little clarification on the thresholds for these. For instance, I just went to put an Allowance LB colt on the sales page, and he had the "I would insure this one" comment. is that a comment that has a threshold of an Allowance level gallop? (in which case I'll generally ignore it because I only insure Stakes/Freaks) or is it giving insight into his future value as a stud? Does the "hope to see this horse in the shed" comment on a filly mean she'll ultimately be Formidable or up?

If this change stays permanent and the actual talent level showing goes away next year (as stated, that showing is a mistake) it would be nice to have a better idea of the actual meaning behind each comment.

I'm wondering if "I would insure" might mean they're due for a large jump in ability, possibly first/second start? I *think* I only got those comments for alw+.

Curious to gallop a few again tomorrow and see if they all have the same comments or if they're going to reveal more than one thing about each horse eventually.

OK so they are getting different comments with additional gallops, so that's cool.
"I would insure" seems to correlate with alw+ and "don't bother" with productive and below, so I'm wondering if it's that simple.

[Carole Hanson]

I think you must be right Laura, because on my yearlings, only allowance+ had the insure comment and I had a couple of productives receive the don't bother insuring comment

[Art K Stables]

another thing, mentions of having a "long career if you want" do not correlate with late bloomer. I guess its saying the horse will peak later than sooner, or it will hold its ability longer, who knows.. impressive speed and natural speed don't tell me anything.. As for insure if I insured all the allowance I would have no money left, and between what they cost to breed plus 75K will never come CLOSE to making that back, so I cant listen to that too much.. and not all were late bloomer on allowance side. So that "advice" will only make my barn less tenable.. but maybe thats the point, which then incentives me to just race fewer by some workout metric I have yet to determine, and with workout info being tied to equipment I will just have to err on the conservative side, which means probably otherwise properly eqd horses will run fast enough, but I cant afford to find out so they will remain with a number followed by its mare name until I can get rid of them.

[Kent Saunders]

Even though my existing barn gallops were slaughtered by the new gallop measurements and my yearling crop is the worst one in ages, the horses have the same "Ability" that they always had (I hope so on the yearlings...lol!). The big loser are first crop/early crop studs whose stud book numbers are terrible compared to the veteran studs. I agree with most of Art's views on the new comments. To me there are no game changers. Many I could care less about. One he missed is the "I can't wait to see this one in the breeding shed" I have that on lesser male horses that are already peak and may never even race let alone go the the breeding shed.
My last comment also agrees with Art. Without gallops and just having the new comments I will be breeding less/racing a lower % of what I breed. But also not buying as many GP's and might even go the route of buying any I need off the exchange. I cannot justify "guessing" on equipment for marginal horses. I race alot today, I also race alot of claimers. I genuinely try to get as many to the races as I can. Just trying to explain my thoughts here...

[Anthony Zappulla]

The older studs info will be different in % of freaks and stakes but they will have earnings of those horses which what means more to me anyway. The newer studs are more of a guess until the earnings start to show. Now add in the more accurate workout times and the difference between old and newer studs in pretty much the same

It's been spoken about how workout times without equipment will give u a good idea of what u have, that's week 5. One workout is really what's added to the over all work that has to be done. Rather then the past u see label and make your decision.

[Anthony Zappulla]

Oh and getting your horse into shape for the week 5 workout, is the other part!! Not easy being a horse trainer

[Dave Trainer]

I've said before that workouts can't be used as a guide unless its with the correct equipment and there can't be many players who are going to buy the first piece for every one they breed.

I see these new comments as meaningless and agree with Art and Kent. If they were designed to get us to race all our horses it looks like having the opposite effect for some of us. Without a comment that can at least give us a reasonable idea of who to buy equipment for I don't think this will work.

[Anthony Zappulla]

The owner of game says u can use workout times to get an idea of your horse. Not sure how you can't do that?

The main one so far that I see that has real meaning is the shed comment, if it's paired with a good horse

[Anthony Zappulla]

Workout times without equipment I mean

[Nena Olson]

Oh and getting your horse into shape for the week 5 workout, is the other part!! Not easy being a horse trainer

A bit easier now that there are bunch of different gallop comments to get at each gallop