What do you think of the Comments Insure and Longer Career together

[Shannon Hunt]

Every new comment we got was reflecting a point on the spectrum of the same variable. The same way all the other comments on this game work (BSA comment is a no potential - blue hen spectrum, hypos are a C- to A+ spectrum, weather is a loves mud - loves dry spectrum).

Brave/interested/timid - all reflect a heart value.
Insure/don't insure - are supposed to factor in multiple variables, but everything I've seen suggests that right now it's working as "allowance or up vs productive or below".
Natural speed/tractable/come from the clouds - all reflect a running style.
Tough as nails/normal schedule/thrives on rest - all reflect general soundness and recovery rate.

And then we have the final new category, breeding shed/longer career. A horse gets either comment, never both. So why on earth would that one category suddenly reflect two completely independent variables? "We'll tell you if a horse has higher breeding numbers than racing numbers, or we'll tell you if it will take a long time to downgrade on the track, but you only get to find out one of those". Doesn't at all make sense to me. What does make sense to me is that these two comments (like all the other comments we get in this game) refer to the same thing, defined as "does a horse have better racing numbers or better breeding numbers". Higher breeding numbers than racing means the trainer is excited to see it retire and do a better job in the shed than on the track. Lower breeding numbers than racing = no rush to retire, plan for a longer career if you want. Cleo's post with her retired fillies would appear to support that theory, and my own experience so far is that the breeding sheds I've retired have been decent BSA compared to their gallop comment, the longer careers have been lesser BSA.

My initial thought when the new comments came out was that longer career = actual longevity. But the way the sim itself is structured, and the results I've seen so far, don't support that. Now, assuming the racing ability vs breeding ability theory holds true, it's entirely relative, since it's just a flat over-under. A longer career freak could still retire hen, just be a smidge less talented in breeding numbers than racing numbers, but still drastically higher breeding numbers than average mares. E.g. Fiery Eyes, who retired too early for us to know whether she is breeding shed or longer career, but was a super freak of a mare who retired star and still has two G1 winners out of three to race so far.

Edit - apologies if someone has already written out this exact same reasoning before and I'm just parroting, it's been a long day and I just skimmed recent posts.

[Gavin Guile]

Well stated Shannon, and I agree

[Autumn Blackmill]

Every new comment we got was reflecting a point on the spectrum of the same variable. The same way all the other comments on this game work (BSA comment is a no potential - blue hen spectrum, hypos are a C- to A+ spectrum, weather is a loves mud - loves dry spectrum).

Brave/interested/timid - all reflect a heart value.
Insure/don't insure - are supposed to factor in multiple variables, but everything I've seen suggests that right now it's working as "allowance or up vs productive or below".
Natural speed/tractable/come from the clouds - all reflect a running style.
Tough as nails/normal schedule/thrives on rest - all reflect general soundness and recovery rate.

And then we have the final new category, breeding shed/longer career. A horse gets either comment, never both. So why on earth would that one category suddenly reflect two completely independent variables? "We'll tell you if a horse has higher breeding numbers than racing numbers, or we'll tell you if it will take a long time to downgrade on the track, but you only get to find out one of those". Doesn't at all make sense to me. What does make sense to me is that these two comments (like all the other comments we get in this game) refer to the same thing, defined as "does a horse have better racing numbers or better breeding numbers". Higher breeding numbers than racing means the trainer is excited to see it retire and do a better job in the shed than on the track. Lower breeding numbers than racing = no rush to retire, plan for a longer career if you want. Cleo's post with her retired fillies would appear to support that theory, and my own experience so far is that the breeding sheds I've retired have been decent BSA compared to their gallop comment, the longer careers have been lesser BSA.

My initial thought when the new comments came out was that longer career = actual longevity. But the way the sim itself is structured, and the results I've seen so far, don't support that. Now, assuming the racing ability vs breeding ability theory holds true, it's entirely relative, since it's just a flat over-under. A longer career freak could still retire hen, just be a smidge less talented in breeding numbers than racing numbers, but still drastically higher breeding numbers than average mares. E.g. Fiery Eyes, who retired too early for us to know whether she is breeding shed or longer career, but was a super freak of a mare who retired star and still has two G1 winners out of three to race so far.

Edit - apologies if someone has already written out this exact same reasoning before and I'm just parroting, it's been a long day and I just skimmed recent posts.

This is my feeling as well, just put more elegantly that I could do it! I agree, it doesn't make sense to separate Longer Career and Breeding Shed, when everything else was reflecting points on a spectrum. Especially since horses cannot be both longer career and breeding shed, which has always indicated to me that they were related.

[Nicole Marie]

Very well put, Shannon.

[Andrew James]

Every new comment we got was reflecting a point on the spectrum of the same variable. The same way all the other comments on this game work (BSA comment is a no potential - blue hen spectrum, hypos are a C- to A+ spectrum, weather is a loves mud - loves dry spectrum).

Brave/interested/timid - all reflect a heart value.
Insure/don't insure - are supposed to factor in multiple variables, but everything I've seen suggests that right now it's working as "allowance or up vs productive or below".
Natural speed/tractable/come from the clouds - all reflect a running style.
Tough as nails/normal schedule/thrives on rest - all reflect general soundness and recovery rate.

And then we have the final new category, breeding shed/longer career. A horse gets either comment, never both. So why on earth would that one category suddenly reflect two completely independent variables? "We'll tell you if a horse has higher breeding numbers than racing numbers, or we'll tell you if it will take a long time to downgrade on the track, but you only get to find out one of those". Doesn't at all make sense to me. What does make sense to me is that these two comments (like all the other comments we get in this game) refer to the same thing, defined as "does a horse have better racing numbers or better breeding numbers". Higher breeding numbers than racing means the trainer is excited to see it retire and do a better job in the shed than on the track. Lower breeding numbers than racing = no rush to retire, plan for a longer career if you want. Cleo's post with her retired fillies would appear to support that theory, and my own experience so far is that the breeding sheds I've retired have been decent BSA compared to their gallop comment, the longer careers have been lesser BSA.

My initial thought when the new comments came out was that longer career = actual longevity. But the way the sim itself is structured, and the results I've seen so far, don't support that. Now, assuming the racing ability vs breeding ability theory holds true, it's entirely relative, since it's just a flat over-under. A longer career freak could still retire hen, just be a smidge less talented in breeding numbers than racing numbers, but still drastically higher breeding numbers than average mares. E.g. Fiery Eyes, who retired too early for us to know whether she is breeding shed or longer career, but was a super freak of a mare who retired star and still has two G1 winners out of three to race so far.

Edit - apologies if someone has already written out this exact same reasoning before and I'm just parroting, it's been a long day and I just skimmed recent posts.

Exactly how I am viewing it as well.

[Sara Julin]

Well, Attaboy https://www.simhorseracing.com/horse.ph ... ID=1442957 just got retired. He has the breeding comment and I figured since he doesn't seem to want to run anymore might as well retire him and put him to stud. He has earned over 600k, so no worries for the penalty for standing a stallion who has not reached the benchmark.
I retire with a Breeding comment and are super hyped for what the hypos might show. He hypos B to B+ to Blue Hens?! How is that even possible?! To hens who hypos A to A- straight through 0o'
First I though it was a mistake, that I accidentally hypoed him to the wrong division, but no. Dirt Sprinters.

I should have kept him on the track running low allowance races... >_<'

[Autumn Blackmill]

Hmm that's interesting Sara. The only thing I can think of is that his dam-line might be causing the lower hypos. I've noticed that some of my older-lined mares also got lower hypos than I expected given their higher bloodstock comment (B+ instead of A- or A). So I think the stallions on that side of the pedigree might be bringing his hypo down. I guess you'll see when those first foals start galloping!

[John Smith]

Well, Attaboy https://www.simhorseracing.com/horse.ph ... ID=1442957 just got retired. He has the breeding comment and I figured since he doesn't seem to want to run anymore might as well retire him and put him to stud. He has earned over 600k, so no worries for the penalty for standing a stallion who has not reached the benchmark.
I retire with a Breeding comment and are super hyped for what the hypos might show. He hypos B to B+ to Blue Hens?! How is that even possible?! To hens who hypos A to A- straight through 0o'
First I though it was a mistake, that I accidentally hypoed him to the wrong division, but no. Dirt Sprinters.

I should have kept him on the track running low allowance races... >_<'

Thanks for sharing - he had a great young career. I wonder if it is just because it was known or coded that he wouldn't have a "long career" at least for getting the breeding shed comment. As for the hypos...?

Congrats on the good racing career -nothing to be ashamed of there.

[Nena Olson]

Well, Attaboy https://www.simhorseracing.com/horse.ph ... ID=1442957 just got retired. He has the breeding comment and I figured since he doesn't seem to want to run anymore might as well retire him and put him to stud. He has earned over 600k, so no worries for the penalty for standing a stallion who has not reached the benchmark.
I retire with a Breeding comment and are super hyped for what the hypos might show. He hypos B to B+ to Blue Hens?! How is that even possible?! To hens who hypos A to A- straight through 0o'
First I though it was a mistake, that I accidentally hypoed him to the wrong division, but no. Dirt Sprinters.

I should have kept him on the track running low allowance races... >_<'

What was his gallop comment? I am curious to know if a horse is a stakes, gets longer career, and you keep him on the track until he drops down to... lets say solid, he would go up to breeding shed (if the breeding shed number is higher than what an equivalent to higher then solid is in breeding)

[Sara Julin]

Well, Attaboy https://www.simhorseracing.com/horse.ph ... ID=1442957 just got retired. He has the breeding comment and I figured since he doesn't seem to want to run anymore might as well retire him and put him to stud. He has earned over 600k, so no worries for the penalty for standing a stallion who has not reached the benchmark.
I retire with a Breeding comment and are super hyped for what the hypos might show. He hypos B to B+ to Blue Hens?! How is that even possible?! To hens who hypos A to A- straight through 0o'
First I though it was a mistake, that I accidentally hypoed him to the wrong division, but no. Dirt Sprinters.

I should have kept him on the track running low allowance races... >_<'

What was his gallop comment? I am curious to know if a horse is a stakes, gets longer career, and you keep him on the track until he drops down to... lets say solid, he would go up to breeding shed (if the breeding shed number is higher than what an equivalent to higher then solid is in breeding)

He was a stakes progressive as a 1-2 yo, and stakes peak throughout 3-4yo.
It really is quite the mystery why his hypo's are not on par (if we're not looking at his pedigree, people seem to think it is because his weak pedigree he got this hypo result).

[Carole Hanson]

He’s just like that filly Snow Kitty, the example that I provided. She was freak peak breeding shed and she retired to be a blue hen comment, but legitimately hypos like an average formidable. And even then I have formidable mares that hypo much better than her.

[John Smith]

IN terms of BRAT; I calculate 34.59 which makes him in the 97th percentile, that could easily explain his racing prowess.

The 34.59, however ranks him low on the stallion list Provided by Wc Lee. The only sire of note I see lower is Zibanejad that hypos pretty good. Maybe this is related?

Attaboy 34.59163

Kissed By Fire (MD), 0:34.59, 90.3, 0:34.58, 0:34.61, N/A
Looking Upon (TX), 0:34.59, 90.3, 0:34.58, 0:34.60, N/A
Decent Shot (LA), 0:34.59, 90.3, 0:34.43, 0:34.87, 0:34.48
Gray Sky Morning (CA), 0:34.60, 90.1, 0:34.58, 0:34.63, N/A
Millions (TX), 0:34.61, 89.9, 0:34.43, 0:34.80, N/A
Eze (TX), 0:34.61, 89.9, 0:34.48, 0:34.75, N/A
With An Answer (CA), 0:34.61, 89.9, 0:34.68, 0:34.56, N/A
Dull Spirit (NY), 0:34.61, 89.9, 0:34.63, 0:34.60, N/A
Gimme a Bud (CA), 0:34.61, 89.9, 0:34.58, 0:34.66, N/A
Standoffish (LA), 0:34.62, 89.7, 0:34.53, 0:34.73, N/A
Gangsta (LA), 0:34.62, 89.7, 0:34.58, 0:34.68, N/A
Flika Mika (MD), 0:34.64, 89.3, 0:34.38, 0:34.90, N/A
Beats Walking (LA), 0:34.65, 89.1, 0:34.48, 0:34.83, N/A
Cardinal Sin (TX), 0:34.65, 89.1, 0:34.53, 0:34.78, N/A
Instant Assassin (OK), 0:34.66, 88.9, 0:34.43, 0:34.90, N/A
World Flashes By (KY), 0:34.67, 88.6, 0:34.53, 0:34.70, 0:34.79
Mika Salo (TX), 0:34.70, 88.0, 0:34.58, 0:34.88, 0:34.63
King Envy (KY), 0:34.71, 87.8, 0:34.38, 0:35.18, 0:34.57
Zibanejad (KY), 0:34.71, 87.8, 0:34.43, 0:34.89, 0:34.80
Triple Silent (CA), 0:34.72, 87.6, 0:34.68, 0:34.78, N/A
Grand Stand (CA), 0:34.73, 87.4, 0:34.73, N/A, N/A
Slammed (CA), 0:34.74, 87.2, 0:34.68, 0:34.80, N/A
Shelby's Pantera (NY), 0:34.77, 86.6, 0:35.02, 0:34.53, N/A
Maggot (IL), 0:34.87, 84.6, 0:34.87, N/A, N/A
Seattle Zone (KY), 0:35.08, 80.3, 0:35.08, N/A, N/A
Tunzamummy (KY), 0:36.19, 57.5, 0:36.19, N/A, N/A