Recently Retired Mare Chase Ratings

[Cleo Patra]

Steward's clarification, as per front page of Office:

Steward's Notices - SIM Date: Year-50 Week-15 Day-4 01:21
**Steeplechasers: Due to growing concerns and confusion about asking the bloodstock agent about 'chasing broodmares, we have bumped our scale once again to try to get more accurate comments for you as breeders. Your horse's talent has not changed, but where we rank it may have changed. As a result, all "ask the bloodstock agent" about retired broodmares for ANY breed is FREE until Saturday (Week 15, Day 6).

[Rachel Sadler]

Steward's clarification, as per front page of Office:

Steward's Notices - SIM Date: Year-50 Week-15 Day-4 01:21
**Steeplechasers: Due to growing concerns and confusion about asking the bloodstock agent about 'chasing broodmares, we have bumped our scale once again to try to get more accurate comments for you as breeders. Your horse's talent has not changed, but where we rank it may have changed. As a result, all "ask the bloodstock agent" about retired broodmares for ANY breed is FREE until Saturday (Week 15, Day 6).

Sorry, but thats not clarification of anything. Its just saying what the changes are. which are stupid, because now we have, crap mares running around as strong mares, and if you would like to see some ill show you.

2 years ago these thing changed, why the problem now?

[Hamish Mcgonaghal]

If you search for steeplechase stakes winners there are only 3 mares to have produced more than 2 stakes winners(out of 533) in my opinion all steeplechase mares are only "potential" and to now call them strong or brilliant is giving stables a false sense of security with breeding.I think there is more problems with the stallion class than mares because there is no improvement in said mares

[Laura Ferguson]

What I appreciate about the change is that the recently retired mares were all previously either potential or no potential. Now, they come in strong, potential, and no potential (haven't found a brilliant yet). Actually using three classifications instead of two helped me figure out who to pension - the ones that stayed no potential, and several of the mares who were potential. Rachel, you may have known about the full extent of the change, but most of us didn't - I thought the great fix of 48 applied to all mares, not solely to previously retired mares. That's why I started the post in the first place. The fact that the information is better disseminated is a plus.

I'm not opposed to a conversation about changes, but I started this seeking more information, and in that sense, I got what I was looking for.

[Lucas Davenport]

Steward, thank you very much. This gives me differentiation in my retired mares, which is all I was asking for.

[Nick Gilmore]

Sorry, but thats not clarification of anything. Its just saying what the changes are. which are stupid, because now we have, crap mares running around as strong mares, and if you would like to see some ill show you.

I have a few blue hens in the same boat. My point is, if they can’t produce a decent foal, why do they get top billing? To me it confuses the issues.

[Melissa Mae]

Admittedly I am way behind on bloodstock comments but is Brilliant the highest you can get for steeplechasing broodmares? I just checked all of mine out of curiosity and most of them got brilliant with four getting strong. Considering my chasing stable isn't all that brilliant or strong, I'm wondering if the comment is giving me false hope.

Brilliant is the highest comment followed by strong, some potential and no potential, unless there has been a few more comments thrown in today

Thanks. Reading this thread, it seems like it might be a false sense of security to have so many with that comment in my barn.

[Rachel Sadler]

Admittedly I am way behind on bloodstock comments but is Brilliant the highest you can get for steeplechasing broodmares? I just checked all of mine out of curiosity and most of them got brilliant with four getting strong. Considering my chasing stable isn't all that brilliant or strong, I'm wondering if the comment is giving me false hope.

Brilliant is the highest comment followed by strong, some potential and no potential, unless there has been a few more comments thrown in today

Thanks. Reading this thread, it seems like it might be a false sense of security to have so many with that comment in my barn.

You have hit the nail on the head

I spoke to the steward about this 2 years ago and nothing happened, I got used to it and actually liked the changes as I didnt have any high expectations on any foal from a some potential mare. But im only 1 person, and now the masses have bayed at the door, the steward has had to cave and we are now back to 2 years ago(BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED) and instead of your some potential mare throwing a crap foal, you will now get all excited because you now have a Brilliant or a Strong mare and you expect the resulting foal to have a good lot of ability where in actual fact it has a very high chance of being a chase allowance.

Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but ive been breeding and racing steeplechasers for years, breeding upwards of 100 foals a year, and let me tell you, the % of getting a stakes winning horse is low. Instead of appeasing people with comments, the breeding numbers of the mares/stallions and potential of the foals needs to be looked at.

Here is a breakdown I did in Dec 2017 of my steeplechase 3 year olds.

I have 83 3 yr old steeplechasers.
Out of that 83 only 15 of them are stakes horses and capable of winning anything from claimers up to stakes races.
Out of that 15, 2 have the potential to be stakes winners. 1 has won a stakes races. 1 has placed.
68 are allowance/confidence steeplechasers. I don’t generally race these as they cannot even place in a claimer. But, for experimentation I have 3 allowance 3 yr olds racing and out of 6 starts the average earnings is $1246.00. The highest placing is a 3rd with a 78 speed figure

That is a lot of breeding fees down the drain, if you dont own the stallion.
Last year I bred 114 foals 94 of them are chase potential and chase allowance.
15 are chase stakes, 2 have won a stakes race and the majority of the rest are like this horse.
https://www.simhorseracing.com/horse.php?HorseID=905694

If steeplechase owners/breeders want to see real changes to mares/foals and stallions, not just moving comments backward and forwards then they need to have a good look at what there breeding and petition for changes in that area. Not complain because there mare is a some potential.

[Flizan Hambletonian]

I agree with the false security of breeding "brilliant" mares that are not that brilliant. I love the steeplechasers, but I´m still a newbie at this. My first homebreds can jump next season, and I suspect I´m going to be really dissapointed... The comments are important for me (who yet don´t know what to look for in pedigrees and so on). I´ve hypomated a lot, but it is very expensive in SIM money AND gamepoints. Steeplechasing is difficult. To have a chase stakes, is to have a horse that can take it´s maiden, and perhaps something more, but most likely not. Chase allowance are better moneymakers -They also take their maiden, but can run in several maidenraces and earn more money before they finally win. Perhaps have some more grades on the steeplechasers? As in flatracing?
I would like changes in more divisions, not only steeplechasing. For example, I have a 2 y old trotter, freak from Devon Castle. She has the right equipment, running in the right weatherconditions, have ran in maidenraces and out of 3 races she has done... nothing. Earned 0. A freak is not worth anything? And that was just one example.
One last thing. Breeding is very confusing. Now that I have asked the bloodstockagent for all my mares, I decided to get rid of some of the worst mares. I came across this one, https://www.simhorseracing.com/horse.php?HorseID=801852, a paint router, some potential. I looked at her only offspring, a colt. And guess what. He is a stakes. So I guess I´ll keep the mare a little while longer!

[Laura Ferguson]

Here's my thoughts on Rachel's comments.

I think the key here is (i) how many differentiations there are and how (ii) many of those differentiations are actually used. The names of the differentiations sometimes create overly optimistic expectations, such as blue hen, or brilliant, when in fact, the mare's ranking is just one piece of the over recipe. You look at the mare, the stallion, the cross, and toss in a dose of random slide. Having mares in three categories, rather than two, helps a player differentiate the mare they might want to keep, versus one they want to get rid of.

Anyway, when all the mares are the same, it's impossible to tell who is good and who is bad. If you spread the rankings over 3 or 4 categories, instead of one or two, you get a better sense of who you probably want to keep. That said, a mare may have a good enough pedigree/cross/random slide that her foal is good, even though she is a lower ranking, while a brilliant mare may have a bad random slide and a crap foal.

Better horses doesn't necessarily solve the problem, because everybody is improving. So, while you improve, so are many of your fellow trainers. So, relatively speaking you may feel like you are treading water - you're just higher up in the treading, so to speak.

So, on to chasers. I think the gallop comment is suffering from a similar lack of differentiation. You went from everyone being a freak to no one being a freak, and both are bad. What would be more helpful is if the top group of the current stakes chasers got the freak comment - the ones who are more likely to be competitive in stakes races. Then the majority of the current stakes chasers would stay stakes, and typically range from stakes to allowance. The bottom might be chase allowance, and more of the chase allowance, who currently aren't competitive in claiming races, would drop to the next rung.

I have 14 3yo chasers - 5 galloped chaser stakes, the rest chaser allowance. Some of the chaser stakes are having difficulty breaking their maidens, because I fully expect that the entire field is rated chaser stakes. If the differentiation I mentioned was in play, we'd have a better sense of who is a good stakes, and who is a sad stakes. Of course, fitness, equipment, etc., come into play, but right now, I think the chase stakes category is probably broader than it needs to be, and some at each end of the scale probably belongs in another category (freak/allowance). Just my two cents' worth.

[Dave Trainer]

For mares would it be that difficult to add an extra rating to make the differences more noticeable?

I agree with Laura that Chase Stakes seems to encompass a large percentage of chasers now there are no Freaks. Too many are in that bracket.

The labels themselves are supposed to be a guide. When there is such a wide difference in ability within the label it becomes devalued and less use as a guide..

[Randall Allen]

Gotta love the free mare check day. Nothing is better for cleaning up those unknown gallops in my charts!!!

[Hamish Mcgonaghal]

Some of the chaser stakes are having difficulty breaking their maidens, because I fully expect that the entire field is rated chaser stakes. If the differentiation I mentioned was in play, we'd have a better sense of who is a good stakes, and who is a sad stakes.

So we should all scratch from the steward cup derby chase and let the 2 chase freaks, yes thats right CHASE FREAKS, fight it out?

Dumbing down steeplechasing which is basically what is being asked for will just be a backward step, Its up to us breeders and racers to improve the division. I know it will be a lot of time,work, sim money and game points but the reward could be game changing that maybe mixer divisions could follow

[Laura Ferguson]

That wasn't what I was saying at all. These are all artificial labels, anyway. There was already one change that ended up in most/all of the chase freaks now being called chase stakes. Raw ability didn't change, just the label that went on it. If we went back to that original system (not saying that I'm advocating for that), you had a ton of chase "freaks" but it wasn't a super helpful label because there were so many of them.

Just like right now, the term chase "stakes" encompasses such a wide range of ability, it could cover anything from G1 winner to claimer. If you want to leave freak out there as something to aim for, that's fine, but it's all kind of arbitrary anyway - instead maybe the solution is to tweak the lower ranks, or add another ranking between stakes and allowance, so that the labelling is a little more helpful.

[Hamish Mcgonaghal]

With the wide range of stakes gallop comments, more horses are racing as no one knows what level they will be until they race, adding another level will lessen the number of raced horses, as a lower comment than stakes will just make stakes the new freaks. Maybe we only should have 2 comments one saying race, another saying don't bother and us the trainers can decide who, when and how to race them.