how do you know ig your ball python has the het gene

Originally Posted by hhmoore

With specific reference to the "pied marker", it was my understanding that it wasn't intended to be applied to a random grouping of animals (regardless of how the masses chose to utilize it)...it was said that within a group of possible hets (as in, from a het to het breeding), those with the "marker" supposedly have a greater likelihood of proving out. Trying to look at an available group of subadult, or better yet, CH animals, and looking for pieds in that manner is more or less the same as a Quick Pick lottery ticket...though I am not sure which has the greater chance of paying off

Even with applying the marker theory to a group of possible hets, the idea is still flawed. It's oft repeated, and has become heavily ingrained in the common thinking in regards to this morph, but I have never seen it presented as anything more than conjecture. It has become a habit with people but no actual supporting data has been presented that I have seen.
The problem with it is not all het pieds have those stripes, and many completely normal CH balls do have them. Why then would the gene cause stripes in only some of the offspring, the same stripes occasionally seen in specimens that are known not to have the gene.
Without consistency, it's still just a feel good measure for someone picking from a group of pos hets.

I would need to see some data regarding it before I could put and real faith in it. The biggest question that would need to be answered would be has there been any possible het pieds with the marker that didn't prove out.
If there are, then considering the striping is not something confined to just het pieds and not all of them have it anyway, I'd be inclined to chalk it up more to coincidence than anything to rely on.