eqitec
04-29-2014, 09:25 PM
I see conditions on the 1st Belmont card Thursday which are unlike any I've seen from a NYRA track. But, they are very much like conditions I've seen often from tracks in CA, and found to be very confusing.
The conditions for Thursday's 3rd are shown below. In the past, at NYRA these would have been for n2x, n3l, or clm$$; difficult enough to figure out where a horse fits class-wise into the race.
Can someone explain these conditions? Is the $10,000 twice other than supposed to be the winner's share of a purse in two races? Wouldn't those have to be from two low class races?
ALLOWANCE OPTIONAL CLAIMING. Purse $80;000 (UP TO $14;400 NYSBFOA) FOR FILLIES AND MARES THREE YEARS OLD AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON $10;000 TWICE OTHER THAN MAIDEN; CLAIMING; STARTER; OR STATE BRED OR WHICH HAVE NEVER WON THREE RACES OR OPTIONAL CLAIMING $62,500.
What's the point? If you look at the PPs for this race and find a horse which won 2 races, how are you supposed to figure out whether it qualifies under the NEVER WON $10,000 TWICE vs N3L?
It seems to me at first glance that this has made class evaluation even more complicated than it was before. If this is something the BFH GM brought from CA to NYRA in his new position of Director of Racing, it's not a good sign.
If someone can help me understand the rationale behind these conditions, perhaps I can get used to them. In the past, among other reasons, I've avoided playing tracks in CA because of conditions like these.
The conditions for Thursday's 3rd are shown below. In the past, at NYRA these would have been for n2x, n3l, or clm$$; difficult enough to figure out where a horse fits class-wise into the race.
Can someone explain these conditions? Is the $10,000 twice other than supposed to be the winner's share of a purse in two races? Wouldn't those have to be from two low class races?
ALLOWANCE OPTIONAL CLAIMING. Purse $80;000 (UP TO $14;400 NYSBFOA) FOR FILLIES AND MARES THREE YEARS OLD AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON $10;000 TWICE OTHER THAN MAIDEN; CLAIMING; STARTER; OR STATE BRED OR WHICH HAVE NEVER WON THREE RACES OR OPTIONAL CLAIMING $62,500.
What's the point? If you look at the PPs for this race and find a horse which won 2 races, how are you supposed to figure out whether it qualifies under the NEVER WON $10,000 TWICE vs N3L?
It seems to me at first glance that this has made class evaluation even more complicated than it was before. If this is something the BFH GM brought from CA to NYRA in his new position of Director of Racing, it's not a good sign.
If someone can help me understand the rationale behind these conditions, perhaps I can get used to them. In the past, among other reasons, I've avoided playing tracks in CA because of conditions like these.