Would You Like to See Racing Conditions Revised?

[Nosed]

Seems like most races are set up by age,past races won and weight.
I would like to see more races based on final times,speed rating,total money earned by a horse, distance and maybe class. Tired of so many races where there's a 4/5 favorite and nobody else better then 3/1. Any thoughts?

[onefast99]

Seems like most races are set up by age,past races won and weight.
I would like to see more races based on final times,speed rating,total money earned by a horse, distance and maybe class. Tired of so many races where there's a 4/5 favorite and nobody else better then 3/1. Any thoughts?
Some tracks offer some pretty interesting races from time to time like the Gray Ghost at the Meadowlands which is open to only gray colored horses or writing claiming races where a horse hasn't won in the past year or past 6 months. There is too much inconsistentency when you try to pair horses up based on final times as track variables would prevent that.

[raybo]

Some tracks offer some pretty interesting races from time to time like the Gray Ghost at the Meadowlands which is open to only gray colored horses or writing claiming races where a horse hasn't won in the past year or past 6 months. There is too much inconsistentency when you try to pair horses up based on final times as track variables would prevent that.

What's wrong with NW1L, NW2L, NW3L, etc.? Why do we need to include so many other restrictions? We already have a claiming price, isn't the combination of claiming price and NW1,2,3,4 enough to allow any horse to be competitive, if they can be at all? Same for allowance, isn't NW1,2,3,4 enough? Do we need to be writing conditions based on throwing out a gift for a certain trainer or small group of trainers?

[Stillriledup]

What's wrong with NW1L, NW2L, NW3L, etc.? Why do we need to include so many other restrictions? We already have a claiming price, isn't the combination of claiming price and NW1,2,3,4 enough to allow any horse to be competitive, if they can be at all? Same for allowance, isn't NW1,2,3,4 enough? Do we need to be writing conditions based on throwing out a gift for a certain trainer or small group of trainers?

Horse races in America are written for horsemen. They're not written for bettors. If you tweak it a little bit to get more competitive races, what handicappers and bettors would say "im against it"?

[cj]

Claiming race should be extinct in my opinion, bad for bettors, bad for horses.

[Stillriledup]

Claiming race should be extinct in my opinion, bad for bettors, bad for horses.

Completely agree.

[Some_One]

Some tracks offer some pretty interesting races from time to time like the Gray Ghost at the Meadowlands which is open to only gray colored horses or writing claiming races where a horse hasn't won in the past year or past 6 months. There is too much inconsistentency when you try to pair horses up based on final times as track variables would prevent that.

One off specials like the Grey Ghost are fine, but the type of races that let horses like Peppers Pride and Rapid Redux pick off easy spots around the country is not good for the game.

Ratings used to group horses together in bands, like in the UK and HK, tend to be more class based then final time, and they tend to work damn well (yesterday's average price of winners at Happy Valley was 9-1). Horses that go off form will have a couple of 'bad' races while their rating drops off and improving horses will have a couple of easy wins while they climb. It wouldn't be that hard to say a race was eligible for horses that have not run more then a 80 beyer/timeform/etc in the last x months.

[andtheyreoff]

I had worked out a system a while back that would make conditions similar to those used at the Meadowlands for harness racing: each horse is assigned a rating, which would be moved up or down depending on performance. I think it would make the races a lot more competitive.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112330

[Dark Horse]

Claiming race should be extinct in my opinion, bad for bettors, bad for horses.

That would wipe out what percentage of races? How are tracks going to cover for that loss?


As to abbreviations, I'm curious what this one would look like.

Purse $65,000. (Plus $19,500 – CBOIF - California Bred Owner Fund). For Three Year Olds And Upward Which Have Never Won $10,000 Three Times Other Than Maiden, Claiming, Or Starter Or State Bred Or Which Have Not Won $58,000 In 2014 Or Which Have Never Won Four Races Or Claiming Price $80,000.

I guess I need to improve my understanding of quickly evaluating which horse this race was written for.

[cj]

That would wipe out what percentage of races? How are tracks going to cover for that loss?


As to abbreviations, I'm curious what this one would look like.

Purse $65,000. (Plus $19,500 – CBOIF - California Bred Owner Fund). For Three Year Olds And Upward Which Have Never Won $10,000 Three Times Other Than Maiden, Claiming, Or Starter Or State Bred Or Which Have Not Won $58,000 In 2014 Or Which Have Never Won Four Races Or Claiming Price $80,000.

I guess I need to improve my understanding of quickly evaluating which horse this race was written for.

Who says the horses wouldn't race? They just don't need claiming tags to do it.

[cutchemist42]

Who says the horses wouldn't race? They just don't need claiming tags to do it.

What would accomplish the same goal of horse levels? More purse value differences in allowance conditions to accommodate different horses?

[RXB]

My idea would be to write the distance, the surface, the purse and any age restriction and then let anyone that wants to go for it, go for it. Let the purse determine the quality of the entrants, not some silly conditions or a claiming price.

Right now, if someone's got a useful animal that's run out of allowance conditions but can't win against stakes horses, he's gotta put that horse up for a claiming tag-- and that's not right. There's no reason why a horse should have to run for sale. That should be the owner's prerogative. I'd like every race to have a claiming OPTION with the owner being able to choose exactly the amount that he wants for his horse, should he wish to make it available.

There are just too many cases where merit is overridden by special conditions (notably state-bred slush, though there are other examples) in determining how much money a horse can win.

[cj]

What would accomplish the same goal of horse levels? More purse value differences in allowance conditions to accommodate different horses?

There are lots of ways to do it. Horses are put in classes and moved up by winning, or down by losing. I don't see how shrouding the condition of a horse playing the claiming game is any good for horses. I've mentioned this before, but the ratio of purse to claiming price in most jurisdictions has killed the whole purpose of the claiming race in the first place...fair competition.

[Dark Horse]

Who says the horses wouldn't race? They just don't need claiming tags to do it.

If they're still going to race, what does it matter if they do so in claiming races (from the 'bad for the horse' perspective)?

[Stillriledup]

If they're still going to race, what does it matter if they do so in claiming races (from the 'bad for the horse' perspective)?

The theory is that if there are no claiming races, connections have to manage horses as if they're going to own them for a long time and the only way they can sell is if they sell privately, but that would entail the new prospective owner having their vet look over the horse first.

[cj]

If they're still going to race, what does it matter if they do so in claiming races (from the 'bad for the horse' perspective)?

Well, for one, there would be no incentive to try to dump a horse via the claim box. You either sell the horse privately or fix whatever is wrong.

[Dark Horse]

The theory is that if there are no claiming races, connections have to manage horses as if they're going to own them for a long time and the only way they can sell is if they sell privately, but that would entail the new prospective owner having their vet look over the horse first.

That's a good point.

Still, I would love to have a better understanding of the exact importance of claiming races in the present US racing climate. Is it a cornerstone? An after-thought? I'm looking at Thursday and Friday cards, and about half the races are claiming races. What percentage of horses would not run if those were any other races? And what would that mean for racing overall? Running horses injured is obviously wrong, but how many races would not be run as a result, and what would bettors say about the reduced number of races?

[RXB]

They manage just fine with few claiming races or even none at all, pretty much everywhere outside of North America.

[JohnGalt1]

Seems like most races are set up by age,past races won and weight.
I would like to see more races based on final times,speed rating,total money earned by a horse, distance and maybe class. Tired of so many races where there's a 4/5 favorite and nobody else better then 3/1. Any thoughts?

No, with on exception, the Starter races in Calif and NY now for horses who broke their maidens for a set price, say $40k, and are non winners of two.

I don't have a problem with the race classification itself, but in the pp's it can be confusing to some that it's not a Starter $40k for horses who have started for $40k once in the last year or other cut off time for horses with multiple wins.

I know when I see one of these in the pp's I know what it is equivalent to.

By the way I rate the $40k starter in NY and Calif as two levels above the $40k maiden claiming race and the $40 (or any starter hdcp) as two levels above the same open claiming race.

[Stillriledup]

That's a good point.

Still, I would love to have a better understanding of the exact importance of claiming races in the present US racing climate. Is it a cornerstone? An after-thought? I'm looking at Thursday and Friday cards, and about half the races are claiming races. What percentage of horses would not run if those were any other races? And what would that mean for racing overall?

Thanks

I've railed against claiming races because i feel that besides the idea of owners being able to misclassify horses due to purses being so large, they also get to manage the horse not worrying about their "skin" in the game. If there were no claiming races, an owner would have to either purchase a young horse at a sale and raise that horse from a baby into adulthood OR purchase something privately, and the private purchase takes legwork and extra effort....you're much more likely to treat a yearling purchase or a private purchase with more "respect" than you would if its was a horse you knew you were only going to own for 1 week.

If claiming races disappeared tomorrow, there would be a problem figuring out who would run where, but if you slowly phased out those types of races, you would have less "quick buck artist" owners and more owners who cared about the animal.

Also, here's one last factor, you might not want to sell your horse, if you raise that young baby that you bought at auction, you might want to keep the horse and not expose that horse to the robber barons of the game, and with less (or no) claiming races, there would be many more opportunities for owners to race in races that their horse would be competitive in while not having to risk that horse for a claiming tag. I know some would say that if you don't want to risk the horse, don't run in a claiming race, but that's easier said than done, its important that your horse be in a class where he or she can be competitive and with so many claiming races, there are just not enough races for owners to keep their horses if they want to.

[Dark Horse]

They manage just fine with few claiming races or even none at all, pretty much everywhere outside of North America.

But it's always difficult to shift from one model to another.

I skip most claiming races, because I don't know enough about the way the trainers play that game. Their approaches can be very intriguing, to say the least.

[JohnGalt1]

Claiming race should be extinct in my opinion, bad for bettors, bad for horses.


I humbly disagree.

One third of my handicapping is class, and claiming classifications are more defined than other categories, especially when also factoring in open, state bred, females, NW 1,2,3,etc.

When ever a thread like this appears, I'm glad some changes I would make if I were the racing czar won't happen, because most of the changes others suggest, I also don't want to happen.

[RXB]

But it's always difficult to shift from one model to another.


Agreed, but when the current model is failing you've got to do something. They make it work in other countries.

It's ludicrous that some guy with an older gelding in NY or SoCal that can run 95 Beyers-- i.e., a pretty good runner, can kick the pants off of the vast majority of thoroughbreds-- has to make that horse available to the claiming jackals.

[Nosed]

No, with on exception, the Starter races in Calif and NY now for horses who broke their maidens for a set price, say $40k, and are non winners of two.

I don't have a problem with the race classification itself, but in the pp's it can be confusing to some that it's not a Starter $40k for horses who have started for $40k once in the last year or other cut off time for horses with multiple wins.

I know when I see one of these in the pp's I know what it is equivalent to.

By the way I rate the $40k starter in NY and Calif as two levels above the $40k maiden claiming race and the $40 (or any starter hdcp) as two levels above the same open claiming race.


I can see where this might be nice for the trainer and owner, but why make it more complicated for the gambler? If you just base the horses ability competitively by similar statistics, you're not eliminating the handicapping factor. But the idea is to give the bettor more reason to risk his money.

[Some_One]

The theory is that if there are no claiming races, connections have to manage horses as if they're going to own them for a long time and the only way they can sell is if they sell privately, but that would entail the new prospective owner having their vet look over the horse first.

In the UK they have selling handicaps where the winner is auctioned off after the race.

[Tom]

I've been updating my class pars lately, and that means trying to figure out the allowance races. Clearly, we have too many commas.

The way some allowance races are written, I am quite sure I could be in the gate next to Secretariat in some of them.

We have some really stupid conditions. Purse money is far too high, IMHO, for the quality of horses we have.

[Cratos]

I humbly disagree.

One third of my handicapping is class, and claiming classifications are more defined than other categories, especially when also factoring in open, state bred, females, NW 1,2,3,etc.

When ever a thread like this appears, I'm glad some changes I would make if I were the racing czar won't happen, because most of the changes others suggest, I also don't want to happen.
There is no need for the "claiming race". The same thing could be done with periodic auctions which could be conducted for example at bi- weekly or monthly intervals.

You would now have horsemen vs. horsemen with money at risk based on the potential performance of the auctioned horse.

Bettors would benefit because horsemen would have provided better care to the horse to get through it the auction ring.

Also the scrutiny of potential owners would enhance the care and welfare of "former claimers."

All races, now would be Maiden Special Weight, Allowance, and Stakes.

[Stillriledup]

In the UK they have selling handicaps where the winner is auctioned off after the race.

I thought i read somewhere that in America many years ago they used to have the same thing, where they auction off the winner after the race. Maybe this is what i read and this practice was never used in America, but i'm not 100% sure.

[rastajenk]

Sounds like an invitation for a stiff job.

[Robert Goren]

You need to convince me that something else will work better. Please spare me the harness system. It gets even shorter priced favorites and even more confusing conditions.

The one thing I will say is if the day rates are as high as they say, how can claim a horse for 10k and then run back for 5k expecting to make a quick buck even with todays inflated purses. The math does not add up.

[biggestal99]

Claiming race should be extinct in my opinion, bad for bettors, bad for horses.

Make them handicaps like the uk and hong kong.

Allan

[Show Me the Wire]

No, with on exception, the Starter races in Calif and NY now for horses who broke their maidens for a set price, say $40k, and are non winners of two.

I don't have a problem with the race classification itself, but in the pp's it can be confusing to some that it's not a Starter $40k for horses who have started for $40k once in the last year or other cut off time for horses with multiple wins.

I know when I see one of these in the pp's I know what it is equivalent to.

By the way I rate the $40k starter in NY and Calif as two levels above the $40k maiden claiming race and the $40 (or any starter hdcp) as two levels above the same open claiming race.

Except in Cali it is not, always, only for breaking the maiden for 40k or less. For example today at Del Mar you have 2 40k starter allow races with this condition.

Purse $30,000. (Plus $3,600 – CBOIF - California Bred Owner Fund). For Fillies And Mares Three Years Old And Upward Which Have Started For A Claiming Price Of $40,000 Or Less Or California Bred Or Sired Horses Which Have Started For A Claiming Price Of $50,000 And Which Have Never Won Two Races.

A horse that won a MSW or high MCl can be eligible, due to writing races like race 1 today. This late in the year they are writing claiming races limited to 3 year olds for a decent purse.

Race 1 conditions:

Purse $35,000. For Three Year Olds. Weight, 122 Lbs. Non-winners Of Two Races Since September 20, 2014 Allowed 2 Lbs. A Race Since Then Allowed 4 Lbs. Claiming Price $32,000, if for $28,000, allowed 2 Lbs. (Maiden Races And Claiming Races For $25,000 Or Less Not Considered) (Non-Starters for a claiming price of $20,000 or less in the last 3 starts preferred).


The losers of this race will be eligible to run in the 40k starter condition, regardless if the horse broke its maiden in a MSW or MCL 40k.

[cj]

You need to convince me that something else will work better. Please spare me the harness system. It gets even shorter priced favorites and even more confusing conditions.

The one thing I will say is if the day rates are as high as they say, how can claim a horse for 10k and then run back for 5k expecting to make a quick buck even with todays inflated purses. The math does not add up.

I would think the failing state the game is in right now is plenty enough convincing for anyone. Small fields and unbettable races are at the top of the reason list, and the current way races are carded are a big factor in that.

[Show Me the Wire]

I would think the failing state the game is in right now is plenty enough convincing for anyone. Small fields and unbettable races are at the top of the reason list, and the current way races are carded are a big factor in that.

And it is confusing, because if you see allow/oc $80k race abbreviation in the pps, you can not be confident that it is always the same condition in Cali. For example today's condition for an Allow/oc adds the additional eligibility condition based on money won in 2014. This condition is not usually, part of the Allow/oc $80k eligibility requirements.

Too many sub-conditions are the problem.

[raybo]

I agree! If I have to spend 5 minutes (or more) trying to figure out which horses are eligible and which ones aren't, then that's too many conditions. One should be able to read through the conditions once, and know immediately what kind of race we're talking about, anything else is just a waste of time and totally unnecessary, IMO.

[cj]

And it is confusing, because if you see allow/oc $80k race abbreviation in the pps, you can not be confident that it is always the same condition in Cali. For example today's condition for an Allow/oc adds the additional eligibility condition based on money won in 2014. This condition is not usually, part of the Allow/oc $80k eligibility requirements.

Too many sub-conditions are the problem.

Totally agree, and this is where races are written for horsemen, not gamblers. Many of these conditions could be combined to make fuller fields and make races more competitive, but horsemen will fight that tooth and nail.

[classhandicapper]

Complex conditions are sometimes even a nightmare for people that put some energy into trying to understand the strength of various fields, let alone beginners. It can't be good for the sport to make the game more complicated for beginners. It's discouraging.

The flip side is that if you do find an area where the public is misunderstanding whether a horse is dropping or moving up, you might be able to get an extra tick on the price.

[Robert Goren]

I would think the failing state the game is in right now is plenty enough convincing for anyone. Small fields and unbettable races are at the top of the reason list, and the current way races are carded are a big factor in that.Tell me again how a new system is going to get trainers to enter more horses in a race. We will still see small fields and unbettable races because that is what the trainers want. The slightest sign of competition for their horse and it runs tomorrow. We are still going to have the problem of too many races chasing too few horses.

[cj]

Tell me again how a new system is going to get trainers to enter more horses in a race. We will still see small fields and unbettable races because that is what the trainers want. The slightest sign of competition for their horse and it runs tomorrow. We are still going to have the problem of too many races chasing too few horses.

If there are less choices of where to run, what choice do trainers have? Owners aren't going to let there horses stay in the barn forever waiting for the perfect spot.

I'll give one example, though obviously it would take some work and serious knowledge to get this going and have competitive racing.

Instead of offering the following conditions:

5k open claimer
10k NW3 claimer
15k NW2 claimer

Merge them. Make that the bottom condition for winners. Nobody says this will be easy, but tracks need to take more control of the product they offer, because what they offer now on a day to day basis sucks.

[Robert Goren]

Right now there is no incentive for trainer to race a horse. The more a horse races, the sooner the owner will figure out a horse is just a hay eater and the trainer will his $100 a day or whatever it is. I wish eliminating claiming races would change that, but I have my doubts. The key to getting more horses in race is convincing trainers that it is their best interest to run their horses more often. I do not know how to do that.
In theory, complicated race conditions give the expert handicapper an edge. But if you are using par charts to calculate daily variants, they are pain in the rear.

[Robert Goren]

If there are less choices of where to run, what choice do trainers have? Owners aren't going to let there horses stay in the barn forever waiting for the perfect spot.

I'll give one example, though obviously it would take some work and serious knowledge to get this going and have competitive racing.

Instead of offering the following conditions:

5k open claimer
10k NW3 claimer
15k NW2 claimer

Merge them. Make that the bottom condition for winners. Nobody says this will be easy, but tracks need to take more control of the product they offer, because what they offer now on a day to day basis sucks.They use to do that and made mares in the claiming races run against the males. They called the race a 5k claimer. They had to have a star system in order to keep horses out of a cheap claiming race.

[DeltaLover]

To summarize my opinion about race classifications:

Eliminate claimers all together and force conditions based on number of wins (up to 4 years old) and then after create an objective handicapping scale and class division, where horses will be able to either go up or down and use weight as the equalizer, in the way it is used in Europe (where close to 38 pound gaps are not uncommon, one horse running with 45 kg while the classier one with 62 kg or more)... Stakes and Graded remain as they are...

[cj]

They use to do that and made mares in the claiming races run against the males. They called the race a 5k claimer. They had to have a star system in order to keep horses out of a cheap claiming race.

No matter what anybody types some person that has been around a while is going to be against it and say it won't work. That is why the sport is where it is now, no foresight. Hopefully that is changing slowly but surely, we'll see.

[raybo]

If there are less choices of where to run, what choice do trainers have? Owners aren't going to let there horses stay in the barn forever waiting for the perfect spot.

I'll give one example, though obviously it would take some work and serious knowledge to get this going and have competitive racing.

Instead of offering the following conditions:

5k open claimer
10k NW3 claimer
15k NW2 claimer

Merge them. Make that the bottom condition for winners. Nobody says this will be easy, but tracks need to take more control of the product they offer, because what they offer now on a day to day basis sucks.

What would the condition be for those 3? 5k open claimers? I can see that if you use the claiming prices right, like 5k, 6.5k, 7.5k, 10k, 12.5k, 15k, etc.. We still need the claiming price to be worth losing a horse. So, if you have a horse you don't want to lose, cheap, assuming the horse looks like it might climb the ladder a bit and you don't want to lose it for 5k-7.5k, then you have to move up into a 10k to protect it better. If it's good enough to hold onto, then it's going to have to run against better horses, or lose him.

[cj]

What would the condition be for those 3? 5k open claimers? I can see that if you use the claiming prices right, like 5k, 6.5k, 7.5k, 10k, 12.5k, 15k, etc.. We still need the claiming price to be worth losing a horse. So, if you have a horse you don't want to lose, cheap, assuming the horse looks like it might climb the ladder a bit and you don't want to lose it for 5k-7.5k, then you have to move up into a 10k to protect it better. If it's good enough to hold onto, then it's going to have to run against better horses, or lose him.

There doesn't have to be a claiming price, the horses are assigned a class based on past accomplishments. Nobody said this would be an easy thing to do. But, if you were to have a claiming price, they would be as listed, differing depending on the qualifications of the horse.

[Nosed]

Maybe all claiming races should be Optional Claiming.
That way a trainer/owner could protect his horse or let it go if he doesn't think it's worth it to hold on to.

[Tom]

Maybe purses should be distributed 80% to the winner, 20% to second.
That would force you to run where you can win.

[onefast99]

One off specials like the Grey Ghost are fine, but the type of races that let horses like Peppers Pride and Rapid Redux pick off easy spots around the country is not good for the game.

Ratings used to group horses together in bands, like in the UK and HK, tend to be more class based then final time, and they tend to work damn well (yesterday's average price of winners at Happy Valley was 9-1). Horses that go off form will have a couple of 'bad' races while their rating drops off and improving horses will have a couple of easy wins while they climb. It wouldn't be that hard to say a race was eligible for horses that have not run more then a 80 beyer/timeform/etc in the last x months.
They are called loopholes they exist in every industry and sport PP and RR exploited them to no end. Those tracks lucky enough to get them to race there most likely had an increase in attendance or maybe handle.

[onefast99]

Well, for one, there would be no incentive to try to dump a horse via the claim box. You either sell the horse privately or fix whatever is wrong.
That is part of the game, buyer beware. Make sure you look at the horse closely before you drop the slip. Lava Man was claimed for $50k he made a lot of money in his career. There are many more successful claims as well as many not so successful. Some tracks offer claiming insurance it protects the buyer it is something every track should institute.

[Robert Goren]

No matter what anybody types some person that has been around a while is going to be against it and say it won't work. That is why the sport is where it is now, no foresight. Hopefully that is changing slowly but surely, we'll see.I don't think it will work, but I am willing to try anything. I am even willing to try paying a heft sum to unplaced starters even though it goes against everything I once believed in. The lack of starters in a race is crushing the game. But there has to be some sort of system in place to make sure that the starters are roughly evenly matched. Running a 50k horse, a 25k horse, a 10k horse and 9 3k horses is going to work.

[andtheyreoff]

Maybe purses should be distributed 80% to the winner, 20% to second.
That would force you to run where you can win.

That would make fields even smaller than they are now. I'm sure there's a few horses in any given race whose owners know they don't have a great chance to win, or are only out for the exercise. If there's no purse money past second, they'd never enter.

[Tom]

Then we thin the heard, so to speak.
We only need a handful of tracks to support this game.
Owners who won't run to win are not needed.
What do they do, keep them in the barns and never run?
They will go broke and someone else will buy them.

By making unlimited opportunity to race with no intention of winning yet getting paid is not going to solve anything. Time to try something radical.

[onefast99]

What would the condition be for those 3? 5k open claimers? I can see that if you use the claiming prices right, like 5k, 6.5k, 7.5k, 10k, 12.5k, 15k, etc.. We still need the claiming price to be worth losing a horse. So, if you have a horse you don't want to lose, cheap, assuming the horse looks like it might climb the ladder a bit and you don't want to lose it for 5k-7.5k, then you have to move up into a 10k to protect it better. If it's good enough to hold onto, then it's going to have to run against better horses, or lose him.
How many times have you seen a 25k claimer run and the field has 7 or 8 that just ran for 16k and one or two that ran for the 25k last time out? Look at some of the recent higher priced claiming races at Parx the field is mostly cheaper claimers going up the ladder against other cheaper claimers going up the ladder!

[ultracapper]

No, with on exception, the Starter races in Calif and NY now for horses who broke their maidens for a set price, say $40k, and are non winners of two.

I don't have a problem with the race classification itself, but in the pp's it can be confusing to some that it's not a Starter $40k for horses who have started for $40k once in the last year or other cut off time for horses with multiple wins.

I know when I see one of these in the pp's I know what it is equivalent to.

By the way I rate the $40k starter in NY and Calif as two levels above the $40k maiden claiming race and the $40 (or any starter hdcp) as two levels above the same open claiming race.

The $40k StAlw N2L in SoCal is now for horses that have started for a claiming price of $40k or less and have never won 2 races. They changed the condition from breaking mdn for $40k or less and non winner of 2 about a year ago. SA did it first, Holly never did, then Del Mar followed either this summer or summer 2013. Can't remember, but it has changed. It was better the old way. This change has basically eliminated the Cl$25K N2L. If you broke mdn at MSW and couldn't cut it at N1X, you had to enter for Cl$25K N2L. Now they just enter them in a Cl$40K event, then into the StAlw.

[ultracapper]

Except in Cali it is not, always, only for breaking the maiden for 40k or less. For example today at Del Mar you have 2 40k starter allow races with this condition.

Purse $30,000. (Plus $3,600 – CBOIF - California Bred Owner Fund). For Fillies And Mares Three Years Old And Upward Which Have Started For A Claiming Price Of $40,000 Or Less Or California Bred Or Sired Horses Which Have Started For A Claiming Price Of $50,000 And Which Have Never Won Two Races.

A horse that won a MSW or high MCl can be eligible, due to writing races like race 1 today. This late in the year they are writing claiming races limited to 3 year olds for a decent purse.

Race 1 conditions:

Purse $35,000. For Three Year Olds. Weight, 122 Lbs. Non-winners Of Two Races Since September 20, 2014 Allowed 2 Lbs. A Race Since Then Allowed 4 Lbs. Claiming Price $32,000, if for $28,000, allowed 2 Lbs. (Maiden Races And Claiming Races For $25,000 Or Less Not Considered) (Non-Starters for a claiming price of $20,000 or less in the last 3 starts preferred).


The losers of this race will be eligible to run in the 40k starter condition, regardless if the horse broke its maiden in a MSW or MCL 40k.

Didn't see this post. You got it figured.