PDA

View Full Version : Race Conditions


Tom
01-02-2009, 01:23 AM
I see some allowance races with no conditions listed, but instead, something like "Allowance,for 4 year olds and upward (condition eligibility).

What does this mean? Is it just open to all, or is there a meaning to condition eligibility?

(Races are from Tampa Bay)

cmoore
01-02-2009, 01:55 AM
I see some allowance races with no conditions listed, but instead, something like "Allowance,for 4 year olds and upward (condition eligibility).

What does this mean? Is it just open to all, or is there a meaning to condition eligibility?

(Races are from Tampa Bay)

I don't pay attention to conditions...

v j stauffer
01-02-2009, 02:06 AM
It means open to all comers. Usually used as a prep for future stakes. Condition eligibility is just the racing office's way of preferring higher quality more accomplished horses over cheaper types.

ralph_the_cat
01-02-2009, 02:16 AM
ya, but one would think they would use the word "preffered"...


*but because they didnt use the word "preffered", something tells me they flat out wont use a 2L,3L,4L horse in an open ALW?... :confused:

bigmack
01-02-2009, 02:20 AM
I don't pay attention to conditions...
Those are odd things to not pay any attention to.

cmoore
01-02-2009, 04:20 AM
Those are odd things to not pay any attention to.

Ninety percent of my bets are on maiden races.

Tom
01-02-2009, 08:40 AM
How do you know?
You never look at conditions.



:lol::lol::lol:



VIC - Thanks, I thought it meant open, but not sure.

boomman
01-02-2009, 11:34 AM
Those are odd things to not pay any attention to.

Mack: I was thinking the same thing..........It was a good question at the beginning of the thread and something I "pound" into my students' heads all the time: "YOU MUST KNOW HOW TO READ CONDITIONS INSIDE OUT TO HAVE ANY CHANCE OF BEING A SOLID HANDICAPPER"!

This of course, also includes maiden races...........;)

Boomer

cmoore
01-02-2009, 01:04 PM
Mack: I was thinking the same thing..........It was a good question at the beginning of the thread and something I "pound" into my students' heads all the time: "YOU MUST KNOW HOW TO READ CONDITIONS INSIDE OUT TO HAVE ANY CHANCE OF BEING A SOLID HANDICAPPER"!

This of course, also includes maiden races...........;)

Boomer

No..

In maiden races you shall know the sires..If you don't..Your doomed..

Light
01-02-2009, 01:20 PM
cmoore

I respect your opinion but in all fairness if you saw a Msw horse entered in a state bred Msw race,wouldn't you pay attention to the state bred condition with a horse who has been running in open company?

bigmack
01-02-2009, 01:33 PM
I don't pay attention to conditions...
Ironic, as your 90% Mdn plays are all about conditions.

cmoore
01-02-2009, 02:59 PM
cmoore

I respect your opinion but in all fairness if you saw a Msw horse entered in a state bred Msw race,wouldn't you pay attention to the state bred condition with a horse who has been running in open company?

When I played at DHC on a daily basis. I didn't read the conditions of a race at all..You know the rest of the story..


For the rest of you.
I'm sure conditions of a race have gotten you to bet and not bet on a particular horse. It goes both ways.

boomman
01-02-2009, 04:19 PM
When I played at DHC on a daily basis. I didn't read the conditions of a race at all..You know the rest of the story..


For the rest of you.
I'm sure conditions of a race have gotten you to bet and not bet on a particular horse. It goes both ways.

c: Then you're the only winning player I've ever heard of in the world that don't look at conditions.........Continued success;)

Boomer

point given
01-02-2009, 04:58 PM
ya, but one would think they would use the word "preffered"...


*but because they didnt use the word "preffered", something tells me they flat out wont use a 2L,3L,4L horse in an open ALW?... :confused:

If they didn't use a spellchecker, I wouldn't bet the track , no matter what the conditions ! :rolleyes:

ralph_the_cat
01-02-2009, 05:09 PM
thats how english men say perferred... pref-ferred...:rolleyes: it was late :blush:

Greyfox
01-02-2009, 05:19 PM
Mack: I was thinking the same thing..........It was a good question at the beginning of the thread and something I "pound" into my students' heads all the time: "YOU MUST KNOW HOW TO READ CONDITIONS INSIDE OUT TO HAVE ANY CHANCE OF BEING A SOLID HANDICAPPER"!

This of course, also includes maiden races...........;)

Boomer

I'm a pretty good handicapper. I've also read James Quinn's book on Conditions. I agree conditions are important, but can you really understand them all of the time?
:blush: To be honest, I've seen some races carded where I haven't got a clue about what those conditions mean. Certainly, it must take a very astute trainer in some instances to know exactly where to place his entry.

JustRalph
01-02-2009, 06:12 PM
I gotta admit, some of the conditions I read make me wonder who the race was written for...... specifically, what horse?

ralph_the_cat
01-02-2009, 06:42 PM
thats how english men say perferred... pref-ferred...:rolleyes: it was late :blush:

lmao... one of these days I'll spell it right....

boomman
01-02-2009, 07:01 PM
I'm a pretty good handicapper. I've also read James Quinn's book on Conditions. I agree conditions are important, but can you really understand them all of the time?
:blush: To be honest, I've seen some races carded where I haven't got a clue about what those conditions mean. Certainly, it must take a very astute trainer in some instances to know exactly where to place his entry.

Grey: The answer to your question is yes, but I do admire your honesty as I think many players don't totally understand conditions, and that's why I complimented Tom for the astute question to begin this thread. I will guarantee you one thing: Knowing conditions 100% gives you an edge over your fellow player!;)

Boomer

mountainman
01-02-2009, 09:46 PM
ya, but one would think they would use the word "preffered"...


*but because they didnt use the word "preffered", something tells me they flat out wont use a 2L,3L,4L horse in an open ALW?... :confused:

Oddly, I've found that bigger tracks are less specific than small ones in spelling out conditions and preference clauses.

Greyfox
01-02-2009, 10:54 PM
Grey: The answer to your question is yes, but I do admire your honesty as I think many players don't totally understand conditions, and that's why I complimented Tom for the astute question to begin this thread. I will guarantee you one thing: Knowing conditions 100% gives you an edge over your fellow player!;)

Boomer

Thank you Boomer.
Now if you consider the question that I am about to ask you unfair, just say "No."
I actually have a copy of your book and enjoyed it. I bought it at the Gamblers Book Shop in Las Vegas last spring. Yes. It had been previously autographed by you:
"Happy Handicapping" - Greg "Boomer" Wry.

Okay, you've got a good chart in the book explaining "Conditions."
But this is where I go wrong - Example tomorrow:
Saturday Santa Anita Jan 3 Race 7.

If you have your form you'll see that the race distance and OC 40K/NiX Purse $48,000 .....

Then I read:

"For Fillies and Mares Four Yearsold And Upward Which Have Never Won $ 10,000 Other Than Maiden, Claiming Or Starter And Which Have Never Won Two Races And Optional Claiming Price Of $ 40,000 Weight 123 lbs. Non-winners Of A Race Other Than Maiden, Claiming, Or Starter Allowed 2 lbs. A Race Since November 20 Allowed 4 lbs."

Okay, those are restrictions. In your book you mention Restrictions, but don't spend a lot of time telling the reader how to interpret them. Reading the bloody restrictions and who a race might be written for behooves those of us that have a normal understanding of the English language.

For example, # 8 Lady in Love has won 5 times and made $ 141,000.
Saturday she will carry 123 lbs.
This mare has only made her money in Maiden and Claiming races so I understand that condition. In Allowance races she didn't do much.

But "And which have never won have never won two races and optional Claiming Price of $ 40,000" puzzles me.

If you ever revise your book, maybe you could say a word or two more about what the "restricted conditions" mean and perhaps point out a race where the racing Secretary has written the race for a particular runner.

As I said, feel free to just wish me luck in trying to interpret what these racing secretarys are writing. Yeah, we can tell the class levels to a point, but the gobblygook restrictions are a problem.

Tom
01-02-2009, 11:06 PM
I think those "and's" should be "or's."
NW of an alw race, or nw 2 lt, or entered to be claimed.

I always start with the allowance conditions and favor horse that fit that profile, then the claimers if none fit.

Greyfox
01-02-2009, 11:20 PM
I think those "and's" should be "or's."
NW of an alw race, or nw 2 lt, or entered to be claimed.

I always start with the allowance conditions and favor horse that fit that profile, then the claimers if none fit.

Good point Tom. You may be onto something.
If "and" = "or" in Racing Secretary language, then it's clearer.
To me "and" is additive.
"Or" is alternative.
Hey, I'm not the best in the world at grammar, but the "Conditions" puzzle me more than the "cryptic puzzles" that I respond to in the "cruciverbalist" of this forum.

Overlay
01-02-2009, 11:24 PM
"But this is where I go wrong - Example tomorrow:
Saturday Santa Anita Jan 3 Race 7.

If you have your form you'll see that the race distance and OC 40K/NiX Purse $48,000 .....

Then I read:

"For Fillies and Mares Four Yearsold And Upward Which Have Never Won $ 10,000 Other Than Maiden, Claiming Or Starter And Which Have Never Won Two Races And Optional Claiming Price Of $ 40,000 Weight 123 lbs. Non-winners Of A Race Other Than Maiden, Claiming, Or Starter Allowed 2 lbs. A Race Since November 20 Allowed 4 lbs."

"And which have never won have never won two races and optional Claiming Price of $ 40,000" puzzles me.


I would read that to be saying that the race is open both (a) as an allowance race to horses that have never won $10,000 other than Maiden, Claiming, or Starter and that have also never won two races; and (b) as an optional $40,000 claiming race, with no restriction on the number or value of past victories.

CincyHorseplayer
01-02-2009, 11:51 PM
I think they are totally valuable.Quinn covers the upper echelon levels well,but at the lower levels;

Knowing when going from N3Y to N1Y is actually a class raise is valuable.When the races in question are nonwinners of 3 races in 2 years vs nonwinners 1 in the current year.The horse facing chronic losers is all of the sudden facing horses that are multiple winners making their annual run through the conditions.

Knowing that horses in the lifetime series,N2l,N3l,N4l,only repeat about a third of the time(from my research) is valuable.

As stated before I get hefty mutuels simply from horses going from open to statebred races,especially in maiden races, while going up in claiming price(usually with a strong pace figure)

I make 2 types of class profiles.One for all winners and one for deficient form winners,winners that make no sense.Each is enlightening.Knowing a lightly raced 3yo-4yo wins about 70% of the lifetime series races is good to know.Knowing in the time series of races that layoff horses with no form from classier circuits,on class drops,at longshot prices is valuable.It might seem obvious but horse "types" I seek out at the beginning of my handicapping.

I'm reading Quinn's "Handicapper's Stakes Festival" and not only is the condition emphasised but the type of horses meant for them and more importantly the typical form cycles they go through.Form cycles aren't completely universal in every condition.

I don't know.To me not knowing the conditions means you don't have a basic understanding of general horse abilities but are betting races.Much like not knowing the general nature of the way horse races develop,ie the nature of the game itself, but are using speed and pace figures.It just seems like fundamental knowledge much like baseball players "Tools".I at least attempt to be a 5 tool handicapper.

Even though my decision making often makes me feel like a tool!!!

Greyfox
01-03-2009, 12:59 AM
I would read that to be saying that the race is open both (a) as an allowance race to horses that have never won $10,000 other than Maiden, Claiming, or Starter and that have also never won two races; and (b) as an optional $40,000 claiming race, with no restriction on the number or value of past victories.

Overlay, you know that I have absolute worship for you on another thread.
With your ability to unravel what we are talking about, how do you explain
"And that Have also Never Won Two Races...."


In race 7 at Santa Anita, the # 8 horse has already won 5 times and run second 5 times and won $ 141,140 in purse money over the years. This mare won't be my top pick. I just don't understand how she relates to the conditions.

In my own instance, I glance at conditions. Yes, state breds against open take a negative. Class and recency are also part of the picture.
Then, with only a partial understanding of the handicapping conditions, I handicap a race. Just, as I am sure you will understand, a cryptic puzzle.

Sure I take Class and Conditions into account.
This horse won 5 times....

Greyfox
01-03-2009, 01:13 AM
I don't know.To me not knowing the conditions means you don't have a basic understanding of general horse abilities but are betting races.!!

I've admitted above that conditions, particularly restricted ones behoovers me.
I don't buy at all the rest of your premise about basic understanding. Sorry.;)

CincyHorseplayer
01-03-2009, 01:25 AM
I've admitted above that conditions, particularly restricted ones behoovers me.
I don't buy at all the rest of your premise about basic understanding. Sorry.;)

That's cool.I'm definitely not trying to play the genius on my lofty perch far above the maddening crowd.This board has made me a better horseplayer.I'm just trying to give my input back that I hope will help.This to me is just like throwing,catching,and hitting to a ballplayer.Your overall game will suffer without it.And the whole goal is to be the most complete player you can be.

Greyfox
01-03-2009, 01:29 AM
Agreed. :ThmbUp:

jfb
01-03-2009, 02:49 AM
I like Quinn's explanation of conditions for high-level horses. Though I do not have that good of a handle on high price optional allowance races. I think Hollywood Park had an optional claiming price of $150k this year.

To me this is a whole new category. How do you compare it to a race where the optional claiming price is like $50k or $20k. And how do you compare a higher priced optional claimer with non winners of 1 condition to, say, a lower priced optional claimer with a non winners of 2 or 3 condition.

I assume that classified races are classier than high priced optional claimers with several conditions.

I would be interested in how others think about these races.

cmoore
01-03-2009, 02:54 AM
This is a paragraph on page 11 right out of James Quinns book "The Handicapper's Condition Book"

"The key to handicapping by conditions is the class factor. More then anything else, eligibility conditions define and limit the quality of the horses eligible. Handicappers benefit by completing two first steps. One, identify horses suited to the class of the race. Two, determine whether one horse enjoys a decisive class advantage in relation to the conditions."

I think I do this in a different way..The race and class ratings in a way tell me this..Race ratings tell me how competitive a race was and the class ratings tell me how well a horse did against that competition..So when I see two mdn runners who both have ran the same pace figures to the 2 and 4f mark and quit badly..The one who faced a higher race rating most of the time will have the edge even if he ran a slower speed rating. Because he challenged classier horses. Now sire, workouts, trainer, post, odds, etc also play into it..But I think I might cover conditions in a different way. Just not to the extent that some of you do..

What do you all think????

Overlay
01-03-2009, 02:58 AM
I would read that to be saying that the race is open both (a) as an allowance race to horses that have never won $10,000 other than Maiden, Claiming, or Starter and that have also never won two races; and (b) as an optional $40,000 claiming race, with no restriction on the number or value of past victories.

Overlay, you know that I have absolute worship for you on another thread.
With your ability to unravel what we are talking about, how do you explain
"And that Have also Never Won Two Races...."


In race 7 at Santa Anita, the # 8 horse has already won 5 times and run second 5 times and won $ 141,140 in purse money over the years. This mare won't be my top pick. I just don't understand how she relates to the conditions.

In my own instance, I glance at conditions. Yes, state breds against open take a negative. Class and recency are also part of the picture.
Then, with only a partial understanding of the handicapping conditions, I handicap a race. Just, as I am sure you will understand, a cryptic puzzle.

Sure I take Class and Conditions into account.
This horse won 5 times....

Perhaps I should have said "or" rather than "and" between the "a" and the "b" portions of my earlier response. As I interpreted the conditions, I would say that the #8 is entered under the $40,000 optional claiming portion of the conditions, which I read as attaching no limitation to either the number or dollar value of previous victories. Those limitations would apply only to horses whose connections chose to enter and run them under the allowance portion of the conditions.

Am I expressing myself more clearly there?

OverlayHunter
01-03-2009, 04:59 AM
I believe my edition of Quinn's HCB is getting close to 20 years old. I think he has a 2000 version that I'm guessing deals with some of these issues but I think the more complicated and confusing (at least to me) of the conditions being written are even more recent than that - maybe only 4 or 5 years old.

According to the Santa Anita Racing Calendar, James Quinn is scheduled to give seminars there for the next 3 Sundays and, I'm guessing, at least some participants here probably know him personally and have his phone number and/or his email address.

Could someone talk to him or email him to inquire if he currently has available or is planning to make available an update that deals with the reality of today's conditions? I for one would be happy to pay Mr. Quinn for either a new book or a supplement if he could provide something that would help prevent my eyes from glazing over when I read some of the current "crop" of conditions.

For that matter, in addition to whatever updates he may have available, would it be appropriate to invite him to share some insights with us in this forum?

boomman
01-03-2009, 11:04 AM
Good point Tom. You may be onto something.
If "and" = "or" in Racing Secretary language, then it's clearer.
To me "and" is additive.
"Or" is alternative.
Hey, I'm not the best in the world at grammar, but the "Conditions" puzzle me more than the "cryptic puzzles" that I respond to in the "cruciverbalist" of this forum.

Grey: You and Tom are BOTH correct.....I don't know why those ANDs are there, because they should clearly be "ors" for Fillies and Mares 4 and up who have NEVER won 10,000, OR Non-winners of 2 LIFETIME, OR Optional Claiming tag of $40,000..........also, maiden and claiming races for 32,000 or less not considered............EXCELLENT QUESTION!:ThmbUp: ;)

Boomer

Greyfox
01-03-2009, 11:07 AM
Perhaps I should have said "or" rather than "and" between the "a" and the "b" portions of my earlier response. As I interpreted the conditions, I would say that the #8 is entered under the $40,000 optional claiming portion of the conditions, which I read as attaching no limitation to either the number or dollar value of previous victories. Those limitations would apply only to horses whose connections chose to enter and run them under the allowance portion of the conditions.

Am I expressing myself more clearly there?

Yes. The above is clearer. You seem to be agreeing with what Tom suggested that Racing Secretaries are using "and" where they should be saying "or."
Otherwise, what they are saying doesn't make much sense.

Greyfox
01-03-2009, 11:08 AM
Grey: You and Tom are BOTH correct.....I don't know why those ANDs are there, because they should clearly be "ors" for Fillies and Mares 4 and up who have NEVER won 10,000, OR Non-winners of 2 LIFETIME, OR Optional Claiming tag of $40,000..........also, maiden and claiming races for 32,000 or less not considered............EXCELLENT QUESTION!:ThmbUp: ;)

Boomer

Thanks Boomer. The responses here have cleared up some confusion that I've had.

boomman
01-03-2009, 02:36 PM
Thanks Boomer. The responses here have cleared up some confusion that I've had.

My pleasure Grey! Hope that helped and glad you enjoyed the book! ;)

Boomer

CincyHorseplayer
01-03-2009, 02:42 PM
If you guys are getting stumped on and/or,no wonder the whole readout of race conditions is bothering you:lol:

Greyfox
01-03-2009, 02:50 PM
If you guys are getting stumped on and/or,no wonder the whole readout of race conditions is bothering you:lol:

Sorry that you didn't understand the question. :lol: :lol:

Overlay
01-03-2009, 06:30 PM
If you guys are getting stumped on and/or,no wonder the whole readout of race conditions is bothering you:lol:

The problem from my standpoint was not with my understanding of the conditions, but with not expressing that understanding as precisely as I could have (although I also agree that the conditions could have been more clearly written).

BIG HIT
01-04-2009, 12:33 PM
Reviewing race and can't figure out why in a alwn1x clm nw3L.They get wht off for condition of race andextra wht off if inforless in clm race or have a bug boy.The problem is there getting more wht then allowed in both case horse moveing up class.They are takeing wht off but why more than condition allowed.?

stu
01-04-2009, 08:20 PM
Reviewing race and can't figure out why in a alwn1x clm nw3L.They get wht off for condition of race andextra wht off if inforless in clm race or have a bug boy.The problem is there getting more wht then allowed in both case horse moveing up class.They are takeing wht off but why more than condition allowed.?

I am not following. Would you please give an example of an actual race (track, date, race number)?

Tom
01-04-2009, 08:27 PM
Stu, SA, R7, Saturday.
Weird way they wrote the conditions....XXX, AND, XXX, AND,XXX
Winner #2, Queenofalldiamonds.

Norm
01-04-2009, 11:38 PM
I generally think that other conditions that a horse might be eligible for have as much impact as the conditions for today's race. There's an example of what I am trying to say in a Race at AQU Wed 1/7/09 R1. The conditions read: N1X or N2L or OC$75k. 7 are entered - N1X 1, N2L 3, OC$75k 3. The lone N1X has won 3 [S] races. The 3 N2Ls would also be eligible for N1Y races, one for N1Y-6mo and two for N1Y-12mo. All three OC$75ks are recent Alw winners.

The conclusion I have reached (and I would welcome comments on this) is that the OC$75ks outclass this field on two counts 1) recent wins and 2) the high price tag. It seems to me that the class of the N2Ls is diminished because they are also eligible for N1Y races. Anyone else see it that way ?

boomman
01-05-2009, 12:08 AM
I generally think that other conditions that a horse might be eligible for have as much impact as the conditions for today's race. There's an example of what I am trying to say in a Race at AQU Wed 1/7/09 R1. The conditions read: N1X or N2L or OC$75k. 7 are entered - N1X 1, N2L 3, OC$75k 3. The lone N1X has won 3 [S] races. The 3 N2Ls would also be eligible for N1Y races, one for N1Y-6mo and two for N1Y-12mo. All three OC$75ks are recent Alw winners.

The conclusion I have reached (and I would welcome comments on this) is that the OC$75ks outclass this field on two counts 1) recent wins and 2) the high price tag. It seems to me that the class of the N2Ls is diminished because they are also eligible for N1Y races. Anyone else see it that way ?

Norm: Just to clarify, the OC $75K is for 4 year olds, so the #4 and #5 are not eligible to run for the $75K tag because they are 5 years old. As for the class of the race, it is usually a fair assumption that the $75K claimers could indeed have a class edge ESPECIALLY if they are multiple winners and the 4 year old age restriction doesn't exist. However, it is important to still look at the "race within the race". In this race, the #2 Break Point is a non-winner of 2 races lifetime, but just ran 2nd at the level off the lay-off and the inner dirt track appears to agree with her. However, having said that, the #6 Yankee Victoria towers over these class wise, as she is coming off a nice Alw N2x win at Philly Park, has worked well at Aqu and was runner-up on the inner dirt track as a maiden so she has experience over the "inner" which I like to see. Hope this quick "breakdown" of the race helps.............;)

Boomer

Norm
01-05-2009, 12:57 AM
Norm: Just to clarify, the OC $75K is for 4 year olds, so the #4 and #5 are not eligible to run for the $75K tag because they are 5 years old. As for the class of the race, it is usually a fair assumption that the $75K claimers could indeed have a class edge ESPECIALLY if they are multiple winners and the 4 year old age restriction doesn't exist. However, it is important to still look at the "race within the race". In this race, the #2 Break Point is a non-winner of 2 races lifetime, but just ran 2nd at the level off the lay-off and the inner dirt track appears to agree with her. However, having said that, the #6 Yankee Victoria towers over these class wise, as she is coming off a nice Alw N2x win at Philly Park, has worked well at Aqu and was runner-up on the inner dirt track as a maiden so she has experience over the "inner" which I like to see. Hope this quick "breakdown" of the race helps.............;)

Boomer
Wow, I must be getting too old for this, I completely missed the age restriction on the claiming tag. :blush: Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, Yankee Victoria looks like top class on conditions, allowances and earnings. She would be top weight but for the apprentice allowance.

BIG HIT
01-05-2009, 09:26 AM
Stu sorry here are race condition.CD 11-19-08 R9 Alwn1x purse44,100 includes 8,800 ktdf Kentucky Bread)For three yr and up which never won two races other than mdn,clm,or starter or which never won two races 3yr121pd 4yrand up124pd nonwinners of 24,00at mile or over since sept 19 allowed2pd non 16,800at mile or over since then allowed 4pd (raceswhere entered for less 35,000 not considered in allowence) The horse in Question is #6 3yr who qualify for his max wht off for cond no bug boy or gender issue but carrying 114pd wouldn'tleast be 117pd.? CD R5 1M clm 15,000n3l purse purse 14,000 for filly and mares 3yr and up which never won3races 3yr120pd 4yr and up123pd non winner of a race at one mile or over since oct 16 allowed 3pd clm price 15,000 if for10,000 allowed 2pd.The #6 gets max wht off for conditon and is in for top price no bug or gender issue yet the 4yr 0ld is in for 117pd why?

jotb
01-05-2009, 11:25 AM
Stu sorry here are race condition.CD 11-19-08 R9 Alwn1x purse44,100 includes 8,800 ktdf Kentucky Bread)For three yr and up which never won two races other than mdn,clm,or starter or which never won two races 3yr121pd 4yrand up124pd nonwinners of 24,00at mile or over since sept 19 allowed2pd non 16,800at mile or over since then allowed 4pd (raceswhere entered for less 35,000 not considered in allowence) The horse in Question is #6 3yr who qualify for his max wht off for cond no bug boy or gender issue but carrying 114pd wouldn'tleast be 117pd.? CD R5 1M clm 15,000n3l purse purse 14,000 for filly and mares 3yr and up which never won3races 3yr120pd 4yr and up123pd non winner of a race at one mile or over since oct 16 allowed 3pd clm price 15,000 if for10,000 allowed 2pd.The #6 gets max wht off for conditon and is in for top price no bug or gender issue yet the 4yr 0ld is in for 117pd why?

If I'm right here the horse in question in your first example would be LORD AND T. The result chart shows the weight was 118lbs. The horse was entered and the weight did say 114. I would think the weight was changed prior to the race to 117 and jockey Jamie Theriot was 1lb overweight that day.

You didn't provide the date of race on your other example. If I'm right here, I would think the race was on 11-16-08 and horse in question was BORODIN'S GIRL. If this is the right horse then I believe you are right here because the horse should have been in with 120lbs since the horse was a 4yo at the time. She ran for 15k that day and didn't win any races over a mile at any time during her career so, she would only get the 3lbs allowed.

Joe

BIG HIT
01-05-2009, 01:13 PM
Joe i didn't look at chart's wht both ran at thier correct wht's and yes you were rite those were both races i was speaking of.Thought had missed something or something like clm10,000b nw3l where 3yr that have won more race then stated in condition are eligable

BIG HIT
01-05-2009, 01:32 PM
Was wrong cd r5 11-16-08 the #6 ran second and only carried 117 pd when as a 4yr old should carried 120pd.Which begg's question how come.??

jotb
01-06-2009, 11:26 AM
Was wrong cd r5 11-16-08 the #6 ran second and only carried 117 pd when as a 4yr old should carried 120pd.Which begg's question how come.??

I did mention this in my reply. The horse only should have been allowed the 3lbs which put's the horse at 120lb. Why the horse was in for 117lbs is something I can't really answer.

BIG HIT
01-06-2009, 01:39 PM
Yes you did thank's agian for reply

jotb
01-07-2009, 07:42 AM
Yes you did thank's agian for reply

Borodin's Girl's weight has been wrong several times. The race we spoke about on Nov 16th should have been 120lbs instead of 117lbs.

If you take a look at Borodin's Girl's race (8th race and ran 8th) on Oct 2nd at Turfway Park, (30KNW3L) she was in at 117lbs as well, but the weight should have been 120lbs.

If you look at her race on OCT 30th (3rd race ran 3rd) at CD (15KNW3L) she was in for the same 117lbs but the weight should have been 120lbs.

They did get the correct weight allowance (118lbs) for her last race, which was at Turfway Park (Dec 28th, 11th race). She was in at 118lbs which is correct. The weight for 4yo's was 122lbs less the 4lbs (118lbs) for not winning a race at a mile or over since OCT 28 2008.

In the 3 races that the weight was wrong she never ran lower than the top claiming price. The only weight she was allowed in these races was for not winning any races at a mile or over since the specified date. In all 3 races it looks like every other horse in the race had the correct weight whether they were 3yo's or 4yo's. I find this very strange myself Big Hit. I just can't figure out why they made this mistake 3 times.

I believe trainer's and owner's must be careful to claim allowances at the time of entry, and are solely responsible if a horse starts with the incorrect weight and would therefore be disqualified.

Joe

BIG HIT
01-07-2009, 08:36 AM
Thank's funny two the only trk where got it right was a smaller trk lol.Wonder why the other trainer in race did not say something as some are really like wht edge.Really glad to know it wasn't my understanding of condition.

twindouble
01-21-2009, 10:04 PM
Conditions are always at the very top of the page for good reason. The question any handicapper should have is, why did the horses entered qualify for the race? That's the interesting part about reading the conditions, now your looking at the horses past performances, where he ran, what conditions, the distance, surface, layoffs and so on. A layoff could very well be the reason why the horse qualified and could be a better quality horse compared to the field. I could go on and on but you get the point. I have never get into a race without reading the conditions.

For general consumption.


Good luck,

T.D.

Thomas Roulston
01-24-2009, 05:29 AM
Whenever the term "Condition Eligibility" appears, it relates to preferences, not actual eligibility, in the event the race oversubscribes and is not divided.

For example, if the race is for non-winners of two races other than maiden, claiming or starter, and the race draws more than the limit for that distance at that track (usually 12 but sometimes 10), horses that have won one race "other than" will have preference over horses that have won no races "other than."

And what about these "maiden optional claiming" races at Tampa Bay Downs? Logically, this would mean that winners are eligible, but must enter for the stated claiming price - but is that actually the case?

NY BRED
01-24-2009, 06:59 AM
While trainers have the condition book about 2weeks -one month previous to the race, and enter their horses based upon their eligibility where do you factor in fitness, speed and ability to win finish in the money?

As stated earlier Bris , equiform etc furnish class within a class rating
which allows you to determine the ability of the horse to compete in
today's level of competition.


However, at the end of the day, the condition book factor dims based
upon the shape of the race, track surface etc.. and inmho you are back to
basic handicapping.

bobphilo
01-24-2009, 09:57 AM
I think I do this in a different way..The race and class ratings in a way tell me this..Race ratings tell me how competitive a race was and the class ratings tell me how well a horse did against that competition..So when I see two mdn runners who both have ran the same pace figures to the 2 and 4f mark and quit badly..The one who faced a higher race rating most of the time will have the edge even if he ran a slower speed rating. Because he challenged classier horses.

I see from your terminology that you probably use the Brisnet Race and Class ratings. I find them useful for the same reasons as you. The Race rating represents the class level of the horses actually competing in that race and is a good indicator of the ability level of the horses that were faced. The Class level is a good indicator of how well the horse ran against that field by taking into account it’s finish within that Race level.

In addition, since even races with identical conditions can vary in ability and class. The Race and Class levels are invaluable for spotting the differences between these races and how a horse performed at that level.

I see that in your example you use the Race rating as an indicator of the Pace intensity a horse faced. This is generally correct, though I prefer to use the Pace rating directly for this purpose.


I personally find the Bris Class ratings a better indicator of a horse’s performance than it’s Speed rating alone. I convert the horse’s Class rating to its equivalent Speed rating and average the 2 – though, that’s a topic for a different thread.


Bob

cmoore
01-26-2009, 05:19 PM
I see from your terminology that you probably use the Brisnet Race and Class ratings. I find them useful for the same reasons as you. The Race rating represents the class level of the horses actually competing in that race and is a good indicator of the ability level of the horses that were faced. The Class level is a good indicator of how well the horse ran against that field by taking into account it’s finish within that Race level.

In addition, since even races with identical conditions can vary in ability and class. The Race and Class levels are invaluable for spotting the differences between these races and how a horse performed at that level.

I see that in your example you use the Race rating as an indicator of the Pace intensity a horse faced. This is generally correct, though I prefer to use the Pace rating directly for this purpose.


I personally find the Bris Class ratings a better indicator of a horse’s performance than it’s Speed rating alone. I convert the horse’s Class rating to its equivalent Speed rating and average the 2 – though, that’s a topic for a different thread.


Bob

Hey Bob...Look at Fairgrounds race 8 on Monday Jan. 26th.
The 1 Allworkandnoplay ran some sizzling pace figs the first 2 calls 2 races back against a 112 race rated field..So like I said earlier in this thread..This runner battled a tougher field early in the race. His final speed rating is well below many of these runners. But with the stretch out and now shorten up plus drop down. A good value bet at 5-1..This is an example how we both probably use race ratings along with pace figures to find decent paying horses..By the way. I posted the my picks for this race in Fomulas thread for the day..

Tom
01-26-2009, 10:29 PM
???

My PPs say a 110, not a 112.
Several others won against 112 and 114.

cmoore
01-27-2009, 02:23 AM
???

My PPs say a 110, not a 112.
Several others won against 112 and 114.

I used tsnhorse ultimate pps
Allworknoplays race on Dec 14th
Race Rating for that race was a 112
His 1st and 2nd call pace figures were 95, 98..Those pace figures well above par

All horses have one win..
1 horse won against a 111 race rating
2 horse won against a 106 race rating
3 horse won against a 108 race rating
4 horse won against a 107 race rating
5 horse won against a 107 race rating
6 horse won against a 107 race rating
7 horse won against a 108 race rating
8 horse won against a 109 race rating
9 horse won against a 108 race rating
10 horse won against a 108 race rating

What pps do you use Tom?

Tom
01-27-2009, 07:38 AM
I was looking at BRIS Ultimate - mucho differences!
Interesting. BRIS had most of the MC races rated higher than the two 35K claimers!