Need help reading claiming price

[kernel]

In some past performances there is a "b" after the claiming price. What does it signify? Thanks!

[Market Mover]

The B at the end stands for "beaten claiming."

[Thomas Roulston]

But how does "beaten" differ from non-winners of a race within 6 months, a year, etc.?

[Overlay]

A "beaten claimer" is a claiming race with additional conditions attached. For example (from Dan Illman's DRF blog):

"Claiming. For three-year-olds or four-year-olds and upward that have never won three races."

This is a multi-tiered condition. Any three-year-old can enter this race no matter how many races they've already won. You could conceivably see a six- or seven-time winner in the field. Older entrants must be eligible for a N3L condition (they have never won three races). Some handicappers will give more weight to the younger horses in this race as they have more winning experience despite facing older and more seasoned foes.

[Pell Mell]

Can someone explain how the #1 horse in todays 4th at Portland is eligible for this race. In fact, how was it eligible for it's last race which it won. I must be missing something here but don't know what it is.

[startngate]

I don't have complete PP's in front of me, but according to the abbreviated ones on the TwinSpires replay system the horse's last win was in a NW2 race, which would make it eligible for this NW3.

It looks like the horse is showing two straight wins at the NW2 level, so I have to assume there was a DQ in the 1/5/09 race. If it doesn't show in the PP's then it was probably a bad test after the fact.

[cj]

Can someone explain how the #1 horse in todays 4th at Portland is eligible for this race. In fact, how was it eligible for it's last race which it won. I must be missing something here but don't know what it is.

According to the conditions in DRF, that horse should not have been in either race, the last win or today. I also checked the charts and didn't see any extra conditions that could have let the horse in.

[cj]

I don't have complete PP's in front of me, but according to the abbreviated ones on the TwinSpires replay system the horse's last win was in a NW2 race, which would make it eligible for this NW3.

It looks like the horse is showing two straight wins at the NW2 level, so I have to assume there was a DQ in the 1/5/09 race. If it doesn't show in the PP's then it was probably a bad test after the fact.

Yes, but those show up in the PPs too. I agree though, one of the wins must not count for some reason, but the info isn't in the PPs.

[boomman]

I don't have complete PP's in front of me, but according to the abbreviated ones on the TwinSpires replay system the horse's last win was in a NW2 race, which would make it eligible for this NW3.

It looks like the horse is showing two straight wins at the NW2 level, so I have to assume there was a DQ in the 1/5/09 race. If it doesn't show in the PP's then it was probably a bad test after the fact.

Haven't looked this up, but jballscalls is the man to ask on anything regarding Portland Meadows. balls: Your phone is ringing.......:D

Boomer

[cj]

Haven't looked this up, but jballscalls is the man to ask on anything regarding Portland Meadows. balls: Your phone is ringing.......:D

Boomer

Normally I can find the answer to questions like this. But whatever it is with this one, it is not in the conditions, PPs, or charts.

[Pell Mell]

And even if the stewards scratch it today it still doesn't explain the last win.

[RonTiller]

I checked all the official data for Surelybell. Here's what I found:

Surelybell has won 3 races going into today's race.
There were no disqualifications in any of the 3 races.
All 3 wins were in Thoroughbred races (i.e. no quarter horse race wins)
All 3 wins were official.
No positive drug tests noted and more importantly, no change in official finish position in any of the 3 races.

Here's the full official conditions of each race:
PM 01/21/2009 Race 7
FOR FILLIES AND MARES FOUR YEARS OLD AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON TWO RACES. Four Year Olds, 122 lbs.; Older, 123 lbs. Non-winners of a race since October 1 Allowed 3 lbs. Claiming Price $2,500.

PM 01/05/2009 Race 4
FOR FILLIES AND MARES FOUR YEARS OLD AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON TWO RACES. Four Year Olds, 122 lbs.; Older, 123 lbs. Non-winners Of A Race Since October 1 Allowed 3 lbs. Claiming Price $2,500.

GRP 06/28/2008 Race 1
For Maidens Fillies and Mares, Three Year Olds and Older. Three Year Olds 122 lbs. Older 124 lbs. Claiming Price $4,000.

In other words, the data says this horse has 3 official wins going into today's race, including 2 claiming wins at Portland Meadows in the past month and a maiden claiming win 6 months ago at Grants Pass.

So either:
1) the official Equibase data is wrong
2) for reasons not transparent to us, the racing secretary's office is not counting one of those wins in the horse's eligibility
3) the horse is in fact not eligible

Here's the interesting part. If you check the condition book for Portland Meadows at http://www.portlandmeadows.com/NR/rdonlyres/28D71EE9-5987-4072-BBF1-565297455FBB/21180/CB01262009to02112009.pdf you'll find that race 4 was originally carded as an open claiming race:
FOURTH RACE CLAIMING
Purse $3,600. (Includes $400 from ORC Hub Funds) For Fillies And Mares
Four Years Old and Upward.
Four Year Olds 122 lbs. Older 123 lbs.
Non-winners of a race since October 1 3 lbs.
CLAIMING PRICE $2,500
SIX FURLONGS

The race actually being run looks to be substitute race 2:
Purse $3,400. (Includes $400 from ORC Hub Funds) For Fillies And Mares
Four Years Old and Upward Which Have Not Won A Race Since April 1,
2008 or Which Have Never Won Three Races.
Four Year Olds 122 lbs. Older 123 lbs.
CLAIMING PRICE $2,500
ONE MILE AND SEVENTY YARDS

Is it possible that Surelybell signed up for the race when it was OPEN (thus being eligible), the substitute race was carded, with restrictions rendering her ineligible, and nobody noticed (or nobody spoke up)? I don't know how these things work.

Ron Tiller
HDW

[startngate]

Here's the interesting part. If you check the condition book for Portland Meadows at http://www.portlandmeadows.com/NR/rdonlyres/28D71EE9-5987-4072-BBF1-565297455FBB/21180/CB01262009to02112009.pdf you'll find that race 4 was originally carded as an open claiming race:

The race actually being run looks to be substitute race 2:

Is it possible that Surelybell signed up for the race when it was OPEN (thus being eligible), the substitute race was carded, with restrictions rendering her ineligible, and nobody noticed (or nobody spoke up)? I don't know how these things work.

Ron Tiller
HDW
The overnight (http://www.portlandmeadows.com/NR/rdonlyres/91DF524A-D35A-4914-8C15-31BE637662A1/21546/overnights020209.pdf) lists the race as being S2, so you are correct there, however races are rarely run in the order they are presented in the condition book, so don't put too much stock in the 4th race in the condition book as being a factor.

It's highly doubtful that a horse would 'if' from an open race going short into a conditioned race going long. Doesn't make any sense. I'm 99.99% sure the horse would have not been entered in race #4 to begin with. It would even have been unlikely going the other way (starting in S2 and going to 4).

Bottom line is that there had to be a DQ in the race on 1/5/09 ... sometime after the fact. Otherwise the horse would not have been eligible for the race on 1/21/09 either.

I guess the other possibility would be the race at Grant's Pass doesn't count at Portland Meadows because it's a fair meet ... otherwise the horse is ineligible.

[mountainman]

None of the possibilties raised so far sound viable. Most barns request split samples on bad tests, thus putting the outcome on hold, and in such cases, both the first and second finishers are considered winners for purposes of weights and eligibility. So final resolution on nearly all drug dqs takes weeks.
My professional guess would be that the maiden win (at Grant's Pass??) doesn't count at Portland Meadows. While any win picked up by drf used to be recognized regardless of the locale, different distinctions are now made and can vary from state to state.

[Tom]

Sounds like Pell Mell is more on the ball than the people that are paid to ensure racing rules are followed! :eek:

PM, you should ask to go to the company picnic at least! ;)

[HuggingTheRail]

The overnight (http://www.portlandmeadows.com/NR/rdonlyres/91DF524A-D35A-4914-8C15-31BE637662A1/21546/overnights020209.pdf) lists the race as being S2, so you are correct there, however races are rarely run in the order they are presented in the condition book, so don't put too much stock in the 4th race in the condition book as being a factor.

It's highly doubtful that a horse would 'if' from an open race going short into a conditioned race going long. Doesn't make any sense. I'm 99.99% sure the horse would have not been entered in race #4 to begin with. It would even have been unlikely going the other way (starting in S2 and going to 4).

Bottom line is that there had to be a DQ in the race on 1/5/09 ... sometime after the fact. Otherwise the horse would not have been eligible for the race on 1/21/09 either.

I guess the other possibility would be the race at Grant's Pass doesn't count at Portland Meadows because it's a fair meet ... otherwise the horse is ineligible.

I think that may be it....

[cj]

The horse is still in, loading at 3 to 1, so obviously the horse is eligible. Probably can't beat the 7 though.

[startngate]

I think that may be it....Yeah, but there would probably also need to be another rule that winners at fair meets couldn't run in maiden races ... otherwise why would they have run in the NW2 race on 1/5/09?

Horse ran second ... to the 7. Nice call cj!

[jotb]

The races at GRP look like they don't count. If you take a look at at Serentity Ridge 4yo F that broke her maiden at GRP, she has run her last 4 races at Portland in maiden races.

Joe

[RonTiller]

Serentity Ridge won her maiden race at GRP on 7/5/2008, raced in 2 non-maiden claiming races on 7/11/2008 and 8/9/2008, was DQed for the GRP race on 7/5/2008 in early August, and after this, was racing again in maiden races, having been officially stripped of the maiden win.

Of the 13 horses who broke their maidens at GRP and were not DQed (2 were), all 13 subsequently raced in non-maiden races in Oregon, including Portland Meadows.

All in all, this is pretty much a dead end for speculation. For really inquiring minds, maybe somebody could call the racing secretary at Portland Meadows. For less inquiring minds, it just makes you go Hmmm...

Ron Tiller
HDW

[cj's dad]

Really smart people may decide to avoid Portland Meadows all together.

[hoovesupsideyourhe]

Really smart people may decide to avoid Portland Meadows all together.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

good advice

[cj]

Really smart people may decide to avoid Portland Meadows all together.

Why, the money still spends!

[turfnsport]

This came up a couple of weeks ago when I played PM...Balls said the GrP races don't count toward conditions.

[cj's dad]

So does the money won at Harness tracks and I don't bet there either.

If there is an issue about interpreting race conditions @ PM, maybe the money will not be wisely bet.

Why, the money still spends!

[mountainman]

Serentity Ridge won her maiden race at GRP on 7/5/2008, raced in 2 non-maiden claiming races on 7/11/2008 and 8/9/2008, was DQed for the GRP race on 7/5/2008 in early August, and after this, was racing again in maiden races, having been officially stripped of the maiden win.

Of the 13 horses who broke their maidens at GRP and were not DQed (2 were), all 13 subsequently raced in non-maiden races in Oregon, including Portland Meadows.

All in all, this is pretty much a dead end for speculation. For really inquiring minds, maybe somebody could call the racing secretary at Portland Meadows. For less inquiring minds, it just makes you go Hmmm...

Ron Tiller
HDW
I had one of my crew call. She was told that GP wins only count against PM maiden eligibility.

[cj]

I had one of my crew call. She was told that GP wins only count against PM maiden eligibility.

I wonder if that is a PM rule only? I assume if the horse showed up in Boise those wins would count.

[mountainman]

I wonder if that is a PM rule only? I assume if the horse showed up in Boise those wins would count.

Good question. Some tracks still roll old school and count any win that drf carries in its pps.

[jotb]

Serentity Ridge won her maiden race at GRP on 7/5/2008, raced in 2 non-maiden claiming races on 7/11/2008 and 8/9/2008, was DQed for the GRP race on 7/5/2008 in early August, and after this, was racing again in maiden races, having been officially stripped of the maiden win.

Of the 13 horses who broke their maidens at GRP and were not DQed (2 were), all 13 subsequently raced in non-maiden races in Oregon, including Portland Meadows.

All in all, this is pretty much a dead end for speculation. For really inquiring minds, maybe somebody could call the racing secretary at Portland Meadows. For less inquiring minds, it just makes you go Hmmm...

Ron Tiller
HDW

Hello Ron:

Sorry about that. I don't show a DQ for Serentity Ridge in the maiden race from the result chart. What about a horse by the name of Quatro? I'm showing he broke his maiden at GRP on June 22 2008 and then win a 2500NW2L at GRP on July 6 2008. Then he runs in a couple of 3200NW2L at PM on Oct 14 2008 and Oct 27 2008. He also ran in 2500NW2L on Jan 12 2009 at PM. Are you showing a DQ in that 2500NW2L at GRP?

Thank you,
Joe

[RonTiller]

Serentity Ridge wasn't DQed at the time of the race. On August 6th, her official finish was changed from 1st to 7th and her earnings were changed to $0, with a DQed annotation in the data. When a horse is taken down a month after the race and stripped of the earnings "per ruling yabadabado", I assume there was some violation, maybe a positive drug test. This happened a month after the chart was published. Note that in cases like these, where horses are taken down days, weeks or months after a race was run, the chart will not reflect the official data.

Regarding Quatro, I don't show any DQs at all, either at the time of the race or subsequent to the race. He did win 2 races at Grants Pass (GRP) and also won a race at Harney County Fair (BRN) before moving to Portland Meadows (PM). He also raced at Crooked River Roundup (PRV) and Tillamook County Fair (TIL) before heading to Portland Meadows.

Looks like he made his mark on the Oregon fair circuit, breaking his maiden and picking up several in the money finished, then moved to Portland. mountainman solved the mystery though. He was officially a maiden no more but these 3 Oregon fair circuit wins didn't count in any eligibility restrictions for Portland - if they did count them, the horses would probably be hopelessly outmatched.

I wish these exceptions to eligibility conditions were in the race conditions themselves, making it explicit rather than something that all the people at the track know. Most tracks card non winners of X races with further eligibility information in the conditions, like these, from Portland Meadows:

(Races where entered for $2,500 or less not considered.)
(Maiden, Claiming, And Starter Races For $2,500 Or Less Not Considered In Eligibility)

The last 2, if included in the race conditions, would exclude some of the Oregon Fair wins, enabling a horse with multiple fair wins (at very low purse and claiming and competition levels) to legitimately enter a non winners of 2 conditions race. Any track can exclude unsuitably low level wins from eligibility restrictions by including such caveats, without somehow dis-acknowleding that the horses are in fact no longer maidens.

I'm played out on this one...

Ron Tiller
HDW

[mountainman]

I wish these exceptions to eligibility conditions were in the race conditions themselves, making it explicit rather than something that all the people at the track know.

Ron Tiller
HDW

So do I. Many players would be surprized by the number of applicable exceptions that aren't specified in race headers. Believe it or not, certain MAJOR tracks are NOTORIOUS for this. I'm an asst racing secretary who was taught to specify EVERYTHING in the written conditions and clauses, leaving no room for misinterpretation or protest. And whatever applies to weights or eligibility, but can't be carried in the race heading, should be spelled out elsewhere in the condition book.

[RonTiller]

I spent a lot of time writing a parsing program for the race conditions fields for every track in North America for every race since 1995, a disgustingly mind numbing, soul sucking, thankless, scream-into-a-pillow programming task.

Some tracks, when all the conditions are lined up in a table and sorted, have the conditions fall beautifully aligned - they were obviously made from a template and had no ambiguities. Others looked like they were typed by a different person each day; sometimes it isn't clear whether a caveat applies to assigned weights or to eligibility. Misspellings. Inconsistent formatting. Inconsistent punctuation. Ambiguous clauses. And the list goes on.

I have to say that Mountaineer race conditions are beautifully written. If this is in any way your doing, THANK YOU! If not THANK THEM!

Now, I need to stand back and reevaluate my life, as I've just publicly stated that race conditions can be a thing of beauty. Sigh...

Ron Tiller
HDW

[Tom]

Aqueduct has a humorous one today - "....four year olds and upward which have never won three races or four year olds." Duh?

[mountainman]

I spent a lot of time writing a parsing program for the race conditions fields for every track in North America for every race since 1995, a disgustingly mind numbing, soul sucking, thankless, scream-into-a-pillow programming task.

Some tracks, when all the conditions are lined up in a table and sorted, have the conditions fall beautifully aligned - they were obviously made from a template and had no ambiguities. Others looked like they were typed by a different person each day; sometimes it isn't clear whether a caveat applies to assigned weights or to eligibility. Misspellings. Inconsistent formatting. Inconsistent punctuation. Ambiguous clauses. And the list goes on.

I have to say that Mountaineer race conditions are beautifully written. If this is in any way your doing, THANK YOU! If not THANK THEM!

Now, I need to stand back and reevaluate my life, as I've just publicly stated that race conditions can be a thing of beauty. Sigh...

Ron Tiller
HDW

I passed the props along to Joe 'The Cat' Narcavish, Mnr's racing secretary. I'm his asst., which kind of makes me Spock to his Kirk in Mnr's pecking order of officials. Live long and prosper Ron.

[ryesteve]

Aqueduct has a humorous one today - "....four year olds and upward which have never won three races or four year olds." Duh?Isn't this just a sloppily-worded version of the conditions that originated this thread, with the ages bumped up since it's early in the year?

[Tom]

Similar - should say FIVE and up, nonwinners........

[startngate]

If you think the thoroughbreds are bad, you should look at harness racing conditions sometime.

For example ... here is the 5th at the Meadowlands tonight.

"N/W $8,000 in Last 6 Starts (F&M $10,000) AE: N/W $40,000 (F&M $50,000) Lifetime or 3 Extended PM Races (F&M 4) Winners Over $120,000 in 2008/09 Ineligible"

The important thing from a handicapping standpoint (no matter what the breed) is to look very closely at these types of races to see which horse they were written for.

Sometimes it's just a common condition, like non-winners in 6 months, non-winners of $x in 6 months, or common races like starter allowance and optional claiming. However sometimes if there is an uncommon condition, it's because the racing secretary wrote a race specifically for a particular horse.

Find that horse, and you will usually find a winner.

[Thomas Roulston]

Another thing they used to do at the Northern California tracks (early '90s or thereabouts) was to run claiming races for "never won two races," but for a specified claiming price (lower than the claiming price in the race itself), rather than non-winners of two races lifetime.

Example: A $25,000 claiming race might be conditioned "never won two races," but then you'd see, at the end, "Races where entered for $12,500 or less not considered," meaning that a horse could have won twice, five times, or even ten times in his career, so long as no more than one of those wins was in a race higher than a $12.5k claimer (a more expensive claimer than $12.5k, or any allowance race, maiden special, etc.).