N2L Conditions in DRF

[cnollfan]

The abbreviation for the 11th race at Saratoga Saturday is Clm 20000N2X, but the conditions are "never won two races." Shouldn't this be N2L? If they put N2X in the running lines, that will be confusing. Is this a typo or has DRF changed its classification method?

Same thing for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 11th at Arlington.

[tbwinner]

Yep was asking myself same thing after seeing it for Arlington today and yesterday.

To me, I always associate n#x with allowance, n meaning non-winners of, # meaning of races, X meaning OTHER THAN!

[elhelmete]

Saw that too. The only thing that MIGHT explain it...and I wouldn't really believe it, is for the Saratoga race at least, there is a proviso that claiming races under $16K (I think) are not considered. MAYBE the algorithm that DRF uses to classify as N2X gets triggered by such a thing.

[Delta Cone]

The full conditions, from Equibase site, for the 11th at Saratoga on 7-28-2012:

CLAIMING $20,000 Purse $36,000. For Three Year Olds And Upward Which Have Never Won Two Races. Three Year Olds, 119 Lbs.; Older, 123 Lbs. Non-winners Of A Race On The Turf Since May 28, 2012 Allowed 2 Lbs. Claiming Price $20,000 (Races where entered for $16,000 or less not considered) (Winners Preferred).


Note the section "Races where entered for $16,000 or less not considered." That's why it was N2X rather than N2L.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The full conditions, from Equibase site, for the 11th at Saratoga on 7-28-2012:

CLAIMING $20,000 Purse $36,000. For Three Year Olds And Upward Which Have Never Won Two Races. Three Year Olds, 119 Lbs.; Older, 123 Lbs. Non-winners Of A Race On The Turf Since May 28, 2012 Allowed 2 Lbs. Claiming Price $20,000 (Races where entered for $16,000 or less not considered) (Winners Preferred).


Note the section "Races where entered for $16,000 or less not considered." That's why it was N2X rather than N2L.

It would be nice if the DRF actually included this information.

[RXB]

The full conditions, from Equibase site, for the 11th at Saratoga on 7-28-2012:

CLAIMING $20,000 Purse $36,000. For Three Year Olds And Upward Which Have Never Won Two Races. Three Year Olds, 119 Lbs.; Older, 123 Lbs. Non-winners Of A Race On The Turf Since May 28, 2012 Allowed 2 Lbs. Claiming Price $20,000 (Races where entered for $16,000 or less not considered) (Winners Preferred).


Note the section "Races where entered for $16,000 or less not considered." That's why it was N2X rather than N2L.

That "not considered" reference is quite standard and generally refers only to weight allowances. Sometimes they write "not considered in allowances" and sometimes just "not considered" but it means the same thing on most circuits. I think if it was N2X it would say something like "not considered for eligibility." This is really a N2L race, not N2X.

The AP races also just say "not considered" and it means "not considered for allowances" rather than "not considered for eligibility."

[elhelmete]

I don't have the PPs for the 'toga race, are there entries with non-maiden wins at the sub-$16K level?

[RXB]

Nope, they're all one-time winners at Sar and at AP.

[Delta Cone]

That "not considered" reference is quite standard and generally refers only to weight allowances. Sometimes they write "not considered in allowances" and sometimes just "not considered" but it means the same thing on most circuits. I think if it was N2X it would say something like "not considered for eligibility." This is really a N2L race, not N2X.

The AP races also just say "not considered" and it means "not considered for allowances" rather than "not considered for eligibility."

I disagree. The Saratoga conditions contain both instances. Race 1 says (Races Where Entered For $20,000 Or Less Not Considered In Allowances), while Race 11 says (Races where entered for $16,000 or less not considered). This does NOT mean the same thing, at least in the case of Saratoga. Other racing secretaries may write their conditions differently, but I think the difference in the two statements is explicit and they were written that way on purpose.

At any rate, it would be nice if race conditions weren't so obscure in many instances. But times change and I guess they need to fill fields. Remember the old days when there were $20,000 claimers without any conditions? Open to all, no restrictions on state-bred or non-winners, etc.

[BlueChip@DRF]

It's possible that these multiple conditions were created for one of the entries in mind.

[RXB]

I disagree. The Saratoga conditions contain both instances. Race 1 says (Races Where Entered For $20,000 Or Less Not Considered In Allowances), while Race 11 says (Races where entered for $16,000 or less not considered). This does NOT mean the same thing, at least in the case of Saratoga. Other racing secretaries may write their conditions differently, but I think the difference in the two statements is explicit and they were written that way on purpose.


The only races where they write "not considered for allowances" are in actual allowance races. In claimers they just write "not considered" but it refers to weight allowances, not eligibility exemptions.

If you go through the runners in any restricted lifetime claimer with the phrase "not considered" in the NYRA condition books, you won't find a single horse that exceeds that lifetime restriction. The last race on July 22 and the 7th race on Aug 1 are the other recent examples. Not a single multiple winner-- because that phrase refers to a weight exemption only, not an eligibility exemption. There are a bunch of other recent races written to allow N2L 4YO+ or any 3YO that also say "not considered"-- and none of the older runners are multiple winners.

[Tom]

I chuckled that it was a non winners of two, but winners preferred.

Go back to the good old days of claiming races.
You are good enough to run for 20k or you run for 10k.

[RXB]

At Arlington, the phrase "not considered" means the same as NYRA's meaning-- weight exemptions only. In Northern Cal, "not considered" means an eligibility exemption for wins at or below a specified lower tag in restricted claimers. The lack of standardized language among circuits can be confusing.

[Bill Cullen]

No wonder the game is losing droves of patrons: if ardent horse players like the ones here at PA can really disagree over a race's conditions, what chance does the occasional fan have?

Bill C

[elhelmete]

It's possible that these multiple conditions were created for one of the entries in mind.

When I see a complicated condition I naturally look for the one obvious entry (or two) that it seems to have been written for. When I don't find it...I'm not always sure what to make of it, if anything. Did the racing sec'y take a shot and the target trainer just pass?

[Tom]

Bump

Class......this is the thread we talked about

[classhandicapper]

Bump

Class......this is the thread we talked about

Thanks

[JohnGalt1]

I chuckled that it was a non winners of two, but winners preferred.

Go back to the good old days of claiming races.
You are good enough to run for 20k or you run for 10k.


I remember years ago in California where a horse who won a Mdn Clm $25k (their lowest level), or any maiden race, then had to face multiple winners in it's next race.

Many never won again or were shipped up north or to TuP.

[KingChas]

It would be nice if the DRF actually included this information.

Mr Crist on one of these trickier conditions type races from 8/19 blog;

But let's talk about starter-allowance races, since we've got three of them on today's 10-race card. I've been getting a lot of questions about them as they've become more common in New York lately, and some fans are confusing them with starter-handicap races, which are a horserace of a different color.

The general idea behind these races is to provide a spot for maiden-claiming graduates that falls somewhere below a conventional N1x allowance race but above an N2L conditioned-claiming race where an owner would have to offer the horse for sale. There are lots of horses who win $25k to $50k maiden-claiming races who are not exactly stakes-bound but who are worth more than the tag they would be offered for if they went straight to the claiming ranks. So I find it useful to think of these races as an N1x for maiden-claiming graduates -- sort of a "B" level N1x.

Let's break down the conditions for one of these races, using today's 4th as an example: "For fillies and mares three years old and up which have started for a claiming price of $50,000 or less and which have never won a race other than maiden, claiming, or restricted, or optional claiming price of $50,000 for 3-year-olds."

So to be eligible, you have to have a)started for a claiming tag of $50k or less AND b)not won an allowance or stakes race. So for the most part, this means you've won one race, and it was probably a maiden-claimer, though not necessarily: In this particular race, #1 Cosmic Energy won a maiden-special in her last start, but because she ran in a $50k maiden-claimer earlier in her career, she's eligible. (Her seven opponents all won their lone race in a maiden-claimer.)

There's one additional twist, the "or optional claiming price" part, where horses with multiple victories can face these limited winners if their owners are willing to risk losing them. No one was entered that way in the 4th, but two such horses are in the 6th race including ML favorite Our Entourage. He has won a maiden-special and a straight N1x but is in for a $65k claiming tag so can run.

[BlueShoe]

Go back to the good old days of claiming races.
You are good enough to run for 20k or you run for 10k.
Amen. Not a fan of conditioned claiming races. You cant win for 20k, or 10k, then you go for 5k or ship to the minors. Open claiming races for 4k or even 3.2k at the big NYRA and SoCal tracks? Sure, why not?

[Tom]

NYRA runs a lot of $3500 claimers now - they are the $15,000 beatens.:rolleyes:

[JackS]

I might be wrong but aren't NW1 lifetime considered above NW1x since this would allow for horses who broke their maiden in Alw, Hcp, Stakes? The lack of conditions even in conditioned races (more lightly conditioned) are the races that attract the better horses in any class?
I agree it is difficult to interpret many of these races that are conditioned and especially when it appears that one or more horses exceed the conditions the race was written for. When I don't understand the conditions, I ignore them. Wish I didn't have to do this but I will until I have a better understanding,

[BlueShoe]

I might be wrong but aren't NW1 lifetime considered above NW1x since this would allow for horses who broke their maiden in Alw, Hcp, Stakes?
If I am reading the question correctly, the answer is generally no. A field of NW2L is almost always composed of runners that have only won a maiden race. Very rarely will you find a horse that broke it's maiden in open company of an Alw or Stake, and have not won since, it which case it would be eligible. First level Alw races, a NW1x, are generally written for "non winners of a race other than maiden, claiming, or starter." This opens the race to include multi winners of claiming races that have worked themselves up the class ladder. In my 'capping I love a runner coming off a sharp win against high priced open claimers going into a first level allowance, provided it has good speed and pace figures. There are no absolutes about this, a NW2L may contain a couple of monsters while the NW1x may be filled with plodders that have only beaten weak maidens and have been running in place for quite some time, but usually the NW1x will be the tougher race since it permits certain multi winners.

[JackS]

Have to amend NW1 lifetime to NW2 lifetime. This would be close to NW1x in class determination

[RXB]

At the top-notch tracks, there's not much of a class difference overall between Alw N1X and Alw N2L. But further down the food chain, the Alw N1X level can be significantly better than N2L.