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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by onefast99

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]

Originally Posted by raybo

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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

Completely agree.

[Some_One]

Originally Posted by onefast99

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/s...d.php?t=112330

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by cutchemist42

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

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.