Would You Like to See Racing Conditions Revised?

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by raybo

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.