Conditions

[For The Lead]

I want to expand on a post I made today in another thread. It is post #6 at the following link. http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8882

Earlier in the year, there were conditions that read like this:
FOR THREE YEAR OLDS OR FOUR YEAR OLDS AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON THREE RACES.

The idea behind this condition is that early in the year 3 year olds are at a disadvantage because of their younger age and lack of development. For that reason, they are allowed to have won many races and still be eligible to run in this condition.

On the other hand, older horses are restricted to a limited number of wins in an effort to offset their maturity.

This condition and others very similar to it are shown in the PP's under the conditions as a "C".

Now we we are at the end of the year and the 3 year olds are almost 4, the age of maturity.
So what they have done is make a condition where the 3 year olds are now restricted. In the condition I talked about in the other thread, 3 year olds are eligible as long as they haven't won a race in the last 6 months.
So as you can see, this condition sort of "levels the playing field" now that the 3 year olds are almost 4.

[Bill V.]

Hello FTL

Here are the conditions for race 1 at AQU on Sunday



There were two 3 year olds in the race #1 and #5
The 5 gets in because it only has 2 wins
The 1 has 3 wins so its a little tricky since it says 3 and up which have not won
3 races But even if Point Taken had won the race at ELP and had a 4th win
would it still be allowed in because it is only a 3 year old ?

[tom]

I think the horse is not eligible for this race.
He has won 3 times, so he fails to meet that condition.
He has won since May 28, so he fails to meet that condition.
None of his races were for 10,000 or less, so he fails to meet that exception.

How does he run here????

[For The Lead]

Thanks to Bill V for putting up this horse's PP's and Tom, I have to agree with you. When I made my above post, I had only looked at the conditions and did not look at any of the horses in the race, so I'm glad Bill V put this horse up for me.

Let me digress for a moment.
Conditions are more complex today than in years past. I’m sure you would hear different points of view on this topic, but in my opinion this is due to there being more race tracks and fewer horses than there used to be. This creates a problem for racing secretaries all over the country. As part of the racing secretary’s job, they are faced with the dilemma of filling races. As handicapper’s, we all recognize this problem as “short fields”. In order to accomplish this task, the racing secretary has to be familiar with the horses stabled on the grounds at their track, since this is the base they have to work with. Naturally, there will be horses that ship in from nearby tracks, but the horses on the grounds are the primary support for the races at any particular track. In order to fill races, a racing secretary has to necessarily become “creative”. So where the conditions of one race may be straight forward, such as $5,000 claiming race for three year olds and up which have never won two races, another condition may be made up of several “parts” in an effort to allow more horses to enter the race. Add to this, the fact that a trainer may come to the racing secretary complaining that he has a horse or horses in his care that don’t have races to run in because the racing secretary is not writing a condition that allows for the trainer to enter this horse or horses. This need for the trainer becomes a situation where the racing secretary needs to become creative.

Ok, back to the condition in question.
This is a good example. When I first read the condition, without looking at the horses in the race, I thought perhaps there were too many "or's" in the condition. As it turns out, it appears the condition is exactly what it says it is.
1 - three year olds and up which have never won three races
2 - three year olds (Period. no restriction on the number of wins)
3 - (any age) which have not won a race since May 28, 2012

This allows the posted horse to be eligible. It is a "three year old", so the number of wins OR when the wins occurred doesn't matter.

I hope we are all clear and sorry for any confusion I created.
It's just a lesson on making sure you read the condition AND look at the horses in the race to see how they "fit".

[For The Lead]

Happy Birthday to all thoroughbred race horses!

That’s right, for those of you who may not know this, January 1st of each year is every thoroughbred race horse’s birthday, regardless of their actual day (date) of birth.

So, yesterday’s 2 year olds are today’s 3 year olds and so on.

Until the summer, 3 year olds are at a disadvantage running against older horses, so you probably won’t find any races where the conditions read, ”for three year olds and upward” until later on in the year. This allows the 3 year olds to mature a little and be more competitive when racing against older rivals. More likely, you will find races for 3 year olds ONLY and in place of, “for three year olds and upward”, you will find “for four year olds and upward”.

[Bill V.]

FTL My Goal is to only bet into races were I am sure of the conditions. I was not sure about the condition in race 9 at Parx.
On top it says non winners of maiden ,claiming, starter or PA breds or which
have never won 2 races, Down at the bottom it says (claiming races
not considered in allowances)

I had to go into this race.The thing is I see a maiden claimer win, a starter win, and the horse has 4 wins ??
The winner 1A had 4 lifetime wins
Can you show me how this horse fits todays condition
I see this condition many times at Parx

I want to split my win bets 60/40 but both my 1 and 11 were 5/1 at 1minute
to post so i went 50-50

[For The Lead]

The easiest way to look at a condition that has multiple parts, is to look at each part separately.

Since the question is about the #1A specifically, let's pay attention to that horse.

Has this horse EVER won a race "OTHER THAN"....
1 - a maiden race?
2 - a claiming race?
3 - a starter race?
4 - a PA Bred race?

The answer is "NO"
It's first win was vs. maidens...OK
It's next (2) wins were vs. claimers...OK
it's 4th win was vs. SA(starter)...OK
So this horse QUALIFIES for this race.

Now, for any other horses, who may not fit this condition as well as the #1A, there is an additional condition...
OR, "which have never won 2 races".
Why is that there?
As an example, let's say for some unknown reason, a horse is entered in a small stake race in its' first lifetime start and WINS IT!!
In this case, it would not qualify on the first part of the condition because it was "OTHER THAN" a maiden, claiming, starter or PA Bred race. It was a Stake race.
However, it has not won (2) lifetime races, so it is still eligible for this condition.

About the "allowances".

Take note at the end of the condition, the very next word is "Weight". Then it explains. If a horse hasn't won a race since December 1, 2012, it gets 3 lbs. off. If a horse hasn't won a race since November 1, 2012, it gets 5 lbs. off.
Finally, it stipulates that wins in a claiming race are not considered in the allowances for weight. In other words, if the horses wins were in claiming races it DOES NOT get any weight off.
If the horse won a race in one of the other types of qualifying races and it won such as race since December 1 2012, it DOES NOT get any weight off.

So let's take a look at the #1A horse.
1 - first win was a Maiden CLAIMER...no weight off
2 - the next (2) wins were in CLAIMING races, so again, there is no weight off
3 - its' 4th win was in a STARTER race, but that was on December 9th, 2012, so again, it gets no weight off.
How can we be sure?
In the conditions, right next to the word "Weight", it says 122 lbs.
Now let's look at the entries.

[Bill V.]

Nobody has ever explained the conditions that well
Its funny how I misunder stood something so clear
Its that little "OTHER THAN" that is the key

I was just looking at race 8 I wondered why for some reason the conditions seemed the same in the header in race 9 and 8 ALW47 NW1
but race 8 seemed to have just a bunch of maiden winners
The difference is race 8 was for three year old fillies ( they were 2 year olds
yesterday ) Thats why its so important to readand understand the conditions .