|
Google Site Search | Get RDSS | Sartin Library | RDSS FAQs | Conduct | Register | Site FAQ | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...) Interactive Teaching & Learning - Race Conditions, Contenders, Pacelines, Advanced Concepts, Betting ... |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-18-2013, 03:09 AM | #11 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,292
|
Quote:
Perhaps the problem is my lack of communicating the explanation of these conditions in a manner that is more easily understood, so I am going to try again. What is an "Optional Claiming" race? Obviously the race has some kind of "option" or "choice", otherwise why would it get that name? So what are the "options" or "choices"? Here they are.... 1- a horse can enter the race under the traditional Allowance conditions, i.e., non-winners of a race OTHER THAN maiden, claiming (or any other type of race the racing secretary deems appropriate). For horses that enter the race under "THIS OPTION", it matters what they have done in the past. OR, that's OR 2 - you can enter your horse for a claiming price that is stipulated in the conditions. In this race, that claiming price was $50,000. In the #1 horse's previous race the claiming price was $75,000. IF you enter the horse for a claiming price then you are entering the horse like the race is a typical "open" claiming race for the stipulated price. It does NOT matter what the horse has done previously, just like any other claiming race that is "open", "open" meaning without any "restriction" such as NW2L or NW16M or etc. As the owner of the horse, your only possible concern would be, that someone might claim your horse for $50,000 and you lose it. THAT is the chance the owner takes by entering the horse for a claiming price. Other horses in the same race that HAVE NOT been entered for a claiming price (choosing the other "option") DO NOT run the risk of being claimed and that's the reason their owners chose NOT to enter for a claiming price. So, an "Optional Claiming" race has two separate components. 1 - run your horse under the allowance conditions, OR 2 - run your horse as though the race was a typical "open" claiming race. Is this any clearer???
__________________
"It's suppose to be hard. If it was easy, everybody would do it." Jimmy Dugan, A League of Their Own |
|
01-18-2013, 09:14 AM | #12 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,855
|
Another way of looking at it
It’s too bad that the conditions can’t be written in a standard ‘logical’ expression notation which makes explicitly clear the meaning, as it would be in programming code or any high school math class (although in former days, and likely even today more often than not, many trainers and handicappers can’t even do basic math let alone logic). As originally stated, the conditions read as follows, with no order of precedence between ‘logical clauses’ (which are shown in parenthesis): (Fillies 3YO) AND (started for Claiming <= $50K) AND (NOT won 1 race other than Maiden or Claiming) OR (Claiming price today of $50K) As several people have pointed out, that notation is ambiguous! The following notation, as FTL helpfully explained, is unambiguous: (Fillies 3YO) AND ( EITHER (started for Claiming <= $50K AND NOT won 1 race other than Maiden or Claiming) OR (Claiming price of $50K) ) If you work out the logic values (i.e. TRUE or FALSE) within the parenthesis first, it becomes clearer. Ted
__________________
RDSS - Racing Decision Support System™ |
01-18-2013, 12:59 PM | #13 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Escondido CA just 25 minutes from where the turf meets the surf - "...at Del Mar"
Posts: 2,418
|
Many thanks for taking the time to splain this do me. I think I finally understand it.
So the net result of this was that it really looks like the race was written for this horse. In my handicapping the only other horse that came close to the accomplishments of RQ was the 9 and they finished 1-2. Again, many thanks, Bill Last edited by Bill Lyster; 01-18-2013 at 01:07 PM. Reason: added comment |
01-20-2013, 12:31 AM | #14 |
always learning
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Minneapolis / Rancho Santa Fe
Posts: 277
|
Congrats on the win. I never bet on 3 year olds in January.
They can easily be two year olds, unless you look up their actual birthday. Maybe I should rethink that. Hmm ? |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UPDATED - Official Contest Rules, beginning AUGUST | Ted Craven | August Contest | 1 | 07-24-2012 10:09 PM |
Saratoga 7th | pktruckdriver | Selections | 10 | 08-17-2011 06:29 AM |
Tampa R6 4/24 | SilentRun | RDSS | 6 | 04-26-2010 01:19 PM |
The Match-Up After Six Months | mamojica | Matchup Discussion | 4 | 10-04-2009 10:53 PM |
Jim Bradshaw's 5 Step Approach to learning the Matchup | RichieP | Hat Check - How Can We Help You? | 1 | 05-25-2009 09:52 AM |