E/L Screen 2.0 black box results opening week at EVD

[RichieP]

4 nights at EVD.

ALL races tracking top 2 bolded early and late PLUS the horse I call "double red" which is the screen shot you see here (if its not red in color forgive as I am color challenged).

So a max of 5 horses and many of the races this double red is also one of the 4 bolded leaving only four contenders.

Here is the screenshot of who I am calling "double red". It is the #8 Gee's Glitter - see the red under BOTH the % and "accum" columns

[RichieP]

Here are the opening weeks results tracking top 2 early / top 2 late plus the "double red" where it is the additional 5th contender:

4/6:
r1 - out - double red wins 8.40 exacta is there 60.20
r2 - win (also double red) 13.40 + exacta 29.00
r3 - win 6.00
r4 - win 7.00 + exacta 21.20
r5 - out
r6 - win 6.80
r7 - win 12.20 + exacta 69.00
r8 - out
r9 - win 10.80 + exacta 68.80
r10- out

4/7:
r1 - win 14.60 + exacta 53.80
r2 - win 10.40 (double red places exacta 85.60)
r3 - out
r4 - win 4.80 + exacta 82.60
r5 - win 11.80
r6 - win 7.00
r7 - win 12.80 (also double red) + exacta 75.40
r8 - win 37.20 + exacta 367.80
r9 - win 18.00 + exacta 54.40
r10- win 10.40 (place horse is double red exacta 223.80)

4/8:
r1 - win 3.80 + exacta 17.20
r2 - out - double red wins 49.20
r3 - win 4.00 + exacta 14.80
r4 - win 6.40 + exacta 38.80
r5 - win 4.60
r6 - out
r7 - out
r8 - win 7.20
r9 - win 46.20
r10- out
r11- win 11.60 + exacta 33.00

4/9:
r1 - win 2.80
r2 - out
r3 - win 24.40 + exacta 110.00
r4 - out
r5 - win 14.60
r6 - out
r7 - win 3.60 + exacta 11.40
r8 - win 4.40
r9 - win 4.40 + exacta 25.20
r10- out
r11- out


Program is VERY fast - MUCH faster than RDSS1. Screens have a nice look to them.

[Bill Lyster]

Richie:

I have been doing much the same thing, but also looking to eliminate long layoff horses (for me, more than 270 days - at least from the win consideration)

I was thinking that there might be some great work done by comparing the handicapping results of the plain black box approach to how ever you normally handicap (could be best of last three or the line you use for today's matchup - either one or both)

I had an instance at SA on Saturday where the best of last three made the winner #5 BL, but E/L 2.0. Line 3 for Liberian Freighter (he was the double red horse and was the Dominant early horse) was best of last three; line 4 was his best and line 5 would have elevated him into top three on BL/BL. It is only one example but my thought was that whenever E/L 2.0 includes a horse that is left out of the top BL ratings it might be good to take a second look. Since EL is looking at (up to) the last ten races it might be telling us that the horse has more potential than its last three.

Of course the other side of that coin is that the form of the horse might be tailing off and EL would then be giving too rosy of a picture. So some form decisions still need to be made.

And, in this case, if you were a "Pizzola window" devotee you would have had this horse in your top two as well.

By evaluating all the races there is an element of The Hat's method in the EL theory and that in itself cannot be bad. This is a good tool that needs more understanding and interpretation.

Bill

[RichieP]

Here is week 2 from Evd using same criteria as above post. ALL races looked at with NO handicapping, qualifying contenders etc:

4/13:
r1 - win 2.80 + exacta 12.20
r2 - out
r3 - win 7.80 + exacta 19.20
r4 - out
r5 - out
r6 - win 6.00 + exacta 32.20
r7 - out
r8 - win 7.00
r9 - win (also double red) 10.60
r10- out

4/14:
r1 - win 22.60
r2 - out
r3 - out
r4 - win 3.80
r5 - win 24.60
r6 - win 4.40
r7 - win 14.40 + exacta 164.20
r8 - win 14.00 + exacta 102.80
r9 - win 8.00 + exacta 53.00
r10- win 12.60 + exacta 56.20

4/15:
r1 - win 4.20
r2 - win 6.80
r3 - out
r4 - win 2.60
r5 - win 19.60
r6 - out
r7 - out
r8 - out
r9 - out
r10- win 114.00 + exacta 433.60
r11- win 21.60 + exacta 115.00

4/16:
r1 - win 3.60 + exacta 25.20
r2 - win 10.80 (also double red)
r3 - win 5.60 + exacta 16.20
r4 - win 5,20 + exacta 71.00
r5 - win 7.20
r6 - win 6.20 + exacta 27.80
r7 - win 5.60 (also double red) = exacta 19.60
r8 - win 15.20
r9 - win 18.80
r10- win 3.00
r11- out

[RichieP]

2 week summary totals:

84 races

57 wins in contender mix (top 2 bolded early and late + the double red when he is 5th contender) = 68% (sucks I.M.O)

33 exactas in contender mix = 39%

57 winners total $718.20
avg win price = $ 12.60 (Very good I.M.O - getting prices)

33 exactas total = $2,590.20
avg exacta price = $78.49 (very good I.M.O - getting prices)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOkIU8BCxgU&feature=related

[BJennet]

2 week summary totals:

84 races

57 wins in contender mix (top 2 bolded early and late + the double red when he is 5th contender) = 68% (sucks I.M.O)

33 exactas in contender mix = 39%

57 winners total $718.20
avg win price = $ 12.60 (Very good I.M.O - getting prices)

33 exactas total = $2,590.20
avg exacta price = $78.49 (very good I.M.O - getting prices)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOkIU8BCxgU&feature=related

Hi Richie,

I've been following the threads by you, Snake, and others on this new feature of RDSS 2.0 closely, and appreciate all the work that's being invested.

I'm aware that this is derived from the work of Dave Schwartz, and have also been reading the threads dealing with it on Paceadvantage. Certainly, this is too complex to pursue in detail here, but my main question deals with the role of the 'double red', which I take it, indicated the dominant 'E' horse in the race, and is distinguished from the four 'contenders'. I just wondered when, and how often, this horse is included as part of the contender mix in the stats you've tabulated, since it would greatly influence the way the results are interpreted.

As far as 'win' performance goes, these results are unimpressive, especially compared with RDSS, but Dave seems to be indicating that this program should be thought of in terms of 'value', which is fine with me. From what I've seen here, and on Paceadvantage, it seems that the 70% win-rate for the four contenders is fairly stable. If we assume an average hit-rate of say, 9/2, for all of them (although probably eventually we'll have a more accurate idea of each factor's hit-rate), this will reduce the number of horses that can be bet to win, but looking at the ROI of all contenders going off at odds of 6-1 and above, could give us an idea of its ability to identify longshots.

The exacta results look great, but this is why I asked about the 'double red'.
If you box the four contenders, this is a 28% profit. However, if you box all five horses, it loses 23%. Since this program is good at producing higher exactas, maybe this issue can be dealt with by setting a minimum payoff above break-even for all combinations of bets rather than betting the full box. For a 40% win-rate (which seems to be the average) $60 would be break even, so you could simply bet only on combinations that would pay more.

Any feedback appreciated. Thanks again for all your hard work.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[Bill Lyster]

The double red horse (RR), the horse with the best early position numbers, is only considered dominant if the percentage exceeds 62%.

I have worked 363 races so far with the worst result for the RR horse being at Mnr where 36 out of 48 placed out of the top three places.

Overall, 205 out of 363 (56.5%) have finished out of the money. So far I have not done any summary by % age to see where there might be a break or dent for the ITM finishes.

The distribution so far is 59 first, 59 second, 38 third, 34 fourth and 171 other

That it for now...

Bill

[BJennet]

The double red horse (RR), the horse with the best early position numbers, is only considered dominant if the percentage exceeds 62%.

I have worked 363 races so far with the worst result for the RR horse being at Mnr where 36 out of 48 placed out of the top three places.

Overall, 205 out of 363 (56.5%) have finished out of the money. So far I have not done any summary by % age to see where there might be a break or dent for the ITM finishes.

The distribution so far is 59 first, 59 second, 38 third, 34 fourth and 171 other

That it for now...

Bill

Hi Bill,

Much thanks for this information. One question that it suggested to me was whether the results for the RR horse are correlated with those of any of the contenders- presumably E1 or E2. Not trying to create more work for you, but I would be curious to see if it's possible to isolate the value of 'E' dominance, in itself.

One other very interesting thing about these results - win and place probability are identical. This is very different from my results with TE, where the place probability was almost exactly .5 for both place and show. If this is consistent with all the contenders - and the high exacta hit rate suggests it is - maybe this points toward a way to use this feature in conjunction with the Sartin primary factors.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[For The Lead]

The double red horse (RR), the horse with the best early position numbers, is only considered dominant if the percentage exceeds 62%.

I have worked 363 races so far with the worst result for the RR horse being at Mnr where 36 out of 48 placed out of the top three places.

Overall, 205 out of 363 (56.5%) have finished out of the money. So far I have not done any summary by % age to see where there might be a break or dent for the ITM finishes.

The distribution so far is 59 first, 59 second, 38 third, 34 fourth and 171 other

That it for now...

Bill

By contrast, I keep records of the best (fastest) first fraction horse in every race, i.e.- the "best early" horse in each race. At MNR so far this year there have been 89 winners from 339 races or a win percentage of 27%. The return for these winners (as of 4.17.11) is $2.12. I think Dave Schwartz referred to this number as a "dollar net". I just call it by its' old fashion name, ROI (return on investment).

Based on this information I would say the "new pace" system is not identifying the best early horse in each race.

Also, I must say that in all of my research, there is no single stat that achieves an ROI of $2.00 (or break even) on its' own. In other words, to this point in the MNR meet, the best early horses are doing much better than could normally be expected, therefore, early speed at MNR is not only winning better than its' fair share of races, but is returning a profit as well.

[RichieP]

The exacta results look great, but this is why I asked about the 'double red'.
If you box the four contenders, this is a 28% profit. However, if you box all five horses, it loses 23%. Since this program is good at producing higher exactas, maybe this issue can be dealt with by setting a minimum payoff above break-even for all combinations of bets rather than betting the full box. For a 40% win-rate (which seems to be the average) $60 would be break even, so you could simply bet only on combinations that would pay more.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Morning "B"

here are the stats for # of contenders (broken down race by race for the 8 cards.)

I also tracked the performance of the double red when it had the dominance # of 62 or higher.

4/6:
r1-5
r2-4
r3-4
r4-5
r5-4
r6-5
r7-4
r8-4
r9-5
r10-4

4/7:
r1-5
r2-5
r3-4
r4-5
r5-5
r6-4
r7-4
r8-4
r9-5
r10-5

4/8:
r1-5
r2-5
r3-5
r4-4
r5-4
r6-5
r7-5
r8-4
r9-4
r10-5
r11-5

4/9:
r1-4
r2-5
r3-5
r4-5
r5-4
r6-5
r7-4
r8-4
r9-4
r10-4
r11-4

4/13:
r1-5
r2-4
r3-5
r4-4
r5-4
r6-5
r7-4
r8-4
r9-4
r10-5

4/14:
r1-4
r2-5
r3-4
r4-4
r5-4
r6-4
r7-5
r8-5
r9-5
r10-4

4/15:
r1-4
r2-5
r3-4
r4-5
r5-5
r6-5
r7-4
r8-5
r9-4
r10-5
r11-4

4/16:
r1-4
r2-4
r3-4
r4-4
r5-4
r6-4
r7-4
r8-4
r9-5
r10-5
r11-4

84 races
37 races with 5 contenders
47 races with 4 contenders


"Dominant "E" runners (62% or higher double red)
1) 4/6 race 3 - #1 - off 8/1 - out
2) 4/8 race 4 - #3 - off 3/2 - out
3) 4/9 race 5 - #4 - off 6/1 - ran 3rd
4) 4/9 race 10- #3 - off 5/1 - ran 3rd
5) 4/13 race 3- #5 - off 33/1 - out
6) 4/13 race 7- #13- off 16/1 - out
7) 4/14 race 2- #10- off 10/1 - out
8) 4/14 race 3- #7 - off 5/2 - ran 3rd
9) 4/14 race 8- #1 - off 17/1 - out
10)4/14 race 10-#7 - off 2/1 - out
11)4/15 race 3 -#5 - off 12/1 - out
12)4/15 race 4- #14- off 36/1 - out
13)4/15 race 11- #4- off 2/1 - out
14)4/16 race 1 - #7- off 4/5 - WIN 3.60
15)4/16 race 6 - #3- off 7/2 - ran 3rd

1 win from 15 races.

[Bill Lyster]

Hi Bill,

Much thanks for this information. One question that it suggested to me was whether the results for the RR horse are correlated with those of any of the contenders- presumably E1 or E2. Not trying to create more work for you, but I would be curious to see if it's possible to isolate the value of 'E' dominance, in itself.

One other very interesting thing about these results - win and place probability are identical. This is very different from my results with TE, where the place probability was almost exactly .5 for both place and show. If this is consistent with all the contenders - and the high exacta hit rate suggests it is - maybe this points toward a way to use this feature in conjunction with the Sartin primary factors.

Cheers,

B Jennet

The distribution that I referenced was for the double red horse (RR); if you look at the percentages its a bout 16% win rate for each - not very enticing. I added 110 races last night from Aqueduct and Keeneland and while the short field at AQU added to the win % the prices were v low in all categories. Still the RR horse only finishes in the money 43% of the time in a 474 race sample.

I am not really sure about what you are asking about re RR and E1 and E2; perhaps if you PM me your phone # I'll call you and we can discuss further.

bill

[Bill Lyster]

By contrast, I keep records of the best (fastest) first fraction horse in every race, i.e.- the "best early" horse in each race. At MNR so far this year there have been 89 winners from 339 races or a win percentage of 27%. The return for these winners (as of 4.17.11) is $2.12. I think Dave Schwartz referred to this number as a "dollar net". I just call it by its' old fashion name, ROI (return on investment).

Based on this information I would say the "new pace" system is not identifying the best early horse in each race.

Also, I must say that in all of my research, there is no single stat that achieves an ROI of $2.00 (or break even) on its' own. In other words, to this point in the MNR meet, the best early horses are doing much better than could normally be expected, therefore, early speed at MNR is not only winning better than its' fair share of races, but is returning a profit as well.

I agree that New Pace does not ID the best early horse in the way that the Sartin Methodology does and its really not trying to either. Its Dave's terminology and his method relies on identifying horses that run on or within 1 length of the lead at several calls. The pace of the race does not matter. a horse that lead or was close in 44.0 gets the same points as one who leads in 47.0; same for routes 1:09 leaders earn the same points as 1:14 leaders. What ultimately separates the point getters is the statistical probability of their running within the bounds of their low and high raw speed ratings as defined by the book Dave cites as the statistical guide.

Lets be open to this new idea. So far the 2 Es and 2Ls per race show 73% wins; 51% exactas and 25% trifectas. I have only done some of the ROI stuff but the exactas and tri's are positive and I think that 10c supers with the all button in position 4 will be too.

Bill

[RichieP]

Lets be open to this new idea.
Bill

I definitely agree Bill. :D

It looks like black box exacta boxing all contenders opening 8 cards at EVD is break even, there are HUGE rebates for exacta players FWIW.

You just "had to be playing" when the big payers popped :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3htOCjafTc

[rmath]

For the Lead,
You said you had 89/339 wins at MNR from the horse with the best first fraction.
Have you broken them down to sprints and routes.
Also which race do you use, best of last three or best in pps?

[BJennet]

Morning "B"

here are the stats for # of contenders (broken down race by race for the 8 cards.)

I also tracked the performance of the double red when it had the dominance # of 62 or higher.

4/6:
r1-5
r2-4
r3-4
r4-5
r5-4
r6-5
r7-4
r8-4
r9-5
r10-4

4/7:
r1-5
r2-5
r3-4
r4-5
r5-5
r6-4
r7-4
r8-4
r9-5
r10-5

4/8:
r1-5
r2-5
r3-5
r4-4
r5-4
r6-5
r7-5
r8-4
r9-4
r10-5
r11-5

4/9:
r1-4
r2-5
r3-5
r4-5
r5-4
r6-5
r7-4
r8-4
r9-4
r10-4
r11-4

4/13:
r1-5
r2-4
r3-5
r4-4
r5-4
r6-5
r7-4
r8-4
r9-4
r10-5

4/14:
r1-4
r2-5
r3-4
r4-4
r5-4
r6-4
r7-5
r8-5
r9-5
r10-4

4/15:
r1-4
r2-5
r3-4
r4-5
r5-5
r6-5
r7-4
r8-5
r9-4
r10-5
r11-4

4/16:
r1-4
r2-4
r3-4
r4-4
r5-4
r6-4
r7-4
r8-4
r9-5
r10-5
r11-4

84 races
37 races with 5 contenders
47 races with 4 contenders


"Dominant "E" runners (62% or higher double red)
1) 4/6 race 3 - #1 - off 8/1 - out
2) 4/8 race 4 - #3 - off 3/2 - out
3) 4/9 race 5 - #4 - off 6/1 - ran 3rd
4) 4/9 race 10- #3 - off 5/1 - ran 3rd
5) 4/13 race 3- #5 - off 33/1 - out
6) 4/13 race 7- #13- off 16/1 - out
7) 4/14 race 2- #10- off 10/1 - out
8) 4/14 race 3- #7 - off 5/2 - ran 3rd
9) 4/14 race 8- #1 - off 17/1 - out
10)4/14 race 10-#7 - off 2/1 - out
11)4/15 race 3 -#5 - off 12/1 - out
12)4/15 race 4- #14- off 36/1 - out
13)4/15 race 11- #4- off 2/1 - out
14)4/16 race 1 - #7- off 4/5 - WIN 3.60
15)4/16 race 6 - #3- off 7/2 - ran 3rd

1 win from 15 races.

Hi Richie,

These stats were just what I was looking for. After noting your comments, I ran the numbers and came up with this:

47 races/4-contender exacta box - 30% (.297) hit rate/ROI .85
37 races/5-contender exacta box - 51% (.513) hit rate/ROI 1.109

That's an outstanding hit-rate for the 5-contender races, with a decent profit. However, in line with my earlier comments about cutting out the lower-odds exactas (in the spirit of Dick Mitchell), I think there's an easy way to improve on this ROI. I went back and looked at the EVD results and ran the numbers again, eliminating any exacta with a horse below 3-1, leaving one less contender in either group. Here are the results:

47 races/3-contender exacta box - 11% hit rate/ROI 1.21/avg. mut. $136.6
37 races/4-contender exacta box - 27% hit rate/ROI 1.51/avg. mut. $137.1

Important to add that I cheated on the race with the biggest payoff, which illustrates a trade-off principle worth contemplating. The $433 payoff included a $1.80 horse. Of course, take this away, and 75% of your profit is gone. There has to be a trade-off between a lower-odds cutoff (in this case 3-1) and two horses whose (odds*3) are greater than $75 (based on what's emerging from the numbers, I now believe this figure to be more accurate breakeven than $60), although we should err on the side of conservatism). But I would guess that the frequency of a horse whose odds are above 20-1 is a relatively rare occurrence, so this shouldn't be much of a problem.

It looks as though Dave (or Ted) has structured these factors in a way that filters for ITM consistency rather than win probability, and as a result, as many have said, exotics seems like the way to go. Reverse-engineering the numbers, it looks like .158 is the generic ITM probability for all of the contenders (although I guess the jury's still out on E2). But that number is pretty reliably reflecting the hit rates. 4-horse boxes should win at ca. .30, 5-horse boxes at .5, and 3-horse, at .15. Of course, as we accumulate a larger sample of races, we'll have a more accurate idea of E/L 2.0's capacities.

Thanks again, Richie.

Cheers,

B.Jennet

[BJennet]

Just wanted to apologize for an error in my post responding to Richie's EVD testing of E/L 2.0. My exacta breakeven figures were both off, as fans of Dick Mitchell and Barry Meadow here surely realized. Per both of their example, and according to the hit-rates we've been seeing, I believe the correct exacta fair pay (breakeven) for E/L 2.0 contenders to be $30. I had been using a formula I had long used and forgotten that it's designed to build in a ca. 100% overlay. I realize that most experienced players have their own betting style, but I wanted to make sure that no newer players were misled by my error.

However, I would still emphasize the value of not betting combinations that will pay below this level.

Cheers,

B.Jennet

[BJennet]

Just wanted to apologize for an error in my post responding to Richie's EVD testing of E/L 2.0. My exacta breakeven figures were both off, as fans of Dick Mitchell and Barry Meadow here surely realized. Per both of their example, and according to the hit-rates we've been seeing, I believe the correct exacta fair pay (breakeven) for E/L 2.0 contenders to be $30. I had been using a formula I had long used and forgotten that it's designed to build in a ca. 100% overlay. I realize that most experienced players have their own betting style, but I wanted to make sure that no newer players were misled by my error.

However, I would still emphasize the value of not betting combinations that will pay below this level.

Cheers,

B.Jennet

I guarantee that this is my last post on this subject (at least for awhile :-)).
$30 is the correct fair pay for a $1 exacta, and $60 for a $2 exacta.

[BJennet]

The distribution that I referenced was for the double red horse (RR); if you look at the percentages its a bout 16% win rate for each - not very enticing. I added 110 races last night from Aqueduct and Keeneland and while the short field at AQU added to the win % the prices were v low in all categories. Still the RR horse only finishes in the money 43% of the time in a 474 race sample.

I am not really sure about what you are asking about re RR and E1 and E2; perhaps if you PM me your phone # I'll call you and we can discuss further.

bill

Hi Bill,

I'm still not sure how to interprest the results, since the 'RR' horse is often also the E1 or E2. The, let's say, 'non-E1 or E2' RR horse seems to lose at a much higher rate than the RR horse that is also E1 or E2, or even E1 or E2 without the RR designation. In your results, I'd just like to know whether you are separating them, although it sounds like your are.

Also, as far as your results go, I'm assuming that, as with Richie's, some of the races include 4 contenders, others 5, according the the program's instructions. I don't know whether you're breaking them down, in this manner, but, if you checked Richie's results, it makes a huge difference in the ROI.

Cheers,

B. Jennet

[Bill Lyster]

Hi Bill,

I'm still not sure how to interprest the results, since the 'RR' horse is often also the E1 or E2. The, let's say, 'non-E1 or E2' RR horse seems to lose at a much higher rate than the RR horse that is also E1 or E2, or even E1 or E2 without the RR designation. In your results, I'd just like to know whether you are separating them, although it sounds like your are.

Also, as far as your results go, I'm assuming that, as with Richie's, some of the races include 4 contenders, others 5, according the the program's instructions. I don't know whether you're breaking them down, in this manner, but, if you checked Richie's results, it makes a huge difference in the ROI.

Cheers,

B. Jennet

No, I only included E1,E2, L1 and L2 in the mix (4 contenders only-always).

BTW I emailed Dave about the lack of notoriety of the RR horse and his response was that, "... I have dropped the "dominant horse" from special treatment, although I still keep the "domination over 2nd horse" in."

- when the RR horse won (85 times), 27 times it was greater than 62% or 31%

- when the RR horse placed (84 times), 15 times it was greater than 62% or 18%

- when the RR horse shoed (61 times), 16 times it was greater than 62% or 26%

In total the RR horse was ITM 45% of the time.

- when the RR horse came in out of the money (283 times), 55 times it was greater than 62% or 19%

REMEMBER, only the E1 and E2 horses can be the RR horse. by definition the L1 and L2 horses do not have enough early points to be rated E1 or E2.

[BJennet]

No, I only included E1,E2, L1 and L2 in the mix (4 contenders only-always).

BTW I emailed Dave about the lack of notoriety of the RR horse and his response was that, "... I have dropped the "dominant horse" from special treatment, although I still keep the "domination over 2nd horse" in."

- when the RR horse won (85 times), 27 times it was greater than 62% or 31%

- when the RR horse placed (84 times), 15 times it was greater than 62% or 18%

- when the RR horse shoed (61 times), 16 times it was greater than 62% or 26%

In total the RR horse was ITM 45% of the time.

- when the RR horse came in out of the money (283 times), 55 times it was greater than 62% or 19%

REMEMBER, only the E1 and E2 horses can be the RR horse. by definition the L1 and L2 horses do not have enough early points to be rated E1 or E2.

Hi Bill,

Appreciate your stats - obviously up to 513 races now. It's becoming clearer that the 62% figure is somewhat useless - no better than a coin toss in separating ITM horses from the rest, unless I'm missing something. And 75% of the ITM RR horses were *under 62%*. Maybe we should start thinking of this as a negative indicator, but it sounds like Dave has already gotten the message. Again, hate to be repetitious about this, but as you say, the E1 and E2 can also be RR. Are your RR stats above for 'non-E1 and E2 RR' horses, or are some of them also E1 or E2? My guess is that this might explain the difference between the win and place stats.

To me, the possible value of the RR, is that it's ITM probability (and seemingly that of the contenders) is very evenly distributed. Although it's win percentage is low, 15% for place and show, is better than the average place or show probability of all but the #1 BL/BL horse, if you frame it in terms of RDSS. This program appears to fill in that gap left by RDSS.

Cheers,

B. Jennet

[RichieP]

REMEMBER, only the E1 and E2 horses can be the RR horse.

Morning Bill
If that's the case then man one would be leaving a LOT of money on the table as 2 of the 3 biggest prices opening 2 weeks (49.20 and last night 70 clams) are double red horses who are NOT the e1 or e2 horse and they certainly "figure" a bit at least when looking at the 2 E;s "above"them.

[gl45]

The horse labeled RR is the Dominant Early horse. By Dave specs, the Dominant Early horse is a horse that will take the lead, or will be close to the leader at the first call, when is 62% or greater from the second ranked early horse.
The Dominant Early can be dangerous, because he can easily wire the field if is able to take the lead at the first call.
I don't bet short fields, but I saw some value in this race, and that is Dave approach. VALUE!

On my screen shot #6 is the dominant Early with 69.73%, only wired the field 9 race back breaking his maiden. Last race was 1 length at the top of the stretch and couldn't win.
#2 will set the pace today with a Low of 67 and will negate the lead to #6.
#1 is the Swing horse, he's the second early horse with a high of 68.
My 2 early horses are 2-1
My 2 late horses are 4-3
My bet was 1-2-6 to win

The 4 was the favorite, no value, out he goes, #3 is too far back at the first call in his races, no chance today in the mud.

The new pace will give contenders most of the times, but is not enough.
There are lies, lies and statistics, you start to put your money down, and all of a sudden those statistics don't look so good anymore.

[Bill Lyster]

Morning Bill
If that's the case then man one would be leaving a LOT of money on the table as 2 of the 3 biggest prices opening 2 weeks (49.20 and last night 70 clams) are double red horses who are NOT the e1 or e2 horse and they certainly "figure" a bit at least when looking at the 2 E;s "above"them.

What I meant was of the E1, E2, L1 or L2 horses, only the E1 and E2 horses could be the RR horse. There are usually several other horses in the early mix who are not the E1 or E2 horse who can be the RR horse. The horse with the most position points is the RR horse but it does not always qualify as the E1 or E2 horse.

Early horses who are not E1 and E2 obviously win. One of the weak points of the method so far IMHO is that it discards the early horses that are not deemed good enough to be E1 or E2.

Sometimes the structure of the race, i.e., the mix of running styles, is such that there is only one legit late horse, who would be the L1. The program will automatically chose an L2 but it might not be the best of the rest. When this happens I look to evaluate strong early types that might be better than the apparently weak L2. I make my normal line selection for the horses in my trial and let BL separate them. So far making such changes occurs no more than 10% of the time, in my case usually less.

Sometimes there is a very strong early horse, the E1, and the E2 is very weak. In this case you might want to evaluate the best 3 Late horses to determine your top four.

So I guess what I am pointing at is that the best presser is not identified by the program. Now the definition of this presser might not be what we currently view as a "presser" in the Methodology. It would be a horse that fits between Dave's Early and Dave's late.

Bill

[RichieP]

What I meant was of the E1, E2, L1 or L2 horses, only the E1 and E2 horses could be the RR horse. There are usually several other horses in the early mix who are not the E1 or E2 horse who can be the RR horse. The horse with the most position points is the RR horse but it does not always qualify as the E1 or E2 horse.
Bill

Hi Bill!
Ok and YES thank you for clarifying cause I do not have DS New Pace stuff.
Makes much more sense now my man! :)

Awesome

[BJennet]

Morning Bill
If that's the case then man one would be leaving a LOT of money on the table as 2 of the 3 biggest prices opening 2 weeks (49.20 and last night 70 clams) are double red horses who are NOT the e1 or e2 horse and they certainly "figure" a bit at least when looking at the 2 E;s "above"them.

Hi Richie,

Nice hit. From what I'm seeing here, I'm guessing that much of the value of this program may come from this kind of horse - I'll call it 'pure RR' - a RR horse that is not also E1 or E2. It seems that when the RR horse is also E1 or E2, it gets hammered at the windows, but the crowd may lay off it when it's not. If you would be willing to break out the numbers on this subset of RR horses, including ROI, when you're posting again, I think we could really learn a great deal.

BTW, I don't know if you saw Bill's most recent stats, but the performance of the >62% threshhold was pretty anemic - the hit rate was .11, compared with .16 for the RR group as a whole, in the 513-race sample. Of the 85 RR winners, only .27 were >62%. This suggests to me that, it might be worth exploring whether this metric has any value, by analyzing the distribution of winners, and other ITM horses, according to % accum.. If the results are normally distributed, I'm guessing that the 'sweet spot' for winners will be closer to the mid-50s, and that of the place and show horses, closer to 50%.

Best of luck.

Cheers,

B.Jennet

[RichieP]

Hi Richie,

Nice hit.
B.Jennet

Hi "B"
I just want to be clear;
I am NOT betting real money on these races ok? I dont want to come across as something I am not :). Very important to me I state this man :)

I AM working very hard when I do allocate time for racing however. My good friend Barb C. says it is time I jump back in the waters (so to say! lol)

I AM having fun and seeing some positive results. Let's see what shakes going forward!

Hope you are doing great
Richie

[cdax]

As per your EVD1 example above I would have included the 6 in my wager (of only 4 horses, very rarely use 5). Here is how I interpret the New Pace contenders.

In EVD1, POR was 57 (because of monster) so the 6 is the pace. RDSS automatically choses the top two high reg speed sorts of the earlies, but my first inclination is to look at the %'s first. The 6 is 21% early and the next two are 16% and 14%. The 6 has a 5% advantage over the other two and is not eliminated by the POR (granted he should prob get killed by the big SR's).

So, my E1 is the 6, then use tiebreakers for the 16% and 14%. One of those could become a price only horse, which would ultimately elim. the monster due to low odds.

I've caught a couple of RR's from everyone's screenshots where RDSS didn't have it highlighted but his percentage early was much greater than the others.

Not sure if I explained my method clearly enough.

Chris

[BJennet]

Hi "B"
I just want to be clear;
I am NOT betting real money on these races ok? I dont want to come across as something I am not :). Very important to me I state this man :)

I AM working very hard when I do allocate time for racing however. My good friend Barb C. says it is time I jump back in the waters (so to say! lol)

I AM having fun and seeing some positive results. Let's see what shakes going forward!

Hope you are doing great
Richie


Cool. :-)

[RichieP]

As per your EVD1 example above I would have included the 6 in my wager (of only 4 horses, very rarely use 5). Here is how I interpret the New Pace contenders.

In EVD1, POR was 57 (because of monster) so the 6 is the pace. RDSS automatically choses the top two high reg speed sorts of the earlies, but my first inclination is to look at the %'s first. The 6 is 21% early and the next two are 16% and 14%. The 6 has a 5% advantage over the other two and is not eliminated by the POR (granted he should prob get killed by the big SR's).

So, my E1 is the 6, then use tiebreakers for the 16% and 14%. One of those could become a price only horse, which would ultimately elim. the monster due to low odds.

I've caught a couple of RR's from everyone's screenshots where RDSS didn't have it highlighted but his percentage early was much greater than the others.

Not sure if I explained my method clearly enough.

Chris

Morning Chris
I definitely follow your layout and it makes a bunch of sense, I really like it. :)

[RichieP]

Week 3 results from EVD.

Once again the biggest scoring winner is a double red who is not one of the top 2 bolded E runners and exacta is there and HUGE.

A lot of races winner is NOT a contender (recurring theme at this track with its monster fields etc) on the screen.

4/20:
r1 - 5 cont = double red wins (not e1 or e2) = 70.40
r2 - 5 cont - out
r3 - 5 cont - win 5.00
r4 - 4 cont - win (also double red)- 10.60
r5 - 4 cont - out
r6 - 4 cont - win 7.20
r7 - 4 cont - out
r8 = 4 cont - out
r9 - 5 cont - win 6.20 + exacta 30.40
r10- 4 cont - win 15.00

4/21
r1- 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 7.00 #2 l places exacta 66.00
r2- 5 cont - double red wins 15.00
r3- 4 cont - #1 l wins 10.80
r4- 5 cont - #1 l wins 9.20
r5- 4 cont - out
r6- 5 cont - #1 l wins 13.60
r7- 4 cont - out
r8- 4 cont - #2 l wins 10.40
r9- 5 cont - #1 e wins 7.40 double red places exacta 37.20
r10-5 cont - out

4/22:
r1 - 4 cont - out
r2 - 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 7.80 #1 l places exacta 20.40
r3 - 5 cont - #1 e wins 7.00
r4 - 4 cont - out
r5 - 4 cont - #1 l wins 8.80 #2 l places exacta 57.60
r6 - 5 cont - double red wins 56.20 #1 e places exacta 598.40
r7 - 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 5.00 #2 e places exacta 11.80
r8 - 5 cont - #1 l wins 5.00
r9 - 4 cont - out
r10- 5 cont - #1 l wins 6.00 #1 e places exacta 34.80
r11- 5 cont - out

4/23:
r1 - 5 cont - double red wins 4.80 #1 e places exacta 13.00
r2 - 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 5.20
r3 - 4 cont - #2 e (also double red) wins 19.00
r4 - 4 cont - out
r5 - 4 cont - #1 e wins 8.40
r6 - 4 cont - #1 e wins 7.20 #1 l places exacta 22.60
r7 - 4 cont - out
r8 - 5 cont - out
r9 - 5 cont - #1 e wins 9.20 #2 e places exacta 41.80
r10- 4 cont - out
r11- 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 18.00

[BJennet]

Week 3 results from EVD.

Once again the biggest scoring winner is a double red who is not one of the top 2 bolded E runners and exacta is there and HUGE.

A lot of races winner is NOT a contender (recurring theme at this track with its monster fields etc) on the screen.

4/20:
r1 - 5 cont = double red wins (not e1 or e2) = 70.40
r2 - 5 cont - out
r3 - 5 cont - win 5.00
r4 - 4 cont - win (also double red)- 10.60
r5 - 4 cont - out
r6 - 4 cont - win 7.20
r7 - 4 cont - out
r8 = 4 cont - out
r9 - 5 cont - win 6.20 + exacta 30.40
r10- 4 cont - win 15.00

4/21
r1- 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 7.00 #2 l places exacta 66.00
r2- 5 cont - double red wins 15.00
r3- 4 cont - #1 l wins 10.80
r4- 5 cont - #1 l wins 9.20
r5- 4 cont - out
r6- 5 cont - #1 l wins 13.60
r7- 4 cont - out
r8- 4 cont - #2 l wins 10.40
r9- 5 cont - #1 e wins 7.40 double red places exacta 37.20
r10-5 cont - out

4/22:
r1 - 4 cont - out
r2 - 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 7.80 #1 l places exacta 20.40
r3 - 5 cont - #1 e wins 7.00
r4 - 4 cont - out
r5 - 4 cont - #1 l wins 8.80 #2 l places exacta 57.60
r6 - 5 cont - double red wins 56.20 #1 e places exacta 598.40
r7 - 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 5.00 #2 e places exacta 11.80
r8 - 5 cont - #1 l wins 5.00
r9 - 4 cont - out
r10- 5 cont - #1 l wins 6.00 #1 e places exacta 34.80
r11- 5 cont - out

4/23:
r1 - 5 cont - double red wins 4.80 #1 e places exacta 13.00
r2 - 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 5.20
r3 - 4 cont - #2 e (also double red) wins 19.00
r4 - 4 cont - out
r5 - 4 cont - #1 e wins 8.40
r6 - 4 cont - #1 e wins 7.20 #1 l places exacta 22.60
r7 - 4 cont - out
r8 - 5 cont - out
r9 - 5 cont - #1 e wins 9.20 #2 e places exacta 41.80
r10- 4 cont - out
r11- 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 18.00

Hi Richie,

Thanks, once again, for providing these results. It is beginning to look like the RR is going to produce most of the value with this program.

4-horse exacta - HR .20 /ROI 0.63
5-horse exacta - HR .35/ROI 1.28

One way to frame the value of RR: a win bet on every RR horse yielded an ROI of 113%.

And we can see how clearly value-based this program is. You really need to be playing places with large fields and a high proportion of longshots - EVD is a good example. The number of places like this may be diminishing, but they still exist.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[BJennet]

Hi Richie,

Thanks, once again, for providing these results. It is beginning to look like the RR is going to produce most of the value with this program.

4-horse exacta - HR .20 /ROI 0.63
5-horse exacta - HR .35/ROI 1.28

One way to frame the value of RR: a win bet on every RR horse yielded an ROI of 113%.

And we can see how clearly value-based this program is. You really need to be playing places with large fields and a high proportion of longshots - EVD is a good example. The number of places like this may be diminishing, but they still exist.


Thanks again.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Just wanted to do a reality-check on my math. The 5-horse exacta ROI should be 1.056 not 1.28.

[mikesal57]

before we jump to conclusions, Ted has to address the 5pt rule that I believe is not implemented into rdss 2
take for example in post #21 EVD race #1...the $70 winner #6 should have been left in

[BJennet]

before we jump to conclusions, Ted has to address the 5pt rule that I believe is not implemented into rdss 2
take for example in post #21 EVD race #1...the $70 winner #6 should have been left in

Hi Mike,

Agree with what you say here, but with the results of about 800 races posted using E/L 2.0, I think we can start to get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of the various factors. Maybe Ted can comment re the New Pace rule you mention - I don't have a copy. But I think it's fair to say that Dave's rules aren't carved in stone - the 62% figure already seems to be a questionable metric, and if you read Bill Lyster's posts, it sounds like Dave is revising New Pace in light of what Bill is finding.

Also, the variance is extremely low, even with 40 races here, it hews closely to a hit-rate in the 67-70% range, which is consistent with what we've seen elsewhere. Exotics may fluctuate somewhat more, but that's to be expected. This means that it's unlikely we'll see much change over a larger sample, and somewhere in the area of 1500-2000 should be definitive.
What you see is what you're going to get.

The testable factors are a huge positive of this program - they can be recombined with themselves and other factors, and against specific tracks, to locate positive ROI.

Cheers,

B. Jennet

[RichieP]

I'll post results for this week and that will give a month straight of data at EVD.

Here are the results from last night Wednesday 4/27:
4/27:
r1 - 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 11.80
r2 - 4 cont - #2 l wins 14.20 #1 e (also double red)places exacta 85.80
r3 - 4 cont - #2 l wins 7.40 #2 e places exacta 55.40
r4 - 4 cont - #1 e (also double red) wins 6.60 #2 e places exacta 30.60
r5 - 5 cont - out
r6 - 5 cont - #1 l wins 13.00
r7 - 4 cont - out
r8 - 5 cont - #1 l wins 8.40
r9 - 5 cont - #1 e wins 4.00
r10- 5 cont - #2 e wins 5.60 #1 l places exacta 30.60

[RichieP]

Here are tonight's screenshots BEFORE scratches (wont be around to update til tomorrow)

There should be some BIG payers tonight after yesterdays cycling of low payers :)

[RichieP]

EVD tonight cont

[BJennet]

Here are tonight's screenshots BEFORE scratches (wont be around to update til tomorrow)

There should be some BIG payers tonight after yesterdays cycling of low payers :)

Much thanks for making this card available.

[RichieP]

There should be some BIG payers tonight after yesterdays cycling of low payers :)

I told you guys the bombers would be out Thurs night and they were :) hope a few of you cashed in nice - 4 20+ winners (screen got 3 of them) and a few nice exactas including a real huge one

Here are the results from Thursday night after scratches.
4/28:
r1 - 5 cont - out
r2 - 5 cont - #1 l wins 12.40 #2 l places exacta 113.60
r3 - 4 cont - #2 l wins 23.40 #1 l places exacta 80.80
r4 - 5 cont - #2 l wins 6.80 #1 l places exacta 30.40
r5 - 4 cont - out
r6 - 5 cont - #1 e wins 4.80 2 e places exacta 20.00
r7 - 5 cont - #2 l wins 11.20
r8 - 5 cont - #1 e wins 4.80
r9 - 4 cont - #1 l wins 25.60 #2 e places exacta 330.80
r10- 5 cont - #2 e wins 21.20 #1 e places exacta 40.00

[RichieP]

Here is tonight's (Friday 4/29) EVD 2.0 screen before scratches

[RichieP]

4/29 EVD cont

[RichieP]

Race 11 on EVD 4/29

[BJennet]

I told you guys the bombers would be out Thurs night and they were :) hope a few of you cashed in nice - 4 20+ winners (screen got 3 of them) and a few nice exactas including a real huge one

Here are the results from Thursday night after scratches.
4/28:
r1 - 5 cont - out
r2 - 5 cont - #1 l wins 12.40 #2 l places exacta 113.60
r3 - 4 cont - #2 l wins 23.40 #1 l places exacta 80.80
r4 - 5 cont - #2 l wins 6.80 #1 l places exacta 30.40
r5 - 4 cont - out
r6 - 5 cont - #1 e wins 4.80 2 e places exacta 20.00
r7 - 5 cont - #2 l wins 11.20
r8 - 5 cont - #1 e wins 4.80
r9 - 4 cont - #1 l wins 25.60 #2 e places exacta 330.80
r10- 5 cont - #2 e wins 21.20 #1 e places exacta 40.00

Hi Richie,

Man, you called this one. Very nice night for me and I hope others here. Just to check on one thing though - I made it 6/10 winners, AFAIK, the #6 in R3 was not highlighted as a contender. Also in R7, the #7 was not highlighted, but possibly he became a contender when the #6 scratched. Could you or anyone with New Pace explain the procedure for choosing the next best contender when one of them is scratched?

Again, much thanks for providing the EVD figures again.

Cheers,

B. Jennet

[Ted Craven]

Could you or anyone with New Pace explain the procedure for choosing the next best contender when one of them is scratched?

BJ,

*** Editted: original is in the NewPace Forum

[BJennet]

Hi Ted,

***Editted: original is in the NewPace Forum ***

Agree re using RDSS with E/L 2.0 could be very effective, since RDSS is better at picking winners, and E/L 2.0, better at non-winner ITM consistency, although it does produce winners. As far as exotics go, FWIW, when I was studying TE, I found the #1 hit the board 70-75%% of the time - w. .37 p.18 s. 18, so it should be difficult to leave out of most exotics scenarios. When either of the top two RDSS horses are left out of the E/L contender mix, I think there are opportunities.

Cheers,

B. Jennet

[Ted Craven]

This thread is replicated in full in the new NewPace Forum (see: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7386 for info). I have made edits to and removed a few posts prior to this point in the thread where rules and formulas were discussed. These detailed rule and formula discussions can continue in technicolor in the NewPace Forum.

I am very sorry I had to do this, and apologize. If I had known I was going to be 'requested' to exclude detailed public discussions about the workings of NewPace, I would have been more attentive much earlier on. I hope folks will find this acceptable...

Ted