EL2 - Monmouth June 25

[Ted Craven]

Here are a few races, before scratches.

22638

22639

22640

[Ted Craven]

A few more.

22641

22642

22643

Good luck everyone!

Ted

[pktruckdriver]

Thanks Ted

race 2 E winner 9.20 ex and tri too

race 4 no winner

race 5 L winner 6.00

race 6 L winner 5.40

Race 7 L winner 12.00

Race 8 L winner 8.00 ex and tri too


This is awesome the winners in so few races

thanks again

[Ted Craven]

MTH June 25 Race 4, after scratches

22666

Result: 8 - 4 - 9

Win $37.00
$1 Exacta $44.40
$1 Tri $195.90


For the card:
Winner: 6 / 6
Exacta 4 / 6
Trifecta 1 / 6

I don't think all races were bettable ...

[rmath]

Have you also run these races thru Rdss2 tosee if the same horses come up on BL/BL or VDC? I have on several occasions when time permits to do the manual new pace numbers and on several races have gotten only one or two horses coming up in the top 4 together, so instead of 4 contenders you end up with 6 or7 combined. The results of these races is just as chaotic as the number of contenders. Have not been able to distinguish which ones to play. I will say that the winner is in the combined group over 90 % of the time, but it is impossable to play 3,4,or more horses to win.
Has anyone of the RDSS2 testers had similar results?

[Ted Craven]

Has anyone of the RDSS2 testers had similar results?

And just for the record, anyone using the existing version of RDSS (0.99.2) can answer this question as well, as RDSS2 produces the same numbers for BLBL, VDC, Velocities and Energies.

For this card, I did not run it through a paceline selection/analysis process - I didn't have the time (and also I didn't bet the races that day).

I accept that you can't bet 4 horses to win, nor 4 horse Exacta boxes (most of the time). Schwartz recommends a betting strategy accompanying his NewPace material (and in his Basics of Winning wagering strategy course).

I don't have any tested advice (yet) about how to bet those NewPace contenders, but your observations about winner 90% of the time within those 4 contenders is a good starting point! I believe you can apply some Matchup principles and an energy analysis to the #1 Early horse to determine when it will not win (hint: a lot of the time) which leaves you with 3 horses for the Win position and 4 horses (plus maybe a 'price-only' horse) for the other vertical wagers.

I also believe that with proper paceline selection, you can rely on the Top 4 BLBL tiers and the top 3 and ties VDC ranks to produce the winner 85% + of the time. You can win and lose different races using either method consistently. Perhaps a portfolio concept is in order: one bankroll is bet according to EL 2.0 (NewPace contenders) and one bankroll according classical Methodology practices. Similar to how you might invest some of your total financial portfolio in large cap stocks, some in commodity-related, some in income-producing, etc, etc - and accept the average of the collection of approaches (diversification).

Ted

[For The Lead]

Perhaps I am confused, but "rmath" seemed to be saying that he has noticed the winner of the race 90% of the time among the contenders when "combining" both New Pace AND RDSS, with there being 6 or 7 different horses in total. In an average field there are only 8 horses. In that case, finding the winner among all the contenders 90% of the time certainly seems plausible, however, I can't see it as being profitable under any circumstances.

[Ted Craven]

FTL,

You're right. On re-reading, that's what he is saying and I agree it's not useful. I would not have estimated the winner was among the 4 Contenders identified by EL 2.0 / NewPace 90% of the time. And I don't have sufficient volume of records to say what it actually is. But I think it is a very high percentage of the time.

Also, in my experience, although there can sometimes be 6 or 7 different horses when merging the 2 Contender identification methods, more often I find that number is 5 or less. And as stated above, I often don't treat all 4 NewPace contenders as bona-fide Win Contenders.

Ted

[For The Lead]

FTL,

I often don't treat all 4 NewPace contenders as bona-fide Win Contenders.

Ted

As well you shouldn't.

I'm just curious, the New Pace concept boils down to EARLY vs. LATE, with early NOT meaning the second call. But it doesn't seem to mean early "energy" vs. late "energy", rather, it seems to mean early energy vs. anything else. Am I correct?

[rmath]

I do not always get 6+ contenders when using both approaches, this only happens about 25% of the time , but the rest of the time you are correct at getting it down to 5 or less. I took Daves BOW class and found several of his betting suggestions helpful. I currently get 85%+ winners in my final 5 contenders using best of last 3 comparable adj. speed ratings.
My problem is that I am getting too many 3.00 to 6.00 winners.
I am aware that I am not the only one with this problem, but not sure what the solution is ,since even in these low price wins one or both of my other top 3 VDC horses goes off at 4/1 or higher.
The 90% winners comes when I have too many contenders, I have tried rerunning only these 6+ contenders thru RDSS but too many of the new pace horses are eliminated for lack of a decent pace line in their best of last three.
.

[Ted Craven]

I'm just curious, the New Pace concept boils down to EARLY vs. LATE, with early NOT meaning the second call. But it doesn't seem to mean early "energy" vs. late "energy", rather, it seems to mean early energy vs. anything else. Am I correct?

Correct, NewPace is not an enquiry into early energy or late energy or a differential between them. Early is identified positionally mostly at the 1st call but also at the 2nd call and rated according to a range of final time speed ratings - over the entire past performance. And you are correct that all those horses not deemed Early are thus deemed Late (or, perhaps we might more correctly say 'Other than Early').

Many of the horses deemed Early by this measurement will clearly never seek or be able to achieve the lead at the 1st call, and thus would not be what we would typically call positionally Early.

Ted

[For The Lead]

Correct, NewPace is not an enquiry into early energy or late energy or a differential between them. Early is identified positionally mostly at the 1st call but also at the 2nd call and rated according to a range of final time speed ratings - over the entire past performance. And you are correct that all those horses not deemed Early are thus deemed Late (or, perhaps we might more correctly say 'Other than Early').

Many of the horses deemed Early by this measurement will clearly never seek or be able to achieve the lead at the 1st call, and thus would not be what we would typically call positionally Early.

Ted


I think we are in total agreement, at least to this point.

Perhaps users should understand that the horses deemed early by New Pace are not necessarily the horse(s) they should expect to be on the lead or, in some cases, anywhere near the lead.

Forget about "early vs. late", it seems to me that New Pace is basically "something vs. something", separated by speed rating and not necessarily the best of those speed ratings on a per horse basis.

Good luck with it.

[For The Lead]

The 90% winners comes when I have too many contenders, I have tried rerunning only these 6+ contenders thru RDSS but too many of the new pace horses are eliminated for lack of a decent pace line in their best of last three.
.

This is not surprising, since many of the contenders in New Pace are not what one would consider "real" contenders. However, this is where the "monster" payoffs come from. Just one note: $100+ payoffs come about 1 in 240 races. If the track you are playing runs 4 cards a week, with 10 races on each card, that means you can expect a $100+ payoff once every 6 weeks (on average), whether New Pace picks it for you or not.

On June 25th in the 5th race at MNR there was a $219.20 payoff. Check it out.

[For The Lead]

I currently get 85%+ winners in my final 5 contenders using best of last 3 comparable adj. speed ratings.
My problem is that I am getting too many 3.00 to 6.00 winners.
I am aware that I am not the only one with this problem, but not sure what the solution is ,since even in these low price wins one or both of my other top 3 VDC horses goes off at 4/1 or higher.

.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no solution as long as you treat every race like it is no different than the race before. The only thing one race has in common with the other is, one of the horses is going to win. Perhaps two in the case of a dead heat.

Some things never change. As an example, favorites win at about 33% year in and year, out on average. Maybe one year will be a point higher and another year a point lower. Horses that pay under $9.00 win about 62% of all races. No matter whose system you are using, no matter what software you are using, that is going to remain the same. "HANDICAPPING" makes the difference. There is no "black box". "Doc" use to say that 90% of your handicapping should be done BEFORE you turn on the computer. "Doc" also said to forget "horsey" stuff. Now I ask you, did "Doc" ever define "horsey stuff"? If you read through the follow ups, I think you will find sections where "Doc" goes over line selection. I think if you pay attention to what "Doc" says there, you will find that he IS handicapping. Brohamer didn't treat every race like it was the same as the last race. That's how he created what we know as the "Brohamer Model". Every race is a race unto itself. There has never been another like it and there never will be another like it. You can't handicap a Grade I race like a $5,000 claiming NW2L race or the other way around. If you just blindly play every race and choose not to play short priced horses, you can EXPECT to lose a lot of races. Now, if you choose to do some handicapping and be more selective in the races you play, then you have a chance to show a profit. Me? I'm going to choose to stop here, although I could go on and on.

[Ted Craven]

On June 25th in the 5th race at MNR there was a $219.20 payoff. Check it out.

Nope, NewPace had nothing on that one.

22667

Just FWIW, NewPace comes up with interesting contenders often enough to have made it worthwhile for me to spend precious time incorporating it in RDSS 2.0. It's not trivial, or random - just different, and based on sound enough measurement concepts. After studying Dave S' stuff, and especially after digesting the book How to Measure Anything (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7097) from which NP draws some measurement ideas, I became convinced that I could even improve on the automatic nature of NP, both by some modeling and by mixing in some energy disbursement measurements, i.e. to see what quality early energy the designated Early horses were, but moreso: what quality late energy the Late horses were.

We'll see if improvements are possible, but even as is - it's not nothing, it's just tedious as hell to do by hand. And I do think that one has to often take a stand against at least one of the 4 contenders to properly capitalize on them.

Ted

[rmath]

Ted , I ran acouple of races for Tuesday June 28th , 2011 at Mnr. The winner of race 10 paid 100.20 but I was not able to get it on New Pace of on RDSS.
The 1/2 favorite did figure so I passed the race. So much for one every 6 weeks. Mnr is a tough track to handle using any method of handicapping for me.
Rmath

[For The Lead]

Ted , I ran acouple of races for Tuesday June 28th , 2011 at Mnr. The winner of race 10 paid 100.20 but I was not able to get it on New Pace of on RDSS.
The 1/2 favorite did figure so I passed the race. So much for one every 6 weeks. Mnr is a tough track to handle using any method of handicapping for me.
Rmath

LOL! You know, I don't guess at the stuff I post up here. If you want to shrug off 1 every 6 weeks, be my guest, but when you look at over 80,000 results over two years or 500,000 over 13+ years, that's what the average is. Just so you understand, if something happens once every six weeks, ON AVERAGE, that doesn't mean it happens with ABSOLUTE REGULARITY. It means that when averaged over a long period of time, that is the way it "averages out", which is the way I stated it. It doesn't matter to me if one or two win every day/night for a week, all that means is that there will be a long period where one doesn't win. It all has to "AVERAGE" out. And just so we are clear, that doesn't mean that a $100+ winner will happen 1 in every 6 weeks at every track in America. It means that when "AVERAGING" all the results from every track in America, it will happen 1 in every six weeks ACROSS America.

Have you ever seen a card where every favorite wins? Does that mean favorites win 100% of the time?
Have you ever seen a card where not one favorite won? Does that mean favorites win 0% of the time?
As a result of either of these scenarios, should we dismiss the time tested statistic that favorites win, ON AVERAGE, 33% of the time?

Perhaps you have some statistical information about horse racing to post up here that we can all count on like the sun coming up in the morning!

Sorry Ted, I tried to be as nice as possible. He deserved worse!

[rmath]

Sorry you missed the pun about one every 6 weeks. Apparently you do not have much of a sense of humor when it comes to horse racing. I have always enjoyed your posts and have read them with a great admiration of your knowledge of statistics. Perhaps one of us has missed judged the other.

[For The Lead]

Sorry you missed the pun about one every 6 weeks. Apparently you do not have much of a sense of humor when it comes to horse racing. I have always enjoyed your posts and have read them with a great admiration of your knowledge of statistics. Perhaps one of us has missed judged the other.

Perhaps. I guess I missed the "pun". As for no sense of humor, I have never been accused of that about anything, however, I am "monetarily" serious when it comes to horse racing and handicapping. See what I mean? I substituted "deadly" with "monetarily". :D

So I will thank you for those kind words and we'll "call it quits", as they say down under.:)

[rmath]

Quits it is. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. I hope you will continue to post your statistics as I find them very interesting and informative.
I take horse racing very seriously also , but also have a habit {good or bad} of poking fun when ever I get a chance.
Hope we can be friends.
rmath

[tfm]

LOL! when you look at over 80,000 results over two years or 500,000 over 13+ years

Maybe you'll give this one a go. Horse makes the lead at the stretch (penultimate) call but does not win the race (backs up/is passed, however you want to describe it). Of particular note would be those cutting back in distance next time out -- the relevant cases would be minimal, yet still very significant, distance decreases (.5 to 1F; e.g. 5.5f to 5f; 6f to 5.5f. etc).

Note, not interested in horses that have the lead before the stretch call (whether they've lead every call to that point or otherwise) though I suppose they'd be in a larger set.

Been using this one for quite a while; wonder what it looks like statistically.

[For The Lead]

Quits it is. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. I hope you will continue to post your statistics as I find them very interesting and informative.
I take horse racing very seriously also , but also have a habit {good or bad} of poking fun when ever I get a chance.
Hope we can be friends.
rmath

No worries, mate.

[For The Lead]

Maybe you'll give this one a go. Horse makes the lead at the stretch (penultimate) call but does not win the race (backs up/is passed, however you want to describe it). Of particular note would be those cutting back in distance next time out -- the relevant cases would be minimal, yet still very significant, distance decreases (.5 to 1F; e.g. 5.5f to 5f; 6f to 5.5f. etc).

Note, not interested in horses that have the lead before the stretch call (whether they've lead every call to that point or otherwise) though I suppose they'd be in a larger set.

Been using this one for quite a while; wonder what it looks like statistically.

Sorry, but I'm sure you can understand that taking individual requests could become very time consuming, so I'm going to pass on your request, but good luck to you. If you are having success with this angle, by all means, stick with it.