NewPace / RDSS

[mikesal57]

Just dont know how early horses are picked

mtr 5th 7/30

the 2 is more early than the 5??

late horses are fine but something needs improvement with early horses

[SilentRun]

Just dont know how early horses are picked

mtr 5th 7/30

the 2 is more early than the 5??

late horses are fine but something needs improvement with early horses

Mike,

The best I can explain this is as follows:


*** Ernie, I chose to edit your post here containing some detailed explanations for Mike about how NewPace arrives at its Early contenders. I know Mike got the info, but since this is a public forum and everyone can follow this discussion, you could create a link to this in the NewPace forum to follow up on the specifics of the analysis of this particular race. Sorry - I don't like editing posts, hope you understand ***


Ernie

[mikesal57]

Ernie......

what your stating is the criteria for late horses...

New Pace is the battle of the early position horses vs the late closers
early horses are the one that shoot for the lead and may wire em...

the objective of New Pace is to get the 2 best early position horses vs the 2 best late horses and play em..

in this race (which is pace less) your throwing money away on #2 which most likely wouldn't be close

mike

[SilentRun]

Ernie......

what your stating is the criteria for late horses...

New Pace is the battle of the early position horses vs the late closers
early horses are the one that shoot for the lead and may wire em...

the objective of New Pace is to get the 2 best early position horses vs the 2 best late horses and play em..

in this race (which is pace less) your throwing money away on #2 which most likely wouldn't be close

mike

I am only using the criteria for determining the E1 and E2 horses as per
Dave Schwartz's New Pace video seminar Video seminar. If you haven't purchased the New Pace seminar then we are on 2 different wave lengths.

I am not even saying I will bet on any New Pace contenders.

If you have purchased the New Pace seminar then I would love to kick it
around with you in the New Pace section.

Ernie

[rmath]

Mikesal57,I sent you a private message this morning in response to your message to me. Did you get it.
Thanks
rmath

[gl45]

Mike,
why #1 and #3 are scratched off?

[mikesal57]

Mikesal57,I sent you a private message this morning in response to your message to me. Did you get it.
Thanks
rmath

yes i did

[mikesal57]

Mike,
why #1 and #3 are scratched off?

Pino, they are not scratches ..I threw out horses over 90 days...

But in this case one of them won :mad:

even if i didn't , they were not contenders

[mikesal57]

Well Dave is coming out with yet another seminar on New Pace improvements...

Will he show us better results ?
maybe a chart on bets and ROI and not say it just works

are these his improvements or NP users suggestions?

and YES...its not free :(

After the release at Pace Advantage it died down after maybe 3 weeks...Ted over here has taken it by the nutz and is trying to improve it 10 fold and try to help guys win with it
It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that after 3 months we have to pay again..Did guys at PA hold back for this...will more improvements be down the road?
The workshop is $114, but its not for new users ....so who else is going to attend but registered users and we get a discount
Come on Dave ..Give us a break!!

mike

[rmath]

I agree Mike, I know about the workshop and would like to see if there are any improvements, but I just recently paid for New Pace and do not want to pay for the improvements either. To my thinking this would be something like selling my car and then telling you the keys will cost you an extra 500.00.

[mikesal57]

i agree mike, i know about the workshop and would like to see if there are any improvements, but i just recently paid for new pace and do not want to pay for the improvements either. To my thinking this would be something like selling my car and then telling you the keys will cost you an extra 500.00.

lmao

[SilentRun]

I also received an email offering an excellent discount for his New Pace update.

My response to him was that he should not charge for these updates since a number of people have already purchased "New Pace" and some, I believe,have also purchased "Improve/Decline" and "BOW".
He also has access to and will continue to have access to the research stats published by our members....results of boxing the 4 New Pace contenders to name one.

I requested that the updates should be made available (no charge) as a courtesy to those members who have already purchased his product(s).

Ernie

[Dave Schwartz]

Ernie,

I must disagree.

Purchase of a product does not entitle you to all future developments for that product. If that were the case, what would be the incentive to continue development?

Just so you know, I (and my team) have roughly 100 hours in the improvements that are being shared, as well as another 9 hours in the development of this particular workshop.

My customers and clients are usually thrilled to pay the small amounts of money charged to ensure that they are on the cutting edge. I hope you can see your way clear to view it from that standpoint. BTW, there IS an Improve/Decline workshop coming as soon as I can quantify the advancements into an updated strategy. (That is still several months away, I believe.)


The almost unanimous feedback I have received from people regarding NewPace, as well as the other products I produce, is that the products are being thoroughly used and enjoyed. The feedback also indicates that these products are considered "good value" for the dollars spent.

People in our industry - that would be the horse handicapping world - are clamoring for good materials. In order for such products to continue being produced, there must be a reasonable financial reward for producing such materials. "Free" will simply not work as a business model.

That said, consider just how much really good information we do put out for free. Next Wednesday will be episode 3 of our Handicapping Live TV cyber show. This show is about The Monty Hall Problem. On that show I will offer up a way to concentrate 2/3 of your winners into 1/3 of your contenders. Free. Did I mention it is completely FREE?

I am trying to raise the bar to a high level and keep it high. We are not some "system mill" cranking out products that come with "get rich quick" claims. We are providing serious, deep research behind the products that go out.

The bottom line for all this is that we live in financial times that are difficult for many (most?) of us. We are trying to offer good value at the lowest possible cost while still justifying being in this industry and producing these materials.

I hope you can see that money spent with us supports that on-going effort and results in everyone getting more and better materials to improve their game.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

The workshop is $114, but its not for new users ....so who else is going to attend but registered users and we get a discount
Come on Dave ..Give us a break!!

Perhaps I can clarify this a little better... I certainly tried in the product description.

The $114 price INCLUDES the NewPace video seminar, which is (basically) an all-day seminar.

The update workshop is $27. Period.

To my thinking this would be something like selling my car and then telling you the keys will cost you an extra 500.00.

I think a better analogy would be, "You buy a car, and the company says, 'How would you like to add some more horsepower?"



Will he show us better results ?
maybe a chart on bets and ROI and not say it just works

And when I show you the results that we get when using HSH, would you expect that the results would be the same in RDSS?



You know, I did not realize there was so much negative feedback coming from this.

In the future I will reconsider any advanced workshops. Obviously, I have misunderstood the customer base.

[shoeless]

I have no objection to Dave charging for this update seminar,he does have to put in hours to get it together so why shouldnt he be compensated for it.

[Dave Schwartz]

RDSS/NewPace users are a significant percentage of our users. If the feedback from the RDSS community is this negative, I will consider canceling this seminar.

I learned the hard way that not listening to customers does not work out well in the long run.

So, easy enough:

Does anyone have positive opinions of this or is general opinion "Workshops should be free or there shouldn't be any workshops?"

I value your feedback, either way.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[SilentRun]

Ernie,


The bottom line for all this is that we live in financial times that are difficult for many (most?) of us. We are trying to offer good value at the lowest possible cost while still justifying being in this industry and producing these materials.

I hope you can see that money spent with us supports that on-going effort and results in everyone getting more and better materials to improve their game.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

OK...I understand your viewpoint and I agree you present quality products.

Regards,

Ernie

[mikesal57]

Jeff and Ernie


can you post your positive results for us?

mike

[Dave Schwartz]

Short follow up:

I have received several very positive emails from people regarding the posts in this thread. I am going to assume that this falls into the category of "you can't please everyone" and go on in the manner of "business as usual."

I truly care about what our customers think so please DO share your opinions with me either publicly or privately. (I care about non-customers' opinions as well, but everyone in THIS thread is, logically, a customer of ours.)

Seriously, do not miss signing up for next Wednesday's show.
Show 3: The Monty Hall Problem (https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/258878098)

[Ted Craven]

I just got back from the lake (and never had so many emails and PMs in a 24 hour period) :eek:

I have one small advantage, from a business model point-of-view, with RDSS and TrackMaster's data pricing, compared to Dave's approach with his collection of new video seminar-style products.

If I can create a software tool and if we all can foster a support and learning community valuable enough that people keep coming back year after year and paying the annual RDSS subscription (and keep buying TrackMaster data which I get a share of), then I can keep adding new things to RDSS or refine older ideas, and the repeating revenue stream from doing that (and the increasing interest from new folks, and from previous subscribers rejoining) makes it worthwhile to me to keep adding the new stuff and not charge extra for it. It also helps that folks can step in with a very small monthly commitment to TrackMaster data, while they decide if RDSS suits them and while they get up to speed with it and its history.

As I see it, Dave must also maintain a continual revenue stream to stay in business and keep innovating, but he can't re-license Newpace, or Improve/Decline or Basics of Winning, etc year after year. Instead, he must find alternate ways via new products and 'Part 2' of existing products. I'm sure HSH keeps ticking over regularly with HDW data sales and new licenses, but until or unless he publishes new software with a different data price point, a certain percentage of otherwise serious or interested horse players will prefer to purchase the small one-off products and try to implement the ideas themselves manually, via the spreadsheet tools, or via full blown software 'suites' like I am gradually positioning RDSS 2.0 to be.

I take the same view of incremental up-sales to NewPace, Improve/Decline, etc as I do to those who say $100/year and $2 a race card is too much money for RDSS - let the software pay for itself! Iif you can't find enough good ideas, and good hits from $77 for NewPace or $27 for NewPace Redux - whether or not you could also arrive at the same wagers by existing RDSS tools - well, I suggest you aren't trying hard enough, because the results certainly seem to be there, at least in the short run so far. I dare say you can get lots of hits from standard and proper implementation of the modern Sartin Methodology according to Doc's guidelines (yes, even 10-15 year old guidelines!) that you won't get from NewPace with its sometimes 'brute-force' approach. But at the same time you'll get a goodly number of hits from paying attention to and betting consistently the NewPace contenders that you would have to zig and zag through RDSS to attempt to capture. NewPace is a methodology which takes one type of path through the bewildering thicket of alternative analysis available - and RDSS takes another sometimes converging, sometimes diverging path through the same analysis if you make it your own and apply your method consistently. This has been true for what is largely a similar approach to the modern Methodology Doc Sartin evolved, for over 15 years now, so I know this is profitable. NewPace is in its early days and must still prove itself, and I am only privy to studies people are starting to post online here, some of them not real-time and back-fitted.

But how valuable is one good idea to you? Now that we are starting to get some software tools to study this with (that is, other than Dave's HSH software, which I know people are indeed doing lots of studies with) - if anyone who bought NewPace on faith or on Dave's salesmanship is having trouble implementing it or finding a profitable way to bet it, well that's why we have the NewPace Discussion forum, and the input of the author. We can grill it, make it prove itself. My programming may be at fault sometimes, or TrackMaster or our other Speed Ratings and variants may produce different results to HDW or BRIS or DRF data - and I am not shy to accept responsability for my mistakes or lack of understanding of Daves instructions - and I look forward to his critiques - but I say let him make money from his creative effort. Everyone who has the time and diligence should be able to go out and make as much money as Dave does by betting his ideas. And if the smart people here can't do that, and their documented failed attempts survive a peer review, then NewPace will not have succeeded and I think Dave (and a number of others) will be quite surprised. As will I.

The real interesting thing I am looking forward to (and since the very beginning when I grasped the NewPace ideas) is folks examining the components of NewPace and cross-mixing the ideas with what they get now from the Methodology and the Matchup tools. I have seen half a dozen different approaches to this in the past few months, not all public yet, since up until this weekend only 5 or 6 peeple have been even able to do that. Stay tuned for some interesting ideas and I suspect many more longitudinal studies as the initial 50 or so Beta testers start to report back.

BTW, I made back many times my price for NewPace, after I had programmed it initially in RDSS2, the first week I took it for a spin with real money, bugs and all. And Beth Schwartz told me Friday that I was the first one to sign up for the NewPace follow up seminar.

Also, FWIW, I don't make any money on NewPace from Dave nor does Dave from RDSS. As I mentioned at the top, my aim is to add value to the fantastic set of tools Doc originated, within a consistent philosophical framework: call it Pace if you must (I don't like to), call it the Matchup of Early versus Late. And then have people use (and pay ongoing for) the tools for years - but only if they carry their weight. That's fair, and a synergy I think can work. I'd like to think Doc would have contemplated such a collaboration.

Cheers,

Ted

[SilentRun]

Jeff and Ernie


can you post your positive results for us?

mike

Yes I can....Here are 6 races from my records that I won using New Pace concepts in conjunction with RDSS. This is before I was privy to RDSS2 and computed New Pace partial by hand and partially where I entered them into a spreadsheet where I set up formulas to compute The totals and percent. I won some of the exactas but New Pace had them. Sorry but it is not lined up but you get the picture.

Date Track Race E1/E2 L1/L2 WIN PAID EXACTA $1 PAID
________________________________________________________

7/25 MNR 8 8/2 6/7 8 8.60 8/7 26.50
7/25 MTH 6 1A/7 2/6 7 11.00 7/6 17.10
7/24 MNR 3 2/6 1A/3 1A 10.40 1A/2 20.10
7/23 ELP 3 4/2 5/6 2 7.80
7/17 MTH 5 4/6 5/8 6 13.40
7/10 MNR 7 4/10 7/9 10 14.40

Ernie

[Ted Craven]

I truly care about what our customers think so please DO share your opinions with me either publicly or privately. (I care about non-customers' opinions as well, but everyone in THIS thread is, logically, a customer of ours.)

Dave,

Just for clarity, this thread is in the public RDSS 2.0 Forum, not in the private NewPace discussion forum. That's why I had to edit Ernie's reply to Mike's initial question in post #2 of this thread (too technical) and why rmath offered to reply by PM or in the private Forum.

As you know, various people have been posting their NewPace screenshots and contenders in public forums for several months now (sans technical analysis).

That said, all the posters in this thread are actually also NewPace customers of yours. And those readers who are not, are potential customers.

Cheers,

Ted

[Dave Schwartz]

Thanks, Ted.

LOL - I do, apparently, need a keeper at times to make sure I am going where I should be.

Nevertheless, I am happy with the message and fine that everyone can see it.


Dave

[SilentRun]

Mike,

The best I can explain this is as follows:


*** Ernie, I chose to edit your post here containing some detailed explanations for Mike about how NewPace arrives at its Early contenders. I know Mike got the info, but since this is a public forum and everyone can follow this discussion, you could create a link to this in the NewPace forum to follow up on the specifics of the analysis of this particular race. Sorry - I don't like editing posts, hope you understand ***


Ernie

OPPS ! That's ok.... I thought I was being general enough and offered to migrate to New Pace Forum in my next post but you are right...sorry about that.

Ernie

[mikesal57]

Yes I can....Here are 6 races from my records that I won using New Pace concepts in conjunction with RDSS. This is before I was privy to RDSS2 and computed New Pace partial by hand and partially where I entered them into a spreadsheet where I set up formulas to compute The totals and percent. I won some of the exactas but New Pace had them. Sorry but it is not lined up but you get the picture.

Date Track Race E1/E2 L1/L2 WIN PAID EXACTA $1 PAID
________________________________________________________

7/25 MNR 8 8/2 6/7 8 8.60 8/7 26.50
7/25 MTH 6 1A/7 2/6 7 11.00 7/6 17.10
7/24 MNR 3 2/6 1A/3 1A 10.40 1A/2 20.10
7/23 ELP 3 4/2 5/6 2 7.80
7/17 MTH 5 4/6 5/8 6 13.40
7/10 MNR 7 4/10 7/9 10 14.40

Ernie


Ernie...

Thxs for your response on the winners...
but what I'm trying to get at is what is the overall ROI...which, I believe, is what we are looking for

[BJennet]

Ernie,

I must disagree.

Purchase of a product does not entitle you to all future developments for that product. If that were the case, what would be the incentive to continue development?

Just so you know, I (and my team) have roughly 100 hours in the improvements that are being shared, as well as another 9 hours in the development of this particular workshop.

My customers and clients are usually thrilled to pay the small amounts of money charged to ensure that they are on the cutting edge. I hope you can see your way clear to view it from that standpoint. BTW, there IS an Improve/Decline workshop coming as soon as I can quantify the advancements into an updated strategy. (That is still several months away, I believe.)


The almost unanimous feedback I have received from people regarding NewPace, as well as the other products I produce, is that the products are being thoroughly used and enjoyed. The feedback also indicates that these products are considered "good value" for the dollars spent.

People in our industry - that would be the horse handicapping world - are clamoring for good materials. In order for such products to continue being produced, there must be a reasonable financial reward for producing such materials. "Free" will simply not work as a business model.

That said, consider just how much really good information we do put out for free. Next Wednesday will be episode 3 of our Handicapping Live TV cyber show. This show is about The Monty Hall Problem. On that show I will offer up a way to concentrate 2/3 of your winners into 1/3 of your contenders. Free. Did I mention it is completely FREE?

I am trying to raise the bar to a high level and keep it high. We are not some "system mill" cranking out products that come with "get rich quick" claims. We are providing serious, deep research behind the products that go out.

The bottom line for all this is that we live in financial times that are difficult for many (most?) of us. We are trying to offer good value at the lowest possible cost while still justifying being in this industry and producing these materials.

I hope you can see that money spent with us supports that on-going effort and results in everyone getting more and better materials to improve their game.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave,

I have a four-year old nephew who likes to put on a small cape and run around the house announcing that he's a super-hero, although, fortunately he hasn't destroyed any skyscrapers lately. Your tiresomely hyperbolic claims for a product whose value is absolutely unproven brought him to mind.

I have a suggestion: buy a clue and drop the endless sales drivel about the profound handicapping discoveries of you and your rocket scientist colleagues and start posting large data samples of the ROI performance of New Pace, if you expect to persuade anyone of its value. A 3k sample would be a good start. Better yet, send the algorithm to Jeff Platt, the gold standard for quality and integrity in the field of software handicapping, and let him run it through his 300k race database, since this is an option he offers for free.

You probably think I'm being unnecessarily harsh, but think about it; you're offering an unproven product, which is nothing more than a simple algorithm, which is extremely user-unfriendly, without free trial period for $77, and of course now additional charges. The landmark works of handicapping by Beyer, Brohamer, Davidowitz, Quirin, et. al., which contain enormous amounts of valuable handicapping information, are available for about $25. Cool scam.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[SilentRun]

Ernie...

Thxs for your response on the winners...
but what I'm trying to get at is what is the overall ROI...which, I believe, is what we are looking for

That is a good question...I handicap my races using the contenders from RDSS and New Pace. (Ted...I feel the following is very general and not technical)

As an example: MTH Race 8 from 7/25/11.
My Four top RDSS contenders were 7-3-6-8 and the New Pace contenders contained 8 and 7. I bet 8 to win and played a 7-3-8 exacta. The result was #8 won and the exacta was 8/7. I can go over in more detail my methodology in the New Pace section if you wish. But the point is: Who should I credit my ROI to New Pace or RDSS ? They both had the winner and exacta horses. I can say New Pace is helping me but as far as determining a stand alone New Pace ROI ...You got me there.

Instead.......................
I suggest you refer to the New Pace discussion section (If you haven't already) there is an excellent post by gl45 where he shows stand alone New Pace stats from MNR and the associated ROI.

Regards,

Ernie

[shoeless]

Mike,

I do not have any results on New Pace but do hear from Pino as he has posted that it does well and I value his opinion

[gl45]

Ernie,
your posted results from MNR on race #8 (7-25-2011) & race #7 (7-10-2011) do not match with the Equibase results chart

[SilentRun]

Ernie,
your posted results from MNR on race #8 (7-25-2011) & race #7 (7-10-2011) do not match with the Equibase results chart

Sorry they were typos.............The correct races are:

MTH (not MNR) race 8 from 7/25/11

and

MNR race 10 (not race 7) from 7/10/11.

I'll post the summary results later.

Ernie

[mikesal57]

Yes I can....Here are 6 races from my records that I won using New Pace concepts in conjunction with RDSS. This is before I was privy to RDSS2 and computed New Pace partial by hand and partially where I entered them into a spreadsheet where I set up formulas to compute The totals and percent. I won some of the exactas but New Pace had them. Sorry but it is not lined up but you get the picture.

Date Track Race E1/E2 L1/L2 WIN PAID EXACTA $1 PAID
________________________________________________________

7/25 MNR 8 8/2 6/7 8 8.60 8/7 26.50
7/25 MTH 6 1A/7 2/6 7 11.00 7/6 17.10
7/24 MNR 3 2/6 1A/3 1A 10.40 1A/2 20.10
7/23 ELP 3 4/2 5/6 2 7.80
7/17 MTH 5 4/6 5/8 6 13.40
7/10 MNR 7 4/10 7/9 10 14.40

Ernie

Hi Ernie....

By no means I am attacking you, your a good guy and respected by me..
Your showing me 6 hits on 5 different days....
New Pace can give you plays with almost each race on every days card...
so these are your only plays on those days?
did you pass all the others?

mike

[cdax]

I don't have any problem paying the measly $27 for Dave's update. The first week of use of NewPace it easily paid for itself two to three times over.

I would like to post my proof but my major flaw is I do not keep sufficient records. I can probably search through ADW record of my activity to find the hits, oddly enough the big payoffs came from Will Rogers Downs (a track I never played before) and Tampa Bay.

Chris

[mikesal57]

Ernie,

I must disagree.

Purchase of a product does not entitle you to all future developments for that product. If that were the case, what would be the incentive to continue development?

Just so you know, I (and my team) have roughly 100 hours in the improvements that are being shared, as well as another 9 hours in the development of this particular workshop.

My customers and clients are usually thrilled to pay the small amounts of money charged to ensure that they are on the cutting edge. I hope you can see your way clear to view it from that standpoint. BTW, there IS an Improve/Decline workshop coming as soon as I can quantify the advancements into an updated strategy. (That is still several months away, I believe.)


The almost unanimous feedback I have received from people regarding NewPace, as well as the other products I produce, is that the products are being thoroughly used and enjoyed. The feedback also indicates that these products are considered "good value" for the dollars spent.

People in our industry - that would be the horse handicapping world - are clamoring for good materials. In order for such products to continue being produced, there must be a reasonable financial reward for producing such materials. "Free" will simply not work as a business model.

That said, consider just how much really good information we do put out for free. Next Wednesday will be episode 3 of our Handicapping Live TV cyber show. This show is about The Monty Hall Problem. On that show I will offer up a way to concentrate 2/3 of your winners into 1/3 of your contenders. Free. Did I mention it is completely FREE?

I am trying to raise the bar to a high level and keep it high. We are not some "system mill" cranking out products that come with "get rich quick" claims. We are providing serious, deep research behind the products that go out.

The bottom line for all this is that we live in financial times that are difficult for many (most?) of us. We are trying to offer good value at the lowest possible cost while still justifying being in this industry and producing these materials.

I hope you can see that money spent with us supports that on-going effort and results in everyone getting more and better materials to improve their game.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave..

We over here at Pace and Cap are a different breed of people.
We are a close knit community that has shared good and bad times with each other. We've met several times around the country and had some good times and continue to each year. We bend over backwards to help each other out and at not one time has their hand open for services rendered.
If you and your team wants to develop products and improvements then by all means go ahead. But remember your doing your advertising on "Free" community boards. Oh yes , I forgot were getting discounts.
Its not the 27 bucks that bothers me, its not much to us OR ever you.
You've taken one concept from the book Percentages and Probabilities and used it to its extreme . Within less than a year you developed Improve/Decline and New Pace and now NP Improvements without a hint of results or feedback from others( I dont consider a one time $100 winner from a poster at PA valid ) . Your a programmer and have a vast database and has a team...how difficult would it have been to produce a program and provide results for everyone to see instead of just throwing it out there?
How much work was done on this when after 3-4 months theres a need for improvements?
On the other hand, Ted has incorporated New Pace into RDSS and has thrown it out to us and didn't ask for a red cent..thats class!!

P.S.- good to hear that Improve/Decline is coming back around again...:eek:

mike

[SilentRun]

Hi Ernie....

By no means I am attacking you, your a good guy and respected by me..
Your showing me 6 hits on 5 different days....
New Pace can give you plays with almost each race on every days card...
so these are your only plays on those days?
did you pass all the others?

mike

No I played other races on those days, I passed some, I Lost some and won some I didn't post. The total number of races I played on those days was about 20+. What I posted was an extract sample in response to your "show me something positive" request.
I am referring to those races that I took the trouble to manually compute the New Pace contenders using a formula based spreadsheet that helped to shorten the time. It was still a pain. Now it is so smooth with RDSS2. Over a period a month I did about 60 races. And....I would not rely on New Pace alone but would only bet if I ran my paceline contenders through RDSS. I find that New Pace is helping me and I am fine with it.

I'll try to provide any info that you request if I could. In fact................
I can copy my original spreadsheet output for all 60 races and mail it to you if you want to...Whatever.

Best Regards,

Ernie

[mikesal57]

Ernie..

what I'm trying to get and I'm sure others will look for is....

What is the bottom line with New Pace?

Is the claim "innovation of the century" applicable?

or is it just another tool

mike

I need a way to quit my day job.....

[Dave Schwartz]

You've taken one concept from the book Percentages and Probabilities and used it to its extreme

Mike,

I do not understand your reference above. What did I take from Percentages and Probabilities? I have certainly learned from P&P, but I am not sure what you mean by your reference.

Is the claim "innovation of the century" applicable? or is it just another tool

Everything is "just a tool." NewPace is a tool, as is Improve/Decline, as is RDSS.

The question, "How good is the tool?" is a valid one. If I post MY results, I must add "your results may differ" then you'll want to know why they will differ. When I say they were done with MY software, will that make you happy? I think not.

You have a guy - GL - who is already posting the heck out of results using HIS version of the TOOL accomplished with the software TOOL that you use. Yet, apparently, these results are not enough for you.

I have been in this business a long time. It is not a coincidence. We're running a business and business, by its nature, runs on money. Money is generated by selling stuff. Longevity is achieved from selling stuff repeatedly to the same customers.

We must be accomplishing this reasonably well or this would not be year 22 for us.

We produce really good stuff that is available at reasonable cost. We try to treat the customer right. Apparently, we aren't for everyone. Apparently, our stuff isn't for you.

Good fortune at the races.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[SilentRun]

Ernie..

what I'm trying to get and I'm sure others will look for is....

What is the bottom line with New Pace?

Is the claim "innovation of the century" applicable?

or is it just another tool

mike

I need a way to quit my day job.....

I gotcha...The best advice I can give you is.."DON'T QUIT YOUR DAY JOB".

Unfortunately I don't know what the bottom line is with NEW PACE. It is too new and there is not enough data to support its authenticity. In any case I am not privy to such data. It is certainly not the "innovation of the century"

From my perspective it is another tool that is showing positive initial results.
This is supported by:

Studies on exacta plays (gl's post)
Running New Pace by Pace & Cap members and posting results.
User feedback.

This is still an evolving product as per Dave Schwartz. IMO it is a very innovative idea.

Like any other product, depending on your understanding and on how you use it, One person can profit and another could get burned. Yet all parties have access to the same information.

That is as far as I can go on this one...only time will tell.

Regards,

Ernie

[gl45]

My 2 cents.
If you want to know if a new handicapping method will be profitable, you must work at it. How many races do you need until it prove itself I don't know. My little project was intended as a black box, with no handicapping necessary.
So far has produced small profits, five more months to the end of the racing meet.
The new screen shot is sample of the collected data from 3/1/2010 to 7/31/2011 for MNR.

cheers

[Ted Craven]

Dave,

I have a four-year old nephew who likes to put on a small cape and run around the house announcing that he's a super-hero, although, fortunately he hasn't destroyed any skyscrapers lately. Your tiresomely hyperbolic claims for a product whose value is absolutely unproven brought him to mind.

I have a suggestion: buy a clue and drop the endless sales drivel about the profound handicapping discoveries of you and your rocket scientist colleagues and start posting large data samples of the ROI performance of New Pace, if you expect to persuade anyone of its value. A 3k sample would be a good start. Better yet, send the algorithm to Jeff Platt, the gold standard for quality and integrity in the field of software handicapping, and let him run it through his 300k race database, since this is an option he offers for free.

You probably think I'm being unnecessarily harsh, but think about it; you're offering an unproven product, which is nothing more than a simple algorithm, which is extremely user-unfriendly, without free trial period for $77, and of course now additional charges. The landmark works of handicapping by Beyer, Brohamer, Davidowitz, Quirin, et. al., which contain enormous amounts of valuable handicapping information, are available for about $25. Cool scam.

Cheers,

B Jennet

BJ,

I'll presume (feel free to correct me though) that you also believe I have either been duped or am in collusion with Dave to either shill his product which may be harmful to one's bottom line, or else willfully distract Sartin Methodology practitioners from their tried and true tools. After having worked so hard for years to build up what I have done so far, and having gained Doc Sartin's respect, I can't imagine why I would want to do either of the foregoing. So I'm confused there. Make no mistake - Dave did not just parachute into PaceandCap shamelessly self-promoting NewPace - I invited him, I asked to include NewPace as another tool among many in the modern Methodology. And like all tools, users must make it their own, bet according to the feedback from their records, meld it with their other approaches. That's the process I see happening here.

In very short order, you will see larger and larger scale studies and ROI proofs using RDSS and NewPace. Some folks have not been doing nothing with this for the past several months. But I expect everyone's mileage to differ: RDSS' BLBL or VDC screen also gives you 4 or 5 contenders, and some folks have this process automated (either in a canned, private software routine) or mechanically by hand. But there is a very wide variance in how one exploits that intelligence in wager decisions. So a 3000 race study of BL/VDC output would show different ROI results for different folks - and different wagers won and lost.

And the same with NewPace. It's up to Dave to answer for his choice to not supply the large scale studies you require. I got no time to waste on that debate - I'm too busy programming the damn thing, co-ordinating users' research presentations (i.e. spreadsheets of whole season runs using Newpace) and helping folks figure out how to use the rest of RDSS. We're moving on, we're doing it. If the whole thing turns out to be a sham, a hoax, I'll tell the world and take responsibility for having wasted people's time. You may participate or snipe from the sidelines, but at any cost you should not give up what is currently working well for you.

Meanwhile, may I recommend just a tetch less antagonism in your next post. You may critique and disagree with anyone, but you know the decorum required here.

Cheers, and stay tuned ...

Ted

[SilentRun]

Sorry they were typos.............The correct races are:

MTH (not MNR) race 8 from 7/25/11

and

MNR race 10 (not race 7) from 7/10/11.

I'll post the summary results later.

Ernie

Here are the summary results for those races.

Ernie

[mikesal57]

Mike,

I do not understand your reference above. What did I take from Percentages and Probabilities? I have certainly learned from P&P, but I am not sure what you mean by your reference.



Everything is "just a tool." NewPace is a tool, as is Improve/Decline, as is RDSS.

The question, "How good is the tool?" is a valid one. If I post MY results, I must add "your results may differ" then you'll want to know why they will differ. When I say they were done with MY software, will that make you happy? I think not.

You have a guy - GL - who is already posting the heck out of results using HIS version of the TOOL accomplished with the software TOOL that you use. Yet, apparently, these results are not enough for you.

I have been in this business a long time. It is not a coincidence. We're running a business and business, by its nature, runs on money. Money is generated by selling stuff. Longevity is achieved from selling stuff repeatedly to the same customers.

We must be accomplishing this reasonably well or this would not be year 22 for us.

We produce really good stuff that is available at reasonable cost. We try to treat the customer right. Apparently, we aren't for everyone. Apparently, our stuff isn't for you.

Good fortune at the races.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave..

Not to get into technical stuff about NP....I believe the reg speed sort is common in both products....correct?
So I would say that your one idea and has turned into something thats getting bigger and bigger...correct?..or you would say better and better

New Pace was made for the "masses" of lazy people that don't want to handicap and want action. Generally when somebody sells a “system”, they give you what is suppose to be “tested” results of what you can expect using the system, you didn't and you have the capabilities.
Yes, GL is doing something that should have been presented from the start.
From what he's shown so far...It looks like I gotta keep working..LOL
Why would our results differ? It was pretty much clear cut on how and what to bet , so it should be almost the same :D

Anyway..Dave , your a good sport and fought well...you know if your "improvements" didn't come out the same time as RDSS2, maybe I would have been more understanding and didn't think there was a motive behind it

mike

[Dave Schwartz]

Not to get into technical stuff about NP....I believe the reg speed sort is common in both products....correct?

RegSpeed Sort is 100% my invention, using a concept I learned in a book titled: How to Measure Anything.

Anyway..Dave , your a good sport and fought well

I am fighting no fight, beyond the fights that we all experience: survival and life.



New Pace was made for the "masses" of lazy people that don't want to handicap and want action.

You have an interesting outlook on life - not unique, but interesting - and certainly far different than mine.


I think we part ways on this note.


Respectfully,
Dave Schwartz

[mikesal57]

OH, by the way....where do I sign up?

:D

[Dave Schwartz]

http://store.thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/newpace-improvements-workshop/

If you have NewPace, you received a coupon for $87 off.

If you do not have NewPace, then the price is $114 (which includes a CD of the event).

[gl45]

I don't know why, but I feel I opened a can of worms. Go figure.

[mikesal57]

I don't know why, but I feel I opened a can of worms. Go figure.

Your doing fine P...just giving us some info

[For The Lead]

I have a few words to add to this discussion, so try not to fall asleep before the end.

Right up front, let me say that I do NOT subscribe to New Pace, therefore I am “blocked” from viewing and/or participating in that area. More on this in a minute.

Some of you regular posters may have noticed the absence of Bill Lyster recently. That is because he is busy working on New Pace and trying to gather results information for all of you that do subscribe to New Pace. How do I know that? Well, Bill sent me a “PM” (that’s a PRIVATE message), asking me for some information. The reason he asked me is, he knows I have a large database and he was interested in finding out if I would “SHARE” some information with him. It was not tedious or time consuming, so naturally I provided that information to him. More on this in a minute.

You may have noticed that I “bolded” the word “private” above. My understanding of “private” and its’ use on this site is, it is a communication between two people that is NOT for public consumption. As an example, Ted set up a “private” area of this site for ONLY those people who have paid Dave Schwartz for his New Pace System. In addition, Ted has edited and/or moved certain comments from the OPEN area of this site to the CLOSED area of the site in an effort to keep certain information about New Pace away from the OPEN area, in other words, a “private” area. THAT I have no problem with.

It has come to my attention, the long way around, that some of the “private” communication between myself and Bill Lyster was made available to those who participate in the CLOSED New Pace area. Based on what I have been told, it seems to me that Bill Lyster communicated the information I provided to him, to Ted. In turn, Ted posted that information in the CLOSED area and thus, opened up that information to potential criticism where I have no opportunity to respond. It is important to me, that I stress the fact, that if Ted had come to me and “asked”, I would have gladly provided that information to him, since I have already posted much of it in the OPEN areas of this site in the past. My one consideration would have been, that I be given the opportunity to reply to any “push back”, should it arise, in the same way as I would in an OPEN area. I think this is asking little more than common courtesy. I say here and now to Ted and to Dave Schwartz, I have no interest whatsoever in New Pace.

In keeping with the thrust of this thread (results of New Pace research), I am going to return the favor and post, in part, information from the “PM’s” between myself and Bill Lyster. At least this will be done out in the open where everyone can see it. Here is the information…
“As to sample size I have reluctantly been forced to agree. When Ted and I started testing the EL program based on Adj SR, Total Energy and Perceptor bases as well as the original version of EL 2.0, I evaluated the first bunch after 254 races and got one set of numbers and surprisingly there was enough difference in the 2nd group of 253 to really cause you to shake your head.”

As you can see, two trials of approximately 250 races each showed enough of a difference as to render each group meaningless. It takes A LOT of trials to substantiate the validity of anything to the point where you can rely on the outcome in the long run.

Now in fairness to Bill Lyster, he went on to try and explain away the difference between the two trials, citing “winter/spring AQU info with short fields and prices, and some of it was large runs of wins and non wins.” I feel compelled to point out, this should have no bearing on the system. If the system is valid, it should be valid over any surface or time of year, etc. and etc.

I have seen the video of Dave’s presentation and explanation of the New Pace System. I do not recall any disclaimer of any kind with regard to anything. It was simply, buy it, use it and win with it. And “expect” huge prices.

From what I have seen in the OPEN areas of the site regarding New Pace, it seems everybody is making their own adjustments to the original system as Dave advanced it. It seems curious to me that everyone “starts” with the idea that Dave’s system needs “tweaking” when no one has or has seen any valid results of the system the way it was originally presented. If you purchased a valid and profitable system, why the need for tweaking? I would think the first order of business would be to evaluate the system on its’ merits as presented, a simple, powerful, easy approach to pace handicapping. So why all the immediate tweaking? I'm just saying...

[Dave Schwartz]

I feel compelled to point out, this should have no bearing on the system. If the system is valid, it should be valid over any surface or time of year, etc. and etc.



If you have a large database, then you should be able to see that, while pace characteristics are reasonably uniform, the performance of speed ratings - ANY speed rating system - is more accurate in the summer months and less accurate in the winter months.

Therefore, any system that uses speed as a component will, logically have seasonal ups and downs.

The big question is: Which affords you better results; summer or winter?

[Bill V.]

To Paceandcap

I just want to mention that I feel adding Newpace and any other ideas
to help with the Methodology is a plus.

Adding tools and advancing ideas in Sartin Programs
is nothing new
Anyboy who has ever used Pace Laucher 4
then Synthesis might understand this .

Also for a small fee Jim Bradshaw could and did
offer energy programs with features from newer
programs Thoromation screens graphs ect.

As for me the fact that Ted would bother to knock himself out
and probably feel bad about it. that he could not get the Val 4 VDC readouts
into the testing model on time. Just knowing He would even mention to me he is
holding up, till he gets it right means so much to me.

This man truly is making a Sartin tool for each of us

GS
Bill

[Ted Craven]

It has come to my attention, the long way around, that some of the “private” communication between myself and Bill Lyster was made available to those who participate in the CLOSED New Pace area. Based on what I have been told, it seems to me that Bill Lyster communicated the information I provided to him, to Ted. In turn, Ted posted that information in the CLOSED area and thus, opened up that information to potential criticism where I have no opportunity to respond. It is important to me, that I stress the fact, that if Ted had come to me and “asked”, I would have gladly provided that information to him, since I have already posted much of it in the OPEN areas of this site in the past. My one consideration would have been, that I be given the opportunity to reply to any “push back”, should it arise, in the same way as I would in an OPEN area. I think this is asking little more than common courtesy. I say here and now to Ted and to Dave Schwartz, I have no interest whatsoever in New Pace.

For The Lead,

I owe you and Bill Lyster an apology for unthinkingly sharing the recency stats you provided Bill and sharing them in the private NewPace Forum, possibly without some of the context or follow on commentary you may have provided if you could. The NewPace Forum is not private by my preference, but it is private to NewPace licensees.

Thinking back (a few days) I believe I must have felt that the stats were so similar to those Dave Schwartz himself had publicly provided that they were unremarkable and self-evident, and made a point I thought was unclear in something Dave S had responded to.

FTL, I should have simply asked permission to cite you, and I will certainly endeavour to do so in the future, should you choose to share you research stats further. Again, my apologies.

For the record, I'll copy that exchange which included your stats from the private NewPace forum below in the next thread. I welcome your commentary!

Ted

[Ted Craven]

...
Also, recency has a high impact value, according to stats by For The Lead and also Dave Schwartz, I believe. A NewPace contender off for 190 days is a lower candidate for Win or Place (and declining bet for Show as well).
Ted

Not sure where you got this idea, but my answer would be "No, they do not have the IV edge normally attributed to them."

Episode 3: How Big a Factor is Recency?
http://thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/horse-handicapping-episode-3/

Or here on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFB7agqTF-k

Dave,

Would you then be in disagreement with the following statistics:

"Over a recent 2 year period"

WIN PLACE
77% 75% raced in the last 30 days
88% 85% raced in the last 45 days
92% 89% raced in the last 60 days
95% 91% raced in the last 90 days

97% 94% raced in the last 187 days

"Over the past couple of years, which takes in over 80,000 results"

75% of place horses have run in the last 30 days
85% of place horses have run in the last 45 days
89% of place horses have run in the last 60 days
91% of place horses have run in the last 90 days

If not, well this is the degree of recency I was referring to.
If so, I welcome your alternate summary.

I will get to those links of yours ASAP.

Ted

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/Rec-0200.png

Look at the IV column and tell me if you think there is a lot of difference.

I'm sure there is valuable context to your chart in the video link you provide, which I'll get to, but I'm afraid I can't grasp the impact of your chart to say other than: if faced with an Early or Late contender, off say 190 days, I am less likely to treat it as an equal opportunity to Win (or put equal weight on it on top in Exacta combinations) than I would for any other NP contender returning sooner. That was what I was referring to earlier as recency being impactful, perhaps 'impact' having a different meaning than you mean: I'll hit far fewer > 180 day Layoff horses than < 180. I have many other tools in the bag to help downgrade putative NP contenders, and that was the original question.

Another factor to consider (responding to shoeless' initial query) is that some of the High SRs may come from compromised or non-equivalent races: a horse last week running at DMR (who Bill commented on, can't remember who??) looked swell as a ES% #1 and E1 contender but earned the high rating in a 4f dash last year in a DMR maiden race. at elast using TrackMasters's SRs, that high rating was not equivalent to other high ratings, and the odds, other RDSS readouts and the result were all consistent (finished poorly).

Unless you're just pumping through the volume of races with little analysis (one way to go), even a little other comprehensive handicapping lets you qualify usually at least one of the 4 NP contenders - and lessens the bet cost. It seems.

Ted

190 days off I totally agree with. And it shows in the chart.

But most people try to draw a line at (say) 30 days and that is clearly (according to the table) folly.

Dave

[Bill Lyster]

My two cents worth:

I can see both sides of the respective arguments here, but ultimately I think I side with Dave Schwartz on this one. I really enjoyed receiving, reading and listening to Early/Late and I think that it was well worth the price. It has sparked many ideas and tons of research which I am pleased to do in search of a better way to get to the winner's circle.

I liken Dave's update and enhancement of Early/Late to what happens in the global software market, not that I am an expert in that in any way. I am just repeating what respected members of that community have told me. It also parallels in some way the various upgrades in programs from Howard Sartin.

Example: You buy your first Microsoft operating system and it has bugs. Users and Microsoft communicate and fixes and revisions occur, which make it better and better. Did you think they put out a product that was perfect? Obviously, it was not. I am sure that they knowingly put out a product, that with what they knew at the time, would handle a large number of applications and problems. How many years later is it and still there are more versions and always corrections and each of the major changes require a substantial monetary donation. Bug fixes are usually provided without cost. Upgrades usually cost a few $

I first discovered Sartin in a book about significant contributions to handicapping back in 1987. At that time I was doing calculations by hand, based on what I could understand from The Followup. They charged a modest amount for The Followup, $88 per year if I remember correctly. Most of the new stuff was at least previewed in this periodical. And once the new program was out, it was the forum for discussion - mostly pre-internet, mind you.

I bought several Sartin programs, with most of them costing between $350 and $550 (on this I could be wrong, but suffice it to say 20 years ago I did not consider that as cheap - but it was competitive with other software then available.) Most of the core info continued to be incorporated in the new programs with screens added, subtracted or what have you.

It really doesn't matter to me when Dave's concept crystallized and finally made it to market. It really comes down to this: would a really good idea be worth $77 originally and then $27 if the return was potentially much greater? Personally, I think so. Virtually one medium odds horse included by Early/Late could pay for this program and its updates in one, or just a few bets.

I, for one, am up for being exposed to new ideas. Just this one has spawned several and the research ahead may or may not prove out. If it doesn't, I will log it as one way NOT TO GO in the future, but at least I will have learned something that does not work.

A long time ago I read where people unneedfully burdened themselves with the pressure of trying to do more and more things right on the path to success - they had to achieve this, then they had to achieve that, etc.

The other option was to eliminate the things they were doing wrong and by process of elimination they would close strongly on their goals. Its just another way to get there. Success by subtraction instead of by addition.

So in case all of this has lost you, just consider this, Early/Late, as a work in progress that can only get better as more people participate with use and further testing.

Funny story: I first conducted a test of about 500 races and started with the April versions of EL 2.0 that Ted interpreted after he subscribed to Early/Late. He has since made some changes that more closely follow what Dave originally intended. Since then we ran the same test against the current logic, adjusted speed ratings, Total energy and Perceptor ratings to see if there was a better mouse to be had. Guess what? The imperfect first edition of EL 2.0 had a significantly higher win%, but a lower ROI than some of the other options; had a higher exacta hit rate %, but a lower ROI than some of the other options. So an incomplete idea provided more wins, whodaguessed that!

As soon as some of our colleagues review the study I will publish it. then you can play with it any way you want and try to make it better.

Best regards,


Bill

[For The Lead]

For The Lead,

I owe you and Bill Lyster an apology for unthinkingly sharing the recency stats you provided Bill and sharing them in the private NewPace Forum, possibly without some of the context or follow on commentary you may have provided if you could. The NewPace Forum is not private by my preference, but it is private to NewPace licensees.

Thinking back (a few days) I believe I must have felt that the stats were so similar to those Dave Schwartz himself had publicly provided that they were unremarkable and self-evident, and made a point I thought was unclear in something Dave S had responded to.

FTL, I should have simply asked permission to cite you, and I will certainly endeavour to do so in the future, should you choose to share you research stats further. Again, my apologies.

For the record, I'll copy that exchange which included your stats from the private NewPace forum below in the next thread. I welcome your commentary!

Ted

Ted,
There are two things in your response that I accept.
(1) Your sincere apology, and
(2) That the "private" New Pace forum is not your idea.

I just want you, and others, to understand that my only objection was the inability to respond to "push back" if such push back occurred.

Having said that and knowing that Dave will be reading this, I want to say that I understand Dave's position. You are aware that I understand the value of the time, effort and, of course, money that gets invested in a particular project and those who invest that time, effort and money are certainly entitled to compensation from those efforts.

Please feel free to call on me any time. If I can be of any help to you I will certainly try.

[BJennet]

BJ,

I'll presume (feel free to correct me though) that you also believe I have either been duped or am in collusion with Dave to either shill his product which may be harmful to one's bottom line, or else willfully distract Sartin Methodology practitioners from their tried and true tools. After having worked so hard for years to build up what I have done so far, and having gained Doc Sartin's respect, I can't imagine why I would want to do either of the foregoing. So I'm confused there. Make no mistake - Dave did not just parachute into PaceandCap shamelessly self-promoting NewPace - I invited him, I asked to include NewPace as another tool among many in the modern Methodology. And like all tools, users must make it their own, bet according to the feedback from their records, meld it with their other approaches. That's the process I see happening here.

In very short order, you will see larger and larger scale studies and ROI proofs using RDSS and NewPace. Some folks have not been doing nothing with this for the past several months. But I expect everyone's mileage to differ: RDSS' BLBL or VDC screen also gives you 4 or 5 contenders, and some folks have this process automated (either in a canned, private software routine) or mechanically by hand. But there is a very wide variance in how one exploits that intelligence in wager decisions. So a 3000 race study of BL/VDC output would show different ROI results for different folks - and different wagers won and lost.

And the same with NewPace. It's up to Dave to answer for his choice to not supply the large scale studies you require. I got no time to waste on that debate - I'm too busy programming the damn thing, co-ordinating users' research presentations (i.e. spreadsheets of whole season runs using Newpace) and helping folks figure out how to use the rest of RDSS. We're moving on, we're doing it. If the whole thing turns out to be a sham, a hoax, I'll tell the world and take responsibility for having wasted people's time. You may participate or snipe from the sidelines, but at any cost you should not give up what is currently working well for you.

Meanwhile, may I recommend just a tetch less antagonism in your next post. You may critique and disagree with anyone, but you know the decorum required here.

Cheers, and stay tuned ...

Ted

Hi Ted,

Based on the performance of New Pace that I've seen so far, Dave's eloquent non-response to my request for test results that he undoubtedly has, and the comments of other posters in this thread, I'm convinced that this product is a dog. Given it's simplicity, I think it would be difficult for it to be otherwise.

As I remember, Dave originally touted this as a profitable black-box application which would enable players to dramatically increase their betting volume. Exactly what I was looking for.

From what you say here, it looks like the black-box claims were overstated,
'New Pace', like RDDS, can only be used selectively. Back to subjectivity. This is what I was hoping to get away from, not only because it's a great time consumer, but because it can never be tested.

When I first began using the Sartin methodology, Sartin's reputation and the validity of pace handicapping was already established with national authorities such as James Quinn and later Tom Ainslie. His work didn't require further validation. When the Sartin software was released, everyone already knew the value of the work behind it, and the integrity of those in the original Sartin group. The same with RDSS. So it makes me wonder, why you would include an unproven application such as 'New Pace' as part of RDSS without first having tested it thoroughly. Even you admit that it may well be a hoax.

To return to the car analogy, when I buy a car, I get a set of specs, maybe check Consumer Reports, and other resources, to see how the car rates, what it's level of performance is. The dealer doesn't hide the specs from me, doesn't ask me to design or work on the car, and doesn't tell me that if it doesn't run, it's my problem. That pretty much sums up Dave's response. The arrogance, and implicit contempt of his attitude is repellent.

If this is someone you want as a business partner, I wish you all the luck you'll undoubtedly need.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[Dave Schwartz]

Based on the performance of New Pace that I've seen so far, Dave's eloquent non-response to my request for test results that he undoubtedly has, and the comments of other posters in this thread, I'm convinced that this product is a dog. Given it's simplicity, I think it would be difficult for it to be otherwise.

I am always amazed that the biggest criticizers of new technologies are the people who know NOTHING about them.

Okay, you want numbers? Here are mine.

I have 1,321 races in my sample.
My contenders, which average 4.34 per race, won 1,070 races, for 81%.
Collectively, the have returned a $net of $1.87.

That means, if you wagered every contender, in every race, you lost 6.5 cents per wagered dollar.

Contenders above 7/1 are flat-bet profitable, with no other handicapping.

I have resisted quoting these numbers because in order to reproduce them you would need to be using my software and I did not want to put out a benchmark that might cause RDSS users to question the value of their speed numbers.

Ted, my apologies.

Mr. Jenet, IMHO, it is you who deserves the insults but I will not be slinging them.


Dave Schwartz

[mikesal57]

Dave..

As you can see by know we are a tough bunch....
and the saying "Show me the Money" couldn't be more true

On to your last post...

Why would you hold back on your sample...What would make you believe your numbers might be better than RDSS speed numbers...that is a conceded remark..

Second....New Pace was released in March......With the extensive database you have and all the research done in preparing this to the public ..you have only have 1321 races to comment on?

I guess the guys over at PA are brainwashed or zombies for not even challenging your concepts

:confused:
Mike

[Dave Schwartz]

Mike,

Thank you for posting MY marketing email on my competitor's forum. LOL - I would not have considered doing that.

*** Note, the referenced post was deleted ***

I'll be finished now. Simply put, I am not going to play this game.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Ted Craven]

Dave..

As you can see by know we are a tough bunch....
and the saying "Show me the Money" couldn't be more true

On to your last post...

Why would you hold back on your sample...What would make you believe your numbers might be better than RDSS speed numbers...that is a conceded remark..

Second....New Pace was released in March......With the extensive database you have and all the research done in preparing this to the public ..you have only have 1321 races to comment on?

I guess the guys over at PA are brainwashed or zombies for not even challenging your concepts

:confused:
Mike

Mike, you made your point and not too delicately. Let's.move.on. I urge everyone here to observe proper decorum. Disagree and debate - but from the 'high ground', OK?

Mike, who do you like at Mountaineer tonight (separate thread).

Ted

[mikesal57]

ted...will get up MTR later

[For The Lead]

...

Thanks, Ted, for putting that recency information is up here.

I don’t have a lot to add, other than to say, races are not made up of “groups” of horses based on their time away from the races.

Certainly there are more horses that have had a race in the last 30 days than there are horses that haven’t run in the last 180 days. This, in itself, says something about the importance of a recent race. When horses have been off for an extended period of time, there is usually a reason, and in general, it is not a good reason, so they are suspect in their return. Any athlete, human or equine, performs better when they are in training. That’s why there is a pre-season in football and spring training in baseball. One might argue that workouts are similar, maybe so, but there is no substitute for the real thing.

Dave and I used different break points, but his chart basically mimics my numbers, even though Dave’s chart was for non maiden and older horses, whereas my numbers are all inclusive, so I’ll use my numbers as an example. Obviously the majority of winners (77%) come from the group that has a race in the last 30 days. My next group, which is up to and including 45 days away, increases the overall win percentage to 88%, but in reality you are only picking up an additional 11%. As the number of days away increases, the percentage of winners only increases by a few percentage points. As far as I am concerned, there is no need to extend your criteria out to 187 days from 90 days, since you only pick up an additional 2%.

At any rate, when it comes down to choosing, I think people would benefit from selecting a horse with a recent race rather than a horse that has been off for more than 90 days, keeping in mind that a recent race doesn’t not mean lower odds. There are many winners every day that have a recent race and pay large prices. If using horses that have had a race in the last 90 days doesn’t get you there, I don’t know what will. Of course there are some who may enjoy the challenge of trying to pick that 1 out of 20 that do win after being off more than 90 days.

[BJennet]

I am always amazed that the biggest criticizers of new technologies are the people who know NOTHING about them.

Okay, you want numbers? Here are mine.

I have 1,321 races in my sample.
My contenders, which average 4.34 per race, won 1,070 races, for 81%.
Collectively, the have returned a $net of $1.87.

That means, if you wagered every contender, in every race, you lost 6.5 cents per wagered dollar.

Contenders above 7/1 are flat-bet profitable, with no other handicapping.

I have resisted quoting these numbers because in order to reproduce them you would need to be using my software and I did not want to put out a benchmark that might cause RDSS users to question the value of their speed numbers.

Ted, my apologies.

Mr. Jenet, IMHO, it is you who deserves the insults but I will not be slinging them.


Dave Schwartz

Dave,

Thanks for finally putting up a response to some of the information we've been asking for. I don't know what the significance of these numbers being derived from HSH is, but they match very closely the $Net of 1.94 and lowest flat-bet profit odds of 7-1 that I extracted by the early postings of E/L 2.0 results here. But since, as you once admitted youself on PA, results can change dramatically above even a sample size of 1,500, it would be helpful to have a sample size close to 3k. I think this especially true for a long-shot application, which as these figures indicate, and as you've described in the past, is what New Pace is.

You may wonder why a couple of us went Gestapo on you, but we've been asking these same questions about ROI and long-term perforance for months, in a more normal and polite manner, with no response. And since, for any gambler with half a brain, these are absolutely the key questions about any bet, system, method, whatever, it's very difficult to understand the lack of response.

BTW, if you're interested in hurling online insults at me, you're more than welcome, but you'll have to take a number and get in line behind my ex-girlfriends - and they can hit pretty hard.

Cheers,

B Jennet