New Pace Study & Approach
 

All credit here goes to Pino (gl45) for his time and devotion to getting this positive approach using New Pace.

Theory:
Using 4 horses without any discretion can/will get negative results.
But what if one selection was a stable constant in each race.
What is a constant in each and every race now?......YES...a post time favorite
He studied each race at each distance & class at his home track ..Mountaineer
He discovered that 50-60+ % of 5.5 and 6 furlong races had the favorite in the exacta. Also cheap claimers performed better.

We did a month+ study using this approach between RDSS( Trackmaster) and his home grown program using Bris numbers...
Attached is the results...

Filters used :

cheap claimers
field of 7 or more
no maiden and state bred
no races for only 3yo or 2yo
favorite must be one of the contenders otherwise No Bet (NB)
the exacta must pay $12 or more to be a play ( meaning you need to watch the pay-outs live)

Mike,

Thanks for presenting this,,,I think that this is a good study but if I understand this correctly... if the conditions described were met and the exacta probables at or near post time was at least $12 (break-even) which included the favorite plus 2 other New Pace horses. After 87 races there was a profit of $227.20 (327.20 -50). This may appear redundant but I am not clear on the following:

Re: RDSS

For the other 2 New Pace horses in the exacta must they also be RDSS
contenders ?

OR was the other 2 NP horses chosen based on the highest exacta payoff ?

As an aside, as far as the favorite is concerned I read that the favorite runs in-the-money in approximately 60% of all races regardless of distance, surface and track condition.

Thanks,

Ernie

Ernie..its a straight 4 horse exacta box if the favorite is one of the 4 contenders & all possible combinations of those 4 contenders is paying over $24 for 2 bucks
As for your other comment , I guess when Pino did his research..he saw it true for those 2 distances only and not the others at Mountaineer

mike

Some questions
 

Hi Mike,

Thanks to you and Pino for pointing this out, but it's somewhat difficult to understand. First, you mentioned RDSS, and Bris, along with NP, but it's not clear what they have to do with the strategy. Second, you state this this is designed for a 4-horse exacta box, but if you're using the favorite as a key, why not just make it a front and back wheel of the favorite? Also, if you're betting $24 boxes, how can $24 be the minimum acceptable payoff. Obviously, I'm missing something.

Cheers,

B Jennet

BJ..

We are both using the New Pace concept...
But he's using BRIS numbers via he own program and I am using Trackmaster's via RDSS .

Sometimes the favorite doesn't come in first or second...we sometimes get a bonus if the other contenders come in 1-2..thats why we dont put the fav in
front/back of the others..

A $24 min payout is required because why would you bet it if you know a few of them is going to pay less than $24...duh

Still don't get it
 

Hi Mike,

Thanks for clearing up the question about RDSS and Bris. But re the results - if this strategy is based on keying the favorite, all results not involving the favorite are either variance (luck), or possibly an indicator of where the value is in this strategy. If Pino has negative ROI on the wheel strategy I mentioned, then it's possible that the value in this strategy comes from using the non-favorites, not the favorites.

Also, re the $24 minimum payoff - if we're assuming a 50% hit-rate for a 4-horse box (as NP has demonstrated), then your break-even is $48. You're losing money on all exacta combinations below this amount. Possibly this strategy has a somewhat higher hit-rate, but the ROI (based on $227 profit) implies that Pino's average exacta should be about $53. So his average exacta odds are about half-way between 9/2 and 4-1. To put it a different way, the correct minimum payoff can't be geared to the minimum cost of the bet, but (if you know it) your ROI - aka your average payoff.

Cheers,

B Jennet

BJ...

First off , a 2 ex box of 4 horses comes out to $24..not $48 (that would be a Triple box)
Asking for that minimum keeps us from playing races with odds on favorites with low exacts.

My theory is that mostly everything is based on numbers. Why we key on the favorite is that we are staying away from a "Chaos" race. If he is not one of the contenders then there is a unseen factor that the public is not seeing and should avoid it.

Bottom line....as my early posts of daily cards and just betting blindly ...gave us a negative ROI...
Now , we are down to just a certain type race(s) with conditions..and getting positive results...can you ask for more?

Mike

From what I can see Mike is that BJ is basing the break-even on the cost of two wagered races since the hit rate is 50%.

Like me saying I have to get even money for each win bet to break even if I'm hitting 50% of all wagers.

I have spot played Mnr using the "gl45 original post" of the "No Brainer 4-horse exacta"; Clg5K no Mdn's; Min field size of 7; and the post time favorite as one of the 4 NP horses........sorry I don't have any charts or results for you to look at, but it was worth doing.

My bad
 

Hi Mike,

My bad re break-even. I never play 4-horse exacta boxes, and I had mistakenly doubled the number of combinations.

As far as this strategy itself is concerned, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work - but you know me, I'd like to see a larger sample first. Cheap races at small tracks looks like a possible niche for using NP. If this strategy does continue to work, maybe it's worth trying with identical filters at other tracks. As I said to Ted, it's possible that NP outperforms RDSS in sub-10k races.

I'll try to post again after I've had a chance to take a look at the spreadsheet, which might answer many of my questions.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Update
 

Heres an up-date as of 11/20

I will do this after each break in the week..(WED or THURS)

BJ...You got ahead of me on doing other tracks..I plan on doing a study of Tampa's meet starting in December.

So far RDSS is giving a hefty 50% profit..:)

Looking good
 

Hi Mike,

After getting the time to take a more careful look at your results (again, great job on the layout), and doing a little data-mining, I believe that this may be even better than you and Pino believe. As I said, I'm going to wait for more races to come in, before getting overly optimistic, but these results look really good to me.

Two questions which may seem so obvious as to be stupid, but just to confirm - I'm assuming that the red-numbered horses are the favorites, and that the exacta-payoff amounts are for a $1 exacta?

BTW, re my comments on other tracks - just speculating.

Keep up the great work.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Thxs BJ...your answers are true to both


mike

Update
 

as of 12/2..

had a bad stretch last week , possibly due to off tracks

but came back with vengeance yesterday...

Still in the groove
 

Hi Mike,

I see what you mean. But re those bad days, remember that statistically, they're almost meaningless. Focus on the big picture. You're still doing well. Even if without the last big hit, you would still be ahead. Just for yourself, if you want to make things clearer, you might make a simple line chart of your results, as though following a stock price.

BTW, it looks as though RDSS has done much better than BRIS here, probably because the BRIS numbers are so widely used by the betting public.

If you have extra time (who does, right now?), I would be interested to know how many ML favorites who were not NP contenders, actually won. I'm guessing it was roughly 10-13.

Thanks again for all your work.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Hello Mike,

I have been following what you are doing and it is nice to see that the study is showing positive results. This is a solid contribution and I thank all who have contributed.

In fact I played the mountain last night and hit 2 exactas using this method. Ok I cheated a little and ran the contenders through RDSS and only bet if at least 3 RDSS contenders boxed to the NEW Pace contenders.

I passed the races where the exacta payoffs did not meet the $12 minimum at
or near post time. BUT....when the exacta payoff between 2 contenders is less
than $12 say $10 It might be worth to still take the bet and live with a $2.00 loss if there is only 1 low odds horse and the other exacta combos will pay at least $ 20 or more for a $1.00 payoff. This is a deviation from the criteria and
a separate study has to be conducted to see if this is worth while. I am considering of tracking this myself

Also you can consider saving data entry by not reporting races where there are no bets as it is understood that there will be no betting if specific conditions are present.

Regards,

Ernie

Thxs BJ and Ernie

But remember, credit goes to Pino for developing this and the tedious work that follows..

BJ..I wouldn't have those results ...maybe Pino does..he'll let us know when he reads this..

Ernie...its not cheating at all...but remember , some NP contenders defy all laws of physics ...lol


I'm tinkering in making a decision on doing another track ..MTR goes on a vacation of 3 months after the 23rd...

I started tracking Tampa but my go to a all year track ..Parx

Mike

I think Parx is a good idea since it is open all year.

It is amazing, some of those NP horses come out of nowhere and at high mutuals. When you look over their PP's the horse may have ran ITM about 200 days ago yet the last 6 , 7 or so races it was eating dust downwind. A clear RDSS throwout.

Ernie

NB stats
 

Hi Mike,

Just wanted to add, with no disrespect to Ernie, that the stats on the NB races are of value to me, if it's not too much of a problem for you to continue to include them in your summary.

Also, as you say, much thanks to Pino, for spotting this angle, and to both of you, for the work of compiling the stats. Your faith in NP may be gaining a new convert.

Cheers,

B. Jennet

Mike,

Pino is really very good finding a way to use these different techniques
and I know he works very hard in doing so.

Jeff

A NB (No Bet) occurs when 4 or more of the 12 combinations for 4 horse Ex will pay less than $12, or the fav is not a NP contender.
Unfortunately the odds do change during the race, causing discrepancies in the 12 Ex combinations, a NB can become a bet or vice versa.

He sure does work hard, Jeff

BJ...here is, hopefully, what you asked for...

The m/l favorite is at the end....

here the file

sorry about that..

thxs for fixing it

Some confusion re ML faves
 

Thanks to Pino and Mike for answering my request for ML favorites who were not NP contenders. Since Mike indicated Pino's spreadsheet was correct, that was the one I checked.

However, I am still somewhat confused about how the ML favorites are being designated. The first four races recorded make sense, in that the ML favorite (indicated in the far-right column) and the 'NP contender' ML favorite (in red) are the same - as they should be. But in the fifth race, the ML favorite is #10, but the 'NP contender' ML favorite, is the #3. In the sixth race, they are again identical, both #10, as they should be, but in the seventh race the #7 is the ML favorite and the #5 is the 'NP contender' ML favorite. Any explanation for these discrepancies, or am I just misreading the numbers? Thanks for any help in advance.

Cheers,

B Jennet

the red horse is the race favorite, and as we all know, some time the ML favorite isn't anymore the favorite at race time. In race 7, horse #5 is the race favorite, and NP contender, and horse #7 is the ML favorite.
From your request the ML favorite #7 was not a NP contender and did not win the race

Misspoke
 

Hi Pino,

My apologies. Although I wrote "M/L" favorite, I really meant 'final odds' favorite, or, as you say 'race favorite'. I don't want to keep making more work for you, so I'm just going to estimate this.

Thanks again for all your and Mike's work on this project.

Cheers,

B. Jennet

race fav
 

BJ,
I think this is what you're asking for.

Hi Pino,

Thanks very much for this. Very interesting stats. Sorry for the delayed reply.

Cheers,

B Jennet

update as of 12/13

Go Mike
 

Go Mike.

Mike,

I noticed that in the 153 races to date that there were only 2 x's that there were four run-outs in a row. !1/20 L ,NB , L & 11/21 NB, L L.
11/28 L, NB & 11/29 L, L, NB, L. So far these are the worst cases. If this holds as the number of trials that are reported increases then this is very positive in itself. A starting bank of $96 should be more than sufficient if this trend holds.
Of course you can have 4 run-outs close together as you start before you build up capital but this has not happened. Just an observation

Ernie

Ernie...

No long losing streaks..no long winning streaks...not every races played
Just a consistent money making approach...
In 2 months it made about 700 balloons on $1 bets...
as any money management approach states an increase would have been made along the way making it..... :D

After the meet is over ( in about a week ) ..Pino and I will be looking at getting it down to 3 horses....

Mike

P.S- I'm surprised that Dave hasn't commented on this...

Mike and Pino,

I'm really impressed and inspired with your studies.
You and Pino did an excellent job.
I know that Pino really works hard and so do you.

MNR will be closing for a few months.
Where do you go next?
I was looking at Tampa and Beulah.

You guys should form a team and enter the P.A.I.H.L contest.
All you need is one more member.
You're very good with the exactas.
Nice job.:D

MTR FINAL RESULTS

Will start a study on Prx and maybe Tampa soon

Mike

I think Mike,Pino and Parts should enter

The final results are very impressive....That is closest to a BLACK BOX as I have
ever seen....with a very small risk of capital. Thanks, Pino, Mike and all who were involved for this eye opener.

Happy Holidays,

Ernie

Pino and Mike:
Been observing this from afar, so to speak. I was wondering if you could point to the post that best summarizes the overall technique, or even better perhaps, include it in the header of your results, just so the complete idea stays with the results.

Very nice work guys. Hope you are enjoying some time off at Christmas time. But Santa Anita opens tomorrow.


Best of New Years' cheer to you both,


Bill

Bill,
Thanks.
This was a preliminary study to gage the validity of Dave New Pace method. Next step we will try to reduce the contender to three, if is possible. Also the addition of an Actual Win% / Estimate Win% ratio for the horses attributes would shed some light on a probable winners or exactas. We need to be patient at this game.