Changes to the Original Methodology
I know you guys like the M-word. When in Rome...
I am in constant contact with several key users of the NewPace approach, and am working on several interesting developments. One very large one is the melding of
Improve/Decline (our form product) which I am very excited about. More to come on that later.
There are several changes - still labeled "experimental" at this point - that I have been using for over a month.
The first is that I have stopped using any of the
12-point/PoR stuff. It is simply too much work. I am not sure if it has hurt my bottom line but do not think so. It occasionally takes me off a very obvious odds-on horse and puts me on a huge longshot that loses most of the time. Frankly, I don't care. My $Net is currently - brace yourself - over $2.30 (after 1,100 races) driven on by high-odds $Net of over $3.00. (That is including the fact I wager over 3 horses per race on average!)
So, ease of use equals more plays. What do I care if it costs me a penny or two?
I have also dropped the complication of the
swing horse not being involved in the PoR. Same reason as above: simply too much work.
My effort is to constantly simplify (if possible) the process. While some simplifications result in a significant lowering of $net, a few actually cause
improvements. The reality is that the product you are using is the direct result of a serious simplification resulting in a huge positive shift in $net.
I had been playing with NewPace for about 12-15 months using a somewhat conventional pace approach. It was "conventional" in the sense that it used pace ratings to decide which of the E's or L's became final contenders. I actually gave up on it because after all that time (and handicapping roughly 50,000 races manually) I was unable to get within even 10% of being even. Flashes of brilliance, but nothing long term.
Understand that back then there was no "Early Pace Section." It was just two handicapping objects: Early and Late. Take the top 2 E's and the top 2 L's and move on.
So, I went on to work on
Improve or Decline and left NewPace behind. (I actually joked to my wife that I should call it "DeadPace.")
One day I decided that I should build a pencil-and-paper handicapping product out of it. If you think NewPace is time consuming now, imagine how tough it would be if you had to MAKE pace figures as well! So the problem was, "How do I replace the pace figures?"
That was when I hit upon the idea to separate the field into two segments. The question, "Who will run early?" was replaced with, "Who is
likely to create early pressure?"
(Side note: You will notice how I clearly state within quotes the question I am trying to answer. This is a powerful problem-solving technique. Try practicing it yourself.")
It turned out that the segmentation of the field was critical to the success of the approach! After that it was merely a problem of isolating which speed ratings would best indicate
potentially long-term-profitable winners.
Research, research, research!
Okay so, back to developments... In my next post I will simply walk you through my actual REAL process. BTW, being able to change and tweak YOUR process is why we programmers resist just giving you a button that spits out:
E-E
-----
L-L
... which is my shorthand for the NewPace output.