The Process

[AwesomeAgain]

This framework is the exact process I follow when I handicap races. I built it to simplify how I read pace pressure, energy distribution, and race structure so that other players can better understand why races unfold the way they do. Most handicappers spend too much time chasing individual horses while ignoring the environment the race itself is creating. The race shape always comes first. POR tells me what the race is likely to demand internally while the visual pace bias only tells me how that pressure may appear on the surface. Those are not always the same thing. A race can visually look soft and still collapse late because the hidden stress underneath is higher than most players realize. That is why I always trust the physics of the race before I trust appearances.

This is also what makes NewPace so dangerous. It is not simply ranking horses. It is laying out how the race is likely to run before the gates even open. You already know what the pace pressure is and what that pressure is demanding from every horse in the field. As pressure increases, the race stops rewarding raw speed and starts rewarding survivability. In softer POR races speed, position, Prime Power, EPR, FX, and TPR can dominate because horses are allowed to carry their energy comfortably. In chaotic or pressured races the focus shifts toward V/DC, deceleration, %Med, adaptability, and late energy potential. The question stops being who is fastest and becomes who can survive the stress of the race without destroying their energy distribution. Read the race correctly first. Then find the horse that can survive it best. Hope everyone handicaps well this weekend!

[ignacio todoberto bernal]

Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big thanks!!!!!!!!

[DanBoals]

That graphic is nothing short of amazing - do you do those for a living? If not, maybe you should. That is definitely high quality, professional work.

I get what you are trying to do, but my question would be, why not use Jimmy's work from the MatchUp, that was his focus as well: can early speed survive? He started with the fastest early, then looked to see if it would be pressured and if it could survive, then if not, could a presser or sustained overtake. He put years into those ideas, there are programs that have tried to implement them... how and why does your take differ from his?

[AwesomeAgain]

Thank you Dan, I genuinely appreciate that. I do not do graphics professionally, this is just me trying to help others visualize what NewPace is attempting to show underneath the surface of the race.

Honestly, I do not see what I am doing as opposing Jim Bradshaw’s Match Up at all. In many ways I think they are asking the same core question: can the early horse survive the pressure being applied to it? Jim focused heavily on race interaction and survivability and I completely agree with that approach.

Where NewPace has helped me personally is in quantifying and visualizing the projected stress environment of the race before evaluating who survives it. POR, visual pace bias, EPR, V/DC, deceleration, and energy distribution are all ways of measuring the structure Jim often read instinctively through the Match Up.

One thing I have found is that not all visually contentious races are truly pressured. Sometimes the field looks loaded with speed, but only one horse can actually attain position comfortably. Other times a horse that appears early is actually a sustained pressure absorber internally and can survive a race shape that looks destructive on paper.

So to me, this is not Bradshaw versus NewPace. If anything, I think they are speaking the same language from different angles.

[shoeless]

Brian

Wow very impressive what you have done here, thanks for posting

Jeff

[atlasaxis]

AwesomeAgain,

Very impressive presentation and visualization work. I genuinely mean that. The concepts are interesting too, especially the focus on race shape, pressure, survivability, and energy distribution.

But as a bettor, I always come back to the practical side of things.

A few honest questions:

How is “hidden stress” objectively measured and validated?

Can two users independently look at the same race and consistently arrive at the same conclusions, or is much of it interpretive?

What specific race types has this approach shown the strongest ROI in over large samples?

How does this approach handle odds and value? A horse can survive the projected race shape and still be an underlay.

Has this been tested over thousands of races with documented profitability, or is it mainly an explanatory framework for understanding races better?

Also, where does race filtering come into the process? One thing I’ve learned over the years is that many approaches can explain races well after the fact, but long term profit often comes more from selecting the right races than from deeper analysis of every race.

Not criticizing at all. I actually think a lot of the pace pressure concepts are very valid. I’m just always interested in the difference between a framework that explains races versus one that consistently beats the wagering market.

Thanks, Tom

[AwesomeAgain]

Thank you Tom, and those are fair questions. I am not presenting this as some magical black box or fully automated solution. To me, NewPace is primarily a framework for understanding projected race stress, survivability, and how energy distribution interacts with pace structure.

I actually set out to learn and understand NewPace about 3 years ago because I wanted to improve as a win bettor. The deeper I got into it, the more I realized it was forcing me to think less about labels and more about how races actually unfold under pressure.

I do think some parts are objective and repeatable. POR, EPR, velocity rankings, V/DC, deceleration, and energy distribution are measurable. Where interpretation enters is in understanding how those components interact inside a specific race shape. Two users may not always arrive at the same conclusion, but I would argue the same has always been true with the Match Up and Sartin concepts in general.

As far as profitability, I absolutely agree that race filtering and value matter just as much as analysis itself. A horse can fit the projected shape perfectly and still be an underlay. Personally, I have found the approach strongest in races where pressure and race interaction are likely to matter most rather than soft, straightforward races dominated by raw ability alone.

I also agree with your larger point that many ideas can explain races after the fact. The real challenge is consistency, discipline, and identifying situations where the public is misunderstanding the pace structure. That is really what I am trying to explore and improve upon, not claim that I have solved the game.

Brian

[dadams6357]

Awesome
Looks interesting.
Definately going to give me something to do this afternoon.
Thanks for the post Brian.
The presentation the layout is beautiful.
Don

[AwesomeAgain]

Thank you Don, Honestly, a big part of this was simply me trying to organize my own thoughts and understanding of NewPace in a way that was easier to visualize and follow.

The deeper I got into it over the last few years, the more I realized pace pressure and survivability were influencing races in ways I was not fully appreciating before. I figured if it helped me see races more clearly, maybe it could help someone else too.

Glad you enjoyed the presentation and layout, and hopefully it gives you a few interesting things to explore this afternoon. All the best!

[cdax]

I love this! Thanks for sharing it!

I use a similar approach but sometimes stray and go off the rails. This is something that will keep me more focused and stay on track.

Gonna print and laminate the chart! If that's okay with you.

Good skill.
Chris