NewPace / RDSS

[Ted Craven]

...

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

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...ing-episode-3/

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

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

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

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

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

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

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

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

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]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

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]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

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


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]

Originally Posted by 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


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]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

...

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.