EL2 - Monmouth June 25

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

I'm just curious, the New Pace concept boils down to EARLY vs. LATE, with early NOT meaning the second call. But it doesn't seem to mean early "energy" vs. late "energy", rather, it seems to mean early energy vs. anything else. Am I correct?

Correct, NewPace is not an enquiry into early energy or late energy or a differential between them. Early is identified positionally mostly at the 1st call but also at the 2nd call and rated according to a range of final time speed ratings - over the entire past performance. And you are correct that all those horses not deemed Early are thus deemed Late (or, perhaps we might more correctly say 'Other than Early').

Many of the horses deemed Early by this measurement will clearly never seek or be able to achieve the lead at the 1st call, and thus would not be what we would typically call positionally Early.

Ted

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Correct, NewPace is not an enquiry into early energy or late energy or a differential between them. Early is identified positionally mostly at the 1st call but also at the 2nd call and rated according to a range of final time speed ratings - over the entire past performance. And you are correct that all those horses not deemed Early are thus deemed Late (or, perhaps we might more correctly say 'Other than Early').

Many of the horses deemed Early by this measurement will clearly never seek or be able to achieve the lead at the 1st call, and thus would not be what we would typically call positionally Early.

Ted

I think we are in total agreement, at least to this point.

Perhaps users should understand that the horses deemed early by New Pace are not necessarily the horse(s) they should expect to be on the lead or, in some cases, anywhere near the lead.

Forget about "early vs. late", it seems to me that New Pace is basically "something vs. something", separated by speed rating and not necessarily the best of those speed ratings on a per horse basis.

Good luck with it.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by rmath

The 90% winners comes when I have too many contenders, I have tried rerunning only these 6+ contenders thru RDSS but too many of the new pace horses are eliminated for lack of a decent pace line in their best of last three.
.

This is not surprising, since many of the contenders in New Pace are not what one would consider "real" contenders. However, this is where the "monster" payoffs come from. Just one note: $100+ payoffs come about 1 in 240 races. If the track you are playing runs 4 cards a week, with 10 races on each card, that means you can expect a $100+ payoff once every 6 weeks (on average), whether New Pace picks it for you or not.

On June 25th in the 5th race at MNR there was a $219.20 payoff. Check it out.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by rmath

I currently get 85%+ winners in my final 5 contenders using best of last 3 comparable adj. speed ratings.
My problem is that I am getting too many 3.00 to 6.00 winners.
I am aware that I am not the only one with this problem, but not sure what the solution is ,since even in these low price wins one or both of my other top 3 VDC horses goes off at 4/1 or higher.

.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no solution as long as you treat every race like it is no different than the race before. The only thing one race has in common with the other is, one of the horses is going to win. Perhaps two in the case of a dead heat.

Some things never change. As an example, favorites win at about 33% year in and year, out on average. Maybe one year will be a point higher and another year a point lower. Horses that pay under $9.00 win about 62% of all races. No matter whose system you are using, no matter what software you are using, that is going to remain the same. "HANDICAPPING" makes the difference. There is no "black box". "Doc" use to say that 90% of your handicapping should be done BEFORE you turn on the computer. "Doc" also said to forget "horsey" stuff. Now I ask you, did "Doc" ever define "horsey stuff"? If you read through the follow ups, I think you will find sections where "Doc" goes over line selection. I think if you pay attention to what "Doc" says there, you will find that he IS handicapping. Brohamer didn't treat every race like it was the same as the last race. That's how he created what we know as the "Brohamer Model". Every race is a race unto itself. There has never been another like it and there never will be another like it. You can't handicap a Grade I race like a $5,000 claiming NW2L race or the other way around. If you just blindly play every race and choose not to play short priced horses, you can EXPECT to lose a lot of races. Now, if you choose to do some handicapping and be more selective in the races you play, then you have a chance to show a profit. Me? I'm going to choose to stop here, although I could go on and on.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

On June 25th in the 5th race at MNR there was a $219.20 payoff. Check it out.

Nope, NewPace had nothing on that one.



Just FWIW, NewPace comes up with interesting contenders often enough to have made it worthwhile for me to spend precious time incorporating it in RDSS 2.0. It's not trivial, or random - just different, and based on sound enough measurement concepts. After studying Dave S' stuff, and especially after digesting the book How to Measure Anything from which NP draws some measurement ideas, I became convinced that I could even improve on the automatic nature of NP, both by some modeling and by mixing in some energy disbursement measurements, i.e. to see what quality early energy the designated Early horses were, but moreso: what quality late energy the Late horses were.

We'll see if improvements are possible, but even as is - it's not nothing, it's just tedious as hell to do by hand. And I do think that one has to often take a stand against at least one of the 4 contenders to properly capitalize on them.

Ted

[rmath]

Ted , I ran acouple of races for Tuesday June 28th , 2011 at Mnr. The winner of race 10 paid 100.20 but I was not able to get it on New Pace of on RDSS.
The 1/2 favorite did figure so I passed the race. So much for one every 6 weeks. Mnr is a tough track to handle using any method of handicapping for me.
Rmath

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by rmath

Ted , I ran acouple of races for Tuesday June 28th , 2011 at Mnr. The winner of race 10 paid 100.20 but I was not able to get it on New Pace of on RDSS.
The 1/2 favorite did figure so I passed the race. So much for one every 6 weeks. Mnr is a tough track to handle using any method of handicapping for me.
Rmath

LOL! You know, I don't guess at the stuff I post up here. If you want to shrug off 1 every 6 weeks, be my guest, but when you look at over 80,000 results over two years or 500,000 over 13+ years, that's what the average is. Just so you understand, if something happens once every six weeks, ON AVERAGE, that doesn't mean it happens with ABSOLUTE REGULARITY. It means that when averaged over a long period of time, that is the way it "averages out", which is the way I stated it. It doesn't matter to me if one or two win every day/night for a week, all that means is that there will be a long period where one doesn't win. It all has to "AVERAGE" out. And just so we are clear, that doesn't mean that a $100+ winner will happen 1 in every 6 weeks at every track in America. It means that when "AVERAGING" all the results from every track in America, it will happen 1 in every six weeks ACROSS America.

Have you ever seen a card where every favorite wins? Does that mean favorites win 100% of the time?
Have you ever seen a card where not one favorite won? Does that mean favorites win 0% of the time?
As a result of either of these scenarios, should we dismiss the time tested statistic that favorites win, ON AVERAGE, 33% of the time?

Perhaps you have some statistical information about horse racing to post up here that we can all count on like the sun coming up in the morning!

Sorry Ted, I tried to be as nice as possible. He deserved worse!

[rmath]

Sorry you missed the pun about one every 6 weeks. Apparently you do not have much of a sense of humor when it comes to horse racing. I have always enjoyed your posts and have read them with a great admiration of your knowledge of statistics. Perhaps one of us has missed judged the other.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by rmath

Sorry you missed the pun about one every 6 weeks. Apparently you do not have much of a sense of humor when it comes to horse racing. I have always enjoyed your posts and have read them with a great admiration of your knowledge of statistics. Perhaps one of us has missed judged the other.

Perhaps. I guess I missed the "pun". As for no sense of humor, I have never been accused of that about anything, however, I am "monetarily" serious when it comes to horse racing and handicapping. See what I mean? I substituted "deadly" with "monetarily".

So I will thank you for those kind words and we'll "call it quits", as they say down under.

[rmath]

Quits it is. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. I hope you will continue to post your statistics as I find them very interesting and informative.
I take horse racing very seriously also , but also have a habit {good or bad} of poking fun when ever I get a chance.
Hope we can be friends.
rmath