50 Race Comparison: VDC vs NewPace

[rmath]

I just finished my first 50 races using RDSS2 with New Pace.



There were 3 exactas in NP that were not in my top 4 vdc& 12 exactas in top 4 vdc that NP did not get.

So far , in my opinion RDSS2 is doing better by 10% on wins and 18% better in exactas.

For what it is worth the top 3 vdc won 26 exactas.

Ted: I ran all 50 races thru Rdss 1 as you asked and only that one I sent you had any differences. I really like the new layout in RDSS2.
Thanks for letting me be one of the testers.
rmath

[rmath]

When I wrote the posting I had separated the vdc results from the new pace results but when it was sent there were no spaces put in. Sorry

[Ted Craven]

Richard,

I cleaned up the layout. Thank you very much for reporting this. This confirms some of what my own experience is, and that of several folks who seem reluctant to post it online.

One of the most important attributes of NewPace, IMO, is that it is automated - you push a button and 4 contenders appear. With the rest of RDSS and the Methodology, you have to push a few more buttons and use your brain to get the contenders. Doing so, at minimum, does not give you worse results. Then, with either approach, you begin making betting decisions.

Are you able to elaborate on the relative profitability of the 2 approaches to getting contenders, using a common betting strategy?

Thanks again for this work!

Ted

P.S. I moved this thread out of the Testing Forum

[SilentRun]

These results , however small the sample, is showing that boxing the top 4 VDC in RDSS is better than New Pace.

And....does E1 and L1 outperform E2 and L2 in terms of winners ?

This is worth exploring further.

Ernie

[shoeless]

Rmath,


What were you using as a criteria for picking pacelines?It is really impressive that you had 36 winners out of 50 in your top two VDC.

[Ted Craven]

Just a reminder that the VDC ranking sometimes has ties, so Top 2 should probably read 'Top 2 and ties', which in less than 40% (??) of races may mean 3 horses (e.g. 2 horses tied rank 1, or 2 horses ties rank 2)

[shoeless]

Good point Ted

[rmath]

1) My criteria for picking pace lines is to use best of last three comparable.
2) I eliminate down to 5 using line scores, if I have a tie for #5 line score I the use total energy to get rid of the 6th horse.

New pace hit 50% exactas, a return of 460.95 less 600.00 bet for a net loss of 139.05
Top 4 vdc hit 34 or 68% for a return of 891.60 less 600.00 bet for a net profit of 291.60
Boxing the top 3 vdc hit 52% for 621.60 return less 300.00 bet for a net profit of 321.60.
These results look impressive at first glance but I rarely play any exotics and prefer to bet win if two or more of my top three are 4/1 or higher.
The reason for my saying that the results look great is that VDC had a 358.50 exacta and new pace did not. The highest new pace payoff was 120.75.
In my opinion both methods should be researched a lot more and if used The low payoffs below 20.00 should be avoided. There were too many 4.00 to 18.00 payoffs in both 4 horse groups.
I had 14 winners in the 50 races run that paid 10.00 and up. I passed a lot of these 50
because the odds on two or more were too low, alot of 4/5 and 6/5 top rated horses.
My play is concentrated on making a specific dollar amount each day and then quitting for the day. This has been my approach for the last 20 years. I came to this way of playing after losing to much money chasing tri and supers. After seeing how much I was actually spending on the gimmicks, when I could have bet to win and made more in the long run I totally changed my way of playing. This is what works for me, and as my grandmother used to say To each his own.
rmath

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Richard,

I cleaned up the layout. Thank you very much for reporting this. This confirms some of what my own experience is, and that of several folks who seem reluctant to post it online.

One of the most important attributes of NewPace, IMO, is that it is automated - you push a button and 4 contenders appear. With the rest of RDSS and the Methodology, you have to push a few more buttons and use your brain to get the contenders. Doing so, at minimum, does not give you worse results. Then, with either approach, you begin making betting decisions.

Are you able to elaborate on the relative profitability of the 2 approaches to getting contenders, using a common betting strategy?

Thanks again for this work!

Ted

P.S. I moved this thread out of the Testing Forum

Hi Ted,

Can't go into as much detail as I'd like to due to circumstances, but this is a very important point you make that no one else seems to grasp. The great value of NP, if it works, is that it's automated. Therefore you can make many more bets than is possible with RDSS, therefore a greater net is possible with a lower ROI than RDSS. It is for this reason that RDSS can't really be tested. As Ted points out, someone is still making decisions - all the 'tests' I see here include filtering for odds and for other reasons depending on personal judgement - makes perfect sense if you're just handicapping, but it invalidates the results as a test. Also, and I don't mean to seem like I'm haranguing anyone - small samples are no better than chance. If you want to base your betting decisions on them that's your business, but don't expect them to hold up going forward. For those who aren't believers, I suggest a reading of Nassim Taleb's 'Fooled by Randomness'. One of the reasons I get annoyed with Dave is that he understands stuff like this perfectly well, but ignores it when selling handicapping products. To put sample size in perspective many blackjack games require a sample of 50k rounds to achieve a 95% confidence interval. Since you theoretically can have a much larger edge in handicapping the necessary sample is smaller, but still much larger than most people seem to believe.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[rmath]

BJ, the 50 races I ran were all the races run at 5 different tracks. I ran sprints as well as routes in my testing of New Pace and RDSS2. I did not filter any horses out for any reason except to get down to the final 5 as I explained in my previous post.
I was trying to be completely fair in my test.
I did not bet all of these races, only was trying to complete a fair study.
I did bet about 20+ races that do meet my guidelines but these had no effect on the testing. I know that 50 races do not make a big enough base to make final decisions on, but that is why there are many others doing thetesting as Ted wanted.
I am quit sure that each one of us would not pick the exact same pacelines that I chose. We each see things differently. What I do gets the results that I have come to expect after many years of practice. Like Bill V. stated there are certain races he does not even consider. He does have the option to run them tho and not bet them.
I personally confine most of my plays to 5.5f upto 7.0f for betting purposes but not for testing.
I hope this answers your ?s.
I will continue to run more races and report my findings.
rmath