NewPace 507 race Study

[Bill Lyster]

Use this link to see the file. It is too large to attach to this posting.

www.sartinmethodology.com/pubs/BLyster_NewPace_Study.rev.8.1.11.xls

Using the database of races from last year, provided by Ted, on this site, plus a few cards in 2011, I chose races from the US and Canada, regular dirt and synthetic, large track and some smaller (like Mountaineer).

In this test I did not record the NewPace data without any filters. See the notes at the bottom of the sheet for horses that I excluded. The filters or exclusions I made were because somewhere between 93 and 96% of all winners are found in the horses that I left in.

Ted provided me a way to evaluate NewPace information using the Trackmaster speedratings (TM SR), Adjusted SR, Total Energy and from Perceptor rankings. I discontinued recording any Perceptor info after about 150 races because it showed no where near the results of the other data sets.

I also recorded my original selections using the logic that was first put out in early beta (alpha?) releases from back in April. Like I said in my post about current Delmar results, I found that this early interpretation of the Schwartz info to be more predictive of winners and exacta outcomes, although the ROI of the winners is smaller than other data sets. (this data is shown on the summary as "Original EL Data"

Note this disclaimer: The "Win3$" info is a "what-if" scenario. I was curious to know how much the ROI might improve, if in some universe I could bet only 3 horses and not miss any of the winners contained in the "Win4$" data.

My personal opinion is that with some consistent handicapping a few favorites now included in the mix can be discarded as well as a few of the other remaining horses so that 3 horse betting would be profitable. You should research this yourself and get comfortable with the types of horses eliminated.

You will note that many races have negative win returns. That means that the winner paid less than 3:1 and that the total return on a $4 total bet was less than $4. One strategy, obviously, would be to pass races where the contenders odds suggested this result. That addition, by subtraction, would increase ROI. The same with exacta results with NEG returns.

I also think that selective use of this data in exactas and trifectas can be achieved if you open up the betting parameters beyond the place position in medium sized fields. For example, if you can win 50% of your exactas in an 8-9 horse field, you might be able to hit the third position more often, assuming the odds were right, by hitting the ALL or almost all button.

The higher the win percentage the more enticing are plays like rolling doubles and pick threes, etc. Just a thought.

There are lots of ways to use this data. Give it some thought and see how you can use it, or what parts of it you might not want to use, etc. I encourage some independent thought out there. Who knows which of the blind pigs will find an acorn or a truffle?

Good luck to you all,


Bill

[El Santo]

Though I'm not so sure I appreciate being called a blind pig, it is an excellent study.

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Use this link to see the file. It is too large to attach to this posting.

www.sartinmethodology.com/pubs/BLyster_NewPace_Study.rev.8.1.11.xls

Using the database of races from last year, provided by Ted, on this site, plus a few cards in 2011, I chose races from the US and Canada, regular dirt and synthetic, large track and some smaller (like Mountaineer).

In this test I did not record the NewPace data without any filters. See the notes at the bottom of the sheet for horses that I excluded. The filters or exclusions I made were because somewhere between 93 and 96% of all winners are found in the horses that I left in.

Ted provided me a way to evaluate NewPace information using the Trackmaster speedratings (TM SR), Adjusted SR, Total Energy and from Perceptor rankings. I discontinued recording any Perceptor info after about 150 races because it showed no where near the results of the other data sets.

I also recorded my original selections using the logic that was first put out in early beta (alpha?) releases from back in April. Like I said in my post about current Delmar results, I found that this early interpretation of the Schwartz info to be more predictive of winners and exacta outcomes, although the ROI of the winners is smaller than other data sets. (this data is shown on the summary as "Original EL Data"

Note this disclaimer: The "Win3$" info is a "what-if" scenario. I was curious to know how much the ROI might improve, if in some universe I could bet only 3 horses and not miss any of the winners contained in the "Win4$" data.

My personal opinion is that with some consistent handicapping a few favorites now included in the mix can be discarded as well as a few of the other remaining horses so that 3 horse betting would be profitable. You should research this yourself and get comfortable with the types of horses eliminated.

You will note that many races have negative win returns. That means that the winner paid less than 3:1 and that the total return on a $4 total bet was less than $4. One strategy, obviously, would be to pass races where the contenders odds suggested this result. That addition, by subtraction, would increase ROI. The same with exacta results with NEG returns.

I also think that selective use of this data in exactas and trifectas can be achieved if you open up the betting parameters beyond the place position in medium sized fields. For example, if you can win 50% of your exactas in an 8-9 horse field, you might be able to hit the third position more often, assuming the odds were right, by hitting the ALL or almost all button.

The higher the win percentage the more enticing are plays like rolling doubles and pick threes, etc. Just a thought.

There are lots of ways to use this data. Give it some thought and see how you can use it, or what parts of it you might not want to use, etc. I encourage some independent thought out there. Who knows which of the blind pigs will find an acorn or a truffle?

Good luck to you all,


Bill

Hi Bill,

Much thanks for the effort involved in compiling these statistics, but as Dave has admitted elsewhere, even 1,500 races is too small a sample for evaluating the effectiveness of handicapping models. There seems to be general agreement among those who have constructed successful handicapping databases, that roughly 2,500 races is the acceptable minimum to create a stable model, and ideally as large a sample as possible. The Law of Large Numbers is for real.

Since I don't have Excel Office, I can't check this data myself, but would be grateful if anyone who does would be willing to post a completely unfiltered 4-contender $Net, similar to what Dave has posted in the previous 'New Pace' thread. And since Dave mentioned 7-1 as the break-even for profit in that thread, I think everyone would be interested in seeing the ROI for all contenders 7-1 and above in this sample.

Also, if anyone has a very large sample of races which include 'New Pace' contenders and results, in a format that can be pasted into a post here, I would be happy to tabulate the results of such a sample myself.

Thanks again, Bill.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[rmath]

Bill, Nice work. You put in a lot of time and effort and it is greatly appreciatd.
rmath

[benzer]

Originally Posted by BJennet

Hi Bill,

Much thanks for the effort involved in compiling these statistics, but as Dave has admitted elsewhere, even 1,500 races is too small a sample for evaluating the effectiveness of handicapping models. There seems to be general agreement among those who have constructed successful handicapping databases, that roughly 2,500 races is the acceptable minimum to create a stable model, and ideally as large a sample as possible. The Law of Large Numbers is for real.

Since I don't have Excel Office, I can't check this data myself, but would be grateful if anyone who does would be willing to post a completely unfiltered 4-contender $Net, similar to what Dave has posted in the previous 'New Pace' thread. And since Dave mentioned 7-1 as the break-even for profit in that thread, I think everyone would be interested in seeing the ROI for all contenders 7-1 and above in this sample.

Also, if anyone has a very large sample of races which include 'New Pace' contenders and results, in a format that can be pasted into a post here, I would be happy to tabulate the results of such a sample myself.

Thanks again, Bill.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Hi, wanted to let you know you don't need Excel Office, the file opens just fine with Open Office the free office suite.

[benzer]

Real good work Bill, thank you for sharing.

[mikesal57]

http://www.openoffice.org/

yes..OO will open excel files and have almost all the same functions..

have fun and keep us updated on what you get BJ

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Use this link to see the file. It is too large to attach to this posting.

www.sartinmethodology.com/pubs/BLyster_NewPace_Study.rev.8.1.11.xls

Using the database of races from last year, provided by Ted, on this site, plus a few cards in 2011, I chose races from the US and Canada, regular dirt and synthetic, large track and some smaller (like Mountaineer).

In this test I did not record the NewPace data without any filters. See the notes at the bottom of the sheet for horses that I excluded. The filters or exclusions I made were because somewhere between 93 and 96% of all winners are found in the horses that I left in.

Ted provided me a way to evaluate NewPace information using the Trackmaster speedratings (TM SR), Adjusted SR, Total Energy and from Perceptor rankings. I discontinued recording any Perceptor info after about 150 races because it showed no where near the results of the other data sets.

I also recorded my original selections using the logic that was first put out in early beta (alpha?) releases from back in April. Like I said in my post about current Delmar results, I found that this early interpretation of the Schwartz info to be more predictive of winners and exacta outcomes, although the ROI of the winners is smaller than other data sets. (this data is shown on the summary as "Original EL Data"

Note this disclaimer: The "Win3$" info is a "what-if" scenario. I was curious to know how much the ROI might improve, if in some universe I could bet only 3 horses and not miss any of the winners contained in the "Win4$" data.

My personal opinion is that with some consistent handicapping a few favorites now included in the mix can be discarded as well as a few of the other remaining horses so that 3 horse betting would be profitable. You should research this yourself and get comfortable with the types of horses eliminated.

You will note that many races have negative win returns. That means that the winner paid less than 3:1 and that the total return on a $4 total bet was less than $4. One strategy, obviously, would be to pass races where the contenders odds suggested this result. That addition, by subtraction, would increase ROI. The same with exacta results with NEG returns.

I also think that selective use of this data in exactas and trifectas can be achieved if you open up the betting parameters beyond the place position in medium sized fields. For example, if you can win 50% of your exactas in an 8-9 horse field, you might be able to hit the third position more often, assuming the odds were right, by hitting the ALL or almost all button.

The higher the win percentage the more enticing are plays like rolling doubles and pick threes, etc. Just a thought.

There are lots of ways to use this data. Give it some thought and see how you can use it, or what parts of it you might not want to use, etc. I encourage some independent thought out there. Who knows which of the blind pigs will find an acorn or a truffle?

Good luck to you all,


Bill

Hi Bill,

I finally had a chance to take a look at your survey, and although, I'd like to go over it more thoroughly when I have more time, these were some things I picked up on.

First, it looks as though the hit rate is very close to what I originally projected based on some of the early results posted by Richie, Snake, and yourself. Hit rates: E1-23.8%, E2-15.7%, L1-16.7%, 17.7%. This jibes with Dave's claim that positive ROI begins only above 7-1. I hope those who here who say that they're betting the 'New Pace' horses at a low-odds cutoff of 4-1 take note. That will guarantee them an ROI of -.36, far worse than anything offered in a casino. However, worth keeping in mind that the E1 horses have a markedly higher hit rate, and could be bet at 4-1 and above. These odds should also be kept in mind for betting exotics - generally speaking cut out all horses below 7-1. Interesting to note, that the L2 has a slightly higher hit rate than the L1, and I believe also a higher ROI.

Although you have mentioned it, just wanted to highlight the fact that the 3-horse ROI is a projected figure, not an actual stat, based on an assumption that the total net would be the same with 3 horses as it is with 4. I don't see any basis for this assumption - in some cases it may be more, and in others less, based on which contender is eliminated, but without testing, we really don't know what the ROI would be.

You specify what speed figures you were using for the latter three NP templates, but for the first, 'original' EL 2.0 template, there is no mention of what you were using. However, I believe Ted did mention that this was done 'incorrectly'. FWIW, the results of the latter three speed templates, seemed to be relatively highly correlated, the first one, less so. However, re longshot contenders( more than 7-1), the first 'original' template hit a number of LS that were not hit by the other three. Rather than eliminating this template, it should be worth merging it with the others, and testing the results. Also, as Ted mentioned, the results of 'adjusted SR' seem to have performed the best, and it would be interesting to see if that applies also to longshots.

One stat that I don't see here, which is very significant, is final odds of the NP horses. We can't really determine the performance of these horses in the higher odds-range without this information. If someone could post an attachment with this information, presumably the summary result charts, I would be happy to go through them myself and post the results.

I think that enough of us here have gone through the kind of work required by this extensive compilation of such results to appreciate your contribution here. Again, much thanks.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[Ted Craven]

B Jennet,

I have suggested that subsequent studies include the final odds of the 4 (or 5, for ties) NewPace contenders so we can break down which races were bettable and which not, how many horses could be bet to win, what exacta combos might have been indicated, etc. I think within a month or so, you'll be seeing a few new studies of whole meets in 2011 with this information.

The 'Original' data was based on TrackMaster Speed Ratings and my first crack at NewPace rules as issued in April 2011.

Not sure which comment of mine you're referring to here 'I believe Ted did mention that this was done 'incorrectly' ' - but if you can cite a post, I can clarify.

Ted

[pktruckdriver]

Hey Bill

Great work as always, and if I read this right , playing exacta's is a losing proposition, no matter what was used, and quite a loss too. The win bet has me puzzled, I am sorry but you are betting 1.00 win bets , not 2.00 win bets, am I reading this right, as all studies I ever did use 2.00 win wagers on 4 horse's at 8.00 per race, and 1.00 ex box for 12.00 a race which I see you have, so again I am puzzled by the 1.00 win bet, or 4$win, sorry. I see the amount wagered was 2028 for win wagers, that is a 1.00 wager, not a 2.00 win bet and I never ever bet a 1.00 win bet, so forgive my naivety here please, just trying to understand , thanks

Now I have plenty of old races in my database , I had unlimited downloads last year and still have all that stuff, 3 summer months of unlimited race cards, not sure how many races per se, but should be close to obtaining a 2500 race's , I think, and was wondering how to go about doing this study.

Thanks again for the awesome work

May I ask here about wagering strategies, because I see all these studies being done with 4 horse's as the norm, not 2 or 3, so it seems to me that the original strategies is still in place, 4 horse win bets and 4 horse ex box bets, and ex bets are big time loser so far, yet 4 horse win bets, are squeaking by , but could also provide very long losing streaks , what I mean by losing is this, I bet 8.00 in win bets and win 2.60 0r 4.60, even 5.70, all would be losing race's , am I right, and this is if they were ML odds of 3-1 7/2 or even 4-1, but drifted down to overbet favorites during wagering, but the studies do not take this into account, if done with ML odds, do they?

I am tired but very enthused about this, I do hope I am not rambling here, but I have some questions, and so far to me NP has plenty of work to be profitable, but ...

patrick