Dave..

Not to get into technical stuff about NP....I believe the reg speed sort is common in both products....correct?
So I would say that your one idea and has turned into something thats getting bigger and bigger...correct?..or you would say better and better

New Pace was made for the "masses" of lazy people that don't want to handicap and want action. Generally when somebody sells a “system”, they give you what is suppose to be “tested” results of what you can expect using the system, you didn't and you have the capabilities.
Yes, GL is doing something that should have been presented from the start.
From what he's shown so far...It looks like I gotta keep working..LOL
Why would our results differ? It was pretty much clear cut on how and what to bet , so it should be almost the same :D

Anyway..Dave , your a good sport and fought well...you know if your "improvements" didn't come out the same time as RDSS2, maybe I would have been more understanding and didn't think there was a motive behind it

mike

RegSpeed Sort is 100% my invention, using a concept I learned in a book titled: How to Measure Anything.

I am fighting no fight, beyond the fights that we all experience: survival and life.



You have an interesting outlook on life - not unique, but interesting - and certainly far different than mine.


I think we part ways on this note.


Respectfully,
Dave Schwartz

OH, by the way....where do I sign up?

:D

http://store.thehorsehandicappingaut...ents-workshop/

If you have NewPace, you received a coupon for $87 off.

If you do not have NewPace, then the price is $114 (which includes a CD of the event).

I don't know why, but I feel I opened a can of worms. Go figure.

Your doing fine P...just giving us some info

About New Pace results and etc.
 

I have a few words to add to this discussion, so try not to fall asleep before the end.

Right up front, let me say that I do NOT subscribe to New Pace, therefore I am “blocked” from viewing and/or participating in that area. More on this in a minute.

Some of you regular posters may have noticed the absence of Bill Lyster recently. That is because he is busy working on New Pace and trying to gather results information for all of you that do subscribe to New Pace. How do I know that? Well, Bill sent me a “PM” (that’s a PRIVATE message), asking me for some information. The reason he asked me is, he knows I have a large database and he was interested in finding out if I would “SHARE” some information with him. It was not tedious or time consuming, so naturally I provided that information to him. More on this in a minute.

You may have noticed that I “bolded” the word “private” above. My understanding of “private” and its’ use on this site is, it is a communication between two people that is NOT for public consumption. As an example, Ted set up a “private” area of this site for ONLY those people who have paid Dave Schwartz for his New Pace System. In addition, Ted has edited and/or moved certain comments from the OPEN area of this site to the CLOSED area of the site in an effort to keep certain information about New Pace away from the OPEN area, in other words, a “private” area. THAT I have no problem with.

It has come to my attention, the long way around, that some of the “private” communication between myself and Bill Lyster was made available to those who participate in the CLOSED New Pace area. Based on what I have been told, it seems to me that Bill Lyster communicated the information I provided to him, to Ted. In turn, Ted posted that information in the CLOSED area and thus, opened up that information to potential criticism where I have no opportunity to respond. It is important to me, that I stress the fact, that if Ted had come to me and “asked”, I would have gladly provided that information to him, since I have already posted much of it in the OPEN areas of this site in the past. My one consideration would have been, that I be given the opportunity to reply to any “push back”, should it arise, in the same way as I would in an OPEN area. I think this is asking little more than common courtesy. I say here and now to Ted and to Dave Schwartz, I have no interest whatsoever in New Pace.

In keeping with the thrust of this thread (results of New Pace research), I am going to return the favor and post, in part, information from the “PM’s” between myself and Bill Lyster. At least this will be done out in the open where everyone can see it. Here is the information…
“As to sample size I have reluctantly been forced to agree. When Ted and I started testing the EL program based on Adj SR, Total Energy and Perceptor bases as well as the original version of EL 2.0, I evaluated the first bunch after 254 races and got one set of numbers and surprisingly there was enough difference in the 2nd group of 253 to really cause you to shake your head.”

As you can see, two trials of approximately 250 races each showed enough of a difference as to render each group meaningless. It takes A LOT of trials to substantiate the validity of anything to the point where you can rely on the outcome in the long run.

Now in fairness to Bill Lyster, he went on to try and explain away the difference between the two trials, citing “winter/spring AQU info with short fields and prices, and some of it was large runs of wins and non wins.” I feel compelled to point out, this should have no bearing on the system. If the system is valid, it should be valid over any surface or time of year, etc. and etc.

I have seen the video of Dave’s presentation and explanation of the New Pace System. I do not recall any disclaimer of any kind with regard to anything. It was simply, buy it, use it and win with it. And “expect” huge prices.

From what I have seen in the OPEN areas of the site regarding New Pace, it seems everybody is making their own adjustments to the original system as Dave advanced it. It seems curious to me that everyone “starts” with the idea that Dave’s system needs “tweaking” when no one has or has seen any valid results of the system the way it was originally presented. If you purchased a valid and profitable system, why the need for tweaking? I would think the first order of business would be to evaluate the system on its’ merits as presented, a simple, powerful, easy approach to pace handicapping. So why all the immediate tweaking? I'm just saying...

If you have a large database, then you should be able to see that, while pace characteristics are reasonably uniform, the performance of speed ratings - ANY speed rating system - is more accurate in the summer months and less accurate in the winter months.

Therefore, any system that uses speed as a component will, logically have seasonal ups and downs.

The big question is: Which affords you better results; summer or winter?

My Support
 

To Paceandcap

I just want to mention that I feel adding Newpace and any other ideas
to help with the Methodology is a plus.

Adding tools and advancing ideas in Sartin Programs
is nothing new
Anyboy who has ever used Pace Laucher 4
then Synthesis might understand this .

Also for a small fee Jim Bradshaw could and did
offer energy programs with features from newer
programs Thoromation screens graphs ect.

As for me the fact that Ted would bother to knock himself out
and probably feel bad about it. that he could not get the Val 4 VDC readouts
into the testing model on time. Just knowing He would even mention to me he is
holding up, till he gets it right means so much to me.

This man truly is making a Sartin tool for each of us

GS
Bill

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

...

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

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.

Comments
 

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

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

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

:confused:
Mike

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

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

ted...will get up MTR later

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.

Finally
 

Dave,

Thanks for finally putting up a response to some of the information we've been asking for. I don't know what the significance of these numbers being derived from HSH is, but they match very closely the $Net of 1.94 and lowest flat-bet profit odds of 7-1 that I extracted by the early postings of E/L 2.0 results here. But since, as you once admitted youself on PA, results can change dramatically above even a sample size of 1,500, it would be helpful to have a sample size close to 3k. I think this especially true for a long-shot application, which as these figures indicate, and as you've described in the past, is what New Pace is.

You may wonder why a couple of us went Gestapo on you, but we've been asking these same questions about ROI and long-term perforance for months, in a more normal and polite manner, with no response. And since, for any gambler with half a brain, these are absolutely the key questions about any bet, system, method, whatever, it's very difficult to understand the lack of response.

BTW, if you're interested in hurling online insults at me, you're more than welcome, but you'll have to take a number and get in line behind my ex-girlfriends - and they can hit pretty hard.

Cheers,

B Jennet