Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up

Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up (http://paceandcap.com/forums/index.php)

- RDSS2 / FAQ's (http://paceandcap.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=78)

- - NewPace / RDSS (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7560)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesal57 (Post 72245)

Jeff and Ernie

can you post your positive results for us?

mike

Yes I can....Here are 6 races from my records that I won using New Pace concepts in conjunction with RDSS. This is before I was privy to RDSS2 and computed New Pace partial by hand and partially where I entered them into a spreadsheet where I set up formulas to compute The totals and percent. I won some of the exactas but New Pace had them. Sorry but it is not lined up but you get the picture.

Date Track Race E1/E2 L1/L2 WIN PAID EXACTA $1 PAID
________________________________________________________

7/25 MNR 8 8/2 6/7 8 8.60 8/7 26.50
7/25 MTH 6 1A/7 2/6 7 11.00 7/6 17.10
7/24 MNR 3 2/6 1A/3 1A 10.40 1A/2 20.10
7/23 ELP 3 4/2 5/6 2 7.80
7/17 MTH 5 4/6 5/8 6 13.40
7/10 MNR 7 4/10 7/9 10 14.40

Ernie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz (Post 72247)

I truly care about what our customers think so please DO share your opinions with me either publicly or privately. (I care about non-customers' opinions as well, but everyone in THIS thread is, logically, a customer of ours.)

Dave,

Just for clarity, this thread is in the public RDSS 2.0 Forum, not in the private NewPace discussion forum. That's why I had to edit Ernie's reply to Mike's initial question in post #2 of this thread (too technical) and why rmath offered to reply by PM or in the private Forum.

As you know, various people have been posting their NewPace screenshots and contenders in public forums for several months now (sans technical analysis).

That said, all the posters in this thread are actually also NewPace customers of yours. And those readers who are not, are potential customers.

Cheers,

Ted

Thanks, Ted.

LOL - I do, apparently, need a keeper at times to make sure I am going where I should be.

Nevertheless, I am happy with the message and fine that everyone can see it.

Dave

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentRun (Post 72167)

Mike,

The best I can explain this is as follows:

*** Ernie, I chose to edit your post here containing some detailed explanations for Mike about how NewPace arrives at its Early contenders. I know Mike got the info, but since this is a public forum and everyone can follow this discussion, you could create a link to this in the NewPace forum to follow up on the specifics of the analysis of this particular race. Sorry - I don't like editing posts, hope you understand ***

Ernie

OPPS ! That's ok.... I thought I was being general enough and offered to migrate to New Pace Forum in my next post but you are right...sorry about that.

Ernie

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentRun (Post 72258)

Ernie...

Thxs for your response on the winners...
but what I'm trying to get at is what is the overall ROI...which, I believe, is what we are looking for

Laughable self-promotion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz (Post 72229)

Ernie,

I must disagree.

Purchase of a product does not entitle you to all future developments for that product. If that were the case, what would be the incentive to continue development?

Just so you know, I (and my team) have roughly 100 hours in the improvements that are being shared, as well as another 9 hours in the development of this particular workshop.

My customers and clients are usually thrilled to pay the small amounts of money charged to ensure that they are on the cutting edge. I hope you can see your way clear to view it from that standpoint. BTW, there IS an Improve/Decline workshop coming as soon as I can quantify the advancements into an updated strategy. (That is still several months away, I believe.)

The almost unanimous feedback I have received from people regarding NewPace, as well as the other products I produce, is that the products are being thoroughly used and enjoyed. The feedback also indicates that these products are considered "good value" for the dollars spent.

People in our industry - that would be the horse handicapping world - are clamoring for good materials. In order for such products to continue being produced, there must be a reasonable financial reward for producing such materials. "Free" will simply not work as a business model.

That said, consider just how much really good information we do put out for free. Next Wednesday will be episode 3 of our Handicapping Live TV cyber show. This show is about The Monty Hall Problem. On that show I will offer up a way to concentrate 2/3 of your winners into 1/3 of your contenders. Free. Did I mention it is completely FREE?

I am trying to raise the bar to a high level and keep it high. We are not some "system mill" cranking out products that come with "get rich quick" claims. We are providing serious, deep research behind the products that go out.

The bottom line for all this is that we live in financial times that are difficult for many (most?) of us. We are trying to offer good value at the lowest possible cost while still justifying being in this industry and producing these materials.

I hope you can see that money spent with us supports that on-going effort and results in everyone getting more and better materials to improve their game.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave,

I have a four-year old nephew who likes to put on a small cape and run around the house announcing that he's a super-hero, although, fortunately he hasn't destroyed any skyscrapers lately. Your tiresomely hyperbolic claims for a product whose value is absolutely unproven brought him to mind.

I have a suggestion: buy a clue and drop the endless sales drivel about the profound handicapping discoveries of you and your rocket scientist colleagues and start posting large data samples of the ROI performance of New Pace, if you expect to persuade anyone of its value. A 3k sample would be a good start. Better yet, send the algorithm to Jeff Platt, the gold standard for quality and integrity in the field of software handicapping, and let him run it through his 300k race database, since this is an option he offers for free.

You probably think I'm being unnecessarily harsh, but think about it; you're offering an unproven product, which is nothing more than a simple algorithm, which is extremely user-unfriendly, without free trial period for $77, and of course now additional charges. The landmark works of handicapping by Beyer, Brohamer, Davidowitz, Quirin, et. al., which contain enormous amounts of valuable handicapping information, are available for about $25. Cool scam.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesal57 (Post 72263)

Ernie...

Thxs for your response on the winners...
but what I'm trying to get at is what is the overall ROI...which, I believe, is what we are looking for

That is a good question...I handicap my races using the contenders from RDSS and New Pace. (Ted...I feel the following is very general and not technical)

As an example: MTH Race 8 from 7/25/11.
My Four top RDSS contenders were 7-3-6-8 and the New Pace contenders contained 8 and 7. I bet 8 to win and played a 7-3-8 exacta. The result was #8 won and the exacta was 8/7. I can go over in more detail my methodology in the New Pace section if you wish. But the point is: Who should I credit my ROI to New Pace or RDSS ? They both had the winner and exacta horses. I can say New Pace is helping me but as far as determining a stand alone New Pace ROI ...You got me there.

Instead.......................
I suggest you refer to the New Pace discussion section (If you haven't already) there is an excellent post by gl45 where he shows stand alone New Pace stats from MNR and the associated ROI.

Regards,

Ernie

Mike,

I do not have any results on New Pace but do hear from Pino as he has posted that it does well and I value his opinion

Ernie,
your posted results from MNR on race #8 (7-25-2011) & race #7 (7-10-2011) do not match with the Equibase results chart

Quote:

Originally Posted by gl45 (Post 72273)

Ernie,
your posted results from MNR on race #8 (7-25-2011) & race #7 (7-10-2011) do not match with the Equibase results chart

Sorry they were typos.............The correct races are:

MTH (not MNR) race 8 from 7/25/11

and

MNR race 10 (not race 7) from 7/10/11.

I'll post the summary results later.

Ernie