[Ted Craven]

I just finished using this race as an example to someone moving from Validator to RDSS (i.e. where to find the various readouts). So I took a look at the NewPace numbers.

This is a good example of both the weaknesses and the strengths of NewPace: the high rankings can often come from performances some time ago, and often not likely to represent how the horse has run recently (and thus also, often, not today). On the other hand, if everyone looks bad enough, or there is sufficient confusion, sometimes these horses can run. Sometimes they don't. Knowing how to duck and dive, not bet too many horses, knowing how to pare down 4+ contenders to a bettable number when odds are offered - these are the skills to remaining alive (i.e. one's bankroll) until races like this one come up (and you're there to catch it).

I predict it will be merely anecdotal, if a short-term study of Finger Lakes proves any stronger for the NewPace approach than at any other track. I predict that the useful of NewPace will be in finding a way to limit the SR ranges to representative timeframes and using the numbers as corollaries to unrelated measurements such as velocity/deceleration and class (and not simply Final Time performance measurements). Perhaps somewhat analogously to how CR and APV hint at horses who have performed better in the past than recently, and if the odds are good enough, bear a 2nd look today. Otherwise, I am finding that NP numbers are > 70% co-related with what shows up on RDSS (BL/BL) anyway.

Ted