DEL 08/24 #2 Analysis

[Ted Craven]

This race discussion continued from the public thread, here ('cause there's some rules involved here): http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...1&postcount=12

Originally Posted by mikesal57

PO horses comes into play when separating ties...correct?
right now RDSS doesn't have provisions with ties...I have discussed this with Ted already..
So for example...take race number 2..maybe the 5 & 7 could have came in as PO's and made a Big difference at the end of the day???
(#5@20-1, #7 @ 13-1)

mike

Here's my take re deriving final bet contenders, distinct from initial contenders before knowing bet-time odds, given the following:





With 2 horses <= 3-1 (#1 and #2) you have to choose between them and it looks like #1 at .60 and dominant is unavoidable, so skip the #2. So, if you're still interested in the race, you get to pick one more horse. The #5 and the #7 are not within 1 point of anything (except each other) so you have to choose between adding the #3 (@ 64-1) or the 5 or the 7. Let's just pretend that it's a simple decision to skip the #3 based on odds, and choose between the #5 and #7. Even a simple tie break like like sum of Low and Hi SR, lands on the #5 over the #7, and, thus a Win and Exacta.

Dave your comments on procedural logic (as laid out in the published NP materials) is appreciated.

If you want to co-relate your decision based on RDSS' Early/Late: the following based on BTL/C (best of last 3, comparable - pace line selection strategy) gives a pretty clear result and one you could use to strengthen (or weaken, as the case may be) your NewPace based decision.



Ted

[mikesal57]

Ted..

I am not going into a debate on who's numbers are better.....
Dave's method was constructed using his numbers ..and it works for him
RDSS has Trackmaster..
Dave is completely satisfied with a one point difference with ties..
I have looked at a lot of races and tried to get the winner in the mix when they weren't..I have seen many horses that could have been considered contenders if we stretched the one point difference to 2 or sometimes 3 points.
If the other testers could look into this with their studies maybe we might need to "bend the rule" it a little to compensate.

mike

[Dave Schwartz]

If the other testers could look into this with their studies maybe we might need to "bend the rule" it a little to compensate.

Mike,

This is one of the best posts you have made on this topic because it truly addresses "making NP your own," which is essential to winning with any system or methodology.

I realize that everyone would like to have a system that comes out of the box (for $77) and provides them a lifetime of income. That is probably a step or two shy of reality.

As was evidenced at our time together at Saratoga, there are players who find a way to win, those that do not and some who do the opposite. The key to all of that lies in your words...


Whether one is "bending a rule" or developing a completely new rule of their own, it always begins with taking personal responsibility for whether we win or not.


Now, for factual stuff - I experimented with widening the gap of ties and found that very quickly you wind up leaving in entire fields, especially with 7 or less horses. The key is in a BETTER approach.

Let's consider the components of NewPace and decide what holds the best opportunities for improvement.

1. The Early Screen
2. Swing horses
3. Dominant Definition(s)
4. Reg Speed Process
5. Reg Speed Numbers
6. E vs L comparisons
7. Tie Breaks
8. Wagering Strategy

We have researched and improved only a little thus far, yet with each improvement a few more people come forward as winners. It is always the innovators who make the PERSONAL improvement.


Recently I heard business guru Dan Kennedy say that people want simple solutions. He went on to say that the truly successful people know the final answer is usually a complex one.

Why shouldn't it be? The problem is complex.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: It was great meeting you at Saratoga. (It was not until this post that I made the connection to who you were when I met you.)

[mikesal57]

Dave..

It was my pleasure to meet you too...

Good thing you didn't put 2&2 together cause you would have sicked your boys at me

Right now , I'm trying to get the winner in the mix ..without that the rest is futile..

mike

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

I am not going into a debate on who's numbers are better.....
Dave's method was constructed using his numbers ..and it works for him
RDSS has Trackmaster.

Mike,

Of course it doesn't matter which data source is used - NewPace was sold demonstrating DRF SR's - what lower common denominator exists than that! I'm sure Dave does not intend that only HDW data makes it truly work.

Getting back to the specifics of this race, and the issue of ties - it appears you are trying to get the#5 and #7 into the mix and seeking to do so by extending the boundary of tied Low SR from 1 (or even 2) to 3 or 4 (the #5's low SR of 71 is 3 points distant from the tied 74 SR of the #2 and #4 and the #7 is 1 point even further away). Let's not forget, that with a repeatable (even semi-black-box) method, we are making our rules not just for one race scenario but for a thousand. I suspect that widening the tie area (even if done rigorously) greatly expands the fuzziness of the final contender definition process. Not that it couldn't be done, but in my opinion, it would have to be subject to other corollaries (e.g. the QESP points, or other RDSS factors for example) and tested broadly.

In refining the rules of NewPace, it might be good to always start by testing if ANY of the existing rules gets the job done in a given interesting scenario, like this race. The 'betting decisions' is one such category of rules, and I think one has to address exactly how many low odds horses (e.g. at or below 3-1) can be included in the betting contenders before the potential low return becomes too risky for the required outlay. I.e. seek first to try to eliminate one of the low price horses, and substitute with the best high price horse which was not previously a contender (aka 'price-only').

Sometimes this will get you the #5 horse, but if you apply the same rules 1000 times, we have to accept that a % of the time, we won't get the winner at all, or we will have concluded that the race was unbettable and that the correct decision was to pass.

Just my thoughts ...

Ted

[Dave Schwartz]

Good thing you didn't put 2&2 together cause you would have sicked your boys at me

LOL - Yeah, they are always a danger, aren't they?

Seriously, I am sorry I didn't make the connection sooner. (My wife says that the space between my ears can be scary at times. She's probably right.)

[gl45]

Which numbers are best?
My numbers are the best cuz are mine.
AP race #8 from mike see attached.

E 1-8
L 5-2
Price only horse #4 at 14/1

A pass race for me due the favorite wasn't in my contender selection.

[mikesal57]

Thxs Pino...

what does your "Ties Form" consist of?

getting the "favorite" out of the contenders should be a plus..shouldn't it?

also , how did you get the 8 over the 4 tie breaker?

[gl45]

Del race#2 from mike

E there is a tie between 6 and 3, 6 has higher low (76), beside #3 is ranked last in the ties department.

E 1-6
L 7-4

for me this was a lost race.

[mikesal57]

got it.....I see that you have "additional" numbers that you made for each horse that can be used to break ties.