NewPace / RDSS

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Mike,

I do not understand your reference above. What did I take from Percentages and Probabilities? I have certainly learned from P&P, but I am not sure what you mean by your reference.



Everything is "just a tool." NewPace is a tool, as is Improve/Decline, as is RDSS.

The question, "How good is the tool?" is a valid one. If I post MY results, I must add "your results may differ" then you'll want to know why they will differ. When I say they were done with MY software, will that make you happy? I think not.

You have a guy - GL - who is already posting the heck out of results using HIS version of the TOOL accomplished with the software TOOL that you use. Yet, apparently, these results are not enough for you.

I have been in this business a long time. It is not a coincidence. We're running a business and business, by its nature, runs on money. Money is generated by selling stuff. Longevity is achieved from selling stuff repeatedly to the same customers.

We must be accomplishing this reasonably well or this would not be year 22 for us.

We produce really good stuff that is available at reasonable cost. We try to treat the customer right. Apparently, we aren't for everyone. Apparently, our stuff isn't for you.

Good fortune at the races.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

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

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

[Dave Schwartz]

Not to get into technical stuff about NP....I believe the reg speed sort is common in both products....correct?

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

Anyway..Dave , your a good sport and fought well

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

New Pace was made for the "masses" of lazy people that don't want to handicap and want action.

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

[mikesal57]

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

[Dave Schwartz]

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).

[gl45]

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

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by gl45

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

[For The Lead]

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...

[Dave Schwartz]

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.

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?

[Bill V.]

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

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

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.

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