New Pace Study & Approach

[mikesal57]

All credit here goes to Pino (gl45) for his time and devotion to getting this positive approach using New Pace.

Theory:
Using 4 horses without any discretion can/will get negative results.
But what if one selection was a stable constant in each race.
What is a constant in each and every race now?......YES...a post time favorite
He studied each race at each distance & class at his home track ..Mountaineer
He discovered that 50-60+ % of 5.5 and 6 furlong races had the favorite in the exacta. Also cheap claimers performed better.

We did a month+ study using this approach between RDSS( Trackmaster) and his home grown program using Bris numbers...
Attached is the results...

Filters used :

cheap claimers
field of 7 or more
no maiden and state bred
no races for only 3yo or 2yo
favorite must be one of the contenders otherwise No Bet (NB)
the exacta must pay $12 or more to be a play ( meaning you need to watch the pay-outs live)

[SilentRun]

Mike,

Thanks for presenting this,,,I think that this is a good study but if I understand this correctly... if the conditions described were met and the exacta probables at or near post time was at least $12 (break-even) which included the favorite plus 2 other New Pace horses. After 87 races there was a profit of $227.20 (327.20 -50). This may appear redundant but I am not clear on the following:

Re: RDSS

For the other 2 New Pace horses in the exacta must they also be RDSS
contenders ?

OR was the other 2 NP horses chosen based on the highest exacta payoff ?

As an aside, as far as the favorite is concerned I read that the favorite runs in-the-money in approximately 60% of all races regardless of distance, surface and track condition.

Thanks,

Ernie

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by SilentRun

Mike,

Thanks for presenting this,,,I think that this is a good study but if I understand this correctly... if the conditions described were met and the exacta probables at or near post time was at least $12 (break-even) which included the favorite plus 2 other New Pace horses. After 87 races there was a profit of $227.20 (327.20 -50). This may appear redundant but I am not clear on the following:

Re: RDSS

For the other 2 New Pace horses in the exacta must they also be RDSS
contenders ?

OR was the other 2 NP horses chosen based on the highest exacta payoff ?

As an aside, as far as the favorite is concerned I read that the favorite runs in-the-money in approximately 60% of all races regardless of distance, surface and track condition.

Thanks,

Ernie

Ernie..its a straight 4 horse exacta box if the favorite is one of the 4 contenders & all possible combinations of those 4 contenders is paying over $24 for 2 bucks
As for your other comment , I guess when Pino did his research..he saw it true for those 2 distances only and not the others at Mountaineer

mike

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

Ernie..its a straight 4 horse exacta box if the favorite is one of the 4 contenders & all possible combinations of those 4 contenders is paying over $24 for 2 bucks
As for your other comment , I guess when Pino did his research..he saw it true for those 2 distances only and not the others at Mountaineer

mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks to you and Pino for pointing this out, but it's somewhat difficult to understand. First, you mentioned RDSS, and Bris, along with NP, but it's not clear what they have to do with the strategy. Second, you state this this is designed for a 4-horse exacta box, but if you're using the favorite as a key, why not just make it a front and back wheel of the favorite? Also, if you're betting $24 boxes, how can $24 be the minimum acceptable payoff. Obviously, I'm missing something.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[mikesal57]

BJ..

We are both using the New Pace concept...
But he's using BRIS numbers via he own program and I am using Trackmaster's via RDSS .

Sometimes the favorite doesn't come in first or second...we sometimes get a bonus if the other contenders come in 1-2..thats why we dont put the fav in
front/back of the others..

A $24 min payout is required because why would you bet it if you know a few of them is going to pay less than $24...duh

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

BJ..

We are both using the New Pace concept...
But he's using BRIS numbers via he own program and I am using Trackmaster's via RDSS .

Sometimes the favorite doesn't come in first or second...we sometimes get a bonus if the other contenders come in 1-2..thats why we dont put the fav in
front/back of the others..

A $24 min payout is required because why would you bet it if you know a few of them is going to pay less than $24...duh

Hi Mike,

Thanks for clearing up the question about RDSS and Bris. But re the results - if this strategy is based on keying the favorite, all results not involving the favorite are either variance (luck), or possibly an indicator of where the value is in this strategy. If Pino has negative ROI on the wheel strategy I mentioned, then it's possible that the value in this strategy comes from using the non-favorites, not the favorites.

Also, re the $24 minimum payoff - if we're assuming a 50% hit-rate for a 4-horse box (as NP has demonstrated), then your break-even is $48. You're losing money on all exacta combinations below this amount. Possibly this strategy has a somewhat higher hit-rate, but the ROI (based on $227 profit) implies that Pino's average exacta should be about $53. So his average exacta odds are about half-way between 9/2 and 4-1. To put it a different way, the correct minimum payoff can't be geared to the minimum cost of the bet, but (if you know it) your ROI - aka your average payoff.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[mikesal57]

BJ...

First off , a 2 ex box of 4 horses comes out to $24..not $48 (that would be a Triple box)
Asking for that minimum keeps us from playing races with odds on favorites with low exacts.

My theory is that mostly everything is based on numbers. Why we key on the favorite is that we are staying away from a "Chaos" race. If he is not one of the contenders then there is a unseen factor that the public is not seeing and should avoid it.

Bottom line....as my early posts of daily cards and just betting blindly ...gave us a negative ROI...
Now , we are down to just a certain type race(s) with conditions..and getting positive results...can you ask for more?

Mike

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

BJ...

First off , a 2 ex box of 4 horses comes out to $24..not $48 (that would be a Triple box)
Asking for that minimum keeps us from playing races with odds on favorites with low exacts.

From what I can see Mike is that BJ is basing the break-even on the cost of two wagered races since the hit rate is 50%.

Like me saying I have to get even money for each win bet to break even if I'm hitting 50% of all wagers.

[Procefus]

I have spot played Mnr using the "gl45 original post" of the "No Brainer 4-horse exacta"; Clg5K no Mdn's; Min field size of 7; and the post time favorite as one of the 4 NP horses........sorry I don't have any charts or results for you to look at, but it was worth doing.

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

BJ...

First off , a 2 ex box of 4 horses comes out to $24..not $48 (that would be a Triple box)
Asking for that minimum keeps us from playing races with odds on favorites with low exacts.

My theory is that mostly everything is based on numbers. Why we key on the favorite is that we are staying away from a "Chaos" race. If he is not one of the contenders then there is a unseen factor that the public is not seeing and should avoid it.

Bottom line....as my early posts of daily cards and just betting blindly ...gave us a negative ROI...
Now , we are down to just a certain type race(s) with conditions..and getting positive results...can you ask for more?

Mike

Hi Mike,

My bad re break-even. I never play 4-horse exacta boxes, and I had mistakenly doubled the number of combinations.

As far as this strategy itself is concerned, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work - but you know me, I'd like to see a larger sample first. Cheap races at small tracks looks like a possible niche for using NP. If this strategy does continue to work, maybe it's worth trying with identical filters at other tracks. As I said to Ted, it's possible that NP outperforms RDSS in sub-10k races.

I'll try to post again after I've had a chance to take a look at the spreadsheet, which might answer many of my questions.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

B Jennet