NewPace 507 race Study

[SilentRun]

Bill,

This is an excellent presentation. I am primarily interested in coming up with an exacta strategy and......................
Your study clearly shows that you are burning money by simply boxing the 4 New Pace contenders in an Exacta or Trifecta for that matter. That is a positive conclusion right there...don't do it ! Also the close win% between L1 and L2 as was mentioned in a previous post surprised me...I expected L1 to dominate.

I would like to see subsequent studies showing the results of boxing 3 New Pace horses based on elimination criteria. There was a study posted ( small sample from MNR) which showed a positive R.O.I. if you eliminated the low odds favorite. I think that this could be a positive strategy but only after at least 1500 races.

If you keep the low odds favorite and toss another horse what would be the results ? Generalized criteria could be used as what you stated in your study such as 75/95/20:1. But individual judgement calls will take us out of the black box area.

To me this is an excellent start but there has to be more specific studies with a reliable sample size.

Ernie

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

B Jennet,

I have suggested that subsequent studies include the final odds of the 4 (or 5, for ties) NewPace contenders so we can break down which races were bettable and which not, how many horses could be bet to win, what exacta combos might have been indicated, etc. I think within a month or so, you'll be seeing a few new studies of whole meets in 2011 with this information.

The 'Original' data was based on TrackMaster Speed Ratings and my first crack at NewPace rules as issued in April 2011.

Not sure which comment of mine you're referring to here 'I believe Ted did mention that this was done 'incorrectly' ' - but if you can cite a post, I can clarify.

Ted

Hi Ted,

There are four columns of NP results. The results of the first (on the left) are quite different from the other three. I'm a little confused by your response, since it looks as though the second column of results used the TM speed figures?

In either one of Bill's or your posts re NP testing, someone mentioned that your first run of testing involved a slight misinterpretation of Dave's algorithm, which you later corrected. Since the first column was so different, I wasn't sure whether these figures were produced by this 'mistaken' method, or whether the difference is produced by some other cause. Regardless, my point was that this method is worth retaining, since it produced a number of longshots that the other three did not. As I said, if we merged them, it should yield an improved ROI.

One thing about these hit rates - they seem to me (as with RDSS) extremely homogeneous, which is very good, but they do imply that the odds-range within which they can be profitable is high. In this sample, NP located about 50% of all winners of 7-1 and over. My guess is that we'll find this percentage to be pretty durable. It really looks like a method best used where at tracks where longshots are plentiful - places like Evangeline are probably optimal - and will do badly at the numerous Chalkdust Downs locations.

I have more to say on this, but I have much more than usual on my plate at this time, so I'll hold off for now.

Cheers,

B Jennet