Hi Everyone

[Assist Man]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

As most of you know, I am not an RDSS subscriber, therefore I do not get New Pace in that way, neither did I subscribe to New Pace as a standalone product. However, I do have the videos on New Pace and have watched them a couple of times. I have also read about New Pace at Paceadvantage, where I am NOT a member.

Although I have been silent on the subject of New Pace, I do have some thoughts on it. My thoughts are not based on how it performs. There have been several of you that have worked quite hard on attempting to reach a conclusion in that regard and I will continue to leave it to those folks to move forward with their research.

My thoughts have been directed towards the marketing of New Pace. GL45 started this thread by asking the question, “What Is New Pace?” There have been few posts in this thread that really addressed that question.

In looking at the videos, I concentrated on the “Intro, Conventional Pace and New Approach” videos, which are the first three in the series. Beyond that, the videos cover how to calculate New Pace and reach the “contenders”, or horses to bet, and I am not concerned with that area.

As you all should know, there is a big difference between a software vendor and a system seller. The former cannot be held responsible for the results one gets using the software, since lines entered and contenders used, as an example, is totally up to the user, not the vendor. The latter, on the other hand, is totally responsible for the results a user gets. He has laid out a formula, that if followed, is supposed to provide the user with a profit. As I see it, New Pace was sold as a "black box" system. There was no claim that anything else was needed in order to win.

In the "Intro", there is much emphasis on horses taking the lead "for the first time". The importance of the 2nd call is downplayed, indicating horses taking the lead at the 2nd call win only 14% of the time. There is an acknowledgement that horses taking the lead at the first call win 40% of the time. A “white board” is split into “early” and “late” and shows the first call winners at 40%, as early, and everything after that as 60% and "late". At this point, winners that took the lead for the first time at the second call are shown as producing just 14% of all winners. Right here, using the numbers provided, we see that 54% of winners take the lead for the first time at the first and second calls or the "early" calls. This leaves 46% as the percentage for the “late” horses. So no sooner is the original claim of an early/late split of 40%/60% made, than it turns into a 54%/46% split. I will challenge the 54%/46% in a minute.

The suggestion is made that the purchaser will eventually concentrate on the "late" horses since they pay prices such as $20, $78 or even $212. Now what guy, or gal, isn't going to look at that $212 price not get excited? So I took a look at two years worth of results, more than 80,000 winners. Do you know how many $200+ winners there were? "15". I hope you didn't miss playing the right track on the right day. Now really, if that isn't a "tease" I don't know what is. I don't know about you, but living in Las Vegas has taught me to recognize a "ruse" when I see one.

Down on Fremont Street in Las Vegas, there is a Hotel and Casino, which will go unnamed. As you walked through the casino you could hear a “promotional” audio playing almost continuously. The main thrust of their promo was that they offered slot machines with over a 100% payback. THAT was true, but if the “real” truth were told, there was only “one” machine in the entire casino, that was hidden at the back of the place, that offered this 100+% payback. First, you would have to know what machine could possibly offer a 100+% payback, second, you would have to know where it was located AND third, know how to play the machine correctly in order to achieve the 100+% return. It was only a $0.25 machine that you had to “hand feed” coins into. This cut down on the number of hands being played each hour, thus reducing the potential profit and therefore rendering the machine useless, but it allowed that casino to make that claim in their “promo”. I look at that casino’s claim of machines that return 100+% in the same way as the claim that New Pace hit a $200+ winner. Perhaps New Pace DID hit a $212.00 winner……..once. I’m not disputing that claim.

In the second video, "Conventional Pace", it basically covers Phase III and Howard Sartin and his contribution and I have nothing to say about that video.

In the 3rd video, "New Approach", the “ease of use” theme appears. The idea here is that you need to know nothing in order to use the system and win with it. No need to pick pacelines. No need to pick contenders. No need for keeping models. The customer will get big prices. Hey, I’m no different than the next guy. Show me a “black box” that guarantees a profit and I’M IN! There’s just one thing. THAT black box hasn’t been invented yet.

At any rate, the point is made that "pace handicapping" leads to front runners that only pay small prices. Well, that is a matter of opinion. I have a different opinion, but if you are trying to sell a new idea, you have to make an argument that shows your product in its’ best light.

Also in the 3rd video there is, again, emphasizes on the possibility of catching horses paying $200+, as well as emphasizes the unimportance of the second call, to the point where it is stated that the second call can be completely ignored. (Never mind that horses running 1,2,3 at the 2nd call win more than 70% of all races)

A series of illustrations were shown where certain tracks and certain races based on “non-maidens, older horses, dirt and/or poly and using the “same pace pressure”, however that was determined, were used. The concept of “same pace pressure” was not explained, but the point is, these illustration races have been “cherry picked”. I’m sure all or at least most of you understand what it means to “spin” something. It is a concept of “spinning” or putting “a twist” on something in an effort to show it in its’ most favorable light. That is what’s happening in these race illustrations. The illustrations being shown are "spinning" the concept exactly the way it is intended to be in order for it to be perceived as desired. After all, there is a product that is being sold here. And I suggest to you, that you will not be “cherry picking” races in the same way, especially in light of the fact that you do not know what this "pace pressure" is or how it it used.

I decided to take a closer look at this system, WITHOUT cherry picking. Using ALL RACES, over a two year period of time and ONLY looking at where the winner took the lead “for the first time", here are the results;
49% or 12,952 horses won having the lead at the 1st call
16% or 4,227 horses won having reached the lead for the 1st time at the 2nd call
20% or 5,319 horses won having reach the lead for the first time at the 3rd call (stretch call)
15% or 3,906 horses won having reached the lead for the first time at the 4th call (finish)

Considering the original claim of “40% early” and “60% late”, which was immediately transformed into 54% early and 46% late with the addition of 14% to the “early” side of the ledger for the second call winners, I suggest that the actual ratio is 65% early and 35% late, with “no spin”.

Keep in mind, this has nothing to do with the results from New Pace contenders, i.e.- E1, E2, L1, L2, “swing” horse or “in for a price” horses. It is just a look at the horses that “take the lead for the first time” and the call where that lead was first taken. Horses that take the lead for the first time at the first and second call win at a rate of almost 2 to 1 over horses that take the lead for the first time at call3 (stretch call) and call4 (finish).

If there is ONE THING that can be taken away from either the numbers presented in the video, OR MY NUMBERS, it’s that the first call “IS” the dominant factor when it comes to winner production based on where a horse takes the lead for the first time. There is no other single call that comes close to it. However, I will say again, horses running 1,2,3 at the second call produce the highest percentage of winners, at more than 70%.

I presented this for your consideration.
Good luck!

Hi Everyone,

Just some other tidbits based on my 6-7 year database and study and 272105 races:

73.299% of winners were positioned 1,2,or3 at the 2nd call in all races.
62.129% of winners were positioned 1,2,or 3 at the 1st call in all races.

I can give you a breakdown by most distances/tracks. Email me at support@assistman.com if you are at all interested in any further stats!

Assist Man
www dot assistman dot com

[DaveEdwards]

Confused.

FTL, are you Assist Man or is this someone else please?

[Ted Craven]

For The Lead is not Assist Man.

Ted

[DaveEdwards]

Thanks Ted

[Assist Man]

FTL is NOT Assist Man!

Assist Man

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by DaveEdwards

Confused.

FTL, are you Assist Man or is this someone else please?

Although Ted already answered your "basic" question, I'll go into more depth.

The "other guy" is hustling the internet, which is to say, he is searching the internet for horse racing sites where he can find a place to "comment" and leave his website address, hoping that people will go there and buy his product for $10.95 a race card and/or become a member and post on his site. It's purely a "marketing" strategy.

I suspect he chose "my post" to comment on since in my post I mentioned that I "used" 2 years of information and more than 80,000 races for my research. This is probably the reason he took the opportunity to state how many races he has by comparison. What he DOESN"T KNOW and what most people who visit P&C on regular basis DO KNOW, is that my data base is MORE THAN twice the size of his....just for the sake of clarification!

[Ted Craven]

This conversation is unrelated to NewPace. I moved it out of it previous Topic.

Assist Man - welcome, but beware of 'coming out of the gate' too fast here. Please pace yourself. Consider posting some picks in Selections. If you do not appear interested in the Sartin Methodology, or if your posts appear to be only self-serving, I predict you will not enjoy yourself here.

Best wishes!

Ted

[mikesal57]

Just for the record, Bob (Assist Man) was genuine and supplied me with some requests that I asked for. Thxs Bob

Mike

[trotman]

Mikesal57, absolutely as you say genuine. Just ask and he replied.