What is NewPace?

[So Cal Al]

Ted:
Right on! Brilliant commentary!

[stormbringer]

You are the Man Ted! My vote is with YOU!

[noddub62]

Ditto

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

If you don't like NewPace or don't understand it or find it distracting - don't use it! You will NOT be missing out on the 'secret to riches'. But don't bother maligning it or its author (or anyone else, for that matter) here: that is a short-cut to being disinvited from this particular party ...

I feel I need to clarify the above statement of mine, particularly the bolded text. In the interest of open and even-handed discussion, I have absolutely no problem if someone who has given NewPace a fair shot and come to a considered conclusion that it is either not for them or not what it claims to be, then comes out and simply states their opinion. (For that matter, I have no problem if someone in a similarly respectable position makes a similar statement about RDSS, and they have done!)

And, I also welcome anyone who has done detailed work with NewPace and had positive results to likewise say so, even post detailed findings if they have them.

You are welcomed to say you don't like NewPace or its premise, or you are welcomed to report that you find it a valuable addition to your handicapping toolset. People looking in on this and other discussions rely on commentary from members here to know if they should spend their valuable time (and money) to pursue a particular line of handicapping study (e.g. NewPace). They will also make their judgements based on the tone of voice and the perceived seriousness of the poster (pro or con).

I only remind folks that any personal animosities have no place in this discussion.

I also remind folks that in the glorious past days of handicapping methods and research, our predecessors have been known to start with a particular understanding of a handicapping idea, then refine it, then update it, then refine again based on feedback, etc, etc. And charge a little bit more for upgrades along the way. As it always was, it is up to each one of US to ultimately decide the validity of an idea for our own selves - based on all evidence - since it will also be each of us who either profits or loses, depending.

Thanks,

Ted

[rmath]

Ted & everyone else,I have posted several times about how I use Rdss & NP to get the contenders in all of my races. Since Aqu started running on the Inner Track I have also added the Gapfire numbers to my testing.
Because I pick my own pacelines not everyone will get the same results.
But from a purely mechanical point I can show how everyone can get 95% of all the winners into the contenders.
By taking the 4 horses selected from NP, the 2 E & the 2 L horses and combining them with the top 4 horses from gapfire everyone will have the same contenders.
I have 321/337 winners from a purely mechanical approach.
This is how anyone can ( if they would like ) start out with the most likely winner in the race.
How each of us then separates these contenders is up to each person.
The stats for AQU do include a lot of Maiden races which I would not normally even consider. But in all fairness to both sets of numbers they are included in the study.
Neither NP or Gapfire ( in my opinion) compare to RDSS, but I have been a Sartin player since the late 80s, and am a little prejudiced in that direction.

I am not saying that this is the only way to select the contenders in any race , but it does narrow most races down to the main contenders.
So , if this can help anyone become a better player then try it or ignore it.
I am not trying to convince anyone to use either NP or Gapfire , but just showing how they can be used to find the main contenders in a race.
Good Luck to all.
rmath

[Ted Craven]

Just a reminder - if you paid for Dave's NewPace update last Summer, you likely received a coupon good for $37.00 off your next purchase from him. If you didn't use that yet, and you're still interested in NewPace, consider using it for the upcoming NewPace workshop.

That's what I just did, thus cost = $0.00

Ted

[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!

[Bill Lyster]

Thanks "For the Lead" for a clear and great summation of race positioning and its effect on winning. Without delving too deeply into your data base, is there much difference in win % between sprints and routes for the top three horses at the second call?

Great post,

Thanks,

Bill

[rmath]

FTL, always enjoy your posts.
As usual this one is VERY informative.
Thanks for sharing.
rmath

PS. Keep up the good work

[trotman]

ForTheLead excellent post you hit that out of the park.