The software I have been using to post 641 (and counting) profitable plays in VIP

[PaceAdvantage]

I've posted, currently, 646 PROFITABLE win bets in the VIP forum...all before the race.

In fact, I started today by hitting the 25-1 opening winner at GP. Again, posted before the race in the VIP section.

For the past oh, month and a half I have been deep in the weeds with a program I have used at least twice before but gave up on early-on both times, and I'll tell you why in a moment.

But this third time (which might be the charm?), I absolutely devoted myself to this piece of software. We're talking weeks of staying up until all hours of the morning learning the program, doing research with the program, just being a general degenerate nutcase with it.

My goal with the software was to use it to FIT what *I* was currently trying to achieve. And that is, find a way to bet value WITHOUT having to use the tote board, conditional wagering, or betting on horses and watching their odds get cut in half after the race started.

Well, HORSE STREET HANDICAPPER (https://store.pacemakestherace.com/horsestreet-handicapper/) (HSH) by our very own Dave Schwartz has done that so far, and done it quite well. The results sort of speak for themselves.

The key here is that I am using the program in a way Dave Schwartz himself probably hasn't thought of or talked about. That's the genius behind the program. You can use it in any NUMBER of ways. And that's probably it's biggest problem when it comes to a newbie just getting started with this tool.

It is a tad overwhelming. And because of that, it isn't as documented as well as it should be. But then again, it's kind of impossible to document it well because it offers so many possibilities.

Dave has tons of videos available to explain certain aspects of the program, and he is amazingly generous with his time when you are learning. He puts on weekly meetings to teach the major components, but it's really up to you to utilize the program in a way that suits your style, and that's the beauty of the program. It's very flexible. I probably don't use a good chunk of its capabilities. And that's fine. That's what makes it great in my opinion. You're not locked into any one methodology. You can use it to fit YOUR current style or goals.

But be warned. The majority of you who attempt to use this program will probably abandon it within a week or two of trying to figure it out, as I did...TWICE.

BUT, if you're serious...if you devote yourself to learning how this amazing tool can help you in today's environment, it's worth its weight in gold and then some.

[PaceAdvantage]

And I just hit that 25-1 winner at Parx in the 4th.

Again, posted before the race in VIP.

[Nutz and Boltz]

Congrats. You should add a review of HSH on Dave's website. I see an old friend of ours, PKTRUCKDRIVER , has a long time ago given a great review to the product.

[Tom]

Good to hear! :ThmbUp:

I have been a "fanboy" of Dave's for decades, back to his Partimes subscription on the sage advice by none other than Tom Brohamer. I think his exact words were "You will not be disappointed in how good Dave's stuff is."

He was right.

[Dave Schwartz]

I have to say that I didn't expect you to develop something this good, this fast, PA.

While I did spend an hour or two with Mike, he did all of this on his own and deserves all the credit. Congratulations!

[PaceAdvantage]

689 profitable picks...500 under my prior run....189 under my current run

And they aren't the same "method"...this current 189 play run is only in its third day of experimentation...and it's not 189 races...it's 65 over three days thus far, but I'm betting 3 horses a race to win.

Go figure.

[oughtoh]

I was one of them I tried on paper, worked great, and then played and did nothing. Tried it a second time same thing, same thing happened. I agree, there is so much this program can do and so many ways to do it. It is just way over my head and my computer skill. But a great program.

[Dave Schwartz]

I was one of them I tried on paper, worked great, and then played and did nothing. Tried it a second time same thing, same thing happened. I agree, there is so much this program can do and so many ways to do it. It is just way over my head and my computer skill. But a great program.

We're putting out an upgrade within the next month. It will come with a bunch of out-of-the-box systems. (We don't charge for upgrades.)

Since you already purchased the software, why don't you give it a try again?

Lots of other new improvements coming this summer.


Dave

[lefty359]

Mike, is your longshot method still working?

[PaceAdvantage]

I haven't gone back to the method I used for the last 500. I ventured off into other territory, hoping to improve upon it...sadly, that hasn't happened.

The 289 profitable picks that occured after the last 500 were using an altered method, and that started to peter out after 300+ races. And I was betting 3 horses a race. It surprised me it was profitable for almost 300 races.

[mikesal57]

I haven't gone back to the method I used for the last 500. I ventured off into other territory, hoping to improve upon it...sadly, that hasn't happened.

The 289 profitable picks that occured after the last 500 were using an altered method, and that started to peter out after 300+ races. And I was betting 3 horses a race. It surprised me it was profitable for almost 300 races.

So its profitable...why change then?

Some people would die for something like that...

:bang:

[PaceAdvantage]

I didn't change. I was looking to improve.

11% winners isn't actually something to get all that excited about.

The long losing streaks tend to get disheartening.

I didn't say I abandoned it...far from it...it's now a cornerstone that I am trying to make better.

[mikesal57]

I didn't change. I was looking to improve.

11% winners isn't actually something to get all that excited about.

The long losing streaks tend to get disheartening.

I didn't say I abandoned it...far from it...it's now a cornerstone that I am trying to make better.

Good luck PA....

From my experience, yes % might go up but prices go down...:pout:

Mike

[crestridge]

I developed a method with a hit rate similar to yours, with similar results. I would have had many more plays because in many of the races I chose, there existed 3 overlays. But when I excluded any RACES with 3 overlays (2 overlays or less was my new rule) I turned a profit. When I included 3 overlays, I lost my profit. If your records indicate more profit with less plays...would that help?

Just adding, probably worthless advice, because everyone's comfort level is so different. I treated the whole endeavor like I would a index fund, similar to what Joel Greenblatt suggests, which produced only about 30 plays a YEAR. Kind of like a fund you let go for about 5-10 years, before you expect to extract any profit.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hi crestridge,

I keep bouncing from more plays to fewer plays. Trying to find a way to isolate races that have a high tendency to produce a longshot winner has been difficult.

I think the true key lies in trying to identify these types of races before even handicapping the race itself. The other half of me says handicap the race and that should tell you the story.

I'm still in the beginning stages of all of this. But I like this sort of stuff, so it's ok.

[crestridge]

Steve Fierro's "Four Quarters" discusses, if my memory is correct, three types of races, A,B,C; the C races are the most volatile, with less certainty concerning the dominate contenders. A,B, races, observes more dominate contenders, hence lower return, but higher probability of win rate. Myself, I concentrated on C races and turf, with lots of entrants (actually, my rule was races with only 10 entrants or more). This increased my chances of a better price. But....reduces ones opportunities. My dream was to play Hong Kong, hoping to use my software to locate data from there. Of course, that never happened. My software isn't compatible. Maybe one day we'll be able to locate good software for Hong Kong.

[Tom]

Funny you mention the 4Q's - I have been trying to incorporate it's principle into my betting. Deciding on a three or four contender matrix is harder than it sounds, and actually picking the line to use is an eye opener. I am assigning odds to everything now, and it is a ral learning experience. This is major shift in my game - I was always of the Jim Bradshaw mindset - an overlay is any horse that wins.

But what I am finding is that underlays are so far making me more money than overlays! If I have a predictable race, no unknowns, fairly obvious pace scenario, speed figs......and one of the horse is severely under a reasonable line, I am going with the idea that there must be a reason. If there is not an obviously over-bet horse, then I am looking for an overlay.

The key is setting the right line.

[crestridge]

Tom

I can almost guarantee, if you utilize Bayesian odds line approach (which is more difficult to achieve) you will benefit greatly. It takes practice/work, but very helpful.

[pandy]

I've done a lot of testing of win wagers over the years and if the goal is to find a profitable method that doesn't require long hours of traditional pp handicapping (in other words, using a computer), the profitable ROI tests tend to have win percentages between 10 and 20%. This, of course, means that although the end result is positive (ROI), long run outs are expected. You could adjust the method to include more favorites to try and increase the win percentage to keep your sanity, but that always ends up significantly reducing the ROI.

[AltonKelsey]

And I was betting 3 horses a race. It surprised me it was profitable for almost 300 races.


hmmm. Can I suggest that using 3 horses per race is the equivalent of reducing the sample size , thus making short term performance more variable.



Just a thought.

[PaceAdvantage]

hmmm. Can I suggest that using 3 horses per race is the equivalent of reducing the sample size , thus making short term performance more variable.



Just a thought.It's definitely reducing the sample size of races. No doubt. But it gets you a bigger sample size of bets far more quickly. And a bet is a bet...

I'm not doing that anymore of course.

[BCOURTNEY]

I didn't change. I was looking to improve.

11% winners isn't actually something to get all that excited about.

The long losing streaks tend to get disheartening.

I didn't say I abandoned it...far from it...it's now a cornerstone that I am trying to make better.

What is your targeted win rate?

[highnote]

I didn't change. I was looking to improve.

11% winners isn't actually something to get all that excited about.

The long losing streaks tend to get disheartening.


I got similar results from a system I tested on paper recently. The system got about a 9% strike rate. It bet 1 to 5 horses per race -- probably an average of 3. It went a period of 400 races where it broke even or lost a little, but then the profits went vertical for the next 1200.

Breaking even or losing for 400 races (which was about 4 months worth of races in my test) would be enough to make most people think the system needs to improve.

Even though the profits go vertical, eventually, you know it could hit another losing streak.

You could be in a losing streak and your system is actually a winning one. Or you could win for a long time and then when it goes flat or south for a long time you think something has changed with the betting public.

It reminds me of the advice Dr. Z gave in his book in "Dr. Z's Beat the Racetrack". The place and show system might work for awhile and then stop working because too many others are using it. Then it might reverse course and start working again because others stop using it. Even he was getting similar kinds of results back in the 1980s.

Diversification might be the key. Bet at multiple tracks.

Or on the other hand, remember what Sartin preached: Know thy track. In which case, bet fewer races, but bet bigger amounts. Because you know your track so well you can be more confident in the outcomes.

Those are two different ways of approaching the game.

Either way, it's a tough game to beat.

[PaceAdvantage]

I bet basically every track...the only tracks I don't bet are tracks that aren't supported by HSH in the way that I use it...I have to ask Dave about this...

Tracks like HST, FMT, ARP, FP, and probably one or two others...

[PaceAdvantage]

So I'm 130 races into my next 500 race serious run...and I thought I had tinkered with things enough to get my win % up a little bit, but it's not budging.

I'm a little unhappy about this. But it's still sort of early in the run.

[mikesal57]

So I'm 130 races into my next 500 race serious run...and I thought I had tinkered with things enough to get my win % up a little bit, but it's not budging.

I'm a little unhappy about this. But it's still sort of early in the run.

Making money and unhappy.....:bang:

I dont get it....

[Dave Schwartz]

PA,

Have you considered making a bet on a low-priced horse as well, even if that horse is a slightly losing proposition?


In the early '60s, Alan Wilson wrote a book called The Casino Gambler's Guide.

In that book he cited an example of adding a losing proposition to a winning proposition to raise the optimum bet.

Specifically, he said suppose you had a horse that was 20/1 in every race that won 10% of the time.

(BTW, I seem to recall in the book, he said that 20/1 was a $40 payoff, which threw all of his calcs off a bit but the point was clear.)

But let's stick with 20/1 paying $42.

So, you make 10 bets, betting $2 each time and win once, returning $42.


$42.00 return
-20.00 bet
--------
+22.00 profit

22/20 = 110% advantage

opt bet% = advantage / odds

OptBet%= 110%/20 = 5.5% of bankroll.



Wilson then introduces the idea that you also have a 2/1 horse in each race that wins 30% of the time.

By combining the two bets in each race you wind up with:


$42.00 return from 1 winner at $42.00
+18.00 return from 3 winners at $6.00 each
---------
$60.00 total return
-40.00 total bet on both horses
---------
+20.00 profit

20/40 = 50% advantage

$60.00 return divided by 4 wins =
average Odds= $15 / $4 = 3.75 - 1 = 2.75/1

OptBet% = 50% / 2.75 = 18.18% of Bankroll



The point being that even though you've given up half your profit, now, after 10 races, you are winning 4 times instead of just once.

This increased consistency allows you to bet over 3x more money!



Now, the really interesting thing is that, in theory, the low odds horses you bet do not have to be in the same races as the prime bets.


This means that you do not have to bet an equal number of losing bets!

Thus, if you're hitting 10% of your bets and want to increase the hit rate a little, you could occasionally add a low-odds horse.



Just a thought.


Dave

[PaceAdvantage]

I bet low odds horses more than you might think. But even they find a way to lose... :lol:

[ReplayRandall]

So I'm 130 races into my next 500 race serious run...and I thought I had tinkered with things enough to get my win % up a little bit, but it's not budging.

I'm a little unhappy about this. But it's still sort of early in the run.

Need an update from you.....What's going on?

[PaceAdvantage]

here u go...with 1 more race to go tonight

[ReplayRandall]

here u go...with 1 more race to go tonight
Doesn't look like you need the 3rd hole, W/P looks good....:ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

Won that last race of the night at 5-1

[PaceAdvantage]

Updated tally with final numbers from the night:

[mikesal57]

:ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

Since we last spoke, I went 1 for 54.

But I just hit a 69-1 shot at LRL...this is a rough way to try and make a profit...:lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's how my day has gone today, after going 1 for 27 yesterday...who can play like this??? :eek:

[Dave Schwartz]

Here's how my day has gone today, after going 1 for 27 yesterday...who can play like this??? :eek:

Boy, do I agree.

Maybe you should consider looking into studies.

Or, reframe your play into each day being a single wager. I mean, bet and forget.

After all, you are making profit.

[PaceAdvantage]

Can't bet and forget...doesn't work that way for me

[PaceAdvantage]

When you only have a 10-12% hit rate, you're gonna go 1 for 54 or whatever...it's just the nature of the beast.

All I care about is profit.

[Dave Schwartz]

When you only have a 10-12% hit rate, you're gonna go 1 for 54 or whatever...it's just the nature of the beast.

All I care about is profit.

Have you considered some type of money management such as Horse Market Investing (https://store.pacemakestherace.com/horse-market-investing/)?

[thaskalos]

Here's how my day has gone today, after going 1 for 27 yesterday...who can play like this??? :eek:

I can play like this! Let me put up the money...and you place the bets. We'll call our association, the "Unholy Alliance". :ThmbUp:

[Dave Schwartz]

I can play like this! Let me put up the money...and you place the bets. We'll call our association, the "Unholy Alliance". :ThmbUp:

Hey, hey! Get in line. LOL

Seriously, I think he's really on to something. But it probably needs some refinement.

[thaskalos]

Hey, hey! Get in line. LOL

Seriously, I think he's really on to something. But it probably needs some refinement.

All three of us can partner up...and we'll call ourselves the "Unholy Trinity". :headbanger:

[mikesal57]

[QUOTE=Dave Schwartz;2353878

Or, reframe your play into each day being a single wager. I mean, bet and forget.

After all, you are making profit.[/QUOTE]

I agree to "Bet and Forget"

90% ofMy plays are bet in the mornings and I dont see results till next day.

You cant sit in front of the PC all day every day!!!

Mike

[Dave Schwartz]

All three of us can partner up...and we'll call ourselves the "Unholy Trinity". :headbanger:

What impresses me the most about this is PA's ability to get something working very quickly. (Bear in mind that I have no idea what he is doing and have had absolutely zero to do with his success.)

I've offered my help on many occasions to help him take it to the next level. I think I even wrote about how we use "Studies" to determine what's right and what's wrong.

Some months back I took an online course about METRICS. Boy, was it enlightening.

I've been familiar with things such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and dashboards, but this course taught me some very important things.

For example, one of the lessons was about what they called "vanity metrics." That's like looking at the size of your email list and saying, "See how big my email list is? I'm doing so well."

Instead, they said that you should be looking at the daily growth of your email list.

MY point is that there are always metrics you can look at to improve your results. Again, an example is in order.

Once we get data into the "study" (which takes literally a single button click when you bet the race), we could use an option we call, "Betfair."

What this does is turn every race into a betting exchange situation. Thus, every horse is either a "take" or a "lay" bet. The system wagers the theoretical "optimum bet" either way.

In other words, when you've got a horse as a really bad bet, how would that work out for you?

Now, the naive player thinks that the only thing that matters is who he bets, and that is true once you've got a system built. But during the development process knowing whether you are playing against the right horses is likely to make a huge difference.

In PA's case, I'd suggest that he concentrate on the low-medium odds horses he is betting. Are they actually good bets? If we divide them into expected early or late, do we see a pattern?

Of the roughly 4,000 factors in the system, which factors would have pushed him off losers and/or onto winners?

The potential for improvement is just huge.

Just my opinion.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am about to go 2 for 80 the last two days.

Winners paid $141 and $42.80

:faint:

[thaskalos]

I am about to go 2 for 80 the last two days.

Winners paid $141 and $42.80

:faint:

Are you categorizing your results per particular track?

[Dave Schwartz]

I am about to go 2 for 80 the last two days.

Winners paid $141 and $42.80

:faint:

About 20 years ago I played several real longshot systems. Like minimum pays were around $20, and 2-4 horses per race.

Won my first bet for $2 that paid $62, then lost 163 in a row.

Stopped playing after 3 days. It was very depressing.

At the end of the week I backtested and found I would have been winner if I'd kept playing.

Decided that for me the psychotherapy and medication would cost more than I would make. LOL

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you categorizing your results per particular track?Nope...just firing and praying

[PaceAdvantage]

Think I'm gonna take a break for a while...maybe I'll play a little on Sunday, because of the contest...but this is definitely a GRIND.

[highnote]

I am about to go 2 for 80 the last two days.

Winners paid $141 and $42.80

:faint:

Are you betting real money? If so, are you getting rebates? Rebates obviously help the bottom line.

Are you betting a fixed amount or a proportional amount that is based on your betting wealth, projected payoff, and edge?

If your system is profitable flat betting will increase your betting wealth, but proportional betting will maximize your betting wealth. Although, with proportional betting your wealth will likely shrink quite a bit after 50 losses in a row!

[highnote]

Think I'm gonna take a break for a while...maybe I'll play a little on Sunday, because of the contest...but this is definitely a GRIND.

Can you automate it?

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes. I've posted before, I bet REAL MONEY on every play I post in VIP.

Hell, I AM UP 15% after 347 plays in this current run. It's not like I'm losing...lol

[highnote]

Yes. I've posted before, I bet REAL MONEY on every play I post in VIP.

Hell, I AM UP 15% after 347 plays in this current run. It's not like I'm losing...lol

:ThmbUp: That is the only way to know for sure if you can win. There is nothing like betting real money.

I'm late to the party. I just deleted my facebook account. I've got some catching up to do around here. LOL

[Dave Schwartz]

PA, you've now had two $100+ horses in this run, right?

[thaskalos]

Nope...just firing and praying

Aren't you curious to find out if track selection might greatly improve your overall results? The probability that your handicapping method is universally applicable is basically nil...IMO. By excluding certain unfavorable racetracks, your results might astonish you.

[highnote]

Aren't you curious to find out if track selection might greatly improve your overall results? The probability that your handicapping method is universally applicable is basically nil...IMO. By excluding certain unfavorable racetracks, your results might astonish you.

I agree. When I automated the Dr. Z system there were some tracks that were extremely profitable and others that consistently lost. Eventually, I dropped the losing tracks and only bet the winning tracks. Then eventually, the rest of the world caught on and none of them were profitable.

The problem with a system is that it might work for awhile, but if someone else starts betting your horses because they found the same advantage you found then your profits disappear.

Strike while the iron is hot!

[PaceAdvantage]

PA, you've now had two $100+ horses in this run, right?I think the other one was in the last run

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, I didn't get a profit in my last 500 race run...things have to be reexamined before I run another 500 race run...

[ReplayRandall]

Well, I didn't get a profit in my last 500 race run...things have to be reexamined before I run another 500 race run...


With any rebate at the 97% you posted, there's nothing to reexamine...:ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

The 9% win rate is disturbing...lol

I'm working on that the most...

[Tom]

Aren't you curious to find out if track selection might greatly improve your overall results? The probability that your handicapping method is universally applicable is basically nil...IMO. By excluding certain unfavorable racetracks, your results might astonish you.

I have a play that has been hitting around 25-30% with ~1.25 roi at certain tracks, but at others, it is under 10% and under .60 roi.

[mikesal57]

I have a play that has been hitting around 25-30% with ~1.25 roi at certain tracks, but at others, it is under 10% and under .60 roi.


Maybe those tracks have something in common...like early/late speed is good
BUT.....Be careful Tom...sometimes things like that might turn on a dime...

Mike

[Tom]

The plays do not use pace and speed lor running styles at all.
Beside, I track daily and weekly, so I always know when things are going south.

[railbird]

689 profitable picks...500 under my prior run....189 under my current run

And they aren't the same "method"...this current 189 play run is only in its third day of experimentation...and it's not 189 races...it's 65 over three days thus far, but I'm betting 3 horses a race to win.

Go figure.

This brings back memories ;
I tried a system that had you play 3 horses a race in 1973 and I thought I found the Holy Grail . I had about 56 dollars in the bank yet was betting 60 dollars a race , money I did not have so I went to the shylocks at work .
Anyway I was hitting everything , even took off from work to take the bus to Monmouth park for a week straight . Usually one of the three was winning often enough to generate a good profit . I never organized my winnings just spent the cash like a drunken sailor. But when a win less day popped up the Holy Grail turned in to an empty Dixie cup . So PA congratulations I tip my hat to you Keep up the good work.. :ThmbUp:

[green80]

With any rebate at the 97% you posted, there's nothing to reexamine...:ThmbUp:



You need to consider the size of the bets that you would need to make to make any serious money and what that would do to the pool at some of these tracks. You can't put much money on some longer priced horses at these mid to lower level tracks without cutting you own price.



While having a 3% edge is huge, you can only bet a certain amount before it goes away.