NewPace situation - AQU R9 2/8

[jeebus1083]

Consider the following in this eight horse field (SCR #9):

After calculations, there are no "legitimate" speeds, basically a race where the majority of the field is never really interested in the lead. By attrition, #2 (34%) and #7 (29%) make up the pressure, with the #1 (17%) a swing. #7 is a "Double Dominant". Based on Reg Hi speed ratings, #1 and #7 qualify as Early (#2 is out on that alone). Of numbers 3-4-5-6-8, the #5 and #6 are dominant Reg Lo speed ratings. Here were the odds at 4 MTP:

#1 5-1... #5 19-1... #6 4/5... #7 5-1

I saw the #5 (Northern Warrior) as a good betting tool at the price (closed at 24-1), and made a $2 Win/Place ($4) bet. I also played the 1-5-7/1-5-6-7 exacta combo at $1 ($9 total), leaving the #6 (Zodiac Girl, the heavy 1/2 favorite) on the bottom. In total, $13 was invested.

The race shaped up drastically different in the early stages, with the #4, a notoriously slow-paced early horse, clicking the early splits. When the dust cleared, the favorite charged to the front, but deep stretch, the longshot #5 makes a final desperate run, but runs out of racetrack. I miss the exacta, but collect $11.80 for the Place, taking a small $1.20 loss on the race.

Was the approach that I took betting this race an optimal one? Should I have pressed a bit more heavily on the #5 a little more on the W/P end? Knowing that the early pressure was more or less by attrition rather than pure stat, would leaning late have been a better approach?

[Linny]

Agree about the pace. The fave didn't break well either. Ramon showed he wins so many races. His heavy favorite breaks slow and he settles her rather than hustling. He moves toward the lead but looks back, aware that the 5 is moving well. He didn't ask his horse for an all out effort at the top of the stretch but waited until his rival (#5) was in a full out drive.

Good on you for liking the 5. I didn't. I guess I'd have backed it up with an EX using the favorite, considering the odds on the one you liked. I do like the W-P option on big prices. If the favorite loses, the place price can be very good if they run second.

[Dave Schwartz]

I just handicapped the race. I will show you what I came up with in the race. Please understand that I am using an updated version of NP and my approach has some significant bells and whistles. (It is also about twice as fast to handicap with.)

First, a look at my early horses:

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU08-01.png

I go down to 79% to get ALL the likely front runners.

So, the contenders for the Early are 4-2-3.

Next we go through a separation process to decide which of those front runners are likely to be able to emerge victorious:

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU08-02.png

I take the top 2, the #4 and #2 and completely toss out #3. (I no longer use the swing horse concept.)

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU08-03.png

Next, I use my modified RegSpeed-Late object to pick the best 79 pct of the late contenders. What I am looking for here is who can dominate the late. Often it is a single horse. In this race, it is almost everybody: 8-7-5-1. This figures to be a cavalry charge in the stretch.

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU08-04.png
Whenever I wind up with more than 4 horses I use my "Eliminate Extra Horses" object to toss out any horse that is worse than 4th. That bottom horse, being 20/1 (I am using adjusted MLs here), stays in as well.

Just #2 is tossed.

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU08-05.png

This is a highly playable race by virtue of being able to play against the #6 and #2.

Of course, I do not know what the final odds were, so things might have changed some, especially the total amount to bet in the race. This would have called for about a 60-unit wager, accepting 1/2 on the money, with a 90% hit rate expected. (Average bet size is 35 units, biggest bet size is about 80 units. About 60% of all races handicapped can be played. About 20% of the races result in a wager so small as to be almost ignored - like 2-8 units. Races where the bet size is less than about 20 units lose money before rebate, while races at 30 units and above make a flat bet profit before rebate.)

BTW, it is interesting to note that both of the 2 early horses (2 & 4) wound up being play-against horses.

[Dave Schwartz]

LOL - So, I did the wrong race? Oops. Let's look at the right one, then.

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU09-01.png

This is a race without any real front runners. Let's see what shakes out.

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU09-02.png

When a race's early pace has NO 2 front runners that can make 62% between them, then I toss out all the front runners, but without prejudice. That is, they can come back in IF I need more horses, which I will.

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU09-03.png

The remaining horses become the "Late contenders," and the top 79% of them are in. That means that as of now, we have only 1 horse, #6.

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU09-04.png

Now we put ALL the horses back in and pick the latest of the rest, going do to 79%.


http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/NP-120208AQU09-05.png

That leaves us with 6-7-1-5 but the race is not playable from my standpoint. (Again, this is with adjusted ML odds.)

[Dave Schwartz]

So, I came up with the same horses as you. The only real difference is that for me the race was probably not playable.

[Kevroc]

I'm fast approaching 2,000 races with NP and now there's a new one!!??


OK.. I'm listening. :)

[jeebus1083]

So, I came up with the same horses as you. The only real difference is that for me the race was probably not playable.

Interesting stuff, Dave, especially when it came to tossing the front runners without prejudice (no 2 runners combining for at least 62%). I didn't "trust" the strength of the pressure reading given how light those numbers came. Also interesting how the "swing" horse concept has been eliminated.

So yes, I'm with Kevroc here... I'm all ears as to your recent efforts to improve NP! :)

[jdhanover]

I'm fast approaching 2,000 races with NP and now there's a new one!!??


OK.. I'm listening. :)

I think any good methodology needs to continuosly evolve...the game is constantly changing. I know a number of us have, as Dave said from the introduction of NP, 'tweaked' and adjusted and improved/customized it.

The key is things like what you mentioned here. Is a race like this playable? What happens in other similar races? Keep a tab on it and the resulting data should help you decide. I dont know any other way to do so.

[PICSIX]

I'm fast approaching 2,000 races with NP and now there's a new one!!??


OK.. I'm listening. :)

Looks like you're holding OP now!! :lol: :lol:

[Kevroc]

Looks like you're holding OP now!! :lol: :lol:


LOL!

I'm just glad it's still a thought.

I remember one seminar where Dave jokingly called it dead pace because of all the new exciting things he was working on had knocked it to the back-burner.

I'm all for evolution, curious what is in store!

[Some_One]

Looks like a New Pace v2 eh? luckily Dave has my CC on record, just go ahead and charge it and let me know when it comes out, lol.

[jeebus1083]

LOL!

I'm just glad it's still a thought.

I remember one seminar where Dave jokingly called it dead pace because of all the new exciting things he was working on had knocked it to the back-burner.

I'm all for evolution, curious what is in store!

DeadPace... LOL. I remember that statement. I believe that it was from an e-mail.

[Some_One]

If you have a version of the HSH with the analyst with the useful objects, I think you can replicate this procedure, sure it won't be the same factors as Dave, that is what I've been testing over the weekend to some intersting results (although turf results were awful), dirt was quite good.

[Kevroc]

I still haven't sprung for HSH yet, I'm doing all the NP stuff manually.

At the moment, just doing CT, DeD and SA.

Eliminating races with less than 7 betting choices.

(if i have time, i'll do FG as well)