Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
Old 03-08-2011, 11:42 PM   #31
johnhannibalsmith
Registered User
 
johnhannibalsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
... and that girl rider....Pinky Smith.....she was a master at speed popping and having horse left at the wire. The good old days.
All this time and I had no idea Violet had a devout fan in Tom. I love old threads; can't wait to tell her a basterd like Tom remembers her.
johnhannibalsmith is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-08-2011, 11:43 PM   #32
raybo
EXCEL with SUPERFECTAS
 
raybo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastracehorse
It is completely relevant to the discussion.

The Beyer is a measure of energy - as would be any speed fig.

fffastt
You missed my meaning. Andy Beyer taught anyone who could afford his book how to make speed figures. What happened next you should be able to figure out.
__________________
Ray
Horseracing's like the stock market except you don't have to wait as long to go broke.

Excel Spreadsheet Handicapping Forum

Charter Member: Horseplayers Association of North America
raybo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-09-2011, 12:08 AM   #33
The Skeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MN
Posts: 68
Cool 14% is not an eye opener

I have no agenda and have been absent from handicapping for about 8 years. I was a former customer of Dave's but left to raise my family and be a good daddy.

I do enjoy his work and I'm sure he'll get a call from me someday out of the blue.

Anyways, I must say I was "initially" intrigued by Daves "New Pace".

The figures sounded amazing 40%/60%/14%. I admit, I thought there was a nugget especially after seeing early speed profitabitability disappear from most players toolbox.

There probably is.

But upon thinking about it - nothing so far pertaining to those percentages is that enlightening - at least on the surface. I mean, the math and the 14 percent at 2nd call mean so little. No disrespect.

ROI - yes it might. But this new enlightenment of 40/60 and 14% in middle mean little.

I'm not provoking a challenge. Actually, the other way around. Set me straight.

At the mercy of no longer having a database and current horseracing figures I'll give it shot to explain:

What is average field size now days 8.24 horses a race per a google search?

That means 12.13% by shear randomness being first at any call or a random horse winning a race.

So 40% of the winners are first at the first call per Dave.

60% of the winners are not first at the first call per Dave.

I think Dave said 14% of the winners "TAKE" the lead at the 2nd call.

Not to be confused with x% of the winners were first at the first call and first at the second call.

No matter how you look at it, the horses are closer to the finish at the 2nd call so naturally that horse has a greater chance of winning then any other horse in the race. This is whether the horse was 1st at the 1st and maintained it at the second call or took the lead at the second. This number is greater then 50%....it's gotta be like 54% (40 plus 14). It's less then 60% as Dave includes the second call in his math.

So, 14% taking the lead at the second and 12.13% are pretty close. I was initially intrigued, I thought I was supposed to be but upon thinking I don't see anything that enlightening there. Maybe I just misunderstood the point.

Now to elaborate on Dave's 60% Late pace.

If the average field size is 8.24 (?).
60% of horse win who aren't 1st at the first call.
This means about 7.24 horses who aren't 1st at the 1st have 60% chance of winning.
This means 1 horse who is first accounts for 40% of the winning chances.
This also means that 1 other horse accounts for 14% of the winning chances who takes over 1st at the second call yet is included in Dave's 60% LP.
This then might mean 6.24 horse have 46% chance of winning.
This means ROUGHLY 7.37% chance for each of the remaining 6.24 horses to win.

So a 14% chance of the horse taking the lead at the second call and winnign - THAT's a big number though almost random (12%) but not an eye opener.
40% is big too. Not a big eye opener.
So therefore, 60% isn't either especially each remaining horse has just a ROUGH 7.37% chance of winning.

I will say I did watch a couple of other very interesting videos of Dave on his website. I think he mentioned a high odds horse essentially eliminating. So let's assume there's one of those in everyone of these races....

(for the sake of making the point I'm not going to back and retreive the exact number but maybe 2% chance of winning if over X odds)

Maybe then 5.24 horses have 44% chance of winning. Now we're at 8.4% chance of winning.

I'm really not trying to discredit Dave! Not at all, just seeing that the percentages aren't all that enlightening. Just trying to decipher things.

I personally found my sweet spot with about 15% winners in my heyday. I think if one tries betting 8.4% horses they'll go crazy and I'm sure that's not what Dave is preaching!

I keep thinking there's someway to combine the public percentages with handicapping principles...don't mean to over simplify.

So maybe I'll succumb and buy the book.

But in the meantime....can someone tell me where my math is wrong?

I think I'm right, but the point I'm sure which will be preached is profit.

Hopefully you pick up on my points.

Last edited by The Skeptic; 03-09-2011 at 12:16 AM.
The Skeptic is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-09-2011, 12:45 AM   #34
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,875
Skeptic,

I kinda-sorta followed your math. Doesn't seem wrong.

Here's the thing...

Most approaches, especially those that are based upon pace, pick early horses.

The average mutuel for all winners is around $13 and change. The average mutuel for horses that win early is probably slight more than half that - which is why players that bet early horses wind up on so many horses that pay $7 or less.

The average mutuel on horses that run late is probably more like $22-$23. So, finding a way to bet good late horses makes it a lot easier to be profitable.

The early horses have a tendency to be somewhat obvious, hence the $6-$7 mutuels. Besides, there are usually only 2-3 to choose from in the conventional pace approach (i.e. velocity or pace ratings).

Late horses are way less obvious. They often pay a price because they are far from obvious. Many of them win not on visible merit but because the other horses failed. But there are simply too many to bet them all. Remember, there are usually 3 early horses, which leaves 5 late horses.

(Who are the late horses? - The ones that are not early.)

So, NewPace explains how to get these higher-priced mutuels.


Our expectation is that we will get 80%+ of all winners in our top 4 horses per race!

In addition, we expect to get 80% of the winners above 4/1, gradually scaling down as the odds go way up. But even way up, to the $60 and up prices we expect to get pretty close to half of them. (Admittedly, some of these come in an ancillary plays - what we call "price only" horses." This adds about .5 horses per race.)

The important thing to look at is that when the day is done you see two groups of horses: Our contenders and the non-contenders. When you look at the non-contenders below 8/1 or so you will see that they are winning almost no races and losing about 40% per wagered dollar or more. This includes low-priced horses!

If you did nothing but play against our low-priced toss-outs you could probably make a living.

Rarely, you will see a race where the play actually calls for 6 horses as contenders. In order to have that, you must have at least 2 and probably 3 or 4 double-digit odds horses. These are the ultimate "chaos races." The average price in these races is gigantic.


Hope this makes sense.

Dave
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-09-2011, 12:53 AM   #35
RXB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,787
Dave, where is this "40% of winners are first at the first call" stat coming from? I don't get anything nearly that high.
RXB is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-09-2011, 01:10 AM   #36
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,875
I looked at about the last 25,000 races from 2010, asking the question, where did the winner first challenge for the lead. The definition of "challenge" was to be within 1 length (inclusive) at the first call.

"First call" to me is defined as 2f in a sprint, 4f in a route. In other words, the standard for pace calls in pace handicapping for the last 2 decades.
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-09-2011, 01:13 AM   #37
RXB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,787
Okay, thank you, because that's very different from 40% winning when leading at the first call, which is how some people were interpreting it. (I took that quote in my previous post from the one directly above your penultimate post.)
RXB is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-09-2011, 01:19 AM   #38
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,875
Although there is a semantical difference, the implication is still pretty clear.

Here are a couple of graphics to make it even clearer:



Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-09-2011, 01:21 AM   #39
The Skeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MN
Posts: 68
Thanks Dave.

I figured you'd have a great answer like you normally do.

Glad the point wasn't lost in my public message....you got it. The math.

Your point and my next, profits.

Hope to be in touch but SO BUSY to delve into this game again!

For me it was a 20 hour work day, 7 days a week. I never should have quit because it was also when I was happiest (with of course an obvious exception, family).

I left when I discovered some things I wasn't happy about, family, Kyle and people kept figuring out what I was figuring out!

Last edited by The Skeptic; 03-09-2011 at 01:23 AM.
The Skeptic is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-09-2011, 03:16 AM   #40
Fastracehorse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,443
Ahhhhh, pardon me.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by raybo
You missed my meaning. Andy Beyer taught anyone who could afford his book how to make speed figures. What happened next you should be able to figure out.
....I see what U are saying

fffastt
Fastracehorse is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-10-2011, 10:13 AM   #41
The Skeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MN
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
I looked at about the last 25,000 races from 2010, asking the question, where did the winner first challenge for the lead. The definition of "challenge" was to be within 1 length (inclusive) at the first call.

"First call" to me is defined as 2f in a sprint, 4f in a route. In other words, the standard for pace calls in pace handicapping for the last 2 decades.
So my math is wrong already. I was interpreting it as well for 1 horse being 1st at the first call. This might make things abit more interesting being you're considering multiple horses within a length at the first call.

Hummm.....
The Skeptic is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-10-2011, 11:30 AM   #42
joeprunes
Registered User
 
joeprunes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: EAST HAVEN CT.
Posts: 561
Does`nt 1/4 and half times dictate who has a chance at the top of the stretch. To me every race is differen because of that. Race shape is big for me along with pace and close. Thats what I try to handicap...TEHO
joeprunes is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-10-2011, 11:36 AM   #43
raybo
EXCEL with SUPERFECTAS
 
raybo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
Although there is a semantical difference, the implication is still pretty clear.

Here are a couple of graphics to make it even clearer:



Yeah, it is pretty clear that the most important calls are 1st and stretch calls, contending for the lead, not taking the lead, invites one to include more horses in the final battle, down the stretch. This stretch run separates the men from the boys and is widely ignored by the public, who is primarily interested in 1st and 2nd call, almost exclusively, and of course, speed figures, which must be included in the mix, in whatever form that overall figure may take.
__________________
Ray
Horseracing's like the stock market except you don't have to wait as long to go broke.

Excel Spreadsheet Handicapping Forum

Charter Member: Horseplayers Association of North America
raybo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-10-2011, 11:39 AM   #44
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,875
Quote:
Does`nt 1/4 and half times dictate who has a chance at the top of the stretch. To me every race is differen because of that. Race shape is big for me along with pace and close. Thats what I try to handicap...TEHO
This is the conventional pace approach. It gets you lots of $6-$8 winners because you are either betting early or near-early horses.

NewPace is truly different than this.
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-10-2011, 11:39 AM   #45
gm10
Registered User
 
gm10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ringkoebing
Posts: 4,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeebus1083
After some deep thinking, observation, and soul-searching, I have to agree with Dave Schwartz about "EP" (pace call time) as an irrelevant factor (ripped from a previous thread). Let me first say this: I did not purchase "NewPace", so I'm not passing on any ideas or research of Dave's, nor is this an attempt to solicit some of those ideas in a public forum setting. Instead, I'm agreeing with Dave based on my past and present handicapping experiences, and explaining why. Agree or disagree if you wish. If you have your own personal ideas to expound upon, fire away. If you can piggy-back on my statements, also good.

For starters, I find EP times are very race-sensitive. Let's looks at two runners: Horse A has an EP of 58.00 fps, and Horse B is 56.66 fps, and are matched up based on those lines. The seemingly correct assumption is that Horse A has a clear advantage on Horse B. Game over. Or is it?

A wise man once told me: "every race is a unique event - the race is run once, only once, and never repeated again." Just like speed handicappers try and figure out how a horse earned a particular figure, pace handicappers have to do the same. Even though Horse A's 58.00 EP looks superior, a 58.00 on a clear lead might not paint an accurate picture of the horse's abilities under pressure. Furthermore, if Horse A's running style is to sit a few lengths behind the lead, and Horse B's mojo is the front, matching the 58.00 with the 56.66 will ultimately cause frustration. In all likelihood, if Horse B runs to the front and repeats the 56.66, and Horse A assumes his normal stalking position, Horse A naturally has to run a slower EP than Horse B, regardless of previous EPs. Sometimes, a horse happens to be "faster by default", and run style will be rendered irrelevant, but more often than not, taking the 58.00 over the 56.66 is an incorrect majority position.

EP is an irrelevant predictor for who will go to the front, because in most cases, the race is either 1/2 or 2/3rds complete. The race for the early lead will and forever always, start right out of the gate. Take this example of horse's early sprint lines - without using times:

Horse A: PP2 - Start: 5, 1/4 Pos: 1
Horse B: PP2 - Start: 1, 1/4 Pos: 1
Horse C: PP8 - Start: 1, 1/4 Pos: 1

Using Horse A's line, is he really a true "E" horse? Let's say that we watched the race replay. He broke slower than several of the outside horses, and then preceeded to rush forward. For a horse to rush up usually means an earlier expediture of energy, as they are suddenly trying to "catch up" with those who outbroke him. If I gave someone a head start in a running sprint, I would have to run much harder to catch up, which would empty the tank sooner, with little in reserve. I'm changing my pace to assume my rightful position, and I'm not comfortable. This is why I would favor Horse B if I matched these lines up. He got the jump over the slower starter. He can run "his race" without having to jump out of his comfort zone. Since he's inside, he only had to outbreak the rail runner to get that lead. Horse C has to outbreak a possible 7 other runners, and get inside to avoid losing ground, which means he'll usually have to use more energy. I'm not saying that outside post front-runners are bad bets (I don't have the stats or ROI to back up such a claim, so I won't go there - many outside runners can outbreak a field with no problem and are still comfortable), but the further away from the inside that one is, the harder one usually has to work.

Having dragged on, I ask myself these questions when trying to put a horse or horses on the lead:

Were they advantaged/disadvantaged by post position in previous races?
Will a change in karma (jockey/trainer/work pattern/post) change the habit?
Do other horses usually get the initial jump or is this horse on the engine from the gate?
Has the front-running style succeeded in similar track conditions?
Who tends to run faster first fractions on the lead?

This is the trickiest part, because 22.2 at one track might be 23.0 elsewhere, and 22.2 on a fast surface might equal 23.0 in a bog. Having said that, I think it's possible to use the raw fraction, but one has to really know how each individual track plays (par times help a lot, but so does regular play of several circuits). Times can also be run-up dependent, so that throws another wrinkle.

Speed Points do a good job, but going deeper IMO enhances those numbers, and exposes possible flaws that the points do not address.

Now, it's everyone's turn. Fire away.
My opinion: pace calls are quite useful as long as you normalize them. Speed points (I prefer Quirin) add predictive power as well, as do 'jockey pace ratings', draw, weight, etc.
gm10 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.