Review of Pace View

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by green80

From my previous post I started tracking Pace-View's best bets at LaD, (since I'm there every day) from July 1. With no handicapping or thinking involved, I will just place a $2 win bet on every PV best Bet. I will report every week.




The results from 7/1 to 7/23 are as follows:



22 wins from 52 bets - 42% win percentage

$104 bet and $99.20 $2 win mutual return for about -5% ROI

Has PV ever done well @ LAD? I don't recall it doing as well there as Delta when the T-breds are running, greenie.

[green80]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Has PV ever done well @ LAD? I don't recall it doing as well there as Delta when the T-breds are running, greenie.

Yes it has at times, runs hot and cold. Lately it has the wins, but horses have not been paying anything. Average PV winner this week was 4.40. Like I said, just one 7 dollar winner from being in the plus column. I will continue tracking for about 100 races and see where we are then.

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by green80

Yes it has at times, runs hot and cold. Lately it has the wins, but horses have not been paying anything. Average PV winner this week was 4.40. Like I said, just one 7 dollar winner from being in the plus column. I will continue tracking for about 100 races and see where we are then.

PACE VIEW did well today @ lad---3 for 7 on top picks

[Light]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't see how this has any basis in fact. The best plays stay consistent. They don't start high and drop down which is how I'm reading your post.

There is no guarantee that a 4% profit will drop down. It could even get better. Seventy-seven plays is a very small numbers so really anything could happen.

You are mistaken in this case. The typical pattern in a "system" that shows promise, is first a decent ROI. Then, as more races come in with different factors the system cannot accommodate, the ROI goes down. This is what happened here by green80's own words. First the decent ROI:

Originally Posted by green80

From my previous post I started tracking Pace-View's best bets at LaD, (since I'm there every day) from July 1. With no handicapping or thinking involved, I will just place a $2 win bet on every PV best Bet.

The results from 7/1 to 7/10 are as follows:
12 wins from 21 bets -57% win percentage

$42 bet and $59.40 $2 win mutual return for about a 42% ROI. I will continue and see how this plays out longer term if anyone is interested.

Then the inevitable.

Originally Posted by green80

Not a great week this week. Totals from 7/1 to 7/17:

17 wins from 37 bets - 46% win percentage

$74 bet and $77.20 $2 win mutual return for about 4% ROI

I am not trying to disparage anyone or be negative. I am just being real, w/o hype, smokes or beer.

[Pensacola Pete]

The "law of averages" doesn't turn a positive expectation into a negative expectation. Deviation turns a positive expectation into a temporary negative result.

[Light]

A system, doesn't turn into a "system" unless it first shows promise with a healthy ROI. Otherwise the system is aborted. Then the newly formed system will lose ROI depending on how narrow or wide the system is in its scope of variables. 99.9% of systems will follow the declining ROI pattern because horse racing has so many factors that no system can handle all of them. A good system will "bottom out" and still have a positive ROI.

BTW I appreciate your effort in posting, win or lose.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Light

A system, doesn't turn into a "system" unless it first shows promise with a healthy ROI. Otherwise the system is aborted. Then the newly formed system will lose ROI depending on how narrow or wide the system is in its scope of variables. 99.9% of systems will follow the declining ROI pattern because horse racing has so many factors that no system can handle all of them. A good system will "bottom out" and still have a positive ROI.

BTW I appreciate your effort in posting, win or lose.

I guess that depends how you define healthy. If you get a nice rebate finding a system with 4% return is quite healthy IMO if the sample is big. I've had many plays (as I call them) that start big and level out, and others that start promising and actually get better.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Light

Great, but the problem is no continuity,ever. Every time someone hits something with the program there's hi five's. But there is a lot of silence in between and we know what that usually means.

Now I'm starting to think NCG had you pegged dead-on from the beginning.

[Light]

Originally Posted by cj

I guess that depends how you define healthy. If you get a nice rebate finding a system with 4% return is quite healthy IMO if the sample is big.

I agree. There are several known "wales" who make something like +2% to +4% ROi but bet millions. I think the reason they have confidence to bet millions and KNOW they will make 2% to 4% on their money is because their system has had thousands of bets imputed into it and has "bottomed out" with that positive expectancy. But that's for wales. Most "weekend warriors" don't find that too exciting or worth playing for. I make more than that in my mutual funds doing nothing.

[Dave Schwartz]

I agree. There are several known "wales" who make something like +2% to +4% ROi but bet millions. I think the reason they have confidence to bet millions and KNOW they will make 2% to 4% on their money is because their system has had thousands of bets imputed into it and has "bottomed out" with that positive expectancy. But that's for wales. Most "weekend warriors" don't find that too exciting or worth playing for. I make more than that in my mutual funds doing nothing.

Aside from your spelling, you can get 4% annually, while they get 4% 125 times per year (i.e. betting through the bankroll 125 times). It is more than a little different.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Light

I make more than that in my mutual funds doing nothing.

The 4% that you make from your mutual funds amounts to just 4% at the end of the year. But the 4% ROI at the track could easily amount to a 100% return at the end of the year...even WITHOUT rebates. If you make 50 bets a week with an expected ROI of +1.04, then you can expect to double your bankroll by year's end...even if you flat-bet. And you can't do that with your mutual funds. That sort of return could be garnered only from your MUTUEL funds.

[Light]

It is incorrect to say that mutual funds only get an annual percentage a year. There is compounding that goes on in mutual funds too.

Mutual funds pay out quarterly dividends and those dividends are then reinvested in the fund. This increases the number of shares you have. The more new shares you own the more new shares you receive during future quarterly dividend payouts.

The fund I use also has a proven track record averaging a 10% annual return for the last 15 years in a row and I have received 10% ROI since my investment.

The problem with betting horse racing is that if you have a system that gives you 4%, you have to be very disciplined. For example, my show betting system gets me 15% ROi. And its for grinders. I find it hard to maintain that discipline a lot of times and deviate with exotics or win bets and down goes the ROI. I suppose if you are a whale, betting huge amounts would be more exciting.

[green80]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The 4% that you make from your mutual funds amounts to just 4% at the end of the year. But the 4% ROI at the track could easily amount to a 100% return at the end of the year...even WITHOUT rebates. If you make 50 bets a week with an expected ROI of +1.04, then you can expect to double your bankroll by year's end...even if you flat-bet. And you can't do that with your mutual funds. That sort of return could be garnered only from your MUTUEL funds.

.

I usually make 3-4 bets per day X 300 days a year for 900-1200 bets a year. The bigger my bankroll the more my base bet. Give me a steady 4% Roi and it doesn't take long to build a nice bankroll.

[Light]

Originally Posted by green80

.
Give me a steady 4% Roi and it doesn't take long to build a nice bankroll.

You can't conclude from 77 races that you are rock solid at 4%. This is one reason why I requested a 100 race test which Pensacola Pete was kind enough to do. Here are the results in his own words:

Originally Posted by Pensacola Pete

For the 5-day test run:
Races: 114
Win: 26 (21.0%)
Second: 25
Third: 17 (ITM:59.6%)
Bet: $228.00
Collected: $207.00
Net loss: 21.00 (ROI: 0.907)

You were certainly headed in the same direction.

When I came up with my show betting system,I did a 100 race test with actual money and showed several people the print out from Twinspires. It showed a 100% ROI and a hit rate of 85%. I declared the same thing as Thaskalos. That I was going to be rich because as Thaskalos said, you can make a lot of money compounding a 4% ROI. Imagine what 100% ROI compounding would be. Move over Donald Trump. Well doesn't work as easy as that. That's another story. After 2 years of betting the system, it went down to a 15% ROI and a 65% hit rate. I am assuming it has bottomed out and I can depend on 15% but even now I'm not sure.

So back to pace view. I hope Pensacola Pete's 114 race test run sobers up some of delusions of grandeur about this system. According to NCG, he has sold 150 copies. Yet all I hear is the same few people acting like they struck gold. No words from the silent majority.

The only way you win at horse racing is hard work. A few years ago I went to the NHC championship. I was 10th after day one. I would have been about 5th but they dq'd a $15 winner (plus place money) I had. I don't say this to brag, only to show some credentials. I also had a $50K P6. The only person holding that ticket. So maybe I know something. In other words I'm not some Joe just discrediting people which is not my interest or motivation.

But as I said, its hard work. When I played the NHC and I played my 100 race test of my show system I was so focused. Checking every detail. I was very careful about what I selected. That is the intensity I find I need to reach that level of excellence. I don't reach that level anymore simply because I choose not to. Too stressful. So I play much more casually and get much reduced returns. Ok with me because I don't need the money now like I used to and there are more important things in life.

However the people with "pace view" use their system like a black box on easy street. Underestimating this game. That's one of the major flaws. Another is all the users don't seem to realize that there is a major flaw in the Bris pace ratings with "pace view". I've seen people picking closers as the speed and speed as the closers. That's because Bris doesn't really differentiate when a horse who needs a lone lead gets a big LP from the fact that he just went wire to wire. So he is listed as the best LP. Of course then he gets in a speed duel and cant close, he wilts and you lose because your bet was based on incorrect data.

There is also form cycles "pace view" users do not pay attention to. There were so may odds on horses picked in the 114 race test that were false favorites that finished off the board because their form cycle screamed they would be out of the money.

These are a few reasons why this test run finished in the red. A few simple adjustments, most notably handicapping the selections the program spits out, may have resulted in a 10% positive rather than negative ROI.

Despite this computer age we live in, and I have my own home grown software, I have concluded that you cannot rely on what a computer program puts out because of the thousands of variables in horse racing a computer program cannot cover. Sometimes you are right in overriding the computers selections and sometimes you are wrong. But when you are wrong you need to make a note of it and learn from it. They still have not made a program that can look at all those variables that the human mind can and analyze them. Using the two brains together works best.

[BCOURTNEY]

Does the software accommodate exporting to csv files?