New Pace

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by jeebus1083

It is not like a Beyer number. It is a speed rating that is 1 point = 1 length. Instead of using a 3 yr best, it's based on his par.

The point is that it is not a pace number, but a number based on the final time (FT) of the horse. So it could be Dave's number (par-adjusted), pure Cramer rating (from HDW), Beyer fig, BRIS fig, even a Ragozin or Thorograph (probably have to rescale and reverse those so that higher is better, but still), or any home-grown speed figure.

[andicap]

OK, it is seven years later. Is anyone still using New Pace?

I did buy it when it came out but never really dug into it and then got away from racing for a while.

I understand its a contender selection method and not a black box and that its worth is largely based on the quality of the numbers. Would it be useful in connection with some of Dave's newer products that I have read about?

[Dave Schwartz]

Andy,

Good to see you are still around.

Like all good strategies, it continues to develop. It morphed a little, with the primary concepts still intact, and eventually became the 1-2-3 approach.

(I just spent 30 minutes typing an email to someone who said they were completely lost, so I just happen to have my response handy.)

First, let me congratulate you for properly diagnosing the problem. You would be amazed at how many people simply will not admit that they have not got a clue how to bring it together.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that a full solution is not forthcoming in this email.

I feel that the best approach to the problem begins with an understanding of what the solution looks like.
1. Pick good contenders.
2. Determine which contenders have value.
3. Determine if the race itself has value.
The logical question is, "How does one do those 3 things?"

Understand that there is a bone in my head that prevents me from automatically saying, "Go buy my products." As convenient (and profitable) as that would be for me, there is certainly more to it if I bother to think about where you are coming from for even a moment.

Besides, I like sleeping at night.

So, I will say this... Within those 3 steps is a workable solution that can improve your results tremendously. Depending upon how well you apply those principles you may even become profitable. I have many users who are.

Step #1 is by far the most difficult to accomplish. After that it is actually pretty easy.

"Pick good contenders" means more than "make sure your contenders win a lot of races." In fact, what it really means is, "Pick good NON-contenders." Specifically, you want to develop a process where the horses you throw out are big losers.

Now, the most common response I get to this is, "What difference does it make who I DON'T pick?"

You want to be able to say, "When I toss a low-odds horse, they lose their backers big money."

In other words, if a handicapper can't tell the difference between a good favorite and a bad one, his process simply doesn't work.

So, the question is, "Will the handicapper make the effort to improve upon that ability by keeping score of how his non-contenders perform?"

This is where the rubber meets the road. Most handicappers simply won't do that.

So, in the 1-2-3 approach, which breaks down to:

1. Pick good contenders.
2. Determine which contenders have value.
3. Determine if the race itself has value.

#1 is where the newest version of NewPace fits in. We still use much of it, but we've added a lot of new understanding about Early Speed.

For example... We've determined that speed ratings relative to "strength of race" are very powerful for figuring out who can win but only if the early runners are in the race to the end.

Think of what that means for a second. It is kind of like saying, "Horses who can't run to par can be safely thrown out unless the early speed dies. In that case, the race will be so slow that ANYBODY can win."


I hope you get a LOT more responses.


Dave

[mikesal57]

Hey Guys..

O how I wish others would have commented on this before I did....

Its either of 2 things that people didn't...
1) Its a big time success and the money is flowing in and its Hush Hush
or
2) People have moved on for whatever reason

Either way Dave should know how it is doing today by any feed-back

Anyway
For me it was #2

I was always intrigued with Dave's concepts and his software when he was putting out videos. This one was something I purchased because it could have been done with paper and pencil. But you were soon discouraged on the time it took to just do one race. It was so much faster & better with his HSH Software in his video.
I was still determined to make this work and designed a crude working Excel Program with his parameters.
It worked and I believe I even put up a post on a $700+ exacta I hit with it.

OK, now you want to know why I'm not using it now....Dave did come out with updates to New Pace ( I believe maybe 2 ) but It got too complicated for me to transpose it to Excel and I got discouraged and left it behind.

Before I wrote this , I dusted the program off and looked for a race to show what my Excel sheet looked like......I had Turfways 3/29 DRF on hand and went thru the results...I quickly passed all the races with the favorites winning..then I saw a 40-1 shot winning the 7TH race....I laughed saying yeah right , this one is a good test....
You know it..the race came in with a $595 exacta & $2040 tri..
I swear that it happened like this...

heres my sheet...

Mike

Came in
9-3-7

[Helles]

It was #2 for me as well. Back then I had a very hard time deciding which horse(s) to bet. I would usually start with the highest odds horses and work my way down, leaving out the lowest odds horse(s). It made for some amazing hits, but overall it was a losing approach to using the contenders NewPace arrived at. I was just no good at determining value and spotting false or bad-bet favorites.

Sometime later Dave came up with an Advanced NewPace seminar and this actually helped me increase my contender hit rate by almost eight points. But I veered off the NewPace path trying to come up with a method to arrive at a single horse to win rather than dutching. If I could do that, I wouldn't have to worry about which horses to dutch. This years-long experience went far in helping me identify poor low-odds horses.

With what I've learned in the interval, I believe it would behoove me to revisit NewPace using the advanced methodology Dave introduced later. I am now much better at separating contenders. Having said that, his new 1-2-3 Method is quicker to arrive at contenders than the Advanced NewPace method. I use HSH so they are both pretty quick, but I believe for a pencil and paper guy the 1-2-3 Method would be quicker. Dave can weigh in on this.

So, to answer Andicap's question, I think it is worth your time to revisit NewPace and run a test. Given your experience with racing, I think you would have a leg up on determining value among your contenders. MUCH better than I was able to do seven years ago when I was brand new to racing.

And of course on the other hand it might be easier to check out the 1-2-3 Method.

[mikesal57]

Thxs Helles...great response

Mike