In the beginning there was no pace handicapping. Horse racing was without pace and void. Then there was Sartinian pace. It produced a high percentage of winners at the very good mutuels. People tried pace handicapping and saw that it was good. In the early days pace handicapping made life easy.
Stories of the success of pace methodologists spread far and wide. More people came to pace. Books were written to make it easier to understand. As more people came the prices got smaller. And smaller. And still smaller. Eventually, it reached the point where the good mutuels were all but gone, replaced almost entirely by favorites and second choices.
If you were a pace practitioner, in the late 80s or early 90s the game really did seem easy, especially in comparison to today. By the mid-90s, pace handicapping had become a very common approach to handicapping horses. The edge that pace handicappers had enjoyed for several years was gone.
People tried many adjustments to gain that advantage back. While the basic pace concepts stood, the application of those concepts changed. Some tried pace “numbers” rather than feet-per-second ratings. Others tried adding more factors than simply EP, SP and W. Still others built grander models. Nothing seemed to improve the plight of the pace handicapper.
Well it’s time to change all that! I have developed a completely new approach to handicapping horses! It is truly different and the good news is the differences will put the edge back in to pace handicapping for you.
I call it “New Pace.”
What’s so different about it? Just about everything. Let’s start with the basic premise that most pace handicappers hold dear: “What matters most in determining the winner is the horses’ position at the second call.”
My investigations have shown that not only is the second call position not MOST important, it is actually the LEAST important call! In fact, it is so unimportant that you can ignore it entirely!
I know this is a very provocative statement but I wouldn’t make it if I couldn’t back it up with proof. Watch this video (under 3 minutes) for a quick explanation.
Want some more? It continues here with 2-minutes more.