As an on/off “student” of the game for many years, I’ve had the opportunity to learn from Dave, and to explore concepts and theory that was foreign to me prior to investing the time into his seminars. One of those concepts that have stuck with me - and still challenge me to this very day - is the concept of the 90% regression speed sort.

NewPace was my first introduction to the RegSpeed Sort, and it was quite an eye-opener for me. Being able to estimate the horse’s low and high end figure with a high level of confidence was in my opinion, one of Dave’s finest discoveries. Even when not using pencil/paper NewPace, RegSpeed Sort is such a simple concept, that I can have my pre-handicapping ritual for each race finished in mere minutes. The information provided makes a race come to life. It gives me an idea of a favorite’s theoretical strength, as well as guiding me in the direction of horses with longshot potential. Using the pacesetters to establish the pace of race further enhances this, opening the door for prices to pop.

What is it that challenges me? I wrestle with the Sartinian concept of using only comparable races across surface/distance structures, while ignoring wet dirt or soft/yielding turf, and whether I should ignore a line if my eyes determine that the horse was practically eased in the late stages, creating a speed rating/figure that’s really low because of a lack of effort. I however, question myself as to whether or not this is optimal, and if I could get a better read by say lumping all dirt races not on wet tracks together, and treating synthetic as an interchangeable entity between dirt and turf. I’m also not sure if I should ignore “wet fast” designations or if I should treat them like I would a dry fast track.

What are others experiences with RegSpeed Sort, whether pen/paper or HSH?

Thanks a bunch for listening!