|
I completely agree. In fact, you actually made my point, perhaps better than I did:
Namely, that there are no true 0s and 1s. Everything falls in between. Examples of this can be found in the following statements (which I believe to be true):
1. There is no such thing as a horse that cannot win a given race.
2. There is no such thing as a horse that cannot lose a given race.
3. There is no such thing as an independent factor. All factors are related to all other factors, in some way.
4. All factors are bet by the public to one degree or another. This includes what we perceive as "unique" factors of our own invention. Those unique factors are inevitably comprised of more common individual factors. Those individual factors may well be bet by the public. The exception to this would be information that is totally unavailable to the public such as hidden workouts, barn information, etc.
In other words, what matters in putting together a system is the degree to which a horse is a contender (from 0.00 to 1.00) and the degree which a horse has a chance of winning (probability).
This is why spot play systems, which are, by their very nature, 0s and 1s (i.e. "Horse is a play" or "Horse is not a play") will cause wild fluctuations in results; some are actually good bets and some are not so good. Perhaps some are actually big losers.
One could (should) actually look at all assessments in this light. In my Basics of Winning class I had people grade each race on their confidence level, both in the value of the race but also in the reliability of the handicapping itself. In other words, some races, such as (say) a graded stakes at 6f is a much more reliable race to handicap than (say) a low-end claiming race for N2L. I am not saying that reliability is the most important issue; it is just an issue to consider, and all issues should be considered.
|