20th January 2007, 12:39 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,415
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by crash
I'm not being illogical Mr Logic. Unless giving correct meaning to the English language is being illogical.
According to my dictionary there is nothing wrong with my definition of the word 'accurate':
"conforming exactly or almost exactly or to a standard or performing with total accuracy."
Chrome obviously meant 'very consistent' ratings [to his personally set standard of acceptance] and not 'very accurate' ratings, according to the explanation in his last post.
Consistent: "Marked by an orderly, logical, aesthetically consistent relation of parts". Seems to fit the bill I think.
|
crash, I can see why you challenged the statement.
It is more important that the ratings are consistent, but they must be accurate, not in selecting the "right" horse each time, but in assessing the chances of each horse overall - longterm.
The distribution of strike rate and loss on turnover should relate almost exactly to the TAB prices and rankings.
If I knew the final TAB dividend for each horse, I wouldn't need ratings at all  |