19th January 2007, 05:26 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 243
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by crash
Only if all facts are known can 'accurate' ratings .... be produced.
If they could be produced, that would mean you would know the winner of almost every race [have to allow for the odd horse falling over etc.
|
I'm sorry Crash, but this is just illogical.
Is the winner of the Caulfield Cup each year a certainty? If not, why should "accurate" ratings be asked to do the impossible?
By your definition of "accurate", it is impossible for any ratings to be "accurate" no matter how good they are because in order to be "accurate" according to your definition they must defy the laws of logic and consistently select horses to win that are not mathematical certainties to win!! |
Threaded Mode