Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer
I agree with the consensus here. Thaskalos stated it well. Application of theory, to forecast, is of primary concern to both the horseplayer ($$  ), and to the critical eye...
As Bob Philo and Cratos, and others (as well at times myself) have found, Horse Racing is a terribly fascinating subject.
There has been some 'pushback' when posters repeatedly continue down the esoteric path, without application.
: |
What is often misunderstood by many handicappers that what makes something scientific is it's ability to predict future events, which goes beyond explaining present events. It is not just some abstract theorizing apart from real events. For example, in the field of Psychiatry, Freudian analysis can explain present events based on the past but is unscientific in it's inability to predict the future - the very soul and definition of scientific theory, as well as handicapping. That's why science plays such an important role in handicapping. That is why it behooves the horseplayer to get a grounding in the basic sciences
that apply to racing and holding the Freudian-like traditional theories of handicapping up to the predictive scientific laws. Many of them do not stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Yes the science can be misused, like anything else, which is why a basic understanding of which is essential to using it properly. There is no excuse for not keeping up with the latest research in exercise physiology which shows how to apply the laws of physics to the particular instance of horses racing. The predictive nature of science can only be ignored at one's expense. Do not confuse the fact that some have had success following unscientific beliefs which became traditional only because their competitors methods were even less founded in scientific theory. "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king"
