Alexei Sayle pointed to the difference between himself and Bill Hicks etc in that he would find what worked and mine it. The aim was to make people laugh every time. That 45 minutes of mind blowing was not necessarily what people wanted.
When I back horses do I want accurate ratings that pinpoint winners? A number that says the 6/1 shot is a 2/1 shot and I should get on. Do I want to surmise that horse A will like today and is good enough but has needed the small field he is in today to counter his lack of toe to hold a position in the big field? That a horse’s ground preference is a result of stamina or lack thereof and hence change in trip ideal regardless of ground?
What if we read an expert say something? Is backing a horse because you read it was sectionally discriminated against last time just picking under rated horses or essentially taking a number and backing it. I know I will back some French thing cos a judge on Twitter says it is so. However even this winner finding is generally done for small stakes as there is no great buzz in it.
Purism is for the pure. However I draw line at taking a single holistic form number no matter how good and backing it. Essentially right or wrong and oddly with odds it can pay to be dead wrong more often than dead right the real thrill of racing is to back your judgement even if that is informed by others!
However you do it there is only a right answer for yourself.