Have you ever?
An example:
Handicapping one leg of a P4. 7 horses. 1 Need-to-lead with 8 Quirin speed points. We determine this horse is the likely winner, but our stats say it is not quite good enough to be a single. We need one more horse. Of the other 6 horses, three have 3 Q points and three have no Q points. Our normal strategy says that in this circumstance, we assume the horses with limited speed will get run off their feet and we should play one of the zero point horses. That may or may not be a valid strategy, but it is just an assumption for this example.
But what if something unpredictable happens? The NTL horse doesn't get out of the gate or stumbles or the jockey falls off. Now the rest of our premise falls apart. The horses with 3 Q points are now the front runners and one of them will likely win. Again, this is an assumption for the example.
So, what should our strategy be? Where do we assign our risk avoidance? Do we select a 3-point horse or a 0-point horse or do we add a third selection, escalating the cost of our ticket?
The idea here is to offer up another way of looking at wagering. Just another thought process.
I got into this thought process in two ways. Dave has a product on what wins in winter. That doesn't really have anything to do with this antivolatility, but I thought the two play well together. The other was watching some antivolatility videos on YouTube.