> claim that frequentist methods need to make strong modeling assumptions. > Assumption that horse race winners are not completely random and that there is a s

> claim that frequentist methods need to make strong modeling assumptions. > Assumption that horse race winners are not completely random and that there is a strategy This is kind of the assumption that people tend to blame frequentist statistics for doing (well, any statistician I guess). There are nearly always assumptions made about what the random variables are or aren't. If the horse race was completely random, your guarantees fall apart as it's a simple dice roll with no strategy beyond chance. Yet you've used your assumption to dump money on the table, and now you've probably lost it.