". In fact while in bed after the last post and still not sleeping I pretty much decided that on a true "shot testing" course risk/reward is a fallacy for almost all shots and really the only choice is on what shot to take the risk and the only "reward" is the absence of punishment which I really dont consider to be much of a reward . . "
David:
I assume when you say. "....and really the only choice is on what shot to take the risk and the only "reward" is the absence of punishment which I really dont consider to be much of a reward . . ". you must mean the only choice on what shot (NOT) to take the risk and the only "reward" is the absence of punishment which I really dont consider to be much of a reward.
Take PVGC's #7 as it was designed strategically in it's day for that day's game. The clear strategy of the hole was to hit a very good and long drive followed by a very good and long brassie--not much else in that day would clear the enormous cross bunker to the last third of the hole to set up the third shot to the green.
Those first two shots were considered by architects such as Crump and Tillinghast to be very demanding "shot testing" shots (in combination this time). Anything less than those two ideal shots in combination would land somewhere in the highly penal cross bunker (over 100yds in length). Escaping from that cross bunker was iffy to say the least and the expectation was to lose at least a shot and perhaps more! That right there must be considered quite severe RISK in the risk/reward strategic equation of the highly demanding "shot testing" requirment of that hole (or the first 2/3 of it).
Of course the reward is you are well within range of the green for your third shot and well on your way to a par or perhaps birdie.
But declining that demanding "two shot test" would require a drive and a layup in front of the cross bunker and then an easier shot over it on your third shot leaving you a fourth shot to the green with the expectation of a bogie or perhaps a scrambling par.
I'm sure you can see the differences in the risk/reward ramifications of those options and how they can be expected to play out in strokes. The fact is other than accepting that two shot test and succeeding in it there really is no other alternative option to playing the hole in the same expected result (par or birdie). Consequently its a demanding "shot testing" design and strategy unlike a hole such as Riviera's #10, (as the best example), that has three or more options in balance where a golfer might expect the same destination (green) and the same result (score) from all three of them.
That's the differences between the more classic "strategic" architecture and the more demanding "shot testing" (penal) architecture.