10th December 2005, 08:07 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 25
|
|
Mr jfc,
your contrived example makes no sense and is irrelevant to this discussion. we are not argue whether impact values good or bad. yet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jfc
What were the field sizes for those 5,548 runners? Even just the average or total.
|
those 5548 runners ran in 6678 races. in those 6678 races there were 69234 runners. blind freddy and his dog can see that the 69234 runners is the total field size for those runners. and the average is 69234 / 6678 or approx 10.37
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jfc
The average field size for them could have been much less than 69,234/6,678 (~=10) or it could have been much greater. (my emphasis)
|
please how can the average field size be anything but 69234 / 6678?
there is old saying which goes "there are none so blind as those who will not see"
anyway, we get off the point. you offered your flawed statistics to try to justify your statement of "significance". nothing you do here has justified the use of that word. your premise that a horse has 3/N chance of running a place in a field size of N is flawed. as mr chrome prince (did not prince become "the artist formerly known as ..... "?) has rightfully pointed out this not consider the relative merit of each horse in each race. you have assign equal chance of running place to every single horse in the race. this is very dangerous assumption.
Thank you. Winston.
|