8th December 2005, 06:07 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Sydney
Posts: 402
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Winston_Smith
Mr jfc.
you have had ample time to correct my mistake. you havent so I must be right. now to the consequences.
you are suggesting that every horse in a race of N has a 1/N chance of winning and a 3/N chance of placing.
please may i pick any horse and you give me N/1 to win and N/3 to place? you will be broke very quickly.
what you are doing is very similar to work of Roger Biggs and impact values. while i respect much of Rogers work i do not believe impact values are as good as the actual vs expected figures that Anomaly Nick talks much of.
if you were to show Nick the figures you suggest he will laugh his head off.
please do not make mistake that just becos i am new to this forum that i am uneducated in these matters. i feel that the above statement from you is very condescending.
Thank you. Winston.
|
Winston,
I did use Actual versus Expected expressed as a percentage difference.
Having just looked up Impact Values I note that they do not take field size into account whereas I base my Expected on field size.
Having again reviewed my material I can find no errors.
I don't understand your logic that if I don't correct your mistake then you are right. Presumably you meant to use some other word like "offering" rather than "mistake".
Typically I correct material when I believe there is a serious mistake likely to steer others in the wrong direction. I have noticed a number of mistakes you have made but did not comment because I assumed that most would be able to spot those errors, and it was of little consequence if they did not.
|