data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57fcb/57fcb1a9330efbd90984ebd6f490023137853fad" alt="Old"
8th December 2005, 10:18 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 25
|
|
Mr jfc,
you convenient leave out my first part of post which asks if I pick a horse will you give N/1 odds to win and N/3 odds to place? this is at hart of the discussion so please to answer this part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc
I did use Actual versus Expected expressed as a percentage difference.
|
your figures are not "Actual versus Expected" under any dealing of this theory that i have seen and certainly not according to Anomaly Nicks interpretation of this figure. your "expected" is certainly not a true expected figure but more of a participation percentage. and this is why your figures are more like Rogers Impact Value figures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc
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.
|
by your own admission you have little knowledge of Impact Values therefore I respectfully submit you should not be making rash statement like this. Impact Values most certainly DO take into account field size.
knowing very much both impact values and actual versus expected theory i can tell you very much that your figures are more like impact values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc
Having again reviewed my material I can find no errors.
|
perhaps therein lie the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc
I have noticed a number of mistakes you have made but did not
|
now please mr jfc you have before berated others for calling mistake without showing proof or offering correction. please apply same expectation to you as to others.
Thank you. Winston.
|