9th December 2005, 05:24 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Sydney
Posts: 402
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Winston_Smith
Mr jfc,
hello. yes it is good article. have you actually read it?
i quote now from the article
if the 69234 runners mentioned were not the sum of the field sizes of the 6678 races then can you please tell me what they are? random number perhaps? i quote more.
IV=% of winners / % of runners
surely "% of runners" mean you must have field sizes for all races you consider?
is that enough proof for you?
Thank you. Winston.
|
Winston,
Why did you omit the telling remainder of that example?
Quote:
IV=% of winners that were LTO winners / % of runners that were LTO winners
IV=(1107 / 6678) / (5548 / 69234)
|
The percentage of runners is # of LTO winners/ Total # of runners.
That does not tell you what field sizes those 5,548 runners competed in.
The average field size for them could have been much less than 69,234/6,678 (~=10) or it could have been much greater.
If the average field size those 5,548 ran in was relatively small then their # of wins should be flattered. Along with the IV.
Yet you ask:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Winston
surely "% of runners" mean you must have field sizes for all races you consider?
|
Of course it doesn't mean that. What were the field sizes for those 5,548 runners? Even just the average or total. You do not have any of that information in that formula.
You claim to be
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Winston
knowing very much both impact values ...
|
yet you don't seem to realise what erratic effects field sizes could have on them.
|