Winston,
If my example makes no sense then why can't you identify which figures are nonsense.
My example makes perfect sense and exposes the flaw in Impact Values. And that happens to be the most important part of this discussion.
Once you understand the principles in that example you can then come up with more realistic scenarios where the Impact Value gives misleading results.
It's just that you've been sprung about your self-assessed expertise about this topic and have to resort to one more "value judgement" to try and wriggle out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Winston
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"
|
You are making the false assumption that every one of those 6678 races has to include at least 1 runner with the characteristics under consideration.
If you look at the other examples on that page you will see:
Quote:
33476 horses ran in 3127 2yo maiden stakes on the turf. 2264 of them were 2nd on their last race. Of this group 636 won the race.
|
Note that there are fewer runners with the characteristic (=2,264) than the 3,127 races!
I remind you that my example include As and Beez (for the censor) in every race, but the IV still makes the wrong conclusion.
Now you, of all people, claim that this is getting off the point. Exactly what is the point of your sudden uninvited arrival here, where you pick up on insignificant matters. Then when I trouble to elaborate, you resort to misquoting me. For example there is a massive difference between my "more significant" phrase and your subsequent distortion into "significant" (the absolute).