Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Your analysis is grossly incomplete | |
| Posted By: Hoovaloov | Date: 1/17/12 8:21 p.m. |
In Response To: Re: Your analysis is grossly incomplete (uberfoop) : In a distribution pair where different orderings show different results, what : makes you think there's any such thing as a "neutral" ordering? : And if there was a way to order it neutrally, wouldn't it be to order them : randomly? After all, locking them into ascending order puts a systematic : effect on the whole thing; there's no logical reason here that we should : compare extrema only with other extrema and means with means and whatnot. : Seems like, if anything, your ordering is one of the most biased possible. : For instance, I could easily come up with a pair of two distributions which,
: [.1,.2,.3,.4,.5,.6,.7,.8,.9,1;.11,.21,.31,.41,.51,.61,.71,.81,.91,1.01] : ...The first group appears to have a 100% win rate. However, randomize it
: And now, it's 50%. Which is somewhat off from what would be expected, since
: That a random ordering would be "less" biased makes sense; one way
: Off the top of my head, you could do it by taking a random sample from one
Ok, I think I see what you're saying. Because both my "ordered" sets and your "random" sets are equally potential match-ups of the numbers, we need to determine the likelihood that certain match-ups will result in paced wins and losses over hundreds or thousands of trials. I believe that is a good distinction, it is definitely something I didn't think of. I believe Excel can use arrays, and has random number generating functions. Perhaps I will try to make something that will approximate what you described.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |