| 
			
			 
			
				06-12-2008, 06:06 PM
			
			
			
		 | 
	| 
		
			
			| Del Mar |  | 
					Join Date: Jun 2006 
						Posts: 5,102
					      |  | 
	| 
				  
 
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by Dunbar
					
				 jman, I finally got around to looking at this again.  Let me see if I can produce some statistics without (1) making a mistake, or (2) putting you to sleep.
 Here's what I did:
 
 1. I calculated the average result of your 119 show bets.  You lost an average of $0.008 per $2 show bet.
 
 2. I calculated the standard deviation of your 119 show bets.  The standard deviation is 0.94, based on $2 bets.*
 
 3. I calculated the "standard error", which is the standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of bets.  0.94/sqrt(119) = 0.09.
 
 Armed with this data, the challenge is to tell whether your good performance was just a matter of luck.  (like a roulette player who just happens to hit a few numbers.)
 
 Consider these two "tests":
 
 Test 1: Can we distinguish jman's record from someone who loses at the track take, say 16%?
 
 A -16% bettor would lose $0.32 per bet compared to jman's $0.008.  A 32 cent loss is more than 3 standard errors worse than jman's loss.  A 3-standard error result should occur by luck in about one in 700 cases.  I think we can assume that jman's picks were clearly better than the track take.
 
 Test 2: Can we distinguish jman from someone who picks well enough to lose at just 5%?
 
 A -5% capper would lose $0.10 per $2 bet.  That's about $0.09 worse than jman's result.  The difference between a -5% capper and jman result for his 119 bets is about one standard error.  That kind of difference occurs by luck about 1 time in 6.  We can't really rule out the luck element at that level.
 
 Bottom Line:  Your picks clearly showed that the difference between your results and a dart-thrower is statistically significant.  But we'd need more picks to say that you're doing better (in a statistically significant sense) than a capper who has a 5% average loss.
 
 Bottom Line, version 2:  There's less than 1 chance in 700 that a dart-throwing capper could have produced results as good as yours.   There's about 1 chance in 6 that a capper who averages a 5% loss could have produced results as good as yours over the course of 119 bets.
 
 --Dunbar
 
 * one easy way to do this is use the Excel function, =STDEVA(C1:C119), where the payoffs are in cells C1 down to C119.
 .
 |  
Excellent work as always Dunbar!
			
			
			
			
				  |