LeazesMag 0 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 According to that we're 4x more likely to come 4th than 17th which sounds like a load of shite to me. I'd be delighted with anywhere near a top half finish like. obviously no understanding of Monte Carlo Simulation - get back to your BA course in designing packets of crisps Is that something to do with losing bets to do with Formula 1? If so, I bow to your greater knowledge on the subject. Tell me though, my assessment of what you posted was that the stats claim we have a 4% chance of coming 4th and a 1% chance of coming 17th. I took that to mean we have a 4x greater chance of coming 4th than we have of coming 17th. If that's not the case, explain why not. just get to the point Alex and tell him he's posted a load of meaningless, sad, statistical shite. God forbid anyone would try and add any rational argument to their Universe eh Leazes what's rational about what you posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Ignoring my question I see. you're spot on, I meant to say something at the time, but figured it was just rob doing his usual. would love to see him justify why he thought bringing monte carlo simulations into it was relevant to your question too... seems chez has done an awesome job of scaring the shit out of him anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 Ignoring my question I see. which one my Apprentice - you have so many, so much to learn about the Universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 Ignoring my question I see. you're spot on, I meant to say something at the time, but figured it was just rob doing his usual. would love to see him justify why he thought bringing monte carlo simulations into it was relevant to your question too... seems chez has done an awesome job of scaring the shit out of him anyway Alex doesn't understand (or, lets be generous, elects not to understand) - why should I get into an argument that has nothing to do with the main thrust of the thread and the evidence of the statistical analysis? There are too many of these already I'd have thought the fact he's supported by Leazes would convince most juries................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now