We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
15 Feb 11
21:56
Joined:
Date Joined:
12 Mar 07
Not being a statistician I ask if the following is basically correct.
Over a sample of 500 games, betting at avg. odds of 2.50, the variance would be
(500/2.5)*(1-(.1/2.5))= 192 and
the standard deviation would thus be the square root of this variance, thus being 13.86.
And therefore if I am achieving results better than two standard deviations, it would be statistically significant ?
Over a sample of 500 games, betting at avg. odds of 2.50, the variance would be
(500/2.5)*(1-(.1/2.5))= 192 and
the standard deviation would thus be the square root of this variance, thus being 13.86.
And therefore if I am achieving results better than two standard deviations, it would be statistically significant ?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 4
|
By:
Btw it's a big if I might add.
|
|
By:
.
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm I think I've linked you to this four times now. On this occasion I'm not going to go through the mechanics of using it though, just check your old discussions with me. |
|
By:
I've been there Lori and tks. for the link.
But if one is not a pure statistician, it's easy to be unsure that one is doing the correct thing. Therefore my request for a check of my workings. That's all this id. Not a request for someone to do all the work as you seem to be continuously implying. |
|
By:
"-- all this is "
|