[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

A better approch? [LONG]

Posted By: MaX
Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2009, at 1:33 p.m.

In Response To: A better approch? [LONG] (Maik Stiebler)

Hi Maik, I do get your results now, we're in sync :)

NP2, Pmc, Pci_LB, Pci_UB

1, 96.120%, 96.145%, 96.145%

2, 93.098%, 92.439%, 96.145%

3, 90.737%, 88.875%, 96.145%

4, 88.516%, 85.449%, 96.145%

5, 86.924%, 82.155%, 96.145%

6, 85.123%, 78.988%, 96.145%

I've also notices that in my previous posts I've been talking about "true equities" when in fact I was talking about probability of win (DMP case). No big deal, they translates.

So we're OK with something like the minCI_LB to stop the rollout, show the minCI_UB (useful for play vs play comparisons) and then also show the Pmc for play1 being best of all.

Now for the philosophical question: I roll out play1 vs play2 (only 2 plays) and to get statsig 99.8% CI let's say (which should be very close to 98% Pmc) I need 1000 trials.

Then I do the same for play1 vs play3: 1000 trials for same statsig.

I fear a casual user will be very surprised to find out that if he rollouts plays 1, 2 and 3, in order to get the same Pmc (99.8%) he will need more than 1000 trials. But hey, at a given point you do have to explain something ... :)

MaX.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:

 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.