| |
BGonline.org Forums
A better approch? [LONG]
Posted By: MaX In Response To: A better approch? [LONG] (Maik Stiebler)
Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2009, at 1:33 p.m.
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.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.