BGonline.org Forums

42P-43: more data

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Sunday, 14 February 2010, at 7:46 p.m.

In Response To: 42P-43: more data (Chuck Bower)

Thanks for setting me straight on that, Chuck, and I'm actually relieved to find this out. I have been assuming (basically, forever) that the confidence intervals were reported for the primary output. This means that the bots' intervals aren't nearly as underreported as I thought (but I still believe they are underreported).

That said, I do not believe that cube-adjusted values carry the same confidence interval (if it can be measured) as live-cube rollouts do. After comparing numerous (Snowie and Gnu) live cube results and (Snowie) cube-adjusted results of independent rollouts of the same positions, it is obvious to me (and Stick, who has also seen a tons of rollout results) that the live cube ones create significantly larger discrepancies between margins on average.

In short, while I now feel sure that you and Daniel are right that .0065 (for 5k) is wrong to apply to cube-adjusted equities (because they're cubeless!), I also continue to believe it's wrong to assume that the +/-.014 confidence interval for live cube is the same for the cube-adjusted equities that were applied to the Stick and Paul rollout results I presented, and (addressing the other incongruency in Daniel's comparison) the interval for the 10k rollout's plays are of course lower than those of the 5k rollout.

If I had to estimate a confidence interval for cubeful equities that is in line with .0065 for 5k cubeless and .014 for 5k live cube, I would guess it to be .009. I'm basing this on a large sample of early game positions for which cube-adjusted equities are on average cubeless times 1.4 (and don't deviate in either direction much from that), and applying that 1.4 multiple to the .0065.

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• 42P-43 update
  neilkaz -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 7:34 p.m.
  • 42P-43 At Match Scores
    Paul Weaver -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 10:31 p.m.
    • 42P-43 At Match Scores
      Stick -- Saturday, 13 February 2010, at 6:32 a.m.
      • Weaker vs. Stronger ~ GS vs. GG?
        jdg -- Saturday, 13 February 2010, at 2:17 p.m.
        • Weaker vs. Stronger ~ GS vs. GG?
          Stick -- Saturday, 13 February 2010, at 3:53 p.m.
        • Weaker vs. Stronger ~ GS vs. GG?
          Rich Munitz -- Saturday, 13 February 2010, at 7:20 p.m.
          • Weaker vs. Stronger ~ GS vs. GG?
            jdg -- Sunday, 14 February 2010, at 1:54 p.m.
    • Are we sure weaker vs stronger matters here?
      neilkaz -- Saturday, 13 February 2010, at 4:36 p.m.
      • Are we sure weaker vs stronger matters here?
        Stick -- Saturday, 13 February 2010, at 4:46 p.m.
        • Are we sure weaker vs stronger matters here?
          David Rockwell -- Saturday, 13 February 2010, at 5:36 p.m.
  • 42P-43: more data
    Nack Ballard -- Saturday, 13 February 2010, at 3:07 a.m.
    • 42P-43: more data
      Daniel Murphy -- Saturday, 13 February 2010, at 6:04 p.m.
      • 42P-43: more data
        Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 14 February 2010, at 2:13 a.m.
        • 42P-43: more data
          Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 14 February 2010, at 5:23 p.m.
          • 42P-43: more data
            Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 14 February 2010, at 7:46 p.m.
            • 42P-43: more data
              Chuck Bower -- Monday, 15 February 2010, at 8:47 p.m.
              • 42P-43: more data
                Nack Ballard -- Monday, 15 February 2010, at 11:51 p.m.
        • 42P-43: more data
          Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 14 February 2010, at 5:49 p.m.