bigeddiechek

Just a wee tip here, you can use a full stop at the end of a sentence as well as an exclamation mark. Putting them after every comment doesn't make your previous posts any less idiotic. On to the meeting, excellent, with some tough riding on both sides. The fence, once again, appears to have saved a rider from serious injury. A great investment. Seb was untouchable, in this form he as to be in with a shout of the PLRC. Doolan was a splendid guest, what else did anyone expect? Jackobsen was rubbish, to be quite blunt. Quite a turnaround from when the Witches thumped us earlier this season, it just shows how well we have progressed as a team. ^^ the above comment is tongue in cheek.

Your genius knows no bounds, son.

What do you mean?

Please write in full sentences so that I at least have a chance of understanding you.

Apparently his cover is going to be blown very soon Backless. He's given too much away in his posts

One has to posit the question though, is average the correct function if the main aim is to analyse form?

I fancy Ipswich's chances on Saturday, but you can never tell with the Bandits this year!

Never watch the thing, maybe this thread is a message that I should start!

I agree, I suppose we should be talking about precision rather than accuracy too. I don't agree that accuracy is proportional to sample size. It surely cannot be a linear relationship?

It's not, actually, it solves many problems. One of my reasons for thinking it may be useful in speedway averages is that the squared function emphasis the extremes. Indeed, but you would want to have some sensitivity to variation within the sample set in this case. Or maybe not?

Hmmmmmmm, your final sentence, explain to me how you do that...

I'm not sure!

There are so many uncontrollable variables that would totally knacker it, but that is what happens with the current system, I suppose. It might make it a lot more difficult to manipulate rider ratings for team building. In terms of the public, then it could be presented as below average, average, above average, and maybe extreme deviant?

OK, so you are saying there would need to be the same number of teams, and the same number of riders, for it to be meaningful. Actually, I think you are also saying it must be the same pool of riders too. Would it actually need to be the case though? I'm sure you know there are variations in ways of calculating the standard deviation for a sample. I'm not sure about the answer, though, and am open to words of wisdom greater than mine. You wouldn't necessarily need to have team building set to 0. For example, you could have limitations build around deviation from the mean. I think it might be quite interesting, if nothing else.

The idea of using standard deviation isn't a wind-up, I can assure you. I'm interested to here what others think, even if it is to shoot me down. There must be some statisticians on here who can give us an informed opinion.

I was never mocking your opinion, if you remember I was agreeing with you, in general. I was saying you can't compare to completely different methods though. Your point does prove the nature of the calculation being time-sensitive when one uses it as a measure of form. What do you think about my idea of using standard deviation as a measure? I'd never, ever mock you. I enjoy our blethers.

Yes and no, for example, a smaller data set may include outlying data due to something like mechanical problems. Actually one of the uses of an average is to "smooth" out that type of data, but it only really becomes useful as the data set increases. As you mention, gauging of form is time sensitive, therefore it makes sense that your data is collected across and apposite time-scale. Also, as the data set increases, data from several years ago will have less of an impact on the current calculation. With respect to Jim and Barney, I was maybe a bit cheeky, but my point is that average is not really a very helpful statistic: in any case (or at least that I can think of). Jim, it is clear that you didn't listen to me as I said 5 times (with witness) that my point is that you aren't comparing apples with apples. You did, however, say several times that an average is an average. The point you were making is that you thought this system is better: and I agreed, just for different reasons. Here is a final - serious - question. Would it be more meaningful to have a league average that is calculated from all riders, and all rides: then each individual is given a standard deviation rather than an average?

If you read my post, the average, as a function, is set in stone. What I am saying is that the more measuremets you take, the more accurate an average is. Now, this little example will demonstrate the point, and the one you didn't grasp a couple of weeks back: Let's take two measurements: 5.8, 7.6. Average = 6.7 Let's take 10 measurements: 5.8, 7.6, 5.8, 7.6, 5.8, 7.6, 5.8, 7.6. Average = 7.2 So, as you can see, the number of measurements (or rides, in this case) is crucial. This point is to prove that 97.98274928374% of all statistics are made up.

Mission Impossible, Bob. One thing everybody misses about rolling averages is that the longer they are used, and the more meetings a rider completes, the more accurate they become. Surprised this has not been mentioned.

I was attempting to out-stupid Taffy, but failed again...

You would take the average of each average, then the average of that, if you know what I mean?

It's all systemic when it comes to averages. I agree that 24 is a sensible figure. Although, I would like to point out, that average is, well, a pretty average function. We could be more sophisticated, or we could just bin them altogether.

Thank you pal.

Best: Berwick winning the fours. Worst: The sad loss of Lee Richardson.

It was never going to be an easy meeting with the likes of Grieves, Tully, Pijper, Wethers, and Sneddon in your team. I did think we would get the win, but never thought it was going to be easy.