bigeddiechek

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.

So, did I get your point, or not?

But my point was that an average is an average! I got your point about the new system being better: and I agree with you. However, you the proceeded to compare two averages for the same rider calculated with different methods, which is - by any stretch of the imagination - meaningless. P.S. Rolling average is merely terminology, it is still an average calculation. It is merely a different method of applying the mathmatical function.

So, you missed my point. Will people lower their budget, or maintain it and spend it on other things on their night out? Also, it would be interesting to analyse the number of people who just couldn't afford £14.50, but £10 makes it viable for them. Like I said, it is a very progressive move. It isn't a simple move to make either, it has a lot of potentially subtle effects. Have you grasped the fundamental mathematics of average yet? I spend £20 every meeting, so I either spend that on my admission, or half of it on my admission and the rest on programme and munchies. Do you get what I mean?

I wonder how many people are like myslef in that I have a budget for the evening and reduced admission prices are great, they mean I spend more on the extras, which is actually a very nice luxury to have. I often didn't have a burger, but with the reduced admission I will always have one as I do like a good burger. There will also be a number of people who a tenner makes going regular a reality. It's a very bold move, and it also looks to be a very astute move. Yet another first in PL speedway from a very progressive Promotion.

Hard to tell Paulco, but it was certainly a very good crowd. My gut feeling is that it made a big difference. I have my budget for each meeting in these tough times. So I just had more to spend on other things in the stadium. Got my tea there, saved "her indoors" a bit of cooking, and she still gets rid of me for an evening. It's a winner!

Did they not announce that they are doing the same for the Newcastle meeting?

Quite definitely miss.

I think it's always a great compliment when visiting fans praise our club. Some don't realise how lucky we are to have speedway at Berwick, never mind how much effort is put in to constantly improve the product. I get accused of being a bottom licker on here, but I genuinely enjoy Saturday nights, even when the result isn't what I wanted. It's great when there is a big away support (like tonight), it adds to the atmosphere, and glad to hear you enjoyed it. This is the attitude we need to make sure the sport survives at all clubs. Looking forward to a big away support next week from the Diamonds, who must fancy their chances. But, you just never know with our team this year!

A very accurate report on the meeting there. Saved me a lot of typing. Grieves's showed all his experience to keep Alden behind him in heat 13, rode very hard, and very fairly. It takes a lot to do that to Alden. The Bandit's backup places is where we fell down, and the Capital Monarchs took a well-deserved win. On a plus side for the Bandits, it looks as if the Promotions bold 31% drop in entrance fees paid off with a very good crowd. I spent my £4.50 on a splendid cheesburger, confectionery, and refreshment. Well done to the Monarchs, I didn't see that one coming.