Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > Not just simple, but simplistic. That is, I think you > assume a most simplistic model, where a single > 'quality' number implies who is going to win. > That is in contrast to the real world, where > A>B and B>C can be consistent with C>A. > > But even that is not enough to answer the question > that you are asking. How well does the number > predict the outcome? > > - I remember one EXTREME year of college > basketball-conference results for my local team (Pitt). > The 10 teams exhibited 8 'levels-of-performance' > during the home-and-home competitions. > That is, the favored team won every time. > The home team won each game in the couple of > instances where the ranks were tied. > > (That's the way I remember it, anyway.)
Rich thanks for this I understand that this is not necessarily realistic, or at the very least a simplistic analysis. I suppose there is an underlying assumption that there is a single number (a 'strength' parameter) which characterises the likelihood of winning a match. Am I being naive in thinking that a situation where A>B (i.e. beats B), B>C and C>A happens in three individual matches, is not inconsistent with the simple model - it is just a question of the probability of A>B, B>C and C>A over one sample is not representative of the underlying probability? . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
