Re: 3-time-defending women slam champs

On Oct 2, 1:03 am, "David W" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<rjeffr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

What is priceless is the inclusion of Hingis. There was some
probability of Seles winning a fourth FO two months before it, had she
not been wounded. We may agree that it is difficult to estimate that
probability, but the suggestion that it depended on an event seven
years IN THE FUTURE is mind-boggling.

Nonsense. If you accept the premise that there is a constant probability, P, of
winning a fourth straight slam title having won the first three, then the more
samples you include, the more accurate the estimate of P, regardless of when
those samples occurred. OTOH, if you believe that P is not constant, but varies
over time or changes arbitrarily from one case to the next, then samples from
the past are no more valid than samples from the future in estimating P in a
given case. Whichever way you look at it, future results are statistically no
less valid than past results.

Why arguing with the intellectually challenged ....


Max

.

Relevant Pages
Loading