Tell me more :)
I've actually made efforts to address your points and to answer nicely. Now you just repeat your statement that the formula is invalid without addressing my rebuttal.
This is disappointing.
Can you give a source for that @mdinnerspace ? One?
No. It is not interesting simply because you base your evidence on what is voluntarily reported. I'd rather discuss facts, which are admittedly difficult to come by.
Two variables that are averaged plus a constant number will not give a consistent result.
The OP made a premise of a correlation, that of an online rating can predict a OTB rating.
Nice try but no cigar.
Woah! Woah! Hold your horses!
"No. It is not interesting..."
You can pick and choose which of my/our objections to refer to based on what you find interesting?
"I'd rather discuss facts..."
Me, too! Particularly the fact that there are (as far as I know) no sources for what you just claimed about constants and refuse to produce one!
@mdinnerspace
@Jacob531
This thread is my legacy. This thread IS THE INTERNET.
How one guy puts together a fun little project, tries to provide some (tiny) public good, and ends up getting trolled for weeks.
Good job of it!
24 pages
People shouting... give me your sources!
All over a stupid little formula...
The answer lies within +/- 200 points...depending on the question asked.
It might/could be accurate, then again it doesn't apply.
Geez... gotta love it. Especially the formula itself. +187 constant skews results for lower numbers, becomes less significant for higher numbers. Duh?
Take two:
Woah! Woah! Hold your horses!
"No. It is not interesting..."
You can pick and choose which of my/our objections to refer to based on what you find interesting?
"I'd rather discuss facts..."
Me, too! Particularly the fact that there are (as far as I know) no sources for what you just claimed about constants and refuse to produce one!
@mdinnerspace
Do the math Jacob and you too can figure it out.
Plug in the numbers, observe the results.
@mdinnerspace
I responded to your "do the math" critique, and carefully explained why your "plugging-in" exercise is not informative.
Was my answer in post #229 unclear? Do you have a response to my rebuttal?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.