The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
CAPS / CAPS Feedback
|Subject: Re: CAPS is not meant to be a mirror of performa||Date: 2/14/2007 11:35 AM|
|Author: albaby1||Number: 4898 of 8104|
I do not agree that being prolific is more rewarded than being profound. All being prolific does is magnify one's score, in one direction or the other. If one is profound, then it pays to be prolific in CAPS. If one is not profound, however, I don't think being prolific on its own is the stuff making the leaderboard is made of.
Perhaps - but the median rating of players with more than 100 picks is more than 83, so it's easy to see why people might think that. Players with lots of picks are ranked very highly.
Part of that is due to the over-representation of Wall Street Trackers (which generally outperform the non-Wall Street population). But even among TMF players, those who have lots and lots of picks tend to rank better (on average) than those who don't.
Interestingly, very few prolific pickers have negative Scores (less than 25% of the 394 players with more than 100 active picks); far more have Accuracy below 50% (about 40% of such players are under the 50% mark). Wonder if there's a reason - if there is, I don't know why.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|