Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif

No. of Recommendations: 7
Bill,

**WARNING – horribly wonkish**

I pestered a statistics oriented friend (used to be) with this.

But first, I think most, would argue that 10 for 10 IS more accurate than 7 for 7. This is because the probability of being 7 for 7 is 0.781% (1/128) and being 10 for 10 is 0.098% (1/1024).

But is being 9 for 12 (75%) more accurate than being 6 for 8 (75%). It is in my opinion because again the probabilities are 5.42% (222/4096) and 10.94% (28/256) respectively. [5.42% is the probability of being exactly 9 for 12, not 9 for 12 or better].

The adjustment is to turn the accuracy into a score which can be done by dividing the accuracy by the probability of that accuracy.

So for example: 7 for 7 is 100% with a probability of 0.781%
Score=128=1.0/0.0781
The score for 10 for 10 is 100% (1) divided by 0.000976 (1/1024)
Score=1024

OK so this skews really high on the ends - no surprise there. How does it work in the middle?

6.87 = Score for 6 for 8 [0.75/(22/256)]
13.8 = Score for 8 for 12 [0.75/(222/4096)] which is better than 6 for 8.
It works for in between sized portfolios.
The respective accuracy scores for 7 for 10 and 8 for 10 are:
5.97 = [0.7/(120/1024)] - worse than 6 for 8
18.2 = [0.8/(45/1024)] – better than 8 for 12

But it is worth noting that 11 for 12 would be better than 7 for 7 with scores of 321 and 128 respectively. Similarly being 10 for 12 (score=51.7) would be better than 7 for 8 (score 28), despite being a somewhat lower % accuracy.

Thoughts (LOL)?

Zz

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.