View Single Post
08-06-2013, 08:31 AM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
You know, there are often telltale signs that a person has no fundamental understanding of statistics.

Use of the phrase "correlates 30% of the time" - especially in relation to an r^2 value, which, of course, describes variance, and not the correlation between two variables - is one of them.
There are telltale signs for when someone doesn't have a leg to stand on. Deflecting attention away from, or failing to argue against, someone's primary point in order to focus on semantics and/or a weaker argument is one of them. Turning toward arguing someone's qualifications is yet another.

My apologies for a poor turn of phrase in an attempt to simplify what we're talking about. Now onto the meat of the matter. Are you - with your superior knowledge of statistics - going to argue that an r^2 of 0.3 shows that Fenwick is a good predictor of Regulation Points?

Last edited by Trainspotter: 08-06-2013 at 09:21 AM.
Trainspotter is offline   Reply With Quote