The correlation betweem my system's predictions for number of repeats
and the actual results has now hit -0.20389041942593, and that's after
44 draws.

I 'cheated' and used my software's TTest function with the following
parameters:
Array of predictions
Array of results
2-tailed test (since we're looking for oddities in either direction)
Pairs (since each prediction and result forms a discrete pair)

It calculated the probability as 0.64430697390173.

I'm not sure what that means, but my best guess is that it reckons
there's a 64% chance that something untoward is going on ie not
statistically significant.

Nigel

Marmaduke Jinks wrote:

> Congrats for keeping it up ;-)
>
> Did you learn much? Did you find a bias?
>
> MJ
> (I have post here, can't post further down the thread)
>
>

Ion Saliu wrote:

<snip>
>
> I second that. Bravo, Doollow! Keep it going, axiomates, Doollow &
> Martsopolleahk! Being alive is of utmost importance — second only to
> good health.
>

Thank you for the kind words - more than I deserve after all my teasing.
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

I'm like a senescent ugly duckling, paddling away below the surface ever
more slowly, in the hope it's not too late to become a swan.

I noticed something strange a while back but wrote it off as a
coincidence. Then something similar happened, then again and again. I've
started monitoring it formally because if it holds up, it's weird,
wonderful and mind-blowing. I've been here before only to have my hopes
dashed but it's nice to have a bit of optimism to cling to in these
troubled times.

I wish you and your family a prosperous New Year.

Nigel

"nigel" <useweb@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8Zidne3I3NLAU-T4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
> Ion Saliu wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> I second that. Bravo, Doollow! Keep it going, axiomates, Doollow &
>> Martsopolleahk! Being alive is of utmost importance - second only to
>> good health.
>>
>
> Thank you for the kind words - more than I deserve after all my teasing.
> You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
>
> I'm like a senescent ugly duckling, paddling away below the surface ever
> more slowly, in the hope it's not too late to become a swan.
>
> I noticed something strange a while back but wrote it off as a
> coincidence. Then something similar happened, then again and again. I've
> started monitoring it formally because if it holds up, it's weird,
> wonderful and mind-blowing. I've been here before only to have my hopes
> dashed but it's nice to have a bit of optimism to cling to in these
> troubled times.
>
> I wish you and your family a prosperous New Year.
>
> Nigel
>
Festive Greetings to all in the group :-)

MJ

Did I say dodgy? Most of my software's built-in functions ignore blank
rows. It seems the TTest function is different. So the result I posted
below is wrong, though fortunately not by much.

nigel wrote:

> The correlation betweem my system's predictions for number of repeats
> and the actual results has now hit -0.20389041942593, and that's after
> 44 draws.
>
> I 'cheated' and used my software's TTest function with the following
> parameters:
> Array of predictions
> Array of results
> 2-tailed test (since we're looking for oddities in either direction)
> Pairs (since each prediction and result forms a discrete pair)
>
> It calculated the probability as 0.64430697390173.
>
> I'm not sure what that means, but my best guess is that it reckons
> there's a 64% chance that something untoward is going on ie not
> statistically significant.
>
> Nigel

Yesterday my syste predicted 2 repeats in the New York Lottery and we
got two repeats. That didn't do my dodgy statistics much good :-)

Happy Christmas to those who care, Happy Holidays to those who don't.

nigel wrote:

> Did I say dodgy? Most of my software's built-in functions ignore blank
> rows. It seems the TTest function is different. So the result I posted
> below is wrong, though fortunately not by much.
>
> nigel wrote:
>
>> The correlation betweem my system's predictions for number of repeats
>> and the actual results has now hit -0.20389041942593, and that's after
>> 44 draws.
>>
>> I 'cheated' and used my software's TTest function with the following
>> parameters:
>> Array of predictions
>> Array of results
>> 2-tailed test (since we're looking for oddities in either direction)
>> Pairs (since each prediction and result forms a discrete pair)
>>
>> It calculated the probability as 0.64430697390173.
>>
>> I'm not sure what that means, but my best guess is that it reckons
>> there's a 64% chance that something untoward is going on ie not
>> statistically significant.
>>
>> Nigel
>
>