[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry. I walked in late and I need a clarification. Why do you argue in this thread that your data points within the same tournament can be treated as independent trials,
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I did. From thew few posts I re-read, I asked a question, and then the thread went sideways about something else and we never resolved it.
[ QUOTE ]
in The Shadow's recent thread, you seem to make the opposite argument?
[ QUOTE ]
Intuitively I agree that only one data point is permissible on independence of observations grounds. I'm not sure how to prove it, but I'm not sure that it needs proving.
[/ QUOTE ]
This case is four-handed, so there is a chip distribution, and the other is two-handed, so only your chip count is variable. Is that it? If so can you explain why?
Slim
[/ QUOTE ]
Truth is I'm not certain which methodology is better: use all the data points or use one.
Certainly using one is "safer" as it removes the independence question, but it severely compounds the sample size problem.
eastbay
[/ QUOTE ]
It seems like jcm gave a compelling argument that multiple points from the same tournament violates the necessary condition that observations be independent of each other. I have only basic training in statistics, but it seems to me that since having X chip distribution necessarily leads to a distribution of the number of observations of finish A that is different than Y chip distribution, then without removing this effect from ther results, they are not independent. I know that's nothing new but I guess I cast my vote on the side of one point per tournament.
Slim