[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although ROI is a little more complicated than probability of being in the money, there's no obvious reason to think it changes the relative information based on sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

It pains me to disagree with my personal favorite 2+2 poster, but I think this is wrong. The variance of the r.v. ROI is much higher than the variance of the r.v. ITM. You need significantly more data to put a confidence interval around your ROI than you do for your ITM.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think it might, it's possible to make a more complicated model, that could give you a more precise result (unless the assumptions are wrong, in which case it might do worse).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the best thing to do (provided you have the computing power at hand) is to run simulations for a given probability distribution of finishes and, for each set of n trials, see if you fall within various confidence intervals. This is tedious and not very elegant, but it works!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for all the replys!! All are very helpful, and are inspiring me to tackle probability head-on! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]