Buy cialis. Cialis….

I recently came across a very impressive system for winning 97% of all bets in the NBA and the MLB.

Its called sports betting champ, and it actually does what it says it does. For a more detailed look, check out the URL in my comment. All the best

If they think they have discovered a "significant" correlation, they should test the hypothesis prospectively.

Assuming this wasn't an April Fools study.

Posted by: Justin Ross"

Assuming you say this in jest, am I to understand that you oppose handicaps in gold because they are progressive?

I learned about these findings years ago. This paper is a new study that came out last year, replicating the results of the first one. This result has been replicated time and time again from different data sets, so it deserves some attention.

It's possible there's a different explanation, but the fact that people with the letter K in their initials strike out more often has been shown many many times. Just as the result that people with C's and D's in their initials get more C's and D's has been shown many different times.

The instructions for the regression analysis are ridiculous. They ignore autocorrelation and multicolinearity effects, and when I brought this up to my groupmates and the professor, it was clear that none of them knew anything about stats past how to run a regression in Excel. Meanwhile, I've only got two methods classes under my belt compared to my instructor's PhD.

It makes me think I could make a fortune in the finance world as the one of the only competent statisticians.

My question is how do referees let this through? Now THAT's scary.

Several flaws in the report are pretty obvious. First "Kingman" , a player from the 1970s alone accounts for nearly a third of the deviation from the null hypothesis. A cursory review from a similar (but not identical) data set suggests they used a binomial distribution with all batters with the same letter category having the same mean strikeout. Since there is a significant variation among individual players, the null is almost certain to be false once you partition your data set among the smaller subsets. Kingman easily skews "k". In fact, I found huge deviations for every single letter. Their model was wrong, every subset was skewed because there are not enough individual players to wash out.

For grades, there was no difference between A&B, nor between C&D. That should have been the end of it. Besides, the absolute difference between AB and CD was about 0.02 with a mean around 3.4. That's one letter grade in 50 for a poor CD? That's a tiny effect even before being swamped by different standards in different classes and schools. Besides, with an average around 3.4, Just how many grades of C let alone D could have been in that data set? I'd have expected A-B to be the much bigger contributer, but its not there.

….sarcasm, of course, as this is a property of all regressions.

Did they control for race and culture at all? I'm assuming they at least controlled for gender?