 |
| |
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
It is easy to lie with stats, whatever the size of the sample. You can even lie with stats encompassing the whole population (such as election results). The key to lie with stats is to provide a faulty interpretation of the results, it doesn't lie in the results themselves.
Samples of 1000 - 2000 people are enough to measure societal trends when they are well done, because it has been often proven that larger samples repeat the same patterns. You can get a better accuracy with a higher sample (read: a smaller error margin), but that's it. General trends remain the same. The margin of error of a poll with 1000 people is about 3%. You need 4 times more people to halve the error margin. 4000 people make sense. 16000 people only in specialized polls. More than that is stupid.
In your example, royal flush would be deemed statistically insignificant, and as such, its complete absence from the results wouldn't make the trends any less true.
The only reason why you'd want to have a big sample is when you have many variables, and you want to analyze each of them with high accuracy.
For example, if you're polling on European politics, you only need a 1000 sample over Europe. However, if you want to analyze the differences per country, you need 1000 questionees per country (that's 15000 already). If you want to analyze the opinions of people based on their nationality AND their social class, you need a sample of 1000 per social class within each country. If you kept to the original 100 across Europe, to back you analysis of "what do wealthy Belgians think of Europe", you could only rely on very little amount (maybe 5 or 10) of wealthy Belgians questioned. Such a minuscule sample has virtually no relevance whatsoever. |
Have you ever play pokar you would know that the Royal Flush it the best hand to have as it beat every other hands except than other Royal Flush, two royal flush are than tie.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Yes, and since it happens once in every 300,000 games (or so you say), it is statistically insignificant when compared to the 299,999 other games when they don't happen. There is no need to look for royal flushes if they affect a poker game so mindboggingly rarely |
That why if they are going to do DNA testing of people they need to look at entire DNA not just 7 little pieces of it. Let say there are two square with 1 billion little square of different colors in each one, to test if both big square are the same you needed to compare each little squares in each big square to each other to say they are the same, you just cannot pick 7 squares in each one and compare those seven square only.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
Sure, you folks think Kerry has a chance. I think he better hold on to his senate seat. |
You obviously haven't seen Kerry in action before... he's a master. He's won many elections that no one ever thought he would, like when he beat Weld for his senate seat.
Plus, Kerry is a seasoned statesman, he knows exactly what he's doing and he is very very very deliberate. If he wins I don't think there will ever be such a thing as a "Kerryism", he's just too damn smart for that, and he's too damn smart for a potential Bush-Kerry election to be anything but close, if not a landslide for Kerry.
Just wait.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
Regan was hopeing after his massive tax cut to cut all social senting which he was unable to do. Talking about welfare what about cutting corporate welfare than all those government free money hand out to corporate america.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Perhaps. But when it appears that Kerry rakes in more special interest money than anyone else, I give him the prize.
|
Nobody comes anywhere near raking in the kind of special interest money that Shrub does. Are you conceding him the corruption championship?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
My apologies, it looks like Bush didn't run off for a year or more during his stint in the Nat'l Guard. |
Yep, looks like he might only have been AWOL for as little as six months, unless the same strings that got him into the Air Guard and got him out early also got him paystubs for when he was out working on political campaigns and snorting coke.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-02-2004 09:44
You'll find even the liberals in Congress subsidising corporations...
|