Yankiwi Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: So explain the reasons for the variance in the start of Q3 compare to YTD for Cambridge. Unnormalized data used for pointless presentations has no variance applied. If that's what you want to do, have at it. Then you can add your deviation to it. In my world, one dog injured is one dog injured. Those not injured are not injured. In your world because so many dogs were not injured, even the ones that did get injured, didn't get injured. My variables are Column "A" to Column "I" which are manually entered. Formulas in Column "J" to "L" are constant. Q3 Cambridge. (0+0+2)/442 = .0045 = Major injuries = 0.5% (10+7)/442 = .0384 = Minor injuries = 3.8% Season to date Cambridge. (0+2+10)/2490 = .0048 = Major injuries = 0.5% (25+44)/2490 = .0277 = Minor injuries = 2.8% Column L = J###/C### = Total Injuries Think twice before taking your racing greyhound to Auckland. I hear Invercargill is nice this time of year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 2 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Unnormalized data used for pointless presentations has no variance applied. If that's what you want to do, have at it. Then you can add your deviation to it. In my world, one dog injured is one dog injured. Those not injured are not injured. In your world because so many dogs were not injured, even the ones that did get injured, didn't get injured. My variables are Column "A" to Column "I" which are manually entered. Formulas in Column "J" to "L" are constant. Q3 Cambridge. (0+0+2)/442 = .0045 = Major injuries = 0.5% (10+7)/442 = .0384 = Minor injuries = 3.8% Season to date Cambridge. (0+2+10)/2490 = .0048 = Major injuries = 0.5% (25+44)/2490 = .0277 = Minor injuries = 2.8% Column L = J###/C### = Total Injuries Think twice before taking your racing greyhound to Auckland. I hear Invercargill is nice this time of year. So you can't explain the difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 18 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: So explain the reasons for the variance in the start of Q3 compare to YTD for Cambridge. I have answered your question. I do not apply a variance. I've explained the variables. Date - track - starters - 1/10 - 11/21 - 22/42 - 43/90 - death. I have shown you the basic math equations to calculate the injury percentages. If you're not happy with that, nothing I will ever say will make you happy. It's what I'm doing & has proven effective (as it is in line with GRNZ's Q1 data they have released). I've made Q2 data available as it was occurring, something everyone would have had to wait until mid/end of March to get from GRNZ. I'm making Q3 data available as it is occurring, something everyone would have had to wait until mid/end of June to get from GRNZ. If you don't like that & you want to minimize the impact the numbers of dogs that actually get hurt without improving welfare or safety, your target should be GRNZ's database administrator, not me. I'm not reporting to the Govt. I am bringing attention (page hits) to your forum, something I thought you might actually appreciate. Without me, your forum would be on par with your old hang-outs greyhound forum. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted April 30 Author Share Posted April 30 Another pointless presentation. 3rd quarter injury data correlation, posted on BOAY before GRNZ have even made public their 2nd quarter data. Current season to date (9 months). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.