Comments on The nature of variation 2TypePad2006-05-17T04:47:49Zjunkchartshttps://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/2006/05/the_nature_of_v/comments/atom.xml/失踪 commented on 'The nature of variation 2'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341e992c53ef00d834d09e3769e22006-06-26T12:53:57Z2007-08-19T20:04:21Z失踪http://camusliebtduessi.blogspot.comthank you this is enlightening.<p>thank you this is enlightening.</p>Kaiser commented on 'The nature of variation 2'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341e992c53ef00d834c099c369e22006-05-18T04:41:33Z2007-08-19T06:30:07ZKaiserhttp://junkcharts.typepad.comYou raise a good point; p-values are of course not the end-all of any analysis. The point to note is...<p>You raise a good point; p-values are of course not the end-all of any analysis.</p>
<p>The point to note is that if each simulation contains say 50,000 players instead of 761, then we'd expect every line to look flat.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, when sample size is large, p-values or t-tests do not help us. Using those, we'd still have to conclude that some of the lines are not flat; however, if plotted, it'd be obvious that all of the lines are essentially horizontal. That's the "practical significance" conundrum rearing its head again.</p>Tom commented on 'The nature of variation 2'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341e992c53ef00d834c04c4d69e22006-05-17T07:56:53Z2007-08-19T05:18:55ZTomIsn't it unsurprising that around 5% of the 1000 simulations turned out to have a p-value of <0.05? This is...<p><br />
Isn't it unsurprising that around 5% of the 1000 simulations turned out to have a p-value of <0.05? This is an artefact of choosing 0.05 as the significance level.</p>