Quote:
Originally Posted by AGPapa
From this I'd expect that the values for VarD/VarO to be largely dependent on the game, yet the data shows that the "best" values depend very little on the game. For example, in the 2014 Newton Division the best values for VarD/VarO for sCPR was 0.10, but for 2014 Galileo it was 0.00! The complete other side of the search range! How can two divisions in the same year have such different values?
|
One more quick thought on this, with more to come later:
Both 2014 galileo and newton sCPR searches picked VarN/VarO=3.
If VarD/VarO = 0, then the total match variance would be 3*VarO + VarN = 6*VarO.
If on the other hand VarD/VarO = 0.1, then the total match variance would be 3*VarO + 3*VarD + VarN = 6.3*VarO.
So while this looks like a really different result, we're only talking about a change in about 5% of the overall variance in a match that could be predicted with VarD/VarO being 0.0 or 0.1. Instead, it might be helpful to increase the step size in the VarN/VarO search, which is currently 1 (!), so each step in that search could cause a much greater change in the match variance.