THE 40/30 RULE: Predicting Winners In Test Series

[quote author=Kyle link=topic=86067.msg538741#msg538741 date=1387161476]
Good. Now explain how Bangladesh drew back to back vs NZ, India lost vs England at home, Pak drew 1-1 vs SA etc.[/quote]

Interesting but would not discount anything that can be proven.

However, why 95% and not 97.5%? How was the margin of accuracy derived?

Does that percentage increase if the relative batting bowling ratio change? Say 45/24.5, 50/24 are factored?

[size=18pt]For the purposes of this forum the Rev has chosen to KEEP THINGS SIMPLE.[/size]




HOW SIMPLE YOU ASK ?

[size=14pt]2 + 2 = 4[/size]

No need to complicate things.


[size=14pt]The 40/30 Rule serves as a good predictor for test series----the Rev will be the first to admit that it needs some twitching. But I have chosen to keep it as simple as possible---even Geoff Boycott's grand mother can apply it the way it's presented[/size].

Rev

There is a logic suggesting if you have many batsmen averaging 40+ and bowlers 30- compared to the other team, you stand a better chance of winning due to the consistency of players.

The probability of this happening, logically, in theory increases with a superior ratio.

However if this probability or % is to be relied upon as credible, a greater understanding is required as basis appears crude and unscientific at the moment.

Numbers are fascinating and clearly a factor in determining outcomes but generally numbers do not tell the whole story.

[quote author=easyrider link=topic=86067.msg538757#msg538757 date=1387167590]
There is a logic suggesting if you have many batsmen averaging 40+ and bowlers 30- compared to the other team, you stand a better chance of winning due to the consistency of players.

The probability of this happening, logically, in theory increases with a superior ratio.

However if this probability or % is to be relied upon as credible, a greater understanding is required as basis appears crude and unscientific at the moment.

Numbers are fascinating and clearly a factor in determining outcomes but generally numbers do not tell the whole story.
[/quote]


EasyRider:

* Windies Cricket Forum is not a class room.

* It is a cricket forum where a variety of fans, some intellectually inclined other not, congregate.

* The Rev's mantra is:



* THERE IS A BEAUTY IN SIMPLICITY.

* And the 40/30 Rule as presented is very, very simple.


[size=14pt]Now easyrider, here is a promise---I believe you said you are an ASA---keep working hard young man----when you become a FELLOW----the Rev may think it worthwhile to delve into greater detail about the 40/30 rule with you.[/size] 

In the meantime---the 40/30 rule has predicted that New Zealand will win the 3 test against the West Indies. And Australia will win the 5 test series against England.

Rev

[size=18pt]CAN SUNIL PHILIP NARINE BECOME A WORLD CLASS TEST SPINNER AVERAGING LESS THAN 30 WITH THE BALL ?[/size]



* Sunil's stats:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/c...30558.html

* Sunil is already a world class oneday and T20 spinner

* But in his 5 tests to date---Sunil has struggled---15 wickets at an average of 48.06

*[size=14pt] By the way Narine took 12 wickets in his 2 tests against NZ.[/size]

* With Shillingford banned---will Narine bamboozle the Kiwis in the final test ?

Rev

Rev,

We all need to keep working as individuals at work and otherwise but thanks for the timely reminder as there is no substitute for humility and industriousness.

You have suggested a 40/30 ratio results in a 95% chance of winning. I agree a team with superior batting and bowling averages, logically, is better placed to dominate the other team and more so as this 'rule' improves, 50/25 etc.

My question was the precision of correlating 40:30 to a 95 % outcome. You then further added a another variable when questioned by Kyle, if the series was a three test series SA was likely to have won.

So your 'rule' appears flawed, unless you can prove otherwise.

No complication just a simple question.

Hahahahahahaha  ::LOL::

I have a fetish for 30 yearold gyals.

But IF scarce , I will sekkel for a 40 year old :

95 - 97.5 % of the Time !

Like the theory ketchim but are you sure it is not 97.67%

Lol😄

I am keeping it to a simple question

Ha ha.

[quote author=easyrider link=topic=86067.msg538910#msg538910 date=1387222722]

So your 'rule' appears flawed, unless you can prove otherwise. [/quote]

Easy:

* [size=14pt]The Rev never said the 40/30 rule is perfect.[/size]

* What  I stated was it is was a good predictor of the outcome for test series.

* This is what I said in the lead post:

When 2 teams(WI and NZ) meet in a test series, the team with the higher points derived from their 40/30 players(NZ has 2.5 points vs WI 2.0 points) will emerge victorious 95% of the time.

* You have gotten  caught up with the 95% probability.

* You are free to do your own testing.

* Listen! Many fans have been surprised that #8 ranked NZ is clobbering the #6 ranked WI----what the 40/30 rule says to fans is they ought not be surprised.


BOTTOM LINE:

* [size=14pt]The 40/30 rule is very simple---nothing complicated---even the Chairman's grandmother would understand it.[/size]

* If you are looking to match intellect ---the Rev is not interested in going down that road.

* By the way, congrats on being an experienced actuary---30 years experience you say ?

* Maybe I misread---you wrote somewhere that you were an ASA---then you changed that to FSA.

* Whatever you are---associate or fellow---congrats on being numerically inclined.



[size=14pt]* If you find the 40/30 rule too simple----or simplistic----that's OK----that's the goal---A simple predictor of the outcomes of test series.[/size]

Rev

Rev,

I have not changed my credentials although I pulled those statements as I want to talk Cricket and credential get in the way, hence the reason I understand your point about intellectual battles. In fact my question is simple and has no relevance to personal letters.

I see no reason why I should not focus on the 95% as it is interesting and a very high outcome. I am a student of numbers so I do not belittle them. When you arrive at a precise outcome then it should be explicable although I understand the health warnings you have given. 

For the record, for 30 years, I have been an Actuary and FCA. I would have initially have said ACA rather than FCA as I do not focus on the letters too much. In fact Fellowship does not carry the kudos it used to. Having done business in the US, I chose to become a registered CPA. I do not and have not number crunched for many years having focused on strategic development and pathways.

I have seen many of your analysis and analytical reviews and I have enjoyed them and understood your methodology apart from this one as there are two many variables to come up with a precise % rather than a range.

We need not go on about this but my position is I agree with the logic but I see no basis for the outcome rate and the weighting to the batting and bowling average (I believe they are 1 each).

I was merely trying to understand so apologies if I have wasted your time in anyway.