How to Tell Whether You Are Sub-X

BlackStahli

Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
87
Location
Fremont, CA
WCA ID
2011ZENG05
YouTube
Visit Channel
So in the past, I've seen quite a lot of people ask if a certain average or something makes them sub-x, such as "I have a 24.97 average of 12, does that make me sub-25?", and the like. This occurrence leads me to believe even more strongly that statistics should be as, if not more, important than algebra, and that concepts such as standard deviation and normal distribution should be as well-known as solving for x or finding the slope of a line.

But anyhow, if you don't know much about statistics, the following is a crash-course on the part you need to know to tell if you are sub-x. If you don't want to read it, feel free to skip to the link below.

Whenever you have a collection of data, there are multiple ways to describe it. You can take the sum and divide it by the number of elements, which gives the arithmetic mean. You can order them from lowest to greatest and find the middle value, which is the median.

One term that most people probably aren't familiar with is "standard deviation". You know in qqtimer what the σ means? The thing that looks like an o and is next to the averages of 5, 12, and 100? That is the standard deviation. You get the standard deviation of a collection of data by taking the sum of the square of the difference of each value from the mean, divide that by the number of elements, and take its square root. That is the standard deviation, and that is the most common way of assessing how widely spread out a collection of data is. If you have a big standard deviation, your times are really inconsistent, and if you have a small standard deviation, your times are really consistent.

Now, you might be thinking, what does this have to do with determining if I'm sub-x?

If you use a timer like prisma or something, you might remember that you can see your times graphed in a histogram, which is pretty much like a bar graph. Assuming that you have a really large number of solves, hence a large number of bars, a graph of your times may look something like the following:

4mr3r.png

That is the normal distribution. However, because you probably usually do average of 12 or 25, a histogram of that session may not look like it at all. Thus, it is common among statisticians to assume that you need at least 30 data values in the collection to assume a normal distribution. So, if you want to tell if you're sub-x, make sure you do at least an average of 30, such 50 or 100.

The meaning of the graph is a distribution of percent chance that, if you pick a data value from your collection of data randomly, it will be in that range. The graph is centered at the mean of your data, and each separation is by one standard error of mean, which is standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of elements. So, for example, if your average of 50 has a mean of 25 seconds and a standard deviation of 2 seconds, there is a 34.1% chance that a randomly selected solve from your session will land in the range of 25-25.28 seconds. (2/rt(50) is about 0.28)

Ah, and here is where it gets tricky.

As you might see, past 3 standard deviations is where the likelihood of choosing a solve in that range goes down dramatically (0.1% for 3 standard deviations and beyond). So, in the above case, you can say that there is a 99.9% chance that you're sub-25.85 (25 + 3*.28). 99.9% chance obviously has really high validity in its implications, however statisticians commonly use an established value of 0.05/5% (also called alpha), which is the highest acceptable probability before you can make a valid claim. So, in this case, there is a 95% chance that you can be sub-25.47.

In statistics, there's this thing called a hypothesis test where you can test whether a collection of data is below or above or both a certain value. It involves everything that I described above. I won't go into any more detail on this subject, but that's pretty much what you need to know.

And the moment you've been waiting for... (or if you're skipped the above)

http://easycalculation.com/statistics/hypothesis-test-population-mean.php

The link directs you to an online hypothesis test calculator. Here's what you need to input:
- one-tailed test, since you only want to see if you're sub-x, not sub/sup-x
- sample mean = mean of your average
- population mean = if you want to see if you're sub-x, then this is x
- sample standard deviation = your standard deviation (yeah, there is a difference between population and sample standard deviation, but typically they don't differ much and don't really change much here)
- population size = number of solves in the session

And then hit calculate! It should give you a t-score and a p-value. Ignore the t-score if you don't know what it means, but you should be looking at the p-value. Depending on what you think is significant (which usually is 0.05), that value tells you the probability that your claim is wrong. So, obviously, the lower the better!

For example, if you have a 19.62 average of 100 with a standard deviation of 1.59 and you want to see if you're sub-20, you should get a p-value of 0.0084, meaning that there is a 0.84% chance that you aren't sub-20.

Sorry if this is misleading or hard to comprehend, I just wrote this on a whim :P
 
if your average of 50 has a mean of 25 seconds and a standard deviation of 2 seconds, there is a 34.1% chance that a randomly selected solve from your session will land in the range of 25-25.28 seconds. (2/rt(50) is about 0.28)

Why divide by rt(50)? Isn't it a 34.1% chance to land in the range 25-27 seconds?

- sample standard deviation = your standard deviation (yeah, there is a difference between population and sample standard deviation, but typically they don't differ much and don't really change much here)

If I wanted to do it properly (because we really have only a sample), I'd use \( \sqrt{\frac{N}{N-1}\ \sigma^2} \), right?

And a problem I see: If I do let's say ten sessions of 30 solves each, and then I look at the best of those sessions and test it like you showed and it tells me I'm sub-15, does that mean I'm sub-15? Because maybe the other nine sessions might tell that I'm *not*.
 
Last edited:
Why divide by rt(50)? Isn't it a 34.1% chance to land in the range 25-27 seconds?

There's a difference between standard deviation and standard error of mean. Standard deviation describes the spread of the data, and standard error of mean describes how much variation would be in the true mean (what you really average) based on a sample. Because the larger the sample the closer you get to the true mean, you'd divide by the square root of the number of elements (reason as to why square root, I'm not sure.)

If I wanted to do it properly (because we really have only a sample), I'd use \( \sqrt{\frac{N}{N-1}\ \sigma^2} \), right?

And a problem I see: If I do let's say ten sessions of 30 solves each, and then I look at the best of those sessions and test it like you showed and it tells me I'm sub-15, does that mean I'm sub-15? Because maybe the other nine sessions might tell that I'm *not*.

Ah, clever, but 30 solves really is an arbitrary number. But in reality, the bigger the size for each session, the less each session would tend to vary (unless, of course, you improve/regress really quickly or are really inconsistent), so such a case wouldn't happen that easily. Nonetheless, I'd go with determining whether I'm sub-x based on my most recent average of 30/50/100, which typically would not be more than 1-2 weeks old.
 
There's a difference between standard deviation and standard error of mean. Standard deviation describes the spread of the data, and standard error of mean describes how much variation would be in the true mean (what you really average) based on a sample. Because the larger the sample the closer you get to the true mean, you'd divide by the square root of the number of elements (reason as to why square root, I'm not sure.)

But if I look at your picture, then the 34.1% are for the range \( \mu \) to \( \mu+\sigma \), not to \( \mu+SEM \).

Or an intuitive attempt: If I did a really large session, let's say four million solves, do you really think there's a 68.2% chance to land in the range 24.999-25.001? And if I idealize and think about doing infinitely many solves, I'm guaranteed to always get exactly 25 seconds for every single solve? That can't be right.

Maybe you're confusing standard error and standard error of the mean?
 
Last edited:
if you consider a very large set of data you have to consider the fact that after a signicative number of solves your times tend to be better because of the learning curve. :p
please formula for this :)
 
if you consider a very large set of data you have to consider the fact that after a signicative number of solves your times tend to be better because of the learning curve. :p
please formula for this :)

It takes far more than 100 solves to improve your times if you've already come near to reaching a plateau. I doubt anybody interested in their sub-x status is going to make a breakthrough in less than that time :P
 
Back
Top