Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Richard Williams <Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.edu> |

To |
"statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>, "statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
Re: st: Odds ratio |

Date |
Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:15:35 -0400 |

At 01:38 PM 4/9/2010, Marcello Pagano wrote:

Bookmakers have no problem interpreting odds. Why people go through all sorts of contortions to avoid odds when they are as natural as probabilities is beyond me. If you take m/n as your probability then m/(n-m) are your odds. One is easier than the other? Very odd.

------------------------------------------- Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463 HOME: (574)289-5227 EMAIL: Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.Edu WWW: http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: Odds ratio***From:*Marcello Pagano <pagano@hsph.harvard.edu>

**References**:**st: Odds ratio***From:*Rosie Chen <jiarongchen2002@yahoo.com>

**Re: st: Odds ratio***From:*"E. Paul Wileyto" <epw@mail.med.upenn.edu>

**RE: st: Odds ratio***From:*"Lachenbruch, Peter" <Peter.Lachenbruch@oregonstate.edu>

**Re: st: Odds ratio***From:*Marcello Pagano <pagano@hsph.harvard.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: Improvement in the goodness of fit and correctly predicted counts with IPF** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Odds ratio** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Odds ratio** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Odds ratio** - Index(es):