kwic
who
who
right
off
ON
368
1
100
500
strict
ELIZA cgi-bash version rev. 1.90
- Medical English LInking keywords finder for the PubMed Zipped Archive (ELIZA) -
return
kwic search for who out of >500 occurrences
271863 occurrences (No.95 in the rank) during 5 years in the PubMed. [no cache] 500 found
--- ABSTRACT ---
--- ABSTRACT END ---
[frequency of next (right) word to who]
271863 occurrences (No.95 in the rank) during 5 years in the PubMed. [no cache] 500 found
| 368) Gamblers who participate in skill-oriented games (such as poker and sports-betting) are motivated to win over the long-term, and some monitor their betting outcomes to evaluate their performance and proficiency. |
| PMID:24292982 DOI:10.1007/s10899-013-9420-7 |
| 2015 Journal of gambling studies |
| * Delusions of expertise: the high standard of proof needed to demonstrate skills at horserace handicapping. |
| - Gamblers who participate in skill-oriented games (such as poker and sports-betting) are motivated to win over the long-term, and some monitor their betting outcomes to evaluate their performance and proficiency. In this study of Australian off-track horserace betting, we investigated which levels of sustained returns would be required to establish evidence of skill/expertise. We modelled a random strategy to simulate 'naïve' play, in which equal bets were placed on randomly selected horses using a representative sample of 211 weekend races. Results from a Monte Carlo simulation yielded a distribution of return-on-investments for varying number of bets (N), showing surprising volatility, even after a large number of repeated bets. After adjusting for the house advantage, a gambler would have to place over 10,000 bets in individual races with net returns exceeding 9 % to be reasonably considered an expert punter (α = .05). Moreover, a record of fewer bets would require even greater returns for demonstrating expertise. As such, validated expertise is likely to be rare among race bettors. We argue that the counter-intuitively high threshold for demonstrating expertise by tracking historical performance is likely to exacerbate known cognitive biases in self-evaluation of expertise. |
[
right
kwic]
(1)62  were |
(15)5 participated |
(29)2 Basic |
(43)2 read |
| (2)53 had |
(16)5 sexually |
(30)2 believed |
(44)2 require |
| (3)25 are |
(17)4 do |
(31)2 can |
(45)2 required |
| (4)25 have |
(18)4 is |
(32)2 commuted |
(46)2 scored |
| (5)25 underwent |
(19)4 responded |
(33)2 consumed |
(47)2 showed |
| (6)21 received |
(20)4 sought |
(34)2 deal |
(48)2 smoked |
| (7)14 presented |
(21)3 attended |
(35)2 died |
(49)2 struggle |
| (8)13 developed |
(22)3 has |
(36)2 experience |
(50)2 suffered |
| (9)11 reported |
(23)3 in |
(37)2 had, |
(51)2 sustained |
| (10)11 was |
(24)3 lived |
(38)2 live |
(52)2 took |
| (11)10 completed |
(25)3 may |
(39)2 lives |
(53)2 use |
| (12)10 experienced |
(26)3 met |
(40)2 measured |
(54)2 wanted |
| (13)8 did |
(27)3 work |
(41)2 participate |
|
| (14)5 inject |
(28)3 would |
(42)2 present |
add keyword
--- WordNet output for who ---