Duck_Hunter,

THANKS. I worked in the finance industry for 26 years and used it then. I work on our family ranch now, with no need for statistical analysis, so it is wasted now, but it was used after I got out of college.

The answer is MAYBE! They may think they are using the best statistical method, when in fact,, after the results, they find that someone was using a better method at the time. The method changes all the time as well, so in that instance, they would have to change methods of fishing each time the fishes attitude changes and then there is no chance of doing that. Hope this helps.

Tight lines, keep safe and good luck.

Thad Rains

Really interesting.

I have always thought of bass fishing in mathematical terms. More specifically, in terms of problem solving.

When we hit the water, essentially we are setting up equations. We determine and identify as many factors as possible, and basically, plug those into an equation. Wind, water clarity, temperature, time of day, etc are all factors that we use to make decisions.

Some people are better at it than others, but typically, the more factors you can identify the better results you will have.

Seems like you could set this up with a z-score? Given your average would be 1fish for every 10casts. You could use a trial # of 100 casts maybe? Then set it up to find the probability of the event you catch at least X amount of fish. Then compare to a smaller number of fish caught. You would see the likely hood that one would catch more fish when all else is equal. Does that make any since to you stat gurus or am I off the wall?

Well, the answer to my little quiz was rather easy, easy compared to catching bass!

KVD made 240 casts over the 2 hours (2 per minute) and at a catch rate of 1 out of 30, he caught 8 fish, and his fish were, let's say 1.1 pound to establish the size ratio. So, KVD weighs in 8.8 lbs. Aaron Martens drop shots at 1/4th the speed, so he got in 60 casts, and at a catch rate of 1 out of 15, he caught 4 fish, and his fish were 1 pound, so 4 lbs.

Sort of elementary but you'd think a pro would want to "think" in terms like this to plan out his attack for every possible advantage.

Here is one of the big issues, though. We can never know "what might have been" so this is where a lot of record keeping really comes in handy to find and establish patterns, many of which we all know today.

And, a common problem we learned to solve in Decision Modeling was what is called The Shortest Path Problem. It determines what the best route is to save time and distance assuming the take-off point and subsequent stops along the route are all over the map. Well, for a fisherman, there is even an additional complexity. Say, after scouting the lake, knowing what the weather will be like a day of the tournament, and the angler decides to throw a top water. Will he want to make that presentation first thing in the morning, a traditional best time for top waters? If he tries that presentation later at high noon, it may net a lesser result. But, what if the area you want to top water cast in the early morning really adds to the time in your route because it has you crossing back and forth across the lake?

Fun stuff. For anyone interested in this, we could continue to work on aspects of it.

Brad

Cool. Very interesting.

Ugghhhh my head hurts

Three kinds of lies:
1) Lies
2) Damn lies
3) Statistics!

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Benjamin Disraeli/Mark Twain

You can't use statistical methods to compare catch rates because they are not random or isolated events. Calculate the random chances of making a hoop from the three point line then see who makes more, you or Lebron.

More to the point, using mean rates based on populations doesn't work with individuals. A top notch fisherman is almost always going to outfish a newbie.

Ever heard Norm McDonald (I think that's the comedians name) statistically prove Tiger Woods is the most faithful husband ever?? Funny stuff.

I'll have to check that one out...