In the literature, Milesky, Tucker, et.al. they use GAMMADIST with parameters
of (alpha,beta,x,cum). However my Excel has the parameters of
(x,alpha,beta,cum). Did GAMMADIST change? merely shifting "x" to the
implied new order does NOT provide the same results!

tsterkel -

My copy of Function Reference for Excel 4.0 (copyright 1992) shows

GAMMADIST(x,alpha,beta,cumulative)

- Mike Middleton
http://www.DecisionToolworks.com
Decision Analysis Add-ins for Excel



"tsterkel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3A32E2F8-0585-4CDF-B350-(E-Mail Removed)...
> In the literature, Milesky, Tucker, et.al. they use GAMMADIST with
> parameters
> of (alpha,beta,x,cum). However my Excel has the parameters of
> (x,alpha,beta,cum). Did GAMMADIST change? merely shifting "x" to the
> implied new order does NOT provide the same results!

If you would provide a reference to the article, we miight be able to tell
you what the authors actually did.

Jerry

"tsterkel" wrote:

> In the literature, Milesky, Tucker, et.al. they use GAMMADIST with parameters
> of (alpha,beta,x,cum). However my Excel has the parameters of
> (x,alpha,beta,cum). Did GAMMADIST change? merely shifting "x" to the
> implied new order does NOT provide the same results!