> Hmm. So I say halves is better, give three
> example games, with win rates _AND_ SCORE
> for each, and somehow that is wrong?

> I guess I don't get it.

> I _gave_ the SCORE. I _gave_ the hourly win
> rate. You seem to imply I didn't mention
> SCORE at all. It is in my _original_ post.

> Is the attention span here so incredibly
> short that the details go missed? My
> original error was the wong-in/wong-out
> which skewed the DD results mainly. Don said
> I had fixed the min bet and bankroll, which
> is not the right way to compare. But I had
> not fixed the min bet.

> As I said, details, details, nobody reads
> details, just "jump in and flail
> away"...

> And I wonder why I bother...

SSR,
I have NOT read every post in this string. It is simply not worth it to me. Undoubtedly, if I took the trouble to find where you went wrong and made my case we would add ad nauseum to this string. So, I stand down from the specifics of this argument. You win.

There was a time when I read every single post on this page in order to learn. That is now largely a waste of time.

Let's say you did discover an anomoly that got by the "Masters". Does it not occur to you that your own discovery process doesn't deserve the magnitude of exposure on this site that you generate.

Do you have no sense of your place in the scheme of things? Like Brick, I believe you have the background and experience to make a contribution to this site - but in my book it's not clear you have the judgement to do so.

Now, why did I weigh in without reading every post? Because, after the earlier string and samples of this one, I honestly don't believe you understand the risk component of the discussion. And while I am not going to go back through all the posts to prove this, I will point out to you that in the specific post I responded to you were essentially trashing the usefulenss of SCORE.