>Oh, I agree completely that going with a "rolling low is good" convention
>is a good thing. I just think that this effect can wind up being unfair.
Whenever you deal with a statistical oddity like this the question is how much simplicity you want to sacrifice in order to stamp it out. Conveniently, the people most bothered by the anomaly are the likeliest to be willing to accept additional complexity. They should probably adopt the house rule you proposed, or something like it.
Take care >>> Robin
Powered by hypermail