Winston,

In recent Saturdays I receive e-mails with:

"results are now based on proportional staking according to the SP of each favuorite(sic)"


Pleasingly this outfit has now started to do what I've been doing for decades (even millennia).

Note I'm not suggesting anything untoward. Others have also independently settled on such a method, including that UK article on Impact Values.

And I often disclosed here that my ROT is calculated that way. Earlier I suggested you look back through my earlier posts for a discussion on that very topic. Incidentally I was trying to discuss that with an obvious acquaintance of yours.

So why are you trying to tell me something I evidently already know?

There is no flaw in my indicator because I don't use that for estimating probabilities.

It simply happens to be a more meaningful indicator than strike rate, because it usually copes with strike rate anomalies caused by field sizes.

I used it here late in the discussion merely to highlight what I consider a significant difference between 2 large samples.

But considering the abundant evidence I doubt whether any of this is really news to you or to any regular.