BGonline.org Forums

RO of your 38-43 position

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Saturday, 6 February 2010, at 9:56 p.m.

In Response To: RO of your 38-43 position (Ian Shaw)

I think this illustrates my contention that the table is intended to apply to low-wastage positions in general. (As with all generalizations, there are exceptions.)

I'm not sure we can know precisely what was "intended" (unless Walter left us notes to that effect), but clearly based on your example here and Neil's other rollout results, that's what the table does (i.e., applies to low-wastage positions).

As David (mostly), and you, and I, have said in different ways, it makes sense to use the gold standard table (with N57 formula at 57 and above, and lower-Trice below 57) at least until we make a complete changeover (if we ever do).

In other words, whatever was intended, the gold standard table isn't "wrong" or even inaccurate, really (i.e., we're in agreement). It just uses low median wastage rather than minimal wastage, and with that in mind it really is a very strong and meaningful standard.

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• Gold Standard Table and related topics
  David Rockwell -- Friday, 5 February 2010, at 7:11 p.m.
  • RO of your 38-43 position
    neilkaz -- Friday, 5 February 2010, at 7:38 p.m.
    • RO of your 38-43 position
      David Rockwell -- Friday, 5 February 2010, at 8:03 p.m.
      • Minimum wastage vs "natural"
        Nack Ballard -- Friday, 5 February 2010, at 9:59 p.m.
    • RO of your 38-43 position
      Ian Shaw -- Saturday, 6 February 2010, at 9:19 p.m.
      • RO of your 38-43 position
        Nack Ballard -- Saturday, 6 February 2010, at 9:56 p.m.
    • RO of your 38-43 position
      Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 7 February 2010, at 4:53 a.m.