Whether it's a simple thank you for digging up & rereading 2 yr old research or access to the specific results of original research which took many hundreds of hrs to perform. As one poster pointed out recently, the value of such information is inversely related to the extent of its dissemination. Personally, assuming I was confident in the person's opinion, I would like to know if something I believed was wrong even if the person could not tell me exactly why. Finally, the last thing I would ever do is put my unit on the table, as I have no doubt that there are some who might try to take advantage of the fact that it was in an exposed position.

PS Chris: It appears someone let all of the dogs out. If you like the Giants in the next round, let me know so we can arrange a "friendly" wager. One thing I know for certain is that both of us are faster pay than any cyberbook. By the way, let me know if you know how I can get my hands on a rally monkey for use at the track. After Sun, I think I might need to resort to something a little out of the ordinary.

Fatso: Congrats on winning a place in the Championship. I've tried 3 qualifying tourneys so far & think what you did is quite an accomplishment. If you're willing to share how you did it, I for one would be all ears.

David: If I seem smug, & I didn't read Alydar's post as accusing me of that, it's for two reasons. One is because I am confident in the research. The other is because of the law of large nos, which in my mind always trumps anecdotal evidence. Every approach produces its share of winners & longshot winners, & if your personal interpretation of the bounce theory has resulted in a positive long term roi, then my suggestion is that you ignore what I said & keep doing what you're doing.