Assuming I understand what you mean, I'll say it yet again-- I'm NOT saying that she was better than 50/50 to run back to the figure that day, which is why I bet her to X. I'm saying that it was far more likely for her to run that figure because she had previously done so than if she had not. Is it more likely to see that 1 off 7-1-4, or 7-9-4? Because if I had done the day the way Ragozin did, that's how it would be (and I know the pattern is different on Ragozin, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE QUESTION FROM THE ONE UNDER DISCUSSION, WHICH IS THE ONE I STATED ABOVE}. If you are asking me in % terms, I would have made her maybe 30-40% to run back to the big number, as opposed to maybe 5% if her top was 3 points worse.

But all of this has taken us far afield (and I believe intentionally) from the point-- the BC number is just another piece of evidence, along with all the other things I mentioned (some of them before I saw what Ragozin had given her) that our figure is correct and theirs is not.

If you think this is loud, wait until tomorrow, but I have to check some stuff first.



TGJB