[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Although I don't quite understand the spot picking of certain sample sizes. I believe you did this with the database I bought from you (where you inexplicably omitted large samples of hands). Although there were enough hands to justify the purchase, one has to wonder why you would do so. The default assumpion (in the absense of any explanation), has to be that you ommited some adverse stretches for aesthetic's sake. In a book, it's not like people can derive a more thorough analysis on your play from any larger of a sample size, so I don't understand the omission here either unless it is again for aesthetic reasons. The bigger the sample size, the more meaning statistical figures have. Why not use them all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stox, is there any truth to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The wording lestat used is a bit unclear, but as to "cherry picking" anything, anywhere, there is no truth to that. I have been in touch with him via PM and I will quote part of his response here -

"No worries Stox. I wasn't attacking or insulting you. On the contrary, I think it's commendable that you did NOT cherrypick sample sizes for your book (I thought I made that clear)."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I thought and I appreciate your response.