15th September 2012, 05:31 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,091
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moeee
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me.
Explain to me , how does it make any difference , whether it took 13 years or whether it took 13 weeks?
You seem to be suggesting Barny , that 111 selections over 13 years is far and away more impressive than 111 selections over 13 weeks.
If I went to the casino 111 times in 13 years and won a Total of $600.
Or if I went 111 times in one year , that's twice a week . and won a Total of $600.
Is one or the other more impressive?
|
Well moeee, it's obviously much better to have a system developed over a longer timeframe ..... That's pretty basic scientific sampling moeee. May I respectfully suggest you research it moeee. |