Hi Marcus,
Just an observation, I notice the letter "R' has been omitted.

I beleive that one has to have a min of 4 years of stats to see if it has any long term legs to it. Even then there is no guarantee. But it is a stronger guarantee than something based on just one year .

I get confused where certain people use the word retrofitting as a derogatory term , the opposite to this is creating systems based on the future with results unknown as yet.
Past history is an excellent starting point when creating systems .

I run a number of plans all at once , the SR is there but the divs fluctuate markedly, thus , the POT changes month to month.
E.g. 21-25% SR and a POT from 1%-40% in any given month.

The suggestion that a large data base is no more affective than a small sample , is a mathematical abserdaty.
All data companies rely on large data samples to help obtain a truer picture of probability towards the future. e.g. engineering , space research , medical research , science and the running of many simulations , not just one or two.

The first question of any statistical analysis that is always asked is , what size data sample was used?
The larger the data sample , the more credability it is given, rightly or wrongly.

Cheers.

__________________
Cheers.