redsales: Dude, basing it on 16 is the same thing as using percentages except that percentages are based on 100. That's why they're easy to compare. 4 of 16 is 25%, so is 24 of 96. ratios can quite easily be added too. Using your numbers 36 of 96 and 4 of 16 gives 40 of 112. Then you can make a percentage of that and it is easy to compare other people's percentages. Whether or not the number has much value for comparing is a whole different thing. That is why I and others devised a way to weight the numbers to try and make them more relavent for judging someone's ability ahead of actually playing them or using it as a rating so a game might be created with equally rated or narrow range of players like for other games instead of having it open to all comers. I doubt if any of the numbers will matter much in a game that has as high a factor of luck and unknowns in it as Run Around the Pond. Imagine if we tried to develope statistics like this for Backgammon? Number of pieces on the board when the game ends, total points, and all sorts of other things one can come up with, like number of doubles thrown you lucky people. All's that really matters is if one wins regularly or not, but someone might want the stats for some other reason. Seems like the same thing here except for the fact that there's usually only one or just a few losers. Everyone else beats someone during the course of the game. Ed proposed a system for keeping track of that too. Every person that you last longer than gives you more points is how he had it.

I don't have a knickname, but I'm stubborn too. I think I've said enough on the subject and will give it a rest for a week or so and let others have the floor. Thank you for your time all. And I hope Fencer has listened to all or comes up with something workable if he isn't going to leave the Pond game as it is.

Walter