RacerRay52@aol.com wrote:
> Not a perfect index. Perfection is not attainable. Just a better
> one. A consistent, stable, rational one.
> I never said that I have been losing a lot. Modesty prevents me
> from writing too much about my performance and results.
> It is the constant changing and lack of local pertinence
> of the PAX that I don't like for local use.
I don't understand your dislike for the annual revisions of the PAX
index (and every other popular index system).
The index is an approximation based on limited data. Every year, there
are changes in classing, and there's also more data. Doesn't it make
sense to revise the index periodically?
Mark
|