<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>33.33%. Just guessing.<BR><BR>Vicente "Vince" Bortone<BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "Dave Burton" <burtona@atmc.net><BR>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:30:58 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format<BR><BR>What's the probability the zero was the correct score????????<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email<BR>Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:24 PM<BR>To: General pattern discussion<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format<BR><BR>Wayne Galligan wrote:<BR>> Verne,<BR>><BR>> What about the occasional 9-0-8.5 score<BR>><BR>> ooops!!! Did I just open up a snap controversy?<BR>><BR>> Wayne Galligan<BR>This is was why there at least 2 or 3 judges, rounds are normalized and <BR>low rounds dropped. It tends to smooth out the inconsistencies.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR></div></body></html>