Quote from: organofcorti on December 24, 2013, 07:20:56 AM

Quote from: J_Dubbs on December 24, 2013, 06:42:37 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on December 24, 2013, 06:24:30 AM

Quote from: InfiniteGrim on December 24, 2013, 06:17:43 AM

This is BAD. Plus my share per round has gone from .0028 to .0020 with the pool growing. BOO

Your share of the reward per round has dropped with an increase in the pool hashrate, but you can expect more rounds per unit time. Your expected reward per day is unaffected by pool size, only by your hashrate and the network difficulty.

Definitely makes sense to expect more rounds per unit of time with more power behind the pool, however, that is clearly not how things are playing out in the real-world.

I use "expected" in the mathematical sense, to mean "average". If it's not working out like that, then either you're not allowing enough time for variance to reduce, or you're not taking into account network difficulty changes, or there's a problem at Slush's pool. It's shouldn't be too hard to figure out which if you have enough time and enough data.

Ya... I'm not dumb, I understand your usage of the terms, but academics and statistical modeling take a backseat occasionally during a discussion like this. Problem is no one is plotting the data, much less collecting it to quantify later for analysis; but I bet if you throw avg daily round times on a Pareto chart that this week and last show a major breakpoint in round length compared to a month ago. I feel like the reported "luck" is way off from what it actually is. We would get one 12 hour round per week before, now we almost get one per day.