Alright. Pause. Breathe..... okay.
Here's what I hear you saying. Noise in a measurement need only be reduced to the desired resolution of the effect size you're looking for (actually not even that far, but that's besides the point). I hear you, and I probably understand your point better than you realize.
What I'm saying is you need to be careful in generalizing your conclusions. Tournament grade paint is
widely available. It is within the realm of day-to-day play to be shooting very good paint (as far as paint goes), and is desirable to most people on this forum. Furthermore, if an effect that might cause an increase in accuracy is dependent
on the paint quality - meaning relative changes in accuracy increase or decrease as the paint quality changes, you may have missed it by using the grade of paint you seem to have used. You cannot know the strength of this dependence well enough to say there are no circumstances where you might see an improvement in accuracy on the field. To be using high quality fresh paint is not outside of the realm of possibility for daily play, but that condition has not been covered by this test. And in fact, because the rails make contact with the ball in a limited number of small areas, I would fully expect any possible gains in accuracy to quickly disappear as paint roundness decreases.
The bottom line is we already know bad paint shoots poorly. I think it's fair to say most of us buy the best paint we can afford/find. So in my opinion it makes sense to use the best quality of paint you can for tests like these.
Again I appreciate the time, effort and money you have put into these tests. Thank you, you have certainly put a constraint on accuracy improvements within the conditions they were tested.
This post has been edited by Egomaniacal: 24 September 2012 - 04:32 PM