RE: 687: It is possible to get the average with the data that I gather but there would be biased problems with the average. I am able to gather about 4,250 data points not all current 57,400+ total data points. Of that 4,250 data points, at the very least, there are 2,600 unique data points and the other 1,650 have potentially duplicate data but not all. The 4,250 data points I gather are the top 50 of 85 fan rooms possible. The average would be skewed to a higher average versus if I get the bottom 50 and average those out. I don't have access to anything beyond the top 50 of 85 fan rooms. Taking this all into account, having duplicate data along with skewed high data points would create inaccurate garbage average. That is just the logical explanation side of it. I haven't even explained the programming a new script to gather and collate data into an Excel file process side yet. It would be great to get an average but it would be a lot of work with limited data point resources. If I had full admin access to all the pick'ems data then it would be marginally easier but still difficult. The only data I have but have not released are the points range for the top 1%, 2%, and 3%. Like this past week 12, this is how it would breakdown.

Top 1%: 1 (123 points) - 574 (114 points)
Top 2% 575 (114 points) - 1148 (112 points)
Top 3% 1149 (112 points) - 1722 (111 points)
Top 4% 1723 (111 points) - ??? (??? points)

This was one of the better outcomes. I usually can't get enough data points for where exactly 3% ends and 4% actually starts and that is why I don't show the top 4% range. I don't exactly know where and who the top 4% end because top 50's don't usually have those listed but I can estimate by doubling the end of 2% range or take the end of 3% range and add the end of 1% range or just flat out take the end of the 1% range and multiple it by four. Too much math, gonna stop here or I could go on forever but this is a big enough wall of words so far. LOL