You misrepresented my post by saying that I put everything on this one evaluation model to be completely accurate across all players and ages. I didn't. I specifically made it very clear that was not the case.
Lol, what? How did I misrepresent that?
You literally did put everything on the one evaluation model. Your whole entire "calculation" and thread is based around how close real contracts are to this one model...
You can say "oh it's a bit flawed", but that didn't stop you from using it. That didn't stop you from posting it. That didn't stop you from saying you took an "objective look" , knowing full well that you had your mind made up ages ago. That didn't stop you from saying you used "all of the data available", which is clearly untrue, and you even admit it. That didn't stop you from stating conclusions that weren't even supported by your own results, and making assumptions about what it would show you if the tax advantage was true. If you didn't put a lot into that model to be right across all players and circumstances, we wouldn't be here in this thread.
Literally all you said about the flaws of the model was that there were a couple wonky outliers that may not line up with people's thoughts. There is so much more wrong with this method, and all I did was point out some of them.
And I'll post this again, since all you seem to do is personally attack me and run away from answering things about
your methods in
your thread, while
you literally do the thing that you ran away because of last time. Even by your evaluation, the average of the 5 no-tax states is
98.38%. The average of the 5 locations with taxes over 50% is
113.16%.
