Sorry, I probably screwed up on my addressee of my last post. However, the validity of what I said is still true. I'm going to make a few more statement in summary and this will be all I'm going to say about the issue. As I read the postings, I see a lot of misinterpretations regarding the complainers on the subject. Most seem to think just because one points out some perceived flaws of the game means they are troubled about playing the game. That's not necessarily true. At least it isn't for me; Despite my perception of the flaw or the the game (built-in variance), that doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing the game, win or lose, good or bad games. As most on either side of the issue has often stated, it's only a game. Hopefully, what I'm now about to say will help resolve the issue. In reality the issue is a moot thing. Whether the game is flawed or not does not really matter. Everyone is playing on the same courses under the same circumstances, so does it really matter? Arguments on both sides have some merit and is not worth arguing about. To repeat, yes, it is only a game. Saying this does not change the validity of what I said, although maybe I should have toned down some of the language. Even the hardliners probably know the variance is an artificial means to simulate realism; this much is obviously a fact.. Nobody, not even WGT, is perfect. The whole controversry seems to be over whether or not the variance does make the game more realistic. I opine that it does not, but I respect the right for anyone to disagree. Finally, though does this really matter? As stated above we all are playing under the same circumstance, and no matter what the situation is, the better skilled players are going to come out on top.