I'd be a lot higher on Jones' computer analysis if his conclusions fit what we know to be the case, based on physical evidence we can observe. Based on computer analysis, he refers to the high % of single pellet breaks that must occur in order to produce straights at skeet. The issue there is that anyone who's walked around a skeet field won't have any trouble at all finding unbroken targets with at least one hole; occasionally two. When what the computer tells you doesn't match physical evidence, it's probably time to reevaluate your computer analysis. I eagerly await Dr. Jones' analysis of what % of single pellet strikes on the skeet range do NOT result in a broken target.