Originally Posted by Jorge
The converse is also true. You may create a judging pool where one or more teams gain an advantage in the event they land on more than one high scoring table.
But, they do now (in KCBS), or negative tables. In the test they had 6 tough tables (dont like the word bad) and they had 10 easy tables apparently. By keeping the tables as-is, there's a good chance that a few of the teams consistently landed on one of those 10 good/easy tables, putting the others at a distinct disadvantage. I'd personally prefer, for lack of a better word, busting the good and bad tables by shuffling judges. JMHO.