another thing I am interested in and maybe one of you guys could shed some light on this
theres a real trend where on super short rounds like < 1 min , my reward is significantly higher than a more average time round
do you guys have an idea about that?
On very short rounds, your variance will be higher. So you should expect to receive high payment in some and low payment in others. It's possible you've been "lucky" and so far seen only high payments in such rounds.
im not putting down slushs pool, It is the best choice for me right now, I have significantly mined on the top pools recently and have been studying this very subject. I love Slush's pool but I tell you I loved it more 100 g/hash ago.
I know that theoretically the round times and the rewards per share should all equal out, I understand that but the reality is because of the luck involved in finding blocks, they just dont.
Its a combination of luck/difficulty and user/speed ratios
DeepBit's average round time is the shortest anywhere, and because of all the competition the rewards are very very small, however they still get nailed with 90 min rounds every now and then... plus the fees kill you
if you go to the smaller guys like BTCMine or BTC Guild you get much bigger rewards per round, but those guys are still seeing 4, 5 hour rounds
in theory yes it all equals out in the end but I have really been studying this to some depth and I really believe there is a sweet spot so to speak, where you have a high enough g/hash range to effectively mine but not too high to make competition for the 50 BTC per round too fierce.
I am actually going to write an article about this and publish my findings, there's a real quantifiable speed/user ratio that does make a difference despite what everyone says about things equaling out.
sometimes the way things are supposed to be arent 100% true.
To put it gently, I'm very skeptical of your findings. Please let someone review them before you refer everyone to your article, otherwise it could just spread confusion.
).
)
and it 's not good for us) 
