My statement of opinion above is based on the number of blocks waiting to be confirmed at any given time. For example as of now Oz has 9 blocks on confirmation while Slush has 6. And as I said in my previous post, current stats aren't accurate as Oz has a consistently higher hash. This is just my observations from mining at both for awhile.
I see. Unfortunately you're looking at a short term difference there. I'd only be confortable saying there's a significant difference between pools if I had a significant number of observations which I could compare. A second problem is defining the luck. This can be done by comparing the pool's hashrate and blocks found to the networks' hashrate and blocks found. If it is greater than expected, you're lucky. Or you can compare total round shares Difficulty. Once you've determined how you define you're luck, you can figure out how many observations you need to compare the pools. Or compare results for each pool to the expected population results.
See the last two sets of charts at
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/77000.msg855078#msg855078 for these two types of luck measurement.
You don't suppose the fact that Ozcoin requires 120 confirmations and Slush requires only 100 confirmations might account for perhaps 1/6 of the difference there? Which narrows the difference between 9 confirming and 6 confirming a fair bit, or were you simply unaware of that difference?
Thralen
It does, but as the current difference is 6 to 16 even the 20 extra confirms doesn't make me feel better about Slush. This is all relative as Oz has a higher hash rate right now.
Using confirming blocks is not a robust measurement of luck. But if you want to do this, you'll need to take into account the pools' % of network hashrate as well as the number of confirms until valid.
