Tika ADCH Chase Statistics

SUMMARY: Averaging one needed leg per trial. So--what about upcoming VAST trial?

Tika earned her MAD at the VAST USAAA trial of Sept 17, 2005. At that time, I started (very casually) counting how many legs she needed for her ADCH, figuring it was a lonnnng way away. But then she started getting more legs. Now that we're one SuperQ away from our ADCH--and the VAST Sept 2006 trial is in two weeks--I thought I'd plot our progress since then. It has been SO slow in many ways, but in fact it's much faster than Remington ever did (never even got his MAD, in fact).
The following table highlights those legs that we've earned that we needed towards the ADCH; extra legs are shown dimmed out.

Event (below)	Standard	Jumpers	Gamblers	Snooker	SuperQ	Relay	Tournament
Legs needed after MAD ->	1	4	4	0	2	1	0
9/24/05 TRACS	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
10/8/05 Haute Dawgs	-	-	-	-	-	-
10/15/05 CAT	-	-	-	2	-	1	1
1/28/06 Bay Team	-	-	-	-	1	1	-
2/4/06 VAST	-	1	-	-	-	1	1
3/18/06 CAT	1	-	1	-	-	-	-
4/13/06 Haute TRACS	-	1	-	-	-	1	1
4/29/06 SMART	-	-	1	-	-	-	1
5/6/06 Bay Team	-	-	1	1	-	1	-
6/23/06 NAF	-	-	-	1	-	-	2
8/26/06 SMART	1	1	1	-	-	1	2
9/2/06 Bay Team	-	1	-	1	-	-	2
Legs needed now ->	0	0	0	0	1	0	0

So, in theory, we SHOULD get the missing SuperQ at VAST in two weeks because:

It would be poetic justice to finish the ADCH on the 1-yr anniversary of our MAD.

We've been averaging one needed leg per trial, and that's the only one left that we need.

However, we probably WON'T get it because:

I feel like we SHOULD get it for the preceding reasons

I really really really want that leg

I always crap out when I really really want a particular Q

We haven't gotten it so far, why should VAST be any different?

Huh. OK, why do I overanalyze like this? Just let it happen, go with the flow--