I agree. Statistics are a good thing and something that's been lacking in pool. Fargo does an okay job but I've found several holes which Mike choose to discredit and ignore. That's fine, it's his system. Waiting for someone to say the tired old pool line... "if you don't like it, make your own". Cause that helps...
There are many factors that are ignored, the biggest IMO is table size. One of thing is that playing speed isn't linear. 50 points for the lower ranked players is very different than 50 points for the higher ranked players. That's a huge flaw IMO. Hopefully Mike will take that into consideration and alter his system to becoming more accurate.
Mike hasn't ignored your views on table size. He has addressed them clearly. You may not accept his analysis, but you can't say he's ignored it.
As to the 50 points being different at lower levels than at the top level, my guess is that the answer is that the points aren't an absolute measure - it is a measure relative to players above and below them. Remember that the idea is that 100 Fargo point differential is supposed to equate to a 2:1 game differential.