same here:

63:37 (23)
59:41 (24)
58:42 (20)
71:29 (21)
74:26 (22)
71:29 (12)
60:40 (34)
63:37 (2)

monthly average=

51 : 49 (122)

something is def wrong since my attack-rate seems even higher then Montes and cummulative is even lower...?

Please fix this

same here.

sry i'm drunk

sigh...

Already posted about it. The att:def ratio uses only the very first game in the month you had. That's also why there can be people with 100% defence in the leaderboard without having 0:100 ratio all the time.

i hereby give all credit to danny_dcb for discovering this error.

Of course. It was never a matter of question to begin with. I'm simply the best. Better than all the rest.

Should you also figure in the number of rounds you were in each game?

Getting back to the issue of weighting for the number of rounds, I took the last 10 games of Montecarlo at a time that he had played 10 games for the day and checked his per-round attack/defend against his daily ratio as shown in the daily tally.

Here are the numbers (attack:defend rounds)
56:44 27
42:58 04
54:46 09
40:60 03
58:42 17
40:60 27
55:45 09
63:37 18
64:36 20
66:34 09

The weighted average of the attack percentage by rounds per game comes out to 54.93 (for 143 rounds) while the daily average is listed at 60.

One thing I checked is whether the rounds per game are for the player or for the whole game. They are for the player.

I think the cause of the discrepancy is rounds in which a player neither attacks or defends are not counted in the tallies. If the attack/defend percentages represent only rounds in which Montecarlo attacked or defended, the number of said rounds, for a total of 78.55 attacks, to be equivalent to 60 percent, would be 131 rounds instead of 143.