I was sent a packet that included statistics on the markets they operate in, local economic stats, demographic analysis, stats on their vacancy rates, and some background on the MI.

As a coach, when I was deciding whether to send or hold a runner rounding third base, I was aggressive. if the defense had to make a perfect play to throw the runner out, I would make them make the perfect play, as I was a finance major and I knew statistically I had a better chance of them screwing something up and my guy scoring than I did them making the perfect play.

I am sure if there were statistics of people who became successful after reading that book or that course is probably low. 

This should be printed 100 point bold with flashing letters.  

Obviously it matters how they're trained BUT It all comes down to statistics.

I've owned property in Albany for 20 years(and elsewhere as well, so I have enough experience to judge these things with some statistical power.)

<------- THIS. a lot of people are having problems with using averages and medians in statistics, leading them to confused conclusions, not taking into account the whole picture or how a small unrelated change can completely misinterpret and undermine a whole other set of data. 

Where did this 97% statistic come from?

You are correct in that the second one highlights statistically higher risk areas.

Anyone know what the real statistics are?