Hi Everyone! Thank you to everyone who has purchased from me already! Same process and rules. I will consider all reasonable offers (besides my high end palettes) and if you want even further discounted prices, you can check this post (generally 10% off the prices here). Please note that everything is crossposted and is first come, first serve. I do not do holds; the only way to confirm your items is by paying for them.
My feedback forms are here:
(Most recent: 2023 Pt 1)
https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/104k7ro/2023_muesce_seller_feedback/
(2021) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/p3q3h2/muesce_seller_feedback/
(2022 Pt 1) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/srspyq/2022_muesce_seller_feedback/
I always try to go above and beyond for my buyers and I think my feedback speaks for itself 💯🥰
Now, that’s out of the way, let’s get onto the rules! This is an absolute monster of a list so please go through everything carefully.
RULES/NOTES: PLEASE READ

• Please do not price control my post. I am not Sephora, Ulta, etc. If you do not like the price, then please just keep on moving.
• Everything is brand new, authentic, and full sized- if not, it will be stated.
• If you cannot pay, then please do not claim!! Serious buyers only please. Prices are clearly listed. I will be blocking ghosters and people who make rude comments from now on.
• $4-$6.68 shipping if package under 16 oz/1 lb. Shipping will increase based on weight and location. Packages over 16 ounces will have to be sent as Priority Mail ($9-$11 shipping). Shipping in the US only. Please note that shipping may be delayed due to the holidays.
• Items will be shipped within 3 business days after payment is made, but I do try my hardest to ship ASAP!
• $15 minimum before shipping.
• Please ensure your PayPal address is up to date- I am not responsible if you enter an old address and can only ship to the address on file.
• Items with a strikethrough have been sold. Please keep in mind that this is cross posted and things will sell fast. Not doing swaps at this time and no holds- you have 12 hours to confirm and pay or I will move to NIL
• Please don't ghost me - I promise to be understanding if you end up not wanting something but please just let me know! If you have ghosted me in the past, then I have the right to refuse to sell to you.
• Please send me your PayPal email/pay asap through chat/pm so I can get you shipped out quick!
• I take a lot of pride in communication and giving the best service possible- I have 100+ 5 star reviews on selling and buying on other platforms. Any problems that arise, will be handled by me so please reach out!

Lastly, let's keep it fun! Please no drama- I spent hours/days on this post and I’m exhausted. I am one person and am doing my best. If there are any mistakes (wrong picture, blurry, etc) just let me know and I will fix it. I am happy to take any additional pictures and provide extra details. Please ask before purchasing! Also, please note that I will be shipping from Cali so PST time.
Okay, I think that’s it! Thank you for reading and have fun shopping! :)
*RV = Retail Value
EYESHADOW/FACE PALETTES

1. Pat McGrath Celestial Nirvana $58 RV $82
2. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Nude Venus) $40 Retails $62
3. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Divine Rose) $40 Retails $62
4. Pat McGrath Bronze Bliss eyeshadow palette $30
5. Pat McGrath Bridgerton 2 $50
6. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Trio palette $43
7. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Blushing Delights $40 INSIDE
8. Pat McGrath Bronze Borealis Quad $40 box is damaged
9. Pat McGrath Ritualistic Rose Quad $40 RV $65
10. Natasha Denona Retro Glam $55 RV $69 (has a nicked shade 'holly')
11. Natasha Denona My Dream Palette $58 RV $69
12. Natasha Denona Glam Palette $55 RV $69
13. Natasha Denona Retro $55 RV $69
14. Natasha Denona Circo Loco $90 RV $129
15. Natasha Denona Sunset $85 RV $129
16. Natasha Denona Biba Palette $60 USED INSIDE Full disclosure- this is an older palette so the formula may be a bit different/not as creamy and pigmented as a new one
17. Natasha Denona Zendo Palette $48 (3 2 available) RV $69
18. Natasha Denona Bronze $45 (4 3 available) RV $69
19. Natasha Denona Sunrise $42 USED INSIDE
20. Natasha Denona Love $40 USED INSIDE *Please note that this particular palette was notorious for inconsistencies so some of the shades are not the normal ND creamy formula
21. Natasha Denona Glam Face (dark version) $43 RV $62
22. Natasha Denona Bloom Blush and Glow palette $42 RV $59 INSIDE
23. Natasha Denona Tan $40 RV $59
24. Natasha Denona Coral $24 RV $48
25. Natasha Denona Coral $21 SWATCHED
26. Natasha Denona Ayana BNWOB $15
27. Natasha Denona Mini Love $18 RV $27
28. Natasha Denona Mini Zendo $18 RV $27
29. Natasha Denona All Over Glow Shade 02 Medium BNWOB INSIDE $18
30. Huda Empowered $50 RV $67
31. Huda Rose Quartz palette $48 RV $67
32. Huda Naughty palette $46 (4 available) RV $67
33. Huda Naughty- swatched $38. Close up here
34. Huda Beauty New Nude $42
35. Huda Wild Chameleon Palette $19 INSIDE
36. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk Beautifying Face Palette Medium-Deep $60 RV $75
37. Charlotte Tilbury Smokey Eyes are Forever $50 RV $75
38. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk 12 pan palette $45 RV $75 INSIDE (new but no box)
39. Charlotte Tilbury Easy Eye Darling (6 pans)
40. $40 for BNIB, $38 for BNWOB, This one is swatched for $35 here
41. Charlotte Tilbury Filmstar Bronze and Glow (Light to Medium) $48- no box
42. Charlotte Tilbury Flimstar Bronze and Glow (Medium to Dark) $48
43. Charlotte Tilbury ‘Dazzling Diamonds’ $35 RV $53 swatched
44. Charlotte Tilbury Sunset Dreamscape Face Palette RV $75 NO BOXES (discontinued)
45. I have one BN for $50, one looks touched on the top right shade so $46
46. I have 2 that are swatched/used with no boxes here Left is $38, Right is $40
47. Chanel Quad in ‘79 Spices’ $50 Retails $68
48. Patrick Ta Major Headlines Vol 2 $48 RV $58
49. Patrick Ta Rose Dimensions 2 Palette $55
50. Tom Ford Desert Fox $45
51. Tom Ford Pretty Baby Palette 2 shades broken so $35. I can try to repress for you or you can take it as is
52. GIVENCHY Le 9.01 $45 RV $65
53. HOURGLASS Ambient Lighting Palette Vol 3 $40
54. Melt Mariposas Eyeshadow palette $45
55. Melt Mariposas Blush palette $35
56. Melt Cosmetics Mary Jane $43
57. Melt Cosmetics Smoke Sessions $33 (Had one broken shade at the right that I repressed)
58. Urban Decay Naked Wild West $33 (2 available)
59. Urban Decay Naked Honey (used and has 1 repressed shade ‘Amber’) $20
60. Urban Decay NAKED Foxy Mini palette- $15 RV $29
61. Too Faced Too Femme palette $30 (3 1 available)
62. ABH Primrose Palette $40
63. ABH Primrose- New but repressed 2 shades (‘Rose Water’ and ‘Fire Opal’). Although I did my best to repress, cannot guarantee how they will be during transit. $35 RV $55
64. ABH Amrezy $35 RV $49 (discontinued)
65. ABH Amrezy (used and repressed one shade ‘Litty’, no box) $25
66. ABH Rose Metals $40 RV $55 (2 1 available)
67. ABH Norvina $29 (2 shades were repressed)
68. ABH Glow Kit Sugar $22 SWATCHED INSIDE
69. Tarte Sugar Rush Sweet Tarte Frosted $22 (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades)
70. Jaclyn Hill Rouge Romance 'Rouge Affair' SWATCHED $28 INSIDE
71. Viseart Tryst 9 pan Palette $22 USED
72. Jeffree Star Alien palette- discontinued and rare
73. One still in packaging- make me an offer!
74. One with no box. I’m going to say swatched 2 shades to be safe - make me an offer! INSIDE
75. Jeffree Star Blue Blood palette- $30 INSIDE
76. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar palette $30 INSIDE

Eyeshadow Palettes that are New but Name your price!

1. ICONIC Sunset to Sunrise Palette
2. True and Luscious Lucky Glow Palette
3. Suva Beauty Protege Palette INSIDE
4. PUR 4-in-1 Face palette in Medium Tan

Eyeshadow Palettes that have been swatched/lightly used- Name your price!

1. BH Cosmetics It’s My RayeRaye
2. BH Cosmetics In-Nude-endo INSIDE
3. Violet Voss Pinky Promise INSIDE
4. OPVbeauty Spotlight palette INSIDE
5. Hank and Henry Living in Color palette INSIDE

PRIMERS

1. Bobbi Brown Vitamin Enriched Eye Base FS
   1. One is BNIB $40, 2 are BNWOB $38
2. Charlotte Tilbury Brightening Youth Glow $38 RV $55
3. GLAMGLOW SuperMattify Primer $23
4. Dr Brandt pores no more Luminizer Primer $15 each (3 available, only one has box)
5. Urban Decay Primer Potion in shade ‘Eden’ $15
6. Ole Henriksen Banana primer (used 2x) $18
7. Tarte Timeless Smoothing Primer $25 (2 1 available)
8. Too Faced Primed & Poreless+ $15 (box damaged and used 1x)

Mascaras Verification Photo

1. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk in ‘Super Black’ $20
2. Lancome Dèfinicils High Definition Lengthening Mascara $18 (2 1 available)
3. Dermelect XL Lash Volumizer $10
4. IT cosmetics Superhero Mascara $15 (2 1 available)
5. Trestique Good Vibes mascara $6
6. Trestique Good Vibes mascara + Eye pencil $8
7. Petite n Pretty Fully Feathered Mascara $3
8. Benefit Lashes all the Way set $15

Setting Powders

1. ByTerry Hyaluronic Hydra-Powder $35 RV $60
2. Hourglass Veil Translucent Powder $36 (2 1 available)

Highlighters

1. Cover FX glitter drops in shade Aurora $12
2. Cover FX custom drops in shade Blossom $12 (2 1 available)
3. Cover FX custom drops in shade Halo $12
4. SAIE Highlighter shade Sunglow $15

LIPS

1. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar Liquid Lipstick Vault $70 RV $160 (Keep in mind to mix/shake before using as this formula gets clumpy) INSIDE
2. MAC lipstick in shade Dangerous $8
3. MAC lipstick in shade So Chaud $8
4. MAC lipstick in shade Dozen Carnations $8
5. Bali Balm sweet orange & coconut lip balm $6 (2 1 available)
6. Primera Clean Berry Lip Mask $12
7. DOSE OF COLORS lipstick in shade Date Night $8 (2 available, 1 has no box)
8. TARTE shimmering lip paint in shade Strike Gold $5
9. YENSA Super 8 Lip Oil in shade ‘On the Mauve’ $8
10. JOUER Creme Lip Liner in shade pink champagne shimmer $8
11. ABH liquid lipstick in shade ‘heathers’ $8
12. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Grape Jelly’ $7
13. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Maui’ $7 (no box)
14. Lipstick Queen Nothing but Nudes in shade ‘Tempting Taupes’ (this is new but has sweat spots (does not affect lipstick just cosmetic) $8 INSIDE
15. Charlotte Tilbury Hyaluronic Happikiss in shade ‘romance kiss’ $25
16. Charlotte Tilbury Limitless Lucky Lips in shade ‘Cherry Dream’ $18
17. YSL Slim Glow Matte Rouge in shade ‘217: Intimate Chocolate’ $15
18. Too Faced Lady Bold lipstick in shade ‘Trailblazer’ $17
19. Too Faced Lady Bold Lipstick in shade ‘Be True to You’ $17
20. Whish lip balm in ‘pink champagne’ $10
21. Tarte Maneater plumping gloss $10
22. Iconic London Lip plumping gloss in shade ‘S*x Kitten’ $12 (no box)
23. Lancome L’absolu Rouge in shade ‘120 Sienna’ $18 SWATCHED
24. Bobbi Brown Luxe Shine Intense Lipstick in shade ‘Claret’ $18 SWATCHED
25. GLOW RECIPE Watermelon lip pop $12 (no box)
26. GLOW RECIPE Blueberry lip pop $12
27. MELT Warm Nudes Mini Set $25
28. Jeffree Star Velvet Trap in shade Confessional $12 (no box)
29. Natasha Denona Lip Color 34 Fuchsia Red $14

BLUSHES

1. Rodial Blush Drops $12

BRONZERS

1. Marc Jacobs O!mega Bronzer in shade ‘Tantalize’ $35 (new but no box) INSIDE
2. Huda Glowish in shade ‘Light 01’ $20
3. ABH Powder Bronzer in shade ‘Saddle’ $18
4. LYS Beauty Bronzer in shade ‘Motivate’ $10

Eyeshadow Liquids/Singles

1. HAUS Labs Liquid Shimmer Powder in shade ‘Legend’ $8
2. DOSE OF COLORS single eyeshadow in shade ‘Jackpot’ $5
3. MELT eyeshadow single in shade ‘Amelie’ $8

EYELINER and BROWS

1. Charlotte Tilbury Legendary Brown Tinted Brow Gel in shade ‘Soft Brown’ $18 BNWOB
2. Benefit Gimme Brow+ in shade ‘3’ $12
3. ABH Brow Bae-sics Deluxe Kit in shade ‘Taupe’ $20
4. Laura Geller line-n-define in shade Black $5
5. MELT Allday Everyday Eyeliner in shade ‘Baked’ $12

FOUNDATION/Concealer

1. Pat McGrath Skin Fetish Sublime Perfection concealer in shade ‘L1’ used 1x $25
2. BECCA Ultimate Coverage foundation shade ‘Vanilla’ $15
3. BECCA Ultimate Coverage in shade ‘Linen’ Used 2x $5 (Keep in mind this is a thicker formula)
4. Natasha Denona Transformatte foundation in shade ‘22W’ $15
5. Too Faced Born this Way concealer in shade ‘Chestnut’ used 2x $10
6. KVD Lock it powder foundation in shade Light 125 $20
7. BareMinerals BAREPRO Performance Wear Liquid Foundation in shade ‘Shell 7.5’ $10 used 2x
8. Bobbi Brown Fluid Powder Foundation in shade ‘N-070’ used 2x $10

BRUSHES

1. MODA Powder and Soft Glow Brush $12
2. MODA 5 pc Deluxe eye Kit $15
3. LUXIE Glitter and Gold 9 piece Brush Set $30 (2 available)
4. Too Faced Mr. Chiseled Contouring Brush $14

SKINCARE:

1. Tatcha Water Cream $52 Retails $70
2. Tatcha The Essence 2.5 fl oz (sealed) $40 Retails $65
3. Tatcha The Essence (sealed) 5.0 fl oz $68 Retails $110
4. Tatcha the Silk Peony $40 Retails $62
5. Drunk Elephant C-Firma Fresh Day Serum $55 RV $78 (2 available)
6. Drunk Elephant TLC Framboos Glycolic Night Serum $62 RV $90 (3 available)
7. Drunk elephant A-Passioni Retinol Cream $50 RV $74(2 available)
8. Drunk elephant Virgin Marula Facial Oil $45 RV $68
9. Drunk Elephant Protini Powerpeptide Resurf Serum $58 RV $82 (3 available)
10. Drunk Elephant TLC Sukari Babyfacial $58 RV $80
11. Drunk Elephant Shaba Complex Eye Serum $43 RV $60
12. Drunk Elephant C-Tango Eye Cream $40 RV $64
13. La Mer Moisturizing Cream $45 RV $95 (Yes, La Mer is expensive af lol) 0.5 oz/ 15mL BOTTOM NO BOX
14. Bobbi Brown Hydrating Face Cream $38 RV $64
15. Dr. Brandt Time Defying Cream FS $30 RV $135
16. Dr. Brandt Triple Antioxidant Eye Cream $18 (3 2 available)
17. ELEMIS Superfood Glow Priming moisturizer $18 (2 1 available)
18. Sunday Riley Tidal (new but beat up box) $35
19. SUNDAY RILEY Light Hearted Sunscreen $30
20. FARMACY Daily Greens Moisturizer $25 (2 1 available)
21. Farmacy Cheer Up Cherry Eye Cream $18
22. Grown Alchemist Detox Night Cream $18 (2 1 available)
23. Lancome Lait Galatee Confort Makeup Remover $25
24. Lancome Tonique Confort Hydrating Facial Toner $25
25. Saturday Skin Glycolic Toner $18
26. BeautyStat Universal C Eye Perfector $20 RV $65
27. Biossance Squalane and Omega Repair Cream $38 RV $58 (no box)
28. Malin + Goetz recovery treatment oil $30 RV $82
29. Grown Alchemist Matte Balancing Moisturizer
30. One BNIB $20, one BN but no box $18
31. First Aid Beauty Facial Radiance Pads 28 count $10
32. Alpha-H Liquid Gold with Glycolic Acid 100 mL $30 RV $54
33. Glo Skin Beauty Pro 5 liquid exfoliant $28 RV $58 (box is a little banged up)
34. Algenist Triple Algae Eye Renewal Balm $25 RV $68
35. AHC eye cream $15
36. Clinique pep-start eye cream $13
37. Juice beauty Stem Cellular Anti-Wrinkle Eye treatment $25 RV $50

SERUMS

1. Tatcha Dewy Serum $60 RV $89
2. Estee lauder Night Repair Serum 1.7 fl oz $65 Retails $110
3. Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair Concentrate $50 RV $82
4. Farmacy 1% Vitamin A Retinol Serum $40 RV $60
5. Herbivore Bakuchiol Serum $40 RV $54 (2 available)
6. Herbivore Emerald Oil used 1x and no box $25
7. Biossance Squalane Phyto-Retinol Serum $50 FS RV $72
8. Biossance Squalane Dark Spot Serum 15 mL $30
9. Biossance Squalane Night Serum 1 fl oz/30 mL $ $35 RV $62 (no box)
10. Algenist Elevate Advanced Retinol Serum $30 RV $98 (box is banged up)
11. AKAR restore eye serum $30 RV $85 0.3 oz/10 mL

CLEANSERS

1. La Mer the Cleansing Foam 1 oz $20
2. Glow Recipe Papaya Sorbet Cleansing Balm $23
3. Dr. Brandt Microdermabrasion Exfoliator $30 RV $79
4. Kate Somerville ExfoliKate Exfoliating Treatment $50 RV $98 2 fl oz (no box)
5. Korres Greek Yoghurt Foaming Cleanser $16 (packaging is a little dirty but sealed)
6. Origins Never a Dull Moment Skin-Brightening Face Polisher $15
7. OSEA Ocean Cleanser .6 oz/18 mL (2 available) $6 each
8. Perricone MD Vitamin C Citrus Cleanser $15

MASKS

1. Glow Recipe Watermelon Clay Facial $40 SEALED
2. Herbivore Brighten Instant Glow Mask $30 (2 available)
3. Glow Recipe Avocado Mask $26
4. FARMACY Bright on Vitamin C Mask $22
5. ELEMIS Superfood Veggie Mask $18
6. Milk Makeup Watermelon Face Mask $18
7. Dr. Brandt Vacuum Cleaner $20 RV $42
8. GLAMGLOW YouthMud Glow Stimulating & Exfoliating Treatment Mask 1 oz/30 g $12 each
   
   1. Only 1 has box but both BN
9. Origins Ginzing Peel Off Mask 2.5 fl oz $16
   
10. NudeStix Lemon-Aid Detox and micro-peel $12
    
11. TRULY Golden leaf CBD Face mask $22
    
12. Avant 8 hour radiance renewal sleeping mask 1.69 fl oz $20
    

SETS

1. Tatcha No-Filter Essentials $54
2. La Mer Set $100 ($250 value) BACK

HAIR Verification Photo

1. IGK Prenup Instant Spray Hair Mask $12
2. IGK Mistress Hair balm $14
3. AG Hair Care Fast Food Leave on Conditioner $18
4. Moroccanoil Perfect Defense Spray $13
5. Christophe Robin Daily Hair Cream $18
6. Living Proof forming paste $12
7. Moroccan Leave in Mask $12

MISC

1. Sol De Janeiro Rio Deo Deodorant (sealed) $10
2. Lilly Lashes Lash Enhancing Serum $25
3. Eyeko Eyelash Curler $8
4. Dolce and Gabbana The One Perfume
   
   1. One is 50 mL/ 1.6 Fl Oz $60 RV $96 (to be safe I’ll say used 1x)
   2. One is 75 mL/2.5 oz $80 RV $125 SEALED
5. Dolce and Gabbana Dolce Garden Travel Spray 0.25 oz/7.5 mL $18
   
6. Herbivore Coco Rose Body Scrub $18
   
7. Velour Lashes in style ‘Caption This‘ $10
   
8. MAC Lashes in style ‘B90’ $10
   
9. Lashaholic in style ‘Kiss Me’ $10
   
10. FENTY What it Dew Spray $15
    
11. OSEA Sea Minerals Mist $18
    
12. M. Greengrass dry oil spray $10
    
13. TRULY Berry Cheeky $22
    
14. Ice Roller $10 Back is cut here- idk how that happened but otherwise sealed
    

Jeffree Star Red Beanie- name your price

Demographics

• Gender: female
• Race/Ethnicity: haitian-american
• Residence: long island, ny
• Income Bracket: <30k efc of 0 (womp womp)
• Type of School: title 1 public school, <800 students total
• Hooks (Recruited Athlete, URM, First-Gen, Geographic, Legacy, etc.): URM, first gen

Intended Major(s): data science/data analytics/computer science/cybersecurity/statistics (i applied for data science to most)
Academics

• GPA (UW/W): 96ish UW? not exactly sure but i know my weighted is 100.4936
• Rank (or percentile): top 10% of class. i think there are 153 kids total in my graduating class making me top 15
• # of Honors/AP/IB/Dual Enrollment/etc.: 8 APS by the end of senior year (school offers 16 aps total) 12 honors classes / 8 college/hc classes
• Senior Year Course Load: 3 aps (ap gov, ap calc ab, ap comp sci principles), 3 college/hc classes one of them being college statistics, 2 half year electives (sociology & cultural diversity, AA history)

Standardized Testing

• SAT I: 1400 (780RW, 620M) i submitted to every college aside from rensselaer & hamilton? for some odd reason i really dont know what i was thinking
• APs: i reported them all (can you see i had 0 guidance in this process)
• ap seminar - 5
• ap research - 3
• ap us history - 4
• ap world history - 3
• ap lang - 3

Extracurriculars/Activities (super mediocre but show my passion for coding ig?)

• part time job, worked in a hair salon as an assistant to the main hair stylist. it was only me & her for the 2 years i was working there. i probably should of gotten a rec from her but its too late now!
• did a summer honors college program for 2 weeks straight where i learned python.
• coded a website thats hosted on neocities thats all abt me and my interests and hobbies and such
• 30 hrs of community service/volunteering at food drives & childrens events/parties.

Awards/Honors (super mediocre)

• principle’s list - all 4 years of high school
• national african american recognition program scholar
• AP capstone certificate
• school’s STEM honor society chapter
• AP scholar w/ distinction

Letters of Recommendation
i have absolutely no idea they could have gone either way. i know they both think im a sweetheart so perhaps they wrote some good stuff in them? i asked 2 math teachers. my geometry & algebra 2 teacher from 9th & 10th grade and my precalc teacher from 11th grade. (7.5/10)
my counselors recommendation im assuming is good because she constantly uses positive objectives to describe me! (also 7.5/10)
Interviews
didn't do any! my social anxiety is terrible and i knew it would make my application look worse if anything. i did do the optional video for washU though!
Essays
the part of my application that im most proud of tbh and i think its what has been carrying me throughout this entire process. i used the common app prompt #4 and basically wrote it within 1-2 days. once i had the idea in my head it just immediately came together. i wrote about a box that was full of rubber ducks & covered with sticky notes of quotes i had previously said that was given to me for my bday in 9th grade. discussed how it made me realize i have a distinct personality and allowed me to succeed in ways i never knew i could. tied it back to my love for math and how ironic it was that ducks, which are known for quacking, helped me realize the value in silence. i asked my counselor, english teacher, and a college professor and they all said it was extremely creative and a “strong” essay. (8.5/10)
Decisions (indicate ED/EA/REA/SCEA/RD)
Acceptances:

• sunys (brockport, oneonta, geneseo, new paltz, buffalo) (all EA)
• missouri state university ($23,435 scholarship) also got into the honors college! (EA)
• hofstra university ($35k scholarship) also got into the honors college! (EA)
• clarkson university ($40k scholarship) (RD)
• polytechnical schools, (WPI (EA) $23k scholarship, RPI (RD) $47,500 scholarship, Stevens (RD) $25k scholarship)
• university of rochester (this one shocked me) $18k scholarship (RD)
• case western reserve university (this one shocked me even more) $36k scholarship! (RD)

Waitlists:
0 so far!
Rejections:
also 0, but i expect to get a few this upcoming week LMAOOO
Pending:
- WashU (massive reach but its my top school & im really hoping!) + i had soo much fun writing the supplemental essay. i think it showed my love for both statistics & washu quite nicely
- suny bing
- northeastern (lmaoo 0 chance)
- colgate (really hoping on this one too bc my physics teacher who was fired after 1 year went here & i absolutely adored him)
- hamilton (massive reach)
- lehigh
- syracuse
Additional Information:
i didnt take a physical/life science class this year! so i explained in the additional info section on common app that the reason i didnt take one this year is because it didnt fit into my schedule as im taking 2 college-level math courses which i know are crucial for my intended major (i explained it a lot more eloquently on common app of course)

This is a new writeup for Middlemak (renamed since my previous post). Named for the emphasis on the middle finger and use of the middle-finger-upper-row locations for frequent letters
Link to Layout heatmap

QWLDG JFOU: ASRTP YNEIH ZXCVB KM,./ 

The main design criteria was:
1) Use the middle-finger-upper-row position. The middle finger is a very strong finger, and the middle-finger-upper-row is a very good location for a common letter.
2) To reduce pinballing by putting most vowels on the right hand and putting most of the frequent consonants on the left hand.
3) Reduce the number of Near Finger Bigrams (NFBs).
4) Improve hand balance.
5) Keep SFB down of course.
6) A secondary design criteria was low ring-to-pinky-rolls. I find this to be an awkward movement.
7) Maintain Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
These are all discussed in more detail below. (Middlemak was based on Colemak so I’ll be talking in that sense for some of it.)

1) Middle-Finger-Upper-Row

The main purpose of this layout is to place 2 common letters on the middle-finger-upper-row. The middle finger is very strong and these are excellent locations that are easy to reach.
When you look at the letter frequency, there are 11 common letters before it takes a big drop off. The first eight letters go on the home row under the fingers. The next question is where do the next 3 letters go. Middlemak’s philosophy is to place 2 on the middle-finger-upper-row, and 1 on the index-finger-upper-row. Colemak places 2 on the centre columns, requiring a lateral movement that many find uncomfortable. Workman has 1 middle-finger-upper-row, 1 ring-finger-upper-row, and 1 index-finger-lower-row, a mixed bag.
Using the middle finger also unloads the index fingers. The index fingers can get very busy with 6-7 letters compared with the other letters 3. Especially when multiple frequent letters are put on them. I’ll give the distance stats in “Excessive amounts of stats” section far below which shows the drastic difference.

2) Pinballing.

I wrote about pinballing in length here. The short of it is that there is an incredibly strong interaction between vowels and the consonants, with 75% of all bigrams between vowels and consonants.
I’ll cover Colemak first to outline the issue. Having most of the vowels EOIUY and many frequent consonants of NHLMKJ on the right hand leads to a pinballing proble. I call this the NHLMKJ wall, it’s a wall of consonants that the vowels pinball off of
To reduce pinballing Middlemak does two things:
First Middlemak moves L off the vowel hand and to the consonant hand. This (and moving H) reduces the wall to NMFPJ which is much, much lower frequency. Or if the word starts with NMFPJ, it’s again much lower frequency.
Second it moves H to the pinky. H is a very unique letter because it’s almost always followed by a vowel. Moving H to the pinky means it almost always gives an inside roll. After the vowel, it generally continues to the consonants NMFPJ continuing the inside roll, or it alternates to the other hand. Rarely goes back to H. Generally only after the third letter can it start to pinball back to the vowels or back to H.
Combined, this reduces pinballing and increases alternating. It’s not entirely alternating, Middlemak still has rolls because it has N, H, and MKFJ. For N I find the rolls to be comfortable, likely because N is on the home row.

3) Near Finger Bigrams, NFB

NFB are bigrams that are on adjacent fingers. Too many or an uncomfortable arrangement can be an issue. NFB and pinballing are separate issues: NFB is the smaller pattern of adjacent fingers, pinballing is the much larger pattern of pinballing between all vowels and constants.
I’ll cover Colemak first again to highlight the issue. On Colemak there are extremely common NFBs with HE and LE/EL. (There is also NE/EN, but I find the HE and EL/LE to be awkward because L and H are not on the home row.) Pretty much all E bigrams are fairly high. I think you want to move common consonants away from E to reduce NFBs.
Middlemak drastically reduces the NFBs by moving the common letters L and H off the adjacent index finger. The replacement of F and Y have dramatically lower NFBs.
Looking at other layouts: Workman still has high NFB with L and E. Colemak-DH maintains L and H next to E. Many find the new HE roll to be more comfortable but it’s still a ton of NFB, and LE/EL is still there. MTGAP moved practically all letters away from its E and O and instead put punctuation there, a very good solution.
Middlemak does create some NFB with O placement. Namely OF, ON, and OM. However OF and ON are very comfortable, having the middle finger extended up feels pretty comfortable. OM is ok, and it’s the least common of those 3. The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like, but it feels ok. This is about the best location for a scissor-gram too, with the long-middle-finger up and the curl-index-finger down being able to handle it fairly well. (Just to mention Colemak’s EL/LE, not exactly a scissor-gram, I find is bad since the shorter index finger has to reach up and the middle finger is so long it’s already curled just to be on the home row.)
Overall, Middlemak moving common consonants away from E drastically lowers the number of NFBs and takes away a ton of awkward movements. Visually, I think you can see this pretty easily in the heatmaps.
(You can extend this concept to fingers further away, to include Colemaks HI, LI, etc. This can be valid, but I’ll focus on adjacent fingers for now.)

4) Hand balance

Hand balance is a difficult topic. The two most obvious metrics for hand dominance are 1) the frequency of the letters, and 2) the distance the fingers have to travel (which is different from frequency because you don't travel to the home-row). But any pinballing from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand doesn’t show up in those numbers. Having said all that, I’m going to look at frequency and distance.

Keyboard	Vowel Hand	Dominant Hand	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency	Hand Balance ratio based on Distance	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance	Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP	Left	Right	1.00	1.43	1.43
Workman	Right	Left	0.97	0.82	0.80	1.26
Norman	n/a	Right	0.93	1.27	1.19
Colemak	Right	Right	1.14	1.15	1.32
Middlemak	Right	Right	1.05	1.06	1.11
Semimak	Right	Right	1.15	1.30	1.49
Dvorak	Left	Right	1.23	1.86	2.30
QWERTY	n/a	Left	0.77	1.06	0.82	1.22

Notes: Ratio >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. The hand balance ratios are based on each hand's frequency/distance, right hand divided by left hand. E.g. Middlemak: 51.2% right hand frequency divided by 48.8% left hand frequency equals 1.05. Colemak: 53.2% right hand frequency divided by 46.7% left hand frequency equals 1.14. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two ratios. I did this because having more frequency and more movement on the same hand amplifies the hand dominance. Or if one hand has more frequency and the other hand has more movement, that would mitigate it to some degree. This is by no means the most definitive way to look at it, but it's what I've managed to come up with. The "Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant" is a hard math thing to explain (that I hope I'm right about anyway). E.g. for Workman listing 0.80 gives the wrong impression the hand dominance is equivalent to 1.2 (20%). But it's actually 1.26 (26%), obtained from 1/0.796=1.26.
Middlemak is more balanced on both frequency and distance. When both are considered, it really adds up to being more balanced. Middlemak combined balance ratio is 1.11, compared to Colemak’s 1.32 or Workman’s 1.26.
Ratios can change quite quickly because both the numerator and the denominator (in this case, the left and right hand) can go in opposite directions. Moving L to the other hand does exactly this - changing both the numerator and denominator, and it changes both the frequency and the distance. So that one move really helps to balance out the hands.
(I’ll add the full data in “Excessive amounts of stats” for both frequency and distance, broken down to hands and fingers. The individual finger load is quite interesting too.)

5) SFB

The SFB of this layout is still pretty low, but it does come out a tad higher than Colemak’s. I’ve debated how to show this and decided to go with the full nuclear option. Data is from Mayzner revisited in millions (which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t have punctuation data, that’s what the 0’s are).

Keyboard	Total SFB	Left hand SFB	Right hand SFB		L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
QWERTY	185,270	125,920	59,350		1,105	1,661	54,502	68,651	34,166	3,970	21,214	0
Workman	78,147	29,268	48,878		1,105	3,712	2,806	21,645	27,338	5,037	16,503	0
Dvorak	70,570	28,306	42,264		0	31	0	28,275	12,142	16,265	8,229	5,629
Middlemak	44,698	25,806	18,892		1,105	1,661	2,716	20,323	12,415	3,134	3,343	0
Colemak	39,023	23,336	15,687		1,105	1,267	639	20,323	9,831	5,037	819	0
MTGAP	34,151	14,550	19,601		1,147	339	3,134	9,931	4,629	8,633	5,071	1,267

Notes: This is with index finger pressing C location, how I think most people type. Adding in punctuation the numbers would be higher, I expect they would increase by similar absolute amounts.
For Middlemak: You can see it’s not all that much of an increase in SFB from Colemak. Overall the numbers are low considering it keeps many Qwerty aspects.
On the left hand: The middle finger goes up with R and L. This was to allow more consonants on the left hand and use of the middle-finger-upper-row. I think the middle finger being a strong finger and comfortable reach can handle these quite well. The index finger is the same as Colemak.
On the right hand: The right index goes up a little bit, mostly with NY and MY. They aren’t as high as you may think. But the Y SFB and adding in NK/KN, NF, etc they do add up. It’s not all that much but it is more. I think it’s still easily manageable. (NY is actually not all that common, for example it’s actually less common than EU/UE. The exact Mayzner numbers are: NY/YN is 2,761 / 373. Compared to EU/UE is 878 / 4,158. MY/YM is 1,753 / 668.) The middle finger actually goes down, EO/OE is very low. The ring finger goes up a bit with UI/IU being more common than Colemak’s IY/YI.
If you want overall percentages (index finger pressing C), Middlemak comes in at 2.078%, vs Colemak’s 1.815%, vs Workmans 3.053%, vs Qwerty’s 6.264%.
Colemak really did a good job finding low SFB pairings of SF, DT, NHL, and IY. So changing 3 of those pairings does come at a cost. But it’s really not much and it’s done so that Middlemak can put more frequent letters to better spots, reduce pinballing, and reduce NFB. I think the SFB is in the same realm as Colemak, it’s still pretty low.

Ortho SFB

Keyboard	Total SFB	Left hand SFB	Right hand SFB	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
QWERTY	195,687	136,337	59,350	1,105	1,661	86,462	47,108	34,166	3,970	21,214	0
Workman	79,561	30,682	48,878	1,105	3,712	8,206	17,659	27,338	5,037	16,503	0
Dvorak	70,365	28,101	42,264	0	31	1,591	26,480	12,142	16,265	8,229	5,629
Middlemak	42,816	23,924	18,892	1,105	1,661	14,888	6,270	12,415	3,134	3,343	0
Colemak	30,032	14,345	15,687	1,105	1,267	5,702	6,270	9,831	5,037	819	0
MTGAP	34,151	14,550	19,601	1,147	339	3,134	9,931	4,629	8,633	5,071	1,267

Notes: This is with the middle finger pressing C location, “proper” or ortho style. Same data as above.
Middlemak on Ortho actually comes in just a tad lower, but Colemak takes a bigger dip.
This basically moves most of the SFB from the index finger to the middle finger. On Middlemak, ortho takes out CT on the index finger and puts in CR and CL on the middle finger, which is only a tad lower. On Colemak, ortho takes out CT and puts in SC which is much lower.
I think it still works well. The middle finger is a strong finger and can cover most of these well. The one issue is that CL which is a two row jump.
I’ll break down the full Mayzner numbers:
First the index finger pressing CT/TC is 12,998 / 737. This is what ortho removes.
Middlemak Ortho puts in CRC which is 4,214 / 3,423. And puts in CL / LC which is 4,202 / 333. In percentages, CR is 32% of CT, RC is 26% of CT, and CL is 32% of CT. Adding it all up and including all the others (CP, CG, etc), Middlemak Ortho comes in at 87% of CT+TC. Just a tad lower.
Colemak Ortho puts in CS/SC, which is 644 / 4,363. CF/ FC is pretty much nill. In percentages, SC is 34% of CT. Adding it all up and including the others, Colemak Ortho comes in at 36% of CT+TC. A big dip.
If you want overall percentages (middle finger pressing C, Ortho style), Middlemak comes in at 2.16%, vs Colemak’s 1.669%, vs Workman’s 3.147%, vs Qwerty’s 6.575%. This is from Colemak-DH analyzer which says Middlemak ortho increases, as opposed to what I found that Middlemak ortho decreases SFB. I think it comes down to the data set used.

6) Low ring-to-pinky rolls. And the amazing inside roll from H.

A secondary design goal was to decrease the awkward ring-to-pinky roll. I find this to be the most awkward movement on the keyboard (for common movements around the home row). Middlemak greatly reduces this roll.
On the left hand: Middlemak’s ring-to-pinky outside roll of SA and WA is actually pretty low. SA is actually the lowest bigram of the common consonants to A. So SA and WA comes out to be a good design. Compared to Colemak, Middlemak’s SA outside roll is far less common than Colemak’s RA. (The exact Mayzner in millions are: Middlemak’s SA is 6,147. Colemak’s RA is 19,333. WA is the same for both at 10,865.)
On the right hand: Middlmak’s ring-to-pinky roll of IH and UH is very low. Vs Colemak: IO is very common and even YO is pretty common. (The exact numbers are Middlemak’s IH is 59, UH is 30. Vs Colemak’s IO 23,542, YO is 4,227.)
This next bit isn’t even a secondary design goal, but it’s worth mentioning. On the right hand, outside rolls from any of the fingers to the pinky H are very low. The common letters that come before H are usually TH, CH, WH, SH, and GH. All of those are on the opposite left hand. Doing the math, 97% of the letters before H are on the left hand. H on the pinky gives an amazing inside roll almost all the time.
Also worth mentioning is I think this also de-emphasizes the pinky a bit. First it limits the ring-to-pinky rolls. Second, the frequency of H is much lower than Colemak’s O. Third, the bigram HH is virtually nill, vs Colemak’s OO which is pretty common. None of these are massive, but I think they add up to de-emphasizing the pinky a bit.

7) Qwerty similarity.

Last but not least, this maintains Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
First, this maintains the bottom row (except N) and maintains Q, W, A, and S.
Second, this “keeps” the ASRT order. People learning Colemak commonly say that R and S are reversed. Technically it’s not because R was never on the middle finger to begin with. But it seems to be reversed in the brain. I think it’s two things. First ASRT keeps it in the same order, with R between S and T, even if R changes fingers. Second, I wonder how many people alt-fingered R typing in Qwerty, either all the time or for the RT bigram.
(I've also wondered if, for example, patterns like the very common ION simply being easier to type would make this faster to learn. I’m not certain about that though.)
Comparing layouts:

• Middlemak: 10 letters stay in their original spot and 16 move, with 5 letters moving on the same finger and 11 letters switching fingers.
  
• Colemak: 10 letters stay in their original spot and 16 move, with 4 letters moving on the same finger and 12 letters switching fingers.
  
• Colemak-DH: 5 letters stay in their original spot and 21 move, with 6 letters moving on the same finger and 15 letters switching fingers.
  
• Workman: 6 letters stay in their original spot and 20 move, with 8 letters moving on the same finger and 12 letters switching fingers.
  

*Not accounting for punctuation changes.
Considering letters swapping on the same finger, this has fewer changes than Colemak. And I think “keeping” the ASRT order will make it even easier to adopt than the numbers suggest.

Downsides

1) There is a slight increase in SFB compared to Colemak. But overall I think SFB is still low.
2) There are a handful of NFB with R: BR, GR, PR, etc. Same with L and BL. This isn’t enough to change the home row to ARST. There is more below but ASRT has lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and is easier to learn. Also note these are much, much lower than the extremely high NFB that Colemak has with HE, LE, etc, (which to solve I paired tL and R).
3) I wanted a less common letter in the G location (Qwerty T location). I really tried to put a less common letter there, but it simply didn’t work.
4) I mention this above but to add more: The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like. This is a limitation of keeping Qwerty similarity (the M) and wanting to put O on the upper-row-middle-finger.. (MTGAP has a good design on this. It paired its EO with a lot of punctuation on the index finger to reduce NFBs.)

Conclusion

I'm really happy with this layout. I think it is a great combination of pretty low SFB, good use of the strong middle finger upper room position, reduced NFB and pinballing, keeping Qwerty similarity, and easy to transition to.
Honestly I’m surprised no one else has stumbled on this arrangement, since many people have taken to trying to fix Colemak’s issues and keep Qwerty similarity.

Some nice rolls and combinations

Although this increases alternating, there are still plenty of rolls left. Some I want to mention:
HE is very easy.
LD feels very good.
OU feels very comfortable.
OF/FO is very common and feels very good.
IO and ION are very nice rolls.
This maintains the nice IEN roll.
IOU is a redirect, but overall feels pretty ok.
YOU has a lateral move, but feels comfortable.
OU+LD together to make OULD feels good.
The very common TH, THE, and THE_ feel very nice not having to move the fingers off the home row.

Vs Colemak and Vs Colemak-DH

I made Middlemak to try to solve the problems I found with Colemak. I think all the items came out above, but as a bit of a summary and to compare Colemak-DH. I don’t mean this to be a hit piece on Colemak or Colemak-DH.
Colemak:
1) Colemak has an issue with high lateral movement with D and H. You see this especially with H and its NFBs, but D isn’t the best either.
2) Colemak’s right index finger is overworked. It just has too much to do with N, H, and L.
3) Colemak has a pinballing issue due to placing most vowels and many common consonants on the same hand.
4) Colemak has a ton of NFB with EL/LE and HE.
5) Colemak has a hand balance issue. It places a lot of emphasis on the right hand with the vowels and several common consonants. (Hand dominance and pinballing are technically separate items.)
6) Colemak’s awkward ring-to-pinky rolls. Notably IO, YO (especially when typing YOU), and also RA on the right hand.
7) Not exactly a direct issue with Colemak, but Middlemak is easier to learn coming from Qwerty. Many new users want to ‘keep’ the order of ASRT instead of ‘reversing’ S and R.
Middlemak is a pretty low increase in SFBs and it fixes those issues.
Colemak DH:
Colemak-DH solves 1) the lateral movements. But it doesn’t solve 2) the right index finger overwork, 3) the pinballing, 4) the NFBs 5) the hand balance, 6) the awkward ring-to-pinky rolls, and 7) coming from Qwerty it’s pretty much a full change layout. Shortcuts are accessible, but they move (well paste is the same. Undo, cut, and copy move.)

Option: Swap A and H

This gives:

QWLDG JFOU: HSRTP YNEIA ZXCVB KM,./ 

The good: This is good if you want to put all the vowels and most consonants on opposite hands. Overall this increases alternating. More alternating comes from moving A, it actually decreases alternating with H, mostly because TH is very common. On normal Middlemak, A and H together have 48% of all their bigrams on the opposite hand. With the AH swap, that goes to 59% of bigrams on the opposite hand.
The neutral: On the left hand, the ring-to-pinky outside roll of SH is slightly higher, but in a similar range. Data from Mayzner is SH is 8,889, and original is SA is 6,147.
The bad: On the right hand, the ring-to-pinky outside roll is higher with IA and UA coming in at 8,072 and 3,844, vs original IH and UH of 59 and 30. On both the right and left hand, the all-fingers-to-pinky outside roll is higher.
The complicated: This option decreases the pinky-to-all-fingers rolls inside rolls on both hands. It increases the all-fingers-to-pinky rolls outside rolls. The overall sum of inside rolls plus outside rolls is lower. In short: this lowers inside rolls, increases outside rolls, with an overall sum that is lower.
Basically stick to the original if you want to lower ring-to-pinky movement, lower outside rolls, and easier to learn.
So I can’t recommend this option for most people. I put it as an OK option if someone really wants to increase alternating hands.

Excessive amount of stats

This section has details on distance reductions, hand balance based on frequency, hand balance based on distance, and raw distance numbers. I'm going to give lots of charts. You don’t need to read this all, but these are all the details.

Distance reduction from Qwerty

Keyboard	Distance	Distance	Distance
	(km)	(miles)	(% reduction from Qwerty)
MTGAP	2.592	1.611	46.3%
Workman	2.613	1.624	45.9%
Norman	2.615	1.625	45.9%
Colemak	2.616	1.625	45.8%
Middlemak	2.710	1.684	43.9%
Semimak	2.739	1.702	43.3%
Dvorak	2.813	1.748	41.8%
QWERTY	4.829	3.001	0%

*Source: 62 page / 31k word compilation. Left index used to press Qwerty C location. Includes punctuation.
Middlemak’s distance reduction is good, kost alt keyboards are in the same range. It’s a tad worse on distance than some others because putting O off the home row increases distance, with the O being more frequent. (MTGAP puts O off the home row, but has all the punctuation on the diagonals to decrease distance.)

All Finger Distances

This is the raw distance travelled in metres. Percentages rely on the total distance travelled, which changes between layouts so it's not comparable. Note that distance is different from frequency. The fingers don't move for the home row, the distance travelled is to the other letters.

Keyboard	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky	L Total	R Total	Total
MTGAP	293	116	413	246	667	320	219	318	1068 m	1524 m	2592 m
Workman	123	232	330	753	505	200	146	325	1437 m	1176 m	2613 m
Norman	127	127	223	674	525	377	244	319	1150 m	1465 m	2615 m
Colemak	130	127	116	842	747	200	141	315	1214 m	1402 m	2616 m
Middlemak	134	127	207	847	440	460	189	306	1314 m	1396 m	2710 m
Semimak	238	237	326	390	506	200	450	393	1191 m	1549 m	2739 m
Dvorak	205	54	34	692	753	285	395	396	984 m	1829 m	2813 m
QWERTY	130	127	670	1413	1169	452	450	418	2340 m	2489 m	4829 m

*All distances in metres. Same source as table above.
First, you can see Qwerty’s distances are extremely high. All the alternatives make big reductions.
Notice that the index fingers move way more than the other fingers.
Middlemak balances this out decently and moves more distance to both middle fingers. The left index finger is still a bit high because it has D off the home row (this brings it back to the discussion of where does the 11th letter go). Middlemak’s left index is slightly higher than Colemak’s even though they have the same letters because the row stagger technically puts D on a slight diagonal. A technicality really.
The right index finger is low, a good feature that the index finger next to the vowels doesn’t have to travel much. Compared to Colemak, Middlemak’s movement is 41% lower than Colemaks.

Zoom in on index fingers

Keyboard	Distance	Distance	Total	Index Finger % of total distance
	L Index	R Index	L+R Index	L+R Index
MTGAP	246	667	913 m	35%
Workman	753	505	1259 m	48%
Norman	674	525	1200 m	46%
Colemak	842	747	1589 m	61%
Middlemak	847	440	1287 m	47%
Semimak	390	506	896 m	33%
Dvorak	692	753	1445 m	51%
QWERTY	1413	1169	2582 m	53%

Here you can really see how much work the index fingers do. Middlemak’s sum of the index fingers is nice and low.
You can also look at the percentage of travel with the index finger. Middlemak’s is down at 47% - meaning the index fingers are responsible for 47% of all the distance travelled. On Colemak the index fingers account for 61% the distance travelled, quite a big difference relatively. Workman and Norman are close to Middlemak. MTGAP and Semimak are very low. Dvorak and Qwerty percentages are a bit deceiving though - the higher index finger distances are hidden by the higher total amount of distance.
So even when Middlemak’s left index finger doesn’t have a reduction in distance, the total index finger distance is still significantly reduced.

Hand Balance based on Distance

This is the distance in percentages for all the fingers (unlike the raw distances in metres above) so that I can add them up to look at hand balance.

Keyboard	Left hand	Right hand	Hand Balance Ratio	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
MTGAP	41.2*	58.8	1.43	11.3	4.5	15.9	9.5	25.7	12.3	8.4	12.3
Workman	55.0	45.0*	0.82	4.7	8.9	12.6	28.8	19.3	7.6	5.6	12.5
Norman	44.0	56.0	1.27	4.8	4.8	8.5	25.8	20.1	14.4	9.3	12.2
Colemak	46.4	53.6*	1.15	5.0	4.8	4.4	32.2	28.6	7.6	5.4	12.0
Middlemak	48.5	51.5*	1.06	5.0	4.7	7.6	31.2	16.3	17.0	7.0	11.3
Semimak	43.5	56.5*	1.30	8.7	8.7	11.9	14.2	18.5	7.3	16.4	14.4
Dvorak	35.0*	65.0	1.86	7.3	1.9	1.2	24.6	26.8	10.1	14.0	14.1
QWERTY	48.5	51.5	1.06	2.7	2.6	13.9	29.3	24.2	9.4	9.3	8.7

Notes: * indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no clear vowel hand). The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that highlights the differences between the layouts better. Ratio >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant.
I think the raw distances are better for comparison between layouts, but some people like percentages. I used this mostly to calculate hand balance.
You can see Middlemak spreads out the work. The pinkies are low, ring fingers are reasonable, middle takes on more, and the indexes have most of the distances.

Hand Balance based on Frequency

Now we’re shifting to frequency. You can see the data for all the fingers, this is enlightening on its own. I also add them up to look at the hand balance.

Keyboard	Left hand	Right hand	Hand Balance Ratio	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
MTGAP	49.9*	50.0	1.00	10.8	8.4	18.8	11.9	16.3	14.5	9.8	9.4
Workman	50.7	49.3*	0.97	9.3	10.1	11.1	20.2	15.2	14.9	9.7	9.5
Norman	51.7	48.3	0.93	9.3	8.3	15.4	18.7	15.2	13.2	11.8	8.1
Colemak	46.7	53.2*	1.14	9.4	7.7	8.2	21.4	19.4	14.9	9.1	9.8
Middlemak	48.8	51.2*	1.05	9.4	8.3	9.7	21.4	13.7	19.6	9.9	8.0
Semimak	46.6	53.4*	1.15	9.7	10.1	11.8	15.0	12.2	14.9	15.6	10.7
Dvorak	44.8*	55.3	1.23	10.3	8.1	12.2	14.2	17.2	13.4	13.0	11.7
QWERTY	56.5	43.5	0.77	9.4	8.3	15.4	23.4	18.8	8.4	11.8	4.5

* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). Ratio of >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant.
The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that highlights the differences between the layouts better than the percentages. I know it doesn't add up to 100%, the analyzer is doing some rounding or something behind the scenes, I'm not going to round any further.
E is so common that it bumps up any finger it’s on.
Middlemak’s left middle finger takes on a bit more work. The left index is still high because of D. The right index is notably lower taking off common letters. The right middle takes on more of the work with O. And the right pinky is lower too with the H there.

Hand Balance Distance + Frequency

This is the same chart that was above, just for a summary.

Keyboard	Dominant Hand	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency	Hand Balance ratio based on Distance	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance	Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP	Right	1.00	1.43	1.43
Workman	Left	0.97	0.82	0.80	1.26
Norman	Right	0.93	1.27	1.19
Colemak	Right	1.14	1.15	1.32
Middlemak	Right	1.05	1.06	1.11
Semimak	Right	1.15	1.30	1.49
Dvorak	Right	1.23	1.86	2.30
QWERTY	Left	0.77	1.06	0.82	1.22

1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two.

Frequency-off-home-row (F.O.H.R.)

At the risk of too much information, another way to look at this is the frequency that’s off-home-row. I.e. the frequency that is not under the fingers.
Distances weigh the keys differently, while frequency-off-home-row levels that field. This should be read in conjunction with distance. Neither is better than the other, it’s just a different measurement.

Keyboard	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky	L+R Index	Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR
MTGAP	4.0	2.0	7.2	4.1	10.8	5.8	3.6	3.8	14.9%	36%
Workman	1.5	3.9	5.6	11.5	8.8	3.3	2.5	2.7	20.3%	51%
Norman	1.5	2.1	3.8	10.0	8.8	6.4	4.6	2.6	18.8%	47%
Colemak	1.6	2.1	2.0	12.7	13.0	3.3	2.3	2.6	25.7%	65%
Middlemak	1.6	2.1	4.1	12.7	7.3	8.0	3.1	2.5	20.0%	48%
Semimak	3.5	4.5	5.4	6.3	8.4	3.3	7.8	3.9	14.7%	34%
Dvorak	2.5	0.9	0.6	11.7	11.7	4.7	6.6	5.5	23.4%	53%
QWERTY	1.6	2.1	11.6	21.4	18.6	7.5	7.8	4.5	40.0%	53%

I did this after noticing, on Colemak, that my right index finger moves off the home row a lot. For Colemak the left index finger has more distance, but the right index finger has more frequency-off-home-row. The long distance to B on the left hand skews the distance travelled.
The effect is similar on most of the layouts: FOHR tones down the left hand dominance and bumps up the right hand dominance. With Colemak the frequency of H and L is enough to actually flip them. This is more noticeable with layouts that keep Qwerty’s B (which is just frequent enough to skew things), layouts that change the letter to a less common one shift less.
Also insightful is “Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR”. It shows that on Middlemak the index fingers do 48% of all frequency-off-home-row, quite reasonable. Whereas on Colemak the index fingers have 65% of all frequency-off-home-row, very high. Workman is just a tad higher with the index fingers doing 51% of frequency-off-home-row. Dvorak’s and Qwerty’s 53% for index fingers is a bit deceiving though, it appears low but that's because the overall total FOHR is much higher.
This is similar to “Zoom in on the index fingers”, but this shows an even greater difference between Middlemak and Colemak. Recall Middlemaks was 47% and Colemaks was 61% for the index finger % of total distance. Same thing, when the distances to the diagonals are levelled out, the frequency stands out.

Excessive amount of detail on letters

You really don’t need to read this, mostly if you have any lingering or specific Q on specific letters.

D position and why not curl?

Where to place that 11th letter is difficult, it’s either the ring finger or index finger. Many find the ring finger to not be very dexterous for such a frequent letter. So pairing D with T on the index finger works very well for low SFB and to put it on the consonant hand.
Why on the upper-row instead of middle-row? First, I think most people find it easier to reach up and down rather than laterally. Second, it works very well with the LD roll.
Why not the bottom row? I want to leave the bottom row the same as Qwerty for ease of transition and to leave the shortcuts of cut-copy-paste the same. I also think C and M (the curl locations) are already near perfect frequencies for those locations. Those are the middle of the pack frequencies, which are perfect for the index fingers - which cover 6 to 7 letters.
I previously said that I’m not a fan of Colemak’s L position, which is the same upper-row-index-finger. But Colemak’s L has a ton of NFBs with the vowels, especially with E but also with all the other vowels. Looking at the whole hand, 62% of L bigrams are on the same hand. I think that’s the source of discomfort. But with Middlemak’s D, only 22% of bigrams are on the same hand, and 78% are on the opposite hand. So Middlemak has far lower same-hand-gymnastics.

The R and L position

L pairs well with R for low SFB. After finessing with options, the home row can be arranged to ASRT and L can be put above R on the middle-finger-upper-row, a very desirable location.
I’m sure the R and S location will attract attention, so I’ll discuss it more here. Whether to go with ASRT with L above the R, or ARST with L above the S was not the simplest choice.
[Note that Colemak had to go with ARST because of F on the middle-finger-upper-row. RF/FR is more common than SF/FS.]

ASRT with L above R:

The pros of ASRT is it gives fewer SFB, with LRL being less than half as common as SL/LS. It also gives fewer ring-to-pinky-rolls with SA being far less common than Colemak’s RA. It also makes it much easier to learn from Qwerty.
The cons is that the R position leads to more NFB with the index finger. Most of these feel ok but RD, GR, BR are not so good. These aren’t super common, but they are there. PR gives the commonly disliked lateral NFB, but I think it’s relatively ok for the frequency - it’s not super common. RS creates an outside roll, but I’d rather have the RS on Middlemak’s middle-to-ring fingers than Colemak’s RA on the ring-to-pinky fingers. Colemak’s RA is much more common than Middlemak’s RS too.

ARST with L above S

The pros of ARST is that it gives an inside roll of RS. It also separates R from the NFB letters on the index finger, which do add up. However, I’m trying to resolve the NFBs of Colemak’s right hand H and L with E which is a magnitude larger, in addition to the pinballing that it creates which requires moving L.
The cons with ARST is that it gives more SFB. It’s not overly much, but it is there. It also gives a lot of ring-to-pinky outside rolls with RA. And finally this makes it much harder to learn coming from Qwerty.

Verdict: ASRT

None of these are huge deal breakers for one or the other. I went with lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and much easier to learn. At the cost of some NFB on the index finger and inside roll of RS.
(If someone comes from Colemak and wants ARST, they can. It's not a humongous downside to do that. Mostly the more common RA ring-to-pinky roll and slightly more SFB of SD/DS.)
(I hope people don’t think that I’m overly focused on keeping S in the Qwerty location. If it didn’t work, I wouldn’t have kept it. For this layout, it does work better with ASRT. If it didn’t work I would have changed it. For example, I wanted to keep G on its Qwerty location. But it’s better to move it so I didn’t shy away from changing.)

P and G location

It’s better to move G than keep it in its Qwerty location.
P and G are pretty much the same frequency, so it doesn’t matter in that sense.
P has a SFB with T, and it has common bigrams of PR, SP, and even PA. Those work better with P on the middle row. There is PL, but the ones above outweigh it.
G has a bigram with NG. With N on the opposite hand, that means G can go on the worse diagonal spot. There is GR, but PR is far more common.

O location

O and E together give very low SFB. This is a great opportunity to put them together. The strong middle finger only has 3 keys, so it can handle two very frequent letters.

U, Y and F locations

U works pretty well with I, the SFB are reasonably low. This location also creates a nice OU and YOU roll.
Y goes to the index finger, which actually works pretty well. I broke down the numbers in SFB section.
F goes to the right hand index finger, because putting P or G on the right hand gives too many SFB with M and N. The F location works quite well for both moderate frequency and low SFB. It has a lot of NFB with OF/FO, so placing it next to O makes a comfortable roll.

This is a new writeup for Middlemak (renamed since my previous post). Named for the emphasis on the middle finger and use of the middle-finger-upper-row locations for frequent letters
Link to Layout heatmap

QWLDG JFOU: ASRTP YNEIH ZXCVB KM,./ 

The main design criteria was:
1) Use the middle-finger-upper-row position. The middle finger is a very strong finger, and the middle-finger-upper-row is a very good location for a common letter.
2) To reduce pinballing by putting most vowels on the right hand and putting most of the frequent consonants on the left hand.
3) Reduce the number of NFB.
4) Improve hand balance.
5) Keep SFB down of course.
6) A secondary design criteria was low ring-to-pinky-rolls. I find this particular outside roll to be the most awkward movement on the keyboard.
7) Maintain Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
These are all discussed in more detail below. (Middlemak was based on Colemak so I’ll be talking in that sense for some of it.)

1) Middle-Finger-Upper-Row

The main purpose of this layout is to place 2 common letters on the middle-finger-upper-row. The middle finger is very strong and these are excellent locations that are easy to reach.
When you look at the letter frequency, there are 11 common letters before it takes a big drop off. The first eight letters go on the home row under the fingers. The next question is where do the next 3 letters go. Middlemak’s philosophy is to place 2 on the middle-finger-upper-row, and 1 on the index-finger-upper-row. Colemak places 2 on the centre columns, requiring a lateral movement that many find uncomfortable. Dvorak has 4: 2 on the centre column, 2 on upper-row-ring-and-pinky. Workman has 1 middle-finger-upper-row, 1 ring-finger-upper-row, and 1 index-finger-lower-row, a mixed bag.
Using the middle finger also unloads the index fingers. I’ll give the distance stats in “Excessive amounts of stats” section below. The short is that the index fingers can get busy with 6-7 letters, especially when frequent letters are put on them. The distance charts show the drastic difference.
Middlemak’s left hand does have D on the index finger. Where to place that 11th letter is difficult. Many find the ring finger to not be very dexterous. So that means keeping W works for both its lowish frequency and keeping Qwerty similarity. That puts the 11th letter on to the more dexterous index finger. Pairing D with T works very well for low SFB and to put it on the consonant hand.
(Why not curl? Answered in a separate section below.)

2) Pinballing.

I wrote about pinballing in length here). The short of it is that there is an incredibly strong interaction between vowels and the consonants, with 75% of all bigrams between vowels and consonants. Pinballing can arise from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand.
To reduce pinballing Middlemak does two things:
First it moves L off the vowel hand and on to the consonant hand.
Second it moves H to the pinky. H is a very unique letter because it’s almost always followed by a vowel. Moving H to the pinky means it almost always gives inside rolls.
Combined, this reduces pinballing and increases alternating. It’s not entirely alternating though. Middlemak still has rolls because it has N, H, and MKFJ. For N, I find the rolls to be comfortable, likely because N is on the home row. For H, they are now mostly inside rolls.
You might ask if pinballing is still there because overall the right hand still has N and H. Colemak has what I call the NHLMKJ wall, it’s a wall of consonants that the vowels pinball off of. First Middlemak reduces the wall to NMFPJ, which is much lower frequency. This greatly reduces the pinballing. (I don’t include Y in the wall because it’s a vowel and most of its bigrams are on the opposite hand.) Secondly we can look more at the directions: H gives an inside roll to the vowels. After the vowel, it generally continues to the consonants NMFPJ or the other hand (not back to H), which is still an inside roll. Generally only after the third letter can it start to pinball back to the vowels or back to H. The main pinballing/redirect that I can think of is the word “their”.

3) Near Finger Bigrams, NFB

NFB are bigrams that are on adjacent fingers. Too many or an uncomfortable arrangement can be an issue. NFB and pinballing are separate issues: NFB are the smaller pattern of adjacent fingers, pinballing is the much larger pattern of pinballing between all vowels and constants
I’ll cover Colemak first to highlight the issue. On Colemak there are very common NFBs with HE and LE/EL. There is also NE/EN, but I find the HE and EL/LE to be awkward because L and H are off the home row. Pretty much all E bigrams are fairly high. I think you want to move common consonants away from E to reduce NFBs and improve comfort.
Middlemak drastically reduces the NFBs by moving the common letters L and H off the adjacent index finger. The replacement of FE/EF and YE/EY is drastically lower.
Looking at other layouts: Workman still has high NFB with L. Colemak-DH maintains L and H next to E. Many find the new H location more comfortable, but it’s still a ton of NFB with HE and LE/EL is still there. MTGAP moved practically all letters away from the E and O and instead put punctuation there, a very good solution but requires a complete layout change. Semimak put E and I on the ring finger, which is an interesting idea to get them away from the index finger. But that puts a ton of frequency and movement on the ring finger.
Middlemak does create some NFB with O placement. Namely OF, ON, and OM. However OF and ON are very comfortable, having the middle finger extended up feels pretty comfortable. OM is ok, and it’s the least common of those 3. The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like, but it doesn't feel too bad. This is about the best location for a scissor-gram too, with the long-middle-finger up and the curl-index-finger down being able to handle it fairly well. (Just to mention Colemak’s EL/LE, not exactly a scissor-gram, I find is bad since the shorter index finger has to reach up and the middle finger is so long it’s already curled just to be on the home row.)
Overall, Middlemak moving common consonants away from E drastically lowers the number of NFBs and takes away a ton of awkward movements.
Visually, I think you can see this pretty easily in the heatmaps.
([You can extend this concept to fingers further away, to include Colemaks HI, LI, etc. This can be valid, but I’ll focus on adjacent fingers for this.)

4) Hand balance

Hand balance is a difficult topic. The two most obvious metrics for hand dominance are 1) the frequency of the letters, and 2) the distance the hand has to travel (which is different from frequency because you don't travel to the home-row). But any pinballing from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand doesn’t show in the numbers. Having said all that, I’m going to look at those.

Keyboard	Vowel Hand	Dominant Hand	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency	Hand Balance ratio based on Distance	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance	Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP	Left	Right	1.00	1.43	1.43
Workman	Right	Left	0.97	0.82	0.80	1.26
Norman	n/a	Right	0.93	1.27	1.19
Colemak	Right	Right	1.14	1.15	1.32
Middlemak	Right	Right	1.05	1.06	1.11
Semimak	Right	Right	1.15	1.30	1.49
Dvorak	Left	Right	1.23	1.86	2.30
QWERTY	n/a	Left	0.77	1.06	0.82	1.22

Notes: >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. The hand balance ratios are based on each hand's frequency/distance, right hand divided by left hand. E.g. Middlemak: 51.2% right hand frequency divided by 48.8% left hand frequency equals 1.05. Colemak: 53.2% right hand frequency divided by 46.7% left hand frequency equals 1.14. Those charts will be further down. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two ratios. I did this because having more frequency and more movement on the same hand amplifies the hand dominance. They both matter. Or if one hand has more frequency and the other hand has more movement, that would mitigate it to some degree. This is by no means the most definitive way to look at it, but it's what I've managed to come up with. The "Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant" is a hard math thing to explain (that I hope I'm right about anyway). E.g. for Workman listing 0.80 gives the wrong impression the hand dominance is equivalent to 1.2 (20%). But it's actually 1.26 (26%), obtained from 1/0.8=1.26.
Middlemak is more balanced on both frequency distribution and distance distribution. When both are considered, it really adds up to being more balanced. Middlemak has 1.11 hand balance, compared to Colemak’s 1.32 or Workman’s 1.26.
Ratios can change quite quickly because both the numerator and the denominator can go in opposite directions. Moving L to the other hand does exactly this, changing both the numerator and denominator for both the frequency and the distance. So that one move really helps to balance out the hands.
(I’ll add more charts in “Excessive amounts of detail” below for both frequency and distance. Those will break down frequencies and distances for each finger too, which can be enlightening.)

5) SFB

The SFB of this layout is still pretty low, but it does come out a tad higher than Colemak’s. I’ve debated how to show this and decided to go with the full nuclear option. Data is from Mayzner revisited in millions (which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t have punctuation data, that’s what the 0’s are).

Keyboard	Total SFB	Left hand SFB	Right hand SFB	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
QWERTY	185,270	125,920	59,350	1,105	1,661	54,502	68,651	34,166	3,970	21,214	0
Workman	78,147	29,268	48,878	1,105	3,712	2,806	21,645	27,338	5,037	16,503	0
Dvorak	70,570	28,306	42,264	0	31	0	28,275	12,142	16,265	8,229	5,629
Middlemak	44,698	25,806	18,892	1,105	1,661	2,716	20,323	12,415	3,134	3,343	0
Colemak	39,023	23,336	15,687	1,105	1,267	639	20,323	9,831	5,037	819	0
MTGAP	34,151	14,550	19,601	1,147	339	3,134	9,931	4,629	8,633	5,071	1,267

Notes: This is with index finger pressing C location, which is how I think most people type. Data is from Mayzner revisited in millions, which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t include punctuation, that’s what the 0’s are. Note that adding in punctuation SFB, the numbers would be higher. But adding in punctuation Colemak, Colemak-DH, and Middlemak would all increase by similar absolute amounts. So that means the relative differences between them would actually be smaller than what's shown here.
For Middlemak: You can see it’s not all that much of an increase in SFB from Colemak. Overall the numbers are low considering that it’s based on Qwerty similarity.
On the left hand: The middle finger goes up with R and L. This was to allow more consonants on the left hand and use of the middle-finger-upper-row. I think the middle finger being a strong finger and comfortable reach can handle these quite well. The index finger is the same as Colemak.
On the right hand: The right index goes up a little bit, mostly with NY and MY. They aren’t as high as you may think. But the Y SFB and adding in NK/KN, NF, etc they do add up. It’s not all that much but it is more. I think it’s still easily manageable. (NY is actually not all that common, for example it’s actually less common than EU/UE. The exact Mayzner numbers are: NY/YN is 2,761 / 373. Compared to EU/UE is 878 / 4,158. MY/YM is 1,753 / 668.) The middle finger actually goes down, EO/OE is very low. The ring finger goes up a bit with UI/IU being more common than Colemak’s IY/YI.
If you want overall percentages (index finger pressing C), Middlemak comes in at 2.078%, vs Colemak’s 1.815%, vs Workmans 3.053%, vs Qwerty’s 6.264%.
Colemak really did a good job finding low SFB pairings of SF, DT, NHL, and IY. So changing 3 of those pairings does come at a cost, but it’s done so that Middlemak can put more frequent letters to better spots, reduce pinballing, and reduce NFB. I think the SFB is in the same realm as Colemak, it’s still pretty low.

Ortho SFB

Keyboard	Total SFB	Left hand SFB	Right hand SFB	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
QWERTY	195,687	136,337	59,350	1,105	1,661	86,462	47,108	34,166	3,970	21,214	0
Workman	79,561	30,682	48,878	1,105	3,712	8,206	17,659	27,338	5,037	16,503	0
Dvorak	70,365	28,101	42,264	0	31	1,591	26,480	12,142	16,265	8,229	5,629
Middlemak	42,816	23,924	18,892	1,105	1,661	14,888	6,270	12,415	3,134	3,343	0
Colemak	30,032	14,345	15,687	1,105	1,267	5,702	6,270	9,831	5,037	819	0
MTGAP	34,151	14,550	19,601	1,147	339	3,134	9,931	4,629	8,633	5,071	1,267

Notes: This is with the middle finger pressing C location. This basically moves SFB from the index finger to the middle finger. (For MTGAP it changes punctuation, not letters, so it’s the same based on Mayzner.)
Middlemak on Ortho actually comes in just a tad lower, but Colemak takes a bigger dip. On Middlemak, ortho takes out CT and puts in CR and CL. Colemak on Ortho takes a much bigger dip by taking out CT and putting in SC.
This moves most of the SFB from the index finger to the middle finger. I think it still works, the middle finger is a strong finger and can cover most of these well. The one issue is that CL which is a two row jump.
I’ll break down the full Mayzner numbers:
First the index finger pressing CT/TC is 12,998 / 737. This is what ortho removes.
Middlemak Ortho puts in CRC which is 4,214 / 3,423. And puts in CL / LC which is 4,202 / 333. In percentages, CR is 32% of CT, RC is 26% of CT, and CL is 32% of CT. If you add in all the others (CP, CG, etc), Middlemak Ortho comes in at 87% of CT+TC. Just a tad lower.
Colemak Ortho puts in CS/SC, which is 644 / 4,363. CF/ FC is pretty much nill. In percentages, SC is 34% of CT. If you add in all the others, Colemak Ortho comes in at 36% of CT+TC. A bigger dip.
If you want overall percentages (middle finger pressing C, Ortho style), Middlemak comes in at 2.16%, vs Colemak’s 1.669%, vs Workman’s 3.147%, vs Qwerty’s 6.575%. This is from Colemak-DH analyzer which says Middlemak ortho increases, as opposed to what I found that Middlemak ortho decreases SFB. I think it comes down to the data set used, I used Mayzer revisited.

6) Low ring-to-pinky rolls. And the amazing inside roll from H.

Personally I find the ring-to-pinky roll to be very awkward. Middlemak greatly reduces this roll.
On the left hand: Middlemak’s ring-to-pinky roll of SA and WA is actually pretty low. SA is actually the lowest bigram between the common consonants to A. So SA and WA comes out to be a good design. Compared to Colemak, Middlemak’s SA outside roll is far less common than Colemak’s RA. (The exact numbers are Middlemak’s SA is 6,147. Colemak’s RA is 19,333. WA is the same for both at 10,865. Data from Mayzner revisited in millions.)
On the right hand: Middlmak’s ring-to-pinky roll of IH and UH is very low. Vs Colemak: IO is very common, and even YO is pretty common. (The exact numbers are Middlemak’s IH is 59, UH is 30. Vs Colemak’s IO 23,542, YO is 4,227.)
This next bit isn’t even a secondary design goal, but it’s worth mentioning. On the right hand, outside rolls from any of the fingers to the pinky H are very low. The common letters that come before H are usually TH, CH, WH, SH, and GH. All of those are on the opposite left hand. Doing the math, 97% of the letters before H are on the left hand. H on the pinky gives an amazing inside roll almost all the time.
Also worth mentioning is I think this also de-emphasizes the pinky a bit. First it limits the ring-to-pinky rolls. Second, the frequency of H is much lower than Colemak’s O. Third, the bigram HH is virtually nill, vs Colemak’s OO which is pretty common. None of these are massive, but I think they add up to de-emphasizing the pinky a bit.

7) Qwerty similarity.

Last but not least, this maintains Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
First, this maintains the bottom row (except N) and maintains Q, W, A, and S.
Second, this “keeps” the ASRT order. People learning Colemak commonly say that R and S are reversed. Technically it’s not because R was never on the middle finger to begin with. But it seems to be reversed in the brain. I think it’s two things. First ASRT keeps it in the same order, with R between S and T, even if R changes fingers. Second, I wonder how many people alt-fingered R typing in Qwerty, either all the time or for the RT bigram.
(I've also wondered if, for example, patterns like the very common ION simply being easier to type would make this faster to learn. I’m not certain about that though.)
Comparing layouts:

• Middlemak: 10 letters stay in their original spot and 16 move, with 5 letters moving on the same finger and 11 letters switching fingers.
  
• Colemak: 10 letters stay in their original spot and 16 move, with 4 letters moving on the same finger and 12 letters switching fingers.
  
• Colemak-DH: 5 letters stay in their original spot and 21 move, with 6 letters moving on the same finger and 15 letters switching fingers.
  
• Workman: 6 letters stay in their original spot and 20 move, with 8 letters moving on the same finger and 12 letters switching fingers.
  

*Not accounting for punctuation.
Accounting for letters swapping on the same finger, this has fewer changes than Colemak. And I think “keeping” the ASRT order will make it even easier to adopt than the numbers suggest.

Downsides

1) There is a slight increase in SFB compared to Colemak. But overall I think SFB is still low.
2) There are a handful of NFB with R: BR, GR, PR, etc. Same with L and BL. This isn’t enough to change the home row to ARST. There is more below but ASRT has lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and is easier to learn. Also note these are much, much lower than the extremely high NFB that Colemak has with HE, LE, etc.
3) I wanted a less common letter in the G location (Qwerty T location). I really tried to put a less common letter there, but it simply didn’t work.
4) I mention this above but to add more: The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like. This is a limitation of keeping Qwerty similarity (the M) and wanting to put O on the upper-row-middle-finger.. (MTGAP has a good design on this. It paired its EO with a lot of punctuation on the index finger to reduce NFBs.)

Conclusion

I'm really happy with this layout. I think it is a great combination of pretty low SFB, good use of the strong middle finger upper room position, reduced NFB and pinballing, keeping Qwerty similarity, and easy to transition to.
Honestly I’m surprised no one else has stumbled on this arrangement, since many people have taken to trying to fix Colemak’s issues and keep Qwerty similarity.

Some nice rolls and combinations

Although this increases alternating, there are still plenty of rolls left. And combinations too between hands. Some I want to mention:
HE is very easy.
LD feels very good.
OU feels very comfortable.
OF/FO is very common and feels very good.
IO and ION are very nice rolls.
This maintains the nice IEN roll.
IOU is a redirect, but overall feels pretty ok.
YOU has a lateral move, but feels comfortable.
Putting OU+LD together to make OULD feels good.
The very common TH, THE, and THE_ feel very nice not having to move the fingers off the home row.

Vs Colemak and Vs Colemak-DH

I made Middlemak to try to solve the problems I found with Colemak. The items probably all came out already but I’ll do a bit of a summary just to make sure. I don’t mean this to be a hit piece on Colemak or Colemak-DH.
Colemak:
1) Colemak has an issue with high lateral movement with D and H. You see this especially with H and its NFBs, but D isn’t the best either.
2) Colemak’s right index finger is overworked. It just has too much to do with N, H, and L.
3) Colemak has a pinballing issue due to placing most vowels and many common consonants on the same hand.
4) Colemak has a ton of NFB with EL/LE and HE.
5) Colemak has a hand balance issue. It places a lot of emphasis on the right hand with the vowels and several common consonants. (Hand dominance and pinballing are technically separate items.)
6) Colemak’s awkward ring-to-pinky rolls. Notably IO, YO (especially when typing YOU), and also RA on the right hand.
7) Not exactly a direct issue with Colemak, but Middlemak is easier to learn coming from Qwerty. Many new users want to ‘keep’ the order of ASRT instead of ‘reversing’ S and R.
Colemak DH:
Colemak-DH solves 1) the lateral movements. But it doesn’t solve 2) the right index finger overwork, 3) the pinballing, 4) the NFBs 5) the hand balance, 6) the awkward ring-to-pinky rolls, and 7) it changes an absolute ton of letters. It’s pretty much a full change layout.
I think Middlemak solves all these issues and is even easier to learn. I think it’s a win-win.
Why choose Colemak? I think if you type “properly” pressing C with the middle finger and desire low SFB to the point that you accept the issues above. If you type with your index finger pressing C (how I think most people type), then Middlemak is barely any more SFB and it fixes many issues.

Option: Swap A and H

This gives:

QWLDG JFOU: HSRTP YNEIA ZXCVB KM,./ 

The good: This is good if you want to put all the vowels and most consonants on opposite hands. Overall this increases alternating. More alternating comes from moving A. It actually decreases alternating with H, mostly because TH is very common. On normal Middlemak, A and H together have 48% of all their bigrams on the opposite hand. With the AH swap, that goes to 59% of bigrams on the opposite hand.
The neutral: On the left hand, the ring-to-pinky (outside roll) of SH is slightly higher, but in a similar range. SA is 30,709 vs HA is 26,488 (millions, from Mayzner revisited).
The bad. On the right hand, the ring-to-pinky (outside roll) is higher with IA and UA. On both the right and left hand, the all-fingers-to-pinky (outside roll) is higher. On the left hand, TH is just that common. On the right hand, it removes the remarkable low vowel-to-H trend and replaces it with decent outside rolls to A.
The complicated: This option decreases the pinky-to-all-fingers rolls (inside rolls), with both A to all other fingers and H to all other fingers. It increases the all-fingers-to-pinky rolls (outside rolls). Overall, the total sum of inside rolls plus outside rolls is decreased. In short: this lowers inside rolls, increases outside rolls, with an overall sum that is lower. But I think the inside rolls are fine - when I type on Colemak I don’t find much of a problem with A to other fingers.
Basically stick to the original if you want to lower ring-to-pinky movement, lower outside rolls, and easier to learn.
So I can’t recommend this option for most people. I put it as an OK option if someone really wants to increase alternating hands.

Excessive amount of stats

This section has details on distance reductions, hand balance based on frequency, hand balance based on distance, and raw distance numbers. I'm going to give lots of charts. You don’t need to read this all, but these are all the details.

Distance reduction from Qwerty

Keyboard	Distance	Distance	Distance
	(km)	(miles)	(% reduction from Qwerty)
MTGAP	2.592	1.611	46.3%
Workman	2.613	1.624	45.9%
Norman	2.615	1.625	45.9%
Colemak	2.616	1.625	45.8%
Middlemak	2.710	1.684	43.9%
Semimak	2.739	1.702	43.3%
Dvorak	2.813	1.748	41.8%
QWERTY	4.829	3.001	0%

*Source: 62 page / 31k word compilation. Left index used to press Qwerty C location. Includes punctuation.
Middlemak’s distance reduction is good. Most alt keyboards are in the same range. It’s a tad worse on distance than some others because putting O off the home row increases distance because O is more frequent. (MTGAP puts O off the home row, but has all the punctuation on the diagonals to decrease distance.)

All Finger Distances

This is the raw distance travelled in metres. Percentages rely on the total distance travelled, which changes between layouts so it's not comparable. Note that distance is different from frequency. The fingers don't move for the home row, the distance travelled is to the other letters.

Keyboard	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky	L Total	R Total	Total
MTGAP	293	116	413	246	667	320	219	318	1068 m	1524 m	2592 m
Workman	123	232	330	753	505	200	146	325	1437 m	1176 m	2613 m
Norman	127	127	223	674	525	377	244	319	1150 m	1465 m	2615 m
Colemak	130	127	116	842	747	200	141	315	1214 m	1402 m	2616 m
Middlemak	134	127	207	847	440	460	189	306	1314 m	1396 m	2710 m
Semimak	238	237	326	390	506	200	450	393	1191 m	1549 m	2739 m
Dvorak	205	54	34	692	753	285	395	396	984 m	1829 m	2813 m
QWERTY	130	127	670	1413	1169	452	450	418	2340 m	2489 m	4829 m

*All distances in metres. Same source as table above.
First, you can see Qwerty’s distances are extremely high. All the alternatives make big reductions.
Notice that the index fingers move way more than the other fingers.
Middlemak balances this out decently and moves more distance to both middle fingers. The left index finger is still a bit high because it has D off the home row (this brings it back to the discussion of where does the 11th letter go). Middlemak’s left index is slightly higher than Colemak’s even though they have the same letters because D is technically on a slight diagonal because of the row stagger. A technicality really.
The right index finger is low, a good feature that the index finger next to the vowels doesn’t have to travel much. Compared to Colemak, Middlemak’s movement is 41% lower than Colemaks.

Zoom in on index fingers

Keyboard	Distance	Distance	Total	Index Finger % of total distance
	L Index	R Index	L+R Index	L+R Index
MTGAP	246	667	913 m	35%
Workman	753	505	1259 m	48%
Norman	674	525	1200 m	46%
Colemak	842	747	1589 m	61%
Middlemak	847	440	1287 m	47%
Semimak	390	506	896 m	33%
Dvorak	692	753	1445 m	51%
QWERTY	1413	1169	2582 m	53%

Here you can really see how much work the index fingers do. Middlemak’s sum of the index fingers is nice and low.
You can also look at the percentage of travel with the index finger. Middlemak’s is down at 47% - meaning the index fingers are responsible for 47% of all the distance travelled. On Colemak the index fingers account for 61% the distance travelled, quite a big difference relatively. Workman and Norman are close to Middlemak. MTGAP and Semimak are very low. Dvorak and Qwerty percentages are a bit deceiving though - the higher index finger distances are hidden by the higher total amount of distance.
So even when Middlemak’s left index finger doesn’t have a reduction in distance, the total index finger distance is still significantly reduced.

Hand Balance based on Distance

This is the distance in percentages for all the fingers (unlike the raw distances in metres above) so that I can add them up to look at hand balance.

Keyboard	Left hand	Right hand	Hand Balance Ratio	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
MTGAP	41.2*	58.8	1.43	11.3	4.5	15.9	9.5	25.7	12.3	8.4	12.3
Workman	55.0	45.0*	0.82	4.7	8.9	12.6	28.8	19.3	7.6	5.6	12.5
Norman	44.0	56.0	1.27	4.8	4.8	8.5	25.8	20.1	14.4	9.3	12.2
Colemak	46.4	53.6*	1.15	5.0	4.8	4.4	32.2	28.6	7.6	5.4	12.0
Middlemak	48.5	51.5*	1.06	5.0	4.7	7.6	31.2	16.3	17.0	7.0	11.3
Semimak	43.5	56.5*	1.30	8.7	8.7	11.9	14.2	18.5	7.3	16.4	14.4
Dvorak	35.0*	65.0	1.86	7.3	1.9	1.2	24.6	26.8	10.1	14.0	14.1
QWERTY	48.5	51.5	1.06	2.7	2.6	13.9	29.3	24.2	9.4	9.3	8.7

* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that indicates the differences between the layouts better (>1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant).
I think the raw distances are better for comparison between layouts. I used this mostly for hand balance calcs. But some people think in terms of percentages, so you can see the breakdown for each finger. You can see Middlemak spreads out the work. The pinkies are low, ring fingers are reasonable, middle takes on more, and the indexes have most of the distances.

Hand Balance based on Frequency

Now we’re shifting to frequency. You can see the data for all the fingers, this is enlightening on its own. I also add them up to look at the hand balance.

Keyboard	Left hand	Right hand	Hand Balance Ratio	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
MTGAP	49.9*	50.0	1.00	10.8	8.4	18.8	11.9	16.3	14.5	9.8	9.4
Workman	50.7	49.3*	0.97	9.3	10.1	11.1	20.2	15.2	14.9	9.7	9.5
Norman	51.7	48.3	0.93	9.3	8.3	15.4	18.7	15.2	13.2	11.8	8.1
Colemak	46.7	53.2*	1.14	9.4	7.7	8.2	21.4	19.4	14.9	9.1	9.8
Middlemak	48.8	51.2*	1.05	9.4	8.3	9.7	21.4	13.7	19.6	9.9	8.0
Semimak	46.6	53.4*	1.15	9.7	10.1	11.8	15.0	12.2	14.9	15.6	10.7
Dvorak	44.8*	55.3	1.23	10.3	8.1	12.2	14.2	17.2	13.4	13.0	11.7
QWERTY	56.5	43.5	0.77	9.4	8.3	15.4	23.4	18.8	8.4	11.8	4.5

* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). Ratio of >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant.
The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that highlights the differences between the layouts better than the percentages. I know it doesn't add up to 100%, the analyzer is doing some rounding or something behind the scenes, I'm not going to round any further.
E is so common that it bumps up any finger it’s on.
Middlemak’s left middle finger takes on a bit more work. The left index is still high because of D. The right index is notably lower taking off common letters. The right middle takes on more of the work with O. And the right pinky is lower too with the H there.

Hand Balance Distance + Frequency

This is the same chart that was above, just for a summary.

Keyboard	Dominant Hand	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency	Hand Balance ratio based on Distance	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance	Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP	Right	1.00	1.43	1.43
Workman	Left	0.97	0.82	0.80	1.26
Norman	Right	0.93	1.27	1.19
Colemak	Right	1.14	1.15	1.32
Middlemak	Right	1.05	1.06	1.11
Semimak	Right	1.15	1.30	1.49
Dvorak	Right	1.23	1.86	2.30
QWERTY	Left	0.77	1.06	0.82	1.22

1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two.

Frequency-off-home-row (F.O.H.R.)

At the risk of too much information, another way to look at this is the frequency that’s off-home-row. I.e. the frequency that is not under the fingers.
Distances weigh the keys differently, while frequency-off-home-row levels that field. This should be read in conjunction with distance. Neither is better than the other, it’s just a different measurement.

Keyboard	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky	L+R Index	Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR
MTGAP	4.0	2.0	7.2	4.1	10.8	5.8	3.6	3.8	14.9%	36%
Workman	1.5	3.9	5.6	11.5	8.8	3.3	2.5	2.7	20.3%	51%
Norman	1.5	2.1	3.8	10.0	8.8	6.4	4.6	2.6	18.8%	47%
Colemak	1.6	2.1	2.0	12.7	13.0	3.3	2.3	2.6	25.7%	65%
Middlemak	1.6	2.1	4.1	12.7	7.3	8.0	3.1	2.5	20.0%	48%
Semimak	3.5	4.5	5.4	6.3	8.4	3.3	7.8	3.9	14.7%	34%
Dvorak	2.5	0.9	0.6	11.7	11.7	4.7	6.6	5.5	23.4%	53%
QWERTY	1.6	2.1	11.6	21.4	18.6	7.5	7.8	4.5	40.0%	53%

I did this after noticing, on Colemak, that my right index finger moves off the home row a lot. For Colemak the left index finger has more distance, but the right index finger has more frequency-off-home-row. The long distance to B on the left hand skews the distance travelled. The effect is similar on most of the layouts; the F.O.H.R tones down the left hand dominance and bumps up the right hand dominance. With Colemak the frequency of H and L is enough to actually flip them. This is more noticeable with layouts that keep Qwerty’s B (which is just frequent enough to skew things), layouts that change the letter to a less common one shift less.
Also insightful is “Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR”. It shows that on Middlemak the index fingers do 48% of all frequency-off-home-row, quite reasonable. Whereas on Colemak the index fingers have 65% of all frequency-off-home-row, very high. Workman is just a tad higher with the index fingers doing 51% of frequency-off-home-row. Dvorak’s and Qwerty’s 53% for index fingers is a bit deceiving though, it appears low but that's because the overall total F.O.H.R. is much higher.
This is similar to “Zoom in on the index fingers”, but this shows an even greater difference between Middlemak and Colemak. Recall Middlemaks was 47% and Colemaks was 61% for the index finger % of total distance. Same thing, when the distances to the diagonals are levelled out, the frequency shines.

Excessive amount of detail on letters

You really don’t need to read this, this is mostly from a previous writeup (I did clean and add more) that is decent enough that I decided to keep it. You can read it if you have any lingering or specific Q on specific letters.

The R and L position

L pairs well with R for low SFB. After finessing with options, the home row can be arranged to ASRT and L can be put above R on the middle-finger-upper-row, a very desirable location.
I’m sure the R and S location will attract attention, so I’ll discuss it more here. Whether to go with ASRT with L above the R, or ARST with L above the S was not the simplest choice.
[Note that Colemak had to go with ARST because of F on the middle-finger-upper-row. RF/FR is more common than SF/FS, so Colemak had to move S to the middle finger.]

ASRT with L above R:

The pros of ASRT is it gives fewer SFB, with LRL being less than half as common as SL/LS. It also gives fewer ring-to-pinky-rolls with SA being far less common than Colemak’s RA. It also makes it much easier to learn from Qwerty.
The cons is that the R position leads to more NFB with the index finger. Most of these feel ok but RD, GR, BR are not so good. These aren’t super common, but they are there. PR gives the commonly disliked lateral NFB, but I think it’s relatively ok for the frequency - it’s not super common. RS creates an outside roll, but I’d rather have the RS on Middlemak’s middle-to-ring fingers than Colemak’s RA on the ring-to-pinky fingers. Colemak’s RA is much more common than Middlemak’s RS too.

ARST with L above S

The pros of ARST is that it gives an inside roll of RS. It also separates R from the NFB letters on the index finger, which do add up. However, I’m trying to resolve the NFBs of Colemak’s right hand H and L with E which is a magnitude larger, in addition to the pinballing that it creates which requires moving L.
The cons with ARST is that it gives more SFB. It’s not overly much, but it is there. It also gives a lot of ring-to-pinky outside rolls with RA. And finally this makes it much harder to learn coming from Qwerty.

Verdict: ASRT

None of these are huge deal breakers for one or the other. I went with lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and much easier to learn. At the cost of some NFB on the index finger and inside roll of RS.
(If someone comes from Colemak and wants ARST, they can. It's not a humongous downside to do that. Mostly the more common RA ring-to-pinky roll and slightly more SFB of SD/DS.)
(I hope people don’t think that I’m overly focused on keeping S in the Qwerty location. If it didn’t work, I wouldn’t have kept it. For this layout, it does work better with ASRT. If it didn’t work I would have changed it. For example, I wanted to keep G on its Qwerty location. But it’s better to move it so I didn’t shy away from changing.)

D position and why not curl?

Why on the upper-row instead of middle-row? First, I think most people find it easier to reach up and down rather than laterally. Second, it works very well with the LD roll.
Why not the bottom row? I want to leave the bottom row the same as Qwerty for ease of transition and to leave the shortcuts of cut-copy-paste the same. I also think C and M (the curl locations) are already near perfect frequencies for those locations. Those are the middle of the pack frequencies, which are perfect for the index fingers - which cover 6 to 7 letters.
I previously said that I’m not a fan of Colemak’s L position, which is the same upper-row-index-finger. But Colemak’s L has a ton of NFBs with the vowels, especially with E but also with all the other vowels. Looking at the whole hand, 62% of L bigrams are on the same hand. I think that’s the source of discomfort. But with Middlemak’s D, only 22% of bigrams are on the same hand, and 78% are on the opposite hand. So MIddlemak has far lower same-hand-gymnastics.

P and G location

It’s better to move G than keep it in its Qwerty location.
P and G are pretty much the same frequency, so it doesn’t matter in that sense.
P has a SFB with T, and it has common bigrams of PR, SP, and even PA. Those work better with P on the middle row. There is PL, but the ones above outweigh it.
G has a bigram with NG. With N on the opposite hand, that means G can go on the worse diagonal spot. There is GR, but PR is far more common.

O location

O and E together give very low SFB. This is a great opportunity to put them together. The strong middle finger only has 3 keys, so it can handle two very frequent letters.

U, Y and F locations

U works pretty well with I, the SFB are reasonably low. This location also creates a nice OU and YOU roll.
Y goes to the index finger, which actually works pretty well. I broke down the numbers in SFB section.
F goes to the right hand index finger, because putting P or G on the right hand gives too many SFB with M and N. The F location works quite well for both moderate frequency and low SFB. It has a lot of NFB with OF/FO, so placing it next to O makes a comfortable roll.

Hi Everyone! Thank you to everyone who has purchased from me already! Same process and rules. I will consider all reasonable offers (besides my high end palettes) and if you want even further discounted prices, you can check this post (generally 10% off the prices here). Please note that everything is crossposted and is first come, first serve. I do not do holds; the only way to confirm your items is by paying for them.
My feedback forms are here:
(Most recent: 2023 Pt 1)
https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/104k7ro/2023_muesce_seller_feedback/
(2021) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/p3q3h2/muesce_seller_feedback/
(2022 Pt 1) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/srspyq/2022_muesce_seller_feedback/
I always try to go above and beyond for my buyers and I think my feedback speaks for itself 💯🥰
Now, that’s out of the way, let’s get onto the rules! This is an absolute monster of a list so please go through everything carefully.
RULES/NOTES: PLEASE READ

• Please do not price control my post. I am not Sephora, Ulta, etc. If you do not like the price, then please just keep on moving.
• Everything is brand new, authentic, and full sized- if not, it will be stated.
• If you cannot pay, then please do not claim!! Serious buyers only please. Prices are clearly listed. I will be blocking ghosters and people who make rude comments from now on.
• $4-$6.68 shipping if package under 16 oz/1 lb. Shipping will increase based on weight and location. Packages over 16 ounces will have to be sent as Priority Mail ($9-$11 shipping). Shipping in the US only. Please note that shipping may be delayed due to the holidays.
• Items will be shipped within 3 business days after payment is made, but I do try my hardest to ship ASAP!
• $15 minimum before shipping.
• Please ensure your PayPal address is up to date- I am not responsible if you enter an old address and can only ship to the address on file.
• Items with a strikethrough have been sold. Please keep in mind that this is cross posted and things will sell fast. Not doing swaps at this time and no holds- you have 12 hours to confirm and pay or I will move to NIL
• Please don't ghost me - I promise to be understanding if you end up not wanting something but please just let me know! If you have ghosted me in the past, then I have the right to refuse to sell to you.
• Please send me your PayPal email/pay asap through chat/pm so I can get you shipped out quick!
• I take a lot of pride in communication and giving the best service possible- I have 100+ 5 star reviews on selling and buying on other platforms. Any problems that arise, will be handled by me so please reach out!

Lastly, let's keep it fun! Please no drama- I spent hours/days on this post and I’m exhausted. I am one person and am doing my best. If there are any mistakes (wrong picture, blurry, etc) just let me know and I will fix it. I am happy to take any additional pictures and provide extra details. Please ask before purchasing! Also, please note that I will be shipping from Cali so PST time.
Okay, I think that’s it! Thank you for reading and have fun shopping! :)
*RV = Retail Value
EYESHADOW/FACE PALETTES

1. Pat McGrath Celestial Nirvana $58 RV $82
2. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Nude Venus) $40 Retails $62
3. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Divine Rose) $40 Retails $62
4. Pat McGrath Bronze Bliss eyeshadow palette $30
5. Pat McGrath Bridgerton 2 $50
6. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Trio palette $43
7. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Blushing Delights $40 INSIDE
8. Pat McGrath Bronze Borealis Quad $40 box is damaged
9. Pat McGrath Ritualistic Rose Quad $40 RV $65
10. Natasha Denona Retro Glam $55 RV $69 (has a nicked shade 'holly')
11. Natasha Denona My Dream Palette $58 RV $69
12. Natasha Denona Glam Palette $55 RV $69
13. Natasha Denona Retro $55 RV $69
14. Natasha Denona Circo Loco $90 RV $129
15. Natasha Denona Sunset $85 RV $129
16. Natasha Denona Biba Palette $60 USED INSIDE Full disclosure- this is an older palette so the formula may be a bit different/not as creamy and pigmented as a new one
17. Natasha Denona Zendo Palette $48 (3 2 available) RV $69
18. Natasha Denona Bronze $45 (4 3 available) RV $69
19. Natasha Denona Sunrise $42 USED INSIDE
20. Natasha Denona Love $40 USED INSIDE *Please note that this particular palette was notorious for inconsistencies so some of the shades are not the normal ND creamy formula
21. Natasha Denona Glam Face (dark version) $43 RV $62
22. Natasha Denona Glam Face (light version) $43 (2 1 available) RV $62
23. Natasha Denona Bloom Blush and Glow palette $42 RV $59 INSIDE
24. Natasha Denona Tan $40 RV $59
25. Natasha Denona Coral $24 RV $48
26. Natasha Denona Coral $21 SWATCHED
27. Natasha Denona Ayana BNWOB $15
28. Natasha Denona Mini Love $18 RV $27
29. Natasha Denona Mini Zendo $18 RV $27
30. Natasha Denona All Over Glow Shade 02 Medium BNWOB INSIDE $18
31. Huda Empowered $50 RV $67
32. Huda Rose Quartz palette $48 RV $67
33. Huda Rose Quartz (used 1x) $40
34. Huda Naughty palette $46 (4 available) RV $67
35. Huda Naughty- swatched $38. Close up here
36. Huda Beauty New Nude $42
37. Huda Wild Chameleon Palette $19 INSIDE
38. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk Beautifying Face Palette Medium-Deep $60 RV $75
39. Charlotte Tilbury Smokey Eyes are Forever $50 RV $75
40. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk 12 pan palette $45 RV $75 INSIDE (new but no box)
41. Charlotte Tilbury Super Nudes (6 pans) $40 RV $57
42. Charlotte Tilbury Easy Eye Darling (6 pans)
43. $40 for BNIB, $38 for BNWOB, This one is swatched for $35 here
44. Charlotte Tilbury Filmstar Bronze and Glow (Light to Medium) $48- no box
45. Charlotte Tilbury Flimstar Bronze and Glow (Medium to Dark) $48
46. Charlotte Tilbury ‘Dazzling Diamonds’ $35 RV $53 swatched
47. Charlotte Tilbury Sunset Dreamscape Face Palette RV $75 NO BOXES (discontinued)
48. I have one BN for $50, one looks touched on the top right shade so $46
49. I have 2 that are swatched/used with no boxes here Left is $38, Right is $40
50. Chanel Quad in ‘79 Spices’ $50 Retails $68
51. Patrick Ta Major Headlines Vol 2 $48 RV $58
52. Patrick Ta Rose Dimensions 2 Palette $55
53. Tom Ford Desert Fox $45
54. Tom Ford Pretty Baby Palette 2 shades broken so $35. I can try to repress for you or you can take it as is
55. GIVENCHY Le 9.01 $45 RV $65
56. HOURGLASS Ambient Lighting Palette Vol 3 $40
57. Melt Mariposas Eyeshadow palette $45
58. Melt Mariposas Blush palette $35
59. Melt Cosmetics Mary Jane $43
60. Melt Cosmetics Smoke Sessions $33 (Had one broken shade at the right that I repressed)
61. Urban Decay Naked Wild West $33 (2 available)
62. Urban Decay Naked Honey (used and has 1 repressed shade ‘Amber’) $20
63. Urban Decay NAKED Foxy Mini palette- $15 RV $29
64. Too Faced Too Femme palette $30 (3 1 available)
65. ABH Primrose Palette $40
66. ABH Primrose- New but repressed 2 shades (‘Rose Water’ and ‘Fire Opal’). Although I did my best to repress, cannot guarantee how they will be during transit. $35 RV $55
67. ABH Amrezy $35 RV $49 (discontinued)
68. ABH Amrezy (used and repressed one shade ‘Litty’, no box) $25
69. ABH Rose Metals $40 RV $55 (2 1 available)
70. ABH Norvina $29 (2 shades were repressed)
71. ABH Glow Kit Sugar $22 SWATCHED INSIDE
72. Tarte Sugar Rush Sweet Tarte Frosted $22 (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades)
73. Tarte Juicy (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades) $22
74. Jaclyn Hill Rouge Romance 'Rouge Affair' SWATCHED $28 INSIDE
75. Viseart Tryst 9 pan Palette $22 USED
76. Jeffree Star Alien palette- discontinued and rare
77. One still in packaging- make me an offer!
78. One with no box. I’m going to say swatched 2 shades to be safe - make me an offer! INSIDE
79. Jeffree Star Blue Blood palette- $30 INSIDE
80. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar palette $30 INSIDE

Eyeshadow Palettes that are New but Name your price!

1. ICONIC Sunset to Sunrise Palette
2. True and Luscious Lucky Glow Palette
3. Suva Beauty Protege Palette INSIDE
4. PUR 4-in-1 Face palette in Medium Tan

Eyeshadow Palettes that have been swatched/lightly used- Name your price!

1. BH Cosmetics It’s My RayeRaye
2. BH Cosmetics In-Nude-endo INSIDE
3. Violet Voss Pinky Promise INSIDE
4. OPVbeauty Spotlight palette INSIDE
5. Hank and Henry Living in Color palette INSIDE

PRIMERS

1. Bobbi Brown Vitamin Enriched Eye Base FS
   1. One is BNIB $40, 2 are BNWOB $38
2. Charlotte Tilbury Brightening Youth Glow $38 RV $55
3. MAC ‘Painterly’ Paint Pot (used 1x) $12
4. GLAMGLOW SuperMattify Primer $23
5. Dr Brandt pores no more Luminizer Primer $15 each (3 available, only one has box)
6. Urban Decay Primer Potion in shade ‘Eden’ $15
7. Ole Henriksen Banana primer (used 2x) $18
8. Tarte Timeless Smoothing Primer $25 (2 1 available)
9. Too Faced Primed & Poreless+ $15 (box damaged and used 1x)

Mascaras Verification Photo

1. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk in ‘Super Black’ $20
2. Lancome Dèfinicils High Definition Lengthening Mascara $18 (2 1 available)
3. Dermelect XL Lash Volumizer $10
4. IT cosmetics Superhero Mascara $15 (2 1 available)
5. Trestique Good Vibes mascara $6
6. Trestique Good Vibes mascara + Eye pencil $8
7. Petite n Pretty Fully Feathered Mascara $3
8. Benefit Lashes all the Way set $15

Setting Powders

1. ByTerry Hyaluronic Hydra-Powder $35 RV $60
2. Hourglass Veil Translucent Powder $36 (2 1 available)

Highlighters

1. Charlotte Tilbury Hollywood Superstar Glow Highlighter- Limited edition/Discontinued $40
2. Cover FX glitter drops in shade Aurora $12
3. Cover FX custom drops in shade Blossom $12 (2 1 available)
4. Cover FX custom drops in shade Halo $12
5. SAIE Highlighter shade Sunglow $15

LIPS

1. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar Liquid Lipstick Vault $70 RV $160 (Keep in mind to mix/shake before using as this formula gets clumpy) INSIDE
2. MAC lipstick in shade Dangerous $8
3. MAC lipstick in shade So Chaud $8
4. MAC lipstick in shade Dozen Carnations $8
5. Bali Balm sweet orange & coconut lip balm $6 (2 1 available)
6. Primera Clean Berry Lip Mask $12
7. DOSE OF COLORS lipstick in shade Date Night $8 (2 available, 1 has no box)
8. TARTE shimmering lip paint in shade Strike Gold $5
9. YENSA Super 8 Lip Oil in shade ‘On the Mauve’ $8
10. JOUER Creme Lip Liner in shade pink champagne shimmer $8
11. ABH liquid lipstick in shade ‘heathers’ $8
12. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Grape Jelly’ $7
13. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Maui’ $7 (no box)
14. Lipstick Queen Nothing but Nudes in shade ‘Tempting Taupes’ (this is new but has sweat spots (does not affect lipstick just cosmetic) $8 INSIDE
15. Charlotte Tilbury Hyaluronic Happikiss in shade ‘romance kiss’ $25
16. Charlotte Tilbury Limitless Lucky Lips in shade ‘Cherry Dream’ $18
17. YSL Slim Glow Matte Rouge in shade ‘217: Intimate Chocolate’ $15
18. Too Faced Lady Bold lipstick in shade ‘Trailblazer’ $17
19. Too Faced Lady Bold Lipstick in shade ‘Be True to You’ $17
20. Whish lip balm in ‘pink champagne’ $10
21. Tarte Maneater plumping gloss $10
22. Iconic London Lip plumping gloss in shade ‘S*x Kitten’ $12 (no box)
23. Lancome L’absolu Rouge in shade ‘120 Sienna’ $18 SWATCHED
24. Bobbi Brown Luxe Shine Intense Lipstick in shade ‘Claret’ $18 SWATCHED
25. GLOW RECIPE Watermelon lip pop $12 (no box)
26. GLOW RECIPE Blueberry lip pop $12
27. MELT Warm Nudes Mini Set $25
28. Jeffree Star Velvet Trap in shade Confessional $12 (no box)
29. Natasha Denona Lip Color 34 Fuchsia Red $14

BLUSHES

1. Rodial Blush Drops $12

BRONZERS

1. Marc Jacobs O!mega Bronzer in shade ‘Tantalize’ $35 (new but no box) INSIDE
2. Huda Glowish in shade ‘Light 01’ $20
3. ABH Powder Bronzer in shade ‘Saddle’ $18
4. LYS Beauty Bronzer in shade ‘Motivate’ $10

Eyeshadow Liquids/Singles

1. HAUS Labs Liquid Shimmer Powder in shade ‘Legend’ $8
2. DOSE OF COLORS single eyeshadow in shade ‘Jackpot’ $5
3. MELT eyeshadow single in shade ‘Amelie’ $8

EYELINER and BROWS

1. Charlotte Tilbury Legendary Brown Tinted Brow Gel in shade ‘Soft Brown’ $18 BNWOB
2. Benefit Gimme Brow+ in shade ‘3’ $12
3. ABH Brow Bae-sics Deluxe Kit in shade ‘Taupe’ $20
4. Laura Geller line-n-define in shade Black $5
5. MELT Allday Everyday Eyeliner in shade ‘Baked’ $12

FOUNDATION/Concealer

1. Pat McGrath Skin Fetish Sublime Perfection concealer in shade ‘L1’ used 1x $25
2. BECCA Ultimate Coverage foundation shade ‘Vanilla’ $15
3. BECCA Ultimate Coverage in shade ‘Linen’ Used 2x $5 (Keep in mind this is a thicker formula)
4. Natasha Denona Transformatte foundation in shade ‘22W’ $15
5. Too Faced Born this Way concealer in shade ‘Chestnut’ used 2x $10
6. KVD Lock it powder foundation in shade Light 125 $20
7. BareMinerals BAREPRO Performance Wear Liquid Foundation in shade ‘Shell 7.5’ $10 used 2x
8. Bobbi Brown Fluid Powder Foundation in shade ‘N-070’ used 2x $10

BRUSHES

1. MODA Powder and Soft Glow Brush $12
2. MODA 5 pc Deluxe eye Kit $15
3. LUXIE Glitter and Gold 9 piece Brush Set $30 (2 available)
4. Too Faced Mr. Chiseled Contouring Brush $14

SKINCARE:

1. Tatcha Water Cream $52 Retails $70
2. Tatcha The Essence 2.5 fl oz (sealed) $40 Retails $65
3. Tatcha The Essence (sealed) 5.0 fl oz $68 Retails $110
4. Tatcha the Silk Peony $40 Retails $62
5. Drunk Elephant C-Firma Fresh Day Serum $55 RV $78 (2 available)
6. Drunk Elephant TLC Framboos Glycolic Night Serum $62 RV $90 (3 available)
7. Drunk elephant A-Passioni Retinol Cream $50 RV $74(2 available)
8. Drunk elephant Virgin Marula Facial Oil $45 RV $68
9. Drunk Elephant Protini Powerpeptide Resurf Serum $58 RV $82 (3 available)
10. Drunk Elephant TLC Sukari Babyfacial $58 RV $80
11. Drunk Elephant Shaba Complex Eye Serum $43 RV $60
12. Drunk Elephant C-Tango Eye Cream $40 RV $64
13. La Mer Moisturizing Cream $45 RV $95 (Yes, La Mer is expensive af lol) 0.5 oz/ 15mL BOTTOM NO BOX
14. Bobbi Brown Hydrating Face Cream $38 RV $64
15. Dr. Brandt Time Defying Cream FS $30 RV $135
16. Dr. Brandt Triple Antioxidant Eye Cream $18 (3 2 available)
17. ELEMIS Superfood Glow Priming moisturizer $18 (2 1 available)
18. Sunday Riley Tidal (new but beat up box) $35
19. SUNDAY RILEY Light Hearted Sunscreen $30
20. FARMACY Daily Greens Moisturizer $25 (2 1 available)
21. Farmacy Cheer Up Cherry Eye Cream $18
22. Grown Alchemist Detox Night Cream $18 (2 1 available)
23. Lancome Lait Galatee Confort Makeup Remover $25
24. Lancome Tonique Confort Hydrating Facial Toner $25
25. Saturday Skin Glycolic Toner $18
26. BeautyStat Universal C Eye Perfector $20 RV $65
27. Biossance Squalane and Omega Repair Cream $38 RV $58 (no box)
28. Malin + Goetz recovery treatment oil $30 RV $82
29. Grown Alchemist Matte Balancing Moisturizer
30. One BNIB $20, one BN but no box $18
31. First Aid Beauty Facial Radiance Pads 28 count $10
32. Alpha-H Liquid Gold with Glycolic Acid 100 mL $30 RV $54
33. Glo Skin Beauty Pro 5 liquid exfoliant $28 RV $58 (box is a little banged up)
34. Algenist Triple Algae Eye Renewal Balm $25 RV $68
35. AHC eye cream $15
36. Clinique pep-start eye cream $13
37. Juice beauty Stem Cellular Anti-Wrinkle Eye treatment $25 RV $50

SERUMS

1. Tatcha Dewy Serum $60 RV $89
2. Estee lauder Night Repair Serum 1.7 fl oz $65 Retails $110
3. Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair Concentrate $50 RV $82
4. Farmacy 1% Vitamin A Retinol Serum $40 RV $60
5. Herbivore Bakuchiol Serum $40 RV $54 (2 available)
6. Herbivore Emerald Oil used 1x and no box $25
7. Biossance Squalane Phyto-Retinol Serum $50 FS RV $72
8. Biossance Squalane Dark Spot Serum 15 mL $30
9. Biossance Squalane Night Serum 1 fl oz/30 mL $ $35 RV $62 (no box)
10. Algenist Elevate Advanced Retinol Serum $30 RV $98 (box is banged up)
11. AKAR restore eye serum $30 RV $85 0.3 oz/10 mL

CLEANSERS

1. La Mer the Cleansing Foam 1 oz $20
2. Glow Recipe Papaya Sorbet Cleansing Balm $23
3. Dr. Brandt Microdermabrasion Exfoliator $30 RV $79
4. Kate Somerville ExfoliKate Exfoliating Treatment $50 RV $98 2 fl oz (no box)
5. Korres Greek Yoghurt Foaming Cleanser $16 (packaging is a little dirty but sealed)
6. Origins Never a Dull Moment Skin-Brightening Face Polisher $15
7. OSEA Ocean Cleanser .6 oz/18 mL (2 available) $6 each
8. Perricone MD Vitamin C Citrus Cleanser $15

MASKS

1. Glow Recipe Watermelon Clay Facial $40 SEALED
2. Herbivore Brighten Instant Glow Mask $30 (2 available)
3. Glow Recipe Avocado Mask $26
4. FARMACY Bright on Vitamin C Mask $22
5. ELEMIS Superfood Veggie Mask $18
6. Milk Makeup Watermelon Face Mask $18
7. Dr. Brandt Vacuum Cleaner $20 RV $42
8. GLAMGLOW YouthMud Glow Stimulating & Exfoliating Treatment Mask 1 oz/30 g $12 each
   1. Only 1 has box but both BN
9. Origins Ginzing Peel Off Mask 2.5 fl oz $16
10. NudeStix Lemon-Aid Detox and micro-peel $12
11. TRULY Golden leaf CBD Face mask $22
12. Avant 8 hour radiance renewal sleeping mask 1.69 fl oz $20

SETS

1. Tatcha No-Filter Essentials $54
2. Laneige Basic Duo Set $43
3. La Mer Set $100 ($250 value) BACK

HAIR Verification Photo

1. IGK Prenup Instant Spray Hair Mask $12
2. IGK Mistress Hair balm $14
3. AG Hair Care Fast Food Leave on Conditioner $18
4. Moroccanoil Perfect Defense Spray $13
5. Christophe Robin Daily Hair Cream $18
6. Living Proof forming paste $12
7. Moroccan Leave in Mask $12

MISC

1. Sol De Janeiro Rio Deo Deodorant (sealed) $10
2. Lilly Lashes Lash Enhancing Serum $25
3. Eyeko Eyelash Curler $8
4. Dolce and Gabbana The One Perfume
   1. One is 50 mL/ 1.6 Fl Oz $60 RV $96 (to be safe I’ll say used 1x)
   2. One is 75 mL/2.5 oz $80 RV $125 SEALED
5. Dolce and Gabbana Dolce Garden Travel Spray 0.25 oz/7.5 mL $18
6. Herbivore Coco Rose Body Scrub $18
7. Velour Lashes in style ‘Caption This‘ $10
8. MAC Lashes in style ‘B90’ $10
9. Lashaholic in style ‘Kiss Me’ $10
10. FENTY What it Dew Spray $15
11. OSEA Sea Minerals Mist $18
12. M. Greengrass dry oil spray $10
13. TRULY Berry Cheeky $22
14. Ice Roller $10 Back is cut here- idk how that happened but otherwise sealed

Jeffree Star Red Beanie- name your price

This is a new writeup for Middlemak (renamed since my previous post). Named for the emphasis on the middle finger and use of the middle-finger-upper-row locations for frequent letters
Link to Layout

QWLDG JFOU: ASRTP YNEIH ZXCVB KM,./ 

The main design criteria was:
1) Use the middle-finger-upper-row position. The middle finger is a very strong finger, and the middle-finger-upper-row is a very good location for a common letter.
2) To reduce pinballing by putting most vowels on the right hand and putting most of the frequent consonants on the left hand.
3) Reduce the number of NFB.
4) Improve hand balance.
5) Keep SFB down of course.
6) A secondary design criteria was low ring-to-pinky-rolls. I find this particular outside roll to be the most awkward movement on the keyboard.
7) Maintain Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
These are all discussed in more detail below. (This layout was based on Colemak so I’ll be talking in that sense for some of it.)

1) Middle-Finger-Upper-Row

The main purpose of this layout is to place 2 common letters on the middle-finger-upper-row. The middle finger is very strong and these are excellent locations that are easy to reach. Then the 11th letter is placed on the index-finger-upper-row.
When you look at the letter frequency, there are 11 common letters before it takes a big drop off. The first eight letters go on the home row under the fingers. The next question is where do the next 3 letters go. Middlemak’s philosophy is to place 2 of them on the middle-finger-upper-row, and the 11th common letter goes on the index-finger-upper-row. Colemak places 2 on the centre columns, requiring a lateral movement that many find uncomfortable. Dvorak places them on the centre column, along with upper-row-ring-and-pinky. That means Dvorak has both a lateral movement, ring finger to upper row, and the very bad pinky finger to upper row. Workman has one middle-finger-upper-row, one ring-finger-upper-row, and one on the index-finger-lower-row. It’s a bit of a mixed layout.
Putting frequent letters on the middle fingers also unloads the index fingers and spreads out the work to other fingers. The index fingers can get very busy with 6-7 letters.
Middlemak’s left hand does have D on the index finger. Where to place that 11th letter is a hard choice. Many find the ring finger to not be very dexterous. So keeping W there works for both its lowish frequency and keeping Qwerty similarity. That puts the 11th common letter on to the more dexterous index finger. Pairing D with T works very well for low SFB and to put it on the consonant hand.
(Why not curl for D? Answered in a separate section below.)

2) Pinballing.

(I wrote about pinballing in length here). The short of it is that there is an incredibly strong interaction between vowels and the consonants, with 75% of all bigrams between vowels and consonants. Pinballing.can arise from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand.
To reduce pinballing Middlemak does two things:
First it moves common consonant L from the vowel hand and to the consonant hand.
Second it moves H to the pinky. H is a very unique letter because it is almost always followed by a vowel. Moving H to the pinky means it gives inside rolls, with virtually no pinballing back to H.
Combined, this increases alternating and reduces pinballing/redirects/one-hand-gymnastics.
This increases alternating, but it's not entirely. Middlemak still has rolls because it has N, H, and MKFJ. For N, I find the rolls to be comfortable, likely because N is on the home row as opposed to Colemak’s H and L. For H, they are now inside rolls.
You might ask if pinballing is still there because overall the right hand still has N and H. Colemak has what I call the NHLMKJ wall, it’s a wall of consonants that the vowels pinball off of. Middlemak reduces the wall to NMFPJ, which is much lower frequency. (I don’t include Y in the wall because it’s a vowel and most of its bigrams are on the opposite hand.) For H, it gives an inside roll to the vowels. After the vowel, it generally continues to the consonants NMFPJ, which is still an inside roll. Generally only after the third letter can it start to redirect/pinball back to the vowels or H. The main pinballing/redirect that I can think of is the word “their”.

3) Near Finger BIgrams

NFB are bigrams that are on adjacent fingers. Too many or an uncomfortable arrangement can be an issue. NFB and pinballing are separate issues. NFB are the smaller pattern of adjacent fingers. Pinballing is the much larger pattern of pinballing between all vowels and constants
I’ll cover Colemak first to highlight the issue. On Colemak there are very common NFBs with HE and LE/EL. There is also NE/EN, but I find the HE and EL/LE to be awkward because L and H are off the home row. Pretty much all E bigrams are fairly high. I think you want to move common consonants away from E to reduce NFBs and improve comfort.
Middlemak drastically reduces the NFBs by moving the common letters L and H off the adjacent index finger. The replacement of FE/EF and YE/EY is drastically lower. It maintains M for Qwerty similarity, which has a moderate amount.
Looking at other layouts, Workman still has high NFB with L. Colemak-DH maintains L and H next to E. Many find the new H location more comfortable, but it’s still a ton of NFB. MTGAP moved practically all letters away from the E and O and instead put punctuation there, a very good solution but requires a complete layout change. Semimak put E and I on the ring finger, which is an interesting idea to get them away from the index finger. But that puts a ton of frequency and movement on the ring finger, which is not so strong or dexterous
Middlemak does create some NFB with O placement. Namely OF, ON, and OM. However OF and ON are very comfortable, having the middle finger extended up feels pretty comfortable. OM is ok, and it’s the least common of those 3. The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like, but it doesn't feel too bad. This is about the best location for a scissor-gram too, with the long-middle-finger up and the curl-index-finger down being able to handle it fairly well. (Just to mention Colemak’s EL/LE, not exactly a scissor-gram, is bad since the shorter index finger has to reach up and the middle finger is so long it’s already curled just to be on the home row.)
Overall, Middlemak moving common consonants away from E drastically lowers the number of NFBs and takes away a ton of awkward movements.

4) Hand balance

Hand balance is a difficult topic. The two most obvious metrics for hand dominance are 1) the frequency of the letters, and 2) the distance the hand has to travel (which is different from frequency because you don't travel to the home-row). But those metrics are not completely sufficient to describe what’s going on because possible pinballing from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand doesn’t show in the numbers.
Having said all that, I’m going to take a stab at it.

Keyboard	Vowel Hand	Dominant Hand	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency	Hand Balance ratio based on Distance	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance	Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP	Left	Right	1.00	1.43	1.43
Workman	Right	Left	0.97	0.82	0.80	1.26
Norman	n/a	Right	0.93	1.27	1.19
Colemak	Right	Right	1.14	1.15	1.32
MiddleMak	Right	Right	1.05	1.06	1.11
Semimak	Right	Right	1.15	1.30	1.49
Dvorak	Left	Right	1.23	1.86	2.30
QWERTY	n/a	Left	0.77	1.06	0.82	1.22

Notes: >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. The hand balance ratios are based on each hand's frequency/distance, right hand divided by left hand. E.g. Middlemak: 51.2% right hand frequency divided by 48.8% left hand frequency equals 1.05. Colemak: 53.2% right hand frequency divided by 46.7% left hand frequency equals 1.14. Those charts will be further down. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two ratios. I did this because having more frequency and more movement on the same hand amplifies the hand dominance. They both matter. Or if one hand has more frequency and the other hand has more movement, that would mitigate it to some degree. This is by no means the most definitive way to look at it, but it's what I've managed to come up with. The "Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant" is a hard math thing to explain (that I hope I'm right about anyway). E.g. for Workman listing 0.80 gives the wrong impression the hand dominance is equivalent to 1.2 (20%). But it's actually 1.26 (26%), obtained from 1/0.8=1.26.
MIddlemak is more balanced on both frequency distribution and distance distribution. When both are considered, it really adds up to being more balanced. Middlemak has 1.11 hand balance, compared to Colemak’s 1.32 or Workman’s 1.26.
The ratio changes quite quickly because both the numerator and the denominator change and go in opposite directions. Moving L does exactly this, changes both the numerator and denominator. So Middlemak does balance the hands quite well (as well as drastically reducing pinballing and NFBs).
I’ll add more charts in “Excessive amounts of detail” below for both frequency and distance. It’s just excessive for this section. Those will break down frequencies and distances for each finger too, which can be enlightening.

5) SFB

The SFB of this layout is still pretty low, but it does come out a tad higher than Colemak’s. I’ve debated how to show this and decided to go with the full nuclear detailed numbers. Data is from Myzner revisited in millions, which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t include punctuation, that’s what the 0’s are.

Keyboard	Total SFB	Left hand SFB	Right hand SFB	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
QWERTY	185,270	125,920	59,350	1,105	1,661	54,502	68,651	34,166	3,970	21,214	0
Workman	78,147	29,268	48,878	1,105	3,712	2,806	21,645	27,338	5,037	16,503	0
Dvorak	70,570	28,306	42,264	0	31	0	28,275	12,142	16,265	8,229	5,629
MiddleMak	44,698	25,806	18,892	1,105	1,661	2,716	20,323	12,415	3,134	3,343	0
Colemak	39,023	23,336	15,687	1,105	1,267	639	20,323	9,831	5,037	819	0
MTGAP	34,151	14,550	19,601	1,147	339	3,134	9,931	4,629	8,633	5,071	1,267

Notes: This is with index finger pressing C location, which is how I think most people type. Data is from Myzner revisited in millions, which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t include punctuation, that’s what the 0’s are.
Note that adding in punctuation SFB, the numbers would be higher. But adding in punctuation Colemak, Colemak-DH, and Middlemak would all increase by similar absolute amounts. So that means the relative differences between them would actually be smaller than what's shown here.
For Middlemak. You can see it’s not all that much of an increase in SFB. Overall the numbers are low considering that it’s based on Qwerty similarity.
On the left hand: The middle finger goes up with R and L. This was to allow more consonants on the left hand and use of the middle-finger-upper-row. I think the middle finger being a strong finger and comfortable reach can handle these quite well. The index finger is the same as Colemak.
On the right hand: The right index goes up a little bit, mostly with NY and MY. It’s not all that much but it is more. I think it works well. NY is not as common as you may think, for example it’s actually less common than EU / UE. The exact Mayzner numbers are: NY / YN is 2,761 / 373. While EU / UE is 878 / 4,158. And MY / YM is 1,753 / 668. Having the Y on the index finger does add up a little bit, but I think it’s still easily manageable. The middle finger actually goes down, EO/OE is really not common. The ring finger goes up a bit with UI/IU being more common than Colemak’s IY/YI.
Overall percentage (with the index finger pressing C, how I think most people type), Middlemak comes in at 2.078%, vs Colemak’s 1.815%, vs Workmans 3.053%, vs Qwerty’s 6.264%.
Aside: Colemak really did a good job finding low SFB pairings of SF, DT, NHL, and IY. So changing 3 of those pairings does come at a cost, but it’s done so that Middlemak can put more frequent letters to better spots, reduce pinballing, and reduce NFB. I think the SFB is in the same realm as Colemak, it’s still pretty low.

Ortho SFB

Keyboard	Total SFB	Left hand SFB	Right hand SFB	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
QWERTY	195,687	136,337	59,350	1,105	1,661	86,462	47,108	34,166	3,970	21,214	0
Workman	79,561	30,682	48,878	1,105	3,712	8,206	17,659	27,338	5,037	16,503	0
Dvorak	70,365	28,101	42,264	0	31	1,591	26,480	12,142	16,265	8,229	5,629
MiddleMak	42,816	23,924	18,892	1,105	1,661	14,888	6,270	12,415	3,134	3,343	0
Colemak	30,032	14,345	15,687	1,105	1,267	5,702	6,270	9,831	5,037	819	0
MTGAP	34,151	14,550	19,601	1,147	339	3,134	9,931	4,629	8,633	5,071	1,267

Notes: This is with the middle finger pressing C location. This basically moves SFB from the index finger to the middle finger. (For MTGAP it changes punctuation, not letters, so it’s the same.)
Middlemak on Ortho actually comes in just a tad lower, but Colemak takes a bigger dip. On Middlemak, ortho takes out CT and puts in CR and CL. Colemak on Ortho takes a much bigger dip taking out CT and putting in SC, which is lower.
I think Middlemak on Ortho works well. It does have CL which is a two row jump, but that’s about it.
The full Mayzner numbers:
CT / TC is 12,998 / 737, which is taken out on Middlemak and Colemak Ortho.
Middlemak Ortho puts in CR / RC which is 4,214 / 3,423. And puts in CL / LC which is 4,202 / 333. In percentages, CR is 32% of CT, RC is 26% of CT, and CL is 32% of CT. If you add in all the others (CP, CG, etc), Middlemak Ortho comes in at 87% of CT+TC. Just a tad lower.
Colemak Ortho puts in CS / SC, which is 644 / 4,363. CF/ FC is pretty much nill. In percentages, SC is 34% of CT. If you add in all the others, Colemak Ortho comes in at 36% of CT+TC. A bigger dip.
Overall percentages (with the middle finger pressing C Ortho style), Middlemak comes in at 2.16%, vs Colemak’s 1.669%, vs Workman’s 3.147%, vs Qwerty’s 6.575%. This is from Colemak-DH analyzer which oddly says MIddlemak increases. I think it comes down to the data set used, for the charts above I used Mayzer revisited.

6) Low ring-to-pinky rolls. And the amazing inside roll from H.

On the left hand, Middlemak’s ring-to-pinky roll of SA and WA relatively low. SA is actually the lowest bigram between the common consonants to A. So SA and WA comes out to be a good design. The only way to get this ring-to-pinky roll down any further is to move A to the right hand, which greatly reduces any ease of transition. Vs Colemak: Middlemak’s SA outside roll is less common than Colemak’s RA. Additionally, the inside roll of AS is also less common than Colemak’s AR.
On the right hand the outside roll of ring-to-pinky of IH and UH is very low. Vs Colemak: IO is very common, and even YO is pretty common.
This next bit isn’t even a secondary design goal, but it’s worth mentioning. On the right hand, outside rolls from any of the fingers to the pinky H are very low. The common letters that come before H are usually TH, CH, WH, SH, and GH. All of those are on the opposite left hand. Doing the math, 97% of the letters before H are on the left hand.
I think this also de-emphasizes the pinky a bit in a few different ways. First is limiting the ring-to-pinky rolls makes the pinky overall easier. Second, the frequency of H is much lower than Colemak’s O. Third, the bigram HH is virtually nill, vs Colemak’s OO which is pretty common. These aren’t knock-outs, but I think they add up to de-emphasizing the pinky a bit which is worth mentioning.

7) Qwerty similarity.

Last but not least, this maintains Qwerty similarity. Most people have a lot of muscle memory and Qwerty similarity makes a new layout much easier to learn.
First, this maintains the bottom row (except N) and maintains Q, W, A, and S.
Second, this “keeps” the ASRT order. People learning Colemak commonly say that R and S are reversed. Technically it’s not because R was never on the middle finger to begin with. But it seems to be reversed in the brain. I think it’s two things. First ASRT keeps it in the same “order”, with R between S and T, even if R changes fingers. Second, I wonder how many people alt-fingered R when typing in Qwerty, either all the time or for the RT bigram.
Comparing layouts:

• Middlemak: 10 letters stay in their original spot and 16 move, with 5 letters moving on the same finger and 11 letters switching fingers.
  
• Colemak: 10 letters stay in their original spot and 16 move, with 4 letters moving on the same finger and 12 letters switching fingers.
  
• Colemak-DH: 5 letters stay in their original spot and 21 move, with 6 letters moving on the same finger and 15 letters switching fingers.
  
• Workman: 6 letters stay in their original spot and 20 move, with 8 letters moving on the same finger and 12 letters switching fingers.
  

*Not accounting for punctuation because.
When you account for letters swapping on the same finger, this has fewer changes than Colemak. And I think “keeping” the ASRT order will make MiddleMak even easier to adopt than the numbers suggest.

Downsides

1) There is a slight increase in SFB compared to Colemak. But overall I think SFB is still low.
2) There are a handful of NFB with R: BR, GR, PR, etc. Same with L and BL. This isn’t enough to change the home row to ARST. There is more below but ASRT has lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and is easier to learn. Also note these are much lower than the extremely high NFB that Colemak has with HE, LE, etc.
3) I wanted a less common letter in the G location (Qwerty T location). I really tried to put a less common letter there, but it simply doesn’t work with keeping Qwerty similarity and low SFB.
4) I mention this above but I’ll cover more. The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like. This is a limitation of keeping Qwerty similarity: wanting to both put a common letter, O, on the upper-row-middle-finger and keep M on the index-finger-bottom-row. (MTGAP has a good design on this. It paired its EO on the middle finger with a lot of punctuation on the index finger to reduce NFBs.)

Q: Why not curl?

First, I think after the eight spots on the home row, the next most comfortable positions are the middle finger upper row. This is a strong finger, an easy to reach location, and it unloads the index finger.
Second, I think C and M (the curl locations) are already near perfect frequencies for those locations. Those are the middle of the pack frequencies, which are perfect for the index fingers which cover 6 to 7 letters (instead of the other fingers covering 3). So we can preserve C and M from Qwerty.

Conclusion

I'm really happy with this layout. I think it is a great combination of pretty low SFB, good use of the strong middle finger upper room position, reduced NFB and pinballing, keeping Qwerty similarity, and easy to transition to.
Honestly I’m surprised no one else has stumbled on this arrangement, since many people have taken to trying to fix Colemak’s issues and keep Qwerty similarity.

Some nice rolls and combinations

Although the goal was to increase alternating, there are still plenty of rolls left. And combinations too between hands. Some I want to mention:
HE is very easy.
LD feels very good.
IO and ION are very nice rolls.
OU feels very comfortable.
IOU is a redirect, but overall feels pretty ok.
YOU has a lateral move and outside roll, but feels comfortable.
Putting OU+LD together to make OULD feels good.
This maintains the nice IEN roll.
OF/FO is very common and feels very good.
The very common TH, THE, and THE_ feel very nice not having to move the fingers off the home row.

Vs Colemak and Vs Colemak-DH

I made Middlemak to try to solve the problems I found with Colemak. The items probably all came out already but I’ll do a bit of a summary just to make sure. (I don’t mean this to be a hit piece on Colemak or Colemak-DH)
Colemak’s issues:
1) Colemak’s has an issue with high lateral movement with D and H. You see this especially with H, but D isn’t the best either.
2) The right index finger is overworked. It just has too much to do with N, H, and L.
3) Colemak’s pinballing issue due to placing most vowels and many common consonants on the same hand.
4) Colemak’s hand balance issue. It places a lot of emphasis on the right hand with the vowels and several common consonants. (Hand dominance and pinballing are separate items, although they can be related.)
5) Colemak’s awkward ring-to-pinky rolls. Notably IO, YO (especially when typing YOU), and also RA on the right hand.
6) Not exactly a direct issue with Colemak, but Middlemak is easier to learn coming from Qwerty. Many new users want to ‘keep’ the order of ASRT instead of reversing S and R.
Colemak DH:
Colemak-DH solves 1) the lateral movements. But it doesn’t solve 2) the right index finger overwork, 3) the pinballing, 4) the hand balance, 5) the awkward ring-to-pinky rolls, and 6) it changes an absolute ton of letters. It’s pretty much a full change layout. Shortcuts are still accessible, but the layout changes a ton.
Why would you choose Colemak? I think iff you type “properly” pressing C with the middle finger (I think most people press it with the index finger) and desire low SFB to the point that you accept the issues outlined above. If you type with your index finger pressing C (how I think most people type), then Middlemak is barely any more SFB and it fixes many issues.

Excessive amount of detail on letters

The R and L position

L pairs well with R for low SFB. After finessing with options, the home row can be arranged to ASRT and L can be put above R on the middle-finger-upper-row, a very desirable location.

ASRT with L above R:

I’m sure the R and S location will attract attention, so I’ll discuss it more here. Whether to go with ASRT with L above the R, or ARST with L above the S was not the simplest choice.
[First note though that Colemak had to go with ARST because of F on the middle-finger-upper-row. RF/FR is far more common than SF/FS, so Colemak had to move S to the middle finger.]
The pros of this is ASRT gives fewer SFB, with LRL being less than half as common as SL/LS. It also gives fewer ring-to-pinky-rolls with SA being far less common than Colemak’s RA. It also makes it much easier to learn from Qwerty.
The cons is that the R position leads to more NFB with the index finger. Most of these feel ok but RD, GR, BR are not so good. These aren’t super common, but they are there. PR gives the commonly disliked lateral NFB, but I think it’s relatively ok for the frequency - it’s not super common. RS creates an outside roll, but I’d rather have the RS on Middlemak’s middle-to-ring fingers, than Colemak’s RA ring-to-pinky fingers. RA is much more common than RS too.

ARST with L above S

The pros of ARST is that it gives an inside roll of RS. It also separates R from the NFB letters on the index finger, which do add up. However, I’m trying to resolve the NFBs of Colemak’s right hand H and L with E which is a magnitude larger, in addition to the pinballing that it creates.
The cons with ARST is that it gives more SFB. It’s not overly much, but it is there. It also gives a lot of ring-to-pinky outside rolls with RA, which I find uncomfortable. And finally this makes it much harder to learn coming from Qwerty.

Verdict: ASRT

None of these are huge deal breakers for one or the other. I went with lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and much easier to learn. At the cost of some NFB on the index finger and inside roll of RS.
(If someone is coming from Colemak and wants to make it ARST for various reasons, they can. It's not a humongous downside to do that. The downsides are the more common RA ring-to-pinky roll and slightly more SFB SD/DS.)
(I hope people don’t think that I’m overly focused on keeping S in the Qwerty location. If it didn’t work, I wouldn’t have kept it. For this layout, it really does work better with ASRT. If it didn’t work, I would have changed it. For example, I wanted to keep G on its Qwerty location. But it’s better to move it, so I didn’t shy away from changing.)

D position

Why on the upper-row instead of middle-row? First, I think most people find it easier to reach up and down rather than laterally. Second, it works very well with the LD roll.
Why not the bottom row? I want to leave the bottom row the same as QWERTY for ease of transition and to leave the shortcuts of cut-copy-paste the same.
I previously wrote that I was not a fan of Colemak’s L position, which is the same upper-row-index-finger. But with Colemak’s L there are a ton of Near Finger Bigrams with all the vowels, especially with E but also with all the other vowels. Looking at the whole hand, 62% of L bigrams are on the same hand. I think that’s the source of discomfort. But with Middlemak’s D, only 22% of bigrams are on the same hand, and 78% are on the opposite hand. So this has lower same hand gymnastics.

P and G location

It’s better to move G than keep it in its Qwerty location.
P and G are pretty much the same frequency, so it doesn’t matter in that sense.
P has a SFB with T, and it has common bigrams of PR, SP, and even PA. Those work better with P on the middle row. There is PL, but the ones above outweigh it.
G has a bigram with NG. With N on the opposite hand, that means G can go on the worse diagonal spot. There is GR, but PR is far more common.

O location

O and E together give very low SFB. This is a great opportunity to put them together. The strong middle finger only has 3 keys, so it can take two common letters and unload the index finger.

U, Y and F locations

U works pretty well with I, the SFB are reasonably low. This also creates a nice OU and YOU roll.
Y goes to the index finger, which actually works pretty well. NY/YN is not as common as you may think (it’s less common than EU/UE for example).
F goes to the right hand index finger, because putting P or G on the right hand gives too many SFB with M and N. Putting F there works quite well for both lower frequency and low SFB. It has a lot of NFB with OF/FO, so placing it next to O makes a comfortable roll.

Option: Swap A and H

This gives:

QWLDG JFOU: HSRTP YNEIA ZXCVB KM,./ 

The good: This is good if you want to put all the vowels and most consonants on opposite hands. This increases alternating overall. More alternating comes from moving A. It actually decreases alternating with H, because TH is just that common. On normal Middlemak, A and H together have 48% of all their bigrams on the opposite hand. With the AH swap, that goes to 59% of bigrams on the opposite hand.
The neutral: On the left hand, the ring-to-pinky (outside roll) of SH is slightly higher, but in a similar range. SA is 30,709 vs HA is 26,488 (millions, from Mayzner revisited).
The bad. On the right hand, the ring-to-pinky (outside roll) is higher with IA and UA. On both the right and left hand, the all-fingers-to-pinky (outside roll) is higher. On the left hand, TH is just that common. On the right hand, it removes the remarkable low vowel-to-H trend and replaces it with decent outside rolls to A.
The complicated: This option decreases the pinky-to-all-fingers rolls (inside rolls), with both A to all other fingers and H to all other fingers. It increases the all-fingers-to-pinky rolls (outside rolls). Overall, the total sum of inside rolls plus outside rolls is decreased. In short: this lowers inside rolls, increases outside rolls, with an overall sum that is lower. But I think the inside rolls are fine - when I type on Colemak I don’t find much of a problem with A to other fingers.
Basically stick to the original if you want to lower ring-to-pinky movement, lower outside rolls, and easier to learn.
So I can’t recommend this option for most people. I put it as an OK option if someone really wants to increase alternating hands.

Excessive amount of stats

This section has details on distance reductions, hand balance based on frequency, hand balance based on distance, and raw distance numbers. I'm going to give lots of charts. Some of this is repeated from above because the sequence tells a story.
You don’t need to read this all, but if you want to know different measurements between layouts, this is some data. This is also (mostly) in Norman/wiki.

Distance reduction from Qwerty

Keyboard	Distance	Distance	Distance
	(km)	(miles)	(% reduction from Qwerty)
MTGAP	2.592	1.611	46.3%
Workman	2.613	1.624	45.9%
Norman	2.615	1.625	45.9%
Colemak	2.616	1.625	45.8%
MiddleMak	2.710	1.684	43.9%
Semimak	2.739	1.702	43.3%
Dvorak	2.813	1.748	41.8%
QWERTY	4.829	3.001	0%

*Source: 62 page / 31k word compilation. Left index used to press Qwerty C location. Includes punctuation.
Middlemak’s distance reduction is good. Most alt keyboards are in the same range. It’s a tad worse on distance than some others because putting O off the home row instead of H increases distance, because O is more frequent than H. (MTGAP puts O off the home row, but has all the punctuation on the diagonals to decrease distance.)

All Finger Distances

This is the raw distance travelled in metres. Percentages rely on the total distance travelled, which changes between layouts, so it's not comparable. Note that distance is different from frequency. The fingers don't move for the home row, the distance travelled is to the other letters.

Keyboard	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky	L Total	R Total	Total
MTGAP	293	116	413	246	667	320	219	318	1068 m	1524 m	2592 m
Workman	123	232	330	753	505	200	146	325	1437 m	1176 m	2613 m
Norman	127	127	223	674	525	377	244	319	1150 m	1465 m	2615 m
Colemak	130	127	116	842	747	200	141	315	1214 m	1402 m	2616 m
MiddleMak	134	127	207	847	440	460	189	306	1314 m	1396 m	2710 m
Semimak	238	237	326	390	506	200	450	393	1191 m	1549 m	2739 m
Dvorak	205	54	34	692	753	285	395	396	984 m	1829 m	2813 m
QWERTY	130	127	670	1413	1169	452	450	418	2340 m	2489 m	4829 m

*All distances in metres. Same source as table above.
First, you can see Qwerty’s distances are extremely high. All the alternatives make big reductions.
Notice that the index fingers move way more than the other fingers, because they have 6-7 letters.
Middlemak balances this out decently and moves more distance to both middle fingers. The left index finger is still a bit high because it has D off the home row (this brings it back to the discussion of where does the 11th letter go). Middlemak’s left index is slightly higher than Colemak’s even though they have the same letters because D is technically on a slight diagonal because of the row stagger. That’s a technicality really
The right index finger is quite low, a good feature that the index finger next to the vowels doesn’t have to travel much. Compared to Colemak, MIddlemak’s movement is 41% lower than Colemaks, almost half the distance travelled.

Zoom in on index fingers

Keyboard	Distance	Distance	Total	Index Finger % of total distance
	L Index	R Index	L+R Index	L+R Index
MTGAP	246	667	913 m	35%
Workman	753	505	1259 m	48%
Norman	674	525	1200 m	46%
Colemak	842	747	1589 m	61%
MiddleMak	847	440	1287 m	47%
Semimak	390	506	896 m	33%
Dvorak	692	753	1445 m	51%
QWERTY	1413	1169	2582 m	53%

Here you can really see how much work the index fingers do. Middlemak’s sum of the index fingers is nice and low.
You can also look at the percentage of travel with the index finger. Middlemak’s is down at 47% - meaning the index fingers are responsible for 47% of all the distance travelled. On Colemak the index fingers account for 61% the distance travelled, quite a big difference relatively. Workman and Norman are close to Middlemak. MTGAP and Semimak are very low. Dvorak and Qwerty percentages are a bit deceiving though - the higher index finger distances are hidden by the higher total amount of distance.
So even when MIddlemak’s left index finger doesn’t have a reduction in distance, the index finger total is still significantly reduced to quite low levels.

Hand Balance based on Frequency

Now we’re shifting to frequency. You can see the data for all the fingers, this is enlightening on its own. I also add them up to look at the hand balance.

Keyboard	Left hand	Right hand	Hand Balance Ratio	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
MTGAP	49.9*	50.0	1.00	10.8	8.4	18.8	11.9	16.3	14.5	9.8	9.4
Workman	50.7	49.3*	0.97	9.3	10.1	11.1	20.2	15.2	14.9	9.7	9.5
Norman	51.7	48.3	0.93	9.3	8.3	15.4	18.7	15.2	13.2	11.8	8.1
Colemak	46.7	53.2*	1.14	9.4	7.7	8.2	21.4	19.4	14.9	9.1	9.8
MiddleMak	48.8	51.2*	1.05	9.4	8.3	9.7	21.4	13.7	19.6	9.9	8.0
Semimak	46.6	53.4*	1.15	9.7	10.1	11.8	15.0	12.2	14.9	15.6	10.7
Dvorak	44.8*	55.3	1.23	10.3	8.1	12.2	14.2	17.2	13.4	13.0	11.7
QWERTY	56.5	43.5	0.77	9.4	8.3	15.4	23.4	18.8	8.4	11.8	4.5

* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). Ratio of >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant.
The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that highlights the differences between the layouts better than the percentages. I know it doesn't add up to 100%, the analyzer is doing some rounding or something behind the scenes, I'm not going to round any further.
E is so common that it bumps up any finger it’s on.
Middlemak’s left middle finger takes on a bit more work. The left index is still high because of D. The right index is notably lower taking off common letters. The right middle takes on more of the work with O. And the right pinky is lower too with the H there.

Hand Balance based on Distance

This is the distance in percentages for all the fingers (unlike the raw distances in metres above) so that I can add them up to look at hand balance.

Keyboard	Left hand	Right hand	Hand Balance Ratio	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky
MTGAP	41.2*	58.8	1.43	11.3	4.5	15.9	9.5	25.7	12.3	8.4	12.3
Workman	55.0	45.0*	0.82	4.7	8.9	12.6	28.8	19.3	7.6	5.6	12.5
Norman	44.0	56.0	1.27	4.8	4.8	8.5	25.8	20.1	14.4	9.3	12.2
Colemak	46.4	53.6*	1.15	5.0	4.8	4.4	32.2	28.6	7.6	5.4	12.0
MiddleMak	48.5	51.5*	1.06	5.0	4.7	7.6	31.2	16.3	17.0	7.0	11.3
Semimak	43.5	56.5*	1.30	8.7	8.7	11.9	14.2	18.5	7.3	16.4	14.4
Dvorak	35.0*	65.0	1.86	7.3	1.9	1.2	24.6	26.8	10.1	14.0	14.1
QWERTY	48.5	51.5	1.06	2.7	2.6	13.9	29.3	24.2	9.4	9.3	8.7

* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that indicates the differences between the layouts better (>1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant).
I think the raw distances are better for comparison between layouts. I used this mostly for hand balance. But some people think in terms of percentages, so you can see the breakdown for each finger. You can see Middlemak spreads out the work. The pinkies are low, ring fingers are reasonable, middle takes on more, and the indexes have most of the distances.
Where this differs from frequency: The distance the index fingers travel is higher because of the diagonal distances. (This was also highlighted in the zoom in on the index fingers part, just broken into more fingers here.)

Hand Balance Distance + Frequency

This is the same chart that was above, so I won’t add anymore past the chart.

Keyboard	Dominant Hand	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency	Hand Balance ratio based on Distance	Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance	Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP	Right	1.00	1.43	1.43
Workman	Left	0.97	0.82	0.80	1.26
Norman	Right	0.93	1.27	1.19
Colemak	Right	1.14	1.15	1.32
MiddleMak	Right	1.05	1.06	1.11
Semimak	Right	1.15	1.30	1.49
Dvorak	Right	1.23	1.86	2.30
QWERTY	Left	0.77	1.06	0.82	1.22

(>1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant).
Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two. I did this because having more frequency and more movement on the same hand amplifies the hand dominance. Or if one hand had more frequency and the other hand had more movement, that would mitigate it to some degree. This is by no means the best or most definitive way to look at it, but it's what I've managed to come up with.
The "Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant" is a hard math thing to explain (that I hope I'm right about anyway). E.g. For workman listing 0.80 gives the wrong impression the hand dominance is equivalent to 1.2 (20%). But it's actually 1.26 (26%), because you'd have to multiply 0.80 by 1.26 to get 1.0.

Frequency-off-home-row (F.O.H.R.)

At the risk of too much information, another way to look at this is the frequency that’s off-home-row. I.e. the frequency that is not under the fingers. (Defining home row as the eight letters under the fingers.)
It’s different enough from the distances to warrant mentioning. Distances weigh the keys differently, while frequency-off-home-row levels that field. This should be read in conjunction with distance, neither is better than the other, it’s just a different measurement.
I did this after noticing, on Colemak, that my right index finger moves off the home row a lot, which this confirms. The long distance to B on the left hand skews the distance travelled.

Keyboard	L Pinky	L Ring	L Middle	L Index	R Index	R Middle	R Ring	R Pinky	L+R Index	Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR
MTGAP	4.0	2.0	7.2	4.1	10.8	5.8	3.6	3.8	14.9%	36%
Workman	1.5	3.9	5.6	11.5	8.8	3.3	2.5	2.7	20.3%	51%
Norman	1.5	2.1	3.8	10.0	8.8	6.4	4.6	2.6	18.8%	47%
Colemak	1.6	2.1	2.0	12.7	13.0	3.3	2.3	2.6	25.7%	65%
MiddleMak	1.6	2.1	4.1	12.7	7.3	8.0	3.1	2.5	20.0%	48%
Semimak	3.5	4.5	5.4	6.3	8.4	3.3	7.8	3.9	14.7%	34%
Dvorak	2.5	0.9	0.6	11.7	11.7	4.7	6.6	5.5	23.4%	53%
QWERTY	1.6	2.1	11.6	21.4	18.6	7.5	7.8	4.5	40.0%	53%

More insightful is “Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR”. It shows that on Middlemak the index fingers do 48% of all frequency-off-home-row, quite low. That means 53% goes to the other fingers. Whereas on Colemak the index fingers have 65% of all frequency-off-home-row, very high, and only 35% goes to the other fingers. Workman is just a tad higher with the index fingers doing 51% of frequency-off-home-row. Dvorak’s and Qwerty’s 53% for index fingers is a bit deceiving though, it appears low but that's because the overall total F.O.H.R. is much higher.

Hello askTO!
I am coming to Toronto tomorrow night alone from Buffalo, NY for the Muse concert. I wanted to ask if it would be easier to reserve parking downtown coming from the US not knowing much about the Toronto transit system, or if its still easier to find a train station along the way and take the train into Scotiabank Arena? If I should take the train, which stations offer free parking and would have parking spaces at around 3-3:30PM tomorrow right off the QEW? I read in previous threads Oakville is a good station that might offer free parking and would have availability?
Thank you for the help!

Disaster preparedness class April 19, 7 pm at Eggertsville Hose Company 1880 Eggert Rd Buffalo NY 14226.
Must pre-register https://www.mylocalsafety.com/mylslinks?fbclid=IwAR3kdF1-cnP715NNuNmyF-dFBfAwNCfDJAiyGHnvfTbShOxsqPsv5fzitiQ Use code 883531
Check out the Eggertsville Hose Facebook for more info. Each family receives an emergency kit in a book bag. Posting because during the blizzard fellow Redditors were interested in this type of preparedness class. Take it!! Edit to add registration link:
https://www.dhses.ny.gov/citizen-preparedness-training-calendar Select April class in Buffalo

I'm looking to emigrate from Buffalo NY to Canada within 12-18 months, and am considering Hamilton, St. Catharines, Fort Erie, Welland, and Thorold. I'm going to complete George Brown college's Pharmacy Assistant program (online) before coming, and attempt to get a work permit to emigrate.
Where is cheap to rent in St Catharines? I'm single but hoping to get married soon (and on that note, how is SC for lesbian couples? Is there a lot of discrimination?). I'm not wealthy, and don't have expensive tastes or high standards; just want somewhere reasonably safe and with good public transit access as I don't drive. I'd prefer a 1-bed but could make a decent-sized bachelor(ette) work as well.
Thank you in advance for any help you can provide!

Each day of our existence we are reminded of the grim reality of death. It haunts us. We know so little about it. In fact, we know almost nothing regarding this ultimate physical experience, except for what is revealed in the Bible. But the biblical information is limited, and so false notions about death permeate society's thinking. The following discussion represents a brief survey of some of these erroneous concepts.

Death Is an Illusion

Mary Baker Eddy, founder of "Christian Science," alleged that "there is no death" (n.d., 575). She contended that death is but an "illusion." How can a rational person subscribe to such a notion? We mention this more as a matter of oddity than anything else. Mrs. Eddy's tombstone is an eloquent argument against this absurd doctrine.

Death Is Nothing More than the Ultimate Biological Reality

To the atheist, death is no more than the cessation of earthly life. But death is much more than a mere biological phenomenon. Just as life is a gift from God (Acts 17:25), so death is a divine punishment for sin. This does not mean, of course, that every time someone dies such is the consequence of his or her personal sin. Even innocent babies die.
But the fact is, God warned grandfather Adam that death would be the result of disobedience (Genesis 2:17), and Paul reaffirmed this divine truth: "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned" (Romans 5:12).
In a manner of speaking, Adam stood as the representative of the human race. When the first man violated Heaven's law, humanity was cursed with the penalty of having to suffer the consequence of that initial transgression — though not the personal guilt. The truth is that the entire creation has been blighted as a result of sin (cf. Romans 8:20-22).
Skeptics ridicule the biblical narrative regarding the commencement of death. It is viewed as an absurd myth that belongs in the Stone Age (Allen 1990, 108). But no infidel can explain why death occurs. If life had the ability to "jump-start" itself, as evolution's theory of spontaneous generation asserts, why can't it sustain itself within the individual? And is it not remarkable that evolution—supposedly a progressive, refining process—has not been able to eliminate death? If "natural selection" is working toward a higher evolutionary pinnacle, why doesn't science observe an increase in human vitality? Actually, just the reverse is true. The history of biological life is a record of degeneration, not regeneration (see Jackson 1994, 2-3). Why haven't we evolved immortality? Death is an argument that no materialist can answer!
Why hasn't modern medicine been able to make significant advancements in human longevity over the past three thousand years? In David's day, men lived to three-score and ten years — perhaps with strength to four-score — on average (cf. Psalm 90:10). We have not improved these statistics with our twentieth-century medical technology. Some people are paying thousands of dollars to have their bodies frozen, in the hope that science will discover a cure for the cause of their demise. They aspire to be ultimately thawed in order to resume an eternal earthly existence. What futility! Mortality points strikingly to God.

Death Is Merely a Transition to a New Mode of Earthly Existence

In India, four hundred million Hindus believe in reincarnation. This is the idea that the human soul passes through a series of earthly phases, i.e., bodies human or animal — depending upon the particular ideology—before finally attaining release from this chain of events. In recent years, New Age zealots in this country (e.g., Shirley MacLaine) have popularized the idea of the transmigration of the soul. Recent polls suggest that more than half of the American public believes in the possibility of these experiences. However, with the exception of a few miraculous cases back in history (e.g., the resurrection of Lazarus), "it is appointed unto men once to die" (Hebrews 9:27). Each human being will give an account to the Lord for the deeds done in his "body" — not bodies (II Corinthians 5:10). Bible teaching contradicts the idea of reincarnation.

Death Is the Termination of Human Existence

Suicide has reached epidemic proportions in America. Self-murder is becoming an increasingly popular way to "end it all." But the fact is, death ends only one's earthly existence, not his personal existence. Biblical evidence makes it abundantly clear that at the point of death, the spirit of a person merely leaves the body (James 2:26). Separation, however, is not the same as extinction.
Scriptural information indicates that in death the soul of man enters the Hadean realm (cf. Revelation 1:18; 20:13-14). The narrative regarding the rich man and Lazarus forcefully reveals that death does not terminate human existence (Luke 16:19-31). Too, Christ promised the penitent thief that the two of them would be together again in Paradise that very day, following their respective deaths (Luke 23:43). Every biblical passage which speaks of the coming judgment argues for the continuity of human existence.

Death Is a State of Non-conscious Existence

While the Bible speaks of death as a "sleep," that term is used only of the disposition of the body. Scripture knows nothing of "soul-sleeping." The part of man which "sleeps" in death is that which is deposited in the dust of the ground (Daniel 12:2). This involves only the body, not the soul. Again, both the rich man and Lazarus were conscious following their deaths (Luke 16:19-31). Moreover, those souls who had been martyred for the cause of Christ, as depicted in Revelation 6:9-11, were obviously conscious as they cried out for divine justice on their behalf. (For further study, see Are the Dead Conscious?).

Death Involves the Continuity of Human Family Relationships

Our Mormon friends subscribe to the doctrine of "celestial" marriage. This is the notion that marriage is not for time only, it is for eternity as well — for those who reach the highest degree of exaltation (Smith 1952, section 132). But this dogma is woefully at variance with the testimony of Jesus. Certain Sadducees posed a problem for the Lord: A woman had been married successively to seven brothers during her lifetime. Whose wife would she thus be in the resurrection? Christ responded: "You do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven" (Matthew 22:29-30). The marriage relationship does not obtain in heaven.

There Is No Recognition after Death

Some allege that there will not be any remembrance of earthly relationships in heaven. Supposedly, heaven's citizens could not be happy with the awareness that unredeemed loved ones are not there. However, the Bible presents solid evidence that there will be recognition in the celestial region. The Old Testament patriarchs fully expected to be reunited with their redeemed loved ones (Genesis 25:8; 37:35; II Samuel 12:23). The Lord promised that we will fellowship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11). Will one know when that promise is realized? If so, then the patriarchs will be recognized. And if we will know them, it is certain they will know each other! I have discussed this topic at greater length elsewhere (Jackson 1987, 1-3).

Death Constitutes a Period of Probation and Preparation

A number of religious groups advocate concepts that suggest the possibility of preparation for eternity after death. Roman Catholicism, for example, has the doctrine of purgatory—the place where souls are supposedly purged of sin before they enter heaven. Mormonism advocates the notion of "baptism for the dead." Charles T. Russell, founder of the "Jehovah's Witnesses," argued that salvation is not "confined to the present life" (1912, 9ff). But there is no truth in these vain hopes.
After death, there is only the prospect of judgment — not a further opportunity for obedience (Hebrews 9:27). In the parable of the virgins, Jesus taught that in whatever condition one goes to "sleep," i.e., dies, in exactly that same state he will meet the bridegroom (Matthew 25:1-13). Moreover, there is a permanent, impassible chasm between the place of punishment and that of reward, and no man can cross it (Luke 16:26). There is no post-mortem plan of salvation. Now is the day of redemption (II Corinthians 6:2).

It Is Possible to Communicate with the Dead

According to recent surveys, more than half of all Americans believe they have been in contact with someone who has died. But the Bible teaches that the dead have no knowledge at all as to what is transpiring upon this earth (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6; cf. Isaiah 63:16). If the rich man of Luke 16 could have communicated with his brothers on earth, he surely would have done so (Luke 16:27-31)<, but he was powerless to reach them. The fact of the matter is that the Scriptures condemn even an attempt to contact the dead (cf. Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27).

Death Is the Final and Permanent State of the Body

The ancient Sadducees denied the ultimate resurrection of the human body (Matthew 22:23). Their modern counterparts, the advocates of "realized eschatology," are similarly deceived. Max King alleges that the resurrection discussed in 1 Corinthians 15 is merely a "resurrection" of the Christian cause from a period of intense Jewish persecution and that such resurrection was fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the fall of Judaism (1987, 429ff). A more perverted concept cannot be imagined.
The Bible affirms that our resurrection from the dead on the "last day" (cf. John 11:24) will be analogous to the Lord's bodily resurrection (see I Corinthians 15:20; cf. Philippians 3:20). Actually, Paul puts the denial of a future bodily resurrection in the same category as a repudiation of the resurrection of Christ himself (I Corinthians 15:13-16). What are the consequences of proclaiming such a heresy?
How tragic that there are so many false ideas regarding death. It is incumbent upon the serious Bible student to study the sacred Scriptures so that he does not fall into any of these fallacious views.

REFERENCES

​

• Allen, Steve. 1990. Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, and Morality. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
• Eddy, Mary Baker. n.d. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Boston, MA: First Church of Christ, Scientist.
• Jackson, Wayne. 1987. Does Personal Recognition Exist Beyond Death? Christian Courier, May, Vol. 23, No. 1.
• Jackson, Wayne. 1994. Genesis and Degeneration. Christian Courier, May, Vol. 30, No. 1.
• King, Max R. 1987. The Cross and The Parousia of Christ. Warren, OH: Parkman Rd. Church of Christ.
• Russell, Charles T. 1912. Russell-White Debate. Cincinnati, OH: F. L. Rowe Publisher.
• Smith, Joseph, Jr. 1952. Doctrine & Covenants. Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Acts 17:25; Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12; Romans 8:20-22; Psalm 90:10; Hebrews 9:27; II Corinthians 5:10; James 2:26; Revelation 1:18, 20:13, 14; Luke 16:19-31; Luke 23:43; Daniel 12:2; Revelation 6:9-11; Matthew 22:29, 30; Genesis 25:8, 37:35; II Samuel 12:23; Matthew 8:11; Matthew 25:1-13; Luke 16:26; II Corinthians 6:2; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6; Isaiah 63:16; Luke 16; Luke 16:27-31; Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Leviticus 19:31, 20:6, 27; Matthew 22:23; 1 Corinthians 15; John 11:24; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Philippians 3:20; I Corinthians 15:13-16

Hi Everyone! Thank you to everyone who has purchased from me already! Same process and rules. I will consider all reasonable offers (besides my high end palettes) and if you want even further discounted prices, you can check this post (generally 10% off the prices here). Please note that everything is crossposted and is first come, first serve. I do not do holds; the only way to confirm your items is by paying for them.
My feedback forms are here:
(Most recent: 2023 Pt 1)
https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/104k7ro/2023_muesce_seller_feedback/
(2021) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/p3q3h2/muesce_seller_feedback/
(2022 Pt 1) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/srspyq/2022_muesce_seller_feedback/
I always try to go above and beyond for my buyers and I think my feedback speaks for itself 💯🥰
Now, that’s out of the way, let’s get onto the rules! This is an absolute monster of a list so please go through everything carefully.
RULES/NOTES: PLEASE READ

• Please do not price control my post. I am not Sephora, Ulta, etc. If you do not like the price, then please just keep on moving.
• Everything is brand new, authentic, and full sized- if not, it will be stated.
• If you cannot pay, then please do not claim!! Serious buyers only please. Prices are clearly listed. I will be blocking ghosters and people who make rude comments from now on.
• $4-$6.68 shipping if package under 16 oz/1 lb. Shipping will increase based on weight and location. Packages over 16 ounces will have to be sent as Priority Mail ($9-$11 shipping). Shipping in the US only. Please note that shipping may be delayed due to the holidays.
• Items will be shipped within 3 business days after payment is made, but I do try my hardest to ship ASAP!
• $15 minimum before shipping.
• Please ensure your PayPal address is up to date- I am not responsible if you enter an old address and can only ship to the address on file.
• Items with a strikethrough have been sold. Please keep in mind that this is cross posted and things will sell fast. Not doing swaps at this time and no holds- you have 12 hours to confirm and pay or I will move to NIL
• Please don't ghost me - I promise to be understanding if you end up not wanting something but please just let me know! If you have ghosted me in the past, then I have the right to refuse to sell to you.
• Please send me your PayPal email/pay asap through chat/pm so I can get you shipped out quick!
• I take a lot of pride in communication and giving the best service possible- I have 100+ 5 star reviews on selling and buying on other platforms. Any problems that arise, will be handled by me so please reach out!

Lastly, let's keep it fun! Please no drama- I spent hours/days on this post and I’m exhausted. I am one person and am doing my best. If there are any mistakes (wrong picture, blurry, etc) just let me know and I will fix it. I am happy to take any additional pictures and provide extra details. Please ask before purchasing! Also, please note that I will be shipping from Cali so PST time.
Okay, I think that’s it! Thank you for reading and have fun shopping! :)
*RV = Retail Value
EYESHADOW/FACE PALETTES

1. Pat McGrath Celestial Nirvana $58 RV $82
2. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Nude Venus) $40 Retails $62
3. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Divine Rose) $40 Retails $62
4. Pat McGrath Bronze Bliss eyeshadow palette $30
5. Pat McGrath Bridgerton 2 $50
6. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Trio palette $43
7. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Blushing Delights $40 INSIDE
8. Pat McGrath Bronze Borealis Quad $40 box is damaged
9. Pat McGrath Ritualistic Rose Quad $40 RV $65
10. Natasha Denona Retro Glam $55 RV $69
11. Natasha Denona My Dream Palette $58 RV $69
12. Natasha Denona Glam Palette $55 RV $69
13. Natasha Denona Retro $55 RV $69
14. Natasha Denona Circo Loco $90 RV $129
15. Natasha Denona Sunset $85 RV $129
16. Natasha Denona Biba Palette $60 USED INSIDE Full disclosure- this is an older palette so the formula may be a bit different/not as creamy and pigmented as a new one
17. Natasha Denona Pastel $53 RV $69
18. Natasha Denona Zendo Palette $48 (3 2 available) RV $69
19. Natasha Denona Bronze $45 (4 3 available) RV $69
20. Natasha Denona Sunrise $42 USED INSIDE
21. Natasha Denona Love $40 USED INSIDE *Please note that this particular palette was notorious for inconsistencies so some of the shades are not the normal ND creamy formula
22. Natasha Denona Glam Face (dark version) $43 RV $62
23. Natasha Denona Glam Face (light version) $43 (2 1 available) RV $62
24. Natasha Denona Bloom Blush and Glow palette $42 RV $59 INSIDE
25. Natasha Denona Tan $40 RV $59
26. Natasha Denona Coral $24 RV $48
27. Natasha Denona Coral $21 SWATCHED
28. Natasha Denona Ayana BNWOB $15
29. Natasha Denona Mini Love $18 RV $27
30. Natasha Denona Mini Zendo $18 RV $27
31. Natasha Denona All Over Glow Shade 02 Medium BNWOB INSIDE $18
32. Huda Empowered $50 RV $67
33. Huda Rose Quartz palette $48 RV $67
34. Huda Rose Quartz (used 1x) $40
35. Huda Naughty palette $46 (4 available) RV $67
36. Huda Naughty- swatched $38. Close up here
37. Huda Beauty New Nude $42
38. Huda Wild Chameleon Palette $19 INSIDE
39. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk Beautifying Face Palette Medium-Deep $60 RV $75
40. Charlotte Tilbury Smokey Eyes are Forever $50 RV $75
41. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk 12 pan palette $45 RV $75 INSIDE (new but no box)
42. Charlotte Tilbury Super Nudes (6 pans) $40 RV $57
43. Charlotte Tilbury Easy Eye Darling (6 pans)
44. $40 for BNIB, $38 for BNWOB, This one is swatched for $35 here
45. Charlotte Tilbury Filmstar Bronze and Glow (Light to Medium) $48- no box
46. Charlotte Tilbury Flimstar Bronze and Glow (Medium to Dark) $48
47. Charlotte Tilbury ‘Dazzling Diamonds’ $35 RV $53 swatched
48. Charlotte Tilbury Sunset Dreamscape Face Palette RV $75 NO BOXES (discontinued)
49. I have one BN for $50, one looks touched on the top right shade so $46
50. I have 2 that are swatched/used with no boxes here Left is $38, Right is $40
51. Chanel Quad in ‘79 Spices’ $50 Retails $68
52. Patrick Ta Major Headlines Vol 2 $48 RV $58
53. Patrick Ta Rose Dimensions 2 Palette $55
54. Tom Ford Desert Fox $45
55. Tom Ford Pretty Baby Palette 2 shades broken so $35. I can try to repress for you or you can take it as is
56. GIVENCHY Le 9.01 $45 RV $65
57. HOURGLASS Ambient Lighting Palette Vol 3 $40
58. Melt Mariposas Eyeshadow palette $45
59. Melt Mariposas Blush palette $35
60. Melt Cosmetics Mary Jane $43
61. Melt Cosmetics Smoke Sessions $33 (Had one broken shade at the right that I repressed)
62. Urban Decay Naked Wild West $33 (2 available)
63. Urban Decay Naked Honey (used and has 1 repressed shade ‘Amber’) $20
64. Urban Decay NAKED Foxy Mini palette- $15 RV $29
65. Too Faced Too Femme palette $30 (3 1 available)
66. ABH Primrose Palette $40
67. ABH Primrose- New but repressed 2 shades (‘Rose Water’ and ‘Fire Opal’). Although I did my best to repress, cannot guarantee how they will be during transit. $35 RV $55
68. ABH Amrezy $35 RV $49 (discontinued)
69. ABH Amrezy (used and repressed one shade ‘Litty’, no box) $25
70. ABH Rose Metals $40 RV $55 (2 1 available)
71. ABH Norvina $29 (2 shades were repressed)
72. ABH Glow Kit Sugar $22 SWATCHED INSIDE
73. Tarte Sugar Rush Sweet Tarte Frosted $22 (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades)
74. Tarte Juicy (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades) $22
75. Jaclyn Hill Rouge Romance 'Rouge Affair' SWATCHED $28 INSIDE
76. Viseart Tryst 9 pan Palette $22 USED
77. Jeffree Star Alien palette- discontinued and rare
78. One still in packaging- make me an offer!
79. One with no box. I’m going to say swatched 2 shades to be safe - make me an offer! INSIDE
80. Jeffree Star Blue Blood palette- $30 INSIDE
81. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar palette $30 INSIDE

Eyeshadow Palettes that are New but Name your price!

1. ICONIC Sunset to Sunrise Palette
2. True and Luscious Lucky Glow Palette
3. Suva Beauty Protege Palette INSIDE
4. PUR 4-in-1 Face palette in Medium Tan

Eyeshadow Palettes that have been swatched/lightly used- Name your price!

1. BH Cosmetics It’s My RayeRaye
2. BH Cosmetics In-Nude-endo INSIDE
3. Violet Voss Pinky Promise INSIDE
4. OPVbeauty Spotlight palette INSIDE
5. Hank and Henry Living in Color palette INSIDE

PRIMERS

1. Bobbi Brown Vitamin Enriched Eye Base FS
   1. One is BNIB $40, 2 are BNWOB $38
2. Charlotte Tilbury Brightening Youth Glow $38 RV $55
3. MAC ‘Painterly’ Paint Pot (used 1x) $12
4. GLAMGLOW SuperMattify Primer $23
5. Dr Brandt pores no more Luminizer Primer $15 each (3 available, only one has box)
6. Urban Decay Primer Potion in shade ‘Eden’ $15
7. Ole Henriksen Banana primer (used 2x) $18
8. Tarte Timeless Smoothing Primer $25 (2 1 available)
9. Too Faced Primed & Poreless+ $15 (box damaged and used 1x)

Mascaras Verification Photo

1. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk in ‘Super Black’ $20
2. Lancome Dèfinicils High Definition Lengthening Mascara $18 (2 1 available)
3. Dermelect XL Lash Volumizer $10
4. IT cosmetics Superhero Mascara $15 (2 1 available)
5. Trestique Good Vibes mascara $6
6. Trestique Good Vibes mascara + Eye pencil $8
7. Petite n Pretty Fully Feathered Mascara $3
8. Benefit Lashes all the Way set $15

Setting Powders

1. ByTerry Hyaluronic Hydra-Powder $35 RV $60
2. Hourglass Veil Translucent Powder $36 (2 1 available)

Highlighters

1. Charlotte Tilbury Hollywood Superstar Glow Highlighter- Limited edition/Discontinued $40
2. Cover FX glitter drops in shade Aurora $12
3. Cover FX custom drops in shade Blossom $12 (2 1 available)
4. Cover FX custom drops in shade Halo $12
5. SAIE Highlighter shade Sunglow $15

LIPS

1. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar Liquid Lipstick Vault $70 RV $160 (Keep in mind to mix/shake before using as this formula gets clumpy) INSIDE
2. MAC lipstick in shade Dangerous $8
3. MAC lipstick in shade So Chaud $8
4. MAC lipstick in shade Dozen Carnations $8
5. Bali Balm sweet orange & coconut lip balm $6 (2 1 available)
6. Primera Clean Berry Lip Mask $12
7. DOSE OF COLORS lipstick in shade Date Night $8 (2 available, 1 has no box)
8. TARTE shimmering lip paint in shade Strike Gold $5
9. YENSA Super 8 Lip Oil in shade ‘On the Mauve’ $8
10. JOUER Creme Lip Liner in shade pink champagne shimmer $8
11. ABH liquid lipstick in shade ‘heathers’ $8
12. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Grape Jelly’ $7
13. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Maui’ $7 (no box)
14. Lipstick Queen Nothing but Nudes in shade ‘Tempting Taupes’ (this is new but has sweat spots (does not affect lipstick just cosmetic) $8 INSIDE
15. Charlotte Tilbury Hyaluronic Happikiss in shade ‘romance kiss’ $25
16. Charlotte Tilbury Limitless Lucky Lips in shade ‘Cherry Dream’ $18
17. YSL Slim Glow Matte Rouge in shade ‘217: Intimate Chocolate’ $15
18. Too Faced Lady Bold lipstick in shade ‘Trailblazer’ $17
19. Too Faced Lady Bold Lipstick in shade ‘Be True to You’ $17
20. Whish lip balm in ‘pink champagne’ $10
21. Tarte Maneater plumping gloss $10
22. Iconic London Lip plumping gloss in shade ‘S*x Kitten’ $12 (no box)
23. Lancome L’absolu Rouge in shade ‘120 Sienna’ $18 SWATCHED
24. Bobbi Brown Luxe Shine Intense Lipstick in shade ‘Claret’ $18 SWATCHED
25. GLOW RECIPE Watermelon lip pop $12 (no box)
26. GLOW RECIPE Blueberry lip pop $12
27. MELT Warm Nudes Mini Set $25
28. Jeffree Star Velvet Trap in shade Confessional $12 (no box)
29. Natasha Denona Lip Color 34 Fuchsia Red $14

BLUSHES

1. Rodial Blush Drops $12

BRONZERS

1. Marc Jacobs O!mega Bronzer in shade ‘Tantalize’ $35 (new but no box) INSIDE
2. Huda Glowish in shade ‘Light 01’ $20
3. ABH Powder Bronzer in shade ‘Saddle’ $18
4. LYS Beauty Bronzer in shade ‘Motivate’ $10

Eyeshadow Liquids/Singles

1. HAUS Labs Liquid Shimmer Powder in shade ‘Legend’ $8
2. DOSE OF COLORS single eyeshadow in shade ‘Jackpot’ $5
3. MELT eyeshadow single in shade ‘Amelie’ $8

EYELINER and BROWS

1. Charlotte Tilbury Legendary Brown Tinted Brow Gel in shade ‘Soft Brown’ $18 BNWOB
2. Benefit Gimme Brow+ in shade ‘3’ $12
3. ABH Brow Bae-sics Deluxe Kit in shade ‘Taupe’ $20
4. Laura Geller line-n-define in shade Black $5
5. MELT Allday Everyday Eyeliner in shade ‘Baked’ $12

FOUNDATION/Concealer

1. Pat McGrath Skin Fetish Sublime Perfection concealer in shade ‘L1’ used 1x $25
2. BECCA Ultimate Coverage foundation shade ‘Vanilla’ $15
3. BECCA Ultimate Coverage in shade ‘Linen’ Used 2x $5 (Keep in mind this is a thicker formula)
4. Natasha Denona Transformatte foundation in shade ‘22W’ $15
5. Too Faced Born this Way concealer in shade ‘Chestnut’ used 2x $10
6. KVD Lock it powder foundation in shade Light 125 $20
7. BareMinerals BAREPRO Performance Wear Liquid Foundation in shade ‘Shell 7.5’ $10 used 2x
8. Bobbi Brown Fluid Powder Foundation in shade ‘N-070’ used 2x $10

BRUSHES

1. MODA Powder and Soft Glow Brush $12
2. MODA 5 pc Deluxe eye Kit $15
3. LUXIE Glitter and Gold 9 piece Brush Set $30 (2 available)
4. Too Faced Mr. Chiseled Contouring Brush $14

SKINCARE:

1. Tatcha Water Cream $52 Retails $70
2. Tatcha The Essence 2.5 fl oz (sealed) $40 Retails $65
3. Tatcha The Essence (sealed) 5.0 fl oz $68 Retails $110
4. Tatcha the Silk Peony $40 Retails $62
5. Drunk Elephant C-Firma Fresh Day Serum $55 RV $78 (2 available)
6. Drunk Elephant TLC Framboos Glycolic Night Serum $62 RV $90 (3 available)
7. Drunk elephant A-Passioni Retinol Cream $50 RV $74(2 available)
8. Drunk elephant Virgin Marula Facial Oil $45 RV $68
9. Drunk Elephant Protini Powerpeptide Resurf Serum $58 RV $82 (3 available)
10. Drunk Elephant TLC Sukari Babyfacial $58 RV $80
11. Drunk Elephant Shaba Complex Eye Serum $43 RV $60
12. Drunk Elephant C-Tango Eye Cream $40 RV $64
13. La Mer Moisturizing Cream $45 RV $95 (Yes, La Mer is expensive af lol) 0.5 oz/ 15mL BOTTOM NO BOX
14. Bobbi Brown Hydrating Face Cream $38 RV $64
15. Dr. Brandt Time Defying Cream FS $30 RV $135
16. Dr. Brandt Triple Antioxidant Eye Cream $18 (3 2 available)
17. ELEMIS Superfood Glow Priming moisturizer $18 (2 1 available)
18. Sunday Riley Tidal (new but beat up box) $35
19. SUNDAY RILEY Light Hearted Sunscreen $30
20. FARMACY Daily Greens Moisturizer $25 (2 1 available)
21. Farmacy Cheer Up Cherry Eye Cream $18
22. Grown Alchemist Detox Night Cream $18 (2 1 available)
23. Lancome Lait Galatee Confort Makeup Remover $25
24. Lancome Tonique Confort Hydrating Facial Toner $25
25. Saturday Skin Glycolic Toner $18
26. BeautyStat Universal C Eye Perfector $20 RV $65
27. Biossance Squalane and Omega Repair Cream $38 RV $58 (no box)
28. Malin + Goetz recovery treatment oil $30 RV $82
29. Grown Alchemist Matte Balancing Moisturizer
30. One BNIB $20, one BN but no box $18
31. First Aid Beauty Facial Radiance Pads 28 count $10
32. Alpha-H Liquid Gold with Glycolic Acid 100 mL $30 RV $54
33. Glo Skin Beauty Pro 5 liquid exfoliant $28 RV $58 (box is a little banged up)
34. Algenist Triple Algae Eye Renewal Balm $25 RV $68
35. AHC eye cream $15
36. Clinique pep-start eye cream $13
37. Juice beauty Stem Cellular Anti-Wrinkle Eye treatment $25 RV $50

SERUMS

1. Tatcha Dewy Serum $60 RV $89
2. Estee lauder Night Repair Serum 1.7 fl oz $65 Retails $110
3. Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair Concentrate $50 RV $82
4. Farmacy 1% Vitamin A Retinol Serum $40 RV $60
5. Herbivore Bakuchiol Serum $40 RV $54 (2 available)
6. Herbivore Emerald Oil used 1x and no box $25
7. Biossance Squalane Phyto-Retinol Serum $50 FS RV $72
8. Biossance Squalane Dark Spot Serum 15 mL $30
9. Biossance Squalane Night Serum 1 fl oz/30 mL $ $35 RV $62 (no box)
10. Algenist Elevate Advanced Retinol Serum $30 RV $98 (box is banged up)
11. AKAR restore eye serum $30 RV $85 0.3 oz/10 mL

CLEANSERS

1. La Mer the Cleansing Foam 1 oz $20
2. Glow Recipe Papaya Sorbet Cleansing Balm $23
3. Dr. Brandt Microdermabrasion Exfoliator $30 RV $79
4. Kate Somerville ExfoliKate Exfoliating Treatment $50 RV $98 2 fl oz (no box)
5. Korres Greek Yoghurt Foaming Cleanser $16 (packaging is a little dirty but sealed)
6. Origins Never a Dull Moment Skin-Brightening Face Polisher $15
7. OSEA Ocean Cleanser .6 oz/18 mL (2 available) $6 each
8. Perricone MD Vitamin C Citrus Cleanser $15

MASKS

1. Glow Recipe Watermelon Clay Facial $40 SEALED
2. Herbivore Brighten Instant Glow Mask $30 (2 available)
3. Glow Recipe Avocado Mask $26
4. FARMACY Bright on Vitamin C Mask $22
5. ELEMIS Superfood Veggie Mask $18
6. Milk Makeup Watermelon Face Mask $18
7. Dr. Brandt Vacuum Cleaner $20 RV $42
8. GLAMGLOW YouthMud Glow Stimulating & Exfoliating Treatment Mask 1 oz/30 g $12 each
   1. Only 1 has box but both BN
9. Origins Ginzing Peel Off Mask 2.5 fl oz $16
10. NudeStix Lemon-Aid Detox and micro-peel $12
11. TRULY Golden leaf CBD Face mask $22
12. Avant 8 hour radiance renewal sleeping mask 1.69 fl oz $20

SETS

1. Tatcha No-Filter Essentials $54
2. Laneige Basic Duo Set $43
3. La Mer Set $100 ($250 value) BACK

HAIR Verification Photo

1. IGK Prenup Instant Spray Hair Mask $12
2. IGK Mistress Hair balm $14
3. AG Hair Care Fast Food Leave on Conditioner $18
4. Moroccanoil Perfect Defense Spray $13
5. Christophe Robin Daily Hair Cream $18
6. Living Proof forming paste $12
7. Moroccan Leave in Mask $12

MISC

1. Sol De Janeiro Rio Deo Deodorant (sealed) $10
2. Lilly Lashes Lash Enhancing Serum $25
3. Eyeko Eyelash Curler $8
4. Dolce and Gabbana The One Perfume
   1. One is 50 mL/ 1.6 Fl Oz $60 RV $96 (to be safe I’ll say used 1x)
   2. One is 75 mL/2.5 oz $80 RV $125 SEALED
5. Dolce and Gabbana Dolce Garden Travel Spray 0.25 oz/7.5 mL $18
6. Herbivore Coco Rose Body Scrub $18
7. Velour Lashes in style ‘Caption This‘ $10
8. MAC Lashes in style ‘B90’ $10
9. Lashaholic in style ‘Kiss Me’ $10
10. FENTY What it Dew Spray $15
11. OSEA Sea Minerals Mist $18
12. M. Greengrass dry oil spray $10
13. TRULY Berry Cheeky $22
14. Ice Roller $10 Back is cut here- idk how that happened but otherwise sealed

Jeffree Star Red Beanie- name your price

Here's a thread to discuss all of today and the past week's trades and signings.
First, a very special thank you to our "Approved Submitters" who applied and helped on this very busy day by making well written news postings. Thank you austin63867, twistedlogicx, SAJewers, Randompunkt, Sandman730, chiasmatic, and homicidal_penguin. And a special thank you to all the mods who helped out, you know who you are!

Team A	Receives	Team B	Receives	/hockey Thread	Notes
MIN	John Klingberg (50% retained)	ANA	Andrej Sustr, Nikita Nesterenko, 2025 4th	Link
ARI	Brett Ritchie, Connor Mackey	CGY	Nick Ritchie, Troy Stecher	Link
CHI	Austin Wagner	LAK	Future Considerations	Link
NYR	Wyatt Kalynuk	VAN	Future Considerations	Link
BUF	2025 7th (NSH)	NSH	Rasmus Asplund	Link
COL	Gustav Rydahl	NYR	Anton Blidh	Link
ANA	Brock McGinn, 2024 3rd (PIT)	PIT	Dmitry Kulikov (50% retained)	Link
DET	2023 4th (MIN)	MIN	Oskar Sundqvist	Link
OTT	Patrick Brown	PHI	2023 6th (OTT)	Link
BUF	Jordan Greenway	MIN	2023 2nd (VGK), 2024 5th (BUF)	Link
CGY	Dryden Hunt	TOR	Radim Zohorna	Link
DAL	Scott Reedy	SJS	Jacob Peterson	Link
ANA	Chase Priskie	BUF	Austin Strand	Link
SJS	2025 4th (WPG)	WPG	Vladislav Namestnikov	Link
PIT	Nick Bonino (50% retained)	SJS	Arvid Henrikson, 2023 7th (PIT), 2024 Conditional 5th (PIT)	Link	MTL brokered the deal, retaining 50% on Bonino and receiving Tony Sund and a 2024 5th (SJS)
LAK	Nathan Schnarr	MTL	Frédéric Allard	Link
LAK	Zack MacEwen	PHI	Brendan Lemieux, 2024 5th (LAK)	Link
NJD	Curtis Lazar	VAN	2024 4th (NJD)	Link
DET	Dylan McLaughlin, 2025 7th (STL)	STL	Jakub Vrána (50% retained)	Link
CHI	Anton Khudobin, 2025 2nd (DAL)	DAL	Max Domi, Dylan Wells	Link
ANA	Dylan Sikura	CHI	Maxim Golod	Link
ARI	Michael Kesselring, 2023 3rd (EDM)	EDM	Nick Bjugstad (50% retained), Cam Dineen	Link
BUF	Future Considerations	CHI	Anders Bjork	Link
CBJ	Michael Hutchinson, 2025 7th (VGK)	LAK	Jonathan Quick (50% retained)	Link
ARI	Jakub Voracek, 2023 6th rd pick (CBJ)	CBJ	Jon Gillies	Link
BOS	Tyler Bertuzzi (50% retained)	DET	2024 1st rd pick (BOS)*, 2025 4th rd pick (BOS)	Link	1st rd pick is top 10 protected
NSH	2023 2nd rd pick (PIT)	PIT	Mikael Granlund	Link
SJS	Vladislav Namestnikov	TBL	Michael Eyssimont	Link
PIT	Peter Diliberatore, 2024 3rd rd pick (VGK)	VGK	Teddy Blueger	Link
BUF	2023 3rd rd pick (LAK)	LAK	Erik Portillo	Link
ARI	2023 1st rd pick (OTT), 2024 2nd rd pick (WSH), 2026 2nd rd pick (OTT)	OTT	Jakob Chychrun	Link	2023 1st is top 5 protected. Becomes unprotected 2024 1st otherwise. If OTT makes 2023 ECF, 2024 2nd becomes a 1st.
VAN	Filip Hronek, 2023 4th Rd pick (DET)	DET	2023 1st Rd pick (NYI), 2023 2nd Rd pick (VAN)	Link
CAR	Shayne Gostisbehere	ARI	2026 3rd Rd pick (CAR)	Link
COL	Lars Eller (31% retained)	WSH	2025 2nd rd pick (COL)	Link
CBJ	Jonathan Quick, 2023 1st rd pick (LAK)*, 2024 4th rd pick (LAK)	LAK	Joonas Korpisalo, Vladislav Gavrikov	Link	If LAK do not qualify for the 2023 playoffs, CBJ will receive LAK's 2nd rd picks in 2023 and 2024
CHI	Vili Saarijarvi, Andy Welinski, 2023 2nd rd pick (NYR)*, 2025 4th rd pick (NYR)	NYR	Patrick Kane (75% retained), Cooper Zech	Link	ARI brokered the deal, retaining 25% of Kane's salary (CHI retained half), and received a 2025 3rd rd pick (better of DAL and NYR's). The NYR 2023 2nd rd pick becomes a 1st in 2024 (top 10 protected) or 2025 if NYR makes the ECF.
CBJ	2023 5th rd pick (BOS)	MIN	Gustav Nyquist (50% retained)	Link
EDM	Mattias Ekholm (4% retained), 2024 6th rd pick (NSH)	NSH	Tyson Barrie, Reid Schaefer, 2023 1st rd pick (EDM), 2024 4th rd pick (EDM)	Link
NSH	Austin Rueschhoff	NYR	Future Considerations	Link
TOR	Luke Schenn	VAN	2023 3rd rd pick (TOR)	Link
TOR	2024 3rd rd pick (NYI)	NYI	Pierre Engvall	Link
TOR	Erik Gustafsson, 2023 1st rd pick (BOS)	WAS	Rasmus Sandin	Link
MIN	Marcus Johansson	WAS	2024 3rd rd pick (MIN)	Link
ANA	2024 3rd rd pick (SJS)	SJS	Henry Thrun	Link
CAR	Jesse Puljujarvi	EDM	Patrik Puistola	Link
BUF	Riley Stillman	VAN	Josh Bloom	Link
CHI	Joey Anderson, Pavel Gogolev, 2025 1st rd pick (TOR)*, 2026 2nd rd pick (TOR)	TOR	Jake McCabe (50% retained), Sam Lafferty, 2024 4th rd pick (CHI)*, 2025 5th rd pick (CHI)	Link	2025 1st rder acquired by CHI is top 10 protected, the 5th transferred to TOR will be the lowest of the 2024 5th rd picks that CHI owns
NSH	Isaac Ratcliffe	PHI	Future Considerations	Link
NSH	Cal Foote, 2023 3rd rd pick, 2023 4th rd pick, 2023 5th rd pick, 2024 2nd rd pick, 2025 1st rd pick (all TBL, 1st is top 10 protected)	TBL	Tanner Jeannot	Link
NJD	Scott Harrington, Timo Meier (50% retained), Zacharie Emond, Santeri Hatakka, Timur Ibragimov	SJS	Andreas Johnsson, Fabian Zetterlund, Nikita Okhotiuk, Shakir Mukhamadullin, 2023 1st rd pick (SJS), 2024 2nd rd pick (NJD), 2024 7th rd pick (NJD)	Link	If the NJD 1st is top 2, NJD will transfer their own 2024 1st rd pick. If NJD makes the 2023 ECF and Meier plays in 50% of the games, or NJD makes the 2024 ECF, the pick becomes NJD's 2024 1st.
CHI	Andreas Englund	COL	Jack Johnson	Link
STL	Zach Dean	VGK	Ivan Barbashev	Link
DAL	Evgeni Dadonov (50% retained)	MTL	Denis Gurianov	Link
NSH	2024 2nd rd pick	WPG	Nino Niederreiter	Link
NYR	William Lockwood, 2026 7th rd pick (VAN)	VAN	Vitali Kravtsov	Link
BOS	Shane Bowers	COL	Keith Kinkaid	Link
BOS	Garnet Hathaway, Andrei Svetlakov, Dmitry Orlov (75% retained)	WSH	Craig Smith, 2023 1st rd pick (BOS), 2024 3rd rd pick (BOS), 2025 2nd rd pick (BOS)	Link	MIN brokered the deal and retained 25% of Orlov's salary, and received a 2023 5th rd pick (BOS)
ANA	Josiah Slavin	CHI	Hunter Drew	Link
CHI	Nikita Zaitsev, 2023 2nd rd pick (OTT), 2026 4th rd pick (OTT)	OTT	Future Considerations	Link
ARI	Shea Weber, 2023 5th rd pick (VGK)	VGK	Dysin Mayo	Link
NYR	Tyler Motte	OTT	Julien Gauthier, 2023 7th rd pick (NYR)*	Link	7th rd pick becomes a 6th if NYR advances to the 2nd rd of the 2023 playoffs
STL	Adam Gaudette, Mikhail Abramov, 2023 1st rd pick (TOR), 2023 3rd rd pick (OTT), 2024 2nd rd pick (TOR)	TOR	Ryan O'Reilly (50% retained), Josh Pillar, Noel Acciari	Link	MIN brokered the deal, retained 50% of O'Reilly's salary. They received a 2025 4th rd pick (TOR).
NYR	Vladimiar Tarasenko (50% retained), Niko Mikkola	STL	Samuel Blais, Hunter Skinner, 2023 1st rd pick (NYR), 2024 4th rd pick (NYR)	Link	The 1st STL received will be the later of DAL and NYR's picks. If NYR makes the playoffs in 2023, the 2024 4th becomes a 3rd
SJS	2023 4th rd pick (SEA)*	SEA	Jaycob Megna	Link	Seattle decides to give their own or COL's 4th
NYI	Bo Horvat (25% retained)	VAN	Anthony Beauvillier, Aatu Raty, 2023 1st rd pick (NYI)*	Link	The pick becomes a 2024 1st if in the top 12

This Megathread will serve as a hub for news and discussion related to the 2023 trade deadline! The mods will do their best to update this as trades are made, let us know if we have missed anything. If there are multiple posts about each trade, we'll link the one here that has the most engagement.

Today's Games

Away	Score	Home	Score	Time	GDT	PGT
SEA	4	CBJ	2	Final	Link	Link
WPG	3	EDM	6	Final	Link	Link
CAR	6	ARI	1	Final	Link	Link
MTL	2	ANA	3	Final	Link	Link
NJD	3	VGK	4	Final (SO)	Link	Link

Standings	Stats Leaders	Most Recent Highlight	Goal Highlights
Link	Link	Nick Suzuki (21) Wrist Shot, assists: Christian Dvorak (18), Jonathan Drouin (19)	Link

Yesterday's Games

Away	Score	Home	Score	Time	PGT	Next-Day PGT
BUF	1	BOS	7	Final	Link
NSH	2	FLA	1	Final	Link
OTT	5	NYR	3	Final	Link
PIT	5	TBL	4	Final (OT)	Link
SEA	5	DET	4	Final (OT)	Link
DAL	5	CHI	2	Final	Link
TOR	2	CGY	1	Final	Link
MIN	2	VAN	1	Final	Link
MTL	2	LAK	3	Final	Link
STL	6	SJS	3	Final	Link

Goal Highlights
Link

Regular Threads

• FRIDAY TRASH TALK
• Nightly Pick 'em Game

Mod News/Threads

• [Serious] Post Trade Deadline Discussion Thread

Team A	Receives	Team B	Receives	/hockey Thread	Notes
MIN	John Klingberg (50% retained)	ANA	Andrej Sustr, Nikita Nesterenko, 2025 4th	Link
ARI	Brett Ritchie, Connor Mackey	CGY	Nick Ritchie, Troy Stecher	Link
CHI	Austin Wagner	LAK	Future Considerations	Link
NYR	Wyatt Kalynuk	VAN	Future Considerations	Link
BUF	2025 7th (NSH)	NSH	Rasmus Asplund	Link
COL	Gustav Rydahl	NYR	Anton Blidh	Link
ANA	Brock McGinn, 2024 3rd (PIT)	PIT	Dmitry Kulikov (50% retained)	Link
DET	2023 4th (MIN)	MIN	Oskar Sundqvist	Link
OTT	Patrick Brown	PHI	2023 6th (OTT)	Link
BUF	Jordan Greenway	MIN	2023 2nd (VGK), 2024 5th (BUF)	Link
CGY	Dryden Hunt	TOR	Radim Zohorna	Link
DAL	Scott Reedy	SJS	Jacob Peterson	Link
ANA	Chase Priskie	BUF	Austin Strand	Link
SJS	2025 4th (WPG)	WPG	Vladislav Namestnikov	Link
PIT	Nick Bonino (50% retained)	SJS	Arvid Henrikson, 2023 7th (PIT), 2024 Conditional 5th (PIT)	Link	MTL brokered the deal, retaining 50% on Bonino and receiving Tony Sund and a 2024 5th (SJS)
LAK	Nathan Schnarr	MTL	Frédéric Allard	Link
LAK	Zack MacEwen	PHI	Brendan Lemieux, 2024 5th (LAK)	Link
NJD	Curtis Lazar	VAN	2024 4th (NJD)	Link
DET	Dylan McLaughlin, 2025 7th (STL)	STL	Jakub Vrána (50% retained)	Link
CHI	Anton Khudobin, 2025 2nd (DAL)	DAL	Max Domi, Dylan Wells	Link
ANA	Dylan Sikura	CHI	Maxim Golod	Link
ARI	Michael Kesselring, 2023 3rd (EDM)	EDM	Nick Bjugstad (50% retained), Cam Dineen	Link
BUF	Future Considerations	CHI	Anders Bjork	Link
CBJ	Michael Hutchinson, 2025 7th (VGK)	LAK	Jonathan Quick (50% retained)	Link
ARI	Jakub Voracek, 2023 6th rd pick (CBJ)	CBJ	Jon Gillies	Link
BOS	Tyler Bertuzzi (50% retained)	DET	2024 1st rd pick (BOS)*, 2025 4th rd pick (BOS)	Link	1st rd pick is top 10 protected
NSH	2023 2nd rd pick (PIT)	PIT	Mikael Granlund	Link
SJS	Vladislav Namestnikov	TBL	Michael Eyssimont	Link
PIT	Peter Diliberatore, 2024 3rd rd pick (VGK)	VGK	Teddy Blueger	Link
BUF	2023 3rd rd pick (LAK)	LAK	Erik Portillo	Link
ARI	2023 1st rd pick (OTT), 2024 2nd rd pick (WSH), 2026 2nd rd pick (OTT)	OTT	Jakob Chychrun	Link	2023 1st is top 5 protected. Becomes unprotected 2024 1st otherwise. If OTT makes 2023 ECF, 2024 2nd becomes a 1st.
VAN	Filip Hronek, 2023 4th Rd pick (DET)	DET	2023 1st Rd pick (NYI), 2023 2nd Rd pick (VAN)	Link
CAR	Shayne Gostisbehere	ARI	2026 3rd Rd pick (CAR)	Link
COL	Lars Eller (31% retained)	WSH	2025 2nd rd pick (COL)	Link
CBJ	Jonathan Quick, 2023 1st rd pick (LAK)*, 2024 4th rd pick (LAK)	LAK	Joonas Korpisalo, Vladislav Gavrikov	Link	If LAK do not qualify for the 2023 playoffs, CBJ will receive LAK's 2nd rd picks in 2023 and 2024
CHI	Vili Saarijarvi, Andy Welinski, 2023 2nd rd pick (NYR)*, 2025 4th rd pick (NYR)	NYR	Patrick Kane (75% retained), Cooper Zech	Link	ARI brokered the deal, retaining 25% of Kane's salary (CHI retained half), and received a 2025 3rd rd pick (better of DAL and NYR's). The NYR 2023 2nd rd pick becomes a 1st in 2024 (top 10 protected) or 2025 if NYR makes the ECF.
CBJ	2023 5th rd pick (BOS)	MIN	Gustav Nyquist (50% retained)	Link
EDM	Mattias Ekholm (4% retained), 2024 6th rd pick (NSH)	NSH	Tyson Barrie, Reid Schaefer, 2023 1st rd pick (EDM), 2024 4th rd pick (EDM)	Link
NSH	Austin Rueschhoff	NYR	Future Considerations	Link
TOR	Luke Schenn	VAN	2023 3rd rd pick (TOR)	Link
TOR	2024 3rd rd pick (NYI)	NYI	Pierre Engvall	Link
TOR	Erik Gustafsson, 2023 1st rd pick (BOS)	WAS	Rasmus Sandin	Link
MIN	Marcus Johansson	WAS	2024 3rd rd pick (MIN)	Link
ANA	2024 3rd rd pick (SJS)	SJS	Henry Thrun	Link
CAR	Jesse Puljujarvi	EDM	Patrik Puistola	Link
BUF	Riley Stillman	VAN	Josh Bloom	Link
CHI	Joey Anderson, Pavel Gogolev, 2025 1st rd pick (TOR)*, 2026 2nd rd pick (TOR)	TOR	Jake McCabe (50% retained), Sam Lafferty, 2024 4th rd pick (CHI)*, 2025 5th rd pick (CHI)	Link	2025 1st rder acquired by CHI is top 10 protected, the 5th transferred to TOR will be the lowest of the 2024 5th rd picks that CHI owns
NSH	Isaac Ratcliffe	PHI	Future Considerations	Link
NSH	Cal Foote, 2023 3rd rd pick, 2023 4th rd pick, 2023 5th rd pick, 2024 2nd rd pick, 2025 1st rd pick (all TBL, 1st is top 10 protected)	TBL	Tanner Jeannot	Link
NJD	Scott Harrington, Timo Meier (50% retained), Zacharie Emond, Santeri Hatakka, Timur Ibragimov	SJS	Andreas Johnsson, Fabian Zetterlund, Nikita Okhotiuk, Shakir Mukhamadullin, 2023 1st rd pick (SJS), 2024 2nd rd pick (NJD), 2024 7th rd pick (NJD)	Link	If the NJD 1st is top 2, NJD will transfer their own 2024 1st rd pick. If NJD makes the 2023 ECF and Meier plays in 50% of the games, or NJD makes the 2024 ECF, the pick becomes NJD's 2024 1st.
CHI	Andreas Englund	COL	Jack Johnson	Link
STL	Zach Dean	VGK	Ivan Barbashev	Link
DAL	Evgeni Dadonov (50% retained)	MTL	Denis Gurianov	Link
NSH	2024 2nd rd pick	WPG	Nino Niederreiter	Link
NYR	William Lockwood, 2026 7th rd pick (VAN)	VAN	Vitali Kravtsov	Link
BOS	Shane Bowers	COL	Keith Kinkaid	Link
BOS	Garnet Hathaway, Andrei Svetlakov, Dmitry Orlov (75% retained)	WSH	Craig Smith, 2023 1st rd pick (BOS), 2024 3rd rd pick (BOS), 2025 2nd rd pick (BOS)	Link	MIN brokered the deal and retained 25% of Orlov's salary, and received a 2023 5th rd pick (BOS)
ANA	Josiah Slavin	CHI	Hunter Drew	Link
CHI	Nikita Zaitsev, 2023 2nd rd pick (OTT), 2026 4th rd pick (OTT)	OTT	Future Considerations	Link
ARI	Shea Weber, 2023 5th rd pick (VGK)	VGK	Dysin Mayo	Link
NYR	Tyler Motte	OTT	Julien Gauthier, 2023 7th rd pick (NYR)*	Link	7th rd pick becomes a 6th if NYR advances to the 2nd rd of the 2023 playoffs
STL	Adam Gaudette, Mikhail Abramov, 2023 1st rd pick (TOR), 2023 3rd rd pick (OTT), 2024 2nd rd pick (TOR)	TOR	Ryan O'Reilly (50% retained), Josh Pillar, Noel Acciari	Link	MIN brokered the deal, retained 50% of O'Reilly's salary. They received a 2025 4th rd pick (TOR).
NYR	Vladimiar Tarasenko (50% retained), Niko Mikkola	STL	Samuel Blais, Hunter Skinner, 2023 1st rd pick (NYR), 2024 4th rd pick (NYR)	Link	The 1st STL received will be the later of DAL and NYR's picks. If NYR makes the playoffs in 2023, the 2024 4th becomes a 3rd
SJS	2023 4th rd pick (SEA)*	SEA	Jaycob Megna	Link	Seattle decides to give their own or COL's 4th
NYI	Bo Horvat (25% retained)	VAN	Anthony Beauvillier, Aatu Raty, 2023 1st rd pick (NYI)*	Link	The pick becomes a 2024 1st if in the top 12

Some useful resources

• How to get flair Request new flair Rules refresher Useful Sidebar Resources Other hockey resources
• hockey Discord Server hockey Steam Group
• Follow us on twitter @RedditHockey and tweet using #RedditHockey

What is a Daily Free Talk Thread? Use it to talk about anything related to hockey, ask quick questions, or any other daily chatter. It's also your hub for links to Game Day Threads, live scores, daily stats and standings, and a way to compile recent news and announcements for easy viewing. You can view a collection of all video replays by opening the stickied mod comment below. It updates throughout the night.
If you have specific feedback about these threads please message the mods. Bot is maintained by sandman730. Message him with any bugs.