Why does that make it more likely to walk than a placement with equal deployment? When it comes to cams walking, I am concerned more about rope-action, direction of pull, and cracks that widen around the point of placement. Not whether I have even cam deployment. Edit: besides, that cam's deployment looks pretty dam good to me.

*******************************************
Well it does not look good to me and I always try for simi even deployments. I am obviously more anal then you with my placements. Clearly you are at a much tighter deployment interior verse exterior compounded by the proximity to the edge of the crack witht he exterior lobes.
*******************************************
There are systems to equalize odd numbers of protection although doing it redundantly and dynamically is usually not done cleanly (even with the equalette).

Anyway, why always equalize between three instead of two and then one? I understand the load is not truely equalized across all pieces. But the primary in general anchor building is to place bomber individual pieces. Why always go to extremes every time if one usually has bomber individual placements and limited anchor extension upon failure.
*******************************************
Again I am clearly a more anal with my anchor setups. I might gain stability of the system but will take more time and not move as fast. It is a tradeoff I am prepared to be on the safe side and lose a litle time.
I also would point out my critique of the anchor looks at the whole and the primary placement is sketch IMHO. Thus increasing the reasons behind a 3 point equalization.
*******************************************

Bill L