At low levels of risk in the techniques used (such as pushing and the short game), the speed glue effect actually tends to work against the user, since the player's touch is often negatively affected. But as the player moves up the risk scale, and in particular when he reaches the point of being able to consistently loop the ball, he receives a disproportional reward in his chances of winning a point, when compared to the risk of him making a mistake.
This is the reason why elite table tennis in 2010 is dominated by power looping, and will continue to do so until the ITTF changes the rules sufficiently to bring the reward ratio for power looping back into line with other styles of play. Until then, it simply makes sense for up and coming players to use the style that gives a huge reward for a relatively small amount of risk.
This disproportionally high reward for relatively little downside is also why those players who favor other styles will continue to complain about the dominance of power looping. Their complaint (and mine!) is based on the premise that as many styles as possible should have relatively equal reward ratios, and that the power looping style currently has a much better reward ratio than any other style. Of course, if you feel that table tennis is better off if everyone uses the power looping style, then you would not see anything to complain about!
Junk rubbers, such as long pips, frictionless long pips, and antispin, also break the reward ratio rule. But they break it differently to the speed glue effect, and this is why you don't see them much on the elite level of the game. Let's take a look at the junk rubber effect now.
