OK well it would be hypocritical of me to say that others are not open minded if I myself do not exhibit the same attributes, so I tell you what. It's simple enough for me to go ahead and pay off all my balances because they're already very low and I purposely leave crumbs in there for my system and let's see if what you're saying is correct!
I will pick any random card I doubt that it matters and report back here in 30 days how's that? 
Payment history doesn't care, as long as you show at least one revolving balance (and in FICO 9 this needs to be a credit card explicitly) it simply doesn't matter.
Actually letting a balance report on all your revolving tradelines is a negative, I actually lose points in the algorithm if I have 1/3 of my cards reporting on EQ FICO 8, or 1/2 of my cards on EX FICO 8/TU FICO 8 (at least on my old scorecard, haven't tested it since some of my negatives have been whacked); even if you don't believe the copious amounts of data presented here and a few other places on the net, look at the mortgage industry giants (Fannie and Freddie) and their coming up with solutions to identify transactors to fix this: namely those that have balances on everything but are PIFing anyway... as they're being punished for no real reason credit wise, instead of than manipulating the FICO algorithm like I and many others on this forum ruthlessly do by having almost all of our revolving tradelines report $0. The lenders at least are aware that the risk difference between you and I is probably near zero (on the assumption we aren't missing payments) but if I have only a few revolvers reporting a balance, and you have say all of them, even if everything is absolutely line item identical, FICO will reward me. It's a bit silly, but it's basically as near as fact as we have given the large amount of anecdotal data around it... or test it if you don't believe me heh.
The current generation of algorithms doesn't look at any sort of trended data, your payments or balances in the past don't matter... it's whether or not you've missed two payments in a row or worse (30D+ late). VantageScore 4 reportedly looks at trended data, presumably to allievate the transactor issue the GSE's have lamented about and given the lockstep VS and FICO move in, FICO will probably implement it in FICO 10. The marketing release for VS 4 was actually pretty funny on that point.
Anyway throwing away all of the data as it exists on the net here and a few other places is beyond silly to the point of troll-like behavior: without data which hasn't been presented yet, color me skeptical.
@Anonymous wrote:??? Revelate did you delete your last post? I was responding to it but when I came up for air it was gone! Wish now had taken a screen shot...LOL Off to bed this time for real!
Yes. Until you post data and stop labelling us all as idiots presumably to pick fights, I will not be responding unless this clearly goes off the rails.
Pasted below is a summary of how my Classic Fico 04 and Bankcard Fico 8 scores react to # cards reporting balances. As shown, EQ Fico 04 shows a dramatic drop in Feb 2016 due to all cards reporting balances. In mid 2014 I also had 6 of 6 cards reporting balances and captured the impact on EQ Fico 04 in a Scorepower report. No question the nose dive relates to #/% cards reporting a balance as AG UT was under 6% both times.
Side note: When I report balances on 100% of cards (5 of 5) cards, Classic Fico 8 scores do not drop from 850.
@Revelate wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:??? Revelate did you delete your last post? I was responding to it but when I came up for air it was gone! Wish now had taken a screen shot...LOL Off to bed this time for real!
Yes. Until you post data and stop labelling us all as idiots presumably to pick fights, I will not be responding unless this clearly goes off the rails.
Since this comment has generated such a negative response, I will endeavor to explain it:
"But I say this. Nobody but nobody actually KNOWS what's in those algorithms and I promise you they were written by near geniuses and programmers and software writers and mathematical wizards that are above ALL of our collective heads put together and when I hear someone dance and prance around acting as if they've got this down to a science, I immediately have a tendency to lean towards not believing them as I am smart enough to know that I don't really know what is in those things."
That is a direct statement that others (and to be fair yourself as well in a self-deprecating fashion) are incapable of understanding the algorithm, presumably by being intellectually incompetent compared against the people who designed the algorithm. There may be no intellectual upper bound on human ingenuity or creativity, but the assumption that the rest of us are deficient (and therefore idiots) in comparison to the "near geniuses" is a nasty bit of sophistry. I'm not certain what you do for a living, but given I work around both software developers and individuals who have created similar algorithms for internal lender scores, I can assure you they're human just like the rest of us.
I will admit it was harsh and likely over the top and I apologize for that, but you've repeatedly simply dismissed other members' comments and continued to promote your own version of the narrative. It's possible you're Copernicus and the rest of us are still preaching the equivalent of the sun's orbiting the earth; however, statistically with the amount of data found here and elsewhere, that's an incredibly small chance. Possible, but I think you'll find we're not relying on faith as much as those promoting heliocentrism did.