Seems you got it reversed - it's the expert which performs sub-par on 6 rounds, while doing better on 12. While missing also the part about when it outperforms

Seems you got it reversed - it's the expert which performs sub-par on 6 rounds, while doing better on 12. While missing also the part about when it outperforms, it does so "at a significantly wider margin (2x-3x)". Which is why, no, it's not "mostly on par". Just look at the data.