Scoring Discussion

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:51:54 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:

To try I am assuming we could just delete the IGC file for the day and have that day scored as a DNF. On the other hand that would require only 'n' days scored for each pilot. Workable. Let's talk again at Nephi and maybe try something there

Could try that - the more fair way it to pick the day for each competitor with the biggest score differential versus the winner and award them that score starting on, say, the third day There's no point in doing anything on the first day - it would be a giant tie. The actual rule would be workable with manual processing but more work, so it's a tradeoff.

Yes, Nephi would be the place to try it.

9B

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:07:55 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:59:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Three thoughts.

("Our main weapon is fear - and surprise!")

I wasn't expecting that.

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:47:37 AM UTC+3, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:07:55 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:59:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Three thoughts.

("Our main weapon is fear - and surprise!")

I wasn't expecting that.

Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.

First impression - I like it !

Heres my perspective.

1 safety decisions are enhanced by a smaller difference between landout points and speed points

2 gaggles will always happen - its less the scoring mechanism (though its true it is a factor) than being mainly due to the basic fear of losing

3 higher distance points will also help reduce gaggles even with FAI scoring

Ive said this before but 600pts is too high a penalty for landing safely but just short.

Perhaps a less steep scale on the speed points (1.5 factor not 2?) with the higher distance points would be something we could really use in US contests

It would encourage FAI dynamics for speed (7T and others) while reducing the incentive for pushing safety limits (BB and others)

Best

2T

On Thursday, 19 January 2017 11:19:52 UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
Steve:

Thanks, yes, let's keep Benalla on Benalla and scoring on scoring. My concrete proposal

points = (day devaluation) x max [ 1000 x speed / winner speed, 750 x distance , winner distance].

Let's leave day devaluation out of this for the moment, as it's much less important.

The ratio of speed to distance points does not change as a function of land outs. This is the major innovation. Therefore, just finishing vs. just short is always the same thing. We do not have the situation that the only finisher is 1000 with the gaggle just short at 999 while the only just short is 300 with the gaggle at 1000. The lone wolf can strike out.

It's not magic. There still will be gaggles. 750 is still a bad outcome. But it tilts the playing field a bit to the lone wolf, early starter, etc.

The main "defect" mentioned in the previous thread, is that someone going 66% of winner's speed and someone going 75% of winner's speed get the same points. Reply: That's already in IGC rules. Very slow finishes are counted as landing out. Reply 2: Yeah, but so what. If you lower the 750, then you lower distance points, meaning that going further on distance days counts less, and that a land out is more of a disaster. On that basis 800 distance points makes more sense.

Notice also that by removing 2 x speed -- which was pointless, as it makes speed points just as easy to get as to lose, and does not affect the final ranking -- these distance points are the equivalent of half as many under current IGC rules. So even 750 is harsh. That's another argument for 800 or even more.

Day devaluation? Again, it's a separate issue, but I would also not base this on land outs. We only use land outs to measure things because we didn't use to have gps. A concrete proposal:

day devaluation = min [ median time from start to finish or landing of top 10% of pilots / 3 hours, 1]

We measure time on course for everyone. If the top 10% of pilots fly 3 hours, it's a fully valid day. If we all land out, we're fighting for the full 750 distance points. This keeps the current IGC philosophy that distance days are valid days. It's the median and the top 10% so that one pilot does not affect the devaluation formula -- no incentive to sit on a ridge and orbit to run up the clock and lower the devaluation of a hopeless day

Advantage 2: This is all really really simple! It also removes the quirks of current IGC rules that encourage pilots to intentionally land out on some days.

John Cochrane

Just couldn't let it rest, could you? Why don't you go out into the
street and burn a car or throw a rock at a cop? Fanatical devotion ?
Sheesh... Grow up.

On 1/20/2017 2:54 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
snip
Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.

--
Dan, 5J

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Just couldn't let it rest, could you? Why don't you go out into the
street and burn a car or throw a rock at a cop? Fanatical devotion ?
Sheesh... Grow up.

On 1/20/2017 2:54 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
snip
Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.

--
Dan, 5J


Dan may not have watched Monty Python as a young lad...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_Y4MbUCLY

I started it by introducing 2 points then listing 3. ("Among my points are...")

9B

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 11:02:01 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:32:10 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

US rules had a "drop a day" provision, brilliantly worked out by John Good to overcome the obvious problems.

The brilliance of the design was that it permitted a pilot to select a day to match the winner's score instead of the one (s)he was awarded. This is profoundly different from literally dropping your lowest score because it eliminates the unfairness of dropping devalued days.

Most local racing series have a "best "N" scores" provision. It's odd that no one wanted to try it in a sanctioned contest. It would still be available under waiver - so bring it on!

Andy Blackburn
9B

Im not an expert in scoring, but it seems to me that many of the problems being discussed are due to the scoring system's characteristic of carrying forward the specific history of the contest. This somewhat rare in sports, multi stage bicycle racing is about the only one I can think of offhand. In football (either flavor) you do not carry the previous day's score into today's contest. Nor in baseball, cricket, yacht racing, car racing, or horse racing. It is this characteristic that makes one bad score so devastating. In baseball for example, the Giants might lose to the Dodgers 1-15 one night, but win the next night 1-0. They are even for the series, 1-1. In sailplane racing, the Giants might as well pack up for the series as they would be behind 2-15.

The way to address that is in how contest scores are accumulated. One design yacht racing regattas provide a well tested example. In many regattas (including the Olympics) a "low points" system is used. The winner of a race gets one point, second place two, and so on. A contestant that doesn't finish gets one more point than the last finisher. At the end of the regatta, the yacht with the lowest points wins. A very lucky one day performance does not put you comfortably ahead for the next day - you must win that one too. A very unlucky performance does not put you out of the running. Fast days (where everyone is within a few minutes of each other) does not count less than slow days (where there are large differences in speeds). The currently used time accumulation system is similar to the US electoral college where some states count much more than others and you can win the contest from another while losing to him on a large majority of days. We have seen the results of such a system.

I have retroactively applied this to a couple of regional contests, and it appears to me to give a fairer result. There are not typically wholesale changes, and very few among the top pilots, but better (fairer) results as you go down the list. With SSA scoring, it is quite possible to beat another pilot on 4 of 5 scored days, yet still lose the contest to him. That will not happen in the low points system. Regardless of the type of task flown, placing higher than another pilot in 4 of 5 races should put you ahead of him in my opinion.

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 8:05:26 PM UTC+3, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Just couldn't let it rest, could you? Why don't you go out into the
street and burn a car or throw a rock at a cop? Fanatical devotion ?
Sheesh... Grow up.

On 1/20/2017 2:54 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
snip
Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.

--
Dan, 5J


Dan may not have watched Monty Python as a young lad...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_Y4MbUCLY

I started it by introducing 2 points then listing 3. ("Among my points are...")

9B

Oops! I went off-script a little

Ruthless efficiency, and an *almost* fanatical devotion

Well, that makes all the difference, then.

And yes, I used to love Monte Python though, unlike a Trekkie or a Rocky
Horror fan, I can't quote the movies. I just thought I detected the
beginnings of a snowflake blizzard. Apologies if I was wrong.

On 1/21/2017 11:56 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 8:05:26 PM UTC+3, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Just couldn't let it rest, could you? Why don't you go out into the
street and burn a car or throw a rock at a cop? Fanatical devotion ?
Sheesh... Grow up.

On 1/20/2017 2:54 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
snip
Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.
--
Dan, 5J

Dan may not have watched Monty Python as a young lad...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_Y4MbUCLY

I started it by introducing 2 points then listing 3. ("Among my points are...")

9B
Oops! I went off-script a little

Ruthless efficiency, and an *almost* fanatical devotion

--
Dan, 5J

We used the SSA drop option it in Ionia in 2011 I believe (maybe it was 2012). People liked it but Ionia often has such challenging weather that we don't get enough soaring in to drop days. Drop races are common in sailing up to the WC level. It is called a "throw out." It kicks in only after a certain number of valid races have been completed (usually six). It makes good sense because in sailing it is extremely difficult to be consistent and (like gliding at the WGC level) other gliders (gaggle) have a big impact on your daily destiny.

Risk (scoring) is critical here at the WGC (A) start time and B) using or not using the gaggle). But the drop day probably would not directly prevent the gaggles which is the number one concern/problem here. Especially during the pre-start gaggle stage which can be well over an hour (sometimes 2+) of continuous "full attention."

The reason that it is important to constantly be with the gaggle (same position and most importantly altitude) is so that we are always in a position to start evenly with them. This ebbs and flows and people are flighting (changing circle path) to gain 300 ft again and again in order to be near the top of each thermal, biding their time to start...

For what it's worth I'm not worried about my landout day here. I did my best and broke it off and landed safely at the right time. I learned more from that landout than it really cost me. I flew that task virtually alone, well of the front of the main gaggle (TAT) except for the Czechs who came with me from 1-2 back of my start until I was able to get away. P7 and the Brits caught me at TP2 but so did not know how far the went into TP1 so we immediately split up. The goal for me that day was to hope that the main gaggle waited too long and that the day died while they were still on course.. This was showing some signs of coming true that afternoon which was why I pushed to get back S quickly, that meant that I had to do more than just touch the final TP area. That was OK because this meant I could utilize the best late day thermal source in the entire task area, the Worby mountains.. If I would have found one weak climb (usually a fairly good is found here), I would have had 900+ points (133kph). But I was slightly too low to connect easily or simply missed. Oh well.

A throw out might be a nice way of making the results a little closer overall, and "might" allow for a little more risk taking. That might be a nice change in dynamics. I think some changes here would be healthy.

Another note is that the 15m gaggle basically stayed intact yesterday despite the TAT and the very weak weather...

I bet even a MAT task would not have separated them yesterday either. This is a real part of the game (risk management from a scoring perspective...)

I look forward to hearing the results of the next IGC meeting in February. I'm sure all of this will be discussed. This event format can and should be improved.

Sean
7T