Benalla

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:51:07 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Yeah sorry guys, blew it yesterday. Long story. Was almost at 133kph, needed a 3 knot climb to maintain that for 1500 feet. Anything higher would have increased speed so a 900 day was close but...no cigar. These guys here are incredible. Just happy to be here and experience the pace they set.

My point on rules is that we need to be careful. Our rules in this environment would not diffuse gaggles much (IMO). That said, I agree with John C, John G and Rick Scheppe that our rule system is more inviting to not flying in gaggles.

My example yesterday (only land out) was a great example of why FAI scoring rewards reducing risk by staying in touch with the gaggle or others. I flew almost entirely alone and was isolated at the end of the flight. Even though I made it to the mountains which are the best late day lift source, they were. It working and I was doomed. Also, now behind, few points scenarios allow a major catch up.

So I want US scoring to make it into FAI. But not the tasking!


Sean, I was watching you on the tracker yesterday. Why did you go so deep in the last turn area? Doubtless I am missing something, but it appeared you could have just touched the west edge of that area and had enough altitude to get to the finish. I believe you would have been over 5 hours if you had?

7T: I'm sorry to hear of your heartbreaking landout, especially from such a good position. Time to show great sports psychology and go win tomorrow!

It's a great example of the IGC rules issue: Only landout, a few km short: 330 points. Only finisher, everyone else a few km short: they get 999 points. Now you know why "stick with the gaggle" is so vital in IGC scoring. Better to land out with the gaggle than to take any risk in order to be the only finisher.

US scoring isn't perfect either. It also switches from speed to distance points in a complex way depending on landouts.

Heres my current best suggestion:

points = (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed, 750 x distance / winner distance)

the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs. distance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number of landouts.

So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets 750. The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.

It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the winner's speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of speed and distance.

And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score! And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell you if it's a speed day or distance day.

it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional incentive to deliberately land out.

John Cochrane

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:51:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Yeah sorry guys, blew it yesterday. Long story. Was almost at 133kph, needed a 3 knot climb to maintain that for 1500 feet. Anything higher would have increased speed so a 900 day was close but...no cigar. These guys here are incredible. Just happy to be here and experience the pace they set.

My point on rules is that we need to be careful. Our rules in this environment would not diffuse gaggles much (IMO). That said, I agree with John C, John G and Rick Scheppe that our rule system is more inviting to not flying in gaggles.

My example yesterday (only land out) was a great example of why FAI scoring rewards reducing risk by staying in touch with the gaggle or others. I flew almost entirely alone and was isolated at the end of the flight. Even though I made it to the mountains which are the best late day lift source, they were. It working and I was doomed. Also, now behind, few points scenarios allow a major catch up.

So I want US scoring to make it into FAI. But not the tasking!

Focus on the current race, Sean. Plenty of time for the US System distraction when you get home!

And, yeah. Those guys you are racing are REALLY GOOD!

Steve Leonard

Winning a day against those guys is quite an accomplishment.

Racing is making decisions based on estimated probabilities. As BB points out, scoring affects those decisions because it skews the upside/downside payoffs. Limited upside and huge downside equals risk averse behavior to maximize total score. Landouts and devaluation are one way this happens but speed points are another.

Example - The prior race day I stayed up late watching the final leg. Early on that leg you were basically tied for fastest speed with the pilot who ultimately won the day - and about 10 km behind him. It seems that you were both ahead of the main gaggle. It wasn't clear if there were tracker-less gliders with either of you - you looked to be alone. The ultimate winner seemed to connect with better lift and maintained speed while you lost about 6kph. In a straight proportional speed scoring system you'd have scored 940 points, but IGC scoring spreads the speed points out about 2x versus straight pro-rata points allocation so you ended up with 888 I think, or almost double the points gap.

Another reason why people are well-advised to stick with the gaggle unless they are highly confident (high estimated probability) they can maintain any "lone wolf" advantage.

People back here are pulling for all you guys.

9B

At 01:12 18 January 2017, John Cochrane wrote:
7T: I'm sorry to hear of your heartbreaking landout, especially from such
a=
good position. Time to show great sports psychology and go win
tomorrow!=
=20

It's a great example of the IGC rules issue: Only landout, a few km
short:=
330 points. Only finisher, everyone else a few km short: they get 999
poin=
ts. Now you know why "stick with the gaggle" is so vital in IGC scoring.
Be=
tter to land out with the gaggle than to take any risk in order to be the
o=
nly finisher.=20

US scoring isn't perfect either. It also switches from speed to distance
po=
ints in a complex way depending on landouts.=20

Heres my current best suggestion:=20

points =3D (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed,
75=
0 x distance / winner distance)=20

the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs.
d=
istance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number
o=
f landouts.=20

So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets
750.
=
The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.=20

It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the
winner's=
speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of
spee=
d and distance.=20

And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score!

=
And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell
you=
if it's a speed day or distance day.=20

it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional
incen=
tive to deliberately land out.=20

John Cochrane

Why only get speed points if you finish. I do not see why you shouldn't
earn speed points for going to ground quickly. 100 point finish bonus 500
distance 400 speed

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 8:12:30 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

Heres my current best suggestion:

points = (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed, 750 x distance / winner distance)

the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs. distance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number of landouts.

So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets 750. The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.

It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the winner's speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of speed and distance.

And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score! And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell you if it's a speed day or distance day.

it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional incentive to deliberately land out.

John Cochrane

I like it. Even better: devalue based on task for short tasks, not stats that develop only after the fact.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Andy:
Actually, the IGC effort to give 2 x speed points is a completely needless complication. Speed points are twice as easy to lose -- and twice as easy to get. So it makes absolutely no difference to strategy . All it does is to make 300 distance points the same thing as US 600 distance points -- which is why the US raised speed points to about 600. That's why I dropped the 2 x speed and raised distance points in the suggestion.
John Cochrane

On Wednesday, 18 January 2017 03:12:30 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:

Heres my current best suggestion:

points = (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed, 750 x distance / winner distance)

the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs. distance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number of landouts.

So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets 750.. The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.

It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the winner's speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of speed and distance.

And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score! And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell you if it's a speed day or distance day.

it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional incentive to deliberately land out.

John Cochrane

I remember outright several competition days where your formula would give exactly same points to many pilots that do not manage to fly over 75% of winners speed, but come home anyway (at different speeds). With 66% speed limit for speed points this is not an issue.

Flying again today?
Jim

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 8:12:30 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
7T: I'm sorry to hear of your heartbreaking landout, especially from such a good position. Time to show great sports psychology and go win tomorrow!

It's a great example of the IGC rules issue: Only landout, a few km short: 330 points. Only finisher, everyone else a few km short: they get 999 points. Now you know why "stick with the gaggle" is so vital in IGC scoring. Better to land out with the gaggle than to take any risk in order to be the only finisher.

US scoring isn't perfect either. It also switches from speed to distance points in a complex way depending on landouts.

Heres my current best suggestion:

points = (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed, 750 x distance / winner distance)

the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs. distance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number of landouts.

So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets 750.. The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.

It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the winner's speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of speed and distance.

And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score! And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell you if it's a speed day or distance day.

it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional incentive to deliberately land out.

John Cochrane

But I want to have to solve non-linear partial differential equations in my head while on task! Why do you want to take all the fun out of it?

Make racing great again!

QT (tongue firmly in cheek)