US contest scoring formula is broken

On Jun 23, 7:31*am, Steve Koerner wrote:
I would urge that instead of looking at this in terms of ‘how can we
fix the Montague problem’ lets look at this much more fundamentally.
The Montague example shows that year after year of elaborating the
scoring formula has resulted in a mess.

It is time to step way back and start over. *Let’s get rid of the
alphabet soup that now exists in the rules for scoring. *All (or at
least most) of the accumulated complications in the rules were
undoubtedly made in the interest of improving fairness. * Yet at the
most elemental level it is really unfair to be using a set of scoring
formulas that cannot be comprehended by an intellectually
sophisticated competitor who applies reasonable diligence in studying
the rules. *That is what we have now. *It is especially irksome that
competitors should put up with the unnecessary complication and still
not have a scoring system that produces reasonable results.

So here’s a simple proposal to get this discussion going in the right
direction: *Let’s give 500 points for speed and 500 points for
distance. * Period. *Speed points are proportioned to the fastest
finisher’s speed; if you don’t finish you get zero speed points.
Distance points are proportioned to the best distance achieved.

Yes, on TAT and MAT style tasks, my formula would change the game plan
a bit. *It would introduce an objective to go forth and fly far (like
OLC) as well as fast. *Wouldn’t that be fun?

Pretty simple - which is an appealing place to start. Would you stop
getting credit for distance after some period of time? Otherwise, on
a MAT you'd think many pilots would start as early as the gate opens
(and they can make decent progress) and fly until the end of the day -
maybe 5-6 hours each day. On a TAT you'd be encouraged to fly the
maximum unless it entailed flying into dead air and a landout. I think
distance strategies would dominate speed strategies because it's
harder to fly a lot faster than the other guy than a lot farther -
especially when you don't know until after you land - best to keep
pushing just in case someone else decided to go to the fartherst point
in the task area.

Without a time limit I'd be less interested in competing because I
just don't want to fly for that long every day for 5 or 10 days in a
row. But I expect a time limit creates other complications - like
trying to run downwind for 3 hours then beat your way home when speed
counts but miles don't.

Would we still include devalued days for short tasks or high non-
completion?

9B

A couple of years ago, I experienced some similar scoring issues at
Region 9 and, like Steve, think the rules are just too complex. We
have the situation where only one specific computer program can
produce the official results, it's almost impossible to work them out
for yourself and it's virtually impossible to decide on the optimum
strategy while you're flying.

We need rules that you can understand and don't need special programs
to figure out. That's why many of us enjoy participating in OLC -
it's dead simple and you know how it's scored.

Steve's proposal has a lot of merit, but probably has a low chance of
being adopted because of inertia in the system.

The problem Andy raises could probably be addressed by assigning both
a minimum and maximum task duration.


Mike

On Jun 23, 12:16*pm, Mike the Strike wrote:
That's why many of us enjoy participating in OLC -
it's dead simple and you know how it's scored.

Right, the guy that lives next the biggest wave (or ridge, or thermal)
machine, wins. That's not a dig, that's an observation.

The OLC is fun, I like it. But it isn't a meaningful competition.

-T8

I also dislike the complexity of the scoring formula. But every bit of
this comes from pilot demand!

You basically can't get less than 600 points, no matter how slow you
go, because a) pilots want a landout not to be a catastrophic end to
the contest, as it would be if you got 0 points for landout and b)
pilots do not want a "finisher" to receive less points than a
"landout". (FAI rule fans note, the change from 400 to 600 points, by
the way, was made in part to harmonize US with world treatment of
landouts vs. speed points.)

I happen to disagree with the latter objective, especially on MAT and
turn area tasks. If you fly 400 miles and land 10 miles from the
airport, I think you should get more points than the guy who does 61
miles and lands 2 hours early. The guarantee puts too much emphasis on
coming home very early to "get a finish." But that's just me, everyone
else likes the current system.

If you want "simpler", so that a very slow finisher always gets his
fraction of the winner score, tell the rules committee which of a or
b above you want to give up.

The big complication with the rules involves day devaluation, all that
scored completion ratio and other stuff. I'd be happy to get rid of
that too, but pilots want it. If every day is 1000 points, so the mass
landout day where the best pilot goes 60 miles, or the 1.5 hour dump
task day counts exactly as much as the other days, then contests will
all be won and lost on those weak short days. That used to happen,
pilots felt it wasn't fair, so we have our current system. Do you
really want to go back to the old system where every day is 1000
points?

Then we get "use the FAI rules" as in the quote below. Have you read
the FAI rules? "Simplicity" and "use the FAI rules" are two separate
ideas! If you don't like our day devaluation formulas, look at
theirs! The FAI devaluation formulas also lead to much more gaggling.
Since the "lone wolf" doesn't gain much by being the only finisher,
everybody sits in one big gaggle until sunset and then lands out
together.

Again, I dislike the complexity and the fact that it's very hard to
check your score just like everyone else. But the scoring formulas in
US contests evolved over the years responding to specific and valid
complaints from pilots. Simplicity is important, but fair and fun
contests are also an important goal! So it would be much more
productive to understand those goals and suggest a simpler system that
addresses them, or makes a clear case for abandoning them

John Cochrane BB.


This idea would be a terrific start... or we could just score
according to the FAI rules and use SeeYou to score cotnests like the
rest of the world. You can definitely overcook the rules and we are
definitely in that kitchen.

EY

John Cochrane BB

On Jun 23, 12:56*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:

If you fly 400 miles and land 10 miles from the
airport, I think you should get more points than the guy who does 61
miles and lands 2 hours early.

I agree. What I would suggest is replacing "MDP" in the scoring
formula for finishers with MDP*DIST/BESTDIST.

-T8

On Jun 23, 10:56*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
I also dislike the complexity of the scoring formula. But every bit of
this comes from pilot demand!

You basically can't get less than 600 points, no matter how slow you
go, because a) pilots want a landout not to be a catastrophic end to
the contest, as it would be if you got 0 points for landout and b)
pilots do not want a "finisher" to receive less points than a
"landout". (FAI rule fans note, the change from 400 to 600 points, by
the way, was made in part to harmonize US with world treatment of
landouts vs. speed points.)

I happen to disagree with the latter objective, especially on MAT and
turn area tasks. If you fly 400 miles and land 10 miles from the
airport, I think you should get more points than the guy who does 61
miles and lands 2 hours early. The guarantee puts too much emphasis on
coming home very early to "get a finish." But that's just me, everyone
else likes the current system.

If you want "simpler", so that a very slow finisher always gets his
fraction of the winner score, *tell the rules committee which of a or
b above you want to give up.

The big complication with the rules involves day devaluation, all that
scored completion ratio and other stuff. I'd be happy to get rid of
that too, but pilots want it. If every day is 1000 points, so the mass
landout day where the best pilot goes 60 miles, or the 1.5 hour dump
task day counts exactly as much as the other days, then contests will
all be won and lost on those weak short days. *That used to happen,
pilots felt it wasn't fair, so we have our current system. Do you
really want to go back to the old system where every day is 1000
points?

Then we get "use the FAI rules" as in the quote below. Have you read
the FAI rules? "Simplicity" and "use the FAI rules" are two separate
ideas! *If you don't like our day devaluation formulas, look at
theirs! The FAI devaluation formulas also lead to much more gaggling.
Since the "lone wolf" doesn't gain much by being the only finisher,
everybody sits in one big gaggle until sunset and then lands out
together.

Again, I dislike the complexity and the fact that it's very hard to
check your score just like everyone else. But the scoring formulas in
US contests evolved over the years responding to specific and valid
complaints from pilots. Simplicity is important, but fair and fun
contests are also an important goal! *So it would be much more
productive to understand those goals and suggest a simpler system that
addresses them, or makes a clear case for abandoning them

John Cochrane BB.



This idea would be a terrific start... or we could just score
according to the FAI rules and use SeeYou to score cotnests like the
rest of the world. You can definitely overcook the rules and we are
definitely in that kitchen.

EY

John Cochrane BB

With respect as always.

"But every bit of this comes from pilot demand!"

True, but it gives the appearance of a few pilots who like the rules
complex because it discriminates against pilots who can't understand
the rules as well as they do. Most likely not true but it does give
that appearance and it puts newbies off.

Humble suggestion for consideration: Have two types of events,
rally's and races. A rally can have complex rules and tasks. Races
are AST's, period. Regionals could be rally's if that's what the
pilots want. Nationals would be races.

On Jun 23, 3:21*pm, bildan wrote:

Humble suggestion for consideration: *Have two types of events,
rally's and races. *A rally can have complex rules and tasks. *Races
are AST's, period. *Regionals could be rally's if that's what the
pilots want. Nationals would be races.

If you want A(s)Ts called, get a CD who will call them... and be
prepared to live with the results. You and all your buddies have
crews, right:-)? Exhibit A would be day 6 at Open&Stds. I don't know
what happened (no report as yet) but the score sheet makes pretty
clear it was some version of an AT gone wrong.

I haven't ever heard a complaint about lack of ATs while at a
contest. In fact the only place I've heard it is right here on r.a.s.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Jun 23, 10:13*am, T8 wrote:

I agree. *What I would suggest is replacing "MDP" in the scoring
formula for finishers with MDP*DIST/BESTDIST.

-T8

Interesting idea.

I think you might also allow BESTDIST to go to a non-finisher to throw
more points to the pilots who have great flights but can't quite get
home. The challenge is you can always go farther by flying longer. You
might need to also multiply by MINTIME/TOC for the pilot with the
BESTDIST or you create an incentive to fly WAY over MINTIME just to
devalue everyone else's score by racking up a bunch of miles This is
particularly true for someone who gets in a hole early. Since there is
no definition of TOC for a non-finisher, you could either set it to
the time at which the achieved their maximum distance on course or you
could measure their DIST as the distance they achieved within MINTIME.

Of course that's not simpler.

9B

On Jun 23, 2:11*pm, T8 wrote:
On Jun 23, 3:21*pm, bildan wrote:

Humble suggestion for consideration: *Have two types of events,
rally's and races. *A rally can have complex rules and tasks. *Races
are AST's, period. *Regionals could be rally's if that's what the
pilots want. Nationals would be races.

If you want A(s)Ts called, get a CD who will call them... and be
prepared to live with the results. *You and all your buddies have
crews, right:-)? *Exhibit A would be day 6 at Open&Stds. *I don't know
what happened (no report as yet) but the score sheet makes pretty
clear it was some version of an AT gone wrong.

I haven't ever heard a complaint about lack of ATs while at a
contest. *In fact the only place I've heard it is right here on r.a.s.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Frankly boys, I'm with BB, it’s certainly not perfect but it really is
just what we all asked for here in the states.

Do I fully understand the rules?, no, but I do enough where it really
counts so I dont stub my toes from them very often. I just simply say,
play the cards (rules & task) your dealt, it's possible that in an
unusual and rare situation you may end up holding the short stick but
that's an available opportunity for every pilot at that race, and
therefore fair enough in my book. Leave them alone.

Bottom line; the fastest, most consistent pilot, who makes fewer
mistakes while getting around the course than his fellow competitors
will win todays SSA sanctioned contest, every time, and that works for
me.

21

On Jun 23, 5:42*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:13*am, T8 wrote:

I agree. *What I would suggest is replacing "MDP" in the scoring
formula for finishers with MDP*DIST/BESTDIST.

-T8

Interesting idea.

I think you might also allow BESTDIST to go to a non-finisher to throw
more points to the pilots who have great flights but can't quite get
home. The challenge is you can always go farther by flying longer. You
might need to also multiply by MINTIME/TOC for the pilot with the
BESTDIST or you create an incentive to fly WAY over MINTIME just to
devalue everyone else's score by racking up a bunch of miles This is
particularly true for someone who gets in a hole early. Since there is
no definition of TOC for a non-finisher, you could either set it to
the time at which the achieved their maximum distance on course or you
could measure their DIST as the distance they achieved within MINTIME.

Of course that's not simpler.

9B

Hmmm, yes, reading the rules here... yes I think it's logical that
BESTDIST should be the best distance of the day, including non-
finishers. I'd stop there though. I don't have a beef with the
overall scoring strategy, just this little piece of it. I'll try to
find time to write this up with some real contest results as examples
and submit to RC. If it gets traction, they can put it on the poll at
year's end.

-Evan Ludeman / T8