Southeast Open Magnificent Seven question

[Mister Badly]

Dang! Your onto my gamer game TW.Lol. I'll just donate my entry fee to whoever wins. It's what I do. 

[Badlands Bob #61228]

Actually, it doesn't really matter how many duelists are at the match.  You are only getting rank points against other people at the match who are in the M7 competition.  And that includes all the Gunfighters, Outlaws, Seniors, etc in the M7.  

[Tennessee williams]

46 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

Actually, it doesn't really matter how many duelists are at the match.  You are only getting rank points against other people at the match who are in the M7 competition.  And that includes all the Gunfighters, Outlaws, Seniors, etc in the M7.  

   If you never shoot gunfighter and you go to a state match where there's 0 gunfighters other than you, you would fare better than at a state match you come in last at with 10 others in the m7. 

Obviously just a hypothetical 

[Badlands Bob #61228]

7 hours ago, Tennessee williams said:

   If you never shoot gunfighter and you go to a state match where there's 0 gunfighters other than you, you would fare better than at a state match you come in last at with 10 others in the m7. 

Obviously just a hypothetical 

If I understand your question, For the M7 scoring purposes, it really doesn't matter how many gunfighters are at the match.  It only matters how many M7 participants are there and how you ranked against them.  If you are the only Gunfighter at the match and there are 7 Duelists and 2 Seniors also there.  All 7 Duelists and both Seniors beat you in the match, you will have 10 rank points for the match.  The only time your category comes into play is when they add up the rank points from the match for the M7 tally.

[Captain Bill Burt]

29 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

If I understand your question, For the M7 scoring purposes, it really doesn't matter how many gunfighters are at the match.  It only matters how many M7 participants are there and how you ranked against them.  If you are the only Gunfighter at the match and there are 7 Duelists and 2 Seniors also there.  All 7 Duelists and both Seniors beat you in the match, you will have 10 rank points for the match.  The only time your category comes into play is when they add up the rank points from the match for the M7 tally.

Exactly!

[Tennessee williams]

1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Exactly!

So the all around cowboy is scored the same as for the overall? It would seem to me, the whole purpose of having them shoot 3 of the 4 categories is to score them against the m7 people in that category for the rank point. What am I missing

[Captain Bill Burt]

11 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

So the all around cowboy is scored the same as for the overall? It would seem to me, the whole purpose of having them shoot 3 of the 4 categories is to score them against the m7 people in that category for the rank point. What am I missing

Rank points will be awarded based on ALL M7 participants at a match.  When calculating for 1st place in a category at then end of the competition total RP will be compared only to competitors signed up for that category. 

For example.  TW competes at AL State as a gunfighter and finishes 1st among ALL Mag 7 participants (regardless of shooting style or category). CBB competes at AL state as a gunfighter and finishes 25th among all Mag 7 participants.  TW now has 1 RP and CBB now has 25 RPs.  Those RPs will be used for calculating both the overall finish, AND the finish within AAC.

 

Your rank points at a match will be determined by how you finish against ALL Mag 7 participants, but when calculating category finishes you'll only be competing against others in your category.  If I were to use RP 'within' a category you could end up with someone getting 1 RP because they're the only Mag 7 competitor in that category.  That wasn't an issue last year because most matches had in excess of 20 Mag 7 competitors.  The only exception was MS State, which had only 7 Mag 7 competitors, hence the 'last place' Mag 7 competitor stood to 'earn' at most 7 RPs.

 

To be very clear, I don't present this method as being perfect, but I do present it as the best compromise I can come up with given my limited mental faculties.  

 

FYI, this competition is open to ALL, not just competitors from the South East Region.

 

Also, I'm open to all suggestions on how I can do a better job.  I would particularly like to hear from people who competed last year and have ideas or any Cowboys with ideas that might make this better.

 

@Creeker, SASS #43022 you seem to have a pretty analytical mind.  Please feel free to read the rules and offer input if you would like to.

[Tennessee williams]

20 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Rank points will be awarded based on ALL M7 participants at a match.  When calculating for 1st place in a category at then end of the competition total RP will be compared only to competitors signed up for that category. 

For example.  TW competes at AL State as a gunfighter and finishes 1st among ALL Mag 7 participants (regardless of shooting style or category). CBB competes at AL state as a gunfighter and finishes 25th among all Mag 7 participants.  TW now has 1 RP and CBB now has 25 RPs.  Those RPs will be used for calculating both the overall finish, AND the finish within AAC.

 

Your rank points at a match will be determined by how you finish against ALL Mag 7 participants, but when calculating category finishes you'll only be competing against others in your category.  If I were to use RP 'within' a category you could end up with someone getting 1 RP because they're the only Mag 7 competitor in that category.  That wasn't an issue last year because most matches had in excess of 20 Mag 7 competitors.  The only exception was MS State, which had only 7 Mag 7 competitors, hence the 'last place' Mag 7 competitor stood to 'earn' at most 7 RPs.

 

To be very clear, I don't present this method as being perfect, but I do present it as the best compromise I can come up with given my limited mental faculties.  

 

FYI, this competition is open to ALL, not just competitors from the South East Region.

 

 

I'm still a whole lot purtier than you.

[Captain Bill Burt]

8 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

I'm still a whole lot purtier than you.

I hate to break this to you, but my Mom told me I was good looking too.

[Tennessee williams]

31 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I hate to break this to you, but my Mom told me I was good looking too.

Dang, what happened? Was there an accident? Looks like your face caught on fire and someone stomped it out with a track shoe!

 

  That's funny, I don't care who you are. 

  I didn't realize the category was scored overall at first, then broken down.

[Captain Bill Burt]

2 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

Dang, what happened? Was there an accident? Looks like your face caught on fire and someone stomped it out with a track shoe!

 

  That's funny, I don't care who you are. 

  I didn't realize the category was scored overall at first, then broken down.

You know, if you weren't younger, stronger and faster than me I might just take offense and do something about that.  But, since you are all those things I think I'll just settle for watching someone else whoop up on you.  Maybe Iron Cowboy, or Kid Flash...

[Tennessee williams]

1 minute ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

You know, if you weren't younger, stronger and faster than me I might just take offense and do something about that.  But, since you are all those things I think I'll just settle for watching someone else whoop up on you.  Maybe Iron Cowboy, or Kid Flash...

Don't be sickin' them younguns on me! That aint fair!

 

   Tell everyone on the Burt Ranch Happy Thanksgiving.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

@Captain Bill Burt

Easy enough.

For Iron Man Cowboy: 

This can be scored simply by using total time for the three matches.

All your participants are shooting the same matches at the same location/ same time.  

 

For All Around Cowboy:

I sent you a message; but if I am understanding correctly...

 

To utilize RANK scoring across multiple matches - it is "unfair" because, as mentioned, the number of M7 participants varies the number of points one may earn.

 

To utilize TOTAL TIME scoring across multiple matches - it is "unfair" because, as mentioned, some matches are faster than others.

 

So...

My recommendation would be a "weighted" rank point approach.

 

match A has 25 Mag 7 participants

match B has 50 Mag 7 participants

match C has 10 Mag 7 participants

match D has 20 Mag 7 participants

 

Out of the 4 matches - the maximum number of rank points obtainable is 50 at match B.

 

So we "weight" all the others equally.

 

match A is now weighted at TWO rank points per position.  Max of 50.

 

match C is now weighted at FIVE rank points per position.  Max of 50.

 

match D is now weighted at TWO point FIVE rank points per position.  Max of 50.

 

This equalizes Mag 7 participation across each match and (as rank was designed to do) does not make any match more or less impactful upon the score (regardless of number of participants at that particular match).

 

It would require a little more math - but the same type of "weighted" system also works when comparing results within category across differing matches and levels of participation.

 

ie

match A has 5 Mag 7 Gunfighters

match B has 2 Mag 7 Gunfighters

match C has 4 Mag 7 Gunfighters

match D has 1 Mag 7 Gunfighter

 

Maximim rank points within Gunfighter is 5 at match A.

 

So within category we weight the other matches.

match B is now weighted at 2.5 points per position.  max of 5

match C is weighted at 1.25 points per position.  max of 5

match D is weighted at 5 points per position.  max of 5.

 

 

Sadly match D is a victim of Rank Points biggest flaw of non objective scoring - whereas TT is scored versus a given standard (time), rank is scored against others.  When you have no other to be scored against - rank is just an arbitrary value.

[Captain Bill Burt]

I like this.  The two biggest challenges will be explaining the system to competitors and potentially scoring it if the last match turns out to be the biggest match.  Last year I had everything scored up to date so all I had to do was add the TN results to the spreadsheet, then deal with a couple of ties by going back to total time as the tiebreaker.  But, once I know what Mag 7 attendance is going to be at TN I can move forward.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

By weighing the rank points by match, you eliminate the incentive to attend the lesser attended matches.  Kentucky and Mississippi would suffer without this incentive.  

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

36 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

By weighing the rank points by match, you eliminate the incentive to attend the lesser attended matches.  Kentucky and Mississippi would suffer without this incentive.  

In my opinion.

This is a "Prestige Award" - you pay extra to be eligible and it has meaning only because of the effort put in to compete.

 

Picking and choosing to attend one match over another because one carries more weight; seems a little bit like those who advocate "choose your category wisely" to win an award.

By your example (not claiming you ascribe to this) - a shooter should only attend the three smallest matches of the seven for the best chance of racking up the fewest Rank Points.

 

I personally would be embarrassed to receive an award in this manner.  

[Krazy Kajun]

1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I like this.  The two biggest challenges will be explaining the system to competitors and potentially scoring it if the last match turns out to be the biggest match.  Last year I had everything scored up to date so all I had to do was add the TN results to the spreadsheet, then deal with a couple of ties by going back to total time as the tiebreaker.  But, once I know what Mag 7 attendance is going to be at TN I can move forward.

In your spreadsheet you could assign a variable for the calculation of the rank points for each match.  Of course it would change between matches but your spreadsheet would “automagically” be correct after you enter the scores for a match.  It’s not too hard to make this running calculation using the method that Creeker explained above.

 

Kajun

[Tennessee williams]

3 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

@Captain Bill Burt

Easy enough.

For Iron Man Cowboy: 

This can be scored simply by using total time for the three matches.

All your participants are shooting the same matches at the same location/ same time.  

 

For All Around Cowboy:

I sent you a message; but if I am understanding correctly...

 

To utilize RANK scoring across multiple matches - it is "unfair" because, as mentioned, the number of M7 participants varies the number of points one may earn.

 

To utilize TOTAL TIME scoring across multiple matches - it is "unfair" because, as mentioned, some matches are faster than others.

 

So...

My recommendation would be a "weighted" rank point approach.

 

match A has 25 Mag 7 participants

match B has 50 Mag 7 participants

match C has 10 Mag 7 participants

match D has 20 Mag 7 participants

 

Out of the 4 matches - the maximum number of rank points obtainable is 50 at match B.

 

So we "weight" all the others equally.

 

match A is now weighted at TWO rank points per position.  Max of 50.

 

match C is now weighted at FIVE rank points per position.  Max of 50.

 

match D is now weighted at TWO point FIVE rank points per position.  Max of 50.

 

This equalizes Mag 7 participation across each match and (as rank was designed to do) does not make any match more or less impactful upon the score (regardless of number of participants at that particular match).

 

It would require a little more math - but the same type of "weighted" system also works when comparing results within category across differing matches and levels of participation.

 

ie

match A has 5 Mag 7 Gunfighters

match B has 2 Mag 7 Gunfighters

match C has 4 Mag 7 Gunfighters

match D has 1 Mag 7 Gunfighter

 

Maximim rank points within Gunfighter is 5 at match A.

 

So within category we weight the other matches.

match B is now weighted at 2.5 points per position.  max of 5

match C is weighted at 1.25 points per position.  max of 5

match D is weighted at 5 points per position.  max of 5.

 

 

Sadly match D is a victim of Rank Points biggest flaw of non objective scoring - whereas TT is scored versus a given standard (time), rank is scored against others.  When you have no other to be scored against - rank is just an arbitrary value.

This would eliminate what I was talking about. Good thinking Creeker

[Captain Bill Burt]

I like Creeker's suggestion because it really does level the playing field and remove some of the ambiguity of straight rank points across different matches.  It's a big change though.  I'll have to cogitate on this one and see if I can come up with any unwanted side effects.   

 

I think straight total time is a good idea for an Iron Man buckle, but so far I haven't heard any interest at all, so that buckle idea may go by the wayside.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

9 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I like Creeker's suggestion because it really does level the playing field and remove some of the ambiguity of straight rank points across different matches.

I'm not sure I'm completely sold on Creekers suggestion.

I have found a potential issue with his idea (look at me speaking in third person like a complete douchenozzle).  

 

The weighted rankings idea has a POSSIBLE flaw in that ONLY the top shooter at the LARGEST Magnificent 7 event can ever be scored with a single rank point (all other top guns at smaller Mag 7 gatherings would have their 1st finish weighted).

While this weighted system is likely the most "fair" (10th out 20 probably should be the same difficulty as 25 out of 50 and awarded the same) there could be hurt feelings as well.

 

So there is an option but it requires more math.

This option is still weighted versus other Mag 7 gatherings but 1st place (regardless of entries) earns a single rank point.

 

The formula goes something like this.

Maximum Number of RANK POINTS minus 1

divided by

Number of Mag 7 shooters at (the smaller) match minus 1

equals 

The Rank Points Modifier Amount

 

(MNRP - 1)÷(Mag 7 shooters - 1) =

RP Modifier

 

Here is how it works.

In my earlier example the largest gathering of Mag 7 shooters was 50 meaning the maximum number of Rank Points that can be awarded was 50.

 

Another match had 20 Mag 7 shooters.

 

So our formula is 

(50-1) ÷ (20-1) = 49 ÷ 19 = 2.580

 

The 2.580 is an additive to every position above position 1.

1st place  = 1 rank point.

2nd place = 1 + 2.580 = 3.580 rank points

3rd place = 3.580 + 2.580 = 7.160 rank points

etc, etc, etc.

by the time you get to 20th - that place has 50 rank points (give or take a couple decimal places rounding error).

 

same principle for our 10 person Mag 7 grouping.

(50-1) ÷ (10-1) = 49 ÷ 9 = 5.444

1st is 1

second is 1 + 5.444 = 6.444 rank points

third is 6.444 + 5.444 = 11.888 rank points.

so on and so forth up to 50 rank points for 10th place (again, subject to a couple decimal place rounding error).

 

I don't know if any of this matters or if the "simpler" weighting system is better - but this is the way my brain is wired and why at 1:19 in the morning - I am posting online instead of sleeping.

 

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

Whoa! You think way too much at 1:30 in the morning. Get some sleep! 

[DeaconKC]

If my health runs better this year, I would love to attend some of these matches gotta be at Alabama again anyway]. It does sound like a lot of fun!

[Fretless]

I still suspect that the "some matches are faster" opposition to average stage time will be negated by averaging over three matches.  Especially considering that the speed of a match cannot be predicted ahead of time, ie: no option to game the system.

 

I'm willing to do some math to test that theory.  Can you send me the times of shooters who shot all seven to work with?  If you have that info.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

A minor issue with Creeker's method is that the largest attendance of M7 shooters may very likely be Tenn, which is the last shoot in the series.  That would mean that you wouldn't know how many M7 positions would be used in the formula until after the 1st day of the Tenn. match.  Another issue is, you would probably have to pay for Creeker's plane ticket to come figure all this out before the awards ceremony at the Bell Buckle Cafe'.  Look at the bright side.  You still have several months to write the Excel formula.  

[Preacherman]

?????????????????????????? oh my!

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

3 hours ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

A minor issue with Creeker's method is that the largest attendance of M7 shooters may very likely be Tenn, which is the last shoot in the series.  That would mean that you wouldn't know how many M7 positions would be used in the formula until after the 1st day of the Tenn. match.  Another issue is, you would probably have to pay for Creeker's plane ticket to come figure all this out before the awards ceremony at the Bell Buckle Cafe'.  Look at the bright side.  You still have several months to write the Excel formula.  

I'm happy to accept all charity, airfare, hotel, food and rental car donations to come attend all SEVEN matches.

 

But since that aint likely - I'm happy to assist with Excel sheets and data inputs as well.

And for the formula; you only need to know the number of shooters "signed up" for Magnificent Seven at a given match - not how many shoot.

 

Rank points assigns a value to every participant - no matter whether they fire a round or not.

 

So the tracking sheet per match would already have the rank point distribution figured out before anyone shot.

Then it would be a matter of inserting names in the appropriate spaces in order of finish.

 

Tracking/ verifying the category participation requirement. 

And that your three match compilation final score includes each shooters best effort in each style.

 

Then a little more addition and viola - top cowboy.

[Groundhog, 107692]

obviously, there's pros and cons to any technique. In thinking about it, there needs to be some weighted average, but I don't think the weight for rank points seems quite right, it may give more points to someone who otherwise shot very well and deserved better.  

 

Another option may be a weighted average based on times alone, think of it as setting up a par time.   Maybe you have considered this before.   There are going to be fast shooters at every match with an occasional superfast shooter.  If you took the average of the top 3 shooters, it would balance out having a superfast shooter like Lefty who usually goes to TN.  set that average as the "par" for that match and your score is the seconds over par (or possibly under par).  Therefore, this really takes out the variable of whether it was a "fast" match or not.   It also does not make any difference how many Mag 7 shooters are there.

 

Groundhog  

 

[Fretless]

25 minutes ago, Groundhog, 107692 said:

obviously, there's pros and cons to any technique. In thinking about it, there needs to be some weighted average, but I don't think the weight for rank points seems quite right, it may give more points to someone who otherwise shot very well and deserved better.  

 

Another option may be a weighted average based on times alone, think of it as setting up a par time.   Maybe you have considered this before.   There are going to be fast shooters at every match with an occasional superfast shooter.  If you took the average of the top 3 shooters, it would balance out having a superfast shooter like Lefty who usually goes to TN.  set that average as the "par" for that match and your score is the seconds over par (or possibly under par).  Therefore, this really takes out the variable of whether it was a "fast" match or not.   It also does not make any difference how many Mag 7 shooters are there.

 

Groundhog  

 

This I like

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

5 hours ago, Groundhog, 107692 said:

obviously, there's pros and cons to any technique. In thinking about it, there needs to be some weighted average, but I don't think the weight for rank points seems quite right, it may give more points to someone who otherwise shot very well and deserved better.  

 

The issue with using "time" as your comparison unit is there are SEVEN events - the competitors will most likely not be shooting all seven as only three of the seven are needed for inclusion - shot in three different styles.

 

So ultimately it becomes necessary to be "somehow" comparing shooter A's three matches to shooter B's three matches and reconciling the reality that neither of them ever shot the same match.

 

There is no apples to apples - not even apples to oranges comparison.

More like apples to alligators.

 

But what is reconcilable and grounds for comparison is a finishing order.

1st is 1st, 2nd is 2nd, 3rd is 3rd.

 

If you wanted to compare racing drivers - you might might compare their finishing order at differing events.  You might even be able to compare different series of events to look at placements.

What you would never do is compare "time" to completion between a drag racer, a NASCAR driver, a Formula One driver and a Tractor pull.  The times are immaterial and simply muddy the debate.

 

Rank Points (and I detest Rank Points); was used in cowboy to "level the playing field" in cowboy.  When matches were smaller and the flow of shooters thru a match was less regimented - you would run into situations where one stage might be a "burn it down drag race" of 15 seconds and the next a highly technical accuracy test of 75 seconds while the next was a prop heavy and interactive stage of 50 seconds.

The use of "time" in these matches could heavily sway results as the differing challenges would create huge time swings between stages - rank was used to ensure each stage had an equal impact on the shooters match and final result.

 

Rank was gradually outgrown as matches balanced out their stages and there were no longer huge differences in time stage to stage.

 

But Rank still can be used as a comparison when time cannot as in the example of comparing completely separate and unrelated events.

 

And while no system will be perfect to objectively compare performances occurring at two different venues by two different competitors - I really do think my weighted rank points idea is about as fair as possible.

[Captain Bill Burt]

I appreciate all the suggestions and feedback. Now I’m cogitating so it may take a while…

[Fretless]

18 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Rank Points (and I detest Rank Points); was used in cowboy to "level the playing field" in cowboy.  When matches were smaller and the flow of shooters thru a match was less regimented - you would run into situations where one stage might be a "burn it down drag race" of 15 seconds and the next a highly technical accuracy test of 75 seconds while the next was a prop heavy and interactive stage of 50 seconds.

The use of "time" in these matches could heavily sway results as the differing challenges would create huge time swings between stages - rank was used to ensure each stage had an equal impact on the shooters match and final result

I believe this logic is flawed when applied to the M7.  The rank point scoring that "leveled the playing field" was applied to each stage separately.  The rank points in the M7 are based on final overall placement in the match, which in turn was decided based on total time.

 

Groundhog's idea of setting a par time for each match and then using time over or under par creates a fair method of utilizing time (the raw data) while negating the issue of some matches being faster than others.

If we use average stage time (as apposed to total time) in that manner, we also eliminate the issue of different number of stages in some matches.

[Groundhog, 107692]

52 minutes ago, Fretless said:

Groundhog's idea of setting a par time for each match and then using time over or under par creates a fair method of utilizing time (the raw data) while negating the issue of some matches being faster than others.

If we use average stage time (as apposed to total time) in that manner, we also eliminate the issue of different number of stages in some matches.

After thinking about it, if using a par time, you would have to account for 10 vs 12 stages.   I'm not sure which number of atages is more common, but if you normalized to that, then I think it would be fair.   If normalizing to a 12 stage match, just take the time over par of a 10 stage and multiply by 1.2.   Or could go the other way if 10 stage matches were more common.  

 

[Fretless]

2 minutes ago, Groundhog, 107692 said:

After thinking about it, if using a par time, you would have to account for 10 vs 12 stages.   I'm not sure which number of atages is more common, but if you normalized to that, then I think it would be fair.   If normalizing to a 12 stage match, just take the time over par of a 10 stage and multiply by 1.2.   Or could go the other way if 10 stage matches were more common.  

 

No need if you set par as an average stage time, and do it separately for each match.  

 

Example:  total combined time of top 3 shooters divided by the total number of stages they shot in a given match.  10 stage match would be total combined time of top 3 shooters divided by 30 equals par. 

Then compare each shooter's average stage time for that match to par.  That result (their time above or below par) would be the shooter's score for that match.  Add up their 3 lowest scores, and that's their score (time) for the final M7 rankings.  

At that point it's no different than any other match.  Lowest time wins.

 

Since we would be talking about very small amounts of time a few extra decimal places may be needed.

[Captain Bill Burt]

I’m glad I started this conversation early. It will take me some time to think my way through these proposals.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I’m glad I started this conversation early. It will take me some time to think my way through these proposals.

I still think Creeker is going to get a plane ticket around the 1st weekend in June.