From: bruce@egh-qc.uucp (Bruce Fisher)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport
Subject: Re: F1 Pick6: scoring
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:56:42 GMT
Organization: Surgical Materials Testing Lab (SMTL)

winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:


>In article <831e03aW46U800@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>,
>nxn@uts.amdahl.com (David J. Nixon) writes:


>|>
>|>Another issue is scoring based on all 16 races. If you miss a race
>|>(as we did the first before the present triple mailing system) it's very
>|>hard to catch up (although Bruce Fisher is doing well). It's not like the
>|>real championship where a driver can catch up quickly with two or three
>|>wins, because there are a large number of people competing, and you have
>|>to score well each race just to keep up with the front runners.
>|>I don't like scoring based on average points per race because that encourages
>|>those with a high average to drop out. Perhaps those who miss races might
>|>score the median score for that race, or maybe the 25th percentile, just so
>|>there's a definite penalty for missing a race. Another way would be to drop
>|>your worst one or two scores, although this isn't going to help those who
>|>miss a high-scoring race if there are any low-scoring races (like Canada).

>We allow ample opportunity for people to get their picks in on time, so aside
>from this year's first race, I don't think there's much excuse for not getting
>picks in.  I think the rules should encourage and reward participation.  If
>we do decide it's desireable to accomodate missing a race, I think the only
>equitable way to do that is to allow all participants to drop their worst
>(or, say, worst 2) scores.

Since my name has been bandied about, so to speak, I think I am entitled to
my 1.5d worth ( that's three ha'porth == $0.02 ).

The only discounting of scores that I would agree with is the dropping of
the first race. Many players missed this, through no fault of their own. Our
site didn't receive news of the new coordinators until it was too late to
make an entry.
( Lets have a round of applause for the coordinators, they are doing a grand
job )

As for using the mean score, as was said this could lead to high scorers
dropping out if implemented now. It could be used at the end of the season
as a secondary guideline, but even then a minimum for races entered would
have to be set.

Medians and percentiles are far too complex, my brain hurts just thinking of
them.

So, keep things as they are, perhaps drop the first race and give mean
ratings at the end of the season just for interest.

Scoring System


>The system that I favor is one that John came up with.  This system awards 10
>points for an exact prediction, 6 points for being 1 place off, 4 for two
>places off, 3 for 3 places off, 2 for 4 places off, and 1 for 5 places off.
>Your example pick above would score 10+0+6+6+6+0=28 points (out of a
>possible 60) under this system.  Had Patrese made the pass, the score would
>have been 10+10+10+10+10+0=50 out of 60.

>The advantage of this system over the present one is that is rewards picks based
>on closeness.  I also think it's better because it isn't biased in favor of the
>top positions (a point on which I see we disagree).


This type of scoring would be my choice, although I had thought of a more
straightforward version with 6 for exact, 5 for 1 place off, 4 for 2 places,
etc.
The awarding of point as per drivers score, may have seemed attractive for
the grand prix fan in us, but its not a fair method for this kind of
competition.
I think in the best tradition of FISA, FOCA and Formula One racing we should
change the rules half way through the season and apply the new scoring
system right away. :-)

Thank you for your attention,
Bruce.

-- 
Bruce Fisher
Quality Control Laboratory,		email :  bruce@egh-qc.uucp
Bridgend General Hospital,		or    :  bruce@egh-qc.co.uk
Bridgend,				or    :  uknet!egh-qc!bruce
SOUTH WALES,  CF31 1JP			or    :  give up!
=== "I read the news today,  OH BOY !!!" ===
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport