2015 Centurion BallOfSpray Cash Prize

[skidawg]

If we take the sum of the square root of everyone's average score in the month of June and divide that by the 3rd & 5th scores of everyone's out of home state scores added back to August and September scores squared - ok I'm lost now! But looking forward to a new format where my family and I can compete together.

[Horton]

@skidawg you are not factoring in the burn rate exponent

[JayG80]

I have not seen a date for the Big Dawg Finals in Orlando. Websites say Oct TBD.

[ToddL]

The half-life of of carbon should be somewhere in the formula, too.

[RichardDoane]

@MrJones is correct about the $$$$ issues relating to the BD series, and without a full skier roster it is difficult to cover the costs involved. Horton's scheme of paying a lot more in cash prizes and making a more level playing field to generate more skier interest is a good thing. The scoring details getting figured out so that 90% of the entrants will be happy would be the goal to shoot for. The input from people that have been running alternative formatted events is really helpful and appreciated, because building and improving upon a model that is already working is key to a successful outcome.

[GK]

@ToddL, I think you're on the right track with the most accurate way to handicap. It would probably take a LOT of trial and error to find the right formula but I think it could be found. With that being said, this "formula" would be great to have, but the best way to level the field on any given day is still in how you format the tournament to pit similar skiers against each other until you reach the later rounds of an event. This is very important for leveling the playing field for that given day versus data that has been collected from many months.

[Than_Bogan]

@richarddoane The best way to have good ideas is to understand which ones are worth stealing.

 

And if you look closely, I just deemed yours worth stealing and stole it! :)

[richfoster]

Hey John, Thinking about sending an entry. What is your cancelation poicy

[Horton]

@richfoster I expect to fill up and have a waiting list so cancelation should not be a problem. I will write some text around it this weekend.

[ToddL]

@Horton - I have been working a new scoring sheet which seems to retain the intent for -32 through -39 competitiveness but improves the under -32 alignment.

 

Problem: Original weighting worked well for shortline, but put longer/slower skiers at significant disadvantage.

Solution: Instead of using a fixed decrements from buoy to buoy, I used a decreasing decrements amount per pass.

 

The resulting comparisons to 1 or 2 @ 39 off appear to be more appropriate for longer line / slower skiers.

I captured the Original scoring weighting impact vs. this Revised scoring weighting impact:

	Original			Revised
Skier Level	1 @ 39	2 @ 39		1 @ 39	2 @ 39
2 Passes Under Max Speed Skier	31.00	47.00		9.00	14.00
1 Pass Under Max Speed Skier	22.50	34.00		8.00	12.50
Max Speed LL Skier	16.25	25.00		7.00	11.00
15 Off Skier	12.00	18.00		6.00	9.25
22 Off Skier	8.25	13.00		5.00	8.00
28 Off Skier	6.00	9.25		4.00	6.50
32 Off Skier	4.00	6.50		3.00	5.00
35 Off Skier	3.00	5.00		2.00	3.50
38 Off Skier	2.00	3.25		1.50	2.50
39 Off Skier	1.00	2.00		1.00	2.00

 

What do you think?

 

Also, I built a registration tab and scoring tab which contain all of the formulas to manage the event. Check out the attached file!

 

full disclaimer - yes, I am trying to make this somewhat competitive for me and my son to have a snowball's chance in hell in competing. Hopefully, this alternative will be useful in drawing more participation due to more skiers generally agreeing that the weighting is fair equivalents through a larger portion of the skill range.

[Horton]

The date might have to up by a week. If I already have your entry I will contact you. It is ironic how much I worked on the logistics and we have to change anyway

[Horton]

@ToddL

I understand and appreciate what you are trying to do here. I reserve the right to tweak the handicap factors but I am not going to go nearly as far as you have. I am in a position where I simply cannot try to please everyone. I have a method that I can stand behind and defend. For this first event I am sticking with it.

 

[webbdawg99]

@Horton What's up with the date change? When will you know for sure?

[Horton]

@webbdawg99 I will try to make it final in the next day or so. Short story is we underestimated some conflicts.

[Edbrazil]

 

Good to see someone take the initiative to try some experimental things. I've been down that

road, and it is more work than you imagine initially. Back in 1968, I produced a tournament

that gave the option to jump 5, 5 1/2, or 6. One of the participants was Wayne Grimditch, who

was still in Jr. Boys, and who tried all 3 settings.

[ToddL]

@Horton - I get and respect your position.

 

All I ask is that you take a look. I've done all the work with the intent of making the decision one not about extra effort on your part. Rather, simply - what makes the most sense to you? What did you think of the summary chart above?

 

I am NOT trying to create an unfair advantage for me or my son. I am trying to provide a solution that is more comprehensive for all levels but still very fairly weighted so that the 39 off skier, the 32 off skier, and the 15 off skier all are equitably matched such that stand out performance by any one of them would make them a contender. For me, it kind of works either way. For my son, only the revised method makes sense: +7 buoys (not +16.25) = +1 @39off buoy.

 

Ultimately, it is your event and your choice of rules/methods. We each have to choose to jump in the water or watch from the shore.

[Wish]

Checks in the mail. :)

[GK]

@ToddL , please shoot me an email gk @ rounding6.com, I'd like to better understand your spreadsheet and weighting. If we can get it to where we think it's even across all ability levels, then I'd like to run it side by side with our handicapping system next weekend and see how it alters the results. Thanks!

[Than_Bogan]

@ToddL Fwiw, we've been using the simple linear method (that we stole from golf) for quite a few years, and it has worked well, and skiers of all ability levels have managed to win if they ski really well that day.

 

That said, I'm almost sure we used 95% as the linear factor, whereas @Horton seems to prefer 90%, which does penalize the lower absolute score skiers a bit more.

[Horton]

@Than_Bogan

my % may be under review. I need some time at my desk

[ToddL]

BTW, I started with Horton's excel file. I then decided to not be linear in the method. The real magic is in Column N on the Tables tab. Those values determine the rates the buoys are weighted. If we ever gather quantitative data on PB vs. Average by line/speed, we could map that data and determine the proper curve. I just did a lot of trial and error with the values in that 1 table. Once the results started to look right, I stopped tweaking. Thus, it is just my opinion.

 

Additionally, I built out the dataset to cover the entire range from 15.5MPH to 43 off including 1/4 and 1/2 buoys. I beefed up the ScoreSheetExamples tab to 1/4 & 1/2 buoys to determine nearly ever line/speed's equivalent + buoys to equate to +1 and +2 @ 39 off. This helped me with my trial and error on the weighting rates.

 

The good news is that this workbook could be used by anyone who wants to do a Handicap event. If you want to use a linear method, just put that into the values in Column N on the Tables tab. Everything else will adjust automatically. (There are a lot of vlookups and formulas...) I even added a per skier buoy adjustment solution on the Registered Skier Stats tab. This was if Horton wanted to elevate usaski1's average and scores by a fixed amount of buoys. I called it the Turner factor. It can be set to zero for all skiers or used however the event organizer sees fit.

 

@GK - I'll send you an email.

[skidawg]

Does @ToddL work??????

[ToddL]

Yes. BOS is my day job, and project management is what I do in my spare time.

 

[Horton]

I have tweaked the tables a little. It is still (mostly) linear but less aggressive. Below mid 28 the factor is the same.

 

In the end this event is for the general tournament skiing public.

 

Revised Handicap tables

 

 

[Horton]

@LeonL so you are going to enter?

[Horton]

a few more entries this week.... there are only 40 spots so....

[skidawg]

So.......man up and enter soon

[MAD11]

@toddL yes, just please mail a check before this talk makes my head explode. Hell with the handicap calculation. @superchicken just worried about getting done in time each day to get to ACL and not miss the Foo Fighters. Hear @skidawg may get on stage too and I'm not missing that.

[Horton]

Foo Fighters can't start without @skidawg

[skidawg]

Guess I better not cut my hair or shave anytime soon

[Horton]

The H2H skiers list is growing nicely. Looking for more regular Ballers to fill out the Handicap final.

[webbdawg99]

@Horton. So I'm considering signing up for this event now that the date has changed. However, you've previously said that guys dropping down to M3 would need to ski at 36. Are you still sticking with that? By the time your event happens, I will have probably skied at least 2 if not 3 events at 34. I think anyone should be able to ski at 34....even if you're a M1 or M2 guy. It puts everyone on an even playing field. Obviously, if a M1 or M2 guy did that, it wouldn't help their AWSA rankings......but that's their choice!

[Horton]

@webbdawg99 Get scores at 3 different tournaments after Nationals @ 34 & I think we can fairly set your handicap. In the end I just want to make it fair and fun.

 

Also with a 36 PB that is mid 38 you may make the Head 2 Head at 34. In that case your handicap does not matter.

[MAD11]

@ToddL promised us at regionals he was sending his entry in ASAP and there would be no more spreadsheets or talk of rules modifications. He also ripped it up at regionals making his handicap a little tougher. I'm glad we discussed this before he skied. Congrats man. Nice skiing.

[MattP]

@MAD11 I hope you got the no spreadsheet thing in writing!

[MAD11]

@MattP He shook on it. Where I'm from he breaks that bond the boys stop by to make an attitude adjustment. Maybe start with shaving his new long hair thing he has going on.

[ToddL]

Yes, @MAD11. We shook on it. I put ink on a check this morning. Just need to fill out the entry forms and find a stamp. Does anyone know where they sell those things?????

 

Oh, and I was hoping the hair would make me ski as good as @skidawg. Didn't get through -38, but it did yield that PB. Must be helping with drag to slow me down into the turns. I think maybe I need to adjust the top ponytail angle. Maybe @Superchicken can help me with that. Besides, all the other M4 skiers are just jealous that I have hair.

[webbdawg99]

That brings up a good point @ToddL. @Horton Why no online registration?

[Horton]

@webbdawg99 two things

1) I was told it was broken (wrong)

2) it is expensive at my end

[webbdawg99]

I understand there are paypal fees associated. But it should be no more expensive for you than it is for everyone else using online registration. We upped our entry fees by $5 this year to cover the extra cost.

[disland]

I used it for the first time for JD. I had a few bumps with the payment system. Your chief scorer will love you for it. It makes everything super easy.

 

Also you can use online registration and not use the payment system. Have people pay onsite or just send a check in the mail without the paper entry

[Horton]

It is painful when it is a few % of $8,000 and the event is just about revenue neutral (I will lose money on this)

[webbdawg99]

Then sign up online and pay in person or via mail as @disland suggested. Problem solved.

[Horton]

Mmmm not going to hold your spot without a check. Please use mail. If you must PayPal me the money I will take it.

[ToddL]

Not to go too far down this registration path...

I wish USAWS would allow for Online Registration with Manual Payment as an option. Right now, you must designate a PayPal account if you want your sanction to have online registration. However, on-line registration is not just about payment. It covers the application and waivers and allows for import of registered skiers into WSTIMS. That part is valuable.

 

Skiers can register for on-line sanctions and go through the steps all the way up to payment and stop just before there. Thus, they will have electronically signed their waiver as the last completed step. This captures the application and waivers and puts them into the import file.

 

That could have been an option for this tournament - HOWEVER, the ability to pay via Paypal cannot be turned off. Even if @Horton had repeatedly communicated to us all to NOT pay online, you know someone would mess up and do the final registration step. I guess John could have communicated that if anyone does make that mistake, they will have to send in a check for the Paypal fees to cover the gap before their registration would be deemed valid.

 

[webbdawg99]

Online registration should be the standard IMO.

[Horton]

@webbdawg99 I agree.

 

Again I was originally misinformed that it did not work.

 

Also if all entries were paid my PayPal it would cost ME $232.00 in fees. Next time I can raise the fee by a few $ to break even.

[Horton]

Ok Nationals is over (mostly) now back to something important. The Cash Prize entry list is shaping up in a nice way. So far it is a nice mix of skiing levels. I love when a plan comes together.

 

Current Entry List

[usaski1]

I hope we get more ppl.. I really thought this would fill up in 2 weeks when you said get your entry's in! I see Todd + Matt finally got his entry in! Is your calculator wore out? Are you ensured a $16 win?

[Edbrazil]

So, per the Rules, Kris LaPoint at age 62 would have to ski 36 mph?