Rules question

[Craig Naylor]

For both class and team points we use this whacky formula to calculate points. 100-(400*((Drivers Time-Fastest time)/Fastest Time))

Beyond "it's the way it is"... I was wondering why it exists rather than a straight 100*(fastest / slower time).

I didn't realize how punitive the formula was until this week. Someone pointed out to be that I somehow raw timed Jeff Wong. That's not normal... Even if a good day on my part, bad on his... that still doesn't happen, even when I win my class and he doesn't (This occasion we both did). So I was shocked when I looked at the Team results and saw I had ~2.5 less points than he did to contribute to my team. This got me thinking (I know scary!)... why was there such a difference. Ok Pax played part of it, using the PAX/RTP multiplier, I'm now behind ~ .3 sec. So how do we end up 2.5 points apart.... the nominalization to 100 took us from .3 to .5 sec, but the 4 X's multiplier in the formula is what really made the BIG difference. Team results, class results, EOY PAX over all winner results... we use the same formula for all of them.

Why do we need to stretch out the differences with the 4x's multiplier? I can't think of any other sport (or region within the sport) that uses a multiplier to exaggerate the differences in scores. And to what point? To make the winner feel like they won by a bigger margin by mathematically increasing it? I just don't see the benefit. We time to the thousand. On the rare occasion there might possibly be a tie... their points will still be the same, the multiplier only plays out on those below them (whether their are the winner, or someone farther down the results), so again whats the point?

Just wondering why it exists, and more importantly why it needs to continue in the future? Other than... that's the way it always has been.

For all those who talk about the unfair PAX/RTP formula's... I'm shocked you haven't already jumped all over this as it exaggerates the PAX differences by 4x the actual difference. Tell me that's not working for you ... or maybe it is, and that's why your silent. :ibrightdea:

[Brian Kelly]

I wondered about this too. Seems a bit overly complex, but maybe theres a reason behind using it that I'm not aware of. My old region uses the simple formula you just suggested, 1000 points for the overall winner, then (winning time/your time). For example, overall winner, lets say runs a 60 after index, and I ran a 65 after index, I would score 923 points. Of course, we could use 100 for the winner, and keep our same 100 point per event scale, and I would score 92.3 points.

Here are the results from their most recent event, in case anyone is interested in seeing how they calculate it.
http://www.rmsolo.org/msp_eventpts_v2.p ... 20140111WS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jeff Stuart]

Without the 4x multiplier, the results would be the exact same only more squished together, making ties more likely (which I'm assuming is the purpose of the multiplier, though I don't actually know.) Removing the 4x multiplier would only affect relative standings for people who finish more than 25% slower than the fastest time, because those people would now get more than 0. I'm pretty confident those aren't the team/individual points standings that you're worried about though.

The equation you proposed doesn't award points linearly as you get slower, the graph of points awarded as you go slower is asymptotic. Is that what you intended?

[Rick Brown]

When that formula was developed many, many, many years ago (I was there on the rules committee, but not the one who came up with the concept), from what my now feeble mind remembers it was to reward consistency. We had issues with people coming in, getting 100 points for some minimum number of events and taking the year end award. To lessen this, the idea was to adjust the point spread so it was based on your distance from the winner, not just your place. So someone showing up at every event and getting a close 2nd when the hot shoe showed up, but wining the rest of the time would be rewarded as the year end winner. It was also felt you should be within a percentage of the winner to get points, not just points for "showing up". The multiplier has been adjusted slightly a few times. Going to a more standard fixed points for each position has been discussed many times and always ended up rejected. Not arguing for either way, just recalling what's been done.

[Ken Lord]

Thanks Rick for explaining this. I wasn't aware of how the formula was developed and why calculated the way it was. I don't think anyone has raised the question since I have been part of assembling rules. I would guess if it were brought up at a monthly meeting a discussion on changing it could put on the floor.

[Jayson Woodruff]

I like the spreading factor. I use it in the RallyX points as well. I get kind of tires of seeing results like 100, 99.8. 99.7. 99.4 and a distant 5th at 93. Typically we'd be wasting numbes 0-90.

Without spreading you get near the years end and see you're "only" 10pts behind over 1100, but thats actually insurmountable amount.

Jay W

[Craig Naylor]

Without the 4x multiplier, the results would be the exact same only more squished together, making ties more likely (which I'm assuming is the purpose of the multiplier, though I don't actually know.)

If your times are exactly the same your tied, if there not, there not under either formula, so I don't see how you make more ties.

I'm pretty confident those aren't the team/individual points standings that you're worried about though.

Actually the team and indexed classes are exactly were my concern is. Primary because it adds a multiplier of 4 to the existing PAX/RTP spread. Now your .004 spread (STS & STC for example) became effectively a .016 spread. The slower your index the faster you actually have to go vs. what you should have to do on index alone. If however your in a class not running an index you ok... until your compared to other classes like in the team points classes.

The equation you proposed doesn't award points linearly as you get slower, the graph of points awarded as you go slower is asymptotic. Is that what you intended?

Actually it is linear, it's a direct % of winners time. It's just a longer slope than the current calculation. It however stops at 0, where the current calculation you could actually achieve negative points. (Wouldn't that suck!!! You lost so bad you did worse than staying at home! )

[Jeff Stuart]

If your times are exactly the same your tied, if there not, there not under either formula, so I don't see how you make more ties.

Sure if you only look at one event, but if you add up all the events throughout the year, it's going to be 4x less likely to have a year-end totals tie. But as others have pointed out, that's not what its purpose is apparently.

Actually the team and indexed classes are exactly were my concern is. Primary because it adds a multiplier of 4 to the existing PAX/RTP spread. Now your .004 spread (STS & STC for example) became effectively a .016 spread. The slower your index the faster you actually have to go vs. what you should have to do on index alone. If however your in a class not running an index you ok... until your compared to other classes like in the team points classes.

I guess I don't understand what your issue is. The team challenge points are determined after the PAX is applied. Everyone's PAXed times are put in a big list from fastest to slowest (Rick posts a link to this), then the points formula is applied to those results. As long as everyone that matters is within 25% of the top PAX time, the results will be the exactly the same relative to each other as without the 4x multiplier. The multiplier just artificially spreads them out.

At the last event, the team points for two teams with and without the multiplier:

CASOC SCNAX
477.62 438.02 <-- w/ 4x
494.41 484.51 <-- w/o 4x

Actually it is linear, it's a direct % of winners time. It's just a longer slope than the current calculation. It however stops at 0, where the current calculation you could actually achieve negative points. (Wouldn't that suck!!! You lost so bad you did worse than staying at home! )

We must be interpreting your equation differently...

With 100*(fastest / slower time), let's say the winner runs a 60.000, and the last place person gets lost and runs a 3600.000 (one hour), he get's 100*(60/3600) = 1.6. It's asymptotic approaching 0 as the slower time approaches infinity. Or am I reading the equation wrong?

I put stuff in a spreadsheet to make sure I'm not crazy: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... sp=sharing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
First sheet has the asymptotic graph, second sheet has results from last weekend.

[Mark DeShon]

Don't argue with the software engineer when it comes to mathematics.
Mark D.

[Steve Ekstrand]

Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Walk half way to the wall.....
Repeat

[John Fendel]

When that formula was developed many, many, many years ago (I was there on the rules committee, but not the one who came up with the concept), from what my now feeble mind remembers it was to reward consistency. We had issues with people coming in, getting 100 points for some minimum number of events and taking the year end award. To lessen this, the idea was to adjust the point spread so it was based on your distance from the winner, not just your place. So someone showing up at every event and getting a close 2nd when the hot shoe showed up, but wining the rest of the time would be rewarded as the year end winner. It was also felt you should be within a percentage of the winner to get points, not just points for "showing up". The multiplier has been adjusted slightly a few times. Going to a more standard fixed points for each position has been discussed many times and always ended up rejected. Not arguing for either way, just recalling what's been done.

I was involved in the tweaking of the original formula. With it, you had to be within 10% of the winning time to score points. It was decided to loosen up the formula to allow more competitors to score points. Eventually the current formula was developed which earns points if you are within 25%.
There is also a Lifetime Points file for competitors in this region going back many years. No one wanted to negate that data by radically revising the formula. It was hard to earn points, an accomplishment if you did and we wanted to keep that spirit. I hope to have an updated Lifetime Points file in the overall 2013 points listing on the Results part of the web site in time for the awards banquet next month.
To clarify, nobody can earn negative points. If the formula results in a negative number, the competitor gets 0 points.

[Craig Naylor]

To clarify, nobody can earn negative points. If the formula results in a negative number, the competitor gets 0 points.

I know people don't get negative points, that's in the rules... I thought I covered that by using the word "could" but I can see how that might itself be misunderstood.