Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lstange

  • Rank
    Finally read the FAQs

Profile Information

  • Real Name
    Louis Stange

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's very noisy, single digits. Not enough to draw conclusions. Not that many people make it to GM (who would have thought).
  2. There are only eight such cases in my sample, and six of those are CM 08-02 Steeler Standards. But I don't think it makes sense to concentrate on outliers.
  3. If you scroll up, there is a chart that shows only 95%+ classifiers, too. With similar slope of the regression line. Putting actual hit factor on X axis will not tell you anything you don't already know. Points are in the numerator of the hit factor formula, so I'm pretty sure that there'll be strong positive correlation. But the question wasn't whether shooting alphas is good. The question was whether it makes sense to accept more charlies on harder targets. I'm too lazy to calculate angular size of all targets on all 78 active classifiers and think about how no-shoots affect point of aim, so I cut the corner and used HHF as a proxy instead. You can look at this data and draw your own conclusions.
  4. The red regression line is fit to the data represented by blue dots. Independent variable is HHF, dependent variable is percent of points shot, observations (blue dots) are actual classifier results. The line is drawn in such a way as to minimize the sum of squares of residuals (vertical distances between the red line and blue dots). Positive slope of the red regression line suggests that on average people shoot better points on fast (high HHF) classifiers, in line with my intuition. Even if you only look at GM-level results or results from GMs. To me it makes intuitive sense to accept more Charlies on distant targets, and both charts seem to tell the same story. The charts may look noisy, but there is enough data to get a pretty low p value, indicating statistical significance. One can argue that the effect size is small and has little practical significance, but it still exists. If you have a mix of close up and distant targets, you really don't want Charlies on the close targets. But that would be a different, more complicated story. Right now we're just looking at the main effect.
  5. Red line is linear regression (ordinary least squares, lm() function in R).
  6. There is a substantial difference between GM-level classifier runs (hit factor greater than or equal to 95% of HHF) and classifiers shot by GMs. But in both cases correlation is positive and statistically significant.
  7. When I bought my second Stock II, the first one had about 15k rounds through it. I run all my reloads through case gauge and use rejects only in training. The old Stock II had no problems with rejects, but the new Stock II would consistently fail to go to battery. After about 10k rounds the difference disappeared. Now both feed rejects just fine.
  8. No, all Virginia Count and Comstock classifiers combined. Each dot is one run. X axis is high hit factor, so results for the same classifier are lined up vertically.
  9. I looked at GM-level classifier runs in Production, and there is a statistically significant positive correlation between HHF and points shot divided by maximum available points. I excluded fixed time, as their HHFs are not directly comparable.
  10. There is parallax, though. For example, Deltapoint Pro is off by about one inch at 25 yards if red dot is at the edge of the window. But that happens regardless of how tall the shooter is.
  11. USPSA HQ did not explain exactly how HHFs were defined, but they roughly correspond to 99.5th percentile of the empirical hit factor distribution. At least for production.
  12. But that's not what all GMs shoot, and it's not always necessary to shoot all alphas for a GM-level run. On average, a 95%+ classifier has 90% of available points. And it differs by classifier.
  13. To get from HHF to time you need points. You can make assumptions about how many points GMs shoot, but that may not be exact (and will also depend on division).
  14. True for the high hit factor, close up classifiers. But with distant targets it might make sense to accept more Charlies, and it's not immediately obvious how many.
  • Create New...