gose
-
Posts
1,585 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by gose
-
-
% finish in division, with a tiebreaker on number of people in the division was the best way we could think of for one table done by order-of-finish.
You need top shooters in each division (or some way to grade on a curve), but except for that it works pretty well.
That sounds as fair and simple as any I've heard.
Just would definately need the top end shooters in all divisions like he said to make it fair. good shooters in most divisions then one "superstar" ie taren, jerry, horner etc and it can really alter the results if say they get 100 percent then other good but not super shooters are sitting aound 85-90 percent. Shooter in the other division has a good shooter at the top who would have been competative with all the other 85-90 percenters in the other group. By him winning,his division all the other shooters are closer to that 100 percent
Yeah, thats the main problem with the percentage based system, if you have a superstar in one division, or a division without any really good shooters, it favors the divisions with the "worst" winners.
On the other hand, if you go for a rank and size system like I outlined above, a small division with several really good shooters gets screwed.
-
Random Draw for walking the Prize table with Cash Pay out to the top shooters. LOL, I know its a easy left rather then the hard right.
I've been thinking about this all day even before I saw your post, and I have a couple ideas that could be discussed but I would like to get them written down so I can present them intelligently(yea right! 
)Yeah, I guess random draw is the most fair and objective way of distributing prizes, but if you do it, you should do it for all prizes/cash.
I think random draws are the sucks. We go to matches to have fun and compete, if I wanted to take part in a raffle I'd buy a raffle ticket. Someone beating me should walk the prize table before me.
However, there seems to be quite an interest in ProAm format matches, so there's definitely room for that as well.
-
To me it also seems fairer...
Being Subjective isn't going to help your cause. While I understand of wanting to create something that will work for everything, I believe it will never happen unless we look at the bigger picture objectively.
The problem is that there is no objectively right, wrong or "fair" here. In a match with more than one division you will not be able to compare scores between them in a perfectly objective way, so I agree that something that's acceptable has to be worked out.
However, I tried to look at the bigger picture while being as objective as possible and came up with a suggestion and idea.
I'd love to hear how to approach this in an even more objective way though (and I mean that in a very honest, non-sarcastic way, I really do...)
-
...I do have a question about the following rule:
6.1.10.2 Enhanced procedural penalties may be applied at the Match Director’s discretion if a participant willfully and egregiously violates stage procedures.
Will these "enhanced procedural penalities" be addressed in the WSB? If so, fantastic - but I sure hope the MD doesn't attempt to apply "enhanced penalities" in response to a shooter thinking outside the box and shooting a stage in the most efficient manner. I'm specifically talking about the brilliant "gamer" solution Benny Hill came up with on the pop-up target stage last year - his plan was sheer genius. My point is that a shooter shouldn't be penalized after the fact just because he "out-thought" a stage designer...
R u kidding? This new rule IS exactly as a result of us gaming that pop up target stage!
Actually NO it is not. Indeed, had this rule been in place, I doubt it would have been applicable to Stage 8 (the pop-up target stage) as no "willful and egregious violation of stage procedures" occurred. Folks just outsmarted the stage designer, who is - truth be told - not very bright
.Instead, this new rule is the result of the gaming of Stage 10 (the buckshot stage), where some folks thought they saw an advantage to egregiously violating the foot fault lines. The intent is to give the MD the option of applying a punishment short of DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct (the only alternative until now). The same thinking went into the new coaching rule... give Dan a smaller stick.
Actually, I'd argue that the issue with stage 10 was mainly a design issue as well. As far as I remember there was only one target out on the far right side. Had there been two or three targets there, it would have been a non-issue.
-
Starting a new thread rather than continuing in the MG Nationals one...
Here are two examples of a single prize table distribution based on division sizes
One is based on awarding division winners and the other one is strictly on size.
Doing it on based on a size formula seems more fair and objective than trying to compare shooters across divisions based on how they finished in relation to the division winner...
To me it also seems fairer to award someone that finishes 5/200 higher than someone that finishes 5/10, but it would still most likely avoid the situation where the winner of one of the smaller divisions gets something really tiny.
It also makes it easier for match organizers as they dont need to worry about what goes on which table...
Example is based on data from RM3G 2011 and only shows the top 50.
-
This concept is forward thinking.... it removes the decision made by a person (prize table deciding official) where or what table to place a prize and then becomes the decision of the shooter as to the prize chosen from the table. I know when I walk into a room filled with prizes I look at the distribution.
Like I mentioned in an earlier post - you will see an exodus from scope tac to the other divisions. The creme of the crop shooters will set the bars within their respective divisions.
Tac Optics isnt the biggest division just because it has the biggest prize table, its also the most attractive to people since it has the biggest talent pool and it uses equipment that most people have and like; Open is too expensive and race-y, the heavy divisions are expensive and not that many own (or even want to own) a suitable .308s and Tac Irons gets screwed by targets at 500-600 yards that you cant even see without magnification.
I really doubt that switching the prize table format will change much in participation distribution, a few might leave TO but there wont be any exodus (especially not if 3GN switches to TO-only as its been rumored)
-
With all respect, a division winner is a division winner regardless and the shooters who choose to shoot the division do so for a lot of different reasons. History shows that there is a group of hardcore iron shooters, ie., Miller, Swanson, Neal, and many more.....plus newbies joining their division with interest of finding a spot within the ranks. The limited division is as much a challenge to shoot as the tac-ops or open divisions. In the best interest of fairness shooters within a division should be judged against the #1 shooter within that division and the reward for performance is going to the table with other shooters who performed at the same level within their divisions. A prize table built around a mission count of a division is unfair and I use this years USPSA prize table as an example. Miller shot a great match and for earning the USPSA Limited Nat'l Champ title he was rewarded with a Mossberg pump shotgun off of the prize table while complete AR's went over 6 deep on the tac-ops table....I say foul.
I dont disagree that the system used by most matches (like your Nats example) isnt fair, but I dont really consider having five guys from a division with 15 shooters walk the prize table in the top 15 (out of a total of 300) to be any more fair...
The problem is that the shooters in this system are really only compared to the winner of the division they shoot in. Is it really less of a feat to finish second in a 200 man strong TO than finishing second in a 40 man Open at 96%? For all I know, the guy finishing second in TO might even be a better shooter than the guy finishing second in Open, it just happens that the guy who won TO was a better shooter than the guy who won Open. So you're basically rewarding people for shooting in the division with the "worst" division winner...
If you want to do one single prize table, it seems like doing it on percentiles, not percentage, would be more fair (ie, 10th place in a 100 man division walks at the same time as second place in a ten man division, no matter their percentages). Not perfect, but to me that seems more fair than doing it based on percentage
Or you could "overload" the prizes on the division tables and do them more based on percentiles as well, so that the first place prizes are more equal valued across divisions, but it would also give someone finishing in the middle in the smaller division a similar prize to someone finishing in the middle of TO.
Either one of the percentile based distributions would take the size of the division as well as the different relative skill levels of the division winners out of play...
-
Second: Being a "B" class shooter, I will most likely never win a gun at a match with the way the prize tables are usually set up. What I would like to see is a table set up like the old DPMS Tri-gun Challenge and CMMG Midwest Championships where they bagged the prizes, but with a twist, put gun certificates into random bags so some of the lower classified shooters have a chance at a new gun. I think if a cash payout was given to the top 3 in each division (amount based on the number of entries per div) and then let them pick a bag like the rest of the shooters, it would be alot fairer. As an un-sponsored shooter, I probably spend more than a sponsored shooter since I pay 100% of all the expenses I incur for the match yet will never be able to win the top prizes. If $50 was taken from each entry fee and placed in the prize fund it could be distibuted to each division based on the number of shooters per division. If you had 100 shooters in your division, you would have $5000 to split between the top 3 and if you only had 10 shooters, you only get $500 to share. Your winnings would reflect the amount of shooters you had to beat in your division.
Finally: "Thank You" to all the RO's, match staff and sponsors, it was the best MG Nationals to date!
I finished 34th in my division and still managed to get a prize package worth $300-400! It was alot of fun getting to shoot with Mike V, Matt B and the Miculeks, hope to get the chance again.
Doug S' 2 cents worth.
I hate bagged prizes for two reasons, 1: I have tons of stuff I dont use as it is, if I cant see what I'm getting I might end up with more stuff I dont need instead of something that might actually be of use to me; 2: having all the prizes displayed shows off how much and what the sponsors contributed, why hide that in ugly bags?
Most "sponsored" shooters dont get nearly as much stuff/money from the sponsors as people believe. Sponsored shooters also tend to spend a lot of time and money on practice before the match, so I'd say that in most cases a sponsored shooter spends more money AND time than an unsponsored shooter does per match.
If youre gonna do a raffle you might as well lower the entry fee and let the shooters that want to be part of the raffle by tickets, or do the match a la ProAm.
Rewarding randomness and luck over practice and skill just seems wrong...
-
Whats the story with stage 1? With all the top shooters in the world getting 60 and 70 percentile scores? I can't say I have seen that before.
Rumor had it that there was a score written down wrong possibly??? I hate these sort of things that don't get explained to everyone.
There was a similar situation at the Midwest match in 2010, though I dont know if there actually were any errors made on either score
-
something completely different...
Are the scores for the shoot-off match posted anywhere?
-
The situation after the shoot off was unfortunate to say the least. I know I heard chad say all steal must fall. If that target didn't fall it would be very honorable for that person to come forward and do the right thing and bow out of the shoot off.
In hind site, using NRA RSO's frim the range cadre and not some of the great RO's from the FNH match probably was a mistake. Live and learn there I guess.
I'd say that using targets that required someone to call hits was the mistake.
They should use frangible, knock-down or any other target that needs resetting.
Im slightly confused though, since it sounded like all targets were hit... Was in mandatory to shoot the rifle targets in order and they were shot out of order?
-
If you have a shared prize table does the USPSA HM Limited Champion get to walk the table before Taran? Does he get to walk before Honer?I say long live the H.M. Limited USPSA National champ, if someone wants to challenge him for his title next year then get going. Until them he was first in the division at nationals so he gets the title. As for comparing his scores to any other shooter's what exactly does that show? I bet more people consider H.M. limited next year!
The HM Limited winner won by 100% over his lone competitor. Whereas Horner won by 2.01% over the second place Tactical shooter.
If USPSA had a shared prize table and it was based on percentage of performance by the shooter in their division, the HM Limited winner would have walked before any of the other division winners.
Is that fair?
Well compare their raw scores and see if that is fair or not. Under that system, do you think the better shooter is walking the table first?
Well, its seems like the argument is that it would be Taran's fault for not choosing to shoot HM Limited.
-
Pretty rare to see someone win a match without a single stage win!
-
Jesse shooting open? Was that planned?
-
I say...Good for the one guy who had the courage to do and yes he should walk the table. Other shooters will say "wtf" but I bet the division is loaded with shooters at the next match. When you think about it - Rocky Mtn has a fair system that rewards based on performance. The system encourages a shooter to pick their division carefully "IF" the prize table is important. This system flattens the field removing pressure on the scope tactical division. I also like the way they have delineated the divisions:
Why is there a need to remove "pressure" on TO?
The issue is people in the smaller division complaining about lack of attendance and small prize tables, not really the other way around, right?
-
The problem is you have made an assuption that the guy who won HM Limited is not as good a shooter as Butler because more people didn't shoot the division. What did you base this on? Did you shoot with him? The guy took first, enough said. Not his fault no buddy else wanted to play.
I also like the Rocky Mountain system. No system is 100% fair and somebody is always unhappy, that's life.
Doug
In general I think that most people would agree that its harder to win a division with 100 competitors than a division with five. Rewarding the guy that came second out of five more than the guy that came second out of a 100 just seems wrong to me.
Wouldnt the the most fair thing be to just have one all-inclusive division instead? If people want to shoot an iron sighted .308 instead of an open .223 and give up some spots in the finals its their choice. Wanna get a shot at something good on the prize table, get open gear, if you dont care as much about prizes and just want to have fun, shoot whatever you have.
-
I'm using 5.3gr 340 and MG 180s at 1.125, which is extremely accurate.
Might have to add a little more powder since 165.1 (after 6 shots) at the MG Nationals was a little too close for comfort...
-
and its quite simply a T.O. catered affair. All other divisions need not apply, so just like we say that if we do not agree with a matches way of doing things then vote with your wallet and don't go
Trapr
it will be so much easier next year
-
It’s good to see 3 GUN moving forward as a sport but without some level of sponsorship for shooters the time off/travel/expense issues will limit participation to those with the means or significant full time sponsors.
I wonder if in the future we will see single event sponsorship for big matches and the shoot-off. Giving the top 50 free plane tickets, hotel, and maybe ammo would make it much more doable for the average guy who shoots well enough to qualify.
David E.
Having a big first prize gives better headlines and better promotional material than getting average guys there. The TV crew isnt going to follow more than a few shooters around and they, along with the viewers and the sponsors, dont really care about average shooters, they all want to see winners.
Maybe in a few years 3-gun has grown to a size where there will be enough money and prizes that everyone in the top 50 can shoot the shoot-off for "free", until then it will be a trade-off between fun, money and all those other things for the rest of us..
-
Lol! Im going to chrono my factory ammo this mirnung.
Also Larry messaged me and reminded me to check my mag lengths too.
I don't have to worry about that. My wife is always telling me my magazine is short
Its not the length of the magazine that matters, its how much ammo it holds...
-
Wow, why are so many people not going?
taking four days off from work
at least $1500 in fees, ammo, hotel, flights, rental car etc
knowing that in the very unlikely event I do make it into the top 8, I couldnt make it to Vegas in January
it was a bit of a cluster last year
So yeah, Ive also decided not to go...
-
Well SOB! I guess with all the no shows we have about a 1/50 shot of everybody having a $50,000 party put on by Jesse at the SHOT show.
Or make sure all of the other 49 are out and you'll have a one in fifteen chance
-
2. If shooters out of the Top 50 don't compete, their slots do not go to anyone else.
What you talkin' bout Willis?
Where did that little tidbit of info come from?
The link YOU posted two days ago
here in their entirety:
1. The Top 50 are locked. Those competitors can't be bumped.
2. If shooters out of the Top 50 don't compete, their slots do not go to anyone else.
3. Following FNH USA 3-Gun Championship, 14 additional slots into the 3GN Championship will be earned based on series points. These slots will be filled by going down the 3GN Standings as necessary to fill the slots.
4. The Top 50, rules, and competitor info have all been announced on www.3GunNation.com, and via additional media outlets. See past stories posted under News.
5. Unlike last year, individual competitors will not be contacted. The field has been announced. Check www.3gunNation.com for further information.
-
I guess if you show up you get into the 4 stage 3GN match?
If you are in the top 50, or one of the 14 slots earned at FNH, and you pay your $250 match fee, yes! you get into the 3GN Championships.
2. If shooters out of the Top 50 don't compete, their slots do not go to anyone else.
Since it looks like 30-35 in the top 50 are actually going, I'm guessing that the shoot-off is probably going to have 45-50 shooters rather than 64.
More prizes to the people that go
I've been thinking about this all day even before I saw your post, and I have a couple ideas that could be discussed but I would like to get them written down so I can present them intelligently(yea right! 
)
2011 USPSA MultiGun Nationals
in Multi-Gun, Rifle & Shotgun Match Announcements
Posted · Edited by gose
I can pretty much guarantee you that most people wont. A very very limited number of top shooters might, but the vast majority dont have a chance on those 20 guns anyway, so they'll just shoot the division they want to shoot and is most likely to have the equipment for... TO.
I do like the idea of a single prize table, but I'm not sure I fully agree that the percentage based system is the best way...