One prize table based on division size?

[gose]

% finish in class

I'm sure you meant divisions... Don't mean to pick nits ... But DANG! That is brilliant!!

Just take your placing in whatever division divide that by the number of shooters in that division VOILA! Then compare that to some shooter in whatever other division.

SMART!

[Doug H.]

Actually we had several national level shooters from out of state attend our match. They came even though it was not advertised as a prize match. Not a penny of match fees was put into the prize table but we still had over $40,000 worth of donations to give out to shooters. Match fees were used for prize money that was given to the winners. I don't think the poll that was taken included cash payouts to winners, but I have seen big shooters skip a prize in favor of a check for a lesser amount. My observation has been that high dollar prizes are often on sale soon after the match. If I were a vendor I would much rather see my donation used instead of sold. A hybrid system of prize distribution worked for us last year but we intend to discuss next years system with match sponsors before finalizing.

Doug

I'm just going on what you said. Some top competitors don't shoot your match because of the prize distribution. That's a pretty loud and clear complaint. Nobody claimed that 'none' would show up so saying 'some' national level shooters did shoot the match does not change a thing. Also you are making it sound as if random drawings always give the winner something they can use and would never sell. I can assure you that is not the case. And last most shooters just don't like random drawings. It's a contest and most people want awards and prizes based on how well they do in the contest not in some raffle. This has all been hashed out in several old threads, and I don't really care to restate the same arguments, but regardless here's the poll results.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=71470&hl=prize table poll&st=0

As been said many times before in threads like this, you don't like the system, don't go to the match. As long as the prize distribution system is clearly stated in the match application everyone can choose matches that fit their needs and desires. If you have a desire to see the type of system that you favor used at all matches guess you are out of luck. Anybody that goes to the trouble of putting on a match can use what ever method they like. I personally have never chosen a match based on the prize table but always on the quality of the match.

By the way, I checked the poll that you listed in your post, 136 people voted out of over 31,000 Brian Enos members, so I would say that according to your numbers only 0.44% of BE members thought enough of your poll to vote.

Doug

Edited November 25, 2011 by Doug H.

[badchad]

As been said many times before in threads like this, you don't like the system, don't go to the match. As long as the prize distribution system is clearly stated in the match application everyone can choose matches that fit their needs and desires.

That's fair enough. I'm just pointing out that according to your own admission, some people don't like your random prize distribution to such an extent that they avoid your match and I'm just saying that this is at odds with your statement that you had yet to hear a complaint.

By the way, I checked the poll that you listed in your post, 136 people voted out of over 31,000 Brian Enos members, so I would say that according to your numbers only 0.44% of BE members thought enough of your poll to vote.

Doug

Are you suggesting the results of the poll are not in any way indicative of our shooting population as a whole? I'm just saying shooting a match is relatively cheap and easy, getting good enough to place high or win a match is a lot more expensive and requires a lot of hard work. And I'm saying it sucks when you practice hard, and do well at a match only to see all the big ticket items go to shooters who's claim to glory is they got their name pulled from a hat.

[EkuJustice]

And probibally just as many shooters would sign up for the random draw as would not sign up because of it. Look at the Ar15.com match in KY with the huge random draw how quickly it. I would say the random draw in a heads up is actually a bigger draw than a total heads up unless your one of the top guys, the nice prizes really dont mean squat. At least in the class system, you are competing against like ability shooters and know you have a chance of winning something for a class finish. With the matches based on classes I say go based on preformance ie champ then classes winners, class 2nd, class third then maby go order of finish for the rest. On a once class system like the outlaw matches it isnt as effective as realistically only a handfull of people realistically have a chance of placing at the top anyway. Sure it will attract those shooters but thats not what fills a match up. Just look at the Ar15.com match they had in KY and how fast that filled up with a random draw prize table.

[MarkCO]

And therein lies the problem. Out of 200 shooters, the 50 or so at the top almost all prefer prizes based on perfromance. Yes, there are those odd ones further down that do as well. The bottom half, in large part prefer a random draw. It is largely apples and oranges to compare the "quality of the shooters" in one division to another unless you can identify certain shooters in other divisions who have competed in the same division recently, even then it is not straight up due to style of match differences. IMO, size of division SHOULD have an impact on prize distribution. If you have 150 shooters in division A and 50 shooters in division B, it DOES make sense to reward the approximate same skill level across the divisions.

I shot 3 matches in "Open" last year with Limted/Tac Scope gear. On average, my scores were about 12% lower than in my normal divisions. Then, when I take my Tac Scope raw scores in some other matches and place them into Open, I would have moved up a LOT of places in the walk on the prize table. If I were to "assume" my 12% would cross over if I used Open gear, that illustrated for me a large issue in the prize table distribution. Then again, if anyone thinks that Popplewell, Casanova, Miller, Neal, Miculek, Voight, Upchurch would not be competitive in TS, their head is in the sand. For the most part, wins in those smaller divisions requires the same overall shooting skill (gained by thousands of dollars and countless hours of preparation and training) as in TS. Granted, there are fewer sharks in those ponds, but they bite just as hard.

One prize table is definately "easier" for the person laying out the prize table as the "judgement" of prize value is accounted for in the numerical method within the percentage. While I have not seen it done, having the 50% shooter in all divisions walk at the same time certainly bears some consideration. So if you have 100 in TS, and 20 each in each of 4 other divisions, the 50% percentile shooters, (50th in TS and 10th in the other 4) all walk at the same time getting approximately the same value of prize. This eliminates the phenominal match of one division winner from suppressing the scores of the remainder in his division. Now if no "good" shooters shoot in a division, then obviously a few will get a better prize. However, the remainder of the division, after a few slots, will end up about where they would have been anyway. That is a much less impactful aberation than skewing a whole division upwards. Almost every other form of competition rewards based on overall placement, which is essentially percentile, not percentage. If an automotive race winner wins by 1 seocnd, or 1 minute, secodn palce gets the same prize. I think the OP might be on to something that will allow one equitable prize table, not screw the small divisons and not screw the 50-99.9% group in Tac-Scope.

Nicely done Gose

[Chills1994]

badchad wrote:

Are you suggesting the results of the poll are not in any way indicative of our shooting population as a whole? I'm just saying shooting a match is relatively cheap and easy, getting good enough to place high or win a match is a lot more expensive and requires a lot of hard work. And I'm saying it sucks when you practice hard, and do well at a match only to see all the big ticket items go to shooters who's claim to glory is they got their name pulled from a hat.

With respect to bold portion above, you do know that, right? I mean before you submit your match entry fee, fill out the match application, and sign whatever waivers.

It's not like 300 shooters just show up to a match having paid like $200 each and at check in go "How are the prizes getting distributed at this match?"

Said another way, I hope no match director is pulling a bait and switch, saying it is going to be by order of finish and half way through the match goes, "WHOOPS! I meant for this to be strictly random draw."

There were some people who weren't happy with how the Missouri Fall Classic USPSA pistol match did prizes this year at random instead of strictly by order of finish. I looked up the results at USPSA.org. Basically, the D, C, and B class shooters made up 75% of the shooters at that match. The GM's, M's, and A's were just 25%.

Maybe the word "fair" is not the correct word to use here, but I don't think it is fair to have 75% of the shooters footing the prize table bill for the other 25%...that's just my opinion.

[Stlhead]

Doug, I enjoyed your match last year, and thought that the prize distribution was great. The match was full, and I have no doubt that it will fill up again this year. Thanks for all of your hard work and efforts to put on your match, you run the thing the way you see fit.

It seems that the debate over the best way to distribute the prizes will never be settled. It would be easy to loose sight of the fact that we are fortunate to even have prizes. Our sport is a volunteer sport. There are not paying fans in the stands watching us shoot. When people ate willing to pay to watch our sport there may be some bounty to split. Until then we are all competing in a participant funded amateur sport for our own entertainment. The sponsors could just as easily put their marketing money into other avenues and there would be no prizes, so I say we do our best to keep this discussion as respectful as possible.

[Doug H.]

It seems that the debate over the best way to distribute the prizes will never be settled. It would be easy to loose sight of the fact that we are fortunate to even have prizes. Our sport is a volunteer sport. There are not paying fans in the stands watching us shoot. When people ate willing to pay to watch our sport there may be some bounty to split. Until then we are all competing in a participant funded amateur sport for our own entertainment. The sponsors could just as easily put their marketing money into other avenues and there would be no prizes, so I say we do our best to keep this discussion as respectful as possible.

You hit the nail on the head. Although many matches put some entry fee money into prizes, the vast majority of prizes have been donated by the sponsors to generate interest in their products and to support our sport. As match directors we owe it to them to distribute their donations in accordance with their wishes to the best of our ability. As I stated earlier, out of respect for our sponsors, we intend to get as much input from them as possible before we make a decision for 2012.

Doug

[badchad]

With respect to bold portion above, you do know that, right? I mean before you submit your match entry fee, fill out the match application, and sign whatever waivers.

Generally yes, and I suppose I'm fortunate enough to shoot in a location where the vast majority of the event matches give away there prizes in an order of finish fashion. I can think of one that doesn't, and I don't attend that match. I suppose I could go there every year and complain about it, but it's not like I have any shortage of matches to shoot in the Phoenix Metro area. So while I think order of finish distributions are American in nature and random drawings are pinko, I'm not that against a match director doing what most of his shooters want, but I don't think said director should tell everyone that their system is great and nobody complains when they know some number of shooters avoid their match because of their system. Speaking for myself, if I avoid a match because of something I don't like, it's because that's one of the strongest forms of complaint I know of.

Maybe the word "fair" is not the correct word to use here, but I don't think it is fair to have 75% of the shooters footing the prize table bill for the other 25%...that's just my opinion.

The way I see it, if a percent of shooters does not shoot well enough to get the prize they want, they can practice.

[Doug H.]

So while I think order of finish distributions are American in nature and random drawings are pinko, I'm not that against a match director doing what most of his shooters want, but I don't think said director should tell everyone that their system is great and nobody complains when they know some number of shooters avoid their match because of their system. Speaking for myself, if I avoid a match because of something I don't like, it's because that's one of the strongest forms of complaint I know of.

I thought I was done with this thread but I find myself forced to reply to this. I think if you re-read my posts you won't find anywhere I said that our system was great, just that it was what we decided would be best for our match. What you don't seem to understand is that we did not hear any complaints about the prize distribution from the people that attended the match. Personally I could care less what the people that did not attend think but I care very much about the people that paid to shoot our match. We sent an email to every shooter asking for feedback and received a large number of replies, so we have a pretty good handle on how people felt about the match.

I've attended and won guns at matches that have multiple prize tables and single prize tables. I've been to big matches that had random prizes, some by design and some because of circumstances. In each case I picked the match because of the quality of the match not the prize table. In each case I was happy to get what I got and have bought more products from many of the companies that were sponsors.

Ok, now I'm done.

Doug

[Chuck Anderson]

Personally I could care less what the people that did not attend think

Ouch Doug, now my feeling is hurt.

[Doug H.]

Personally I could care less what the people that did not attend think

Ouch Doug, now my feeling is hurt.

It's ok, when you don't show up I move up one place!

[Jesse Tischauser]

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.

Based on size only

Based on size with division winners first

RM3G percentage based as reference

I like these ideas!

If you throw out the stages with rifle over 50 yards and then take the top 5 guys in TO and TI and compare stage times it's quite obvious what division is more difficult. It's impossible to compare the other divisions because of the magazine capacity differences.

The only way to make it fair is to do what JJ and Denise are doing by having a seperate match for individual divisions. The He Man match is gonna be very cool. Unfortunately they still gotta divide prizes by irons and scope so somebody will think they got screwed at the prize table.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Jesse Tischauser