New Classifier Percentages

[GunBugBit]

40 minutes ago, malobukov said:

GMs have no incentive to reshoot classifiers trying to get into a higher class, and a C class shooter trying to make B is unlikely to set the new HHF record no matter how many times he reshoots.

What about the A's and M's trying to move up?

[LeviSS]

11 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I haven't followed all 9 pages close enough. Which classifier's have we determined had the HHF increased by hero or zero? And are they now completely unreasonable for people to do?

Like I said, you might be right.  I don't think there is an accurate way to determine an answer to your first question.  It might not be THE problem, but I think it is a problem with the system.

[malobukov]

23 minutes ago, GunBugBit said:

What about the A's and M's trying to move up?

Depends on how you determine the HHF. I don't know how the HQ did it, so can only guess. If, say, you look at the distribution of hit factors for a given classifier, take 50th percentile and 90th percentile,  extrapolate from that to where the 99.5th percentile should be, and call it HHF, you'll end up with an estimate that is not very sensitive to hero or zero runs. For each hero run there will be enough zero runs to even it out.

 

But with any change some numbers will go up and others go down, making half the people sad. And it's not going to be much different from what we have now (I checked), so why fix what's not broken.

Edited July 25, 2018 by malobukov
typos

[motosapiens]

3 hours ago, malobukov said:

I don't think it's a problem. GMs have no incentive to reshoot classifiers trying to get into a higher class, 

 

no, but they might very well have incentive to show off at a local match they're going to win by 20% anyway, and go full retard on the classifier. I saw vid a year or so of stoeger shooting el prez under 4 seconds with good hits (in production). I don't know if he can replicate that performance on demand.

Edited July 25, 2018 by motosapiens

[malobukov]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

stoeger shooting el prez under 4 seconds with good hits

Not sure what "good hits" are, but 4 seconds with all alphas on 99-11 corresponds to hit factor of 15. This is way higher than anything I've seen in production data so far. Old HHF is 10.26, new HHF is 11.56, 99.5th percentile is 10.31, best result this year so far is 10.63 (52 points in 4.89 seconds). This might be the kind of outlier HQ excluded when calculating HHFs.

[Racinready300ex]

11 hours ago, malobukov said:

Not sure what "good hits" are, but 4 seconds with all alphas on 99-11 corresponds to hit factor of 15. This is way higher than anything I've seen in production data so far. Old HHF is 10.26, new HHF is 11.56, 99.5th percentile is 10.31, best result this year so far is 10.63 (52 points in 4.89 seconds). This might be the kind of outlier HQ excluded when calculating HHFs.

 

The old El prez HHF was a easy one IMO, 11.56 doesn't really seem crazy. Not a number I can hit on demand but doable. I'm sure guys like Ben can run 5 seconds all A's pretty regularly.

[SCTaylor]

Regarding El Prez in Production... A few weeks ago I ran it cold at just over 5 seconds with a 9.75hf and second run just under 5 at a 10.31hf.  I'm a good shooter but not at the level to post up two (pre-update) GM runs, cold.

 

I think the classifier updates are legitimate. All of the heartburn and bellyaching is purely emotional.

[B_RAD]

2 hours ago, SCTaylor said:

I think the classifier updates are legitimate. All of the heartburn and bellyaching is purely emotional.

I don't know why I'm even responding to this because it's really just a waste of my time, but since I have a little time to waste at the moment, I'll say not all the heartburn is purley emotional. What problem did it solve? What information did they use to update them? That's part of my frustrations.. I can see the point that it was easy for some to be shot at over 100% but was there a really problem with that happening all the time?  I've still not met a paper GM.  And once again, I'll point out all the super Squad level GM's that didn't shoot 95% of the winner at nats the last several years. Are they not really GM's? These changes will have no affect on those shooters or their placement (or anyone's) in matches. 

 

I'm the type that tries to be cautious about making corrections because it's too easy to make things worse. Most times when this happens you get stuck with a more flawed system because it's too much effort, too difficult to switch back and/or the persons responsible don't want to admit they made a mistake!

 

If others are upset because some are now harder to get a good hf, and in turn that makes it harder to get to the next class, there's no shame in that.  In mind at least. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by B_RAD

[malobukov]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 I'm sure guys like Ben can run 5 seconds all A's pretty regularly.

Maybe they can, but either there aren’t many guys like Ben, or they are not shooting many matches.

 

In the sample I looked at, 99-11 was shot 820 times this year in production. 16 of those were above old HHF. None were above new HHF, let alone 12 hit factor (all alphas in 5 seconds).

[SCTaylor]

I believe it rectified the issue of the overkill classifiers where virtually no one can shoot within their classification. I also believe it rightly adjusted the "easy" classifiers to place folks within their proper classification.  I still think those who practice will move up, those who have the skill sets will be placed properly.

 

I am in agreement that HQ should release more data on how the new HF were calculated. Right now it's "The man behind the curtain" approach which leads people to speculate endlessly.

 

Using my experience above with El Prez, the 100% run goes to 89% and 95% goes to 84%. I firmly believe that is an accurate representation of my current skill level.

 

Do I want the GM level runs, HELL YES. But I also realize those scores are not accurate to my current ability.

[Racinready300ex]

5 hours ago, malobukov said:

Maybe they can, but either there aren’t many guys like Ben, or they are not shooting many matches.

 

In the sample I looked at, 99-11 was shot 820 times this year in production. 16 of those were above old HHF. None were above new HHF, let alone 12 hit factor (all alphas in 5 seconds).

 

Guys like Ben don't shoot a lot of club matches. Look up his number, he's shot 1 classifier this year and that was in February. He hasn't shot El prez since 2016 at that match he shot a 11.8393 HF which is still over the current HHF. And I'll go out on a limb and say he's a better shooter now then he was 2 years ago.

 

So again, in this example the HHF seams vary reasonable.

[B585]

8 hours ago, SCTaylor said:

Regarding El Prez in Production... A few weeks ago I ran it cold at just over 5 seconds with a 9.75hf and second run just under 5 at a 10.31hf.  I'm a good shooter but not at the level to post up two (pre-update) GM runs, cold.

 

I think the classifier updates are legitimate. All of the heartburn and bellyaching is purely emotional.

 

7 hours ago, B_RAD said:

I don't know why I'm even responding to this because it's really just a waste of my time, but since I have a little time to waste at the moment, I'll say not all the heartburn is purley emotional. What problem did it solve? What information did they use to update them? That's part of my frustrations.. I can see the point that it was easy for some to be shot at over 100% but was there a really problem with that happening all the time?  I've still not met a paper GM.  And once again, I'll point out all the super Squad level GM's that didn't shoot 95% of the winner at nats the last several years. Are they not really GM's? These changes will have no affect on those shooters or their placement (or anyone's) in matches. 

 

I'm the type that tries to be cautious about making corrections because it's too easy to make things worse. Most times when this happens you get stuck with a more flawed system because it's too much effort, too difficult to switch back and/or the persons responsible don't want to admit they made a mistake!

 

If others are upset because some are now harder to get a good hf, and in turn that makes it harder to get to the next class, there's no shame in that.  In mind at least. 

Thank you for an excellent explanation of my thoughts.

[malobukov]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

Guys like Ben don't shoot a lot of club matches. Look up his number, he's shot 1 classifier this year and that was in February [...] in this example the HHF seams very reasonable.

That's part of the problem with setting HHFs. I agree that 99-11 HHF around 11.5 is reasonable. It's been shot so many times we can extrapolate reasonably well.

 

But with less popular classifiers this approach breaks down. If Ben or Alex Gutt did not shoot it, you don't really know how high its HHF can be.

 

Good thing is, it does not really matter that much. Classification percent is average of 6, so small changes in HHFs tend to average out anyway.

[Racinready300ex]

13 hours ago, malobukov said:

That's part of the problem with setting HHFs. I agree that 99-11 HHF around 11.5 is reasonable. It's been shot so many times we can extrapolate reasonably well.

 

But with less popular classifiers this approach breaks down. If Ben or Alex Gutt did not shoot it, you don't really know how high its HHF can be.

 

Good thing is, it does not really matter that much. Classification percent is average of 6, so small changes in HHFs tend to average out anyway.

 

I think you could guess, you could even steel info from Ben's books. What should the draw be? what should the transition be? what should the split be? With a little research I think you can make a fairly well educated guess as to what the HHF should be. I'm sure after nationals we'll have some new classifiers based on the results, then we can all just shoot those and stop worrying about this increase.

 

I shot 99-62 the other day, one of the guys on my squad was shooting Open and said the new HHF was based on 2.0 seconds. So a 1 second draw and five .20 splits. Really you could get a sub 1-0 draw on that stage and have a little extra time on the splits. This is another one that I think seems reasonable for a Max M. type with a open gun to me. With such a high HHF one mistake is going to kill your run for sure. I shot it in SS minor and had one C that was about 1/2" out. That 1/2" cost me 6%.

[rowdyb]

Even GM's who would never be accused of being a "paper" or "local" GM can and do feel mystified by the raise in some of the HHF's. Again, GM's weren't falling off trees beforehand....

 

[B_RAD]

Stoeger said on his last podcast that, in a match, he wouldn't attempt to shoot some of the adjusted ones at what it would take to hundo them.  

 

So, if someone at that level wouldn't shoot for 95-100% on them, how is anyone else supposed to make GM?  You basically lay up for points for match finish (which is what you should do) or you say "I'm going for it" and swing away. 

 

Before the update yes some where "easier" but (here's the point)   it was possible to get the next class up scores and still be a little reserved. Meaning you weren't in danger of zeroing or tanking hard and loosning a ton of points!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by B_RAD

[euxx]

Folks, in regards to getting PractiScore updated to those new HHFs what do you say to the idea of crowd-sourcing them? E.g. we can make an online google spreadsheet and people can contribute data from uspsa web site calculator (basically a GM's HF for each stage and division). With a few people doing it it sshouldn't take long to get all the data.

 

 

[IHAVEGAS]

On 7/6/2018 at 9:08 PM, malobukov said:

06-04    12.7    14.53

 

Depressing. Shot a just barely 'A' (legacy hit factor) which is a goal I have been working on for a couple years, looked at the USPSA website and it is a below middle B. 

 

B  class is going to be about 60% of the shooters one day. 

[Balakay]

I feel your pain on 2 recent classifiers:

09-02

74.0862

10.2210

  82.67% before the update

 

06-05

73.7642

11.1111

 84.05% before the update

[WaJim]

Yup...I've been pushing classifiers with more of a hero or zero attitude since the change.

 

Normal match speed isn't cutting it. 

 

I was @ 59.1487 before the change.

 

I've collected one since the change that was over 60%.

 

Is it just me or does it Seem like the par time ones were adjusted the other way.

 

Like 09-01 with 66hf

 

Uspsa shows a 63.8298%

 

Calssifier Calc shows a 54.9686%

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by WaJim

[waktasz]

All of the fixed time classifier HHFs used to be all Alphas, for every division. They have since been adjusted to more realistic values.  I've shot two of them so far and they are clearly much easier now.

[ATLDave]

Interesting.  

[MemphisMechanic]

Yes. The ones that NO ONE was hundoing got adjusted the other way , and people are overlooking that.

 

Want to see you % go up? Shoot all the one-handed and long distance fixed time standards that nobody wants to set up.  

[malobukov]

1 hour ago, MemphisMechanic said:

The ones that NO ONE was hundoing got adjusted the other way , and people are overlooking that.

In the production sample I looked at, 06-03 "Can You Count" was shot 672 times and 09-14 "Eye of the Tiger" was shot 291 times before HHF adjustment, with no 100% results. HHF still went up for both. So somebody must have been hundoing them, it's just not common.

 

That's the problem with setting HHF based on, say, 10 best results. If 672 people shot "Can You Count" but only 65 shot 03-12 "Ironsides", average of 10 best on "Can You Count" is a much higher level than average of 10 best on "Ironsides".

[ATLDave]

I kinda have the feeling that they set the HHF at some level of SD above mean.  Maybe 3 standard deviations?  

 

IDK if that's what HQ did.  I'm not sure that's a good way to do it if it was.  But it least it is based on some kind of actual data, rather than just SWAG'ing it.