AAFTA GP course optimization
- Thread starter Scotchmo
- Start date
Wayne,
That’s was a good course setting strategy in the past. Under the new GP scoring regime, I’d alter that strategy some, though it won’t be much of a stretch. Go for a Troyer average of 36T (rather than 33T to 35T). Using an SD ~2T would be enough (rather than 6T).
Though a 90% hit rate is good, it’s OK to have a higher score. The Cajuns GP match has high scores that are commonly in the 95% range, and it’s a well run, well attended, top level FT match.
Finally, your course has significant angles and shade for a lot of the closer targets, so check those boxes. Your far targets have angles, as well as wind and glare, so check those boxes.
Very difficult separator targets are provided when you have a shootoff. I don’t think it’s really necessary to have them during the match, but if you want a separator target to lower the probability of needing a shootoff, put in a very difficult standing shot (50T before other factors). That will be a good separator as most shooters will miss it, but as a benefit, it will also serve to raise the average Troyer (and GP points) for the whole match.
Upvote 0
Having read through the thread, it appears that the main posters on the thread are overly concerned with winning the GP and scheming how you can rig the match setup to your advantage in the GP. Why? Just setup your courses like you always do and enjoy the match. You can setup your courses to the 36T but it won't be as interesting as a lower difficulty course with a wider standard deviation. Just do it like you always has and your shooters will enjoy the match more.
The main posters on this thread are the only ones who have complained about the GP scoring and discussing how to rig the match to their benefit. JUST STOP. Shoot your matches like you always have and just enjoy the sport.
The main posters on this thread are the only ones who have complained about the GP scoring and discussing how to rig the match to their benefit. JUST STOP. Shoot your matches like you always have and just enjoy the sport.
Upvote 0
Brad, I totally respect you and your contribution to our sport, but I'm afraid you don't understand the purpose of the thread. You said we are overly concerned with winning the GPs, if that was the case why would we share the info on course planning? We are trying to "level the playing field" by sharing the info we discovered with ALL the MDs in the AAFTA organization.... and pointing out the flaws WE see with the formula that makes an UNLEVEL playing field for all the GP competitors!!!
Upvote 0
Brad,
Do you agree that match directors can now setup (rig) a course to produce higher GP scores? But maybe a less enjoyable course on average?
As Wayne stated, I’m not doing this so I can win GPs. Nothing I suggested gives me an advantage over anyone else at the matches that I attend. Besides, I’m getting older and am on the downhill slope as far as winning a GP. I’ve won plenty already. I am more concerned about the fairness in GP point distribution. Isn’t that why the new GP scoring method was implemented? To make the GP scoring more fair? I don’t think the intent of the new system was to make the courses more enjoyable.
Note: in some cases, it’s just a matter of the match director checking the right boxes on their match submission. It didn’t matter in the past. It matters now, and match directors need to be made aware of it. That won’t affect the enjoyment of the match.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Maybe we should look at it this way.
Let's suppose that Grand Prix's are going to be attended by mostly the top shooters in a region. There will most likely be some local shooters who maybe aren't as high scoring shooters as well, but mostly it's going to be attended by shooters who care enough to travel, in my case some up to 15 hours by car each way, because they want a chance to score well in the AAFTA GP national contest. I agree that some just come for the fun and comradery and don't care how they score and this issue is not important to them.
Now, if the match director is not informed about how the new scoring system works, then they might set a 32T course and not mark the environmental factors boxes on targets that deserve to be marked, thinking it doesn't matter.... and under the old system it didn't matter that much.
Almost all of the top shooters attending would most likely score 90% plus whether the course was a 32T or a 36T. I bet they would only drop a couple percentages either way. BUT, the score they get on the GP for the match would vary hugely, as shown above in this thread.
Isn't that doing a dis-service to the attending shooters who do travel mostly for the GP points?????
It's my belief that a whole lot of the match directors in the AAFTA organization did NOT know how important it is NOW to set the course around 36T and have targets in places where environmental factors are present.... BEFORE this thread!
Why even have a GP series if folks don't care about competing as fairly as possible across the whole nation.
I don't think the AAFTA BoG knew how the new formula would play out, but it's bound over time to standardize the GP course setting across the nation in my humble opinion..
Let's suppose that Grand Prix's are going to be attended by mostly the top shooters in a region. There will most likely be some local shooters who maybe aren't as high scoring shooters as well, but mostly it's going to be attended by shooters who care enough to travel, in my case some up to 15 hours by car each way, because they want a chance to score well in the AAFTA GP national contest. I agree that some just come for the fun and comradery and don't care how they score and this issue is not important to them.
Now, if the match director is not informed about how the new scoring system works, then they might set a 32T course and not mark the environmental factors boxes on targets that deserve to be marked, thinking it doesn't matter.... and under the old system it didn't matter that much.
Almost all of the top shooters attending would most likely score 90% plus whether the course was a 32T or a 36T. I bet they would only drop a couple percentages either way. BUT, the score they get on the GP for the match would vary hugely, as shown above in this thread.
Isn't that doing a dis-service to the attending shooters who do travel mostly for the GP points?????
It's my belief that a whole lot of the match directors in the AAFTA organization did NOT know how important it is NOW to set the course around 36T and have targets in places where environmental factors are present.... BEFORE this thread!
Why even have a GP series if folks don't care about competing as fairly as possible across the whole nation.
I don't think the AAFTA BoG knew how the new formula would play out, but it's bound over time to standardize the GP course setting across the nation in my humble opinion..
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Here is where the crossroads of a diverse course, and a "tick all the boxes" course meet. Yup, you can go either way. The question is which one are you willing to go to? Anyone can set a course to spank the crap out of most competitors and try to feel good about getting the most points. At the end of the day, I'm curious about which style will prevail and bring back more competitors that want to return in the following and subsequent years. By focusing on full-tilt maximizing points, rather than offering a diverse set of challenges, will do more to attract a few of the top-tier competitors who you will typically see striving to be on the podium. However, nearly most of the shooters who use the gut-check method to decide if they'll return, may not be as inclined to do so if the beat down was too severe based on their own skill set, and they're not leaving with that warm and fuzzy feels.
Yes, check the boxes if it applies, but making it your priority may have undesired consequences.
Again a great study on theory, and a great study on what's going to work, or not, in the long run.
Personally, I think there's way more to a match than focusing on ticking troyer boxes.
Yes, check the boxes if it applies, but making it your priority may have undesired consequences.
Again a great study on theory, and a great study on what's going to work, or not, in the long run.
Personally, I think there's way more to a match than focusing on ticking troyer boxes.
Upvote 0
I personally agree, and before I knew how the new formula works, the Oregon ST GP was set at 33.4T without factors, and with legitimate environmental factors checked, it was a 38.4T with a SD of 5.8, so not the bland course folks are concerned about, and by accident, the GP scoring worked well for the competitors in the new GP scoring rules.
I strongly think, that, a standard deviation min. of 5 should be an added rule.
It's not about ticking all the boxes now for MDs. Match Directors, have to work with the land they have available. It's about using the course planner when planning and laying out your courses to treat your attending competitors FAIRLY in their competing nationally.
Upvote 0
There have been three GP scoring systems since I started shootings AAFTA matches.
GP1 - 2005 to 2014, maximum GP points attainable were normalized at 100 and were based on the raw score.
GP2 - 2015 to 2023, maximum GP points attainable were normalized at 100 and were based on the top shooters score.
GP3 - 2024 to ????, maximum GP match points attainable can vary between 93 and 180, based on the normalized raw score and Troyer average.
The main drawback with GP1 was that easier courses produced more GP points. GP2 was normalized to the top score at a match, as a way to remove the contribution of course layout from the awarded GP points. GP3 is somewhat opposite to GP1 in that higher Troyer average courses produce more GP points. In GP1 and GP3, that means how the match director sets a particular course has an effect on GP points. How courses are set will naturally change as a result. Making everyone aware of the cause and effect will help speed up that natural outcome.
GP1 - 2005 to 2014, maximum GP points attainable were normalized at 100 and were based on the raw score.
GP2 - 2015 to 2023, maximum GP points attainable were normalized at 100 and were based on the top shooters score.
GP3 - 2024 to ????, maximum GP match points attainable can vary between 93 and 180, based on the normalized raw score and Troyer average.
The main drawback with GP1 was that easier courses produced more GP points. GP2 was normalized to the top score at a match, as a way to remove the contribution of course layout from the awarded GP points. GP3 is somewhat opposite to GP1 in that higher Troyer average courses produce more GP points. In GP1 and GP3, that means how the match director sets a particular course has an effect on GP points. How courses are set will naturally change as a result. Making everyone aware of the cause and effect will help speed up that natural outcome.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Garrett,
Your Sonoran GP course was a little hard, at the time in my mind, but it really did separate the top shooters, and rewarded them with the best possible GP scores. And even the not so top shooters like me got good GP points for my score.
The environmental factors were truly present, and I assume you check the boxes fairly.
But, without a standard for how hard the wind was blowing, or how steep the angle... How can it be made fair across all situations? Shady eastern forests with mild wind, vs open western desserts and canyons with wild winds?
It's just something to think about and research maybe.. It was a good effort, the new change, and I think it just needs some well thought out tweeking..
Your Sonoran GP course was a little hard, at the time in my mind, but it really did separate the top shooters, and rewarded them with the best possible GP scores. And even the not so top shooters like me got good GP points for my score.
The environmental factors were truly present, and I assume you check the boxes fairly.
But, without a standard for how hard the wind was blowing, or how steep the angle... How can it be made fair across all situations? Shady eastern forests with mild wind, vs open western desserts and canyons with wild winds?
It's just something to think about and research maybe.. It was a good effort, the new change, and I think it just needs some well thought out tweeking..
Upvote 0
I do think the new formula could use 3 boxes for each EV factor. Mild, Moderate, Severe.
It's not really that much to ask a club to invest in a $80 weather station and angle finders, to actually help them get factors consistent across the clubs GPs.
That might solve most of the issues and then add a standard deviation min of 5 to make the courses more "everyone friendly"
It's not really that much to ask a club to invest in a $80 weather station and angle finders, to actually help them get factors consistent across the clubs GPs.
That might solve most of the issues and then add a standard deviation min of 5 to make the courses more "everyone friendly"
Upvote 0
Average is a useful measurement, but easily rigged when setting as a design goal. SD (Standard Deviation) is a good check so it seems like it might be good to add as a rule, but it too is not immune from rigging when made into a goal.
Both are good for measuring normal distributions, but as soon as we base scores on the average Troyer, average Troyer will trend up, because people like more GP points. Same will happen if we base it on SD. That’s just match directors responding to their constituencies desires. Distributions become biased.
In GP2, since neither average or SD offered a GP points benefit, they naturally gravitated toward a more random distribution.
Trying not to be biased here, but GP2 was superior to the others (GP1 and GP3).
Both are good for measuring normal distributions, but as soon as we base scores on the average Troyer, average Troyer will trend up, because people like more GP points. Same will happen if we base it on SD. That’s just match directors responding to their constituencies desires. Distributions become biased.
In GP2, since neither average or SD offered a GP points benefit, they naturally gravitated toward a more random distribution.
Trying not to be biased here, but GP2 was superior to the others (GP1 and GP3).
Upvote 0
It's not difficult to rig the standard deviation. For a 60 shot course, just set 3 targets super easy (1.5KZ at 10 yds) and 3 targets super hard (~50T). You'll have like a 9+ SD; every other target can remain a 36T.
If the Troyer difficulty is to remain part of the points calculation it has to have less weight applied to it. What is bothersome is a perfect score (120) on a 33T course is worse than missing 10 shots on a 36T course (score 110). In real life, do we believe a person will miss 10 shots more on a 36T course than on a 33T course?
Additionally, there is too much error in the Troyer calculation to say a 33T course somewhere is exactly equivalent to a 33T course somewhere else. There are factors not included or overweighted factors, all which make it not statistically accurate for comparison. This year's GP point calculation methodology seems to provide too much weight to the Troyer value. Assuming this will remain part of the GP point calc, the value needs to have its importance lowered in the equation. One way is to include a multiplier to reduce importance, like 0.8 * "avg difficulty / 36" . One way to help determine this is to derive the expected point difference for the top competitors, what they are predicted to score on a 33T course vs a 36T course (or any T course), and derive an appropriate weight so a significant number of missed shots on a 36T are not worth more than hits on a 33T.
A different way to address this is for the calc to replace the "avg difficulty / 36" portion of the calc with a substituted multiplier. Like, if course avg difficulty is less than 30, then use 0.87, if between 30 and 33, use 0.9, and if greater than 33 use 0.93. Using this method removes the incentives to create a hard course to manipulate GP points, and it removes the bonus point capture if someone makes a 36T and boosts it to a 46T because wind and such.
If the Troyer difficulty is to remain part of the points calculation it has to have less weight applied to it. What is bothersome is a perfect score (120) on a 33T course is worse than missing 10 shots on a 36T course (score 110). In real life, do we believe a person will miss 10 shots more on a 36T course than on a 33T course?
Additionally, there is too much error in the Troyer calculation to say a 33T course somewhere is exactly equivalent to a 33T course somewhere else. There are factors not included or overweighted factors, all which make it not statistically accurate for comparison. This year's GP point calculation methodology seems to provide too much weight to the Troyer value. Assuming this will remain part of the GP point calc, the value needs to have its importance lowered in the equation. One way is to include a multiplier to reduce importance, like 0.8 * "avg difficulty / 36" . One way to help determine this is to derive the expected point difference for the top competitors, what they are predicted to score on a 33T course vs a 36T course (or any T course), and derive an appropriate weight so a significant number of missed shots on a 36T are not worth more than hits on a 33T.
A different way to address this is for the calc to replace the "avg difficulty / 36" portion of the calc with a substituted multiplier. Like, if course avg difficulty is less than 30, then use 0.87, if between 30 and 33, use 0.9, and if greater than 33 use 0.93. Using this method removes the incentives to create a hard course to manipulate GP points, and it removes the bonus point capture if someone makes a 36T and boosts it to a 46T because wind and such.
Upvote 0
There is a lot of thought going on here and most of it seems rational. To me shooting a number of GP's to determine the National GP Champion is one thing. Attending a two day National and winning your class is difference because you scored the highest scores over two days on the same lanes as your class and competition did. All shots were as close to equal as possible. This leads me to think this winner of their class is the real National Champion and not to be compared to the GP events even though the National can be counted in the GP roundup. Sometime even the GP Champion will win the National but sometimes they don't. More often than not unless its close they won't attend.
Another Thought, GP's can be a burden on your wallet. I favor the local GP's and only a two day GP's to lower attendance expenses. Fit the pistol match in on Saturday afternoon like a few clubs do and save shooters having to lose a days pay as well as the cost of a extra night lodging. That alone could increase GP attendance. JMO
Another Thought, GP's can be a burden on your wallet. I favor the local GP's and only a two day GP's to lower attendance expenses. Fit the pistol match in on Saturday afternoon like a few clubs do and save shooters having to lose a days pay as well as the cost of a extra night lodging. That alone could increase GP attendance. JMO
Upvote 0
Agree overall .. but the Pistol thing sorta ?
Pending time of year & place the Saturday afternoons post lunch & chilling after a lengthy morning shoot can be for many a deal breaker in willingness to also add pistol to the weekends shooting if a afternoon Saturday pistol shoot burns them out physically or mentally ... that's not good.
Out west the general texture of "Pistol" is viewed as "Meh" by many and not taken too serious, tho some very much so.
As such when MD's have asked, Pre weekend fridays seem to get the nod as most serious in the FT game that also shoot pistol are on site by early friday afternoons.
Regional perhaps ??
Upvote 0