That doesn't really work either when there is only two or three in a class, but you could do it with all Piston classes and all PCP classes being combined to those sub groups when not enough competitors.
Upvote 0
AAFTA GP course optimization
- Thread starter Scotchmo
- Start date
Remember, the best way to "game the system" is *to shoot well*. Be successful on all your shots.
Gaming the system before the recent change was as simple as:
The GP point accumulation system changed, not the game.
Now, in this new system, you just get rewarded if it's harder. You get rewarded on your merits, not as a fraction of others that day. That's the bigger picture of the GP system as a whole. Don't get me wrong, having the barometer of others to set the curve has its advantages, but be mindful that it was gaming the system as well.
We shouldn't succumb to reactive devaluation biases. Just because something differs from what was done before doesn't mean it's wrong.
Gaming the system before the recent change was as simple as:
- Having a nice and small GP that there weren't many good shooters attending in the class that you were competing in and scoring higher than all other classes and hoping that you, as the best shooter that day, didn't have much competition at that match.
- Then make the course as easy as possible. Boom 100% or pretty darn close. And still, if you didn't win, the easy course gave you an advantage because you were probably not too far behind the best shooter percentage-wise.
- If you attended big GPs, with many good shooters in classes other than your own, you were at a significant disadvantage. God forbid if you were a springer.
- Essentially have a minimum-attended GPs with all newbies and rookies, especially in other classes. Then shoot better than them in your class.
The GP point accumulation system changed, not the game.
Now, in this new system, you just get rewarded if it's harder. You get rewarded on your merits, not as a fraction of others that day. That's the bigger picture of the GP system as a whole. Don't get me wrong, having the barometer of others to set the curve has its advantages, but be mindful that it was gaming the system as well.
We shouldn't succumb to reactive devaluation biases. Just because something differs from what was done before doesn't mean it's wrong.
Upvote 0
In this new system, you get rewarded for a high Troyer average., not for being “harder”.
Course A has a 30T average with lots of 20T and 40T targets.
Course B has a 36T average with lots of 34T and 38T targets.
Which course is harder?
Doesn’t really matter at this point. We have a new system, so we deal with it.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It looks like this issue bubbled to the surface because of the Sonoran GP. The match report says the course was 33.8T before environmental conditions, but ended up as 41.46T after only factoring in wind. I ran a couple of simulations and the only way to get that large of an increase is if you add wind to every or nearly every target. The match report also says that they had "pretty consistent winds ranging from 4-6 mph and gusting to about 10 mph". No way that 4-6 mph consistent wind deserves to be added to targets under 30 yards. Applied appropriately, the course should have been in the 37-38 T range which would bring their "bonus" points down out of the stratosphere. Obviously a very flawed formula that appears may have to been manipulated and/or exploited at this match. In my opinion, it completely invalidates the awards for this year and they should go down in the books with a big asterisk next to it.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I would disagree. A 12fpe rifle and a 33.8T 3/8” target (12.7yds) only needs a 4mph wind before a partial split starts. Unless the wind is accounted for, a 10mph gust is a complete miss. Since there is no way of knowing who had to deal with the gusts and who didn’t, the multiplier for wind difficulty should be applied for all.
I’m not defending the new scoring method, just stating that if we are going to use the new method, any wind should always be accounted for when submitting results.
“…Obviously a very flawed formula…”
I agree with you there.
Upvote 0
Again "exploit" is not the right term.
THERE ARE NO RULES FOR WHEN TO CHECK OR NOT CHECK WIND OR ELEVATION
There needs to be some kind of a sliding scale if the new system is used for next year.
Actually a 3/4" kill zone at 20-30 yards has to be at least hedged, if not held on the edge of with a 4mph cross wind. So, any match director could easily check the box if holding for wind was required at all. Especially if there are no hard and fast rules of where wind should be checked.
At the Sonoran GP the wind was cross at times and switched a lot to quartering a lot as well. It was difficult to decide whether to hedge or not on less than 30 shots. There was even 1/2" at 22 yards you had to hold off for, and you for sure had to be out of the KZ for 35 and out unless the wind switched and caught you holding off. The wind made almost all targets a challenge in my opinion.
You are right that there is a point on all targets where hedging is so little as to not matter in most wind, but not all winds..
AND, unfortunately, the wind usually changes hour to hour and competitors ALL do not have to shoot in the same wind at different times of day... at some point you take the luck of the draw and do your best. The Grand Prix project was all about getting competitors to travel and test themselves at different courses. I know I was on that committee. For sure, the BOG and hopefully, now the clubs will work out something better than this effort and keep trying to score the competitors as fair as possible with the main goal in tact of getting folks to travel, meet each other and have fun competing.
And asterisk IS in order for this years GP scores, I totally agree with that. But, for a different reason.
ALL the match directors were not informed before the season, how important a high troyer course set where or when environmental factors were present was to the success for the competitors attending in the Grand Prix scoring system this year.
And that was not intentional by the BOG, there is no conspiracy in my humble opinion. I think the BOG just didn't have the time to really test out the new system and assumed it would work. On paper it probably made sense, just not real life across the country as it turns out..
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Looking back at my statements, I agree that exploit and manipulation were overly harsh choice of words. I'm sure the volunteers running that event were doing what they felt was right with no ill intent. Though I still hold the opinion that they were heavy handed in the application of wind to every target (I'm sure there had to have been at least half a dozen that were 20-25 yards and under that could have and likely should have been spared from the Troyer adjustment. And as you alluded to, the opinion on wind, darkness, and angle are very subjective and most likely interpreted differently across the country, from MD to MD. Another reason I feel that there has to be a better formula that doesn't rely on such subjective observations. Even if a MD based those on what they experienced on a lane, that doesn't mean someone earlier or later had vastly different conditions. Probably why I shy away from applying any of those factors. I do feel that the Troyer rating before environmental conditions, though not perfect, better represents the difficulty without the presence of extremes.
I also agree that the formula wasn't designed with a conspiracy in mind, it just was flawed and rushed into existence without proper testing.
Upvote 0
The ONLY added factors I added to any lanes at the Sherwood AAFTA GP were extreme angles that were measured. No wind, lighting factors that in my opinion are VERY subjective and vary from lane to lane at different times during a match. Obviously the GP points would have been extremely different if I added those factors into every lane. I have a big problem adding subjective factors into a Troyer scale just to make your course appear harder so participants get more GP points. It appears that game is being played now days.
Upvote 0
I think I spent enough time covering how to optimize a course for GP points under the current rules.
I came up with the GP points method that was used for the prior eight years. Not perfect, but good, simple, elegant, with a built in feedback loop. More akin to an autopilot. In contrast, the new system needs instruction, and then vigilance by the match directors to insure any kind of equality of available GP points.
I don’t know who to thank (blame?) for suggesting the current version. Bill Day maybe? Maybe whoever will own up to it.
The Troyer does not have the “granularity” to correctly weight the environmental factors. And the average is a poor measure of what targets are missed. It’s the few hardest targets that cause most misses, not the average targets. Sorry, it’s just not a good way to do it.
Seems that some did not like the prior version because they didn’t like being compared to other classes. Well, you weren’t. The top shooter’s hit rate was used to gage the difficulty of the course, that’s it. Your scores are only compared against others in your class.
Don’t like a system using the top score to set the standard? Then they could have revised the GP points system to use the second place shooter, or average of the top three shooters, or top five shooters, or top 50% of shooters. It doesn’t really matter. Any of those baselines are better than using the Troyer average. I’m not biased, I’m right.
I came up with the GP points method that was used for the prior eight years. Not perfect, but good, simple, elegant, with a built in feedback loop. More akin to an autopilot. In contrast, the new system needs instruction, and then vigilance by the match directors to insure any kind of equality of available GP points.
I don’t know who to thank (blame?) for suggesting the current version. Bill Day maybe? Maybe whoever will own up to it.
The Troyer does not have the “granularity” to correctly weight the environmental factors. And the average is a poor measure of what targets are missed. It’s the few hardest targets that cause most misses, not the average targets. Sorry, it’s just not a good way to do it.
Seems that some did not like the prior version because they didn’t like being compared to other classes. Well, you weren’t. The top shooter’s hit rate was used to gage the difficulty of the course, that’s it. Your scores are only compared against others in your class.
Don’t like a system using the top score to set the standard? Then they could have revised the GP points system to use the second place shooter, or average of the top three shooters, or top five shooters, or top 50% of shooters. It doesn’t really matter. Any of those baselines are better than using the Troyer average. I’m not biased, I’m right.
Last edited:
Upvote 0