Points Based Schedule Question

[davem]

I have just moved, and the new race my kids will be participating in (and I will be scheduling / running the computer for) is points based.

I'm experience with Grand Prix Race Manager s/w (good stuff Randy!) using times...but, alas, the new track has only place indicators, not a timer.

For ~50 racers, 4 lane track using points, I am thinking of a PN with 1 run per lane to identify the top 7.

Then running a PN with 2 runs per lane for the finals (based on Stan's posts and web site (more good stuff Stan!).

I have been running some test race scenarios and have some questions.
IF - the 1st round only identifies 7 racers (no ties) to move to the finals, should I switch to a 3 lane PN schedule (2 runs per lane)?

IF - there are more than 7 racers (due to point ties), should I advance all racers tied for the last slots?

IF - we advance more than 7 racers (due to point ties), should we stick with 4 lanes?

IF - there is a tie for 1st in the Grand Finals...do a runoff?

Some scenarios coming up in testing are:
3 way tie for 1st + 5 way tie for 2nd = 8 cars.
4 way tie for 1st + 5 way tie for 2nd = 9 cars.

[gpraceman]

Since you are running GPRM, here is our suggested race format http://grandprix-software-central.com/g ... ormat.html.

In terms of ties. The best way to deal with ties is to try to prevent them in the first place. Increasing the amount of racing by increasing the number of runs per lane will decrease the odds of having a tie. If you can at least run twice per lane in the first round, that will help.

If you have ties going into the Grand Finals round, I would just advance the extra racer(s). If you only want a CPN chart with 7 racers for that round, then you would have to do a tiebreaker to determine the 7 to advance. Version 6 gives you the option of using tiebreaker rules to break the tie without having to do a runoff (in many cases).

[Stan Pope]

IF - there are more than 7 racers (due to point ties), should I advance all racers tied for the last slots?

IF - we advance more than 7 racers (due to point ties), should we stick with 4 lanes?

IF - there is a tie for 1st in the Grand Finals...do a runoff?

Thank you for the kind comments.

For finals you really want either a PN or CPN chart. 8 or 9 or 10 racers on a 3 or 4 lane track leads to PPN chart. Avoid that for finals. A many-way tie for 7th suggests that the cars involved are not serious contenders for 1st-4th so it would be better to run the top 6 in a 7-car chart (with a bye) than to run a PPN chart with 8 or more.

Where you have 5th or 6th involved in a tie with 8th+, then do try to break the tie and reduce the number of cars to 7. Or see if you have a "clear cut top 13" cars. If so, then run a 13-car CPN chart for finals! But discuss this ahead of time so that everyone is clear on the conditions.

A CPN tie for 1st in the finals can produce either a runoff or just award duplicate trophies. The tie suggests that the cars are more evenly matched than the lanes. So, if you do a runoff, it will probably be determined by who gets the lane advantage or who makes the first mistake. Dupe trophies is better, I think!

[davem]

Thanks Randy and Stan. Excellent advice.

The racing coordinator's main concern is time since the race is held on a Wednesday night.

So for this year, it looks like the best approach is to run a 1 run per lane initial round to identify the top 7. In the event of a tie for 7th place, we will implement a tie-breaker to limit the trophy round to 7 cars.

Then run the trophy round with 7 cars, 4 lanes, 2 runs per lane.
When I showed the coordinators the lane and opponent matrix of this setup, they easily perceived the benefits of "more runs for each racer" and "fairness".

In the event of a tie for 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the finals, we'll award duplicate trophies.

Next year, we'll try to move to a Saturday race, to give the proper time for a 2 run per lane inital round. One step at a time! These guys are making a big change moving from double elim this year.

Thanks again for the help.
Just when I thought I had this race coordination thing down....you learn something new!

[Stan Pope]

Sounds like a winner, Dave.

On the subject of duplicate trophies, there are two schools of thought:

One is the "mathematicians" school: If you are giving trophies for 1st through 3rd and there is a tie for first, then you actually award two 1st's and a 3rd.

The other is the "rah rah" school: If you are giving trophies for 1st through 3rd and there is a tie for first, then you actually award two 1st's, a 2nd, and a 3rd.

The mathematician's ragionale is that the first place tie is actually a tie for first and second place. The 3rd place trophy should go to the 3rd ranked participant.

The "rah rah" school sees it as an opportunity to give more recognition!

Either way works for me in your pack. But if you have 4 spots to fill in the district race, don't try to send 5 boys because you had a 2-way tie for 1st! And if it were a tie for 4th, then you can give multiple trophies, but you MUST break the tie for representation!

[Mr. Slick]

Except in the district I belong with.

Here they understand that things happen and that if the Pack has difficulties selecting the top 5 scouts and they have 6 instead, we say that they can send 6.

One more boy having fun won't hurt the program and the difference between 150 and 175 (an extra boy per unit) won't really hurt the "selectivity" of the event which really helps maximize the participation.

[Stan Pope]

MS,

Your point is well taken! Here is the other side.

I think that part of the "hard nosed" logic comes from the desire to avoid the possibility of a "sweep" by any one pack, justified or not. So, we accept 4 for each grade and award 5 place trophies. A sweep is normally a low probability event, but we have had some close calls in the past. I was responsible for one a few years ago when I offered to help each representative tune his car's alignment between the pack race and the district race. No rework, just alignment! Didn't do that again! Decided only to teach 'em, not do the work for 'em!

I read of a group (not a Scout group) where the members pooled their talent (mostly one person's talents, I think) and built cars for all the members. Their team results were impressive on the score card, but it sadly did not represent the abilities of the individual team members.

[Mr. Slick]

We have 10 trophies for Cubs and another 10 for the Tigers.

I hold workshops most Sunday afternoons and that has really leveled the playing field amongst packs. My theme is "There shall be no secrets, just effort level and skill differences."

[Stan Pope]

So you allow 5 (or 6, if pressed) from each pack to compete for the 10 Cub trophies. (Not sure what grades that represents. Wolf, Bear, WebI, and Web2?) And another 5 (or 6, if pressed) Tigers from each pack to compete for the 10 Tiger trophies. Is that a total of 10 (or 12, if pressed) per pack competing for 20 trophies?

I can understand opening the numbers up! You may be too selective to max the participation.

Contrast that plan to the 4 per grade per pack competing for 5 trophies for each grade, i.e. up to 20 per pack competing for 25 racing trophies spread across 5 age groups.

What we have in common is that the numbers prevent a sweep.

[Mr. Slick]

I hope to move to a grade based entry system. I have managed to get the Tigers in as a special grade as of now. For next year I'm going to aim for opening it up to the top 3 from each grade level for each unit.

[Stan Pope]

I hope to move to a grade based entry system. I have managed to get the Tigers in as a special grade as of now. For next year I'm going to aim for opening it up to the top 3 from each grade level for each unit.

Way to go!!!

[davem]

Update on the race.

46 cars raced.
Round 1 ended up with a 4 way tie for 1st and a 3 way tie for 2nd (or 5th).

We advanced these 7 for a CPN with 2 runs per lane. Everyone was very satisfied with the results.

I have always had a slight bias towards time based racing (throwing out worst time and summing the remainder). However, I have seen many races decided by .003 seconds (sum of 4 heats). Additionally, the past few years I have run timed races, several parents want to see the details of each heat for their cars after the race.

We did not have anyone question the results of this last race.
It is crystal clear which car wins each heat and this adds a higher perception of fairness to the race.

The only disadvantage (I can see) of the points based scoring is additional round(s) required to break ties. It added 15 minutes to the race.
Not even an issue in this case because folks were used to manually charted DE with half the heats in twice the time.

Thanks again for everyones input.

[Stan Pope]

Update on the race.
...
We did not have anyone question the results of this last race.
It is crystal clear which car wins each heat and this adds a higher perception of fairness to the race.
...
Thanks again for everyones input.

Thank you for the evaluation.

Your comment on "perception of fairness" I have expressed in the past as "spectators (parents) can confirm the correctness of the result from their own direct observation." They don't have to believe a computer or a timer.

Several of us disagree about the exact definitions of fairness, accuracy and auditability. I place your comment as relating to the auditability of the process.