but…negative numbers always seems to be confusing to
us average folks.
Is there a way to use just zeros & positive 1′s to score RPG contest?
–
Crusader
10
Feb
RPG-Probably Too Late
"Crusader" <cr…@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40_8d.80166$He1.72366@attbi_s01…
> but…negative numbers always seems to be confusing to
> us average folks.
> Is there a way to use just zeros & positive 1′s to score RPG contest?
Not exactly, unless I limit you to 5 picks and 5 picks only. The way I have
it now, if you’re brave, you can make 7 or 10 picks and try to make up
points on your competitor. At your peril — as we see, on average, people
get more wrong than right.
-Russ.
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:56:50 CST, "Somebody"
<someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
>Not exactly, unless I limit you to 5 picks and 5 picks only. The way I have
>it now, if you’re brave, you can make 7 or 10 picks and try to make up
>points on your competitor. At your peril — as we see, on average, people
>get more wrong than right.
You could convert to a decimal system as in baseball for
next season:
1 / 5 = .200
2 / 5 = .400
3 / 5 = .600
Your spreadsheet could do the math.
It’s probably too late to convert to a decimal system this year.
Marty
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in message
news:gpb9m0dn4roj24l0c5vca60nvp8cilvj70@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:56:50 CST, "Somebody"
> <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
> >Not exactly, unless I limit you to 5 picks and 5 picks only. The way I
have
> >it now, if you’re brave, you can make 7 or 10 picks and try to make up
> >points on your competitor. At your peril — as we see, on average,
people
> >get more wrong than right.
> You could convert to a decimal system as in baseball for
> next season:
> 1 / 5 = .200
> 2 / 5 = .400
> 3 / 5 = .600
> Your spreadsheet could do the math.
> It’s probably too late to convert to a decimal system this year.
> Marty
Maybe, but that still doesn’t let people leap ahead if they are bold enough
and skilled enough to make a large number of correct predictions. Perhaps
I’m the only one that thinks that’s a cool feature, because it is after all
pretty dangerous.
-Russ.
On 7 Oct 2004 12:55:01 GMT, "Somebody"
<someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
>Maybe, but that still doesn’t let people leap ahead if they are bold enough
>and skilled enough to make a large number of correct predictions.
The people who are right most often will have the best batting
percentage, even if it is in the second or third decimal that
their success puts them ahead of others.
If you want to keep the "big leap forward," you just score
some guesses as 5/1 (5 points for 1 guess).
>Perhaps
>I’m the only one that thinks that’s a cool feature, because it is after all
>pretty dangerous.
It’s true that being in the plus range is a whole lot more
satisfying than dwelling down in the negative dungeon.
But mathematically, the two systems are identical:
winners will be at the top of the list and losers at
the bottom. ;o)
Marty
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in message
news:abmam0h6dcv6f77s4igatbvms5ron41a0j@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On 7 Oct 2004 12:55:01 GMT, "Somebody"
> <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
> >Maybe, but that still doesn’t let people leap ahead if they are bold
enough
> >and skilled enough to make a large number of correct predictions.
> The people who are right most often will have the best batting
> percentage, even if it is in the second or third decimal that
> their success puts them ahead of others.
> If you want to keep the "big leap forward," you just score
> some guesses as 5/1 (5 points for 1 guess).
> >Perhaps
> >I’m the only one that thinks that’s a cool feature, because it is after
all
> >pretty dangerous.
> It’s true that being in the plus range is a whole lot more
> satisfying than dwelling down in the negative dungeon.
> But mathematically, the two systems are identical:
> winners will be at the top of the list and losers at
> the bottom. ;o)
How about I just at 50 points to everybody’s score?
-Russ.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Somebody wrote:
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in message
> news:gpb9m0dn4roj24l0c5vca60nvp8cilvj70@4ax.com…
>>On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:56:50 CST, "Somebody"
>><someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
>>>Not exactly, unless I limit you to 5 picks and 5 picks only. The way I
> have
>>>it now, if you’re brave, you can make 7 or 10 picks and try to make up
>>>points on your competitor. At your peril — as we see, on average,
> people
>>>get more wrong than right.
>>You could convert to a decimal system as in baseball for
>>next season:
>>1 / 5 = .200
>>2 / 5 = .400
>>3 / 5 = .600
>>Your spreadsheet could do the math.
>>It’s probably too late to convert to a decimal system this year.
>>Marty
> Maybe, but that still doesn’t let people leap ahead if they are bold enough
> and skilled enough to make a large number of correct predictions. Perhaps
> I’m the only one that thinks that’s a cool feature, because it is after all
> pretty dangerous.
> -Russ.
I like Russ’s system just as it is. It kind of reminds me of Jeopardy ,
where there is also no Zero point — if you answer it correctly, it’s a
+, if you answer incorrectly, it is a – and $/points are taken away. If
you want a ZERO, don’t answer.
I know it can be confusing to try and score, but there is a simpler way
to do it: elimination. Just, mark each prediction with the appropriate
+1 or -1. Mark off any scores that cancel each other out. Add up
what’s left, THEN put on the appropriate +/-. It’s really not hard.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On 7 Oct 2004 12:55:01 GMT, "Somebody"
> <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
>>Maybe, but that still doesn’t let people leap ahead if they are bold enough
>>and skilled enough to make a large number of correct predictions.
> The people who are right most often will have the best batting
> percentage, even if it is in the second or third decimal that
> their success puts them ahead of others.
> If you want to keep the "big leap forward," you just score
> some guesses as 5/1 (5 points for 1 guess).
>>Perhaps
>>I’m the only one that thinks that’s a cool feature, because it is after all
>>pretty dangerous.
> It’s true that being in the plus range is a whole lot more
> satisfying than dwelling down in the negative dungeon.
> But mathematically, the two systems are identical:
> winners will be at the top of the list and losers at
> the bottom. ;o)
> Marty
Please, no baseball stats. Not all of us understand how that works.
Russ’s original system is just basic math. We should have learned it in
6th grade. I stand by the old adage KISS — keep it simple, stupid.
Legal disclaimer: Poster denies any allegations of referring to other
posters as stupid. The desire to use a different scoring system does
not make one stupid. Poster is not responsible for anyone feeling
stupid because of this post. See Charter for details.
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:42:24 CST, Cindy Murray <cind…@comcast.net>
wrote:
> … Legal disclaimer: Poster denies any allegations of referring to other
>posters as stupid. The desire to use a different scoring system does
>not make one stupid. Poster is not responsible for anyone feeling
>stupid because of this post. See Charter for details.
That’s why I prefer the original K.I.S.S. slogan, from Curtis
Aircraft here in Buffalo early in the 20th century:
"Keep It Super Simple." ;o)
Marty
"Somebody" <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote
> Maybe, but that still doesn’t let people leap ahead if they are bold enough
> and skilled enough to make a large number of correct predictions. Perhaps
> I’m the only one that thinks that’s a cool feature, because it is after all
> pretty dangerous.
Nope, you’re not the only one. I don’t mind the negative numbers. In
fact, I think positive for right and negative for wrong makes perfect
sense. You can see at a glance how many more you got right than wrong
or vice versa.
And I definitely like the option of making more than five predictions
in an effort to catch up.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Cindy Murray" <cind…@comcast.net> wrote in message news:GGf9d.84745$He1.12361@attbi_s01…
> Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> > On 7 Oct 2004 12:55:01 GMT, "Somebody"
> > <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
> >>Maybe, but that still doesn’t let people leap ahead if they are bold enough
> >>and skilled enough to make a large number of correct predictions.
> > The people who are right most often will have the best batting
> > percentage, even if it is in the second or third decimal that
> > their success puts them ahead of others.
> > If you want to keep the "big leap forward," you just score
> > some guesses as 5/1 (5 points for 1 guess).
> >>Perhaps
> >>I’m the only one that thinks that’s a cool feature, because it is after all
> >>pretty dangerous.
> > It’s true that being in the plus range is a whole lot more
> > satisfying than dwelling down in the negative dungeon.
> > But mathematically, the two systems are identical:
> > winners will be at the top of the list and losers at
> > the bottom. ;o)
> > Marty
> Please, no baseball stats. Not all of us understand how that works.
> Russ’s original system is just basic math. We should have learned it in
> 6th grade. I stand by the old adage KISS — keep it simple, stupid.
> Legal disclaimer: Poster denies any allegations of referring to other
> posters as stupid. The desire to use a different scoring system does
> not make one stupid. Poster is not responsible for anyone feeling
> stupid because of this post. See Charter for details.
Hey, i resemble that remark
I just suggested this cuz it seems so many were having trouble with
‘basic math’. And–’they’ say there is no stupid question, right?
CRU-feelings