discuss randomization here

[Cody]

Split from the Harvard Fall discussion. --Mgmt.

And just a note on randomization: We took the answerlines for each round as a list and put it through the list randomizer on random.org so unless there's something wrong with the pseudorandom number generator that website uses, I'm just going to say that our packets were truly random.

This is a common misconception about randomization. Nobody (at least, nobody I've ever talked to) actually wants packets to be truly random, since that results in clustering of categories. They want random with certain sanity checks (no two lit/science/history tossups next to each other, for instance, or not having close subdistributions of literature and history together, or even, on the packet level, not having 4 classics tossups a round).

I have nothing to say wrt difficulty as I haven't seen the set, but the stats are pretty encouraging.

[Excelsior (smack)]

Nobody (at least, nobody I've ever talked to) actually wants packets to be truly random, since that results in clustering of categories.

I do not understand the randomization complaints. If the order is truly random, why does it matter that there are three science questions in a row? You're going to hear all three of those questions at some point throughout the round, and I'm going to guess that 99% of teams aren't going to be making strategic substitutions (though even if you were you can just keep track of what's coming up). Random questions fall where they do, I don't see any reason to hand-randomize them.

I feel like somebody else involved in the production of MAGNI (Auroni? Matt?) had similar opinions. So, you know, people like that do exist.

(this is non-germane to HFT and should perhaps be split off.)

[Cody]

There is often a difference in what people say when playing tournaments and when producing them. (Not to imply that Jerry's opinion would change, as I doubt it would). Perhaps I was a bit too strong with "no one," but certainly the vast majority of people who comment on such a thing really hate clustering of categories.

(I'll note I usually don't mind too much [classics bowl being a prominent exception, but that isn't related to in-packet distribution], but Evan once wisely told me that since many players really hate it, it involves basically no extra work, and doesn't detract from anyone else's playing experience, one would be smart to distribute more fairly to improve their playing experience)

[Cheynem]

I typically do a bit of real randomization and then double check to make sure that aesthetic bugaboos don't come up (like all science tossups in the first seven questions or the last tossup being trash). There are also genuine game issues that should probably be checked (if both tossup 1 and bonus 1 are of the same category, for example, or if the majority of the history bonuses ended up being buried in the packet).

[Frater Taciturnus]

Split from the Harvard Fall discussion. --Mgmt.

And just a note on randomization: We took the answerlines for each round as a list and put it through the list randomizer on random.org so unless there's something wrong with the pseudorandom number generator that website uses, I'm just going to say that our packets were truly random.

This is a common misconception about randomization. Nobody (at least, nobody I've ever talked to) actually wants packets to be truly random, since that results in clustering of categories. They want random with certain sanity checks (no two lit/science/history tossups next to each other, for instance, or not having close subdistributions of literature and history together, or even, on the packet level, not having 4 classics tossups a round).

I have nothing to say wrt difficulty as I haven't seen the set, but the stats are pretty encouraging.

How many times do I have to tell you that is exactly what I want before you consider me to be "a person you have talked to?" The only "check" that I think should always happen is controls on what categories fall in the first 20/20. Outside of that I don't really care if all four science tossups end up in a row as long as the random order uses a consistent method across the tournament.

[theMoMA]

Do most people really use some kind of external randomization? I just try to paste in the questions so that the halves are roughly equivalent (mainly trying to avoid four big-three-category tossups in either half), then run through the tossups and bonuses to make sure that there aren't any weird clusters and whatnot. I guess I don't know what other methods people use, other than Jerry (who has said that he actually uses randomized packet orders, which is fine by me but seems unnecessary and isn't what I'd personally choose to do as an editor).

[Auroni]

I use random.org and then move things around to break clumps of categories. I don't really have a problem with "true randomization" per se, but I'll take the additional step if people are that opposed to aggregates since it's not that much extra work.

[Whiter Hydra]

if the majority of the history bonuses ended up being buried in the packet

I do agree that bonuses should be more evenly distributed. All 20 tossups will be read; the same can't be said for the bonuses.

[Ondes Martenot]

So when I wrote BATE 2 (and maybe I did the same for the first BATE but I honestly don't remember) I made a template so that every five questions would have one question from each of the big 3. I made four such templates which I repeated three times over the 12 rounds of the tournament. No one seemed to notice or care that the ordering of the questions would repeat every four rounds but this "randomization" (which was not really random at all) seemed to work fine.

[marnold]

So when I wrote BATE 2 (and maybe I did the same for the first BATE but I honestly don't remember) I made a template so that every five questions would have one question from each of the big 3. I made four such templates which I repeated three times over the 12 rounds of the tournament. No one seemed to notice or care that the ordering of the questions would repeat every four rounds but this "randomization" (which was not really random at all) seemed to work fine.

This seems like by far the easiest method. All the CO Trashes I assistant- or head-edited did this and I'm pretty sure Andrew did this for other tournaments he edited too.

[vcuEvan]

So when I wrote BATE 2 (and maybe I did the same for the first BATE but I honestly don't remember) I made a template so that every five questions would have one question from each of the big 3. I made four such templates which I repeated three times over the 12 rounds of the tournament. No one seemed to notice or care that the ordering of the questions would repeat every four rounds but this "randomization" (which was not really random at all) seemed to work fine.

This is basically what I did for VCU Open. (I also put trash questions in the first 10). While rational actors don't care when there are two science questions in a row, quizbowl players are not particularly rational. In fact I've never heard a category repeated without someone complaining about it. Since evenly distributing questions is pretty easy to do and seems to improve the playing experience over simple randomization, I'd recommend it.

[grapesmoker]

Outside of moving a few bonuses around so that you don't consistently end up with the same category towards the end (and thus potentially unheard) I don't see any reason not to go with straight-up randomization. I mean, you should do whatever you like to do, but complaining about it is completely pointless, since you don't know what's coming next anyway and it wouldn't change anything if you did.

[Auks Ran Ova]

So when I wrote BATE 2 (and maybe I did the same for the first BATE but I honestly don't remember) I made a template so that every five questions would have one question from each of the big 3. I made four such templates which I repeated three times over the 12 rounds of the tournament. No one seemed to notice or care that the ordering of the questions would repeat every four rounds but this "randomization" (which was not really random at all) seemed to work fine.

This is basically what I did for VCU Open. (I also put trash questions in the first 10). While rational actors don't care when there are two science questions in a row, quizbowl players are not particularly rational. In fact I've never heard a category repeated without someone complaining about it. Since evenly distributing questions is pretty easy to do and seems to improve the playing experience over simple randomization, I'd recommend it.

This has always been my philosophy as well.

[Whiter Hydra]

Does momentum have an influence over how a match goes? I'm wondering if packing science questions early would help a science-heavy team simply because they start the game with more momentum.

[Kilroy Was Here]

Does momentum have an influence over how a match goes? I'm wondering if packing science questions early would help a science-heavy team simply because they start the game with more momentum.

In my personal experience, getting a few tossups in a row will make me more agressive, which if things go well leads to earlier correct buzzes. With that in mind I'd say momentum is a real factor.

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

What has impressed me most about watching extremely high level quizbowl (i.e., the finals of ACF Nationals or Chicago Open), is how little teams let themselves become affected by momentum. If a team is down 110 points after Tossup 15, they remain calm, calculating, and above all, still convinced that they could win. I suppose that any team that is in that kind of final has scored 115 unanswered points over the course of 5 tossups (if not more), and that experience helps keep them grounded.

But most games are not played between two extremely high level teams.

[No Rules Westbrook]

I have always done absolutely all question placement by hand. I don't think it takes that long (compared to how long everything else in editing takes), unless you're doing a massive tournament with more than 20 packets or something.

I don't think momentum is that big of a deal, but I do like the packet to look aesthetically pleasing - certainly adds to the polish of a tournament, and the feel of consistency in a set.

Most importantly, I deliberately place my favorite tossups into the 18-19-20 slots in the packet. Similarly, I'll move a bonus that I'm not wild about back to bonus 20 (especially if it's a hard set and I doubt every tu will be converted) Everyone remembers the last few tossups in a good game - and noone wants them to be the worst tossups in the packet (or the most "bleh" tossups in the packet - as in "bleh, another flippin tossup on this?, oh I guess it's fine"). If not just for pure entertainment value, why not take the time to do that?

[DumbJaques]

I have always done absolutely all question placement by hand. I don't think it takes that long (compared to how long everything else in editing takes), unless you're doing a massive tournament with more than 20 packets or something.

I don't think momentum is that big of a deal, but I do like the packet to look aesthetically pleasing - certainly adds to the polish of a tournament, and the feel of consistency in a set.

Most importantly, I deliberately place my favorite tossups into the 18-19-20 slots in the packet. Similarly, I'll move a bonus that I'm not wild about back to bonus 20 (especially if it's a hard set and I doubt every tu will be converted) Everyone remembers the last few tossups in a good game - and noone wants them to be the worst tossups in the packet (or the most "bleh" tossups in the packet - as in "bleh, another flippin tossup on this?, oh I guess it's fine"). If not just for pure entertainment value, why not take the time to do that?

Further adding to my suspicion that I am an avatar of Ryan Westbrook's hate and despair, I also do this and believe in it very strongly. I also try to make sure that you get a good alternation of answerline difficulties. Not necessarily hard-easy-hard-easy, etc., but enough to make sure that the hardest questions are distributed somewhat evenly.

Really, I've never understood randomization - constructing a set is such an intrinsically creative process, I couldn't imagine not wanting to shape the flow of the questions as well. You're not just putting questions in front of players, you're creating an experience for them, leading them down a path you've set out. Probably like an emotionally-draining, nightmareish hellscape of impossible shit, yeah, but definitely a path.

[Steeve Ho You Fat]

What do people think about the placement of tiebreakers? I've always thought that tiebreakers should be easy answerlines so that they're almost guaranteed to have 100% conversion, just because you're in trouble if you only have 1 tiebreaker in a packet and it dies.

[Auroni]

What do people think about the placement of tiebreakers? I've always thought that tiebreakers should be easy answerlines so that they're almost guaranteed to have 100% conversion, just because you're in trouble if you only have 1 tiebreaker in a packet and it dies.

This is the policy that we used for MAGNI. I try to do it every time I have a say in determining tiebreakers.

[dtaylor4]

What do people think about the placement of tiebreakers? I've always thought that tiebreakers should be easy answerlines so that they're almost guaranteed to have 100% conversion, just because you're in trouble if you only have 1 tiebreaker in a packet and it dies.

This is the policy that we used for MAGNI. I try to do it every time I have a say in determining tiebreakers.

This cannot be stated enough. The tiebreaker is there to break the tie. If you can't almost guaran-damn-tee that it's going to break a fucking tie, don't put it there.