NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

[Important Bird Area]

Doesn't NAQT balance by the entire set and not by the individual round?

Starting a new thread to remind everyone that NAQT *does* balance individual rounds to the best of our ability. Yes, the top-level distribution is set per-tournament and not per-round (because we don't do packet submission). Yes, some categories will vary from one round to another (so when we have 7/7 myth in a 15-round IS set, some rounds will have a myth tossup and others won't, and one round will have no myth by the pigeonhole principle).

All that being said: we do, in fact, balance the individual rounds as well as we can. Here is a screenshot of our admin site showing the balance-by-round for the 2009 DI SCT.

[Mechanical Beasts]

Doesn't NAQT balance by the entire set and not by the individual round?

Starting a new thread to remind everyone that NAQT *does* balance individual rounds to the best of our ability. Yes, the top-level distribution is set per-tournament and not per-round (because we don't do packet submission). Yes, some categories will vary from one round to another (so when we have 7/7 myth in a 15-round IS set, some rounds will have a myth tossup and others won't, and one round will have no myth by the pigeonhole principle).

All that being said: we do, in fact, balance the individual rounds as well as we can. Here is a screenshot of our admin site showing the balance-by-round for the 2009 DI SCT.

Right, and the important element here (with respect to the North GA tournament that inspired this thread) is that you don't balance by the first sixteen questions any more than is inevitable with a decent randomizer trying to space out k [subject] tossups across n questions.

[Zip Zap Rap Pants]

Hey I had an idea the other day in practice. In order to quell balance complaints/NAQT rebellion somewhat, in the next tournament we host I was thinking we might read all 24 tu's if we do NAQT, then if there's overtime, do penalty kick style OT. Each team answers one 30-point bonus until there's a difference in the score afterwards, that way extra tossups don't have to be reserved for it (of course, an extra packet is nice to have on hand in case of TU replacement or more OT bonuses needed).

[rjaguar3]

Hey I had an idea the other day in practice. In order to quell balance complaints/NAQT rebellion somewhat, in the next tournament we host I was thinking we might read all 24 tu's if we do NAQT, then if there's overtime, do penalty kick style OT. Each team answers one 30-point bonus until there's a difference in the score afterwards, that way extra tossups don't have to be reserved for it (of course, an extra packet is nice to have on hand in case of TU replacement or more OT bonuses needed).

The inevitable problem is that all bonuses are not equal difficulty. This means that you're essentially determining the winner based on the luck of the draw of the bonuses without the opportunity to win the bonuses through correctly answering toss-ups.

[Haaaaaaaarry Whiiiiiiiiiite]

Hey I had an idea the other day in practice. In order to quell balance complaints/NAQT rebellion somewhat, in the next tournament we host I was thinking we might read all 24 tu's if we do NAQT, then if there's overtime, do penalty kick style OT. Each team answers one 30-point bonus until there's a difference in the score afterwards, that way extra tossups don't have to be reserved for it (of course, an extra packet is nice to have on hand in case of TU replacement or more OT bonuses needed).

The inevitable problem is that all bonuses are not equal difficulty. This means that you're essentially determining the winner based on the luck of the draw of the bonuses without the opportunity to win the bonuses through correctly answering toss-ups.

Plus, what if all the bonuses in the round have been read?

[grapesmoker]

Hey I had an idea the other day in practice. In order to quell balance complaints/NAQT rebellion somewhat, in the next tournament we host I was thinking we might read all 24 tu's if we do NAQT, then if there's overtime, do penalty kick style OT. Each team answers one 30-point bonus until there's a difference in the score afterwards, that way extra tossups don't have to be reserved for it (of course, an extra packet is nice to have on hand in case of TU replacement or more OT bonuses needed).

Are you high? Why don't you just run the tournament using normal rules instead of making things up as you go along?

[Zip Zap Rap Pants]

Hey I had an idea the other day in practice. In order to quell balance complaints/NAQT rebellion somewhat, in the next tournament we host I was thinking we might read all 24 tu's if we do NAQT, then if there's overtime, do penalty kick style OT. Each team answers one 30-point bonus until there's a difference in the score afterwards, that way extra tossups don't have to be reserved for it (of course, an extra packet is nice to have on hand in case of TU replacement or more OT bonuses needed).

Are you high? Why don't you just run the tournament using normal rules instead of making things up as you go along?

...so tossup/bonus tournaments that read more than 20 tu's are "making things up as they go along"? People seemed to enjoy Walter Johnson using 22 tossups in the past. NAQT going from one to three tossup overtime a couple years ago was "making things up as they go along" then right? Dude stop touching those uppers, they'll give you a bad temper.

Yeah I guess I forgot the main problem is NAQT has highly variable bonuses in difficulty, with such easy 30's as Napoleon I, Napoleon II, Napoleon III , then go from that to some of the more obscure computer science and it's a 10 point wall. Mainly I like the idea of reading the full packet for balance's sake.

[grapesmoker]

...so tossup/bonus tournaments that read more than 20 tu's are "making things up as they go along"? People seemed to enjoy Walter Johnson using 22 tossups in the past. NAQT going from one to three tossup overtime a couple years ago was "making things up as they go along" then right? Dude stop touching those uppers, they'll give you a bad temper.

Yeah I guess I forgot the main problem is NAQT has highly variable bonuses in difficulty, with such easy 30's as Napoleon I, Napoleon II, Napoleon III , then go from that to some of the more obscure computer science and it's a 10 point wall. Mainly I like the idea of reading the full packet for balance's sake.

No, you dolt, your idiotic "shootout" idea is "making things up." Why don't you just read one or two fewer tossups and save one or two for the tiebreaker, like every other normal tournament does?

But hey, whatever, don't let me stop you from ruining your own tournaments and adding to your stellar reputation as hosts.

[Rufous-capped Thornbill]

Hey I had an idea the other day in practice. In order to quell balance complaints/NAQT rebellion somewhat, in the next tournament we host I was thinking we might read all 24 tu's if we do NAQT, then if there's overtime, do penalty kick style OT. Each team answers one 30-point bonus until there's a difference in the score afterwards, that way extra tossups don't have to be reserved for it (of course, an extra packet is nice to have on hand in case of TU replacement or more OT bonuses needed).

Are you high? Why don't you just run the tournament using normal rules instead of making things up as you go along?

...so tossup/bonus tournaments that read more than 20 tu's are "making things up as they go along"? People seemed to enjoy Walter Johnson using 22 tossups in the past. NAQT going from one to three tossup overtime a couple years ago was "making things up as they go along" then right? Dude stop touching those uppers, they'll give you a bad temper.

Yeah I guess I forgot the main problem is NAQT has highly variable bonuses in difficulty, with such easy 30's as Napoleon I, Napoleon II, Napoleon III , then go from that to some of the more obscure computer science and it's a 10 point wall. Mainly I like the idea of reading the full packet for balance's sake.

Er...no.