NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
Locked
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5516
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Post by Important Bird Area » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:28 pm

RountreeCHS wrote: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.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Post by Mechanical Beasts » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:46 pm

bt_green_warbler wrote:
RountreeCHS wrote: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.
Andrew Watkins

User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Re: NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:44 am

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).
Matt Morrison, William & Mary '10, Tour Guide &c., MA in History '12?

"All the cool people eat mangoes while they smoke blunts and do cannonballs off a trampoline into my hot tub..."
-Matt Weiner

“In beer there is strength,
In wine is wisdom,
In water is germs.”
-Unknown

new email: mpmorr at email dot wm dot edu

User avatar
rjaguar3
Rikku
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:39 am

Re: NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Post by rjaguar3 » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:41 pm

Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote: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.
Greg (Vanderbilt 2012, Wheaton North 2008)

User avatar
Haaaaaaaarry Whiiiiiiiiiite
Auron
Posts: 1133
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: Fairfax, VA
Contact:

Re: NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Post by Haaaaaaaarry Whiiiiiiiiiite » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:06 pm

rjaguar3 wrote:
Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote: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?
Harry White
TJHSST '09, Virginia Tech '13, PACE Member
Tournament Database Search
Quizbowl Schedule Generator
Will run stats for food

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Post by grapesmoker » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:08 pm

Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote: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?
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Re: NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:40 pm

grapesmoker wrote:
Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote: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 :aaa: , 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.
Matt Morrison, William & Mary '10, Tour Guide &c., MA in History '12?

"All the cool people eat mangoes while they smoke blunts and do cannonballs off a trampoline into my hot tub..."
-Matt Weiner

“In beer there is strength,
In wine is wisdom,
In water is germs.”
-Unknown

new email: mpmorr at email dot wm dot edu

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Post by grapesmoker » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:20 pm

Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote:...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 :aaa: , 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.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Rufous-capped Thornbill
Tidus
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:03 pm

Re: NAQT and balancing by set vs. balancing by round

Post by Rufous-capped Thornbill » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:47 pm

Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote:
grapesmoker wrote:
Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote: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 :aaa: , 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.
Jarret Greene
South Range '10 / Ohio State '13 / Vermont '17
Member, PACE

Locked