ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Old college threads.
yoda4554
Rikku
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by yoda4554 »

I'm probably in for this too.
Dave Letzler--Williams '06, Temple '08, CUNY and bastard teams '12ish
User avatar
Maxwell Sniffingwell
Auron
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Maxwell Sniffingwell »

cornfused wrote:Yep.
Looks like I won't be at HSNCT, so I'm out.
Greg Peterson

Northwestern University '18
Lawrence University '11
Maine South HS '07

"a decent player" - Mike Cheyne
ulls66
Lulu
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:17 am

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by ulls66 »

I'd like to play in this.
Andrew Ullsperger
Unrestricted Free Agent
powerplant
Wakka
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by powerplant »

I'd like to sign up.
Joseph Wells

Garfield Heights High School '08
Centre College 2008-2010
Tri-C 2010-2011
Ohio State 2011-
Strongside
Rikku
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Strongside »

I would like to sign up for this. It looks like fun.

Also, has a decision been made on

1. Whether the tournament will be tossups only or tossups and bonuses.

2. How points will be scored, and how many buzzes/negs will be allowed on each question, etc.

3. What time the tournament will start.

4. How teams will be formed. I am assuming we can pick our teams.

Those four things won't affect whether I play or not, but I figured other people were also curious.
Brendan Byrne

Drake University, 2006-2008
University of Minnesota, 2008-2010
User avatar
Deckard Cain
Rikku
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:42 pm
Location: Ozark, Missouri

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Deckard Cain »

I'd like to play this as well.
Matt Chadbourne
Viburnum HS '04
Missouri S&T '09 and '11
Missouri Quizbowl Alliance member/president emeritus

Like MOQBA on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!
User avatar
Sir Thopas
Auron
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:10 pm
Location: Hunter, NYC
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Sir Thopas »

Yeah, I'm not making this. Drat.
Guy Tabachnick
Hunter '09
Brown '13

http://memoryofthisimpertinence.blogspot.com/
User avatar
swwFCqb
Rikku
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Lancaster, Ohio

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by swwFCqb »

I just realized I didn't post in this thread, but I'm definately up for playing this.
Steven Wellstead
Fisher Catholic High School '07
Case Western Reserve University '11
NAQT writer
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

Strongside wrote:I would like to sign up for this. It looks like fun.

Also, has a decision been made on

1. Whether the tournament will be tossups only or tossups and bonuses.

2. How points will be scored, and how many buzzes/negs will be allowed on each question, etc.

3. What time the tournament will start.

4. How teams will be formed. I am assuming we can pick our teams.

Those four things won't affect whether I play or not, but I figured other people were also curious.
Sorry about being so late with my responses; I've been writing literature tossups on the Diels-Alder reaction. Here are some answers to your questions, Brendan:

The tournament will be tossup only, to speed things along. There will be superpowers and powers (worth 30 and 20 points, respectively), and negs worth -5. I'm not sure if there should be a limit to buzzes per question, because if six people neg, then everyone just got -30 for that question (which should be an incentive not to neg). Then again, would people like some restriction on the amount of buzzes per tossup? I'm amenable to suggestions.

I would like the tournament to start by 7:30 PM Saturday night; does that seem reasonable?

There won't be teams for this tournament in the usual sense; instead, everyone will pick a number out of a hat (or some random process of assigning numbers), and you'll play individually with random teammates that change each round. For instance, for 64 people, if you draw number 1, you could possibly play with players 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, or players 13, 35, 60, 3, 44, 11, and 49. For every round, your score equals your individual score plus the total points the whole room scored.

I've set up a public spreadsheet to sign up for this tournament, also. Please only sign up if you're going to play (since if you sign up and don't play, it screws with the schedule).
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... hG0gdJb5OA
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Sin
Posts: 6110
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Mike Bentley »

This format seems even worse than before. By the luck of the draw the best player in this tournament can lose because he is playing crappy players all day (thus, less overall points). Additionally, someone can effectively clinch the tournament well before the final match, even if they haven't played the other top players yet. Finally, scorekeeping this is going to be a pain in the ass if there are more than 1 negs per team. You won't be able to do it with any computer programs I know of, and you might even need to make custom scoresheets.

Why, again, isn't this just a regular tournament?
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

Mike, I originally proposed allowing people to form teams of their choice, but people pooh-poohed that idea. Would that be better?
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
at your pleasure
Auron
Posts: 1713
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:56 pm

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by at your pleasure »

Or you could just keep the teams the same throughout the tournament.
Douglas Graebner, Walt Whitman HS 10, Uchicago 14
"... imagination acts upon man as really as does gravitation, and may kill him as certainly as a dose of prussic acid."-Sir James Frazer,The Golden Bough

http://avorticistking.wordpress.com/
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

Anti-Climacus wrote:Or you could just keep the teams the same throughout the tournament.
Yes, that was the original proposal I was referring to.
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by cvdwightw »

Bentley Like Beckham wrote:This format seems even worse than before. By the luck of the draw the best player in this tournament can lose because he is playing crappy players all day (thus, less overall points). Additionally, someone can effectively clinch the tournament well before the final match, even if they haven't played the other top players yet.
Ideally, each person plays at least one round in a room with each other person, so the "playing crappy players all day" argument won't hold. There will be presumably some kind of randomness issue in the "extra" people each person plays with, but I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be.
Dwight Wynne
socalquizbowl.org
UC Irvine 2008-2013; UCLA 2004-2007; Capistrano Valley High School 2000-2003

"It's a competition, but it's not a sport. On a scale, if football is a 10, then rowing would be a two. One would be Quiz Bowl." --Matt Birk on rowing, SI On Campus, 10/21/03

"If you were my teammate, I would have tossed your ass out the door so fast you'd be emitting Cerenkov radiation, but I'm not classy like Dwight." --Jerry
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5662
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Important Bird Area »

Agree with Dwight that the problem here is the "purely random" selection method, not the concept of rotating teams and collective points. I'm reasonably sure there's a fair way to work this, although I don't particularly care to devise it myself.

Actually, it might look quite a bit like the card system used by the HSNCT itself.
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
Mike Bentley
Sin
Posts: 6110
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Mike Bentley »

I guess I misunderstood the format a bit, but I still think everyone would be better served with a regular format.

For instance, negative performance can have an impact beyond one's own team, which goes against the idea of having the most knowledgable team win. Say I'm playing this format in a game with Jonathan Magin. I obviously am not going to win this tournament, but it's possible Jonathan might. However, I have a grudge with Jonathan for making me play this format. Thus, I be a bad sport and neg 20 times in this game, artificially lowering Jonathan's score by at least 100 points (I would automatically be losing him 100 points, and would also lose him the value of any questions I would have otherwise gotten before anyone else in the room would have gotten them). I could also be less of an obvious jerk and just not buzz on things I know, which would still serve to hurt Jonathan's prospects of winning. In a regular match, the only people I'd be hurting my doing this type of stuff would be my own team.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

Bentley Like Beckham wrote:I guess I misunderstood the format a bit, but I still think everyone would be better served with a regular format.

For instance, negative performance can have an impact beyond one's own team, which goes against the idea of having the most knowledgable team win. Say I'm playing this format in a game with Jonathan Magin. I obviously am not going to win this tournament, but it's possible Jonathan might. However, I have a grudge with Jonathan for making me play this format. Thus, I be a bad sport and neg 20 times in this game, artificially lowering Jonathan's score by at least 100 points (I would automatically be losing him 100 points, and would also lose him the value of any questions I would have otherwise gotten before anyone else in the room would have gotten them). I could also be less of an obvious jerk and just not buzz on things I know, which would still serve to hurt Jonathan's prospects of winning. In a regular match, the only people I'd be hurting my doing this type of stuff would be my own team.
Well, there are two or three reasons I don't think that will happen. First of all, people like answering tossups correctly and buzzing in on stuff they know, which negging 20 times will prevent them from doing. Secondly, out of pure self-interest, you're losing 100 points by doing that, not to mention the points that someone might get for answering the tossup correctly. Finally, deliberately cutting off your points to spite one person will incur a huge amount of disfavor and pretty much everyone will hate it and know that you did it, completely lowering your standing in the quizbowl community.

For those three reasons, I think that players at this tournament have the incentive to behave in good faith and play normally.
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by DumbJaques »

For those three reasons, I think that players at this tournament have the incentive to behave in good faith and play normally.
But in regular tournaments, you don't need to write paragraphs arguing why people have the incentive to behave normally, nor do you have to hope that you are in fact correct.
Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

DumbJaques wrote:
For those three reasons, I think that players at this tournament have the incentive to behave in good faith and play normally.
But in regular tournaments, you don't need to write paragraphs arguing why people have the incentive to behave normally, nor do you have to hope that you are in fact correct.
Well, I mean, if someone decided to neg 20 times in a game in a regular tournament out of spite towards another player, that would be frowned upon for very similar reasons. Just as no one actually does that in regular tournaments, I don't think that people will actually act that way at Gaddis. I mean, surely quizbowl players wouldn't be that foolish.

I understand critiques of the tournament like "it creates a bit more randomness than a regular tournament," but I think you and Mike are misplaced here, Chris, in arguing that aberrant behavior like deliberately negging 10+ times is encouraged by this tournament.
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1232
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by No Rules Westbrook »

Yeah, I too am wary of a completely random method of assigning teammates and opposition per round. It seems to me that one of the most important factors in your placing at this tournament is going to be how often you happen to get stuck in a room with a bunch of good players.

But, actually, what I dislike more is this 30 points for superpowers business. I know Jonathan loves people with deep knowledge who make super-awesome real buzzes, but 30 points is an insane amount to get for one buzz. Even the 20-15-10 power structure gets a bit unfair sometimes, but powers are cool so it's fine...this seems crazy and adds even more randomness to the outcome. As for the negging issue, well, that's just another complication - usually I dont even like negs at tourneys like these, but I can see some value in encouraging people not to just go on crazy lateral buzzing odysseys (especially if the reward is a whopping 30 points!)

And yeah, I know we all promised we wouldn't grouse about this format anymore, so sorry for doing so.
Ryan Westbrook, no affiliation whatsoever.

I am pure energy...and as ancient as the cosmos. Feeble creatures, GO!

Left here since birth...forgotten in the river of time...I've had an eternity to...ponder the meaning of things...and now I have an answer!
User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1232
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by No Rules Westbrook »

I think the only fair way of doing this without having set teams would be to develop some kind of system which ensures that you don't play in a room with the same person (either on your team or on the other team) more than 1 or 2 times.
Ryan Westbrook, no affiliation whatsoever.

I am pure energy...and as ancient as the cosmos. Feeble creatures, GO!

Left here since birth...forgotten in the river of time...I've had an eternity to...ponder the meaning of things...and now I have an answer!
User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6809
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Cheynem »

I am a little kerfluffle over the format, but since I am confident Jonathan will bring the awesome questions-wise, I have no worries.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed »

If it doesn't work out, we can just relentlessly mock him on the internet for it. Magin has long been a proponent of shaming as a tool for social regulation.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

Hey,

If you all would like to play, please email me (jsmagin at yahoo dot com) or add yourself to the spreadsheet linked earlier in this thread. Right now fewer than ten people have signed up, and I think many more people are actually interested, so if you are, please sign up. Remember that the cost is zero dollars and that I promise better-quality questions than last year's Gaddis.

Oh yeah, it will not be completely random. Ideally, every person will play with every other person once. Also, Bruce, I'm not really a proponent of public shaming, and I don't know where you got it from (I guess it's because I think monetary penalties are foolish and not enforceable, while shaming people involves no actual resources).
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4136
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Auks Ran Ova »

Coral Gardens and Their Magin wrote:Also, Bruce, I'm not really a proponent of public shaming, and I don't know where you got it from (I guess it's because I think monetary penalties are foolish and not enforceable, while shaming people involves no actual resources).
He was probably being ironic, given that your history of opposition to, e.g., "yelling at people".
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

The following people have posted that they would like to play, but have not added themselves to the spreadsheet or emailed me:

Dave Letzler
Evan Nagler
Matt Chadbourne
Matt Weiner
Steven Wellstead
Arnav Moudgil
Anurag Kashyap
Aaron Cohen
Gordon Arsenoff
George Stevens
Bruce Arthur
Charlie Dees
Mike Sorice
Seth Teitler
Micah Manary
Ray Luo

If you are one of those people, please add your name to the spreadsheet below or email me (at jsmagin at yahoo dot com) to tell me that you're not playing. If you're not one of those people, I'm assuming you're not playing unless you add yourself to the spreadsheet or email me.
Coral Gardens and Their Magin wrote:I've set up a public spreadsheet to sign up for this tournament, also. Please only sign up if you're going to play (since if you sign up and don't play, it screws with the schedule).
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... hG0gdJb5OA
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
Maxwell Sniffingwell
Auron
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Maxwell Sniffingwell »

There is a 15-20% chance that I'll be playing this.
Greg Peterson

Northwestern University '18
Lawrence University '11
Maine South HS '07

"a decent player" - Mike Cheyne
User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by cvdwightw »

Coral Gardens and Their Magin wrote:I like this idea a lot, Dwight. Instead of complete randomization, would assigning one-eighth of the players the number 1, one-eighth the number 2, and so on up to 8 work, and then doing permutations of that work?
Jonathan, I sent you an e-mail regarding this, but I thought I'd post here about my proposed schedule for Gaddis and look for feedback from people other than Jonathan.

Round 1 begins with randomly selected teams of 7 and 8 playing Gaddis-style against the packet.

At the end of Round 1, the team score is tabulated, and each player's individual contribution is calculated. Each individual's total score for that round is TEAM POINTS + INDIVIDUAL POINTS. The player in each room with the highest score for that round (corresponding to the most individual points) receives the 1 seed in that room, the next highest score the 2 seed, etc. Breaking ties is something I haven't figured out yet.

Players are then rotated into new rooms based on a single schedule. Because players get a new seed every round, but the schedule by seed stays the same, only one round's worth of schedule need be copied down. Each room will contain each of the seeds 1-8 from different rooms in the previous round, unless seed 8 is nonexistent.

It is unlikely that more than 1-2 elite players will ever be in a room together if we judiciously select initial teams (this can be construed as either an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you look at it), and each room is balanced by seed (again, an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you look at it). There will never be fewer than 7 people in a room (advantage), and because it will be relatively easy to make a schedule on the fly regardless of how many people show up, we can get started fairly quickly even if hordes of people that didn't sign up decide to play.

I don't see Donald Taylor anywhere in this thread, so I'll volunteer to run logistics and stats. Real-time stats will probably have to be kept in Excel and then tossup stats entered into SQBS or something after the tournament.
Dwight Wynne
socalquizbowl.org
UC Irvine 2008-2013; UCLA 2004-2007; Capistrano Valley High School 2000-2003

"It's a competition, but it's not a sport. On a scale, if football is a 10, then rowing would be a two. One would be Quiz Bowl." --Matt Birk on rowing, SI On Campus, 10/21/03

"If you were my teammate, I would have tossed your ass out the door so fast you'd be emitting Cerenkov radiation, but I'm not classy like Dwight." --Jerry
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Sin
Posts: 6110
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Mike Bentley »

This system still has problems. It gives people an incentive to intentionally try for a lower seed in several matches. A player who always get just below the first seeded player (but is good enough to be the first seeded player) is going to win this tournament. Again, this is another tournamnet format that can be won by withholding knowledge.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

Bentley Like Beckham wrote:This system still has problems. It gives people an incentive to intentionally try for a lower seed in several matches. A player who always get just below the first seeded player (but is good enough to be the first seeded player) is going to win this tournament. Again, this is another tournamnet format that can be won by withholding knowledge.
Wait, I don't understand. If someone scores fewer points than the top player in every round, how will they win? The odds of anything like that happening seem astronomical.
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Sin
Posts: 6110
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Mike Bentley »

Because they do this over 8 rounds.

Say I'm a player capable of being a #1 seed. I keep track of my points during the round and the points of the 2nd best player in the room. I notice near tossup 18 that we both have 60 individual points. Rather than buzzing on clues I know on the last two tossups, I sit on questions and let the other player buzz in hopes that he will beat me by the minimum number of points. This will lose me maybe 10-20 individual points for this round, but will net me more team points in the next round since I'll be played with a better player (essentially two number 1 seeds will be playing). I can do this for the entire tournament and win based on the strength of my teammates.

Also, what are we doing about ties in this format?
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

Well, if you do that over eight rounds, then you're 100-200 points in the hole, and therefore have a much, much smaller chance to win the tournament. It's simply not rational to act that way instead of buzzing in and answering the tossup if you want to maximize your points.
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by cvdwightw »

Coral Gardens and Their Magin wrote:
Bentley Like Beckham wrote:This system still has problems. It gives people an incentive to intentionally try for a lower seed in several matches. A player who always get just below the first seeded player (but is good enough to be the first seeded player) is going to win this tournament. Again, this is another tournamnet format that can be won by withholding knowledge.
Wait, I don't understand. If someone scores fewer points than the top player in every round, how will they win? The odds of anything like that happening seem astronomical.
I will concede that it does provide a perverse incentive for, say, top seed Chris Ray to hold off buzzing on the last few tossups in the second-to-last round so that he is paired with top seed Matt Weiner for the last round rather than a second seed from a different room. As long as Chris is ahead of Matt at the end of that second-to-last round, there is nothing Matt can do to pass Chris, and in fact there would be the distinct possibility of both players passing the top overall player at the end of the second-to-last round.

I'll throw another wacky format out there and see what people think of this. Ultimately it's up to Jonathan to decide which of these formats we end up playing.

As with the original Gaddis plan, each player is on a team with 2 or 3 other people, and competes in a room with another team of 3 or 4 people. The goal, as with the original plan, is to score as many points as possible. The scoring system, however, does not reward teams for how many points they score. Instead, it rewards teams for how many other rooms and how many other teams they outscore (ties count as 0.5). So, you get 4r+t points, where r is the number of rooms your room collectively outscores and t is the number of teams your team outscores individually. This system overvalues the team "cooperation" tactic because you get 3 times the number of rooms you and your opponent collectively outscore, but also keeps a slight "competition" tactic by adding a (one-half weight) score for individual team performance within that.

I believe this removes all perverse incentives not to buzz, since your goal is now to score as many points as possible in all scenarios. Being a bad sport will still hurt both teams, but it will hurt your team more.
Dwight Wynne
socalquizbowl.org
UC Irvine 2008-2013; UCLA 2004-2007; Capistrano Valley High School 2000-2003

"It's a competition, but it's not a sport. On a scale, if football is a 10, then rowing would be a two. One would be Quiz Bowl." --Matt Birk on rowing, SI On Campus, 10/21/03

"If you were my teammate, I would have tossed your ass out the door so fast you'd be emitting Cerenkov radiation, but I'm not classy like Dwight." --Jerry
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

cvdwightw wrote:
Coral Gardens and Their Magin wrote:
Bentley Like Beckham wrote:This system still has problems. It gives people an incentive to intentionally try for a lower seed in several matches. A player who always get just below the first seeded player (but is good enough to be the first seeded player) is going to win this tournament. Again, this is another tournamnet format that can be won by withholding knowledge.
Wait, I don't understand. If someone scores fewer points than the top player in every round, how will they win? The odds of anything like that happening seem astronomical.
I will concede that it does provide a perverse incentive for, say, top seed Chris Ray to hold off buzzing on the last few tossups in the second-to-last round so that he is paired with top seed Matt Weiner for the last round rather than a second seed from a different room. As long as Chris is ahead of Matt at the end of that second-to-last round, there is nothing Matt can do to pass Chris, and in fact there would be the distinct possibility of both players passing the top overall player at the end of the second-to-last round.

I'll throw another wacky format out there and see what people think of this. Ultimately it's up to Jonathan to decide which of these formats we end up playing.

As with the original Gaddis plan, each player is on a team with 2 or 3 other people, and competes in a room with another team of 3 or 4 people. The goal, as with the original plan, is to score as many points as possible. The scoring system, however, does not reward teams for how many points they score. Instead, it rewards teams for how many other rooms and how many other teams they outscore (ties count as 0.5). So, you get 4r+t points, where r is the number of rooms your room collectively outscores and t is the number of teams your team outscores individually. This system overvalues the team "cooperation" tactic because you get 3 times the number of rooms you and your opponent collectively outscore, but also keeps a slight "competition" tactic by adding a (one-half weight) score for individual team performance within that.

I believe this removes all perverse incentives not to buzz, since your goal is now to score as many points as possible in all scenarios. Being a bad sport will still hurt both teams, but it will hurt your team more.
I like this a lot, and like allowing teams to form whatever teams they want. What do you all think?
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by cvdwightw »

I will present an example of this:

There are 4 teams: Team Magin, Team Wynne, Team Bentley, and Team Ray.

Team Magin and Team Wynne play in the first round and Team Magin wins 150-105.
Team Bentley and Team Ray play in the first round and Team Ray wins 150-75.

The Magin/Wynne combo scored 255 total points and the Bentley/Ray combo scored 225 points.

Thus Team Magin for round one gets 4*1+2.5 = 6.5 points (as they outscored the other room and 2 other teams, and tied with 1 other team). Team Wynne gets 4*1+1 = 5 points (as they outscored the other room and 1 other team). Team Ray gets 4*0+2.5 = 2.5 points (as they outscored 2 other teams and tied with 1 other team). Team Bentley gets 0 points.

Round 2: Magin/Bentley: Magin wins 200-45. Ray/Wynne: Ray wins 140-105. Each room scored 245 points. Team Magin gets 4*0.5+3 = 5 points; Team Ray gets 4*0.5+2 = 4 points;
Team Wynne gets 4*0.5+1 = 3 points; Team Bentley gets 4*0.5+0 = 2 points.

After Round 2:
Magin 11.5 points
Wynne 8 points
Ray 6.5 points
Bentley 2 points

Round 3: Magin/Ray: Ray wins 165-150. Wynne/Bentley: Wynne wins 160-85. Team Magin gets 4*1+1 = 5 points; Team Ray gets 4*1+3 = 7 points; Team Wynne gets 4*0+2 = 2 poitns; Team Bentley gets 4*0+0 = 0 points.

Thus after a full round robin:
Magin 16.5 points
Ray 13.5 points
Wynne 10 points
Bentley 2 points

With many more teams, it is theoretically possible for the second-place team to overtake the first-place team, if they are within enough points, by outscoring them by enough points that they make up those points with t. If the top two teams are tied and play in the last round, then obviously the team that wins wins the tournament.

EDIT: Note that in this scenario, the team that won all 3 games did not win the tournament, because the overall goal is to score points, not win games. However, a team that wins an individual game will always get more points than the team they beat in that game.
Dwight Wynne
socalquizbowl.org
UC Irvine 2008-2013; UCLA 2004-2007; Capistrano Valley High School 2000-2003

"It's a competition, but it's not a sport. On a scale, if football is a 10, then rowing would be a two. One would be Quiz Bowl." --Matt Birk on rowing, SI On Campus, 10/21/03

"If you were my teammate, I would have tossed your ass out the door so fast you'd be emitting Cerenkov radiation, but I'm not classy like Dwight." --Jerry
User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5790
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by theMoMA »

That format doesn't have the pitfall of rewarding people for playing with good teammates on easier or harder packets, but doesn't it seem like individual performance should factor into this somehow?
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum
User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by cvdwightw »

theMoMA wrote:That format doesn't have the pitfall of rewarding people for playing with good teammates on easier or harder packets, but doesn't it seem like individual performance should factor into this somehow?
That depends. The initial move to a more singles-style tournament was made because of issues with pitfalls with the whole "I played with Seth Teitler and Matt Weiner and we scored 600 points; someone else played with that team and only scored 400" issue - in this format we use a normalized scoring system (the maximum possible points is 19 per round for a 32-person tournament) that eliminates round-by-round variability.

I suppose we could also use a normalized individual scoring system (e.g. points are now 40r+10t+i, where i is the number of individuals you outscored that round), but since people are now choosing their own teams instead of playing with randomly selected or seed-selected teammates, I'm not sure that it's worth it. Also, we have the issue of lots of people scoring 0 points in rounds, and just a raw score of "number of points you scored" eliminates the corrections that a fully normalized scale brings.

Thoughts on changing the scoring system to make it incorporate individual performance are welcome, though.
Dwight Wynne
socalquizbowl.org
UC Irvine 2008-2013; UCLA 2004-2007; Capistrano Valley High School 2000-2003

"It's a competition, but it's not a sport. On a scale, if football is a 10, then rowing would be a two. One would be Quiz Bowl." --Matt Birk on rowing, SI On Campus, 10/21/03

"If you were my teammate, I would have tossed your ass out the door so fast you'd be emitting Cerenkov radiation, but I'm not classy like Dwight." --Jerry
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Sin
Posts: 6110
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Mike Bentley »

So do we have schedules and scorekeeping guidelines laid out for this tournament?

Have teams been formed already? Is it worth it to just have a draft in order to get some sort of even teams this late in the game (especially with people probably showing up at the tournament who haven't signed up)?
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
Blackboard Monitor Vimes
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Blackboard Monitor Vimes »

Bentley Like Beckham wrote:(especially with people probably showing up at the tournament who haven't signed up)?
3-4 Gov kids would like to do this, if it is ok with Magin/whoever else may have an organizational role.
Sam (Angelo) Luongo,
Maggie L. Walker Governor's School 2010 / UVA 2014 / VCU School of Education 2016
PACE
ihavenoidea
Rikku
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:05 am

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by ihavenoidea »

My voice is a little hoarse, but I'll read for this and my teammates are willing to help as well.
Zhao Zhang
Rancho Bernardo High School '09
User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1232
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by No Rules Westbrook »

Well, whatever wacky format we choose - if teams are going to be constant throughout the tournament, it seems like we should just draft. I know Magin said he didn't want to, partly cause it would slow things down, and it probably will...but if there are enough readers/staff, I assume anyone who wants to play will play. So, it might be better to just have a draft instead of expecting people to pair up themselves, which will likely lead to very imbalanced teams.
Ryan Westbrook, no affiliation whatsoever.

I am pure energy...and as ancient as the cosmos. Feeble creatures, GO!

Left here since birth...forgotten in the river of time...I've had an eternity to...ponder the meaning of things...and now I have an answer!
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by magin »

This tournament will start an hour and a half after the Saturday rounds of HSNCT finish. If you would like to play, please meet at that time by the escalator/stairs in the basement of the hotel (by the suites). There will be a brief draft before the tournament; we will take measures to ensure that the draft goes briskly.

Anyone who wants to play (or staff) is welcome, and the fee is zero dollars. It's going to be pretty awesome.
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed »

Hey guys, guess what happened.

Teams started playing Gaddis and began trying to answer tossups before the other team could. After 10 and 15 tossups, they asked for scorechecks. If they negged and the other team picked it up, they cursed. If they scored more points than the other team, they high-fived each other. When they passed each other in the hallway, players would ask each other what their PPG was, or what their teams win-loss record was. The team that went undefeated boasted of having potentially cleared the field.

In other words, teams ignored the format and treated this like a regular tournament. As far as I could tell, most people were having fun too.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Sin
Posts: 6110
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Mike Bentley »

I believe Weiner's team and Westbrook's team both were like 7-2 and the prelims if normal scoring was done (Weiner's team won by like 6 points using the whacky format). In the "finals", Weiner's team ended up winning from what I heard.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1232
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by No Rules Westbrook »

Heh, I'm guessing Bruce had that post ready to go pre-Gaddis, and it was a simple copy and paste operation. Bentley is right about the results, btw.
Ryan Westbrook, no affiliation whatsoever.

I am pure energy...and as ancient as the cosmos. Feeble creatures, GO!

Left here since birth...forgotten in the river of time...I've had an eternity to...ponder the meaning of things...and now I have an answer!
User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6809
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Cheynem »

I can't believe that these questions aren't cleared for discussion, but just in case, I'll be vague. I enjoyed this set and particularly enjoyed the American lit, which ran close to my own interests, including a few works that I had tossed up before in the sample packets of my vanity lit tournament (always good to recognize clues you've used).

Regarding Magin's thesis: Since I'm not sure what exactly it was, I won't bother trying to explain if it worked or not. I'll just say: I think side events typically create a more relaxed, communal atmosphere anyway, since you're playing a lot of times with unfamiliar people on different sorts of questions. I greatly enjoyed playing both this and Ryan's earlier Experiment.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
User avatar
Blackboard Monitor Vimes
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Blackboard Monitor Vimes »

Bentley Like Beckham wrote:I believe Weiner's team and Westbrook's team both were like 7-2 and the prelims if normal scoring was done (Weiner's team won by like 6 points using the whacky format). In the "finals", Weiner's team ended up winning from what I heard.
Confirming that Matt's team won. Thanks for doing this and letting people play for free, Magin, it definitely improved this weekend as someone who was greatly disappointed in the HSNCT set. I don't have much of a frame of reference since I hadn't played a tournament near this difficulty level before, but I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Sam (Angelo) Luongo,
Maggie L. Walker Governor's School 2010 / UVA 2014 / VCU School of Education 2016
PACE
User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by cvdwightw »

Full stats will be up sometime tonight, with an explanation of what the weird PPG is doing. No guarantee that individual stats are accurate - if somehow your awesome superpower got attributed to someone else, I apologize in advance.

From what I remember off the top of my head, Weiner's team cleared the field by about 5 points over the 4-5 Rob Carson team.

I don't presume to speak for Jonathan, but at least for me, there were two major hypotheses:
1. Players enjoy playing on (mostly) awesome questions on (mostly) awesome things, regardless of the way a winner is determined.
2. The primary point of quizbowl may be to win games, but an equally important point is to score points. Therefore, a scoring system can be devised that rewards players for scoring points and is normalized for difficulty of packet/strength of opponent.

I think (1) went a long way toward being proven at this tournament. Regarding (2), I think this tournament showed that this hypothesis has promise - it is a good idea to reward teams for losing to good teams (rather than just the plain 0 for losing), but this scoring system may not have been the ideal one, and it may not be appropriate (or efficient) to run an entire tournament using this format.

I do not know whether there are round-by-round data for all 2009 NAQT Sectionals, but I may try to better elucidate what exactly is going on in this scoring system and see if I (or an interested person at NAQT, if they have more time than I do in the next few weeks) can use this data and optimize parameters for room and team scores (in this case PPTH) to develop a "strength of schedule" score for the S-Value.
Dwight Wynne
socalquizbowl.org
UC Irvine 2008-2013; UCLA 2004-2007; Capistrano Valley High School 2000-2003

"It's a competition, but it's not a sport. On a scale, if football is a 10, then rowing would be a two. One would be Quiz Bowl." --Matt Birk on rowing, SI On Campus, 10/21/03

"If you were my teammate, I would have tossed your ass out the door so fast you'd be emitting Cerenkov radiation, but I'm not classy like Dwight." --Jerry
User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Gaddis Experiment II

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed »

At most, you proved that people will prefer oddly scored quizbowl to no quizbowl at all.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source
Locked