333Smitty "cactus 2-gun tie"

[A Shifflett]

Glen,

It is the conversion that is causing the problem. When you double the 100 yard MEASURED score you are giving that agg more weight in the grand. Then when you add the 100 and 200 aggs and convert that to an moa it further compounds the problem. If the sum of the two aggs ends in an odd number, when it gets divided by 2 it will end in 5 and be rounded up.

Andy

 

[Glen Oakes]

Oops!

You're absolutely right. I shoulda run thru the trig and didn't.

Thanks for the correction,

glen

 

[James M.]

There are problems no matter how one figures it. You mentioned doubling the 100 yd measured scores...how about halving the 200 then adding them. Heck, I guess converting them to MOA and averaging is not all that bad. Either way they are measured, some will win the close and others lose . Good shooting...James PS- According to rounding rules, only 5's that are preceded by an odd number are rounded up; those that are preceded by even numbers are left as is.

 

[Hunter]

If I beat you by .010 on each of 5 groups at 100 yards, you in turn have to beat me by .020 on each of five groups at 200 in order to tie me in the grand. By adding the MEASURED dimension only, it will eliminate this advantage.

the present scoring system gives an unfair advantage to the shooter who shoots a really good 100 yard agg,

Andy, I don't agree that the present system gives an advantage (fair or unfair) to the 100 yard agg; in fact, I would argue that your proposal would give an unfair advantage to the 200 yard shooter. Why? It seems to me that a winning margin of any given size represents a greater accomplishment when done over a shorter distance rather than a greater distance. So, for example, if you beat my 100 yard scores by .5 on each group and I beat your 1,000 yard scores by .5 on each group, it seems to me that your margin of victory is more significant than is mine. Kind of like if you beat me by one second in a 40-yard dash compared to me beating you by one second in a marathon.

It seems to me that the present system of scoring simply acknowledges the foregoing.

 

[Boyd Allen]

You might want to do a little reading, before the discussion goes on. From the current NBRSA rule book:
(g)
National Course aggregate shall be computed and
posted promptly after the last target the last match for each
course is scored. The total of
scores for all National Course
100-yard matches divided by the number of matches shall be the
aggregate. The total of scores for the National Course 200-yard
matches divided by twice the number of matches shall be the
National Course 200-yard minute of angle aggregate. The sum
of the 100-yard and 200-yard aggregates divided by 2 shall be
the Grand Aggregate

 

[Hunter]

You might want to do a little reading, before the discussion goes on.

Boyd, I'm not sure of your point nor to whom it's directed. I suspect we know what the rule says about calculating aggregates and grand aggregates. As I read Andy's comments he's complaining of unfairness of the rule; whereas I see the fairness of the rule.

 

[Boyd Allen]

Unless I read his post wrong, the way that he says that aggregates are calculated is not the same as it is in the rule book. I think that the method in the book is just fine. The reason that I put it up was that some of the posts seemed to indicate an unfamiliarity with the actual rule.

 

[A Shifflett]

Gentlemen, I have no issue with the way aggs are figured. I also know very well how the rule book says aggs are to be calculated. I simply said that to figure a 200 yard agg, all you have to do is add the actual target measurements and the sum of that addition will always be your agg. So why go to the trouble of adding and dividing when you don't have to.

AKA: as far as I am concerned, we don't shoot for margins of victory. we shoot for the smallest group. As I stated earlier in this post I am no mathematician and don't claim to be, but I can assure you, if you find someone who is, they will be able to tell you that mathematically, the 100 yard agg carries more weight when figured as part of a 100, 200 yard grand. And the reason for this is because, when the 100 yard agg is converted to an moa, the actual target measurement is inadvertently being doubled. if you don't think that is right, then take a pencil and paper, write down any five numbers that represent a 100 yard group, to the right of that number, write down what that number would be if you double it. add up the sum of the doubled numbers and I guarantee you the sum of that addition will equal your agg.

So with that said, if you shoot a 150 and I shoot a 160, you naturally assume you beat me by 010. double the number and 150 is 300, 160 is 320, now you beat me by 020.......take it a step farther, if you shoot 5-150 and I shoot 5-160, you can assume you beat me by 050, since that is 010 per group, yet your agg will be 1500 and mine will be 1600, that 050 just became 100.

I know it looks and sounds confusing but it really isn't........

Heading to the SS, good luck to everyone who attends.

Andy

 

[Hunter]

Gentlemen, I have no issue with the way aggs are figured. (See 1 below.) ...

AKA: as far as I am concerned, we don't shoot for margins of victory. we shoot for the smallest group.(See 2 below.)...[M]athematically, the 100 yard agg carries more weight when figured as part of a 100, 200 yard grand.(See 3 below.) And the reason for this is because, when the 100 yard agg is converted to an moa See 4 below.), the actual target measurement is inadvertently being doubled.(See 5 below.) if you don't think that is right, then take a pencil and paper, write down any five numbers that represent a 100 yard group, to the right of that number, write down what that number would be if you double it. add up the sum of the doubled numbers and I guarantee you the sum of that addition will equal your agg.(See 6 below.)

...

Heading to the SS, good luck to everyone who attends.(See 7 below.)

1. It sounds like you have an issue with the way the 200-yard aggs are calculated.

2. I think we shoot for the smallest 100-yard equivalent groups, at least that's what the rules suggest. BTW, if the goal was to shoot the smallest TOTAL measurements, I would agree with your position that the current system of calculating aggs and grand aggs is unfair -- but, that doesn't seem to be the goal.

3. That would make sense since the rules seem to be designed to equate everything to a 100-yard equivalent.

4. The 100-yard agg is already expressed in MOA (pretending, of course, that MOA = 1").

5. The 100-yard score is not being doubled; the 200-yard score is being halved.

6. Here goes -- let's say I shoot five, .200 targets @ 100 yds; surely, anyone would say my agg is .200. You say for me to double those scores and then add them; doing so I have five entries of .400 each, which totals 2.00 -- that does not equal my agg.

7. Good luck to you, too.

 

[A Shifflett]

Aka. You will never see an agg expressed with 3 digits. It is always 4. Your ex of 400 x 5 proves my point. Your agg will be 2000. If you need a decimal point in front of the 2 so be it. I don't. And I certainly don't need to halve anything at 200 yds to know that 5 groups of 500 will give me an agg of 2500.

If you look at it as a sum of numbers and forget the decimal point, and stop thinking in terms of inches and thousands it really is pretty simple.

Andy

 

[Hunter]

Your ex of 400 x 5 proves my point. Your agg will be 2000. If you need a decimal point in front of the 2 so be it. I don't....

If you look at it as a sum of numbers and forget the decimal point, and stop thinking in terms of inches and thousands it really is pretty simple.

Andy, referencing my example at # 6 in post # 29 above, I have never seen (and I doubt that you have either) anyone say that five, 100 yard groups that each measure .200 equals a 2000 agg. Decimal points do have a meaning.

As for looking at "a sum of numbers," I think you're advocating to "add[] the MEASURED dimension only"; thus, if I shoot a .5 target @ 100 yds and a 1.0 target @ 200 yards and you shoot a 1.0 target @ 100 yards and a .5 target @ 200 yards we would both have a total measurement of 1.5 and be tied using your theory (whereas under the current system I would be the winner). I understand your argument; do I agree with it? I'm thinking.

 

[A Shifflett]

Aka: I am not advocating anything. I simply stated that with the current scoring system, the 100 yard agg carries more weight in the grand. Until you or anyone else can show me differently I will continue to believe that. Does it bother me? No! Do I want something changed? No! It is just something that I actually found by accident.

As for 5 groups of .200 at 100 yards being an agg of 2000 I can assure you that is correct. And yes I left the decimal point off for a reason. And that is because to me it has no meaning. The number doesn't change.

 

[Boyd Allen]

Andy,
If you ignore the decimal point 1.00 is the same as 10.0, and 100. Obviously they are not the same. Just because the same numerals are in the same order does not mean that they have the same value.
The reason that 100 yard aggs are often computed by shooters by doubling five groups, adding them, and moving the decimal point (something you uniquely ignore) one place to the left is that multiplying by 2 and dividing by ten gives the same answer as simply dividing by five, but is easier to do with just a pencil and paper, because doubling a number can easily be done in ones head, and dividing by ten just requires moving a decimal point. The whole thing is done so that someone who does not carry a calculator with him can come up with the answer without having to do long division with pencil and paper. The end result of adding the groups and dividing by five is exactly the same as doubling the groups, adding them and dividing by ten by moving the decimal point (you know, that thing that you ignore). Frankly, it matters not whether you are convinced by this, you will still be an exceptional shooter, probably a fine fellow, but somewhat mathematically challenged. I only bother with writing this in case someone else might be led astray by your incorrect assertion. Perhaps you can give me a shooting lesson some day. Lord knows that I could use one.
Boyd

 

[Chris Harris]

Hair

Andy,
If you ignore the decimal point 1.00 is the same as 10.0, and 100. Obviously they are not the same. Just because the same numerals are in the same order does not mean that they have the same value.
The reason that 100 yard aggs are often computed by shooters by doubling five groups, adding them, and moving the decimal point (something you uniquely ignore) one place to the left is that multiplying by 2 and dividing by ten gives the same answer as simply dividing by five, but is easier to do with just a pencil and paper, because doubling a number can easily be done in ones head, and dividing by ten just requires moving a decimal point. The whole thing is done so that someone who does not carry a calculator with him can come up with the answer without having to do long division with pencil and paper. The end result of adding the groups and dividing by five is exactly the same as doubling the groups, adding them and dividing by ten by moving the decimal point (you know, that thing that you ignore). Frankly, it matters not whether you are convinced by this, you will still be an exceptional shooter, probably a fine fellow, but somewhat mathematically challenged. I only bother with writing this in case someone else might be led astray by your incorrect assertion. Perhaps you can give me a shooting lesson some day. Lord knows that I could use one.
Boyd

Boyd et al, I know Andy fairly well. Shot with him plenty and call him a friend of mine. One thing I can ASSURE YOU is that he is NOT "mathematically challenged". On the contrary, he is typically the person WAY ahead of others in terms of determining who requires what to win nearing the end of a shoot. And he never gets it wrong. So I think that dispenses with the question of his maths abilities.

Without having a clue what the real argument is about here, I pretty much know that Andy is referring to the fact that he works in thousandths of an inch rather than inches or thousands of MOA - whichever is applicable. So in that case the decimal is irrelevant. He is simply working in a different UoM.

 

[HovisKM]

Andy is correct, I never really thought about it but 100yd agg carries more weight. I let a couple of engineers here look at the thread and they do a lot of statistical analysis, they agree with him.

Whether you double the 100 or divide the 200, it's the same.....100yd is weighted.

Andy....now that's one more darn thing to randomly run around my head at a match, like I need anything else...thanks a lot....lol

Hovis

 

[James M.]

Andy

I feel that I need to apologize to Andy. My post sounded as if I were doubting your method ....I was not. As a matter of fact I use the same method during the match to determine my 200 yard score. My post was for the original question and I ended up getting TOO technical. I am sorry if I offended you in any way. Keep up the good shooting and I will come to see you put on your Hall of Fame jacket in the near future. James Mock

 

[A Shifflett]

Boyd, perhaps you failed to notice how many times in this post I have stated I am no mathematician. But let me enlighten you just a bit. For the past 20 years I have been an estimator for a Masonry company that as done in excess of 14 million dollars worth of work. At an average of .65 cents a brick and $1.30 a block, you can see that is a lot of brick and block. Also notice the correct positioning of the decimal points in the above numbers. As I also stated, if the right person saw what I was trying to explain I felt sure he would agree with me. As Kevin has now stated that apparently has happened. Thanks Kevin. I also had a very smart engineer take a look at this a year ago and he agreed. He is a shooter and I won't name him, so as to save him the ridicule that you people so freely like to dish out. But I will leave you with this, being unable to make you understand what I was trying to say, does not make me mathematically challenged, it simply makes me a bad teacher. Our as my calculus teacher in high "scholl" use to tell me. Sum people jus can't be learnt. This will be my final post on this subject unless someone adds something constructive.
Andy

 

[A Shifflett]

James, no apology necessary. I highly value your opinion.

Hope to see you at the SS. Bring your rain gear.
Andy

 

[Hunter]

I simply stated that with the current scoring system, the 100 yard agg carries more weight in the grand. Until you or anyone else can show me differently I will continue to believe that....

As for 5 groups of .200 at 100 yards being an agg of 2000 I can assure you that is correct. And yes I left the decimal point off for a reason. And that is because to me it has no meaning. The number doesn't change.

Andy is correct, I never really thought about it but 100yd agg carries more weight.

Andy and Hovis, the 100 yard agg does NOT carry more weight in the grand. You both may be correct in saying that a 100 yard group carries more weight in the grand than does a 200 yard group, but you're not correct in saying the 100 yard agg carries more weight than does the 200 yard agg. Andy, you invited me to show you differently; here goes -- 100 yard agg of .2000 plus 200 yard agg of .2000 equals grand agg of .2000.

Andy, your calculation of an agg of 2000 based on five groups of .200 @ 100 yards is not consistent with the rules (see post # 25 above). It's no more correct than saying 100 bricks cost 6500.

BTW, I feel sorry for someone who might be reading this thread and doesn't understand the rules.

 

[Joe Krupa]

I have thought quite a bit about how the 100"s and 200's impact the grand outcome....

... over the last twenty years; mostly in an attempt on learning how to try and win in the competitive arena. That and what has been written above has brought me to the following conclusions:

- The scoring in the "game" at 100-200 yard Benchrest has been developed since its inception to be an arithmetic average where the 200-yard scoring is basically halved and averaged with the 100-yard scoring. When one decides to play in this game, one effectively agrees to that scoring methodology when they show up and pay the entry fee. The end result is shown in an average that "looks" like what one would shoot at 100 yards. We may call it MOA, but it really is an arithmetic average.

- The reason that the results go out to four place when the scoring is done at three places is a mix of an attempt to get to the end score when all of the target scores are averaged at a "100-yard view" along with the practicality of trying to measure targets past three places. I once lost a Nationals three-gun to Wayne Campbell by .0005 over 30 targets (15 at 100 and 15 at 200). After the impact of the loss wore off, I went back and added up all of Wayne's and my targets and the difference was basically .014 in the total sum. (As an aside, Wayne beat me on the last 200-yard target by about .125.)

- I have witnessed recently two outcomes at large venues (a Nationals three-gun and a World Team qualifier two-gun) where there was a tie. When the fervor died down, it became obvious that the total difference in the total sum of all targets came out to be in the .001 to .002 range. The "tie" ended up being rounding in the mechanics of the scoring system rounding up or down.

- I personally believe that the 100-yard results impact the grand more than the 200-yard results, but not from some arithmetic iteration. I believe it does because over the course of thousands of aggregates shot in competition annually, the 100-yard aggregates tend to be smaller than the halved 200-yard aggregates. My belief that this is because most shooters find 200-yard shooting to be more than twice as difficult to shoot than 100-yard shooting in terms of average group size. But yet, the sum of the 200-yard targets is only reduced by a factor of two. If you poll most experienced shooters, they will probably tell you that their smallest aggregate was shot at 100 yards. For me personally, I believe the "holy grail" of short-range Benchrest is shooting a teen aggregate at 200-yards. (And only eclipsed by shooting a teen grand aggregate and the "ultimate, a teen two-gun.) I have been lucky enough to have shot over forty teen aggregates in my career, but only five at 200-yards, five teen grand aggregates and one lucky teen two-gun. I say this only to make the point that Benchrest shooters typiclly shoot smaller aggreagtes at 100-yards.

- Taking what I just said above into consideration, a grand aggregate, and often also the two-gun is won or lost at 200-yards. But, this is only true if one doesn't give too much away to the field at 100-yards. And I believe this is so again, because it is more than two-times as difficult in terms of group size to shoot at 200-yards than 100-yards; especially in difficult conditions. If one is able to better their average against the field at 200-yards, they will make up more ground. This is more "match logistics" than math; mostly because of the diffential dificulty between the yardages and the 200-yard matches take place after the 100-yard aggs. are completed. Take the results in the Hog Roast as an example. Going into Sunday at 200-yards, especially in the afternoon when there were 25-mph plus gusts, the final results of the two-gun became drastically changed from where the field was at the end of the 100-yard aggregates on Saturday. Some guys moved up and others fell considerably. In the end, Tony Boyer won mostly because he shot a small teen aggregate at 100-yards on Saturday morning and "held his ground" the remainder of the weekend. (And he won because he is Tony and the wind is his friend.)

- As far as adding up the targets and moving decibel points, I agree with Andy that it is a great way to do a "quick and dirty" check of the results before they are posted. I add up the five 200-yard targets and say "that was a .2556" when the sum ended up as 2.556. One can also add up the five 100-yard targets, multiply by 2 and move the decimal on place to the left to get your aggregate.

- The fun part comes when one is in the middle of the yardage and dueling it out with someone else and you try to see how much smaller you needed to shoot on the remaining targets to overtake the guy. There is an arithmetic formula (which Jim Carstensen showed me once and I have committed to memory), but I won't go into it here for the sake of not making this a 1,000-post string.