Recently a couple of my good friends got into a "discussion" on the comments to one of my posts. It is humorous how a thread can morph, you never know if you are going get a moth or a butterfly. Anyway it got me thinking about 2018 season.
The most memorable match of 2018 for me was a match at the last Texas circuit shoot against Lucky 45. We were evenly matched in quickness and temperament. After 4 shots the match was tied each having won two on quickness. The match was decided on the fifth shot. It did not matter who won, it was great fun.
The second most memorable was a series of three consecutive matches at the Springs against Okie Ed. Again we were evenly matched, with the matches all being decided in less that five shots. Unfortunately, we eliminated each other from the main match but again it was great fun.
The third most memorable was four matches against Oregon Ranger in the Marshall Cup. It is memorable for me because I was shooting at a 1.41 (.61+.80) clip which normally will win an event easily but Ranger was at 1.60 plus. Again great fun. Memorable for me because I hit my fastest competitive time of the year while hitting better than 80%.
I like "sayings," generally acquiring a new one about one a year. My new saying for 2018 is "80% is just average." And that is, if you are following my others. "Never ever slow down!" "Your quickest shot is your most accurate." "We don't practice missing!"
Just think what our sport would be like is everyone shot 80% or better. All matches would be decided by quickness, and you would rise in the standings to the level of your quickness and mental toughness. It would eliminate the lottery matches where the outcome is just a matter of chance.
"80% is just average!" Alleluia Ruah.
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Monday, December 17, 2018
Handicapping the Gunfight at Pioneer
The final gunfight of the year for The Association of Arizona Gunfighters will be held on December 29. We are expecting a big turnout and will have two 6 lane ranges in operation. It will be sort of a practice run for Winter Range and we will be shooting our normal Arizona Bracket shoot but with a 6 bracket shoot off. We can handle up to 100 shooters easily but the turnout probably will be about 60.
The club Top Gun points are in play with some tight races to be determined. The top two spots for the ladies have been decided but there is still a battle to be fought for third. Hot Flash is currently in third but Troublemaker is in range because she has 40 points in play. Most Improved awards for the ladies is pretty much set.
In the men's division the top spot has been settled for a few months, but there are five shooters competing for 2nd and 3rd. QC Carver, Waco Kid, and Shady Mike stand at 257, 255, and 254 for those spots. But as Old West learned at FGA you have to be wary of those in striking distance. Rodeo Romero and Hi Strung both have 40 points in play and are capable of reaching 2nd or 3rd.
For the men the Most Improved is really hard to handicap because Top Gun award winners are not considered for Most Improved. The crowd favorite has to be Coyote Kid who currently sit in fourth and is capable of catching third place Rodeo Romeo. If Rodeo shoots poorly Coyote Kid may catch him, if Rodeo shoots well Rodeo probably will get a Top Gun award and will not be considered in Most Improved.
For 2019 we are changing the rules a bit. Presently you have to have an average from the previous year to be considered for Most Improved which effective eliminated new shooters. For 2019 new shooters will start with their first placing in an event. Also, to be considered for Most Improved, you must have shot in a minimum of 4 events starting in 2019.
Being the Copper State. awards will be copper.
I hope to see you at Pioneer. It will be fun. Come looking for a gunfight, but remember the Cowboy Way. It is all about work, play, and being neighborly. Enjoy the task at hand, that bonc or maverick will be there again tomorrow.
The club Top Gun points are in play with some tight races to be determined. The top two spots for the ladies have been decided but there is still a battle to be fought for third. Hot Flash is currently in third but Troublemaker is in range because she has 40 points in play. Most Improved awards for the ladies is pretty much set.
In the men's division the top spot has been settled for a few months, but there are five shooters competing for 2nd and 3rd. QC Carver, Waco Kid, and Shady Mike stand at 257, 255, and 254 for those spots. But as Old West learned at FGA you have to be wary of those in striking distance. Rodeo Romero and Hi Strung both have 40 points in play and are capable of reaching 2nd or 3rd.
For the men the Most Improved is really hard to handicap because Top Gun award winners are not considered for Most Improved. The crowd favorite has to be Coyote Kid who currently sit in fourth and is capable of catching third place Rodeo Romeo. If Rodeo shoots poorly Coyote Kid may catch him, if Rodeo shoots well Rodeo probably will get a Top Gun award and will not be considered in Most Improved.
For 2019 we are changing the rules a bit. Presently you have to have an average from the previous year to be considered for Most Improved which effective eliminated new shooters. For 2019 new shooters will start with their first placing in an event. Also, to be considered for Most Improved, you must have shot in a minimum of 4 events starting in 2019.
Being the Copper State. awards will be copper.
I hope to see you at Pioneer. It will be fun. Come looking for a gunfight, but remember the Cowboy Way. It is all about work, play, and being neighborly. Enjoy the task at hand, that bonc or maverick will be there again tomorrow.
Monday, September 17, 2018
Muster matters, Format matters, Newbies learn!
I write this blog to the powers that be, those who make decisions and to the new shooters, those who learn. The Marshal's Muster agenda is out and it looks like some of this discussion may be helpful.
CFDA byes remind me a lot of the dogooders' attempts to help the poor by raising the minimum wage. Businesses close, jobs are lost and the poor get poorer. Unintended consequences matter. A bye is when a competitor moves to the next round without competing. They are necessary for bracketing and as long as they are fairly allocated either by lot or reasonable rules, they work fine.
Some complained that it was not fair for a shooter to move to the next round without competing so we ended up with the CFDA bye which is inherently unfair. To understand this you must realize that the shooter under our system still moves to the next round without competing. If the match format is three winning shots, the bye winner does not compete in the format for the match. What happens is that we have a three shooter shoot-off to allocate the bye. The winner of the shoot off gets to move to the next round without competing.
The allocation of the shooters who get the opportunity to shoot off for the bye is not set in advance by rule and/or is not determined by lot. The CFDA program matches winners against winners, losers against losers, with losers shooting first. Therefore the opportunity to shoot off for a bye is allocated to the winners. If you are shooting a no X format or in the first four rounds, the opportunity for a bye normally goes to the best of the winners. Winners of a bye remain among the best of the winners. That is why you see repeat shooters in the bye shoot offs. One of the clubs in Arizona do not use the CFDA program and in their program winners shoot first so the bye opportunity goes to the worst shooters of the event. Using their program you don't have repeat bye winners because the bye winner shoots themselves out of the opportunity for a bye.
The unfairness of the CFDA bye is really emphasized in the last man standing event. If you have a last man standing event with 99 shooters, in the first four rounds about 1% of the field would get a true bye, and under the CFDA allocation 3% of the field would get an opportunity to shoot off for the bye. By the start of the second day, about 10% of the field will get the opportunity for a bye. When the field is down to 7 shooters, 42% of the field will have the opportunity for a bye, when down to 5 shooters, 60% of the field will have the opportunity for a bye. When the field is down to 3 shooters, 100% of the field gets the opportunity to shoot off for a bye, and you would think that would then be fair, but the real unfairness comes to light.
The shoot off is a one winning shot affair with three shooters. It favors certain shooters and certain types of shooters. In 2017 at a Territorial event I observed an event where the winner advanced through three of the last four rounds without competing. It was a last man standing event, the event winner entered the last 3 standing with 3 xs, the other two shooters had 2 xs and 1x. The event winner won 3 shoot offs in a row. The event winner only competed in one round of the last four rounds. The format favored that particular shooter.
For the new shooter, you can train for the format that you shoot. Practice with techniques that requires you to hit and to hit right now and you can become a good bye shooter. I love byes! So does Cal. He is a good bye shooter. Train for it. It is not going to go away.
But Marshals, when you are thinking about SOPs realize a true bye is fair, a CFDA bye may not be. Why muddy up side matches with time consuming CFDA byes. We love our byes, but there is nothing wrong with a true bye. We do not score by wins anyway. Only x count matters. I apologize for being critical of the posse officials at the Southern. I did not know there was a SOP that did not follow the published rules.
While I am on my soap box, I call upon the Marshals to think about the CFDA resurrection. Because a significant number of titled events are won by shooters that have exceeded the x count, most recently Quick Cal at the Southern, I suggest the format is not working as well as it might. I strongly favor a resurrection feature that is open to all shooters. There is no reason we can not have an event where all shooters are still in play on the final day. We have the range time to do it. It would be easy to do and a lot less work than the side match system we now use just to occupy eliminated shooters.
If x count is so important and we don't want a resurrection feature open to all, get rid of it. If you exceed the x count you are out. Get rid of the CFDA resurrection. It is easy to write such a format.
"In a magnificent event when the main match field is reduced to less than 10% for men, less than 20% for ladies, the main match ends and the remaining shooters are seeded by x count and time out for a progressive 2 x elimination match." At the Southern, Cal would have been out and you would have shot a Magnificent 6 shoot off.
At the Southern, the powers that be were trying to save range time, but the SOP wasted the time saved and added a lot of unfairness and confusion to the bracket match (a side match). In the gunfighter bracket, 33% of the field had the opportunity to shoot off for a bye, 66% did not.
I have been accused of advocating changes that would benefit me personally. That is not true. I am a good shoot off shooter and a good bye shooter. I train to shoot the format that is used. You can too. But I understand that I place better than I should because of the format. Format matters. Quick Cal places better than he should, but then he wrote most of the rules.
Do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating that we eliminate the CFDA bye that results from an odd number of shooters. I love the CFDA bye. But it is inherently unfair and does not need to be expanded to replace the true bye which is fair that results for someone failing to appear for a match, for whatever reason.. Also understand that to determine champions, the magnificent format is better than the last man standing format because when to field is reduced down to about 10%, the magnificent format eliminates luck of the draw and the CFDA bye from the format, both of which are inherently unfair.
Lesson from the Great Plains: This blog has simmered for about thirty days. I started with the premise that CFDA byes are inherently unfair, which they are, but have moved moved my opinion to believing CFDA byes are a good thing. At the Great Plains in the 8th round the last three shooters had gunfighter ratings of 1.20, 1.35 and 1.10, respectively with the 1.10 shooter being the last shooter drawn. If it had been a true bye, the 1.10 shooter would have advanced without competing based solely on luck of the draw, and the 1.35 shooter would have eliminated the 1.20 shooter. But using the CFDA bye shoot off, the 1.35 shooter, as would be expected, won the bye and advanced without competing and the 1.20 shooter eliminated the 1.10 shooter. Format matters. The CFDA bye favors the better gunfighter. Maybe it is a good thing to have a format that favors the better gunfighter, it mitigates the luck of the draw unfairness.
On a personal note, I competed in two fewer rounds than other shooters that went out at the same time. I love the CFDA bye.
For the FGA Blast for Cash:
Cal, for the FGA blast for cash, let the squawkers squawk, start it at 8 sharp, if someone does not show up, use a true bye. That way we probably have time to shoot a 3 winning shot 2 x affair. In a side match in the first round true byes would save you enough time to go to a 3 winning shot format. I can suggest a clear SOP.
"In side matches when roll call has not been taken, in the first round a failure to appear by a shooter shall result in a forfeiture of round pursuant to Paragraph IV. 6 (page 21). The scorekeeper shall note the win and the failure to appear on the score sheet and the shooter failing to appear shall be withdrawn from the match for the next round."
"Let's dance!"
CFDA byes remind me a lot of the dogooders' attempts to help the poor by raising the minimum wage. Businesses close, jobs are lost and the poor get poorer. Unintended consequences matter. A bye is when a competitor moves to the next round without competing. They are necessary for bracketing and as long as they are fairly allocated either by lot or reasonable rules, they work fine.
Some complained that it was not fair for a shooter to move to the next round without competing so we ended up with the CFDA bye which is inherently unfair. To understand this you must realize that the shooter under our system still moves to the next round without competing. If the match format is three winning shots, the bye winner does not compete in the format for the match. What happens is that we have a three shooter shoot-off to allocate the bye. The winner of the shoot off gets to move to the next round without competing.
The allocation of the shooters who get the opportunity to shoot off for the bye is not set in advance by rule and/or is not determined by lot. The CFDA program matches winners against winners, losers against losers, with losers shooting first. Therefore the opportunity to shoot off for a bye is allocated to the winners. If you are shooting a no X format or in the first four rounds, the opportunity for a bye normally goes to the best of the winners. Winners of a bye remain among the best of the winners. That is why you see repeat shooters in the bye shoot offs. One of the clubs in Arizona do not use the CFDA program and in their program winners shoot first so the bye opportunity goes to the worst shooters of the event. Using their program you don't have repeat bye winners because the bye winner shoots themselves out of the opportunity for a bye.
The unfairness of the CFDA bye is really emphasized in the last man standing event. If you have a last man standing event with 99 shooters, in the first four rounds about 1% of the field would get a true bye, and under the CFDA allocation 3% of the field would get an opportunity to shoot off for the bye. By the start of the second day, about 10% of the field will get the opportunity for a bye. When the field is down to 7 shooters, 42% of the field will have the opportunity for a bye, when down to 5 shooters, 60% of the field will have the opportunity for a bye. When the field is down to 3 shooters, 100% of the field gets the opportunity to shoot off for a bye, and you would think that would then be fair, but the real unfairness comes to light.
The shoot off is a one winning shot affair with three shooters. It favors certain shooters and certain types of shooters. In 2017 at a Territorial event I observed an event where the winner advanced through three of the last four rounds without competing. It was a last man standing event, the event winner entered the last 3 standing with 3 xs, the other two shooters had 2 xs and 1x. The event winner won 3 shoot offs in a row. The event winner only competed in one round of the last four rounds. The format favored that particular shooter.
For the new shooter, you can train for the format that you shoot. Practice with techniques that requires you to hit and to hit right now and you can become a good bye shooter. I love byes! So does Cal. He is a good bye shooter. Train for it. It is not going to go away.
But Marshals, when you are thinking about SOPs realize a true bye is fair, a CFDA bye may not be. Why muddy up side matches with time consuming CFDA byes. We love our byes, but there is nothing wrong with a true bye. We do not score by wins anyway. Only x count matters. I apologize for being critical of the posse officials at the Southern. I did not know there was a SOP that did not follow the published rules.
While I am on my soap box, I call upon the Marshals to think about the CFDA resurrection. Because a significant number of titled events are won by shooters that have exceeded the x count, most recently Quick Cal at the Southern, I suggest the format is not working as well as it might. I strongly favor a resurrection feature that is open to all shooters. There is no reason we can not have an event where all shooters are still in play on the final day. We have the range time to do it. It would be easy to do and a lot less work than the side match system we now use just to occupy eliminated shooters.
If x count is so important and we don't want a resurrection feature open to all, get rid of it. If you exceed the x count you are out. Get rid of the CFDA resurrection. It is easy to write such a format.
"In a magnificent event when the main match field is reduced to less than 10% for men, less than 20% for ladies, the main match ends and the remaining shooters are seeded by x count and time out for a progressive 2 x elimination match." At the Southern, Cal would have been out and you would have shot a Magnificent 6 shoot off.
At the Southern, the powers that be were trying to save range time, but the SOP wasted the time saved and added a lot of unfairness and confusion to the bracket match (a side match). In the gunfighter bracket, 33% of the field had the opportunity to shoot off for a bye, 66% did not.
I have been accused of advocating changes that would benefit me personally. That is not true. I am a good shoot off shooter and a good bye shooter. I train to shoot the format that is used. You can too. But I understand that I place better than I should because of the format. Format matters. Quick Cal places better than he should, but then he wrote most of the rules.
Do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating that we eliminate the CFDA bye that results from an odd number of shooters. I love the CFDA bye. But it is inherently unfair and does not need to be expanded to replace the true bye which is fair that results for someone failing to appear for a match, for whatever reason.. Also understand that to determine champions, the magnificent format is better than the last man standing format because when to field is reduced down to about 10%, the magnificent format eliminates luck of the draw and the CFDA bye from the format, both of which are inherently unfair.
Lesson from the Great Plains: This blog has simmered for about thirty days. I started with the premise that CFDA byes are inherently unfair, which they are, but have moved moved my opinion to believing CFDA byes are a good thing. At the Great Plains in the 8th round the last three shooters had gunfighter ratings of 1.20, 1.35 and 1.10, respectively with the 1.10 shooter being the last shooter drawn. If it had been a true bye, the 1.10 shooter would have advanced without competing based solely on luck of the draw, and the 1.35 shooter would have eliminated the 1.20 shooter. But using the CFDA bye shoot off, the 1.35 shooter, as would be expected, won the bye and advanced without competing and the 1.20 shooter eliminated the 1.10 shooter. Format matters. The CFDA bye favors the better gunfighter. Maybe it is a good thing to have a format that favors the better gunfighter, it mitigates the luck of the draw unfairness.
On a personal note, I competed in two fewer rounds than other shooters that went out at the same time. I love the CFDA bye.
For the FGA Blast for Cash:
Cal, for the FGA blast for cash, let the squawkers squawk, start it at 8 sharp, if someone does not show up, use a true bye. That way we probably have time to shoot a 3 winning shot 2 x affair. In a side match in the first round true byes would save you enough time to go to a 3 winning shot format. I can suggest a clear SOP.
"In side matches when roll call has not been taken, in the first round a failure to appear by a shooter shall result in a forfeiture of round pursuant to Paragraph IV. 6 (page 21). The scorekeeper shall note the win and the failure to appear on the score sheet and the shooter failing to appear shall be withdrawn from the match for the next round."
"Let's dance!"
Friday, August 24, 2018
Story of a pig.
It all began with an argument over a pig. Whether domesticated or feral, that was the bone, had the notch a human origin or nature's fate, I do not know. Like all viable feuds, each side had the law in their corner fueling the righteous indignation. In the pig fight it was state and county versus county and state, although all had been confederates, and some think the real fight was over do you stay or do you go? Once it had degenerated, it became if I remember the quote, "he is a jack ass, but he is our jack ass."
The great deceiver always places the law on both sides. In Cochise county, it was the federal and municipal (republicans) versus the county (democrats), two posses seeking to serve warrants of death on the other. In Johnson county, state versus local, with the feds rescuing the hired guns. Lincoln county the regulators were serving warrants with bounty hunters getting in the middle. "Let's dance!" As Billy and Tom Horn found out, it matters little what is right, what the law is, what the facts are, it only matters who is holding the end of the rope.
I know who is holding the end of the rope so I will hide. Maybe it is time for a new alias, or a new land. We will see!
What I know for sure is ...........!
(I leave the rest of the story for the commentators to fill in. I know better than to say it, but it jingles so well. I know I will share it, but only to my closest allies or directly to my foe. The crux will be, whom thee be!)
"He's all lathered up, chomping at the bit, give him some rein, cause there ain't no quit, be gone, hold on, Comes BoogieMan,"
The great deceiver always places the law on both sides. In Cochise county, it was the federal and municipal (republicans) versus the county (democrats), two posses seeking to serve warrants of death on the other. In Johnson county, state versus local, with the feds rescuing the hired guns. Lincoln county the regulators were serving warrants with bounty hunters getting in the middle. "Let's dance!" As Billy and Tom Horn found out, it matters little what is right, what the law is, what the facts are, it only matters who is holding the end of the rope.
I know who is holding the end of the rope so I will hide. Maybe it is time for a new alias, or a new land. We will see!
What I know for sure is ...........!
(I leave the rest of the story for the commentators to fill in. I know better than to say it, but it jingles so well. I know I will share it, but only to my closest allies or directly to my foe. The crux will be, whom thee be!)
"He's all lathered up, chomping at the bit, give him some rein, cause there ain't no quit, be gone, hold on, Comes BoogieMan,"
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Format Matters; High Plains Territorial
I write because because I am waiting for the motel breakfast bar to open and the High Plains Territorial keeps churning in my mind. The High Plains is one of the few territorials that use the last man standing format. Big Ugly was so dominant and he was shooting so well that he probably would have won it in the magnificent format but he would have not been the favorite. The top seven from bottom to top were Buzzard Cooper, Everett Hitch, Old Drifter, Quick Cal, Beaver Creek Kid, Bolder Vaquero and Big Ugly. In a magnificent seven a handicapper probably would have pick one of the World Champions, there were three in the top seven. I would have pick Cal or that shoot-off expert. Quick Cal had been eliminated in the Southern only to be resurrected and win, but the field in the Southern was not as strong.
There are four factors in major events that determine who wins. In their order of importance they are luck of the draw, mental toughness, accuracy and least important is quickness. A shooter can practice and improve three of the four. In a last man standing format all four factors remain in play to the end. A magnificent seven eliminates the luck of the draw factor when the field is reduced to seven. Format matters!
Not only does last man standing keep luck of the draw in play, at some point CFDA bye rounds are used. The CFDA bye round is inherently unfair which is a matter for a separate discussion. A Magnificent Seven eliminates the CFDA bye rounds and eliminates luck of the draw.
The Ladies High Plains is also interesting in this discussion. Top three women were KK Kid, Holli Day, and Whippin N Spurrin (side note 2 of the 3 were Arizona Gunslingers) In a Magnificent Seven, if I was handicapping it I would have pick that Shady Mtn Shooter, Holli Day. KK Kid won the event. She was clean going into the top three. I assume, but do not know, that was a result of luck of the draw early in the day. Being clean was a great advantage for KK Kid. It may have been deserved or it may have been the result of luck of the draw. In any event, a magnificent format levels the playing field when the field is reduced to seven and each shooter is clean in a 2x shoot-off. Prior success is rewarded by a high seed, but the #1 spot may not be the preferred seeding for all shooters.
Luck of the draw is such an important factor in determining who wins, that consideration should be given to dealing with it in some fashion. I can name five major events in the last three years where the eventual winner of the event was eliminated only to be resurrected to fill the bracket. Most recent was Quick Cal in the Southern. That is why I lobby for an resurrection avenue for all shooters.
In closing I must says that the High Plains was a great event, well run and most enjoyable. Many thanks to the Powderhorn Ranch Regulators on a job well done.
There are four factors in major events that determine who wins. In their order of importance they are luck of the draw, mental toughness, accuracy and least important is quickness. A shooter can practice and improve three of the four. In a last man standing format all four factors remain in play to the end. A magnificent seven eliminates the luck of the draw factor when the field is reduced to seven. Format matters!
Not only does last man standing keep luck of the draw in play, at some point CFDA bye rounds are used. The CFDA bye round is inherently unfair which is a matter for a separate discussion. A Magnificent Seven eliminates the CFDA bye rounds and eliminates luck of the draw.
The Ladies High Plains is also interesting in this discussion. Top three women were KK Kid, Holli Day, and Whippin N Spurrin (side note 2 of the 3 were Arizona Gunslingers) In a Magnificent Seven, if I was handicapping it I would have pick that Shady Mtn Shooter, Holli Day. KK Kid won the event. She was clean going into the top three. I assume, but do not know, that was a result of luck of the draw early in the day. Being clean was a great advantage for KK Kid. It may have been deserved or it may have been the result of luck of the draw. In any event, a magnificent format levels the playing field when the field is reduced to seven and each shooter is clean in a 2x shoot-off. Prior success is rewarded by a high seed, but the #1 spot may not be the preferred seeding for all shooters.
Luck of the draw is such an important factor in determining who wins, that consideration should be given to dealing with it in some fashion. I can name five major events in the last three years where the eventual winner of the event was eliminated only to be resurrected to fill the bracket. Most recent was Quick Cal in the Southern. That is why I lobby for an resurrection avenue for all shooters.
In closing I must says that the High Plains was a great event, well run and most enjoyable. Many thanks to the Powderhorn Ranch Regulators on a job well done.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Given Up Cont.;Lesson from Colorado
I am going to respond to some of the comments with lessons from Colorado. I do this because there are some really good illustrations for this discussion. Colorado is really one of the best run events using the current formats.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
In the past several years there have been more than a half dozen events where the event winner had been eliminated with four x s only to be put back into the event by the CFDA resurrection to fill the magnificent shoot off. The most recent was the 2018 Southern wherein Quick Cal was resurrected and then won the event. This happens frequently. What this tells you is that sometimes the best shooter at the event is eliminated before he or she gets to the shoot off. What we don't know is how often the best shooter is eliminated by the format and he/she is not resurrected to fill the vacancy.
From Colorado: I and Okie Ed were each shooting well enough to win the State Championships but neither of us made to the shoot offs because of the luck of the draw. In the final rounds of the main match, we drew each other in consecutive rounds. We were evenly matched, matches going 2 to 2, final shot on quickness, splitting the matches, each missing out on the shoot-off because of those two matches. Okie Ed won the shoot off for place between us finishing 7th. Since it was a Fubby Five instead Magnificent Seven, Okie Ed, did not get the opportunity to see if he was the best gunfighter there. (My distain for the Fubby Five does not come from Colorado, but from the last Arizona State Championship where I finished 7th)
Also from Colorado an illustration that the format may not be working as well as we think is the final standings of the State and Territorial. The top two shooters in the standings of the State did not make the final shoot-offs of the Territorial. The top two shooters of the Territorial did not make the shoot-offs of the State. If these four shooters were truly the best four gunslingers at these events you would expect that they would be in the shoot-offs of both events or at a minimum at least one of them would make the finals of both event.
Luck of the draw is such a big factor in how you place. I did well winning the jackpot shoot and placing 2nd in the Master Gunfighter Bracket, but I have no illusions. "I was lucky in the draw, but then I have always been lucky when ....." When it gets down to the top 20% of an event, not only do you need to be lucky in your draw, but you need to be lucky in who the rest of the field draws. It really helps when someone else takes out that shooter that you can not handle, whether by speed, accuracy, or mental toughness. In the jackpot shoot and the bracket shoot the draws were favorable for me, in the main events not so much.
" I get fourth seed in the main match...stripped of qualifying seed.."
This is a valid concern but stems from our difficulty of accepting change. It is no different from the 6th or 7th seeds in fubby five matches. At least in the format changes I am proposing those almost made it places have two more days of shooting to make it to the shoot offs. The fact that repeatedly eliminated shooters win events means there is a need for a resurrections element in our formats.
At Colorado only one shooter, Two Buck Chuck, made the magnificent shoot-offs in both events. Expanding the fubby five to a Magnificent 7 does not change it, only one still made both.
Time, Time, Time:
When you consider event format and match format, it is a balancing act. To mitigate the adverse effects of luck of the draw you need a higher elimination factor. To get more x s, you need more range time. That can be done by either shortening match length or eliminating side matches. My vote would be to eliminate side matches.
At Colorado we shot a jackpot shoot on one range with 47 shooters in 4 hours. It was Nevada Eight 2x shoot. Since the time taken for Nevada Eight is about the same as Three Winning shots, I am sure we can easily shoot 100 shooters on two ranges 2 x in about five hours. I really think we could shoot 100 shooters on two ranges 3x the first day, shooting down to three. The second day we could again shoot 3 winning shots 3x down to three shooters. There have been a lot of state shoots shooting 4 x three winning shots in one day.
Side matches consume range time and we shoot side matches just to occupy eliminated shooters. It is really unnecessary. It you don't eliminate shooters until noon the third day you don't need the side matches.
Another thing that takes range time is place shoot-offs. At Colorado, there were a lot of shoot-offs for place. The rules say place for recognized places must be determined by a shoot-off and not by x count and time out. The solution to this is how you structure recognized places. If your recognized places are the Magnificent 7 and the top three places in the bracket shoots, then all the recognized places are determined on the line by the format without shoot-offs. That would be 29 places recognized on the line although some of those places would be taken by the same shooters. (Ladies 7, Men 7, and five brackets 3 each, Master Gunfighter, Gunfighter. Sheriff, Deputy and Shootist for a total of 29) For 100 shooters that is 29% of the shooter which is comparable to what most shoots do now.
Thinking about time again, there is no reason we can not shoot 100 shooters on two ranges, main match 3x three winning shots, resurrection 3 x three winning shots and then on championship day shoot five brackets, 2x two winning shots. Bracket winners, men range A and ladies range B, magnificent five at high noon, and then start the Magnificent Seven Shoot-off at 1:00. Awards at 3:00.
We have the time and the ranges. We can have an 8 x match. It is not hard. Just cut out shoot-offs and side matches. Keep all shooters in play to the morning of the third day.
Administrating ease:
I am sure this is easier to do that what is done now because there are fewer matches and less shoot-offs, but I have not punched the keys. My question to Wench and Miss Betty is can the same matches be run the second day with the same shooters on the same computer. How do you reset the computer with the same shooters? My simple solution would be to get a second laptop. Computer 1 runs the first day. Same shooters entered into Computer 2 and it runs the second day. During the second day the brackets are set up on Computer 1 for the third morning. Brackets are run and posted on the second day for the morning of the third day from first days shooting since that is the main match. Seems simple and easy.
Enough for now. "Bring me another shooter!"
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
In the past several years there have been more than a half dozen events where the event winner had been eliminated with four x s only to be put back into the event by the CFDA resurrection to fill the magnificent shoot off. The most recent was the 2018 Southern wherein Quick Cal was resurrected and then won the event. This happens frequently. What this tells you is that sometimes the best shooter at the event is eliminated before he or she gets to the shoot off. What we don't know is how often the best shooter is eliminated by the format and he/she is not resurrected to fill the vacancy.
From Colorado: I and Okie Ed were each shooting well enough to win the State Championships but neither of us made to the shoot offs because of the luck of the draw. In the final rounds of the main match, we drew each other in consecutive rounds. We were evenly matched, matches going 2 to 2, final shot on quickness, splitting the matches, each missing out on the shoot-off because of those two matches. Okie Ed won the shoot off for place between us finishing 7th. Since it was a Fubby Five instead Magnificent Seven, Okie Ed, did not get the opportunity to see if he was the best gunfighter there. (My distain for the Fubby Five does not come from Colorado, but from the last Arizona State Championship where I finished 7th)
Also from Colorado an illustration that the format may not be working as well as we think is the final standings of the State and Territorial. The top two shooters in the standings of the State did not make the final shoot-offs of the Territorial. The top two shooters of the Territorial did not make the shoot-offs of the State. If these four shooters were truly the best four gunslingers at these events you would expect that they would be in the shoot-offs of both events or at a minimum at least one of them would make the finals of both event.
Luck of the draw is such a big factor in how you place. I did well winning the jackpot shoot and placing 2nd in the Master Gunfighter Bracket, but I have no illusions. "I was lucky in the draw, but then I have always been lucky when ....." When it gets down to the top 20% of an event, not only do you need to be lucky in your draw, but you need to be lucky in who the rest of the field draws. It really helps when someone else takes out that shooter that you can not handle, whether by speed, accuracy, or mental toughness. In the jackpot shoot and the bracket shoot the draws were favorable for me, in the main events not so much.
" I get fourth seed in the main match...stripped of qualifying seed.."
This is a valid concern but stems from our difficulty of accepting change. It is no different from the 6th or 7th seeds in fubby five matches. At least in the format changes I am proposing those almost made it places have two more days of shooting to make it to the shoot offs. The fact that repeatedly eliminated shooters win events means there is a need for a resurrections element in our formats.
At Colorado only one shooter, Two Buck Chuck, made the magnificent shoot-offs in both events. Expanding the fubby five to a Magnificent 7 does not change it, only one still made both.
Time, Time, Time:
When you consider event format and match format, it is a balancing act. To mitigate the adverse effects of luck of the draw you need a higher elimination factor. To get more x s, you need more range time. That can be done by either shortening match length or eliminating side matches. My vote would be to eliminate side matches.
At Colorado we shot a jackpot shoot on one range with 47 shooters in 4 hours. It was Nevada Eight 2x shoot. Since the time taken for Nevada Eight is about the same as Three Winning shots, I am sure we can easily shoot 100 shooters on two ranges 2 x in about five hours. I really think we could shoot 100 shooters on two ranges 3x the first day, shooting down to three. The second day we could again shoot 3 winning shots 3x down to three shooters. There have been a lot of state shoots shooting 4 x three winning shots in one day.
Side matches consume range time and we shoot side matches just to occupy eliminated shooters. It is really unnecessary. It you don't eliminate shooters until noon the third day you don't need the side matches.
Another thing that takes range time is place shoot-offs. At Colorado, there were a lot of shoot-offs for place. The rules say place for recognized places must be determined by a shoot-off and not by x count and time out. The solution to this is how you structure recognized places. If your recognized places are the Magnificent 7 and the top three places in the bracket shoots, then all the recognized places are determined on the line by the format without shoot-offs. That would be 29 places recognized on the line although some of those places would be taken by the same shooters. (Ladies 7, Men 7, and five brackets 3 each, Master Gunfighter, Gunfighter. Sheriff, Deputy and Shootist for a total of 29) For 100 shooters that is 29% of the shooter which is comparable to what most shoots do now.
Thinking about time again, there is no reason we can not shoot 100 shooters on two ranges, main match 3x three winning shots, resurrection 3 x three winning shots and then on championship day shoot five brackets, 2x two winning shots. Bracket winners, men range A and ladies range B, magnificent five at high noon, and then start the Magnificent Seven Shoot-off at 1:00. Awards at 3:00.
We have the time and the ranges. We can have an 8 x match. It is not hard. Just cut out shoot-offs and side matches. Keep all shooters in play to the morning of the third day.
Administrating ease:
I am sure this is easier to do that what is done now because there are fewer matches and less shoot-offs, but I have not punched the keys. My question to Wench and Miss Betty is can the same matches be run the second day with the same shooters on the same computer. How do you reset the computer with the same shooters? My simple solution would be to get a second laptop. Computer 1 runs the first day. Same shooters entered into Computer 2 and it runs the second day. During the second day the brackets are set up on Computer 1 for the third morning. Brackets are run and posted on the second day for the morning of the third day from first days shooting since that is the main match. Seems simple and easy.
Enough for now. "Bring me another shooter!"
Monday, July 23, 2018
Given Up!
I have given up on the 7 X titled event. In order to do that, you need to use the best 5 shot option which folks will not even try. If they tried it they would love it, but I guess they don't want to use the best, so I have given up.
I have move on to advocating for the 6 X event. It would be really easy to do.
First day is the main event. Matches are three winning shots, elimination factor of two, shooting down to three shooters. These are the three top spots in the Magnificent Seven.
Second day is Resurrection. Same shooters, matches are three winning shots, elimination factor of two, shooting down to three shooters, taking top three not already in the Mag 7. These are the next three spots in the Mag 7.
Third day is Championship Day. All shooters are still in competition. Break all shooters down into four brackets. Matches are two winning shots, last man standing, elimination factor of two. (Same as FGA a few years ago.)
High Noon, bracket winners shoot off, top man and lady shooter not already in Mag 7 from each bracket carrying their x count forward for a shoot off for the final Mag 7 spot.
Recognized places would be Magnificent 7 and the top three spots of the brackets.
Advantages of the 6 X event:
All shooters get 6 x. All shooters are still in contention for title championship on the morning of Championship Day.
No need for side matches that just waste range time.
Drawing of rounds is much simplified since the same match is drawn on day one and day two. Should be little or no down time for drawing rounds
Few if any shoot-offs for place.
It is easy. It will run smoothly. There will be little down time.
I am pitching it to the Association of Arizona Gunslingers, Inc. Failing there I guess I will look for new blood, maybe Iowa. Want to come to the casinos in January and shoot in a 6 X State Championship. It would be great for a new club, maybe fewer cats there.
I have move on to advocating for the 6 X event. It would be really easy to do.
First day is the main event. Matches are three winning shots, elimination factor of two, shooting down to three shooters. These are the three top spots in the Magnificent Seven.
Second day is Resurrection. Same shooters, matches are three winning shots, elimination factor of two, shooting down to three shooters, taking top three not already in the Mag 7. These are the next three spots in the Mag 7.
Third day is Championship Day. All shooters are still in competition. Break all shooters down into four brackets. Matches are two winning shots, last man standing, elimination factor of two. (Same as FGA a few years ago.)
High Noon, bracket winners shoot off, top man and lady shooter not already in Mag 7 from each bracket carrying their x count forward for a shoot off for the final Mag 7 spot.
Recognized places would be Magnificent 7 and the top three spots of the brackets.
Advantages of the 6 X event:
All shooters get 6 x. All shooters are still in contention for title championship on the morning of Championship Day.
No need for side matches that just waste range time.
Drawing of rounds is much simplified since the same match is drawn on day one and day two. Should be little or no down time for drawing rounds
Few if any shoot-offs for place.
It is easy. It will run smoothly. There will be little down time.
I am pitching it to the Association of Arizona Gunslingers, Inc. Failing there I guess I will look for new blood, maybe Iowa. Want to come to the casinos in January and shoot in a 6 X State Championship. It would be great for a new club, maybe fewer cats there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)