The Association of Arizona Gunslingers, Inc., held a stand alone CFDA Bracket Shoot yesterday with 37 shooters participating on 2 ranges. I think is was a very successful practice shoot. You hold club practice shoots not only for the shooters to individually practice but also for the club as a whole to practice. We did this, in part, to practice the bracket shoot which we are going to use as a second chance shoot on Championship Day at the 2020 Arizona State Championship. At that shoot all shooters, let me repeat all shooters, will be still be shooting for substantial prizes and prize money on Championship Sunday. We also needed to test out the Loess Hills portable range after significant improvement were made to the range.
Here is what we learned:
The results: All four brackets were very competitive. The only adverse comment I heard was, "Boy, there are no easy draws in this shoot."
Bracket winners were: Master Gunfighter: The Draw, Gunfighter: Half Cock Willie, Sheriff: Cort O' Whiskey and Deputy: Detox. I regret not having photos and awards but maybe next year. Congratulations to the winners and all the other shooters. There were no easy matches with most brackets going down to the last shot of the last match.
The Range: The Loess Hills range worked well. The new netting was much easier to put up and maintain. Bounced backs did not appear to be a problem. The CFDA timers with the Beaver Creek box worked perfectly. Shooters were able to see misses easily. There was no microphone interference with the location used.
It took two men two hours to put the range up. Take down was done in 20 minutes with five men and the range was down and on the trailer before the shoot was completed on the other range.
The one negative that I observed was that the shooters were facing into the sun with the north/south orientation. It might be better to turn the range to a east /west orientation with the shooters shooting to the west. It would take some more modifications to do that. We would have to weld two more brackets the back of the target panels and get two more braces. The range then would be completely free standing. By doing this we would also get the benefit of a darker background behind the targets there being a fence to the west. We could also then park the truck and the trailer in the parking lot freeing up some space for the shooters.
Not our first rodeo: Although this was the first ever CFDA Bracket shoot by a club in Arizona, it was not our first rodeo. The Loess Hills Paladins (not a CFDA club) has held several this year and on Shady Mountain we have been using this bracket shoot for our 19.5 (7) training sessions. We normally shoot a 1x main match followed by a CFDA bracket match. It gives those training the chance to use the full range of options on the CFDA scoring program.
The Format: This was not a classifications shoot but a bracket shoot based on actual prior performance. For most of the year, I obtained bracket reports from those clubs that use the CFDA program and entered those on a spreadsheet which had a column that recorded the quickest bracket report time. I then sorted by quickest bracket report time (2nd fastest). I had times on 79 shooters and all 37 shooters had prior bracket report times. Registering the shooters was based on these times and the brackets were fairly even. Only two shooters needed to move to even out the brackets. These shooters are what I refer to as border shooters, shooters right on the border between brackets that may go either way depending on the numbers. In most titled events I am a border shooter.
It is remarkable how consistent most shooters are. There were a few shooters, mostly new shooters, who showed improvement as the year progressed in their bracket times. I did not use any discretion in making up the brackets, it was not necessary.
Future: I was a little disappointed in the turn out. I was hoping for 60 shooters. I would suggest that this might make a good annual affair for Arizona. October seems to be a good month to do it. If all the clubs got behind it by using the CFDA scoring program at their club shoots and printed out a bracket report, it only takes a click to do, it could really become a fun event. Gives you the chance to compete against those of your speed. What do you think?
Gunfighter Rating: When I get my hands on the scoresheets I will do a gunfighter rating on the 37 shooters and email it to them. It is always interesting to see why you placed where you did.
Bring me another shoot!
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Thursday, September 19, 2019
"The Sort" or "What will the Marshals muster?"
The CFDA main match is nothing more than a seeding tournament wherein shooters are sorted from first to last. If the event is a magnificent event, when the field is reduced to about 10%, the main match ends and the shooters are seeded in a progressive 2x elimination shoot off. This removes the two inherently unfair factors involved in the main match. For last man standing events, those factors remain to the last man standing.
For the Marshal's Muster there are three agenda items that the substance of which has similar issues. When discussing this, the Marshals need to consider how well the proposed format sorts. The purpose of the main match is to sort and that should always be consider. For example, matches determined by one shot do not sort well because the average hit percentage for shooters is about 45% and therefore it may be just a matter of chance who is sort up and who is sorted down. Also, for evenly matched opponents, speedwise, who wins and who loses may depend on who was given the faster cartridge.
Now for the agenda items:
Discussion at the Springs: For those who were not there, in the Master Gunfighter bracket, shooting Nevada 8, the field had been reduced to two shooters, with recognized places being 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. The shooters were clean and 1 x and the match went to 8 shots tied 1-1. Most of the match officials and spectators thought the event was over but it was not because the rule is very specific that when the match is for a "recognized place" the eight shot limit is suspended and does not apply. The eventual winner hit the next shot winning the match and the shooters were then tied 1-1 in x count. The eventual winner hit the first three shot of the next round winning the event.
I think this is on the agenda for educational purposes. The rule as written is clear, specific and works well. The problem is that most shooters are not aware of the rule. If you did not like the results at the Springs it is because your favorite did not win, not because there is a problem with the format. When you consider these two shooters, over the three matches that they shot, the eventual winner had a hit percentage of around 50% and the losing shooter had a hit percentage of 25% or less. Speedwise, they were the final two shooters in the master gunfighter bracket and fairly evenly matched although most would say the loser was a bit quicker. For those that understand gunfighter rating, over their three matches the winner shot at 1.08 and the loser shot at .85. The format works and sorted correctly.
Arizona Five: This is on the agenda just to recognize it as an option for local events and side matches. It is a good format that will save about 25% range time and it does sort better than other formats as explained. Please read the notes on the agenda for its benefits as a local and side match format. It usefulness is to save range time so that the elimination factor can be raised. The higher the elimination factor the more the luck of the draw unfairness is mitigated. There are no ties in Arizona Five and this feature may be of use in the next agenda item.
Overall Shot Limit: A overall shot limit is being proposed for all events including the main match. Unless the Marshals come to the meeting with a rope we are going to have a overall shot limit. The limits of 8, 10, or 12 have been mentioned. I would favor a limit of 8 shots because most shooters have become used to the 8 shot limit of Nevada 8. It is easy to say the match is over after 8 shots and the shooter with the most winning shots wins but what do you do with the 0-0, 1-1, and the 2-2 matches. A couple of alternatives would be the Nevada 8 rule whereby both shooters get an x whether 0-0, 1-1, or 2-2, or the Arizona Five rule whereby 0-0 and 1-1 both get a x, and 2-2 both shooter get a win. Considering the sort with the an 8 shot limit, you could have two shooters both hitting the fastest they have ever shot and both hitting 50% and the score tied 2-2. In that case those shooters should be sorted up as what would happen in Arizona Five. (This happens more frequently than you would expect. It is not unusual for two shooters to hit four in a row, then to miss repeatedly as they are both trying to squeeze out that last millisecond to win.)
If you set the limit at 10, the best 2-2 can be shooting is 40%. If the limit is set at 12, the best 2-2 can be shooting is 33%. Both these are below the CFDA average of 45%, so the Nevada 8 rule makes sense from a sorting perspective.
A further refinement would be does the limit apply when it is for a recognized place or does it apply in the magnificent shoot offs. You can think about this in theory and think you know how it is going to work, but until you do it, you will not know for sure. Cal needs to run this repeatedly before the end of the year so he knows exactly how it will work before it is implemented. Testing was one of the things that the Loess Hills Paladins did, but it is going out of existence.
Format Matters! Will be looking for those byes this weekend.
For the Marshal's Muster there are three agenda items that the substance of which has similar issues. When discussing this, the Marshals need to consider how well the proposed format sorts. The purpose of the main match is to sort and that should always be consider. For example, matches determined by one shot do not sort well because the average hit percentage for shooters is about 45% and therefore it may be just a matter of chance who is sort up and who is sorted down. Also, for evenly matched opponents, speedwise, who wins and who loses may depend on who was given the faster cartridge.
Now for the agenda items:
Discussion at the Springs: For those who were not there, in the Master Gunfighter bracket, shooting Nevada 8, the field had been reduced to two shooters, with recognized places being 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. The shooters were clean and 1 x and the match went to 8 shots tied 1-1. Most of the match officials and spectators thought the event was over but it was not because the rule is very specific that when the match is for a "recognized place" the eight shot limit is suspended and does not apply. The eventual winner hit the next shot winning the match and the shooters were then tied 1-1 in x count. The eventual winner hit the first three shot of the next round winning the event.
I think this is on the agenda for educational purposes. The rule as written is clear, specific and works well. The problem is that most shooters are not aware of the rule. If you did not like the results at the Springs it is because your favorite did not win, not because there is a problem with the format. When you consider these two shooters, over the three matches that they shot, the eventual winner had a hit percentage of around 50% and the losing shooter had a hit percentage of 25% or less. Speedwise, they were the final two shooters in the master gunfighter bracket and fairly evenly matched although most would say the loser was a bit quicker. For those that understand gunfighter rating, over their three matches the winner shot at 1.08 and the loser shot at .85. The format works and sorted correctly.
Arizona Five: This is on the agenda just to recognize it as an option for local events and side matches. It is a good format that will save about 25% range time and it does sort better than other formats as explained. Please read the notes on the agenda for its benefits as a local and side match format. It usefulness is to save range time so that the elimination factor can be raised. The higher the elimination factor the more the luck of the draw unfairness is mitigated. There are no ties in Arizona Five and this feature may be of use in the next agenda item.
Overall Shot Limit: A overall shot limit is being proposed for all events including the main match. Unless the Marshals come to the meeting with a rope we are going to have a overall shot limit. The limits of 8, 10, or 12 have been mentioned. I would favor a limit of 8 shots because most shooters have become used to the 8 shot limit of Nevada 8. It is easy to say the match is over after 8 shots and the shooter with the most winning shots wins but what do you do with the 0-0, 1-1, and the 2-2 matches. A couple of alternatives would be the Nevada 8 rule whereby both shooters get an x whether 0-0, 1-1, or 2-2, or the Arizona Five rule whereby 0-0 and 1-1 both get a x, and 2-2 both shooter get a win. Considering the sort with the an 8 shot limit, you could have two shooters both hitting the fastest they have ever shot and both hitting 50% and the score tied 2-2. In that case those shooters should be sorted up as what would happen in Arizona Five. (This happens more frequently than you would expect. It is not unusual for two shooters to hit four in a row, then to miss repeatedly as they are both trying to squeeze out that last millisecond to win.)
If you set the limit at 10, the best 2-2 can be shooting is 40%. If the limit is set at 12, the best 2-2 can be shooting is 33%. Both these are below the CFDA average of 45%, so the Nevada 8 rule makes sense from a sorting perspective.
A further refinement would be does the limit apply when it is for a recognized place or does it apply in the magnificent shoot offs. You can think about this in theory and think you know how it is going to work, but until you do it, you will not know for sure. Cal needs to run this repeatedly before the end of the year so he knows exactly how it will work before it is implemented. Testing was one of the things that the Loess Hills Paladins did, but it is going out of existence.
Format Matters! Will be looking for those byes this weekend.
Friday, August 16, 2019
Butt in the Pocket
After enduring years of verbal harassment from my good friend and training partner about that silly rule I have embarked upon a training program to put the butt in the pocket. I figure if I am putting the butt of the gun in the pocket of the holster when I fire all that frivolous noise about that silly rule will go away. So I am doing at least 20 draws a day in front of a mirror attempting to move my anchor point. Will see how it goes.
What prompted this was an incident wherein my good friend and training partner produced a photo from the Mag 7 at the springs. My reaction was, "Boy, that draw is perfect." He was blabbering about the silly rule and even drawing lines. I had to seek counsel from the best Range Master in CFDA who recited that it must be "clearly obvious." To which he, training partner, produced a magnifying glass and I retorted "if you have to get a magnifying glass it is not clearly obvious." See what goes on on Shady Mountain.
I like that photo so much I am having it printed on a T-shirt with the rest of the story, which I embellish every time I tell it. I like the photo, in part, because the opponent is clearly shooting the flail and is the author of the silly rule. I hope my t-shirt comes today. Training tomorrow. Bring me another shooter. Really like shooting against the flail. Got to go. Putting 20 butts in the pocket this morning.
What prompted this was an incident wherein my good friend and training partner produced a photo from the Mag 7 at the springs. My reaction was, "Boy, that draw is perfect." He was blabbering about the silly rule and even drawing lines. I had to seek counsel from the best Range Master in CFDA who recited that it must be "clearly obvious." To which he, training partner, produced a magnifying glass and I retorted "if you have to get a magnifying glass it is not clearly obvious." See what goes on on Shady Mountain.
I like that photo so much I am having it printed on a T-shirt with the rest of the story, which I embellish every time I tell it. I like the photo, in part, because the opponent is clearly shooting the flail and is the author of the silly rule. I hope my t-shirt comes today. Training tomorrow. Bring me another shooter. Really like shooting against the flail. Got to go. Putting 20 butts in the pocket this morning.
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
What we learned and Fragmentation.
Today on Shady Mtn we shot a 1x Main Match shooting down to two shooters and at the same time a 2x True Resurrection Bracket shoot, last man standing, followed by a 1x Magnificent Five. The two top seeds in the mag 5 came from the main match and the other three seeds were the champions of three brackets. Making the mag 5 were two Sheriffs (one from the brackets and one from the main match), two Master Gunfighters (again one from main match and one from the brackets) and one Gunfighter. The Gunfighter, No Name, won the event by being the toughest gunslinger on this day.
Range Time: We had 15 shooters on two lanes and were able to complete the entire event in 2 1/2 hours. Match format was Arizona 5. Extrapolating out, had we had 6 lanes we could have shot the event with 45 shooters in 2 1/2 hours including the shoot off. There was no down time on the range. There was always a round ready to be shot when the prior round was completed.
The Association of Arizona Gunslingers: This would be a viable alternative to the Arizona Bracket Shoot for summer time use. We normally get 30 to 40 shooters and need to be done in 4 hours. I believe we could shoot a 2x main match shooting down to 6 with a true 2x bracket resurrection 4 brackets with the champions going to the Mag 10 1 x shoot off. We could seed the remainder of the shooters on lanes 3 & 4 and 5 & 6. We are used to shooting 3 simultaneous Magnificent 10 to 12 etc. shoot offs.
One might ask why do this. Well, just for a little variety. By doing a different format occasionally, it might give other shooters more opportunity to be successful. We tend to have the same shooters dominate our shoots in part because they have learned and trained for the format. A little change would be good for us. This format is actually more compliant with the structure of the CFDA titled shoots than the Arizona Bracket Shoot.
Innovations: What is novel here is that we shot a true resurrection and we shot it simultaneously with the main match. This has some really great advantages.
A true resurrection mitigates the unfairness of the luck of the draw. A great illustration of this unfairness was at the Texas State. Quick Cal was clearly one of the top shooters of the event but was out in the 5th or 6th round because of the luck of the draw. A true resurrection allows for advancement through what would be "a loser bracket" in other sports. Adverse draws can be overcome by higher x counts. A resurrection feature ups the x count. In this event from 1 to 3, but if used in a 6 lane event, it probably doubles the x count.
We shot the resurrection simultaneously with the main match. As shooters were eliminated they were added to the appropriate bracket match. 19.5 allows this and it seems to work well. When I did test runs of this, the match reports were in error but I did not consider that a problem since we were shooting down to the last shooter standing and the standings were not relevant. However, in this event the standing reports were accurate. To do this you have to have some arbitrary bracket times and you have to be willing to live with uneven brackets. Our brackets were 2 shooters, 5 shooters, and 6 shooters with 2 shooters remaining in the main match. This will work better with larger shooter numbers, but the times need to be set in advance. Time out time was used, not bracket report. A larger event might allow more administrative time and the bracket report might be an alternative. When you complete scoring a main match round you get a match standing report, it would have been easy to run a bracket report at that time, will do so next time.
Fragmentation: Another advantage is that you can fragment the field. At most titled events ranges sit idle for a significant amount of time. Normally, this is to draw rounds or simply to manage the event. In the early rounds you can shoot the men on all ranges and while you are doing that you can draw and administer the ladies, again shooting on all ranges. But later, as the field is reduced this is not possible and ranges sit idle while rounds are drawn. By fragmenting the field into brackets and with 19.5 scoring program you can designate the brackets to the idle ranges. The goal is always to have a round waiting at the table when the prior round is completed.
By starting the resurrection as soon as there are enough shooters in a bracket to make a viable posse or round you can keep the ranges full. By waiting until all of the shooters are eliminated you are wasting valuable range time. You don't need to wait. We need to remember that we don't score by wins, we score by losses. What is important is that everyone gets the same number of xs to used. It really does not matter when you use those xs. (See confusion below!)
Confusion: 19.5 worked well adding shooters as they were eliminated. However, I was trying to be the score keeper and enter data at the some time. I goofed and failed to enter two shooters into the bracket match. One of the shooters brought this to my attention during the match and it was not a problem, I simply entered him in the appropriate bracket and he got his two xs. The other shooter did not tell me he was left out until the match was over and then it was too late. (Actually it was not we could have reopen that bracket and entered him but I had already announced the Mag 5.)
Next time we do this we will alert all to be sure they get put into a bracket when they are eliminated. It really does not matter much if they are added late because we score by losses not wins. Looking back over the score sheets it would have been really easy to rectify this oversight, I just was too busy running the event to think straight.
Administration: We ran this event using two laptops and one printers. Shady ran the main match and we now declare him competent to be a data entry guru from start to finish on the main match. There is probably going to be a test tomorrow, but he will protest Trail Bosses don't test. I ran the bracket match and need my attention to detail sharpened.
When the smoke clears: After the event was over Shady said he had five specials for me. After the bellow and smoke of the first round I knew something was up, was scared a bit, but won three on speed before those specials caught up with me, then a I put a .191 on the plate just to let him know that he had better add more powder next time. In the interest of honest reporting, I will note he put me out of the main match on speed, hitting 80% to my 100%. Guess speed is sometimes relevant.
Someone said, "if you are not growing, you are rotting." Growing abit on Shady Mtn.
Range Time: We had 15 shooters on two lanes and were able to complete the entire event in 2 1/2 hours. Match format was Arizona 5. Extrapolating out, had we had 6 lanes we could have shot the event with 45 shooters in 2 1/2 hours including the shoot off. There was no down time on the range. There was always a round ready to be shot when the prior round was completed.
The Association of Arizona Gunslingers: This would be a viable alternative to the Arizona Bracket Shoot for summer time use. We normally get 30 to 40 shooters and need to be done in 4 hours. I believe we could shoot a 2x main match shooting down to 6 with a true 2x bracket resurrection 4 brackets with the champions going to the Mag 10 1 x shoot off. We could seed the remainder of the shooters on lanes 3 & 4 and 5 & 6. We are used to shooting 3 simultaneous Magnificent 10 to 12 etc. shoot offs.
One might ask why do this. Well, just for a little variety. By doing a different format occasionally, it might give other shooters more opportunity to be successful. We tend to have the same shooters dominate our shoots in part because they have learned and trained for the format. A little change would be good for us. This format is actually more compliant with the structure of the CFDA titled shoots than the Arizona Bracket Shoot.
Innovations: What is novel here is that we shot a true resurrection and we shot it simultaneously with the main match. This has some really great advantages.
A true resurrection mitigates the unfairness of the luck of the draw. A great illustration of this unfairness was at the Texas State. Quick Cal was clearly one of the top shooters of the event but was out in the 5th or 6th round because of the luck of the draw. A true resurrection allows for advancement through what would be "a loser bracket" in other sports. Adverse draws can be overcome by higher x counts. A resurrection feature ups the x count. In this event from 1 to 3, but if used in a 6 lane event, it probably doubles the x count.
We shot the resurrection simultaneously with the main match. As shooters were eliminated they were added to the appropriate bracket match. 19.5 allows this and it seems to work well. When I did test runs of this, the match reports were in error but I did not consider that a problem since we were shooting down to the last shooter standing and the standings were not relevant. However, in this event the standing reports were accurate. To do this you have to have some arbitrary bracket times and you have to be willing to live with uneven brackets. Our brackets were 2 shooters, 5 shooters, and 6 shooters with 2 shooters remaining in the main match. This will work better with larger shooter numbers, but the times need to be set in advance. Time out time was used, not bracket report. A larger event might allow more administrative time and the bracket report might be an alternative. When you complete scoring a main match round you get a match standing report, it would have been easy to run a bracket report at that time, will do so next time.
Fragmentation: Another advantage is that you can fragment the field. At most titled events ranges sit idle for a significant amount of time. Normally, this is to draw rounds or simply to manage the event. In the early rounds you can shoot the men on all ranges and while you are doing that you can draw and administer the ladies, again shooting on all ranges. But later, as the field is reduced this is not possible and ranges sit idle while rounds are drawn. By fragmenting the field into brackets and with 19.5 scoring program you can designate the brackets to the idle ranges. The goal is always to have a round waiting at the table when the prior round is completed.
By starting the resurrection as soon as there are enough shooters in a bracket to make a viable posse or round you can keep the ranges full. By waiting until all of the shooters are eliminated you are wasting valuable range time. You don't need to wait. We need to remember that we don't score by wins, we score by losses. What is important is that everyone gets the same number of xs to used. It really does not matter when you use those xs. (See confusion below!)
Confusion: 19.5 worked well adding shooters as they were eliminated. However, I was trying to be the score keeper and enter data at the some time. I goofed and failed to enter two shooters into the bracket match. One of the shooters brought this to my attention during the match and it was not a problem, I simply entered him in the appropriate bracket and he got his two xs. The other shooter did not tell me he was left out until the match was over and then it was too late. (Actually it was not we could have reopen that bracket and entered him but I had already announced the Mag 5.)
Next time we do this we will alert all to be sure they get put into a bracket when they are eliminated. It really does not matter much if they are added late because we score by losses not wins. Looking back over the score sheets it would have been really easy to rectify this oversight, I just was too busy running the event to think straight.
Administration: We ran this event using two laptops and one printers. Shady ran the main match and we now declare him competent to be a data entry guru from start to finish on the main match. There is probably going to be a test tomorrow, but he will protest Trail Bosses don't test. I ran the bracket match and need my attention to detail sharpened.
When the smoke clears: After the event was over Shady said he had five specials for me. After the bellow and smoke of the first round I knew something was up, was scared a bit, but won three on speed before those specials caught up with me, then a I put a .191 on the plate just to let him know that he had better add more powder next time. In the interest of honest reporting, I will note he put me out of the main match on speed, hitting 80% to my 100%. Guess speed is sometimes relevant.
Someone said, "if you are not growing, you are rotting." Growing abit on Shady Mtn.
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Southern, National and Mitigation
Many times how you finish at a titled event has more to do with who you draw than how well you are shooting. Not only is it important who you are shooting but it is also important who the other shooters are shooting. In the last round of the main match of the Southern there were 11 shooters left, four lost leaving the field of the magnificent seven. For me, the most important draw was the match of Buzzard Cooper against Old West. Had Buzzard won that match there would have been 8 shooters left and we would have had to shoot another round. In that round there would have been three losers so the field would have been five leading to resurrection shoot off between 3 shooters.
In the final match of the Magnificent Seven the winning shot was a .367. Speed is glamorous, but if you watched the entire match you will know that not a single shot was won by speed. You might think that the Southern was won by accuracy but that is not the case. The losing shooter by and large is a much more accurate shooter than the Southern Champion. The final match was won by the shooter who was mentally tougher in that match. The Southern Champion entered the Magnificent Seven with three xs so he too benefited from the Buzzard/Old West match.
Who knows if he would have survived the next round and subsequent resurrection.
The National was won by that five time World Champion. I do believe there was a resurrection in this event but do not remember the details. It is interesting to note that the mag 7 of the Southern and the mag 7 of the National were substantially different although the field of both shoots were the same. That might be due to the shooting of the gunslingers or might be due to the luck of the draw.
I was having breakfast on the second day of a titled event and a seasoned shooter was asked how did he do. He said "I am out!" and then said, "What chance did I have?" and then he named 4 of the toughest gunslingers there. He was right he had no chance even though he is in the top 20% of shooters in the CFDA. That is the unfairness that can occur with the luck of the draw. Can this unfairness be mitigated? The answer is yes and it is really quite easy to do. Higher x count mitigates this unfairness. The more xs you get the more chance you have to recover from a tough draw. But a resurrection feature also does a great job mitigating this unfairness. I can name at least a half dozen titled matches won by a resurrected shooters. Happens often. We shoot all these side matches that really simply occupy eliminated shooters when we could be shooting a true resurrection which would be mitigating the luck of the draw unfairness. That seasoned shooter could be shooting his way back to fifth rather than being occupied by a meaningless 2nd chance shoot.
Scoring 19.5 will function just fine adding shooters into a resurrection as they are eliminated from the main match. Want to do this, shoot the main match down to five or fewer shooters. Fill the vacancies from the resurrection, two or three, whatever is needed from the resurrection. The complaint will be what about that 6th or 7th place shooter. So what, he or she might be shooting in the present resurrection like what might have happened had Buzzard won. The next complaint will be it is not fair for the 6th or 7th place shooter to come into the resurrection clean when the resurrection shooters may have won 9 or 10 matches to get get there. But it is eminently fair. It is far harder to win 9 or 10 matches in the main match against those 4 tougher shooters than it is to come through the "eliminated" match. The bottom line is all shooters get the same number of xs and all shoot to championship day in matches that matter.
This is just a little change, but one that would make a big difference mitigating unfairness of the luck of the draw.
Since I am on my soap box I will add that in categories I shot in final match but only competed in two of the last five matches. Love those byes, train for them, bring me another shooter.
In the final match of the Magnificent Seven the winning shot was a .367. Speed is glamorous, but if you watched the entire match you will know that not a single shot was won by speed. You might think that the Southern was won by accuracy but that is not the case. The losing shooter by and large is a much more accurate shooter than the Southern Champion. The final match was won by the shooter who was mentally tougher in that match. The Southern Champion entered the Magnificent Seven with three xs so he too benefited from the Buzzard/Old West match.
Who knows if he would have survived the next round and subsequent resurrection.
The National was won by that five time World Champion. I do believe there was a resurrection in this event but do not remember the details. It is interesting to note that the mag 7 of the Southern and the mag 7 of the National were substantially different although the field of both shoots were the same. That might be due to the shooting of the gunslingers or might be due to the luck of the draw.
I was having breakfast on the second day of a titled event and a seasoned shooter was asked how did he do. He said "I am out!" and then said, "What chance did I have?" and then he named 4 of the toughest gunslingers there. He was right he had no chance even though he is in the top 20% of shooters in the CFDA. That is the unfairness that can occur with the luck of the draw. Can this unfairness be mitigated? The answer is yes and it is really quite easy to do. Higher x count mitigates this unfairness. The more xs you get the more chance you have to recover from a tough draw. But a resurrection feature also does a great job mitigating this unfairness. I can name at least a half dozen titled matches won by a resurrected shooters. Happens often. We shoot all these side matches that really simply occupy eliminated shooters when we could be shooting a true resurrection which would be mitigating the luck of the draw unfairness. That seasoned shooter could be shooting his way back to fifth rather than being occupied by a meaningless 2nd chance shoot.
Scoring 19.5 will function just fine adding shooters into a resurrection as they are eliminated from the main match. Want to do this, shoot the main match down to five or fewer shooters. Fill the vacancies from the resurrection, two or three, whatever is needed from the resurrection. The complaint will be what about that 6th or 7th place shooter. So what, he or she might be shooting in the present resurrection like what might have happened had Buzzard won. The next complaint will be it is not fair for the 6th or 7th place shooter to come into the resurrection clean when the resurrection shooters may have won 9 or 10 matches to get get there. But it is eminently fair. It is far harder to win 9 or 10 matches in the main match against those 4 tougher shooters than it is to come through the "eliminated" match. The bottom line is all shooters get the same number of xs and all shoot to championship day in matches that matter.
This is just a little change, but one that would make a big difference mitigating unfairness of the luck of the draw.
Since I am on my soap box I will add that in categories I shot in final match but only competed in two of the last five matches. Love those byes, train for them, bring me another shooter.
Monday, May 20, 2019
What we learned
We had a very enjoyable shoot at the Loess Hills Paladins Added. It was not a CFDA event because there was no hosting club but all CFDA rules applied except as announced for testing. 22 shooters attended. Here is what I learned.
Range Time: I wanted to shoot a CFDA bracket three winning shots 3 x event and used 24 inch targets at exhibition distance to lessen the range time. That was effective with most matches being resolved in 6 or less shots. Only one match went to 9 shots. We had plenty of range time. We completed three brackets in 2 1/2 hours. We then shot a 1x Magnificent shoot off which took 45 minutes.
Most shooters had a substantially higher gunfighter rating than one would normally expect. 15 shooters had a gunfighter rating near 1.0 or above. 1.0 or above normally means a shooter is in the top 25% of the field. Using exhibition distance boosted that to 75% of the field. There were several shooters that had a unusually low rating for them. I think for those shooters the change in size and distance must have caused them to lose their focus.
I would not use the 24" target at exhibition distance again unless I was really concerned about range time or purely for fun.
The "Added": The Added work well. I thank all of the sponsors especially the corporate sponsors. If you need wax, see Royal Wax, if you need that gun slicked up see Thirsty Gun Works, LLC; if you need pool service, see Blue Cactus Pool Service, LLC; need a lawyer on the plains of Nebraska see Egr, Birkel, & Wollmer, P.C.; and for that dirt see Double Lux, Ltd. I do not mention the many individual sponsors, but thank them also. We had entry fees of $220, paid out $265 in prize money and still paid a range fee and the charity netted 20%.
While the "Added" worked well, I do not intend to solicit these sponsors on a recurring basis. I do think that the "Added" may have some usefulness for our major jackpot shoots.
Testing: The main purpose of this shoot was to test out bye procedures. The standard bye procedure is inherently unfair because of how the "advance without competing", that is the "bye" is allocated, and there is a gunfighter bias. In this event no shooter was allowed to advance without competing. A very significant advantage to this is it shorten last man standing events significantly. This results because all shooters compete in every round.
We shot three brackets, two with 8 shooters and one with 6 shooters. All brackets were completed in 6 rounds except the 6 shooter bracket which was completed in 7 rounds. There was only one shoot off for place which was shot during the final round of the 6 shooter bracket thereby taking no additional time. This all resulted in a substantial saving of range time. Using the standard bye procedure the 8 shooter brackets would have taken a minimum 10 rounds with 8 allocating shoot offs.
The 8 shooter brackets would have required some shoot offs for place but the astute scorekeepers suggested an easier solution. The normal procedure for a shoot off for place is to have a start over match format shoot off which requires an additional round. The scorekeepers pointed out that the shoot off shooters were already at the line and had shot at least three shot against each other in the "Arizona bye" procedure so why not just complete that contest which is what we did. This worked well and required no additional rounds and few shots. This modification is easily added by the following sentence. "If a shoot off for place is required, the competitors will continue the match format to completion resolving the issue in the current match with the current score between them being used."
I doubt anyone will use this, but maybe, so here is the Arizona Bye rule:
Range Time: I wanted to shoot a CFDA bracket three winning shots 3 x event and used 24 inch targets at exhibition distance to lessen the range time. That was effective with most matches being resolved in 6 or less shots. Only one match went to 9 shots. We had plenty of range time. We completed three brackets in 2 1/2 hours. We then shot a 1x Magnificent shoot off which took 45 minutes.
Most shooters had a substantially higher gunfighter rating than one would normally expect. 15 shooters had a gunfighter rating near 1.0 or above. 1.0 or above normally means a shooter is in the top 25% of the field. Using exhibition distance boosted that to 75% of the field. There were several shooters that had a unusually low rating for them. I think for those shooters the change in size and distance must have caused them to lose their focus.
I would not use the 24" target at exhibition distance again unless I was really concerned about range time or purely for fun.
The "Added": The Added work well. I thank all of the sponsors especially the corporate sponsors. If you need wax, see Royal Wax, if you need that gun slicked up see Thirsty Gun Works, LLC; if you need pool service, see Blue Cactus Pool Service, LLC; need a lawyer on the plains of Nebraska see Egr, Birkel, & Wollmer, P.C.; and for that dirt see Double Lux, Ltd. I do not mention the many individual sponsors, but thank them also. We had entry fees of $220, paid out $265 in prize money and still paid a range fee and the charity netted 20%.
While the "Added" worked well, I do not intend to solicit these sponsors on a recurring basis. I do think that the "Added" may have some usefulness for our major jackpot shoots.
Testing: The main purpose of this shoot was to test out bye procedures. The standard bye procedure is inherently unfair because of how the "advance without competing", that is the "bye" is allocated, and there is a gunfighter bias. In this event no shooter was allowed to advance without competing. A very significant advantage to this is it shorten last man standing events significantly. This results because all shooters compete in every round.
We shot three brackets, two with 8 shooters and one with 6 shooters. All brackets were completed in 6 rounds except the 6 shooter bracket which was completed in 7 rounds. There was only one shoot off for place which was shot during the final round of the 6 shooter bracket thereby taking no additional time. This all resulted in a substantial saving of range time. Using the standard bye procedure the 8 shooter brackets would have taken a minimum 10 rounds with 8 allocating shoot offs.
The 8 shooter brackets would have required some shoot offs for place but the astute scorekeepers suggested an easier solution. The normal procedure for a shoot off for place is to have a start over match format shoot off which requires an additional round. The scorekeepers pointed out that the shoot off shooters were already at the line and had shot at least three shot against each other in the "Arizona bye" procedure so why not just complete that contest which is what we did. This worked well and required no additional rounds and few shots. This modification is easily added by the following sentence. "If a shoot off for place is required, the competitors will continue the match format to completion resolving the issue in the current match with the current score between them being used."
I doubt anyone will use this, but maybe, so here is the Arizona Bye rule:
Arizona Bye
All shooters must compete using the match format in every round except when Rule IV.6 forfeiture occurs. If there is an odd number of shooters in a round, the last three shooters will compete together using the match format to its conclusion. Each shooter will be scored individually against each other shooter of the trio, a loss to either of the other shooters results in an X for the shooter. If a shoot off for place is required, the competitors will continue the match format to completion resolving the issue in the current match using the current score between them.
Range Time Benefits: The tested bye procedure worked well and resulted in substantial range time savings. This may be of useful benefit for the bracket shoots at titled events but for the unintended consequences set forth below. Titled events currently shoot bracket shoots before the main match continues on championship day. To expect a shooter to shoot a 10 to 15 round bracket match and then resume the main match and be at his or her best may be asking too much. I truly believe it would cut the rounds required by about 30-40%. Bracket matches and for that matter, last man standing events seem to go on and on and it is in large part due to the fact the one shooter is not competing in a round.
Unforeseen Consequences:
It is as important to find out what does not work as it is to find out what does work. While the current bye procedure is unfair in allocation and there is a gunfighter bias, the suggested procedure eliminates the allocation problem, there is a clear speed bias in the suggested procedure. The best way to explain it is by illustration taken from the data of this shoot. If you are down to three shooters, a low 4 shooters hitting 90%, a high 3 shooter hitting less than 60% and a low 3 shooter hitting less than 50%, under the current bye procedures the odds favor the 90% shooter. That is the gunfighter bias of the current bye procedure. However, if you match the three together as this suggested procedure does, the 90% shooter probably has no chance because the combined hit ratio of his competitors is better that 60%, and as we all know at 60% in three winning shots the quicker gun wins. This speed bias could somewhat be eliminated by having the remaining competitors shoot the trio to completion as some have suggested, but this defeats the range time savings, since you have two winners and one loser instead of two losers and one winner. You will still have the range time benefit of no shoot-off rounds.
Local Consequences:
It was so successful I think we should have at least one bracket shoot as a class D event each year. Maybe we can do one in the summer up in the mountains to avoid our summer heat. We had more variety in our winners which I think is a good thing. When you shoot the same format month after month, one should not expect different results. A change in format might open the door to some other winners.
We did not have enough long guns for a separate bracket. I think a separate long gun bracket is doable and would be fun. I would note than even without their own bracket all of the long guns were in the money at this shoot.
I would not use the Arizona Bye again because of the speed bias unless we had an over capacity crowd. For example, a 5 bracket 30 to 40 shooter shoot one range would be great and a lot of fun. If 50 shooters showed up, I would go to the Arizona Five for range time reasons. If 60 shooters showed up I would go to Arizona Five with Arizona Bye for range time reasons.
Next Up:
How well you do at a titled match or for that matter at a club event many times has more to do with who you draw than how you are shooting. I refer to this unfairness as "luck of the draw." Luck of the draw is mitigated by the elimination factor. The higher the x count the more chance you have to recover from a tough draw. The magnificent format eliminates the luck of the draw at the top of the event. Titled events also use a resurrection feature in about a 1/3 of our events to fill vacancies in the magnificent field but resurrection feature is not open to all. It would be really easy to remedy some of this so here is the next test.
I propose to do a 5 x test with a true resurrection for all shooters. It would be a 3 x main match shooting down to 5 or less with a 2 x resurrection for all shooters to fill the magnificent vacancies. All shooters would get total of 5 x s. Magnificent 7 1 x shoot off, maybe 2x at director's option. For range time reasons and because it does a better sort, Arizona 5 match format.
"It is hard to know what you don't know because you don't know." "If you never try, you will never know." Ruah
Sunday, May 12, 2019
An Apology
I apologize if I offended any of the competitors or hosts of titled matches by my recent comments. It was not my intent to do so. To make the magnificent shoot off you have to be good, tough and a little bit lucky. Those shooters deserve all the praise. Congratulations on great shooting. Likewise it is tough to host a title match. Those hosts do a great job. I like the magnificent format, it is better that last man standing for reasons I have said in prior posts.
Everyone has an agenda. Mine is the 7 x titled match. With just a few minor changes, we could be shooting titled matches where all shooters are still in competition on the Championship day.
Yesterday at Rio our new Regulator, publicly warned new shooters about the two miscreants here in the Valley of the Sun. The miscreants publicly acknowledged the error of their ways and but both invited the shooters to come and learn how to be better CFDA shooters. The irony is that no one here in the Valley or for that matter in the nation, has done more to promote, recruit, train CFDA shooters than those miscreants. "Want to be quick, come to the Camp; Want to win come to Shady Mtn."
Rio was interesting yesterday. Three of the four top shooters were Shady Mtn shooters. The Camp shooters were all well down in the pack. Last month 3 of the top 4 were Camp shooters, including our new Regulator.
I know there have been some out there complaining that we are going to use 24" targets at 15' at 47". And I know some titled matches shoot some side matches at 15 feet at target height of 50 inches, but this up coming shoot is a practice shoot. Shooting at 15 feet with a target height of 50 inches is just practicing to miss. We don't do that! I will let the Sage from the mountains explain why shooting a target height of 50 inches at 15 feet is practicing missing.
At the Loess Hills Added, all CFDA rules apply except those which we are testing as announced.
Heh, how about a 6 x Arizona State Championship in November. It would have to be a Class D experimental affair. Would be easy to do, big money payout. We could invite match directors, Marshalls, Regulators, and Quick Cal to come and see how well it would worked. When you are testing something it is just as important to find out what won't work as to find out what does work, maybe more important.
(This posts has now been sanitized, I hope it now meets standards, but if not, it is the best that I can do. 05/13/19)
Everyone has an agenda. Mine is the 7 x titled match. With just a few minor changes, we could be shooting titled matches where all shooters are still in competition on the Championship day.
Yesterday at Rio our new Regulator, publicly warned new shooters about the two miscreants here in the Valley of the Sun. The miscreants publicly acknowledged the error of their ways and but both invited the shooters to come and learn how to be better CFDA shooters. The irony is that no one here in the Valley or for that matter in the nation, has done more to promote, recruit, train CFDA shooters than those miscreants. "Want to be quick, come to the Camp; Want to win come to Shady Mtn."
Rio was interesting yesterday. Three of the four top shooters were Shady Mtn shooters. The Camp shooters were all well down in the pack. Last month 3 of the top 4 were Camp shooters, including our new Regulator.
I know there have been some out there complaining that we are going to use 24" targets at 15' at 47". And I know some titled matches shoot some side matches at 15 feet at target height of 50 inches, but this up coming shoot is a practice shoot. Shooting at 15 feet with a target height of 50 inches is just practicing to miss. We don't do that! I will let the Sage from the mountains explain why shooting a target height of 50 inches at 15 feet is practicing missing.
At the Loess Hills Added, all CFDA rules apply except those which we are testing as announced.
Heh, how about a 6 x Arizona State Championship in November. It would have to be a Class D experimental affair. Would be easy to do, big money payout. We could invite match directors, Marshalls, Regulators, and Quick Cal to come and see how well it would worked. When you are testing something it is just as important to find out what won't work as to find out what does work, maybe more important.
(This posts has now been sanitized, I hope it now meets standards, but if not, it is the best that I can do. 05/13/19)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)