PDA

View Full Version : "Luck of the Table"


Podge
07-29-2013, 07:24 PM
I actually read the Bullsheet today!.. Seems those new score sheets will be a valuable tool!.. They had mentioned in the article, that it will become verifiable if it is in fact, luck of the table. Since this thing has been out a couple weekends' worth of contests, for those who have gotten the score sheets and reviewed them, what do you think ??? :wacko:

Pappy Q
07-29-2013, 07:43 PM
Statistically speaking, yes.

Smokedelic
07-29-2013, 08:04 PM
I think there are many years worth of data to suggest that the teams that are really good at cooking competition bbq seem to either not be affected by table luck or have the market cornered on it....neither of which helps me.

"Table luck" is the excuse that is used to try and make sense of contests where you didn't score as well as you thought you should. It's what helps you dust off your britches when you get your posterior waxed.

I can't control which table my box lands on, but I can control the quality of the product that goes in that box. I think I'll just focus on the product and, hopefully, the luck thing will sort itself out.

Alexa RnQ
07-29-2013, 08:20 PM
I think teams that have become consistently successful are no doubt putting out a quality product, and are also able to objectively identify when that product can be improved.

BUT we've all had that day where we know we had a great product and got stomped, or had a product that we know could have been better that was rewarded disproportionately.

The new scoring program pulls aside the curtain on that phenomenon, and shows if your boxes landed on a table that was running hot all day, on one that was scoring in the basement all day, or somewhere in between.

A little bit of math shows whether the "luck of the table" was a significant factor or not at a particular contest.

Ron_L
07-29-2013, 10:27 PM
I agree that in order to be consistently successful a team has to cook quality food, but I also believe that hitting the wrong table can be a problem. As an example, at the competition in Morton, IL this weekend, here is the breakdown of top 10 finishes per table...

Chicken
Table 1 - 0
Table 2 - 1
Table 3 - 2
Table 4 - 1
Table 5 - 1
Table 6 - 5
Table 7 - 0

Ribs
Table 1 - 2
Table 2 - 1
Table 3 - 2
Table 4 - 0
Table 5 - 4
Table 6 - 1
Table 7 - 0

Pork
Table 1 - 1
Table 2 - 2
Table 3 - 2
Table 4 - 1
Table 5 - 3
Table 6 - 1
Table 7 - 0

Brisket
Table 1 - 2
Table 2 - 2
Table 3 - 4
Table 4 - 0
Table 5 - 1
Table 6 - 1
Table 7 - 0

Total Top 10's by Table
Table 1 - 5 (12.5%)
Table 2 - 6 (15%)
Table 3 - 10 (25%)
Table 4 - 2 (5%)
Table 5 - 9 (22.5%)
Table 6 - 8 (20%)
Table 7 - 0 (0%)

Tables 4 and 7 were the lowest scoring tables. At least table 4 put 2 teams in the top 10, but the highest finish that came off of table 7 was 17th.

Also, the GC team was on table 5, one of the higher scoring tables, twice. I thought that was to be avoided? (I am not saying that the GC team didn't deserve the win)

I am also not ruling out the possibility that all 26 entries that hit table 7 (they had 7 entries in two categories) were sub par, but the odds are against that. There was clearly an issue with table 7. I have no idea how to fix that, but the new score sheet made it pretty obvious.

boogiesnap
07-29-2013, 10:39 PM
let's cross threads here a bit....would a comment card from table seven hurt or help you, do you think?

Scottie
07-29-2013, 10:44 PM
I protest Quau winning...

Ron_L
07-29-2013, 10:46 PM
let's cross threads here a bit....would a comment card from table seven hurt or help you, do you think?

I'll give the same answer I did in the comment card thread :-D

It depends on what it said. If it was useful comment (positive or negative), then yes, but if it was just a general comment, then no.

boogiesnap
07-29-2013, 10:58 PM
i think you'd be doing yourself a disservice by changing anything from a comment card from table seven.

they clearly didn't like any of the samples, and it's unlikely all 36 were bad.

or for that matter thinking you're king off table 3. it's gotta work both ways.

pushing forward, would it be possible to get this exact info printed out at the contest from the reps?

Wampus
07-30-2013, 12:18 AM
I protest Quau winning...

:laugh:

:tsk:

:wink:

Vince RnQ
07-30-2013, 02:06 AM
Also, the GC team was on table 5, one of the higher scoring tables, twice. I thought that was to be avoided?

There is absolutely no reason that a box should land on the same table twice at a contest with 45 teams and 7 tables (and it could just as easily been 8 tables). I don't know if there were Table Captains at each table or if someone was doing double duty but this is the kind of thing that the new score sheets are going to expose. We're going to see how often this kind of thing happens and we're going to see if it happens repeatedly with the same Reps. There is no excuse for this.

(I am not saying that the GC team didn't deserve the win)

I agree. Anyone who's been paying attention to KCBS competitions for the last decade knows that Mike & Beth of QUAU are among the best teams, if not the best team, in the nation and it would be hard to argue that a 23+ point victory would not have happened had it not been for landing on the same table twice. The margin of victory may have been smaller but I would bet the farm that the end result would still have QUAU on top that day. Had the actual margin of victory been only a few points, then there might be some reason for a little grumbling.

smokinrack
07-30-2013, 06:17 AM
It might show you from contest to contest how the tables played out but overall whats it really going to change?It was a one time deal and the odds are that those exact events are never going to play out again, the exact same food going to those exact same judges, at the exact same table.Change one of those things at the next comp and the results will be totally different.It can show you why you placed where you did on any given day but theres no way to track and no way to pinpoint a problem on something thats different every time its played out.

Ron_L
07-30-2013, 06:52 AM
I agree. Anyone who's been paying attention to KCBS competitions for the last decade knows that Mike & Beth of QUAU are among the best teams, if not the best team, in the nation and it would be hard to argue that a 23+ point victory would not have happened had it not been for landing on the same table twice. The margin of victory may have been smaller but I would bet the farm that the end result would still have QUAU on top that day. Had the actual margin of victory been only a few points, then there might be some reason for a little grumbling.

I absolutely agree, Vince! The RGC team did hit the dreaded table 7 for one category, and just for fun I looked at what the results had been if they had taken first in that category they still wouldn't have beaten Quau.

I didn't post this analysis out of sour grapes. We did hit table 7 with our pork, and it was scored poorly, and knowing that table 7 scored everything poorly told me that maybe our pork wasn't that bad, but that's it. I posted the analysis because it is a perfect example of how a table or two can effect a competition.

Ron_L
07-30-2013, 06:54 AM
i think you'd be doing yourself a disservice by changing anything from a comment card from table seven.


Agreed, but it would have been interesting to see what they were thinking.


pushing forward, would it be possible to get this exact info printed out at the contest from the reps?

You'd have to ask KCBS for that, but It wouldn't be hard to put together. I did it manually in 5 minutes.

boogiesnap
07-30-2013, 07:00 AM
i really like the availability of this information. it can really help you understand what happened.

like ronelle said, his pork hit table seven, scored poorly, but everything at that table scored poorly. probably don't tinker your product(:laugh:). now if it landed on table three and scored poorly, time to tweak probably. very useful for the individual, IMHO.

boogiesnap
07-30-2013, 07:03 AM
Agreed, but it would have been interesting to see what they were thinking.



You'd have to ask KCBS for that, but It wouldn't be hard to put together. I did it manually in 5 minutes.

you're right. it would be intersting to see what they all were thinking.

would it be possible, with this new program, to plug in scores in live time?

i.e., if a table captain sees a judge's card at his table and it is waaay out of wack, he can talk with the judge. how about tracking an entire table? muwahahahaha!

Uncle Buds BBQ
07-30-2013, 07:04 AM
Also, the GC team was on table 5, one of the higher scoring tables, twice.
See, I look at the data the other way.

Not that table 5 was a high scoring set of judges but that the table average was high because the best entry (the GC) hit that table.

boogiesnap
07-30-2013, 07:12 AM
very acute.

i guess you'd have to look at all the scoring for each entry at that table to follow through.

but that does make alot of sense.

Ford
07-30-2013, 08:15 AM
I've been doing FBA for 3 years so have lots of data. It's clear that some tables score higher. As we can see what teams were on our table we can make conclusions. When top teams hit a low scoring table they may place 3-10. When no top teams hit a low scoring table the best team on the table may be 15-20. I've actually seen good teams on a low scoring table win the table but be 18th overall. In this case maybe they didn't have a great cook in that category.

What I'm saying is yes there are low scoring tables, but top teams will still do pretty good. But that's a day when they probably don't gc just do top 5. Mediocre teams may hit the high scoring table and get top 10 and maybe a top 3 in the category. Study enough score sheets and you'll see it.

Lion Bout The Q
07-30-2013, 08:53 AM
Here is Des Moines 2 weeks ago tables in top 10
Chicken table
1-0
2-4
3-0
4-2
5-4
Ribs
1-0
2-3
3-1
4-4
5-2
pork
1-0
2-2
3-2
4-4
5-2
brisket
1-0
2-4
3-2
4-2
5-2

Lion Bout The Q
07-30-2013, 09:41 AM
to go a bit farther
Table 1 top 20
chicken 3
ribs 2
pork 2
brisket 1
with only 28 teams

Pole D
07-30-2013, 09:57 AM
to go a bit farther
Table 1 top 20
chicken 3
ribs 2
pork 2
brisket 1
with only 28 teams

Think about the judges at table 1 that were so unlucky they had to taste all of the crappy bbq that was turned in that day. :razz:

Lake Dogs
07-30-2013, 09:59 AM
I've been a judge for a long time across various sanctioning bodies, an organizer, a cook, etc. and in more than just BBQ, but chili and other... I probably have over 400 competitions and over 1000 categories I've been involved with.

If anyone suffers from the delusion that there aren't hot and cold tables, please step away from the coolaid. It happens at every competition, every day, every sanctioning body (or not).

Some competitions (and some sanctioning bodies) recognize this for what it is, and in multiple category events they'll shuffle judges so that the same table is never re-assembled. It's a built-in. Not that the re-shuffling wont create new hot or cold tables. It will, but at least they wont be the same ones and gives the competitor a little better chance to, if nothing else, average out...

Outnumbered
07-30-2013, 10:19 AM
Think about the judges at table 1 that were so unlucky they had to taste all of the crappy bbq that was turned in that day. :razz:

I hope they all survived.

Candy Sue
07-30-2013, 03:00 PM
I forget who told me this, but "It's not the best BBQ that wins it's the least offensive" and "keep the taste moderate (not too sweet, salty or spicy) but nail tenderness every time".

QansasjayhawQ
07-30-2013, 03:12 PM
One additional feature that Rookie48 was mentioning to me is the ability to find those judges who need to be retrained.

Most of the time, most judges are all fairly well in agreement.

Documenting those 'outliers' will give the sanctioning body documentation for use in notifying judges when they are being too harsh or too ecstatic.

Whether that actually happens or not remains to be seen. But the bottom line is that KCBS is serious about improving the quality of the scoring overall. And for that, I applaud them as both a competitor and a judge.

Uomograsso
07-30-2013, 03:47 PM
I've been a judge for a long time across various sanctioning bodies, an organizer, a cook, etc. and in more than just BBQ, but chili and other... I probably have over 400 competitions and over 1000 categories I've been involved with.

If anyone suffers from the delusion that there aren't hot and cold tables, please step away from the coolaid. It happens at every competition, every day, every sanctioning body (or not).

Some competitions (and some sanctioning bodies) recognize this for what it is, and in multiple category events they'll shuffle judges so that the same table is never re-assembled. It's a built-in. Not that the re-shuffling wont create new hot or cold tables. It will, but at least they wont be the same ones and gives the competitor a little better chance to, if nothing else, average out...

In KCBS Contests Reps try to not have a team's box hit the same table twice. If you shuffled judges after each category a team could hit a cold table more than once if fate were against them. I would love to be able to talk to teams after I have judged to let them know the reasons I gave them the score I did, but there is no feasible way to do that and not cause greater issues.

G$
07-30-2013, 04:34 PM
I forget who told me this, but "It's not the best BBQ that wins it's the least offensive" and "keep the taste moderate (not too sweet, salty or spicy) but nail tenderness every time".

That's too bad. I wish the best BBQ would win.

rweller
07-31-2013, 12:20 PM
I agree that in order to be consistently successful a team has to cook quality food, but I also believe that hitting the wrong table can be a problem. As an example, at the competition in Morton, IL this weekend, here is the breakdown of top 10 finishes per table...

Chicken
Table 1 - 0
Table 2 - 1
Table 3 - 2
Table 4 - 1
Table 5 - 1
Table 6 - 5
Table 7 - 0

Ribs
Table 1 - 2
Table 2 - 1
Table 3 - 2
Table 4 - 0
Table 5 - 4
Table 6 - 1
Table 7 - 0

Pork
Table 1 - 1
Table 2 - 2
Table 3 - 2
Table 4 - 1
Table 5 - 3
Table 6 - 1
Table 7 - 0

Brisket
Table 1 - 2
Table 2 - 2
Table 3 - 4
Table 4 - 0
Table 5 - 1
Table 6 - 1
Table 7 - 0

Total Top 10's by Table
Table 1 - 5 (12.5%)
Table 2 - 6 (15%)
Table 3 - 10 (25%)
Table 4 - 2 (5%)
Table 5 - 9 (22.5%)
Table 6 - 8 (20%)
Table 7 - 0 (0%)

Tables 4 and 7 were the lowest scoring tables. At least table 4 put 2 teams in the top 10, but the highest finish that came off of table 7 was 17th.

Also, the GC team was on table 5, one of the higher scoring tables, twice. I thought that was to be avoided? (I am not saying that the GC team didn't deserve the win)

I am also not ruling out the possibility that all 26 entries that hit table 7 (they had 7 entries in two categories) were sub par, but the odds are against that. There was clearly an issue with table 7. I have no idea how to fix that, but the new score sheet made it pretty obvious.

Ron, this is very interesting. I was at the contest and looked for you but couldn't find where you were.
Anyway, I was the Table Captain for table 2. I can positivily tell you we did not get the same team twice. I made sure of that myself. How table 5 got the GC twice I don't know because the REPS did a very good job of trying to make sure that didn't happen. They even held the last 3 tables everytime to make sure no one got duplicates. The TC must have messed up.
Just to let you all know, we did not give out Comment Cards at this event per the Reps. With the new system there is still a problem that needs to be worked out with the blind numbering. I specifically asked the Reps if the teams knew we would not be giving out comment cards and I was told YES they knew this.
I thought our table did a very good job. The scoring was pretty consistent (within 2 points) on almost every entry. We did have one peice of chicken that scored a 6 and maybe a few other 6's but that was it.

This should be interesting to see how it plays out. I personally think your going to have judges figure out who there judging by doing this new system. At least the teams that are at a contest every week.

Podge
07-31-2013, 02:02 PM
I forget who told me this, but "It's not the best BBQ that wins it's the least offensive" and "keep the taste moderate (not too sweet, salty or spicy) but nail tenderness every time".

I'd say keep the taste balanced. 'Moderate' sounds like a 6. I certainly agree with the tenderness comment.

Ron_L
07-31-2013, 04:05 PM
Ron, this is very interesting. I was at the contest and looked for you but couldn't find where you were.


We were the second to the last team on Jefferson street, about as far from the turn in table as you could get :-D

rweller
07-31-2013, 04:11 PM
Some of those turn ins were a long way away.

Mad About Que
07-31-2013, 04:23 PM
That's too bad. I wish the best BBQ would win.


I just wish MY bbq would win.... hahahahahahaha

ModelMaker
08-01-2013, 08:47 AM
Ron, this is very interesting. I was at the contest and looked for you but couldn't find where you were.
Anyway, I was the Table Captain for table 2. I can positivily tell you we did not get the same team twice. I made sure of that myself. How table 5 got the GC twice I don't know because the REPS did a very good job of trying to make sure that didn't happen. They even held the last 3 tables everytime to make sure no one got duplicates. The TC must have messed up.
Just to let you all know, we did not give out Comment Cards at this event per the Reps. With the new system there is still a problem that needs to be worked out with the blind numbering. I specifically asked the Reps if the teams knew we would not be giving out comment cards and I was told YES they knew this.
I thought our table did a very good job. The scoring was pretty consistent (within 2 points) on almost every entry. We did have one peice of chicken that scored a 6 and maybe a few other 6's but that was it.

This should be interesting to see how it plays out. I personally think your going to have judges figure out who there judging by doing this new system. At least the teams that are at a contest every week.

What would make you think that? There is not any change in the judging procedure with KCBScore that would tend to identify a team at the table.
Are you refering to the fact that IF you as a judge had access to a score sheet from an event you could see the winner for chicken was at your table you still only have a 1 in 6 chance in identifying it. And if you just happened to be at an event the next four weeks the same as that team the odds of seeing their entry again are pretty small.
I don't think the double blind judging system is in jeopardy.
Ed

mobow
08-01-2013, 09:10 AM
I agree that the double blind system will still be intact during judging. But, if a judge is able to get a score sheet they will be able to see who ithey judged. I do not think this will have any effect on the next contest. The double blind system would be back in effect for that contest during judging. Keith

rweller
08-01-2013, 03:03 PM
What would make you think that? There is not any change in the judging procedure with KCBScore that would tend to identify a team at the table.
Are you refering to the fact that IF you as a judge had access to a score sheet from an event you could see the winner for chicken was at your table you still only have a 1 in 6 chance in identifying it. And if you just happened to be at an event the next four weeks the same as that team the odds of seeing their entry again are pretty small.
I don't think the double blind judging system is in jeopardy.
Ed
Here is what I'm refering to Ed and I could be totaly wrong but my theory.

To make this short, Say you have one piece of chicken that was just outstanding in every way and the whole team thought so. So they score very high. You stay for the awards and see who wins. I'm friends with a number of teams and it was there chicken that placed 1st. I go to that team and ask them to see there score sheet and low and behold they were on my table for chicken. I know now what there chicken presentation looks like and what flavor profile they are using.
So yes, I would have to have access to there score sheet but thats not hard.
Granted there are other things that could factor in but a judge could find out if he/she really wanted.
Personally I don't really care. I try to do the best I can when I judge and hope the best team wins. I've judged a bunch and haven't figured any one out or even tried to.
Double Blind is probaly not in jepordy but something that could happen.

Alexa RnQ
08-01-2013, 03:20 PM
Even a very consistent team has a hard time putting a completely identical product on the table week after week.

Then you have the relatively low probability that that team's product will land on that judge's table again.

Finally, I've seen photos of products that I could have sworn were our boxes, but I know they weren't. It's food, not a photo of a face or something completely identifiable -- unless a presentation or flavor profile were so distinctive as to me unmistakable, and that might be shooting oneself in the foot in a different way.

I'll take the benefits of the new information any day over the relatively remote possibility that a motivated judge could identify a particular entry.

ModelMaker
08-01-2013, 07:04 PM
I've always contended, as well as many, many other judges that if the cook brought his box in and put it right in front of me, he will get the same score as if it came in double blind from the turn in table.
In fact that is pretty much the design of Iowas own Frostbuster contest. The cooks after judging come in and set across the table from you and you explain your scoring.
Not a game for the timid.
Ed

rweller
08-02-2013, 11:21 AM
I've always contended, as well as many, many other judges that if the cook brought his box in and put it right in front of me, he will get the same score as if it came in double blind from the turn in table.
In fact that is pretty much the design of Iowas own Frostbuster contest. The cooks after judging come in and set across the table from you and you explain your scoring.
Not a game for the timid.
Ed
That sounds like a good idea and I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Candy Sue
08-02-2013, 12:30 PM
I believe I'd have difficulty with this. Not sure that judges would be brutally and completely honest. Kinda like giving somebody your contest leftovers and hearing that it was the best they've ever had. Free makes anything great!

ModelMaker
08-03-2013, 08:12 AM
I believe I'd have difficulty with this. Not sure that judges would be brutally and completely honest. Kinda like giving somebody your contest leftovers and hearing that it was the best they've ever had. Free makes anything great!

Having participated in Frostbuster for 3 of the 4 years I can say with certanty that the judges do indeed judge as they would in a regular comp.
The whole purpose is to share the experience from both sides of competition BBQ. The judges are welcome to walk around and visit with the teams up till boxing time. The cooks after judging come in with their score sheets in hand and ask why we scored as we did, what we liked and didn't like. Last year I even kept my sample plates and set them on the table so we could actually see the samples of all six teams.
Judging from the interaction of both sides of the table, judges and cooks both enjoy and learn from the practice.
I agree giving away leftovers to the public will get you the same truths as having friends try to score your practice cooks, it's the best ever. However this is not the scope of Frostbuster.
Ed

Bigdog
08-03-2013, 08:46 AM
I've always contended, as well as many, many other judges that if the cook brought his box in and put it right in front of me, he will get the same score as if it came in double blind from the turn in table.
In fact that is pretty much the design of Iowas own Frostbuster contest. The cooks after judging come in and set across the table from you and you explain your scoring.
Not a game for the timid.
Ed

...and Ed, you are certainly not timid. :thumb: (and I mean that in a good way)

Fat Freddy
08-03-2013, 08:47 AM
I believe I'd have difficulty with this. Not sure that judges would be brutally and completely honest. Kinda like giving somebody your contest leftovers and hearing that it was the best they've ever had. Free makes anything great!

ONLY speaking of Frostbusters and specifically this year. I did compete in it and while I was a part of the team that won GC. I listened and learned from every one of our judges when visiting with them after the blind judging. Yes the lowest score was thrown out but that was the judge I learned from the most.

But at the same contest there were at least 2 teams that I talk to quite often, that did not do as well as they had hoped but the thing is they always talk about what they learned from the judges and what the judges said was wrong or right with the product.

In regards to luck of the table, I do think there is a bit of luck involved but hasnt there always been luck involved? The only way we can eliminate luck is to do away with the human factor and instead turn our food into machines.

Better of more consistent judges I absolutely agree with, but even then luck will always play into the game. Just like football,baseball and any other competition.

ynotfehc
08-03-2013, 12:40 PM
After 2 years of competing, I think as a whole the scoring system needs to become more consistent and better defined. For scores to be within 2 points of each other, thats a big difference in the final scores. Ive seen people write that they wont give lower than a 7 out of respect for the teams, and if the top score is a 9, then a 2 point difference is huge because you are talking about the worst and best score possible, and what do you give the teams in between? Ive coached HS diving before, and there is an understanding of what a perfect dive looks like based on many factors. If a diver flops a dive, they flop the dive, there's no such thing as mercy points. Appearance and texture scores should all be very consistent and I havent seen that. Taste scores are going to vary a bit more based on personal preferences, but getting a 9 and a 7 or potentially the best and worst score on the same table doesnt seem consistent at all. When I look at the overall results and the difference between 10th and 20th place is all of 8pts, seems like average teams just get lumped into the same scores with little variation or distinction between them.