I was a table captain at Holbrook, and I believe that the CBJ % was less than 65%. There were at least 3 VIPs at most of the tables. On my table, there were 3, so to help the teams and scoring, I held a mini judges class before the judging began, and then again before each meat turn in. The non CBJs scoring was right in line with the CBJs on my table, +/- a point here and there.
The new score sheet is very revealing, judges are no longer anonymous, and names could be easily placed to tables and seat numbers by those in the judging area.
My advice would be to not use Holbrook as a baseline for the new scoring system because of the low CBJ percentage. Just for the record, even with only 5 tables, the Table Captains took the time to make sure no table judged the same teams entrys twice.
I think tracking across all categories and an accumulated body of several contests will reduce the faulty conclusion. A judge may land on a lucky table that gets all great entries, or on a poor table that gets all scary entries, but the odds of that happening in all four categories in contest after contest over time are pretty remote.You also have to keep in mind that the low table may be low or it may be accurate. The high table may be accurate or it may be inflated. More information can be good but it can also increase the odds of a faulty conclusion. Keith
I guess I'm in the minority who think that all this table info is as useful as the history boards on roulette wheels. It's fun to use to play "what if" but otherwise statistically irrelevant. Regardless of what the score sheet says your table history at any contest is always N=1. In other words your history starts from scratch every new contest. Different judges, different table combinations different tastes. This is especially true if the judge average score is also N=1 (just the history for that contest) or if this a combined score average across all 4 meats.
If the judge's average score is cumulative then what does that really tell you? A judge averages 30.2 and you got a 32.5 from them. OK so your flavor profile hits well with that judge, but you already knew that from awards since if you consistently get scores over the judge's mean average you should be getting walks.
I guess I'm in the minority who think that all this table info is as useful as the history boards on roulette wheels. It's fun to use to play "what if" but otherwise statistically irrelevant. Regardless of what the score sheet says your table history at any contest is always N=1. In other words your history starts from scratch every new contest. Different judges, different table combinations different tastes. This is especially true if the judge average score is also N=1 (just the history for that contest) or if this a combined score average across all 4 meats.
If the judge's average score is cumulative then what does that really tell you? A judge averages 30.2 and you got a 32.5 from them. OK so your flavor profile hits well with that judge, but you already knew that's from awards since if you consistently get scores over the judge's mean average you should be getting walks.
I guess I'm in the minority who think that all this table info is as useful as the history boards on roulette wheels. It's fun to use to play "what if" but otherwise statistically irrelevant. Regardless of what the score sheet says your table history at any contest is always N=1. In other words your history starts from scratch every new contest. Different judges, different table combinations different tastes. This is especially true if the judge average score is also N=1 (just the history for that contest) or if this a combined score average across all 4 meats.
If the judge's average score is cumulative then what does that really tell you? A judge averages 30.2 and you got a 32.5 from them. OK so your flavor profile hits well with that judge, but you already knew that from awards since if you consistently get scores over the judge's mean average you should be getting walks.
So you don't see any value in knowing that the product you turned in scored where it did due to it hitting either a good/hot table or bad/cold table. I think everyone has had that turn in they thought was great that tanked or sucked and they walked and wondered why. Granted I don't think there is much you can do about it but I see value in at least knowing that.
So you don't see any value in knowing that the product you turned in scored where it did due to it hitting either a good/hot table or bad/cold table. I think everyone has had that turn in they thought was great that tanked or sucked and they walked and wondered why. Granted I don't think there is much you can do about it but I see value in at least knowing that.
In the past, I would not have known that. I would probably have started to mess around with my recipe and then waste a couple of more contests trying to correct something that wasn't wrong in the first place.
I would have left the Sam's Club contest last week wondering what went wrong with my brisket even though I cooked a good brisket. Based on past contest I figured a top 5 finish (my average in brisket this year is 168 over 14 contests) as this was one of the better briskets I have cooked this year, but finished 20th OA.
The new sheets showed that my brisket was at table 2. Table 2 had two total top 10 finishes. A 7th in ribs by Pig Skin and an 8th in pork. I talked to Scott before awards and he said he was happy with his ribs...which usually is a bad thing for the rest of us :razz:
At the brisket table I was with Tippy Canoe. Joe said that he cooked a good brisket too but finished 15th OA.
Table 4 had the following rankings (29 teams):
Chicken: 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29
Ribs: 7, 21, 23, 27, 29
Pork: 8, 15, 22, 26, 27, 28
Brisket: 15, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29
Now let's play this out another contest or two and say you have the bad luck of hitting the bad table. In the past, I would not have known that. I would probably have started to mess around with my recipe and then waste a couple of more contests trying to correct something that wasn't wrong in the first place.
I'm just saying I enjoy having a few additional facts to base any changes or feedback on
This should happen!Or maybe even better write a judge seating program that mixes together judges so high scoring and low scoring judges are evenly distributed across the tables
Or maybe even better write a judge seating program that mixes together judges so high scoring and low scoring judges are evenly distributed across the tables