.0002 point difference

It's a combination of all 5 judges scores. The low score (6th) gets dropped.
Take the appearance score and multiple it by .5714, taste by 2.2858 and texture by 1.1428 to get the actual weighted number.

what really drives you crazy is that difference is often the difference of $1000's becuase of the outdated way of paying out places. These days the difference between 1st and 3rd might be less than 1/2 a point. but that might mean thousands of dollars to a team.

I have missed money by .0001 pt and knew when I turned in my box that the presentation wasn't great. I messed with it 5 times to even it out but couldn't get it were I wanted it. I suppose 6 times may have been the charm.

We lost the national BBQ duo by .0004 points. 2500 difference.

Presuming that you are talking about KCBS and forgetting about the low scores, if Team A gets one 8 in taste and team B gets four 8s in appearance, all other scores being 9s, when everything is weighted and summed, Team B will be ahead by 0.0002. Similarly if Team B gets two 8s in tenderness, they will still be ahead by 0.0002. Basically, taste counts for a lot, and you have to really tank it in either of the other categories to catch up to some one who gets hosed by one judge in taste.

My understanding is that the scoring will change somewhat in 2013, and this will not apply as is. The way the scoring works now ties are possible in that tenderness is twice of appearance as in the above examples, so four 8s in appearance is the same as two 8s in tenderness, but when you go to tie breaking, a higher score in tenderness always wins. The 2013 scoring is supposed to theoretically prevent the tie from occuring in the first place while not affecting the final results at all. I'd hope that some one did a Spearman rank correlation to verify....

dmp

if there is a tie in the spearman correlationthey can always fall back on the litmus configuration

It's a shame that my use of big words leads you to make fun of me. Since you don't appear to be able to read my posts without doing so, maybe you should use that ignore feature you've asked about in the past....

dmp

dmprantz said:

but when you go to tie breaking, a higher score in tenderness always wins.

dmp

Click to expand...

Daniel,
You sure about that? I thought rule #7 states that the low score (that was thrown out) breaks the tie.

http://www.kcbs.us/pdf/2012_Rules.pdf

If there is a tie in one of the categories, it will be broken
by the computer, as follows: The scores will be compared
(counting all five judges) for the highest cumulative
scores in taste, then tenderness, then appearance. If still
tied, then the low score, which was thrown out, will be
compared and the higher of the low scores will break the
tie. If still tied, then a computer generated coin toss will
be used.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I was quoting so when you said "but when you go to tie breaking, a higher score in tenderness always wins" I don't understand.

Id rather lose by .0002pts than through some series of tiebreakers

The way I read that is that if there is a weighted score tie, first you compare the two teams' taste scores from the top 5 judges, then tenderness, then appearance. Only if all three of those tie do you bring in the dropped score. Following that process and the current weightings, appearance of 98888 is the same numerical score as a tenderness of 99988, but since the tenderness is compared first in the above process, the higher tenderness score will break the tie. The intent with the weight change is to have the same final results, but not have it look like a tie. Some one on the board referred to it as a "false tie" I think. The other part of the goal from what I understand is that the only effect of the scoring change is that these situations won't look like ties.

dmp

Untraceable said:

Id rather lose by .0002pts than through some series of tiebreakers

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for or against the change, but supposedly the two systems are logically equivalent. That is, the outcome isn't ever changed, it's just how it looks on paper. I'd call it an algorithmic euphamism. If that makes you feel better about it, great. It doesn't really matter to me because taste is still more imporant than tenderness which is still more important than appearance.

dmp

dmprantz said:

The way I read that is that if there is a weighted score tie, first you compare the two teams' taste scores from the top 5 judges, then tenderness, then appearance. Only if all three of those tie do you bring in the dropped score. Following that process and the current weightings, appearance of 98888 is the same numerical score as a tenderness of 99988, but since the tenderness is compared first in the above process, the higher tenderness score will break the tie. The intent with the weight change is to have the same final results, but not have it look like a tie. Some one on the board referred to it as a "false tie" I think. The other part of the goal from what I understand is that the only effect of the scoring change is that these situations won't look like ties.

dmp

Click to expand...

OK...I see what you are saying but I didn't interpret the rule that way.

Without further documentation, that's how I'd write the software based on that rule, but I could be wrong. It's been known to happen Any one with more detailed information on the tie-breaking algorithm for KCBS is welcomed to correct me.

dmp

Pickin' Porkers said:

That would apply in this case but wouldn't switching to a 1/2 point scoring system alleviate some of these tie and "close call" issues as well?

Click to expand...

I'll answer the question with another question: Would changing from a 10 point scale (0-9) to a 20 point scale (0-19) prevent this? My answer is mathematically no, and the reason why I asked it is that it's the same thing put into different words. BBQ scoring is a discrete system that doesn't have a normal distribution of values, so in the end you have a finite number of scores. Whether those scores involve fractions, whole numbers, or are assigned by Greek letters, it doesn't really matter. All you really need to do is rank those scores in order from 1 to whenever and decide which ones beat which ones. Increasing the the quantity of discrete scores gives you the flexibillity to have more granular results, but only if you specifically choose to. It all depends on the ranks you give the combinations and how you want to enforce it algorithmically.

There is the psycological effect though, and I don't account for it. If scoring stays in the 6-9 range currently, half scores could keep it in that same range and still have the same granularity, but again, mathematically it makes no difference as far as I am concerned.

Sorry to be such a geek about it, but this is what I do, or at least part of it.

dmp

EDIT: Increasing the number of discrete values would actually have the opposite effect. The distribution of scores becomes closer so scores look closer than they are. You also increase the odds of having tie scores, or require that weightings be carried out to more decimal places to avoid ties. If you want to avoid ties and "close scores" you should reduce the number of scores available. In the end, keep in mind that whatever the mathematics show on paper, your score sheet currently has 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible values on it per category. Your goal is to get the best combination regardless of how close it is to the next highest.

I feel your pain. The counter-argument, which I've heard made here on The Brethren multiple times, is to use the entire range of scores available. A judge can give an entry anywhere from a 2 to 9 on any criterion.

Personally, from a mathematical standpoint, I'd rather see the raw scores stick with whole numbers and encourage judges to use them rather than to use fractional scores. Let 2 be the new six, and 8 be the 8.5 you want That's a training issue though, and I don't think that the KCBS can force judges to do it. I could see moving to half scores as an atlernative to get the same effect through judges' heads, but I would prefer them say only scores 5 or 6 through 9 are valid if they do that. That way you still have about the same number of valid scores. You might even be able to change the weighting so that it's the same anyway. Like I said though, as a cook who understands math, it doesn't really matter to me. Just turn in the best product you can and hope for the right tables

dmp