ブタ
The BBQ BRETHREN FORUMS.


Forum Portal Recipes Smoke Signals Magazine Welocme Merchandise Associations Purchase Subscription Brethren Banners
Go Back   The BBQ BRETHREN FORUMS. > Discussion Area > Competition BBQ

Notices

Competition BBQ *On Topic Only* Discussion regarding all aspects of Competition BBQ. Experiences competing or visiting, questions, getting started, Equipment, announcements of events, Results, Reviews, Planning, etc. Questions here will be responded to with competition BBQ in mind.


Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 07-16-2013, 08:58 PM   #121
Muzzlebrake
Babbling Farker
 
Muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-06
Location: Pleasant Valley NY
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Admittedly I am not the mathematician that many of you are, I understand and agree with you that there is not enough of a constant in the equation to utilize the new data to to predict a statistical probability of future outcomes. The new data can however provide and excellent analytical review of an event that has already taken place and I think that is where it's value is.

The new scoring system will allow me to see for example that over the course of the 24 entries judged by table x only 1 top ten score in any category. Understandably, I don't get to sample any of the food but I can further determine that out of the 24 entries judged 3 were submitted by current or former Jack/AR champs, 10 were from teams currently in the Top 50 in there respective category, 1 was a Sam's regional champion and 5 others were from 3 teams with 11 combined GC's this year. Looking at the quality of the teams submitting these entries, I think it is very reasonable to think those results are the more likely the result of a scoring anomaly than deviation of your process/recipe. Now I can see that the brisket I way overcooked but finished 2nd with was more than likely due to me hitting the table that put 14 entries into the top ten from 11 teams that have never had top 10 than judges suddenly liking brisket cooked to 215*.
__________________
Sean Keever

"What sort of people are these charcoal masters? They behaved badly and were unconcerned with appearances. Their hair was long and unkempt and their clothes were wrinkled and old. They drank beer to and from the crab house and they made rude noises while we cooked." Tao of Charcoal
Muzzlebrake is offline   Reply With Quote


Thanks from:--->
Unread 07-17-2013, 08:14 AM   #122
ModelMaker
is One Chatty Farker
 
ModelMaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-21-06
Location: Lake Ponderosa-Montezuma, IA
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Here's a thought, how about they make a nine table and a 8 table and so on and you just take your chance on where you land?
Then you guys can figure the statistical chances of which table you would hit based on the order you hit the turn in table and throw in the odds of which hand you use to carry your box?
Go for it.
Ed
__________________
Designer of a custom drum smoker
Customized Aussie gas passer
Turkey fryer
Extremely seasoned hand hammered Wok
Pit Boss-HART BURN Competition BBQ Team
KCBS certified judge


And Your not the boss of me either!!
ModelMaker is online now   Reply With Quote


Unread 07-17-2013, 08:27 AM   #123
musicmanryann
is One Chatty Farker

 
musicmanryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-11-08
Location: Ames, Iowa
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogiesnap View Post
i can only imagine that because the statistics are manipulated and not random they are no longer valid. and now that they are no longer valid, they are no longer useful because they were manipulated.

and once you force a smoothing of data, well, we'll probably all get sevens every category, every entry, kinda thing.

was i close????
Correct, but currently the statistics are not random and are being manipulated. Reps currently sort the judges and seat them based on their experience under the assumption that experience is a factor in how a judge scores.

We are not talking about normalizing how an individual judge scores, but rather the table as a whole, and across all the tables at a contest. You may still the straight 777s, but it would more likely be from one judge at all four tables you hit, rather than one table with four judges killing you.
__________________
Big T'z Q Cru Championship BBQ Team
CBJ #50801
6 WSM's
2 Weber Kettles
FEC100
2 Backwoods Fatboy
2 Not-so-Ugly Drum Smokers from Gateway BBQ Store
Jambo -- The Orange Monster
www.bigtzbbq.com
Join our facebook group
musicmanryann is offline   Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Thanks from: --->
Unread 07-17-2013, 09:09 AM   #124
Hawg Father of Seoul
is One Chatty Farker
 
Join Date: 09-14-10
Location: Rogers, AR
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModelMaker View Post
Here's a thought, how about they make a nine table and a 8 table and so on and you just take your chance on where you land?
Then you guys can figure the statistical chances of which table you would hit based on the order you hit the turn in table and throw in the odds of which hand you use to carry your box?
Go for it.
Ed
Do you have such a problem with the way we do it now? I personally think that the way it is currently set up, as the number of contests you cook increases the closer you get to your true ranking.
Hawg Father of Seoul is offline   Reply With Quote


Unread 07-17-2013, 09:11 AM   #125
boogiesnap
Babbling Farker
 
Join Date: 04-22-10
Location: NEW ENGLAND
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicmanryann View Post
Correct, but currently the statistics are not random and are being manipulated. Reps currently sort the judges and seat them based on their experience under the assumption that experience is a factor in how a judge scores.

We are not talking about normalizing how an individual judge scores, but rather the table as a whole, and across all the tables at a contest. You may still the straight 777s, but it would more likely be from one judge at all four tables you hit, rather than one table with four judges killing you.
understood, but that is sorting by person. using historical data the reps would be sorting by numbers.

quite different IMHO.

doesn't really make a difference though probably because there is always the human factor. however, if you balance the tables by the numbers, it is possible, over time, every entry in every category, from every table COULD start getting the exact same totals.
__________________
[SIZE="3"][B][COLOR="Blue"][I][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][/FONT]"YAWN"[/I][/COLOR][/B][/SIZE]-[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="2"]In memory of a friend.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

avatar by grillman. patent pending. :mad2::becky:
boogiesnap is offline   Reply With Quote


Unread 07-17-2013, 09:47 AM   #126
musicmanryann
is One Chatty Farker

 
musicmanryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-11-08
Location: Ames, Iowa
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogiesnap View Post
understood, but that is sorting by person. using historical data the reps would be sorting by numbers.

quite different IMHO.

doesn't really make a difference though probably because there is always the human factor. however, if you balance the tables by the numbers, it is possible, over time, every entry in every category, from every table COULD start getting the exact same totals.
It would be quite different if they sorted by age, eye color or their birth month. However, the sorting by person is done under the premise that their experience determines how they score. Individuals' scoring trends are still there in the sorting even though the numbers are not necessarily known. On the other hand, I know Reps who have a good idea who the black sheep are when they regularly attend contests, and more than a couple of organizers who blacklist judges who consistently score above or below the rest of the table. So perhaps more than a little is known, but probably not consistent.

I do believe there is a correlation between scoring and experience, and am thankful for the reps who go to great lengths to ensure tables are sorted thoroughly based on this variable. Hopefully, as data is collected from the new scoring system, light will be shed on the nature of the correlation, and yield more information that may help refine the table sorting process. In the end we all want the best food, and not luck to win the day.
__________________
Big T'z Q Cru Championship BBQ Team
CBJ #50801
6 WSM's
2 Weber Kettles
FEC100
2 Backwoods Fatboy
2 Not-so-Ugly Drum Smokers from Gateway BBQ Store
Jambo -- The Orange Monster
www.bigtzbbq.com
Join our facebook group
musicmanryann is offline   Reply With Quote


Unread 07-17-2013, 10:06 AM   #127
Kit R
Full Fledged Farker
 
Kit R's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-20-09
Location: Midland VA
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

I had a thought. This is an honest, and non-sarcastic, proposal. What if judges took a number from a hat from 1 to x (with X being the total number of tables) as they entered the tent and they were seated at the number of the table they pulled? No additional sorting by experience, no breaking up spouses, etc. Then the distribution of the judges WOULD be truly random with zero chance of manipulation, smoothing of data, etc. The luck of the draw might result in a table from H-E-Double Hockey Sticks, and it might create a really favorable table, but over time it'd probably even out. Assuming there were enough tables, if reps made sure teams didn't hit a table more than once it would be random luck whether or not you hit a super or awful table. This is assuming there really is such a thing as good or bad tables as opposed to it just looking that way when you persuse the data of a single comp. My theory is this is pretty much what happens already, but maybe if you take any manipulation out of the equation it does become 100% random. If KCBS wanted they could still use the detailed scoresheets to identify outlier judges and take whatever action deemed appropriate (counseling, reeducation, exile to the salt mines of Urumqi China or complimentary lifetime membership in the American Vegan Society).
__________________
http://deguellobbq.wordpress.com
Kit R is offline   Reply With Quote


Thanks from:--->
Unread 07-17-2013, 10:09 AM   #128
Balls Casten
is one Smokin' Farker
 
Join Date: 01-04-09
Location: Johnston, Ia
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

The sorting of judges by experience is a logical act. No one wants 6 first time judges at one table.
__________________
Memory impairment ... The free prize at the bottom of every whiskey bottle.
Balls Casten is offline   Reply With Quote


Thanks from:--->
Unread 07-17-2013, 10:12 AM   #129
Kit R
Full Fledged Farker
 
Kit R's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-20-09
Location: Midland VA
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balls Casten View Post
The sorting of judges by experience is a logical act. No one wants 6 first time judges at one table.
Even if they gave all 9s?
__________________
http://deguellobbq.wordpress.com
Kit R is offline   Reply With Quote


Thanks from:--->
Unread 07-17-2013, 10:49 AM   #130
sdbbq1234
is One Chatty Farker

 
sdbbq1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-11-10
Location: Northern VA
Downloads: 1
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit R View Post
I had a thought. This is an honest, and non-sarcastic, proposal. What if judges took a number from a hat from 1 to x (with X being the total number of tables) as they entered the tent and they were seated at the number of the table they pulled? No additional sorting by experience, no breaking up spouses, etc. Then the distribution of the judges WOULD be truly random with zero chance of manipulation, smoothing of data, etc. The luck of the draw might result in a table from H-E-Double Hockey Sticks, and it might create a really favorable table, but over time it'd probably even out. Assuming there were enough tables, if reps made sure teams didn't hit a table more than once it would be random luck whether or not you hit a super or awful table. This is assuming there really is such a thing as good or bad tables as opposed to it just looking that way when you persuse the data of a single comp. My theory is this is pretty much what happens already, but maybe if you take any manipulation out of the equation it does become 100% random. If KCBS wanted they could still use the detailed scoresheets to identify outlier judges and take whatever action deemed appropriate (counseling, reeducation, exile to the salt mines of Urumqi China or complimentary lifetime membership in the American Vegan Society).
Now there's an idea worth serious consideration!

wallace
__________________
- Life Is Good, But BBQ Is Better!
- BWS - Fat Boy
- WSM 22.5
- A bunch on other outdoor cooking stuff.
- KCBS CBJ# 58657
- MABA Member

"Take luck!"
sdbbq1234 is offline   Reply With Quote


Unread 07-17-2013, 01:40 PM   #131
Hawg Father of Seoul
is One Chatty Farker
 
Join Date: 09-14-10
Location: Rogers, AR
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit R View Post
I had a thought. This is an honest, and non-sarcastic, proposal. What if judges took a number from a hat from 1 to x (with X being the total number of tables) as they entered the tent and they were seated at the number of the table they pulled? No additional sorting by experience, no breaking up spouses, etc. Then the distribution of the judges WOULD be truly random with zero chance of manipulation, smoothing of data, etc. The luck of the draw might result in a table from H-E-Double Hockey Sticks, and it might create a really favorable table, but over time it'd probably even out. Assuming there were enough tables, if reps made sure teams didn't hit a table more than once it would be random luck whether or not you hit a super or awful table. This is assuming there really is such a thing as good or bad tables as opposed to it just looking that way when you persuse the data of a single comp. My theory is this is pretty much what happens already, but maybe if you take any manipulation out of the equation it does become 100% random. If KCBS wanted they could still use the detailed scoresheets to identify outlier judges and take whatever action deemed appropriate (counseling, reeducation, exile to the salt mines of Urumqi China or complimentary lifetime membership in the American Vegan Society).
I think you summed it up well. You can manipulate the judges or the tables, but when you do both you fark the goose.
Hawg Father of Seoul is offline   Reply With Quote


Unread 07-17-2013, 02:02 PM   #132
G$
is One Chatty Farker
 
G$'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-01-05
Location: Southern Arizona
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit R View Post
Then the distribution of the judges WOULD be truly random
You answered it yourself.

Many competitors do EVERYTHING THEY CAN to remove any trace of randomness to their whole process. THEY DO NOT WANT RANDOM JUDGING. They want what they consider fair and equal judging.

For the record, I am not personally saying this is my point of view, but it is a point of view of many very excellent competition barbeque teams.
G$ is offline   Reply With Quote


Unread 07-17-2013, 04:14 PM   #133
boogiesnap
Babbling Farker
 
Join Date: 04-22-10
Location: NEW ENGLAND
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G$ View Post
You answered it yourself.

Many competitors do EVERYTHING THEY CAN to remove any trace of randomness to their whole process. THEY DO NOT WANT RANDOM JUDGING. They want what they consider fair and equal judging.

For the record, I am not personally saying this is my point of view, but it is a point of view of many very excellent competition barbeque teams.
yes, fair and equal per judge. we're talking per table, know what i mean?

the use of random in this thread isn't what your'e thinking.
__________________
[SIZE="3"][B][COLOR="Blue"][I][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][/FONT]"YAWN"[/I][/COLOR][/B][/SIZE]-[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="2"]In memory of a friend.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

avatar by grillman. patent pending. :mad2::becky:
boogiesnap is offline   Reply With Quote


Unread 07-17-2013, 04:51 PM   #134
G$
is One Chatty Farker
 
G$'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-01-05
Location: Southern Arizona
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogiesnap View Post
yes, fair and equal per judge. we're talking per table, know what i mean?

the use of random in this thread isn't what your'e thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I know very well what the folks that want what they would term "fair judge seating" (and as a result "fair turn in distribution") based on average scores means, and there is nothing random about it. Point blank, they don't want random. And maybe that is best, but it is not random.
G$ is offline   Reply With Quote


Unread 07-17-2013, 04:56 PM   #135
boogiesnap
Babbling Farker
 
Join Date: 04-22-10
Location: NEW ENGLAND
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

fair enough.
__________________
[SIZE="3"][B][COLOR="Blue"][I][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][/FONT]"YAWN"[/I][/COLOR][/B][/SIZE]-[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="2"]In memory of a friend.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

avatar by grillman. patent pending. :mad2::becky:
boogiesnap is offline   Reply With Quote


Thanks from:--->
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Loading



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.0 Beta 4 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2003 -2012 © BBQ-Brethren Inc. All rights reserved. All Content and Flaming Pig Logo are registered and protected under U.S and International Copyright and Trademarks. Content Within this Website Is Property of BBQ Brethren Inc. Reproduction or alteration is strictly prohibited.
no new posts