.0002 point difference

[Pickin' Porkers]

I have not done the math yet to make this determination BUT, does anyone know what would make a .0002 point difference between two different scores in KCBS? I see a lot of that including .0004 point difference and curious to know which differences in score would create such a close division in scores! Is it appearance, taste or tenderness or a combination of these or WHAT!

[Uncle Buds BBQ]

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.

[DawgPhan]

what really drives you crazy is that difference is often the difference of $1000's becuase of the outdated way of paying out places.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.

[82's BBQ]

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.

[holysmokes]

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

[dmprantz]

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

[Big Poppa]

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

[dmprantz]

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

[Uncle Buds BBQ]

Originally Posted by dmprantz

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

dmp

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

[dmprantz]

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.

[Uncle Buds BBQ]

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.

[Untraceable]

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

[dmprantz]

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

[dmprantz]

Originally Posted by Untraceable

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

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

[Uncle Buds BBQ]

Originally Posted by dmprantz

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

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