◆ SNAIL [Spec] Racing - Join now to win a Digit Racing EDGE Masterclass enrollment!!Open

[Vol Jbolaz]

Would someone mind sending me the Amuse S2000 R1 '04? I didn't grab it recently when it came up win the online dealership.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

If there is anyone on the fence about racing in the SCT group, don't hesitate. It is tons of fun and has some of the highest quality SNAIL drivers participating. Having different cars levels the playing field a lot so don't worry about being in a lower division. I consider myself a mid-range D4 driver and found myself with several high finishes and close door to door racing all night long.

That is all.

I would like to second this. It had some good racing, and I won the evening last night.

Mind you, there were clearly some better drivers than me that had selected horrible cars. My wins were due to my car, and the lucky advantages of traffic from such a varied field.

Still, was fun.

 

[jobyone]

Would someone mind sending me the Amuse S2000 R1 '04? I didn't grab it recently when it came up win the online dealership.

If you have not received one by tonight send me a friend request and I can get you one later tonight when I get home. Will be around 7:00 pst.

 

[fzappa]

-ATTENTION SNAILS-

If anyone does not have the GT5 Racing Car Pack , for what ever reason , shoot me a PM and I will foward you a code for the DLC so you will be able to race the Kart this Sunday and also possible future races that involve cars from this DLC.

 

[JLBowler]

Not to throw a cat into a tree full of pigeons, but I have to bring this back up before the new season begins…

Bowler's idea of a multiplier of three percent for each driver over 10, or a reduction of the same under 10, seems to work quite well.

I'll bring back the chart of the winning score versus the number of drivers in the room. The left side is the least number of drivers, the right has the most.

Now, if you apply his multiplier, the trend graph should level off, which would prove that the multiplier is working, making comparing un-level divisions more fair. Of course, there will be blips from racers who dominated the field or some particularly even nights.

That seems to have worked even better than I expected…

What are the thoughts on this?

Thanks for putting something into a visual representation. You can see from the two graphs how the point totals level off from left to right in the two graphs. It would be even more pronounced if the bottom graph also ranged from 70 to 110 as the top one does.

I will have a list of every instance of prize changes from the past few months that the system would have caused and will post it today.

 

[Apmaddock]

It would be even more pronounced if the bottom graph also ranged from 70 to 110 as the top one does.

Yeah. I didn't spend the time trying to figure out how to make that happen last night...assuming you can in a google doc.

 

[TEX36]

We aren't using the white lines as a track boundary at Kart Space. This is similar to how we treat the line at the end of the Mulsanne (sp?) straight at La Sarthe or the yellow-painted areas at Trial Mountain. There are some tracks we treat differently -- Indy Road Course, for example -- so it's a good question.

Okay - will make that adjustment, hopefully. Didn't read any of the earlier posts if it was discussed. Thanks for making it clear.

 

[JLBowler]

Here it goes. This will detail the results of every race night since Aug. 5 (when we went to 5 divisions). Divisions are not named and you will only see the points scored, number of racers (averaged if it differed from race to race in the same night), and the change in position with the adjustment applied.

points/#of racers ......... adjusted position
98/8 ........ 2
96/12 ....... 1
89/6 ....... 5 ....... 8/5/12
85/9 ....... 4
84/12 ....... 3

93/5 ........ 5
88/9 ........ 3
83/11 ....... 2 ....... 8/12/12
79/13 ....... 1
75/12 ........ 4

90/9 ....... 1
89/9 ....... 2
89/9 ....... 2 ....... 8/19/12
85/9 ....... 5
84/11 ...... 4

95/10 ........ 1
95/8 ........ 2
88/7 ........ 3 ........ 8/26/12
82/9 ........ 4
81/9 ........ 5

97/6 ........ 2
93/6 ........ 4
87/9 ........ 3 ....... 9/2/12
87/7 ....... 5
81/12 ....... 1

97/12 ....... 1
91/8 ....... 2
85/10 ........ 3 ....... 9/9/12
84/10 ....... 4
76/11 ...... 5

89/9 ........ 2
88/10 ....... 1
85/10 ........ 4 ....... 9/16/12
84/10 ........ 5
81/12 ........ 3

90/14 ........ 1
89/14 ....... 2
89/9 ....... 3 ....... 9/23/12
86/7 ....... 5
85/10 ....... 4

89/9 ....... 3
87/14 ....... 1
86/13 ....... 2 ....... 9/30/12
83/7 ...... 5
77/11 ...... 4

92/12 ....... 1
90/11 ....... 2
82/12 ....... 3 ....... 10/7/12
82/12 ....... 3
82/10 ....... 5

93/10 ...... 1
93/7 ....... 4
90/10 ....... 2 ........ 10/14/12
86/11 ....... 3
77/12 ....... 5

97/7 ....... 3
97/9 ....... 1
90/11 ....... 2 ....... 10/21/12
80/10 ....... 5
76/15 ....... 4

95/10 ....... 1
94/9 ....... 2
86/10 ....... 3 ....... 10/28/12
85/10 ....... 4
80/12 ....... 5

100/7 ........ 2
91/11 ....... 1
89/10 ........ 3 ....... 11/4/12
77/11 ....... 4
75/11 ........ 5

97/10 ....... 1
87/9 ....... 4
86/11 ....... 3 ....... 11/11/12
84/13 ....... 2
93/9 ....... 5

93/8 ....... 1
85/7 ....... 5
84/11 ....... 2 ..... 11/18/12
84/9 ....... 4
81/11 ...... 3

93/7 ...... 3
91/8 ...... 2
86/9 ...... 4 ...... 11/25/12
86/10 ...... 1
79/10 ...... 5

 

[Apmaddock]

I can see from that how close some of the adjusted scores must have been. That certainly makes things interesting.

There was one time where the highest score adjusted to lowest, and once where the lowest adjusted to highest. Obviously things are being leveled out by this.

Very cool.

 

[JLBowler]

Yes, it does seem to level it off.

 

[zer05ive]

Yeah it really works well! Bowler, can you put something together that summarizes the formula and how it works?

 

[JLBowler]

I will put something together.

 

[JLBowler]

Announcement​

S.N.A.I.L. will now be using a new system to compare the performance of weekly winners that are participating in rooms with a varying number of drivers.

This system will take into account the number of drivers in a room and adjust the point total of the winner only for the purpose of determing the A, B, and C prize winner for the week.

This system will not affect the point totals of any drivers within their own division and the system will not change the current point structure in any way except to compare the point totals of different division winners for the purpose of selecting the weekly prize winners.

The system will use a multiplier based on the average number of participants in a division for the night. If a room has 11 participants for all six races, then the winner's total will use the multiplier for 11 racers. If a room has 11 for one race and 10 for four races and 9 for the sixth race, the average will be taken and the winner's total will use the multiplier for 10 racers.

The multipliers will be as follows:

6 = .88
7 = .91
8 = .94
9 = .97
10 = 1.00
11 = 1.03
12 = 1.06
13 = 1.09
14 = 1.12
15 = 1.15
16 = 1.18

The system will be implemented by multiplying each division winner's final point total by the multiplier associated with the number of driver in the room. Example:

D1 - 92 pts. with 9 drivers = 89.24 adjusted total Prize B
D2 - 86 pts. with 12 drivers = 91.16 adjusted total Prize A
D3 - 88 pts. with 10 drivers = 88.00 adjusted total
D4 - 86 pts. with 11 drivers = 88.58 adjusted total Prize C
D5 - 93 pts. with 7 drivers = 84.63 adjusted total

This system is in no way a change to the point structure within the divisional structure of the league. This method will only be applied for the purpose of comparing winners from different room sizes to each other in a more accurate way than what we have now. This system will only be used to determine the distribution of the weekly prizes and will not have any effect on the monthly standings.

 

[KuulKrinne]

Why do you wanna change the points system?

 

[Apmaddock]

Because a racer in a room/division with fewer drivers can more easily gain more points.

The point system is not changing. A multiplier/modifier to better compare one division's winner to another's may be implemented for prize purposes, only.

 

[Handlebar]

The only part that jiggled my eyeballs was moving the 100 point driver to second place.

Yeah, the other guy had many more drivers, and I DO like this system to simply compare the top scores for prize distribution - not just redoing all the numbers, etc.

That one just caught my attention - I am only wondering how close were they on the adjustment?

 

[Apmaddock]

That one just caught my attention - I am only wondering how close were they on the adjustment?

Pretty close…

91/11 = 93.73
100/7 = 91
89/10 = 89

 

[JLBowler]

The only part that jiggled my eyeballs was moving the 100 point driver to second place.

Yeah, the other guy had many more drivers, and I DO like this system to simply compare the top scores for prize distribution - not just redoing all the numbers, etc.

That one just caught my attention - I am only wondering how close were they on the adjustment?

The 100 was adjusted to 91 becasue there were 7 drivers in that division. The score that went ahead was a 91 in a room with 11 drivers which adjusted was worth 93.73.

The decision would fall upon Zero, but I wouldn't be opposed to having an exception and allowing the 100 point night to stay at the top regardless of the adjusted totals.

In addition, there were three instances of an adjusted total being over 100. Every time this was done, it was done by a driver that has since been moved up at lease one division.

 

[Nicktune]

Looks great Bowler. 👍

 

[Dragonwhisky]

Nice work Bowler. Your MathFu is strong.

I'd be interested to see how that formula is written in the spreadsheet. Nested if/then statements or something more arcane?

 

[JLBowler]

Nice work Bowler. Your MathFu is strong.

I'd be interested to see how that formula is written in the spreadsheet. Nested if/then statements or something more arcane?

I wouldn't even bother putting it in the spread sheet if it were up to me. I would only use it in the results post and prize announcement each week. Putting it in the spread sheet with official results would just muddy it up in my opinion.

 

[Dragonwhisky]

I wouldn't even bother putting it in the spread sheet if it were up to me. I would only use it in the results post and prize announcement each week. Putting it in the spread sheet with official results would just muddy it up in my opinion.

Figured you were using a spreadsheet, separately, to make the calcs. And while it may not be used for divisional standings, it is still going to be the "Official" figures for prize distribution, so from my seat, certainly belongs in there, even if as a separate sheet.

 

[JLBowler]

I suppose it should be kept in there somewhere and a seperate sheet is probably the best place for it. I did not use a spread sheet when creating this thing. I did it the old fashioned way with paper and pencil and a calculator.

 

[tezgm99]

Old-fashioned would be slide-rule and/or a abacus, calculators are for the feeble

 

[Apmaddock]

I've already written it into a spreadsheet. It was pretty easy and looked something like this:

=SUM((1+((((I6+N6+T6+Y6+AE6+AJ6)/6)-10)*.03))*C7)

In other words:

(((Average number of racers per race - 10 (Base number of drivers)) X 3%) + 100%) X Winners Score

It obviously works in a single cell and can be put wherever so that the data is there when it's needed. It also takes into account any number of drivers for each of the races, so the average number of racers can be in the decimals, which makes it more accurate.

 

[Dragonwhisky]

Would you mind sending me the sheet(s)?
My spreadheetfu is average, but I'm always looking to increase my knowledge.

 

[Apmaddock]

Hopefully the edit makes sense to you. I can't really give you the spreadsheet as it's on a director's doc right now. It's all pretty much basic math.

 

[Dragonwhisky]

Yeah, maybe it is basic math, but you've already got the data entered. While building spreadsheets has been a relatively small hobby of mine over the last 20 years or so, I've never been that jazzed about entering historical data. No big deal I reckon. Was just curious how the formulae were built.

 

[JLBowler]

I've already written it into a spreadsheet. It was pretty easy and looked something like this:

=SUM((1+((((I6+N6+T6+Y6+AE6+AJ6)/6)-10)*.03))*C7)

In other words:

(((Average number of racers per race - 10 (Base number of drivers)) X 3%) + 100%) X Winners Score

It obviously works in a single cell and can be put wherever so that the data is there when it's needed. It also takes into account any number of drivers for each of the races, so the average number of racers can be in the decimals, which makes it more accurate.

That's nice and even more accurate than what I was able to do by hand with the decimals on the ave field size. I was aiming for simple but effective and I hope I've found it. What you've done in the sheet will give instant results and I like that.

 

[kcheeb]

Yeah, maybe it is basic math, but you've already got the data entered. While building spreadsheets has been a relatively small hobby of mine over the last 20 years or so, I've never been that jazzed about entering historical data. No big deal I reckon. Was just curious how the formulae were built.

With this Sundays results you'll be able to see the formulae, once the Division sheets are copied to the public document.

 

[Dragonwhisky]

Would I be able to copy the data and formulae from the public doc into my own spreadsheet?

As I recall, that results workbook has a ton of sheets.