<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2737.800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>..........Since my name was
mentioned..................I've done the numbers and make no claims - only
a conclusion which is based on real numbers. I do not make the
same conclusion as Ron Van Putte.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Vastly superior" and "far superior" are obviously
narrative terms and subject to debate. I can't attach the rather lengthy
spreadsheet I have (which does have very specific numbers for a number of
scenarios), but I can pretty easily provide a narrative summary of the
assumptions and final results of one possible scenario. I've not presented
much in the way of decimal points - if I did, the results don't change
anyway.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Assumptions:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>72 total K for pattern</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>9.0 average score for #1 seeded pilot (Pilot
A)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>8.9 average score for #2 seeded pilot (Pilot
B)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>8.8 average score for #3 seeded pilot (Pilot
C)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>8.7 average score for #4 seeded pilot (Pilot
D)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>8.5 average score for unseeded pilot (Pilot
X)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At the end of the 6 round preliminaries, the
results for top 4 pilots will be:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Pilot A 4000
1000 average</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Pilot B 3989 997
average</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Pilot C 3965 991
average</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Pilot D 3921 980
average</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So what about Pilot X? The score for Pilot X is dependant upon which
flight group Pilot X is placed in:</DIV>
<DIV>"X" in Group A 3776 944</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>"X" in Group B 3809
952</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>"X" in Group C 3833
958</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>"X" in Group D 3833 958</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So based on essentially nothing other than random luck, 2 unseeded pilots
of equal skill may see a 57 point differential. As points of
reference from the 2004 US Nationals:</DIV>
<DIV>- The point differential in the F3A prelims between 8th (3809, last man
into the finals) and 11th was 56 points.</DIV>
<DIV>- The point differential in the Masters prelims between 8th (3863, last man
into the finals) and 12th was 53 points.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The most extreme case (where Pilot A is "vastly superior") results in Pilot
A finishing the prelims in 1st, the #5 seed finishing in 8th, and Pilots 9, 13,
17, 21, 25, and 29 finishing 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32nd places,
respectively.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't have the full raw data sets from past Nationals contests to
complete evaluations, but I am quite certain one or more pilots in my flight
group in the 1998 US NATs Masters prelims were pushed down in the standings (and
possibly out of the finals) as I was the strongest flyer (and eventual winner)
in the prelims by a substantial margin. And, I am equally certain that
several years later I was pushed out of the US NATs F3A finals as I was flying
in the group with the strongest flyer in the prelims. For anyone out that
has full data sets (and the time), it might be interesting to complete an
analysis of what happens when a given pilot is moved into different flight
groups - I think my above narrative demonstrates what can happen. If you
think my numbers/scenario are unrealistic, maybe you will have a different
conclusion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=vanputte@cox.net href="mailto:vanputte@cox.net">Ron Van Putte</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, November 13, 2004 6:10
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: To Matrix or not to
Matrix</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR></DIV><BR>On Nov 13, 2004, at 3:54 PM, George Kennie
wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR><<<BTW, the way the matrix system is implemented
now, the top eight entrants are seeded, based on the previous Nats, and
the<BR>top four are distributed among groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and the next four
are distributed among groups 1, 2, 3, 4.>>><BR><BR>This is
confusing to me. To say that the top 4 are distributed in groups 1,2,3&4
and the next 4 are distributed in groups 1,2,3&4 sounds the same as the
top 8 are distributed in groups 1,2,3&4 ?????? Please
clarify.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Pilots are seeded 1 thru 8. Pilots seeded 1 and 5
are in group 1, pilots seeded 2 and 6 are in group 2, pilots seeded 3 and 7
are in group 3 and pilots seeded 4 and 8 are in group 4. First day is group 1
vs 2 and group 3 vs 4. Second day is group 1 vs 3 and group 2 vs 4. Third day
is group 1 vs 4 and group 2 vs 3. If things go according to the seeding, at
the end of the third day, pilots 1 thru 3 should each have won at least two
rounds. Pilot 1 will have won six times, pilot 2 will have won four times and
pilot 3 will have won twice. Pilot 4 will not have won a round, but should be
close for the day against pilot 3. We keep the best score from each day, plus
the next best score not previously used, so pilot 1 has a 4,000 normalized
score, pilot 2 also has a 4,000 normalized score and pilot 3 has a score of
2,000, plus his third daily score and the next highest score not used
previously. Pilot 4 has his three best daily scores, plus the highest score
not previously used. <BR><BR>I have run simulated contests for 32 pilots using
this seeding and, unless pilot 1 is <U>vastly</U> superior to pilot 2, even
the worst case scenario of having pilots who are ranked 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14 in group 1, pilots who are ranked 2, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 in group
2, pilots who are ranked 3, 7, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 in group 3 and pilots
who are ranked 4, 8, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 in group 4, the matrix system will
get EVERY finishing place correct. Try it yourself if you don't believe it.
Frankly, I am tired of having people who have not "done the numbers" claim
otherwise. I had a lively discussion and exchange of data with Dave Lockhart
on this subject and he could demonstrate situations where the matrix system
did not get the right order, but it required that the best pilot had to be far
superior to all the other pilots for the matrix system to get it wrong. That
hasn't happened in real life so far.<BR><BR>I'll be honest in agreeing that
the problem of a good pilot having an unlucky day (flameouts, equipment
problems, etc) causing a pair of low scores on one day that would keep him
from the finals, is not right, but I don't see a fair way around it.
<BR><BR>Ron Van Putte</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>