CHANCE AND MATCH RESULTS

  • 6K Views
  • Last Post 02 December 2013
joeb33050 posted this 28 November 2013

CHANCE AND MATCH RESULTS 1

Skill and technique and equipment play a part in group match results. Chance or luck plays some part in group match results. The number of groups averaged to get the match aggregate, frequently either four or five groups, also plays a part in match results. Using CBA National Match records from 2000 to 2013 and some arithmetic, we find the following:

CHANCE THAT A SHOOTER WINS A MATCH 4 GROUP AGGREGATE
Shooter 1 Shooter 2 Shooter 3 Shooter 4 Shooter 5 77.2% 15.4% 5.1% 1.6% 0.8%

5 GROUP AGGREGATE
Shooter 1 Shooter 2 Shooter 3 Shooter 4 Shooter 5 81.4% 13.5% 3.8% 0.9% 0.4%

Shooters are ranked in order of estimated long run average group size, with Shooter 1 having the smallest, Shooter 2 next, and so on. This is for 5 shot groups.

The “best” shooter wins 77% of the 4 group matches and 81% of the 5 group matches; so that “better” shooters win more 5 group matches and “less better” shooters win more 4 group matches. (See “CHANCE OR LUCK.xls) WORD doc is attached

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
onondaga posted this 28 November 2013

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=3>joeb33050

I'm missing something in your math. I haven't competed in over 30 years and decided to try in the postal matches here in muzzle-loading this year. The matches consisted of 5 shots at each of 4 targets. This takes consistent shooting and I believe it is a sufficient amount of shooting to eliminate chance completely. I earned 2nd place in 2 of the matches and worked too hard at that shooing to consider any of it chance at all. I missed first place in one of matches by 1 point and don't even think that was chance, I did the best I could.

I am concerned that your post on this subject will make some of the good sportsmen competitors here feel discredited or see your post as an effort to discredit their hard effort at competing.

Gary

Attached Files

LWesthoff posted this 28 November 2013

I won't even bother anybody with an attempt to refute Joe's mathematics, but I will (and do) disagree with his.....philosophy, I guess you would call it.

I do everything I can possibly do to eliminate the “chance” or “luck” factor, to the point of being somewhat anal about the whole thing. I try to keep my bullet weight to +/- 1.5 gr. I weigh every powder charge and keep them to +0.1, -0 gr. Brass is segregated and kept to +/- 1.5 gr. And brass and bullets are oriented the same through every operation up to and including position in the chamber.

I know that a lot of the the guys who shoot jacketed BR groups so tiny they look like one hole throw their powder charges at the bench and don't worry about orientation and a lot of that other stuff, and that I am being overly picky.

But when I fire a round that goes out of the group, I don't want to be able to shrug it off and blame it on ANYTHING but my shooting. I don't want to be able to say “Dang! Must have been a bad bullet/light charge etc.” Too easy to blame something else besides my shooting technique.

Works pretty well for me. Might even work for you.

     Wes

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 28 November 2013

let's see ... people who are better at a task tend to do better at that task than people who are not so good at that task.

ok, but i am still working on analyzing the other joe-b 's theory of the one-shot group.

ken

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 28 November 2013

Joe:

"Casting out nines” is a more than reasonable method at determining the probability of a given answer to any mathematical problem's given answer being correct in much more than just my opinion. Search “Casting out nines” if you are unfamiliar with that. I look at match statistics and cast out nines and disagree with you by well over 10% of your given answer Joe. Casting out nines also really gives me a headache as I do this without a pencil and I've already just had a stroke.

Casting out nines: https://search.disconnect.me/search?safe=off&gbv=2&sclient=psy-ab&q=casting+out+nines&se=google&search_plus_one=form&oq=casting+out+nines&gs_l=serp.12...5951.6746.0.9258.3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.32.psy-ab..3.0.0.q5u0qGuTpxE&pbx=1>https://search.disconnect.me/search?safe=off&gbv=2&sclient=psy-ab&q=casting+out+nines&se=google&searchplusone=form&oq=casting+out+nines&gsl=serp.12...5951.6746.0.9258.3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.32.psy-ab..3.0.0.q5u0qGuTpxE&pbx=1

Gary

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 28 November 2013

Joe,

The information you post doesn't include enough information for me to follow and your attachment when opened is exactly like the post - not adding anything.

It seems to me that the difference between the long run average group sizes of the five shooters would make a difference.

How did you use the CBA national match records?

I must not have opened the right attachment. What am I missing?

John

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 28 November 2013

Won't comment the intent or philosophy. Tom Gray and I were discussing shooting small groups. He said that shooting a really good 5-round group is not near as hard as developing a really good 10-round group. When the phrase “luck” came up he said horse hockey! He said if I sit you in a swivel office chair and I spin you around and while spinning you fire off 10-rounds at the target AND you shoot a really good 10-round group, that would be lucky.

Skill is involved in all of this and efforts to say otherwise are misplaced.

Tom

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 28 November 2013

I'm lucky if I can even see the target anymore so does that make me shooter 1 2 3 4 or 5.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 29 November 2013

Hey, I didn't start this chance business!

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 29 November 2013

CHANCE AND MATCH RESULTS HOW TO

Download attached pdf. file

Attached Files

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 29 November 2013

Ken Campbell, Iowa wrote: let's see ... people who are better at a task tend to do better at that task than people who are not so good at that task.

ok, but i am still working on analyzing the other joe-b 's theory of the one-shot group.

ken

Outside the obvious is the notion of magnitude-I want to know HOW MUCH chance affects group size and match results. Also HOW MUCH bullet weight variation and alloy hardness and telescope power and bench rest quality and.... I'm working to put numbers on these variables-we've go all the opinions we need.

Oh, by the way, here's the other workbook.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 29 November 2013

In some broad sense there are four variables that affect match results. These are Skill, Equipment, Conditions and Chance or Luck. I have some notion of the relative importance of Equipment, Conditions and Chance. Skill is the remainder. I am surprised at how little is the relative importance of Equipment and Conditions.

Attached Files

pat i. posted this 29 November 2013

Ever think of taking up origami?

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 29 November 2013

Joe,

Thank for the additional information. I still have some of it to digest and have a plane to catch in a couple of hours so will be off line for a couple of days.

I find your efforts interesting although I don't have the energy or expertise to do them myself except for much less complicated ones.

I know most of our shooters aren't much interested in such things and there is no reason they should be since this is a hobby and not a job. But variety is the spice of life

John

Attached Files

R. Dupraz posted this 29 November 2013

Where is the Tylonal?

RD

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 29 November 2013

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=3>joeb33050

The level of competition in the CBA matches does throw out chance, equipment, and skill level. Our competitors are far from novices or beginners and these are shooters that in all cases have already ironed out and moved past chance, equipment and skill factors. The competitors here will discount your reference to those factors as not only inapplicable but also derogatory to their skill level and equipment, particularly in the case of myself.

 Your math won't dazzle us either Joe as your premise is false to the shooters. We discount your reliance on luck and equipment being  a factor and my “casting out nines” on your calculations now currently puts your accuracy at less than 33% probability. That gave me another headache too; but I admire your persistence. This is just the math but it has continuously been my opinion that you are completely wrong from the first time you mentioned chance and equipment with the shooters in the CBA.

Your calculations would be more accurate with inanimate mechanical tools that control themselves and are not dependent  on the CBA shooter's skills and equipment.

Gary

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 29 November 2013

So, would it be fair to say that you don't agree? You're going against the bible, here-be careful!

onondaga wrote: http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=3>joeb33050

The level of competition in the CBA matches does throw out chance, equipment, and skill level. Our competitors are far from novices or beginners and these are shooters that in all cases have already ironed out and moved past chance, equipment and skill factors. The competitors here will discount your reference to those factors as not only inapplicable but also derogatory to their skill level and equipment, particularly in the case of myself.

 Your math won't dazzle us either Joe as your premise is false to the shooters. We discount your reliance on luck and equipment being  a factor and my “casting out nines” on your calculations now currently puts your accuracy at less than 33% probability. That gave me another headache too; but I admire your persistence. This is just the math but it has continuously been my opinion that you are completely wrong from the first time you mentioned chance and equipment with the shooters in the CBA.

Your calculations would be more accurate with inanimate mechanical tools that control themselves and are not dependent  on the CBA shooter's skills and equipment.

Gary

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 29 November 2013

AVERAGE GROUP SIZE RATIOS

CBA NATIONAL MATCH data for 2000 to 2013, HVY, PBB, PRO and UNR shows the following ratios of averages for 5 shot 100 yard groups:

Shooter 2 / Shooter 1 1.20
Shooter 3 / Shooter 1 1.33
Shooter 4 / Shooter 1 1.47
Shooter 5 / Shooter 1 1.55

So Shooter 2 average group size is 1.2 times the size of Shooter 1 group size.

I hadn't done the analysis on 10 shot 100 yard groups until this morning, 11/29/13, and was surprised to find their ratios to be:

Shooter 2 / Shooter 1 1.21
Shooter 3 / Shooter 1 1.36
Shooter 4 / Shooter 1 1.50
Shooter 5 / Shooter 1 1.55

It appears that there's some underlying relationship causing these ratios to be almost identical.
I wonder why.

See “CBA NATIONAL MATCH 10 SHOT GROUP 12345.xls"

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 29 November 2013

Joe, Like I said, there is no dazzle in that. It is just inapplicable math and continues to verify itself to what I have stated. Shoot in a few matches, Joe, it is more fun than pushing on a keypad or pushing a pencil.

I am making Turkey soup today and that is more fun too.

Gary

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 30 November 2013

CHANCE AND MATCH RESULTS 1

Skill and technique and equipment play a part in group match results. Chance or luck plays some part in group match results. The number of groups averaged to get the match aggregate, frequently either four or five groups, also plays a part in match results. Using CBA National Match records for HVY, PBB, PRO and UNR, 5 and 10 shot 100 yard groups, from 2000 to 2013; and some arithmetic, we find the following:

CHANCE THAT A SHOOTER WINS A MATCH

Groups Shots Shooter 1 Shooter 2 Shooter 3 Shooter 4 Shooter 5 4 5 77.2% 15.4% 5.1% 1.6% 0.8% 2 10 77.8% 15.3% 4.4% 1.4% 1.0%

5 5 81.4% 13.5% 3.8% 0.9% 0.4% 2.5 10 82.7% 12.9% 3.1% 0.8% 0.5%

Shooters are ranked in order of estimated long run average group size, with Shooter 1 having the smallest, Shooter 2 next, and so on.

The “best” shooter wins 77% of the 4 group matches and 81% of the 5 group matches; so that “better” shooters win more 5 group matches and “less better” shooters win more 4 group matches.

Note that totals of 20 and 25 shots are represented, with the results varying with the total number of shots. This suggests that the amount of information per shot may be relatively constant. (See “CHANCE OR LUCK.xls)

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 30 November 2013

hi joe3 ... i actually grasp the sense of your study and find it interesting. that better shooters do better under various conditions seems valid. but i am still working on the derived result that equipment carries so little weight.

i notice that you refer to ” luck ” in your scripting ...i believe * luck * is undefined ... or possibly too enormous in scope to comprehend ... similar to dividing large numbers by zero ...

ken

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close