Punchy


Is there an "Adak's formula" anywhere?  I am not going to scour the web for it, but in the post of his I saw at OCN, he said "I'm handicapping this personally.  I have tricks".   I don't see why anyone would want to back something derived in secret.

 
Yes there is.  Its in his team's CC thread.

troy8d

Punchy


Is there an "Adak's formula" anywhere?  I am not going to scour the web for it, but in the post of his I saw at OCN, he said "I'm handicapping this personally.  I have tricks".   I don't see why anyone would want to back something derived in secret.

Yes there is.  Its in his team's CC thread.

Do you have a link to it? I would like to see the full formula

csm725OCN


Going to ignore that extremely helpful post, and stay on topic (would be nice if all your members could do the same...)
As said above either we go with an existing formula or no CC 2012...

 
Mine post was about as helpful as yours...so get off your high horse. 
 
For the record, I don't much care for OCN's folding team. You guys lie, cheat, and steal with little to no regard as to the impact it has on the F@H program. The one thing I do give you credit for is the fact that you're open about and don't deny the facts. Kudos for that. 
 
Don't come in my team forum with your ultimatums. You want to help the CC? Tell your team captain to get what's best for her team out of her head and start to focus on what's best for the community and contest as a whole. Just because I don't come and partake in the back and forth discussion of the same topic over and over again doesn't mean I don't read it all and digest it. 
 
I want the CC to happen as much as the next guy, but I also realize the reality of having a "fair" contest with so many variables and teams of such varying size is almost impossible. Now we can sit here and discuss different formulas and handicaps that will give our own team advantages till we are blue in the face or we can move forward to something completely different for the sake of the contest.  The day the idea of an all out points race went out the window was the day people needed to accept this contest is not about production but about promotion. The idea is to bring new people in and spread the word about folding, not making so your team beats the others based on some mathematical formula you yourself designed.  

@kody7839...
 
Same as above. Not allowed...
 
Personal Attacks - Personal attacks often lead to the trading of insults, and can throw the discussion of a legitimate topic off-track.  Personal attacks can be defined as issuing a single or repeated personal attack or attacks aimed at another member, rather than at their opinions or ideas.  Criticizing a member's post is not considered a personal attack, but using terms such as "child," "idiot," "fanboy," for example, or any other derogatory term designed to discredit a member, is not permitted.  Furthermore, comments of a racist or sexist nature, as well as derogatory comments about national origin or sexual orientation, will be dealt with harshly as in a ban from the forums.

Listen, there's 3 weeks until it starts. We can't hammer out a new system in that time. We have to pick one of the existing ideas and go with it no matter how unfair or fair it is or simply say the CC is off this year. Then let's get together with any team that's willing to discuss it and work on something new for next year. Personally i think something that is simple, flexible, and fair can be found. Most people just have the idea of winning stuck in their heads too much to agree on it. Im not saying anyone specifically here or in any other team. This is just an objective view from what Ive seen so far, and its driving members away from the contest

Just a thought...
 
Why not have two focuses for CC?

• Contest for those who like them
• Focus on new members and furthering the reach of F@H through media/FB/Twitter/YouTube/Etc

Then both types are happy.
 
If the handicap is going to be like it sounds I would rather Fold for our team and use my extra effort on recruiting/spreading the word than waste any time or energy on a "Lost" contest before it even starts...
 
Then those who like to be a part of the contest portion and all that goes with it can as well...

Of course I care about the CC. I don't care much for this blind fight though. Everyone is saying zodac's formula is terrible and the worst thing that ever happened to humanity, and meanwhile ADAK'S FORMULA IS NOT PUBLIC!!!
I'd like to see Adak's formula before making further posts, since clearly neither EVGA nor OCN will budge on their stance.
AB I would like to respond to your post but I don't want you quoting a novel's worth your TOS explaining how my post is not OK...

I still like one of my ideas that has been offered, yet ignored.
 
Just change the Chimp "Challenge". Instead of one team winning, set a goal for all teams combined as a SINGLE UNIT reaching for a goal of say 20% over our combined best months and make that the "Challenge".
 
We could even have a measuring site that shows us who is doing what towards that "Combined" Goal...

Afterburner


I still like one of my ideas that has been offered, yet ignored.

Just change the Chimp "Challenge". Instead of one team winning, set a goal for all teams combined as a SINGLE UNIT reaching for a goal of say 20% over our combined best months and make that the "Challenge".

We could even have a measuring site that shows us who is doing what towards that "Combined" Goal...

Everybody's a winner!
I really think that defeats the point.
 

kody7839

The day the idea of an all out points race went out the window was the day people needed to accept this contest is not about production but about promotion. The idea is to bring new people in and spread the word about folding, not making so your team beats the others based on some mathematical formula you yourself designed.  

Hear, hear brother...this is true.  I haven't observed such resistance to embracing change in a long time.  A pity really, that some people can't seem to get "outside the box" and think differently for a change for the sake of a great opportunity to bring Folders together.  What is happening is just the opposite of that and is putting wider gaps between cooperation that is needed to even have a CC.
 
I think some people misunderstood my meaning of having multiple achievements for CC.  I'm not a person that likes to "water-down" achievement.  My point was that if we could have multiple acheivement categories, it may give some new interest to what is already a broken contest.  We would not be going through endless wrangling over how we can have the right, fair, single winner for CC if the existing structure was so great.  I'm simply saying that CC can be a lot more than just one Team winning.  Maybe I'm all wet, but I'd actually be intrigued to see a variety (not too many either) of achievements within the overall CC contest.  Is that really so offensive or ridiculous to want to see?

csm725OCN


Of course I care about the CC. I don't care much for this blind fight though. Everyone is saying zodac's formula is terrible and the worst thing that ever happened to humanity, and meanwhile ADAK'S FORMULA IS NOT PUBLIC!!!
I'd like to see Adak's formula before making further posts, since clearly neither EVGA nor OCN will budge on their stance.

I respect that and I personally agree. I would like to see his formula so they can be compared. AB, I like where your head's at, but I think there can be a peaceful solution. Im going to come up with a system that I think will work though for next year if you guys would be interested in looking at it? It might take me a couple of weeks but it will be completely different from what has been happening. I cant guarantee anything before the start of this year's CC, though. Another issue which we were discussing....name changes?

csm725OCN


AB I would like to respond to your post but I don't want you quoting a novel's worth your TOS explaining how my post is not OK...

Your choice. You could PM me so the topic here stays on topic. Keep in mind all Moderators and EVGA can see all the PM's and they follow the same TOS 
 
I am just doing as I have been asked by all our members and EVGA. If that makes me the bad guy so be it. My track record is here for the world to see and I am proud of it. 

kody7839

csm725OCN


Going to ignore that extremely helpful post, and stay on topic (would be nice if all your members could do the same...)
As said above either we go with an existing formula or no CC 2012...

Mine post was about as helpful as yours...so get off your high horse. 

For the record, I don't much care for OCN's folding team. You guys lie, cheat, and steal with little to no regard as to the impact it has on the F@H program. The one thing I do give you credit for is the fact that you're open about and don't deny the facts. Kudos for that. 

Don't come in my team forum with your ultimatums. You want to help the CC? Tell your team captain to get what's best for her team out of her head and start to focus on what's best for the community and contest as a whole. Just because I don't come and partake in the back and forth discussion of the same topic over and over again doesn't mean I don't read it all and digest it. 

I want the CC to happen as much as the next guy, but I also realize the reality of having a "fair" contest with so many variables and teams of such varying size is almost impossible. Now we can sit here and discuss different formulas and handicaps that will give our own team advantages till we are blue in the face or we can move forward to something completely different for the sake of the contest.  The day the idea of an all out points race went out the window was the day people needed to accept this contest is not about production but about promotion. The idea is to bring new people in and spread the word about folding, not making so your team beats the others based on some mathematical formula you yourself designed.  

We don't lie, cheat, or steal. If you're being a corehack elitist, I hear [H] likes guys like you, and anyways this discussion is irrelevant - I don't care what you think about OCN's F@H practices (which BTW abide to Pande's guidelines completely).
I'm doing you a favor coming to your forum...
Secondly, you misunderstood. That line wasn't meant as an ultimatum, but rather as a way of saying we need to decide now. I am not familiar with nor do I want to register at OCAU's forum, so a link would be nice regarding Adak's formula.
 
 
@devdog, I think OCN as a whole will be pro-team name (same as it's been forever). Where does EVGA FAH stand?

csm725OCN

Afterburner


I still like one of my ideas that has been offered, yet ignored.

Just change the Chimp "Challenge". Instead of one team winning, set a goal for all teams combined as a SINGLE UNIT reaching for a goal of say 20% over our combined best months and make that the "Challenge".

We could even have a measuring site that shows us who is doing what towards that "Combined" Goal...

Everybody's a winner!
I really think that defeats the point.

Wait, what? So you are saying the point is to crown a winner? Not raise awareness and gain new members?
 
And we are upset (EVGA members) that every formula eliminates us from any chance of winning? And WE are the ones with an issue? Wholly Cow!

BTW... I am actually very encouraged seeing so many folks offering thoughts this morning. That is healthy. Even if we disagree with each other. Just stay away form the TOS stuff and have at it...

troy8d

zodac

Put it this way; with the three criteria I've listed (total points, handicap points, conversion), who would you have in first instead?

Again, I was using last year's numbers - if Evga improved on their conversion rate (obviously 90%+ would be quite difficult, but 70% certainly wouldn't be out of reach, so there is room for improvement), or if OCAU improved on their overall points, then things would change this year. My point is that last year, OCN performed the best across the three factors.

I think you'd have a difficult time saying OCN weren't the best overall with the factors I've listed. If you think there are other factors that should be included, then I'm all ears, and we can adapt accordingly, but no-one's posted any other factors - just other systems.

Put it this way: You set out with the intention that OCN should have won last year. You came up with a series of metrics that OCN scored well in and then twisted them into a formula that heavily favored OCN (in an unbiased implementation of these factors the race is much closer than your formula indicates).  Congrats on putting your personal or team's agenda before the good of the contest and the folding community.  I hope you've accomplished what you wanted...

There is no need for you to continually make the same post over and over again.  We get how you made your formula and that it indicates that OCN is the runaway winner in last year's Chimp Challenge.  Anyone care to guess why other teams aren't eager to jump on board for this?

 
I'm not pushing for my formula. I presented it in the captains forum a couple of months ago, but the only time I've commented on it publically was here when Xavier posted it, and on OCN, when Adak commented on it. In both cases, it was to defend my formula, not to try and get it used. I'm well aware it's incomplete and needs work - I said that to you straight when you first saw it.
 
You say that results would have been closer if my formula was "unbiased" - fair enough. If it's too biased towards a certain team, feel free to change it. I felt it was a decent platform for negotiates for this year's event (since it wasn't too dissimilar from last year's system, and yet added the overall points factor), but like I said, I stopped pushing for it long ago.
 
Regardless, what would your metrics have been? If you feel total points, relative points, and conversion rates are all the wrong way to go, what do you propose instead?

I think the point that csm is trying to make is that we want to have promotion and work for the greater good, but we also want a contest where there is a defined "winner". Humans  are competitive. We like to be reassured that we're not inferior to anyone or anything else. What's so bad with a contest with a crowned winner? 

Afterburner

csm725OCN

Afterburner


I still like one of my ideas that has been offered, yet ignored.

Just change the Chimp "Challenge". Instead of one team winning, set a goal for all teams combined as a SINGLE UNIT reaching for a goal of say 20% over our combined best months and make that the "Challenge".

We could even have a measuring site that shows us who is doing what towards that "Combined" Goal...

Everybody's a winner!
I really think that defeats the point.

Wait, what? So you are saying the point is to crown a winner? Not raise awareness and gain new members?

And we are upset (EVGA members) that every formula eliminates us from any chance of winning? And WE are the ones with an issue? Wholly Cow!

As mentioned earlier, your conversion rate could be better :P
Actually I just want a close competition where we don't know who wins beforehand, which is what each and every handicap I've seen from any side does in the meantime.

zodac



I'm not pushing for my formula. I presented it in the captains forum a couple of months ago, but the only time I've commented on it publically was here when Xavier posted it, and on OCN, when Adak commented on it. In both cases, it was to defend my formula, not to try and get it used. I'm well aware it's incomplete and needs work - I said that to you straight when you first saw it.

You say that results would have been closer if my formula was "unbiased" - fair enough. If it's too biased towards a certain team, feel free to change it. I felt it was a decent platform for negotiates for this year's event (since it wasn't too dissimilar from last year's system, and yet added the overall points factor), but like I said, I stopped pushing for it long ago.

Regardless, what would your metrics have been? If you feel total points, relative points, and conversion rates are all the wrong way to go, what do you propose instead?

 
What would you think of a multi- division race? Something along the same lines as the Olympics and people have a points standing. Youre awarded points for what pplace you came in at in your division. At the end the team with the most points overall wins and the the top few people with the most points overall get recognized. It wont all be about who can fold the most or who has the most members.

devdog51


I think the point that csm is trying to make is that we want to have promotion and work for the greater good, but we also want a contest where there is a defined "winner". Humans  are competitive. We like to be reassured that we're not inferior to anyone or anything else. What's so bad with a contest with a crowned winner? 

OK that is great if so. Because that is exactly what I said in my post. 
 
Here...

---

Just a thought... 
  
Why not have two focuses for CC? 

• Contest for those who like them
• Focus on new members and furthering the reach of F@H through media/FB/Twitter/YouTube/Etc

Then both types are happy. 
  
If the handicap is going to be like it sounds I would rather Fold for our team and use my extra effort on recruiting/spreading the word than waste any time or energy on a "Lost" contest before it even starts... 
  
Then those who like to be a part of the contest portion and all that goes with it can as well... 

---

And

---

I still like one of my ideas that has been offered, yet ignored. 
  
Just change the Chimp "Challenge". Instead of one team winning, set a goal for all teams combined as a SINGLE UNIT reaching for a goal of say 20% over our combined best months and make that the "Challenge". 
  
We could even have a measuring site that shows us who is doing what towards that "Combined" Goal... 

---

So now one of the three teams with any chance of winning gets there crown, and the rest of us focus our efforts on the reason we even have this contest.
 
Allow me to offer an example/thought...
 
Go back to last years CC and look at the production from ALL teams. Then look at the next six months worth. Now.. What teams "Kept" most of that production gained?
 
That is my point. This "Contest" has become more about crowning a winner than getting new folders and keeping them.
 
I am simply offering two different trains of thought to help get this "Challenge" back on the original track.
 

Request from the CC Captain's team for an interim Captain's Representative from our Team.
 
They are wondering if we have a replacement for Xavier while he is attending to his Dad's needs.  I'm not that person, but am available to help out in just about any other way that I can help the Team or Captain for CC.  Would someone want to step into Xavier's shoes while he is away?

devdog51


What would you think of a multi- division race? Something along the same lines as the Olympics and people have a points standing. Youre awarded points for what pplace you came in at in your division. At the end the team with the most points overall wins and the the top few people with the most points overall get recognized. It wont all be about who can fold the most or who has the most members.

 
If it was done in the form that each division gave points for ranks (like 10pts for 1st, 8 for 2nd, etc), and you could actually have a single winner in the end, I'm all for it.
 
But what would be the divisions? I could only think of two - relative points and absolute points, and I tried making a single formula out of it instead. If there were something like 6 divisions, then it would be an attractive event.
 
But when you consider that # of WUs is a very easily manipulated factor, and that (assuming we continue using the CC name system) you can't get PPD/person, it kinda limits things.

That idea may be okay on paper but in practice it can't work, just look at the PPD structure of the 8 teams...
OCN has no way to outpace EVGA in CC, and that again would be a result we know beforehand, which I think defeats the whole point of a contest.
 
To clarify, I'm all for a divisions type thing if one winner can be reached in the end.
Maybe something like, we get pairs of two teams that can come close to one another and then measure their relative performance according to various metrics, and the team that outperformed their pair by the most points wins?
 
For example:
Each million points more than your pair is 1 point
Each 2 percent converted more than your pair is 1 point
Each million points more than last year's CC performance is 1 point
 
This would not be biased at all, and would actually be some good fun.
What do you think?
(Notice that logically EVGA and OCN would pair up and you guys would win, but it could be very fun)

csm725OCN


As mentioned earlier, your conversion rate could be better :P
Actually I just want a close competition where we don't know who wins beforehand, which is what each and every handicap I've seen from any side does in the meantime.

 Love this response... That is exactly what many of us here have been looking for and why we are trying to offer our thoughts. It would take a while... But if a person went back and read this thread from the beginning they would see this same type of thought said over and over and over...

AB I posted right above you with an idea that could be very fun.

zodac

devdog51


What would you think of a multi- division race? Something along the same lines as the Olympics and people have a points standing. Youre awarded points for what pplace you came in at in your division. At the end the team with the most points overall wins and the the top few people with the most points overall get recognized. It wont all be about who can fold the most or who has the most members.

If it was done in the form that each division gave points for ranks (like 10pts for 1st, 8 for 2nd, etc), and you could actually have a single winner in the end, I'm all for it.

But what would be the divisions? I could only think of two - relative points and absolute points, and I tried making a single formula out of it instead. If there were something like 6 divisions, then it would be an attractive event.

But when you consider that # of WUs is a very easily manipulated factor, and that (assuming we continue using the CC name system) you can't get PPD/person, it kinda limits things.

No think bigger outside the box. Not just relative points or absolute points but limitations by hardware, by total number of clients, things like that. It doesnt require a formula or handicaps. It just needs a system. Its flexible and easy and it can deal with changing numbers of folders and teams. 

Stop skipping over my post dammit!
 
"Maybe something like, we get pairs of two teams that can come close to one another and then measure their relative performance according to various metrics, and the team that outperformed their pair by the most points wins?
 
For example:
Each million points more than your pair is 1 point
Each 2 percent converted more than your pair is 1 point
Each million points more than last year's CC performance is 1 point
 
This would not be biased at all, and would actually be some good fun.
What do you think?
(Notice that logically EVGA and OCN would pair up and you guys would win, but it could be very fun)"

devdog51

zodac

devdog51


What would you think of a multi- division race? Something along the same lines as the Olympics and people have a points standing. Youre awarded points for what pplace you came in at in your division. At the end the team with the most points overall wins and the the top few people with the most points overall get recognized. It wont all be about who can fold the most or who has the most members.

If it was done in the form that each division gave points for ranks (like 10pts for 1st, 8 for 2nd, etc), and you could actually have a single winner in the end, I'm all for it.

But what would be the divisions? I could only think of two - relative points and absolute points, and I tried making a single formula out of it instead. If there were something like 6 divisions, then it would be an attractive event.

But when you consider that # of WUs is a very easily manipulated factor, and that (assuming we continue using the CC name system) you can't get PPD/person, it kinda limits things.

No think bigger outside the box. Not just relative points or absolute points but limitations by hardware, by total number of clients, things like that. It doesnt require a formula or handicaps. It just needs a system. Its flexible and easy and it can deal with changing numbers of folders and teams. 

Restricting by hardware then; so events for i7s only... for 4ps only... for Fermis only, etc?

zodac

I'm not pushing for my formula. I presented it in the captains forum a couple of months ago, but the only time I've commented on it publically was here when Xavier posted it, and on OCN, when Adak commented on it. In both cases, it was to defend my formula, not to try and get it used. I'm well aware it's incomplete and needs work - I said that to you straight when you first saw it.

You say that results would have been closer if my formula was "unbiased" - fair enough. If it's too biased towards a certain team, feel free to change it. I felt it was a decent platform for negotiates for this year's event (since it wasn't too dissimilar from last year's system, and yet added the overall points factor), but like I said, I stopped pushing for it long ago.

Regardless, what would your metrics have been? If you feel total points, relative points, and conversion rates are all the wrong way to go, what do you propose instead?

 
I apologize then if I have let other people influence my perception of your position. 
 
By unbiased, I mean a simple modification of the factors you took into account.  I reworked several renditions of the formula using your same exact factors and found that rather than a runaway, it was a very very tight race for first between OCN and another team (i forget which team). 
 
If we maintain the chimp name, I do like your conversion factor as a relevant measure of CC performance, despite the fact that it will hurt a team like EVGA (thats our problem to deal with).  I do feel that including the raw points as well as the handicapped points doesn't exactly make sense theoretically.  Furthermore, raw points is far too biased toward the larger teams.  I also think that the best indicator of future chimp challenge performance is a combination of last years chimp challenge performance - and should be the primary basis for any handicap.  But, I also feel that other factors are relevant and am open to other suggestions.

Also: this morning's discussion has prompted an additional idea that I will be posting shortly.

csm725OCN


Stop skipping over my post dammit!

"Maybe something like, we get pairs of two teams that can come close to one another and then measure their relative performance according to various metrics, and the team that outperformed their pair by the most points wins?

For example:
Each million points more than your pair is 1 point
Each 2 percent converted more than your pair is 1 point
Each million points more than last year's CC performance is 1 point

This would not be biased at all, and would actually be some good fun.
What do you think?
(Notice that logically EVGA and OCN would pair up and you guys would win, but it could be very fun)"

HAHAHAHA Fluid this conversation is 
 
I like this thinking... I too have one like it in one of my "Contest" idea threads...