Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Browse Groups

• there is an interesting article on western s lottery and how the new system(meant to replace the two time loser system) is inadequate floating around
Message 1 of 3 , Dec 20 6:13 PM
View Source
there is an interesting article on western's lottery and how the new
system(meant to replace the "two time loser" system) is inadequate floating
around cyberspace these days. Western instituted a simple system that gives an
entrant a ticket for each year they enter the lottery until they get in( 1st
year=1ticket, 2 years=2 tickets, etc.) so this is similar to hardrock's
system(hardrock does the same plus entrants can get extra tickets for one reason
or another). i think this quote sums up the arguement:
"This process will not work. The odds for people with multiple tickets never
improve as much as might seem intuitive. In fact, depending on how many people
enter the process for the 2012 run, it could actually happen, and pretty easily,
that the odds for the three-tickets holders are worse than their odds the prior
year when they held two tickets."

i know western and hardrock are two different beasts but there could important
things to learn from this article about their lottery. and i know i am quite
biased as a 6 time loser in hardrock's lottery(eventhough i am 0 for 6 in the
lottery i have gotten in the race twice off the waitlist and i'm very very
thankful for that!) but it sure seems to me that there is room for improvement
in the hardrock lottery.

this was my suggested solution that i left in the comments section of the
article:
i’m no math wiz but if the problem is that the lottery system doesn’t adequately
improve the chances of getting in the race for the lottery loser from the
previous year/s then it seems, to me, the issue should be to tweak the lottery
to improve chances for those one year loser, two year loser, etc. Again i’m no
math wiz but to me it seems like a simple soloution: give the losers more
tickets than they’re already getting. how about an exponetial increase? (first
year lottery entrant gets 1 ticket, 2nd year entrant gets 2 tickets, 3rd year
entrant gets 4, 4th year gets 16 tickets, etc.). or maybe that will overly favor
the losers vs. first time entrants? so then maybe go with something like this:
1st year= 1 ticket, 2nd year= 3 tickets, 3rd year 5 tickets, etc.

what do folks think?

james Rainshadow Running
www.rainshadowrunning.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• How about a multi-year waiting list and no lottery. Enter any time you want and you go to the end of the list. Each year you take the first 130 people. How
Message 1 of 3 , Dec 21 7:24 AM
View Source
How about a multi-year waiting list and no lottery. Enter any time you want and
you go to the end of the list. Each year you take the first 130 people.

How about raising the qualifying standards, like top 10% at one of the
qualifying races to move to the front of the list. Hardrock will never see a
showdown between the top runners like Jornet, Krupicka and Carpenter, all
potential course record setters IMHO, because they can't get in the lottery.

How about auctioning a few entries like they do at Ironman. Spots typically go
for over \$30,000 on eBay. Have the money go to charity if you don't want to look
greedy. Everyone else can pay a \$500 entry fee and you will have no trouble
filling up.

-- Matt Mahoney, matmahoney@...

>
>From: james varner <jvarner1313@...>
>To: hr100@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 9:13:35 PM
>Subject: [hr100] the lottery
>
>
>there is an interesting article on western's lottery and how the new
>system(meant to replace the "two time loser" system) is inadequate floating
>around cyberspace these days. Western instituted a simple system that gives an
>entrant a ticket for each year they enter the lottery until they get in( 1st
>year=1ticket, 2 years=2 tickets, etc.) so this is similar to hardrock's
>system(hardrock does the same plus entrants can get extra tickets for one reason
>
>or another). i think this quote sums up the arguement:
>"This process will not work. The odds for people with multiple tickets never
>improve as much as might seem intuitive. In fact, depending on how many people
>enter the process for the 2012 run, it could actually happen, and pretty easily,
>
>that the odds for the three-tickets holders are worse than their odds the prior

>year when they held two tickets."
>
>i know western and hardrock are two different beasts but there could important
>things to learn from this article about their lottery. and i know i am quite
>biased as a 6 time loser in hardrock's lottery(eventhough i am 0 for 6 in the
>lottery i have gotten in the race twice off the waitlist and i'm very very
>thankful for that!) but it sure seems to me that there is room for improvement
>in the hardrock lottery.
>
>this was my suggested solution that i left in the comments section of the
>article:
>i’m no math wiz but if the problem is that the lottery system doesn’t adequately
>
>improve the chances of getting in the race for the lottery loser from the
>previous year/s then it seems, to me, the issue should be to tweak the lottery
>to improve chances for those one year loser, two year loser, etc. Again i’m no
>math wiz but to me it seems like a simple soloution: give the losers more
>tickets than they’re already getting. how about an exponetial increase? (first
>year lottery entrant gets 1 ticket, 2nd year entrant gets 2 tickets, 3rd year
>entrant gets 4, 4th year gets 16 tickets, etc.). or maybe that will overly favor
>
>the losers vs. first time entrants? so then maybe go with something like this:
>1st year= 1 ticket, 2nd year= 3 tickets, 3rd year 5 tickets, etc.
>
>what do folks think?
>
>james Rainshadow Running
>www.rainshadowrunning.com
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• AH, The Hardrock Hundred keeps crack team of algorithm creators on permanent retainer. The algorithm they have right now seems to, at one time or another,
Message 1 of 3 , Dec 21 12:40 PM
View Source
AH, The Hardrock Hundred keeps crack team of algorithm creators on
permanent retainer. The algorithm they have right now seems to, at
one time or another, piss-off just about every possible group
involved, and by that very fact must be a good one.
Steve-o

Stevan Pattillo
Research Technician
MST-7
Los Alamos National Laboratory
505-665-7423

"Never attribute to cunning that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity"

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.