Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hr100] the lottery

Expand Messages
  • Matt Mahoney
    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, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • Stevan Pattillo
      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 2 of 3 , Dec 21, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        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.