## Re: [hr100] Re: Odds?

Expand Messages
• Mike - Yes, true, relative to their lot of tickets it may seem to be worth less to them; but this is an artifact of their bad lottery luck being artificially
Message 1 of 31 , Dec 27, 2012
Mike -

Yes, true, relative to their lot of tickets it may seem to be worth less to them; but this is an artifact of their bad lottery luck being artificially inflated and counted more heavily.

A hundred dollars is a hundred dollars. That amount of money will mean more or less to someone personally based on many factors but it's still a hundred dollars. Because the "Never Started" group's other "money" is artificially inflated in worth, the trail work ticket allotment may be perceived by them as a "bad exchange rate".

This is unskilled work, for the purpose of these tickets, my work is the same as your's or Brad's or anyone else.

In the end, what matters is whether or not the lottery algorithm and structure produced the field makeup that the board was striving for. If it did, no need to adjust. If it didn't for some group of runners, make adjustments in the ticket allotment accordingly. If there is a desire to get more "Never Started" runners to attend the work days or if the work days are understaffed, then maybe incentivize them by increasing the worth of their work with something like the formula you proposed below or give more tickets for the work to everyone.

Mike

On Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 1:43 PM, "Mike Dobies" <TrailDog100@...> wrote:
>
>Mike,
>
>I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.
>
>When I was calculating pre-lottery odds, I noticed two people in
>the Never
>lottery - one with 32 tickets and one with 33 tickets.
>
>Both had 5 DNS (2^5=32 tickets), but one spent two days doing
>trail work (1
>ticket). Hardly seems worth it.
>
>I believe the algorithm for Nevers should be 2^(N+S).
>
>Then that service work for the above example would have yielded 64
>vs 32
>tickets, which is just like another year of DNS.
>After all, the Vets and the Everys get another year for their
>service work.
>
>Yr NoS Srv Improved*
>0 1 2 2
>1 2 3 4
>2 4 5 8
>3 8 9 16
>4 16 17 32
>5 32 33 64
>6 64 65 128
>7 128 129 256
>
>After 2 DNS, it doesn't seem worth doing the service work.
>
>Just my 2 cents.
>
>--
>Mike Dobies
>Lake Orion, Michigan
>TrailDog100@...
>
>
>On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Michael Bur
><mjcbur@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you are looking at this from the, shall we say, wrong
>direction.
>>
>> The service tickets are worth the same to everyone, I think your
>formulas
>> correctly represent that.
>>
>> The difference, and why it may appear as you perceive, is that
>the "Never
>> Started" people have their previous unsuccessful attempts to get
>in
>> weighted more heavily than those that have finished or not
>started. So,
>> it's not that their trail work counts for half - it counts for
>exactly the
>> same; it's that the Hardrock board has decided that the "Never
>Started"
>> group's previous poor luck in the lottery is weighed more
>heavily. I think
>> this is a fair, well thought out solution to the problem of how
>to even
>> further help "the poor sap who keeps applying but keeps losing
>out" the
>> next time he/she applies.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Michael Bur
>> Kensington, MD
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 10:18 PM, "Brad" <
>> >
>> >I had a thought regarding the lottery odds and service tickets.
>> >
>> >In both the Veterans and Everyone Else lotteries, getting a
>> >service ticket basically equals an additional previous year's
>> >finish, because the base formula is:
>> >N + S
>> >where N is your number of finishes
>> >and S is service tickets
>> >(plus [+ WL] for the Everyone Else lottery)
>> >
>> >However, for the Never Started lottery, service tickets seem to
>> >count for less. Your Never Started formula is:
>> >2^N + S
>> >where N is DNSs
>> >and S is service tickets
>> >
>> >I'm making the base assumption that the primary determinant of
>> >your number of tickets in each lottery (# of finishes and # of
>> >DNSs) can be equated for the purposes of their respective
>> >lotteries. Yes, definitely a DNS is not the same as a Hardrock
>> >cred), but it now seems those elements have become separate-but-
>> >equal for lottery purposes.
>> >
>> >I'm having trouble seeing how the difference between the
>lotteries
>> >in the way service tickets are added in makes sense.
>> >For example: a person in the Never Started lottery with one
>> >previous DNS does both trail workdays. They seem to earn what
>the
>> >formula deems to be half the value of someone else who doesn't
>do
>> >the trail work but has an additional year's base factor - or a
>> >sixth of someone with two additional previous year's DNSs.
>> >Whereas a veteran who does the trail work earns exactly the
>> >equivalent of a having an additional year's base factor.
>> >
>> >Never Starter who has the good fortune of being able to live
>close
>> >enough to take part in service ticket opportunities. PLEASE by
>no
>> >means take this as whining - this just popped into my head
>during
>> >a run and I haven't yet been able to figure it out.
>> >
>> >Thanks & God Bless,
>> >
>> >
>> >--- In hr100@yahoogroups.com, Deb <mtnrunner02@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Can I go home now? My brain is full....
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPad
>> >>
>> >> On Dec 13, 2012, at 11:07 PM, Mike Dobies <TrailDog100@...>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Plugging all the lottery info into my lottery spreadsheet:
>> >> >
>> >> > Vets
>> >> > 5 66.2%
>> >> > 6 72.9%
>> >> > 7 78.4%
>> >> > 8 82.7%
>> >> > 9 86.2%
>> >> > 10 89.1%
>> >> > 11 91.3%
>> >> > 12 93.1%
>> >> > 13 94.6%
>> >> > 14 95.7%
>> >> > 16 97.4%
>> >> > 17 97.9%
>> >> > 18 98.4%
>> >> > Never
>> >> > 1 2.2%
>> >> > 2 4.3%
>> >> > 3 6.4%
>> >> > 4 8.4%
>> >> > 5 10.4%
>> >> > 8 16.2%
>> >> > 9 18.0%
>> >> > 10 19.8%
>> >> > 16 29.8%
>> >> > 32 50.8%
>> >> > 33 51.9%
>> >> > 64 76.2%
>> >> > The Rest
>> >> > 1 13.1%
>> >> > 2 24.5%
>> >> > 3 34.4%
>> >> > 4 43.1%
>> >> > 5 50.6%
>> >> > 6 57.1%
>> >> >
>> >> > I expected that 64 tickets in the Never lottery would have
>> >generated a
>> >> > higher percentage than 76.2%...... and then double and
>triple
>> >checked it to
>> >> > make sure. It looks right.
>> >> >
>> >> > If one of those 64 ticket persons had 128 (not being
>selected
>> >another
>> >> > At 256, 99.8%
>> >> > At 512, 100.0%...... until others get more tickets also.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Mike Dobies
>> >> > Lake Orion, Michigan
>> >> > TrailDog100@...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Joe Lea <joelea@...> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> **
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Didn't see any discussion of our odds yet. 638 tickets in
>the
>> >"Everyone
>> >> >> Else" group. 70 slots... assuming drawn tickets are set
>> >aside...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1 ticket = 11.61%
>> >> >> 2 = 23.22%
>> >> >> 3 = 34.84%
>> >> >> 4 = 46.45%
>> >> >> 5 = 58.06%
>> >> >> 6 = 69.67%
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ... is that right?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> joe lea
>> >> >> chapel hill, nc
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > To Post a message, send it to: hr100@...
>> >> >
>> >> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hr100-
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >------------------------------------
>> >
>> >To Post a message, send it to: hr100@...
>>
>> >
>> >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hr100-
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>To Post a message, send it to: hr100@...
>
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hr100-
>
>
>
• Oh, I most definitely agree Fred! Very fun, great social atmosphere, and the work is most gratifying. I m making some assumptions here, but I find it logical
Message 31 of 31 , Dec 27, 2012
Oh, I most definitely agree Fred! Very fun, great social atmosphere, and the work is most gratifying.

I'm making some assumptions here, but I find it logical that the reason why extra tickets are given out for Hardrock-specific trail work (or aid station captaining, etc) is to incentive-ize folks to volunteer specifically for Hardrock itself. I can find almost the same gratification by volunteering for more local trail workdays or events.

Of course I'll be going to Hardrock to volunteer regardless of what extra tickets I earn or don't earn, because of its great character, environment and the opportunity to learn more of the terrain for when I do get in, but its a lot easier to justify a 700 mile round trip to both the wallet and fiance (or by Hardrock, wife :) when the service tickets make a (more) meaningful difference.

Michael Bur validly pointed out that any difference in the weight of service tickets across the lotteries could very well be an intentional choice on the part of the race committee to weigh factors more heavily in favor of the "the poor sap who keeps applying but keeps losing out," which makes good sense, if that is the intent. I was initially working from the assumption that the race board would want equality of value of service tickets across the lotteries, but perhaps I could very easily be wrong.

As Mark Oveson said, "the motivation for Never Starters has now shifted almost entirely to making sure you stay qualified and apply every single year. Trail work is only marginally helpful."
Right now, it's a lot more than marginally helpful to those who are first or second time entries in the lottery, as one service ticket increases the odds by roughly 87% & 40%, respectively, since the odds for those folks is so much smaller to begin with. But those who are in their third year or beyond of applying get, at most, a 17% bump in their chances. Changing from [(2^N) + S] to [2^(N+S)] seems to make the bump from service tickets more equal across the Never Starter lottery, but is that a desired goal?

I guess the main question is: Does the reason that the service ticket incentive is offered imply a goal of having that incentive be of equal value to all interested parties across the board? And if so, is that equal value goal being accomplished in the current formula?

Anyone up for a nice long run this Saturday where we can discuss this in a better format than email? :) (Seriously - I'll be going for ~35mi, starting at 6:30a at the Apex trailhead in Golden, CO, but the route has options to cut it to ~14 or ~25.)

God Bless,

--- In hr100@yahoogroups.com, Fred Ecks <fredx@...> wrote:
>
> Silly me; I do the trail work each year simply because it's a helluva
> fun day! The trail work days that my local trail running group does
> with our county are safe and sane, short, and slooooow. The Hardrock
> trail work is really fun, involves big dangerous tools, and we get an
> amazing amount done in a single day. Who cares about the lottery?! :-)
>
> - Fred
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.