2024 ELR Heavy Rankings

NightStash

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 16, 2017
132
179



Currently there is no governing body for ELR. Multiple scoring systems, target sizes and rules are used throughout the United States. For this reason I developed a ranking system for shooters to compare themselves directly on performance vs their competitors. Locations vary in difficulty by terrain, wind and other variables. Data has shown that a larger number of competitors equals a higher number of top competitors and will be rewarded slightly higher. There will be benefits and flaws with any ranking system. This ranking ultimately comes down to how well you performed against your competitors at a specific match. Currently 14 matches that meet the requirements are included in the ranking with top three scores for rank.

There are many locations that are now hosting ELR matches and hopefully this will help growth and attendance allowing more matches to be included in the rankings.

Requirements

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VnwFyvodMJO9yJmxCEMF6eXotH9MFcpy0_WmuwsCb20/edit?usp=sharing
 
Looks like a good start. As you say, all systems have bias. Refining any model to reduce that comes down to eliminating the extraneous influences where you can, so take this as advice on potential issues that are fixable

What scoring system did you normalize against? Most functional scoring systems have relatively little differences between them but there have been some pretty broken ones used in the earlier months of the year. Making sure that you are counting the winner using the same system across the board is important. Just don’t pick a system that has 80% of the points possible from the cold bore…

Have you considered the big fish in a small pond issue? There are some heavy hitters that do ok in big matches that will show up to small regional matches to dominate. This can easily bias their standings higher.

Many shooters will use smaller matches as a place to break in a new barrel or just screw around. This causes an opposite bias for their performance relative to skill level. It might help to drop statistical outliers at the bottom end.

Home court only shooters present a real challenge and it is something I’ve had a hard time resolving in my own stats. Shooters that almost always shoot at one location tend to perform significantly worse at unfamiliar ranges than people that frequent multiple locations. You will have to play with it but it may work out to only allow a certain number of contributions from a single venue. Taking the two highest finishes per location might work but it is not an easy nut to crack.

Keep at it. Looking like a solid effort so far.

-Alex
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
Looks like a good start. As you say, all systems have bias. Refining any model to reduce that comes down to eliminating the extraneous influences where you can, so take this as advice on potential issues that are fixable

What scoring system did you normalize against? Most functional scoring systems have relatively little differences between them but there have been some pretty broken ones used in the earlier months of the year. Making sure that you are counting the winner using the same system across the board is important. Just don’t pick a system that has 80% of the points possible from the cold bore…

Have you considered the big fish in a small pond issue? There are some heavy hitters that do ok in big matches that will show up to small regional matches to dominate. This can easily bias their standings higher.

Many shooters will use smaller matches as a place to break in a new barrel or just screw around. This causes an opposite bias for their performance relative to skill level. It might help to drop statistical outliers at the bottom end.

Home court only shooters present a real challenge and it is something I’ve had a hard time resolving in my own stats. Shooters that almost always shoot at one location tend to perform significantly worse at unfamiliar ranges than people that frequent multiple locations. You will have to play with it but it may work out to only allow a certain number of contributions from a single venue. Taking the two highest finishes per location might work but it is not an easy nut to crack.

Keep at it. Looking like a solid effort so far.

-Alex


- What scoring system did you normalize against? Most functional scoring systems have relatively little differences between them but there have been some pretty broken ones used in the earlier months of the year. Making sure that you are counting the winner using the same system across the board is important. Just don’t pick a system that has 80% of the points possible from the cold bore…

The scoring system is what was presented for the match by the director. I'm not going to pretend I know which one is best. It's based on directly on how well you perform against your competitors. Everyone had the same opportunity for score at the match.

- Have you considered the big fish in a small pond issue? There are some heavy hitters that do ok in big matches that will show up to small regional matches to dominate. This can easily bias their standings higher.

The matches are weighted to assign higher value to larger matches with a minimum cutoff of 15 shooters.

- Many shooters will use smaller matches as a place to break in a new barrel or just screw around. This causes an opposite bias for their performance relative to skill level. It might help to drop statistical outliers at the bottom end.

Only your top three scores currently count for your rankings and will probably end with top four scores and a finale match. I considred an average but didn't want the potential to lower your score and discourage attendance.

- Home court only shooters present a real challenge and it is something I’ve had a hard time resolving in my own stats. Shooters that almost always shoot at one location tend to perform significantly worse at unfamiliar ranges than people that frequent multiple locations. You will have to play with it but it may work out to only allow a certain number of contributions from a single venue. Taking the two highest finishes per location might work but it is not an easy nut to crack.

Currently I have not seen this to be the case. All of the top shooters have scores from multiple locations. I do like the idea of not allowing all scores from the same venue however if that became an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
The scoring system is what was presented for the match by the director. I'm not going to pretend I know which one is best. It's based on directly on how well you perform against your competitors. Everyone had the same opportunity for score at the match.
So the problem with that is the occasions when a match uses a completely broken scoring system. Here is the same match with the scores calculated by their original standard, Ko2M with no multipliers and Ko2M standard. What is clear as day is that by any mathematically defensible scoring system, Josh won that match by a considerable margin which means your first place ranking is probably bumped. You will also notice that even during the match they adjusted the value of the cold bore down by 2/3 because it was that obviously broken. Steve has since trashed the new scoring system in favor of my 2015 system. For matches that aren't hit to move, the Ko2M without multipliers has merits but it doesn't really change things that drastically.

There is no need for you to unfuck all the match results to uniform them. You are welcome to my match data, both Brian and I recalculate everything we are handed by match directors even if they use my spreadsheet.

-Alex
 

Attachments

  • Hold my Beer.pdf
    39.7 KB · Views: 49
So the problem with that is the occasions when a match uses a completely broken scoring system. Here is the same match with the scores calculated by their original standard, Ko2M with no multipliers and Ko2M standard. What is clear as day is that by any mathematically defensible scoring system, Josh won that match by a considerable margin which means your first place ranking is probably bumped. You will also notice that even during the match they adjusted the value of the cold bore down by 2/3 because it was that obviously broken. Steve has since trashed the new scoring system in favor of my 2015 system. For matches that aren't hit to move, the Ko2M without multipliers has merits but it doesn't really change things that drastically.

There is no need for you to unfuck all the match results to uniform them. You are welcome to my match data, both Brian and I recalculate everything we are handed by match directors even if they use my spreadsheet.

-Alex
This ranking is based on how those shooters did on that day in those conditions against each other. The scoring system used does not matter as it is based on the winner receiving 100 points and the rest a percentage of that.
Do not try to link me in any way to ko2m. I do not use any scoring system related to King of 2 Mile at Spearpoint in any way unless it is by coincidence. I wasn't doing these matches in 2015 so I don't have any idea what you were using. As far as the cold bore, you well know we haven't even shot a cold bore target since March let alone scored one. I switched back to a straight 1x distance system starting in June because the old one wasn't doing what I wanted it too. You really need to give up on beating a dead horse.
I would say the fucked up system that is out there currently is the one that compares raw data totals from matches that have extremely different target sizes, number of shots per target, and number of targets as well as tracking shooters as far back as 2020. Several of which haven't shot a match in several years and have sold all their gear. Compare Shane's ranking to yours and they are nothing alike. I believe Shane's is a much more precise measure of the skill out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
So the problem with that is the occasions when a match uses a completely broken scoring system. Here is the same match with the scores calculated by their original standard, Ko2M with no multipliers and Ko2M standard. What is clear as day is that by any mathematically defensible scoring system, Josh won that match by a considerable margin which means your first place ranking is probably bumped. You will also notice that even during the match they adjusted the value of the cold bore down by 2/3 because it was that obviously broken. Steve has since trashed the new scoring system in favor of my 2015 system. For matches that aren't hit to move, the Ko2M without multipliers has merits but it doesn't really change things that drastically.

There is no need for you to unfuck all the match results to uniform them. You are welcome to my match data, both Brian and I recalculate everything we are handed by match directors even if they use my spreadsheet.

-Alex
Whether the scoring system was the best or not a winner was awarded from that match and I'm not going to hold it against him. Like you said the system has changed and it's no longer an issue. I'm not going to tell match directors what system to use. Everyone has the same chance for points at a match.
 
Whether the scoring system was the best or not a winner was awarded from that match and I'm not going to hold it against him. Like you said the system has changed and it's no longer an issue. I'm not going to tell match directors what system to use. Everyone has the same chance for points at a match.
I think that this is statistically the correct way to do it. It’s literally how things should be scored. Any other method becomes a cluster of fudged numbers that absolutely is biased by who does the compilation, whether or not that bias is intentional. That’s how weighted scores turn out, by design of the weighting system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightStash
This ranking is based on how those shooters did on that day in those conditions against each other. The scoring system used does not matter as it is based on the winner receiving 100 points and the rest a percentage of that.
Do not try to link me in any way to ko2m. I do not use any scoring system related to King of 2 Mile at Spearpoint in any way unless it is by coincidence. I wasn't doing these matches in 2015 so I don't have any idea what you were using. As far as the cold bore, you well know we haven't even shot a cold bore target since March let alone scored one. I switched back to a straight 1x distance system starting in June because the old one wasn't doing what I wanted it too. You really need to give up on beating a dead horse.
I would say the fucked up system that is out there currently is the one that compares raw data totals from matches that have extremely different target sizes, number of shots per target, and number of targets as well as tracking shooters as far back as 2020. Several of which haven't shot a match in several years and have sold all their gear. Compare Shane's ranking to yours and they are nothing alike. I believe Shane's is a much more precise measure of the skill out there.
Steve, all ranking systems are an attempt to reconcile a variety of factors into some kind of comparable format. There are strengths and weaknesses for each. Shanes system is probably quite good when comparing large matches but completely excludes people who shoot at smaller events regardless of their performance. His assumptions there are correct and if he did include the small matches, the results would be less meaningful. My system is an attempt to include everyone but it certainly biases against ranges that are extremely challenging. Black Bear for instance is probably the most challenging 2100 yard target in the country and even seasoned shooters regularly eat shit on that target. That essentially means that my ranking system actually biases against my home range. Are there different approaches that would shift the bias? For sure. There will always be bias though so in the end it comes down to minimizing it as best as is possible.

In Shanes system, a non-uniform scoring system does not really cause bias, it causes a lack of fidelity. If you assume that any statistical model has error bars, a lack of fidelity makes those error bars larger. A system that uses finishing order as the dominant factor is VERY sensitive to the victory conditions being the same.

The yards = points approach was what I originally used back in 2015 at Ko2M. It seemed reasonable to award hits at longer ranges more points rather than simply awarding a point for each hit. I tweaked that to a multiplier system the next year and then in subsequent years I used an exponential curve so longer range targets have higher proportionate value. The logic as I have told you is simply that a hit at 2 miles vs 1 mile is FAR harder than twice as hard. It is actually statistically more like 8 to 10 times as hard. My current system only gives 4x as many points as you double the range and if I'm being honest I've been thinking of tweaking it to be a 2.5 exponent rather than 2 so scores better match reality. That modification would be made with statistical evidence in mind rather than a random attempt to achieve an objective without the math to support it. In many ways I feel the Ko2M base score is better suited for matches that don't do hit to move since you are unlikely to have accidental first round hits on the last target pull someone out of the gutter. The problem is that it ends up with a lot of ties and that can be a pain in the ass for a match director. Using time left on the clock as a tie breaker was my original solution and could solve that issue in most cases. Score = yards has the same issue of course and it also biases the winner towards the people that do better on close range targets.

I don't think it is much of a dead horse to say that having a consistent scoring system matters. In fact when Jay and I spent and hour or so talking to Alex Wheeler about integrating ELR into PRS in some way, his chief reason for not wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole is the lack of consistency in scoring system. It is also a major complaint from shooters that the scoring system changes from match to match. Running through multiple scoring systems in a season like you did last year and now this year, does not inspire confidence from competitors. Judging who won at the end of a season while using a hodge podge of systems also generates some pretty legitimate complaints.

There have been a lot of people over the last year or two that have tried to go off on their own as far as scoring systems and the result of those modifications are that output is either unexpected or not understood. In your case you got output so far off expected that the first time you used it you had to modify it during the match. In other cases like the 2.5,1.25,1,1,1 system the result is something that actually biases results further towards first round impacts.

Statistics is a bitch and the results of seemingly simple changes when you don't understand what is going on, can result in garbage. Most people have neither the training nor the inclination towards statistics (looking at you lash) and that is fine. Most people have zero fucking reason to know what an Eigenvalue is. But if you have had no reason to study it, don't make the assumptions that you understand the ramifications of what you are doing. Running a system that has at least been vetted by someone that has studied it will get you a much better result. If you want to try a new scoring system run it by Wink or Mann if you don't want to deal with me and at listen to them if they have concerns.

If you really want to use a system that I have never used (and this kinda seems to be the case), I have never used PRS-like one point per hit scoring... Still does ok vs target size correction at least.

-Alex

P.S.: Shane, keep at it but always be looking to improve your model. There are no First and Final truths in statistics.
 

Attachments

  • Hold my Beer 2.pdf
    39.8 KB · Views: 50
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: lash
Alex, I ran a 1x distance system all last season, no "multiple scoring systems". Why are you always dogging on Spearpoint? You need to find something else to fixate on, or better yet, don't. It's always entertaining, for me at least, to see your revisionist claims and your whining does provide me some motivation to keep improving and offering a better product (matches) to the public. Anyone that wants to compete against many of the top thirty competitors in the country, or just learn a little bit more, come on out to Spearpoint and join in!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lash
Steve, all ranking systems are an attempt to reconcile a variety of factors into some kind of comparable format. There are strengths and weaknesses for each. Shanes system is probably quite good when comparing large matches but completely excludes people who shoot at smaller events regardless of their performance. His assumptions there are correct and if he did include the small matches, the results would be less meaningful. My system is an attempt to include everyone but it certainly biases against ranges that are extremely challenging. Black Bear for instance is probably the most challenging 2100 yard target in the country and even seasoned shooters regularly eat shit on that target. That essentially means that my ranking system actually biases against my home range. Are there different approaches that would shift the bias? For sure. There will always be bias though so in the end it comes down to minimizing it as best as is possible.

In Shanes system, a non-uniform scoring system does not really cause bias, it causes a lack of fidelity. If you assume that any statistical model has error bars, a lack of fidelity makes those error bars larger. A system that uses finishing order as the dominant factor is VERY sensitive to the victory conditions being the same.

The yards = points approach was what I originally used back in 2015 at Ko2M. It seemed reasonable to award hits at longer ranges more points rather than simply awarding a point for each hit. I tweaked that to a multiplier system the next year and then in subsequent years I used an exponential curve so longer range targets have higher proportionate value. The logic as I have told you is simply that a hit at 2 miles vs 1 mile is FAR harder than twice as hard. It is actually statistically more like 8 to 10 times as hard. My current system only gives 4x as many points as you double the range and if I'm being honest I've been thinking of tweaking it to be a 2.5 exponent rather than 2 so scores better match reality. That modification would be made with statistical evidence in mind rather than a random attempt to achieve an objective without the math to support it. In many ways I feel the Ko2M base score is better suited for matches that don't do hit to move since you are unlikely to have accidental first round hits on the last target pull someone out of the gutter. The problem is that it ends up with a lot of ties and that can be a pain in the ass for a match director. Using time left on the clock as a tie breaker was my original solution and could solve that issue in most cases. Score = yards has the same issue of course and it also biases the winner towards the people that do better on close range targets.

I don't think it is much of a dead horse to say that having a consistent scoring system matters. In fact when Jay and I spent and hour or so talking to Alex Wheeler about integrating ELR into PRS in some way, his chief reason for not wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole is the lack of consistency in scoring system. It is also a major complaint from shooters that the scoring system changes from match to match. Running through multiple scoring systems in a season like you did last year and now this year, does not inspire confidence from competitors. Judging who won at the end of a season while using a hodge podge of systems also generates some pretty legitimate complaints.

There have been a lot of people over the last year or two that have tried to go off on their own as far as scoring systems and the result of those modifications are that output is either unexpected or not understood. In your case you got output so far off expected that the first time you used it you had to modify it during the match. In other cases like the 2.5,1.25,1,1,1 system the result is something that actually biases results further towards first round impacts.

Statistics is a bitch and the results of seemingly simple changes when you don't understand what is going on, can result in garbage. Most people have neither the training nor the inclination towards statistics (looking at you lash) and that is fine. Most people have zero fucking reason to know what an Eigenvalue is. But if you have had no reason to study it, don't make the assumptions that you understand the ramifications of what you are doing. Running a system that has at least been vetted by someone that has studied it will get you a much better result. If you want to try a new scoring system run it by Wink or Mann if you don't want to deal with me and at listen to them if they have concerns.

If you really want to use a system that I have never used (and this kinda seems to be the case), I have never used PRS-like one point per hit scoring... Still does ok vs target size correction at least.

-Alex

P.S.: Shane, keep at it but always be looking to improve your model. There are no First and Final truths in statistics.
I’m glad that you went out of your way to call me out right after you essentially repeated almost exactly what I said with a few hundred more words. 👍🏻😄