# [WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed: Alternative formats for 3x3x3 BLD



## Radu (Dec 12, 2011)

Shortly. The proposal is to change the format of 3x3 bld event from "Best of 2/3" to "Average of 5 (Best of 2/3)" 

First of all, I am not a bld cuber so my interest in adopting this is 0. I just heard some time ago some bld cubers mentioning about this as being a good change. I think a discussion on this would be useful.

- 3x3 bld solves have become much faster nowadays and an "Avg. of 5" format would be more suitable. Also, it is probably the most interesting event for the public and making it a bit longer would be only benefical for us (speedcubing publicity).
- We can always set a limit for Best of 2 for 2min, 3min etc. The "worst" competitors will only do 2 solves, like now, while the best, obviously 5 and get an average too.
- Swtiching to "Avg. of 5" might lead to slower times, but more successes as the competitor will want to get the average.
- The only cons I see is that the competitions will become a bit longer due to this. Still, having this format, the event wouldn't be longer than a megaminx or 7x7 event. So it's not really impractical.

Sebastien said that Avg. of 5 is impractical for bld and he thinks that we should switch to "Best of 5". My opinion is that this is good too. More bld solves, the better. He obviously speaks from a blindfold cuber point of view, so his solution might be better. It's up to you now, the blindfold cubers, to share your thoughts on this topic.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2011)

Yeah, Best of 5 is a much more sensible proposal. 

Topic title change please?


----------



## Hippolyte!!! (Dec 12, 2011)

I think organizers could have the choice to host more blind attempts, 5 seems good to me, but avg of 5 is definitely not a good idea, because of the unfairness that would involved: a verry good blinder who can get times very better than the others at a comp could often only solve successful 2 cubes, and he would be last? It isn't possible. Even tough the success rate is important, I think it can't be more than time.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 12, 2011)

Does the community consider an average to be superior to a single time?

Should an average format be introduced to distinguish competitors who can consistently and quickly solve blindfolded from competitors who are less consistent?

Enforcing strict time limits in other speedsolving events forces competitors to DNF and filters for fast and consistent competitors.

Tim.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 12, 2011)

Best of up to 5, and you have 15 minutes total?


----------



## Escher (Dec 12, 2011)

How about best of 2/3 going up to 5, with average being calculated through mo3 fastest successes?

In competitions where time for only 3 attempts is possible this may change the meta slightly - but those that can afford 5 will probably see more BLD cubers able to go all-out.

Edit: to clarify - best of 5 for definite please <3 If there is no agreement on the different possible solutions for the average suggestion then it should just be left for discussion throughout 2012 and implementation in 2013.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 12, 2011)

I changed the title, but unlike Kirjava, I think there's room for discussion as to possible formats. This should work well enough.

I see Escher has already suggested an interesting alternative, which makes me like my title even better.  No point in stifling ideas.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Best of up to 5, and you have 15 minutes total?


 
Leave time limits up to comp organiserz plz.



> 22:48 <+Kirjava> you know what the one thing
> 22:48 <+Kirjava> that will stop the BLD format being changed
> 22:48 <+Kirjava> DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS?
> 22:49 <+Kirjava> LACK OF AGREEMENT
> ...



If people suggesting formats could also say what other formats they would be happy with, that would be peachy.


----------



## hcfong (Dec 12, 2011)

TimMc said:


> Does the community consider an average to be superior to a single time?



What do we mean by superior? It's the average that determines your ranking in a competition, but it's the single times that people remember, because that's what they can see on the display. Ask any speedcuber what Feliks 3x3 single WR is, and he will almost certainly without hesitation answer 5.66. Ask what the average WR is, and chances are that they can't answer that question without looking up the WCA rankings. So, does the community consider an average to be superior to a single time? According to the regulations, yes, but informally and socially I think a single time is considered to be superior by the community.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2011)

As far as averages for BLD go;

BLD and speedsolving are seperate things. You're attempting to treat BLD like speedsolving when it is entirely different.


----------



## Dene (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm open to a best of 5 format, although if we were to do this at an Australian competition I would have a cutoff of maybe 1:30 or 2 minutes in one of the first two solves. This way slow people are filtered out, and fast people can do a safety solve or two, then have three or four fast attempts.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 12, 2011)

I don't think an average would work, what if the person got two DNF's?


----------



## macky (Dec 12, 2011)

We've argued against average before.


----------



## hcfong (Dec 12, 2011)

in terms of going for a best of (up to) 5, that's already been allowed for by the current regulations (9d), which names 'best of x' as the possible and preferred format for BLD. So if we're going for a best of 5, which seems to be the consensus, there is no regulation change necessary, as far as I can see.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2011)

hcfong said:


> in terms of going for a best of (up to) 5, that's already been allowed for by the current regulations (9d), which names 'best of x' as the possible and preferred format for BLD. So if we're going for a best of 5, which seems to be the consensus, there is no regulation change necessary, as far as I can see.


 
9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= 3) attempts, with the best attempt counting. There may be a combined time limit, example: 30 minutes for 'Best of 1' or 'Best of 2'.


----------



## hcfong (Dec 12, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> 9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= 3) attempts, with the best attempt counting. There may be a combined time limit, example: 30 minutes for 'Best of 1' or 'Best of 2'.


 
Sorry, you're totally right. I withdraw my comments.


----------



## cubeflip (Dec 12, 2011)

I propose that competitions have a choice of how many attempts a competitor is given, with a max of 5. Not individually, though. 

So a competition could have Best of 1, Best of 2, Best of 3, Best of 4, or Best of 5. (with cutoff times, if decided so by the organizer) 
for example: Best of 5 if the sum of the first three times (DNF or success) is <15 minutes


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm onboard the best of 5 train. I don't feel strongly for it, but I see no harm in allowing it, so sure


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 12, 2011)

I remember a point made a while ago which I liked. Something along the lines of having an average format makes sense, since single and average are almost like different events. People who want to go fast go for single and risk DNFs, and people who want to be consistent go for average. I support best of 5 format, but with an average/mean result calculated if they have enough successes.


----------



## EeeeeWarne (Dec 12, 2011)

Averages are a bad idea, but allowing up to best of 5 is fine, although organizers can still use best of 3 or 2 if they have a small amount of time.

9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= *5*) attempts, with the best attempt counting. There may be a combined time limit, example: 30 minutes for 'Best of 1' or 'Best of 2'.


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

RE Dene and others suggesting an expanded format with five solves with 'combined round' formats: 

I'm a BLD solver averaging five minutes. Format is best of five, with a successful solve under three minutes in the first two to complete the remaining three. I can try to blitz the first two, trying for a chance at the remaining three, or just go for regular solves on the two. Old format I get three solves, now I either get two likely DNFs with a chance of five solves, or only two solves. 

I'm a BLD solver averaging five minutes. Format is best of five, with a solve (success or DNF) under three minutes in the first two to complete the remaining three. My first solve, I just pretend to do a full solve, for example only memorizing corners. Oh, a DNF, but look, I had part of it, and look only 2:30. Now I get four more solves, at about five minutes each. Old format I get three solves, fifteen minutes. New format I get four solves, twenty minutes, plus the added time of me faking a solve. 

I'm a BLD solver averaging five minutes. Format is best of five, with a total allowed solve time (success and DNF) of fifteen minutes. Before I start competing, someone gets four 1:00 solves, then on their fifth solve gets a 0:20 world record. My turn to solve. First three solves I do a lazy fake attempt, two minutes each. Fourth solve is a safety solve, seven minutes, I at least get a ranking. Final solve, I go all out knowing a world record has already been set on this scramble, three minute solve. Old format, three solves fifteen minutes. New format, two solves ten minutes, plus three fake solves and the chance to game the system and choose which scramble I want to compete with.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 13, 2011)

I'd like to see an "average of 5" competition, with the single ranking taking precedence. So the winner is the person with the best single time, not the best average. It's equivalent to "best of 5" except that averages are also recorded, and average records can be set. This is better than "best of 5" because of the possibility of average records; it's also better than a pure "average of 5" because consistency is not required to do well, and a few DNFs won't destroy your chances at winning.

EDIT: Oh, and also, knocking someone out after one or two solves with this format wouldn't destroy their chances of getting ranked.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> RE Dene and others suggesting an expanded format with five solves with 'combined round' formats:
> 
> I'm a BLD solver averaging five minutes. Format is best of five, with a successful solve under three minutes in the first two to complete the remaining three. I can try to blitz the first two, trying for a chance at the remaining three, or just go for regular solves on the two. Old format I get three solves, now I either get two likely DNFs with a chance of five solves, or only two solves.


I'm a BLD solver averaging five minutes. Format is best of three, with a successful solve under three minutes in the first to complete the remaining three. I can try to blitz the first, trying for a chance at the remaining two, or just go for a regular solve on the first. I either get a likely DNF with a chance of three solves, or only 1 solve.

I don't see a difference.



> I'm a BLD solver averaging five minutes. Format is best of five, with a solve (success or DNF) under three minutes in the first two to complete the remaining three. My first solve, I just pretend to do a full solve, for example only memorizing corners. Oh, a DNF, but look, I had part of it, and look only 2:30. Now I get four more solves, at about five minutes each. Old format I get three solves, fifteen minutes. New format I get four solves, twenty minutes, plus the added time of me faking a solve.


This isn't a problem, you just allow an x minute total solve time 



> I'm a BLD solver averaging five minutes. Format is best of five, with a total allowed solve time (success and DNF) of fifteen minutes. Before I start competing, someone gets four 1:00 solves, then on their fifth solve gets a 0:20 world record. My turn to solve. First three solves I do a lazy fake attempt, two minutes each. Fourth solve is a safety solve, seven minutes, I at least get a ranking. Final solve, I go all out knowing a world record has already been set on this scramble, three minute solve. Old format, three solves fifteen minutes. New format, two solves ten minutes, plus three fake solves and the chance to game the system and choose which scramble I want to compete with.


I'm a BLD solver averaging five minutes. Format is best of three, with a solve (success and DNF) of twelve minutes. Before I start competing, someone gets two 1:00 solves, then on their third solve gets a 0:20 world record. My turn to solve. First solve I do a lazy fake attempt, two minutes. Fourth solve is a safety solve, six minutes, at least I get a ranking. Final solve, I go all out knowing a world record has already been set on this scramble, three minute solve. Two solves nine minutes, plus a fake solve and the chance to game the system and choose which scramble I want to compete with.

None of your points are valid or don't already apply to best of 3.

The event takes more 5 or 10 more minutes? Keep the total time limit the same if it's such a big deal.

And for competitors who average 5 minutes and want 5 solves? Try practising more.


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

aronpm said:


> None of your points are valid or don't already apply to best of 3.


 
I don't support those formats in the current best of three, either. I was specifically responding to people who said that changing to a best of five format wouldn't be a problem because the time can be limited using various methods. So far, none of those methods work.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 13, 2011)

I disagree, having a total time limit has worked at every competition I've attended that has used it.


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

aronpm said:


> I disagree, having a total time limit has worked at every competition I've attended that has used it.


 
...all four?

I think my third example covers this. The 'honest' five minute competitor gets three solves, and doesn't get the potentially easy scramble. Someone out to game the system gets to skip whichever of the first four solves they want, and specifically choose the final 'easy' scramble. 
Even better, like this: A 'good' BLD cuber (averages 1:00) goes up, gets 2:00 on the first three solves, then 1:00 and 0:20. The 'dishonest' competitor then knows he wants to skip the first three scrambles and focus on the fifth. Whereas the 'honest' competitor only solves on the 'harder' scrambles.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

I'm with aronpm. I don't see how this suddenly becomes an issue now that we allow 2 more solves. Just have a strict cutoff time so that only those competitors which are truly fast (or reasonably fast) are able to complete all 5 solves. Using a format where a DNF under a certain time limit meets the cutoff is silly. A DNF should not meet a cutoff time, as the cube was never solved. 

Now that I've thought about it more I am actually on the side of allowing for averages and not just best-of. Those that only care about single can go hard for that and also get more attempts (5 instead of 3), and those that care about consistency can go for the best average. If you are fast and consistent, all the better for you.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> ...all four?


Do you have a problem with that? They've all been busy competitions with 2 rounds of 3BLD.



> I think my third example covers this. The 'honest' five minute competitor gets three solves, and doesn't get the potentially easy scramble. Someone out to game the system gets to skip whichever of the first four solves they want, and specifically choose the final 'easy' scramble.
> Even better, like this: A 'good' BLD cuber (averages 1:00) goes up, gets 2:00 on the first three solves, then 1:00 and 0:20. The 'dishonest' competitor then knows he wants to skip the first three scrambles and focus on the fifth. Whereas the 'honest' competitor only solves on the 'harder' scrambles.


 
Again, this already applies to best of 3. If best of 3 works, then best of 5 works. I also don't see why that situation is a problem.

But try proposing an alternative for best of 3/5 instead of saying it just doesn't work.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> ...all four?
> 
> I think my third example covers this. The 'honest' five minute competitor gets three solves, and doesn't get the potentially easy scramble. Someone out to game the system gets to skip whichever of the first four solves they want, and specifically choose the final 'easy' scramble.
> Even better, like this: A 'good' BLD cuber (averages 1:00) goes up, gets 2:00 on the first three solves, then 1:00 and 0:20. The 'dishonest' competitor then knows he wants to skip the first three scrambles and focus on the fifth. Whereas the 'honest' competitor only solves on the 'harder' scrambles.


 
This same issue applies to any event. For example, I sit back and notice that several people have gotten good times on a particular 3x3 solve, and because I know most people use white cross I ensure that when I come to that solve I check out the white cross and look hard for what was so easy that everyone else noticed.


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

aronpm said:


> Do you have a problem with that? They've all been busy competitions with 2 rounds of 3BLD.


 
'scuse me, that was a bit rude. Simply saying that just because you think it worked in your experience, doesn't mean it works always. 

To both of you, I'm not saying that this "suddenly" becomes an issue. It's a problem that exists if it's used with best of three, absolutely. And as such I don't think this competition format should be used in current competitions either. I'm addressing those people that are saying a change to five solves instead of three won't be a problem because time can be limited with these, broken, methods. Competition time is limited, changing to five solves will take more time, don't use broken examples to try to offset that time. 

And as for Dene's example, the difference is there you're still solving all the scrambles, whereas between the two BLD solvers, they didn't.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> And as for Dene's example, the difference is there you're still solving all the scrambles, whereas between the two BLD solvers, they didn't.



So? The only way to prevent this is to force them to solve the puzzle (i.e. not DNF) within a strict time limit (e.g. 1 minute). Then they have to really solve it, and really solve it fast to get a chance at the scramble they know is very good.

Also, I believe the proposition is to have up to best of 5. A competition organiser could still choose best of 1 if they wanted.


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

Dene said:


> So? The only way to prevent this is to force them to solve the puzzle (i.e. not DNF) within a strict time limit (e.g. 1 minute). Then they have to really solve it, and really solve it fast to get a chance at the scramble they know is very good.
> 
> Also, I believe the proposition is to have up to best of 5. A competition organiser could still choose best of 1 if they wanted.


 
Or, much easier, you prevent it by not having a limit on total solve time. That way everyone solves all the scrambles without having to fake solves or whatever. 

Note I never said I oppose five solves. I'm just saying that the people supporting five solves and saying it won't cause a time problem are using bad arguments. People saying five solves isn't a problem because you can use a broken system to limit the time it takes aren't actually helping their position. Better to mention benefits, more representative results with average three of five or median of five or whatever.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 13, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> As far as averages for BLD go;
> 
> BLD and speedsolving are seperate things. You're attempting to treat BLD like speedsolving when it is entirely different.



Given how fast 333bf is now would it be fair to regard it as speedsolving? However, I can understand your point when applied to 555bf or mbf...

I don't really see the benefits of increasing 'x' to 5 for BLD events especially. Why not just have more rounds for more attempts?

Introducing an 'average' would bring a familiar measure into things and separate the elite from the lucky/inconsistent solvers.
+ it would just default back to what's essentially 'Best of 5' if everyone DNF's more than once.

Tim.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

TimMc said:


> Given how fast 333bf is now would it be fair to regard it as speedsolving? However, I can understand your point when applied to 555bf or mbf...



No. It is a very different event that is much easier to DNF in.



TimMc said:


> I don't really see the benefits of increasing 'x' to 5 for BLD events especially. Why not just have more rounds for more attempts?



A lot of the time there are not enough competitors for this.



TimMc said:


> Introducing an 'average' would bring a familiar measure into things and separate the elite from the lucky/inconsistent solvers.


 
Consistent != elite.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Consistent != elite.


 
Of course consistent = elite; the elite of being consistent. That is what a bld average would be all about.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

Dene said:


> Of course consistent = elite; the elite of being consistent. That is what a bld average would be all about.



I would rather test the elite of BLD, not the elite of consistency.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 13, 2011)

Dene said:


> Of course consistent = elite; the elite of being consistent. That is what a bld average would be all about.


 
The goal of speedcubing/blindsolving is not consistancy.


----------



## Dene (Dec 13, 2011)

Neither is the goal of speedcubing picking up and putting down a magic as fast as possible, but we still do it.

But why shouldn't consistency be a goal of speedcubing? It would make for an interesting and new challenge for people. Also, without consistency it would be pretty difficult to beat the current WR average from any event.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 13, 2011)

An *Average of 5* format would simply default back to what's essentially *Best of 5* when everyone gets a DNF. Anyone who's accurate and fast enough would take the average.

Tim.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

Dene said:


> But why shouldn't consistency be a goal of speedcubing?


 
It should, but I don't see blindsolving as that much like speedsolving. The very nature of the event causes it to produce very different types of results to other nonBLD events time wise.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> Or, much easier, you prevent it by not having a limit on total solve time. That way everyone solves all the scrambles without having to fake solves or whatever.
> 
> Note I never said I oppose five solves. I'm just saying that the people supporting five solves and saying it won't cause a time problem are using bad arguments. People saying five solves isn't a problem because you can use a broken system to limit the time it takes aren't actually helping their position. Better to mention benefits, more representative results with average three of five or median of five or whatever.


Dude, have you been to a competition where the time limit was "X minutes, solved or not"?
That's really stupid if it even exists somewhere. To meet the time limit you obviously need to solve the damn cube.
In that sense, allowing best of 5 would not really harm the competition time, since most already have time limits for the first 1 or 2 attempts.



TimMc said:


> An *Average of 5* format would simply default back to what's essentially *Best of 5* when everyone gets a DNF. Anyone who's accurate and fast enough would take the average.
> 
> Tim.


What if not everyone gets a DNF? Say someone gets three WRs solves and someone else gets four 5-min solves. Who should win?
Being a bld solver I'd like the first one to win...


----------



## Micael (Dec 13, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I'd like to see an "average of 5" competition, with the single ranking taking precedence. So the winner is the person with the best single time, not the best average. It's equivalent to "best of 5" except that averages are also recorded, and average records can be set. This is better than "best of 5" because of the possibility of average records; it's also better than a pure "average of 5" because consistency is not required to do well, and a few DNFs won't destroy your chances at winning.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and also, knocking someone out after one or two solves with this format wouldn't destroy their chances of getting ranked.



I like that format. That seems to be good for everyone. Possibility of cutoff after about 2 solves keep the event about as managable as it is currently. Possibility to score an average is very cool (and competition are supposed to be cool). It is also very cool for fast bld solver to have 5 solves. Indeed, they are fast because they love the event and practice it a lot. In the end the fastest solve win, which make the most sense to me.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Dec 13, 2011)

Would just like to register my vote. I would like best of 5 format. Let organizers worry about time limits. BLD is getting faster and taking less time to hold.

qqrefs idea is very cool. It would also be pretty emotional for people if they are on solve 5 and they have 4 successes already, and they are talking to their friends about how they might get an average. It sounds exciting.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 13, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> qqrefs idea is very cool. It would also be pretty emotional for people if they are on solve 5 and they have 4 successes already, and they are talking to their friends about how they might get an average. It sounds exciting.



Wait - if they already have 4 successes, they already have an average - the DNF gets thrown out as the high time. But it is true, and I do think it would be fun.

Most people who currently have a valid mean of 3 at 3x3x3 BLD in a competition are at least aware of that fact - it's fun to think you got them all right for a round. It would be nice to have that statistic on your personal page - what your average is. I also like qqwref's idea. Keep the focus exactly where it is now - the winner is always the person with the best single. But allow recorded averages, for statistical purposes - they're fun.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 13, 2011)

Pedro said:


> What if not everyone gets a DNF? Say someone gets three WRs solves and someone else gets four 5-min solves. Who should win?
> Being a bld solver I'd like the first one to win...



They'd have the single WR solve once for that event and someone else would win the event with a 5-min average.

It'd be unlikely that someone would win with an average of 5-min if you enforce a cut-off of 2-5 minutes or a total time limit of 15 minutes for 5 solves to time-box the eventl.

Tim.


----------



## bamilan (Dec 13, 2011)

Pedro said:


> What if not everyone gets a DNF? Say someone gets three WRs solves and someone else gets four 5-min solves. Who should win?
> Being a bld solver I'd like the first one to win...


 
Well, you can compare this to magic. You can have 3 WR solves and 2 DNFs, and you don't win. Nobody complains...

Btw I agree with the average of 5 format.


----------



## Micael (Dec 13, 2011)

bamilan said:


> Btw I agree with the average of 5 format.



To make it clear, you mean that you agree to record average (and hence have a WR for it), but winner is still the fastest single? I really think that such format can work very well. In that case, I think regulation should states that organizers should decide before the event how many attempt everybody have (2 or 3) and what is the cutoff to beat in order to do all 5 solves.


----------



## Sebastien (Dec 14, 2011)

Best of 2/Best of 5 is just a natural extension to Best of 2/Best of 3 consiering the enhanced speed that competitors have nowadays.

Best of 2/Average of 5 instead would change the whole nature of BLD events and because of this this seems like complete nonsense to me.

But: Just changing 9f6 seems very dangerous for me. This would allow to change the nature of other events. 3x3x3 could be hold as best of 5 for example, having as much attempts as usual but with a whole different rating. Or 7x7x7 could also be hold then with Best of 5 instead of Mean of 3 --> nonsense!
I propose to allow x <= 5 ONLY for events where Best of x ist the prefered format. (the prefered format for feet obviously and trivially needs to be changed.)


----------



## Cool Frog (Dec 14, 2011)

I think that they should have two categories for winners,

Best average and Best Single, Award ceremonies would address both winners.

Just my cent.


----------



## tim (Dec 14, 2011)

bamilan said:


> Well, you can compare this to magic. You can have 3 WR solves and 2 DNFs, and you don't win. Nobody complains...


 
As Kirjava already pointed out: It's much easier to DNF in BLD than it is in any other speed event.

But I'd also like to have averages for BLD (for obvious selfish reasons ^^ and imo it makes BLD more exciting).


----------



## bamilan (Dec 15, 2011)

A person who is good at blind shouldn't care about stuff like this. If competitor is really good, he can solve it whenever he wants.
Average of 5 would cause worse times, but podium would still remain the same.
Best of X is not really a good format, because the one who gets a really lucky scramble could break the world record, and in that round almost all the competitors get better results than usual.(2x2, pyra, blind, FMC)

In 1982 3x3 podium was ranked by the best of 3. Do you think this format would work nowdays? :O I don't because of lucks.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 15, 2011)

I don't care too much whether we get averages or not, but I'd just like to say that although lucky scrambles can make things awkward with regards to the world rankings etc, having averages would make podiums at a single comp too 'inaccurate'. As in, it wouldn't represent who's the best at that time. Imo a best of x format does give a good indication of who 'deserves' to win.

Remember, bld is different to other events in that you can, to an extent, choose how fast you go. And I think that gives it license to have a completely different format to other events while still being fair.


----------



## syuhei222 (Dec 15, 2011)

If we should add any change, I think ""3 attempts, and mean of 2 ""is suitable.
1 mistake should be allowed.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 15, 2011)

Cool Frog said:


> Best average and Best Single, Award ceremonies would address both winners.



Some organisers have given awards for the fastest solve of the day in 3x3, so why not bf?

Tim.


----------



## bamilan (Dec 16, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> I don't care too much whether we get averages or not, but I'd just like to say that although lucky scrambles can make things awkward with regards to the world rankings etc, having averages would make podiums at a single comp too 'inaccurate'. As in, it wouldn't represent who's the best at that time. Imo a best of x format does give a good indication of who 'deserves' to win.
> 
> Remember, bld is different to other events in that you can, to an extent, choose how fast you go. And I think that gives it license to have a completely different format to other events while still being fair.




Anyone who can solve the cube blindfolded 4/5 deserves the win. The fastest from that group wins.
In blind you can choose between a fast solve and a safe solve. I don't believe if you memorize the cube for 6 minutes you wouldn't success.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 16, 2011)

bamilan said:


> Anyone who can solve the cube blindfolded 4/5 deserves the win. The fastest from that group wins.
> In blind you can choose between a fast solve and a safe solve. I don't believe if you memorize the cube for 6 minutes you wouldn't success.


 
I'm curious - do you think you're capable of a successful average 98/100? (Meaning only one DNF out of 100.) I average about 85% on 3x3x3 BLD at home, but I'm not sure I could do a successful average 98/100, regardless of the time. If I did, I think I'd probably have to be pretty lucky. I think that up to one extra minute spent on memorizing and safe-solving a cube can really help my accuracy, but I'm not sure if it would get me all the way to 99% - I still make too many stupid mistakes (mostly execution mistakes). 6 minutes memorizing a cube wouldn't help any more than 2 minutes would - it would just give me more opportunity for my mind to drift and for me to mess up. Admittedly, 4/5 is much more attainable, though - I'd love having that be the goal. But I think you and I are very much in the minority favoring that approach; I've learned to live with the idea that most people are against it. It does seem like most of the really fast people are quite capable of 4/5, though, if they are going for accuracy over speed.

Anyway, while I acknowledge that there's almost no hope for your preferred format, I would love to have it be possible to get an average in BLD, even if it doesn't count for the winner. It would just be nice to have an average in the statistics.


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 16, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> Anyway, while I acknowledge that there's almost no hope for your preferred format, I would love to have it be possible to get an average in BLD, even if it doesn't count for the winner. It would just be nice to have an average in the statistics.


 
+1


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 16, 2011)

Interesting marginally-related fact: Clément Gallet has 36 successful "mean of 3" results in 3x3x3 BLD in official competitions. Wow.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 16, 2011)

Oh wow, that's really quite a lot. Second place, far behind, are Tim and Sebastien with 14 each.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 16, 2011)

I've stayed out of this average discussion until now, but I'd like to share my thoughts.

Do I think an average of 5 should be used for 3BLD? Yes, I do. However, not yet. I think the "top" blindfolded solvers are mostly missing one important factor, and that is accuracy (this is why I am so impressed when I see stats from people like Zane and Marcell; their accuracy is awesome!) I think the first stage of progress is to implement best of 5. You can't say that blindfolded solvers are accurate enough for an average in competition until they are doing 5 solves in a round, and it will be a while after best of 5 is implemented that the top solvers will be able to get 4 or 5 of those solves, and only after that (it will be an arbitrary point in time) should average be introduced to determine winners. 

Some people have disagreed with me when I have said that accuracy is important, but this is why I don't consider myself "good" at big bld or multi -- I'm fast, but I am very far from accurate. I think accuracy is something not enough of us practise, and it's lagging behind speed, and I'll admit that I'm guilty of not training to increase my accuracy.

I agree with Mike, I would like to see an average for BLD introduced now, but only for statistics, not to determine winners (yet!)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 16, 2011)

aronpm said:


> Do I think an average of 5 should be used for 3BLD? Yes, I do. However, not yet.


 
 You're the first person I've seen make this argument other than me. I guess I hadn't thought about how important it would be to have the experience in competition - that makes this argument make even more sense.

I made this argument at least a year ago - that we would eventually get where all the best people are getting almost all solves successful, so there will suddenly be little resistance to going with averages. Back then, no one else seemed to believe me.

I think when we get where the best people have all put the "magical" 10,000 hours into 3x3x3 BLD, they'll practically never miss (maybe I won't have trouble with that average 98/100 by then), and it will just be silly to argue against averages. But I believe that could still be quite a few years from now - 5 to 10 years - far enough away that it's almost impossible to speculate accurately.


----------



## bamilan (Dec 16, 2011)

aronpm said:


> I agree with Mike, I would like to see an average for BLD introduced now, but only for statistics, not to determine winners (yet!)


 
You are missing an important link. If best single counts, everybody will prefer the faster solve against the more safe one... Or at least the fast guys.
They don't care if it is 4/5 or 1/5 if their success solve is fast.

Edit: I mean they will go speed over success rate at all of the 5 solves.


----------



## Micael (Dec 16, 2011)

bamilan said:


> You are missing an important link. If best single counts, everybody will prefer the faster solve against the more safe one... Or at least the fast guys.
> They don't care if it is 4/5 or 1/5 if their success solve is fast.
> 
> Edit: I mean they will go speed over success rate at all of the 5 solves.


 
To own or to beat the average WR would be attractive for the fast bld cubers. That would be a very respectable WR to own. I think they would care.


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

I agree with Milan, introducing best of 5 will just make it a further speed contest with more chance to stuff up. It won't improve the accuracy of blindsolvers at all. Skip that stage and go straight to average or don't change it at all.


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 16, 2011)

and even if not.. who cares? you will leave the competition knowing that u had the best average and are ranked whatever in the world with it. that's totally fine for me as long as it finds its way into the database. just "losing" the data because of a best of 5 series seems like missing out on something.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 16, 2011)

Dene said:


> I agree with Milan, introducing best of 5 will just make it a further speed contest with more chance to stuff up. It won't improve the accuracy of blindsolvers at all. Skip that stage and go straight to average or don't change it at all.


 
Why not change it at all? The people favouring the transition are in the minority - most want to change to best of 5 and leave it like that.


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

Sorry that statement was a bit of a hyperbole. I favour changing either way, but don't really see any reason to favour best of 5 over average of 5.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 16, 2011)

The main issue being raised is how BLD should not be treated like 3x3x3, as the nature of the event is different.


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

I haven't seen anyone really press that issue to be honest. I haven't thought too much about it, but just off the top of my head, one argument in favour of an average is that, while there is a larger margin for error in bld solving, consistency should still be a goal, even if not as important as raw speed. This is because, without consistency, successes would be few and far between (or at least, not enough for one to be considered a top bld contender). I would be interested to know the history of top bld solvers and their success rates, but probably not worth anyones time to work it out.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 17, 2011)

Dene said:


> I haven't seen anyone really press that issue to be honest.


 
Yeah, I'm not really paying attention, that's just a point that has been mentioned. I think it's a rather important one though.

As for the rest of your post, Haiyan has more DNFs than successes.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 18, 2011)

*Top 4 333bf success*



Dene said:


> I would be interested to know the history of top bld solvers and their success rates, but probably not worth anyones time to work it out.




```
WCA_ID		3's	2's	1's	0's	Total	% 3's	% 3's (last 3 rounds)
2007XUYU01	1	6	14	4	25	4%	0%
2008CASI01	2	2	1	0	5	40%	33%
2008ZHUA01	2	12	16	10	40	5%	0%
2010CARN01	2	5	7	1	15	13%	67%
```

*2007XUYU01*
2, 1, 2, 2, 0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 0, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0

*2008CASI01*
1, 2, 3, 2, 3

*2008ZHUA01*
1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 2, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0

*2010CARN01*
3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 1

This information was just scraped from the WCA result pages. It'd be better to actually query "333bf" events with a "Best of 3" format instead to get a list of successes.

Tim.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 18, 2011)

*bf solvers (ranked by accuracy)*



TimMc said:


> It'd be better to actually query "333bf" events with a "Best of 3" format instead to get a list of successes.



*bf solvers (ranked by accuracy):*
success = 3/3 solved per round (no DNF and no DNS) (i.e. successful round)
excluding competitors with 0%



Spoiler





```
personId	success	rounds	accuracy
2010LIUR02	1	1	100.00%
2011LONG02	1	1	100.00%
2010MLLE02	1	1	100.00%
2009BOUL03	1	1	100.00%
2010KURN03	1	1	100.00%
2009CHAO03	1	1	100.00%
2010MARU01	1	1	100.00%
2011ZAWA01	1	1	100.00%
2011KANA02	1	1	100.00%
2010CHUN04	1	1	100.00%
2011XUZH02	1	1	100.00%
2010HWAN02	1	1	100.00%
2010ADRI01	1	1	100.00%
2008PHEL01	3	5	75.00%
2007HABE01	14	17	70.83%
2009BATT02	3	5	66.67%
2007GOTA01	3	8	56.67%
2007ENDR01	4	10	53.33%
2004GALL02	36	65	50.04%
2010SANC04	1	3	50.00%
2007SEUN02	1	2	50.00%
2011CHEC01	1	2	50.00%
2010ADHI02	1	2	50.00%
2011ZHAN36	1	2	50.00%
2011YULI01	1	2	50.00%
2011ARDI03	1	2	50.00%
2010FATH01	1	2	50.00%
2011CHOI02	2	4	50.00%
2009HONG04	1	2	50.00%
2011OBLA01	1	2	50.00%
2008PEIX01	1	2	50.00%
2010ROJA01	1	2	50.00%
2010PRAJ01	1	2	50.00%
2009KUBO01	3	7	45.00%
2008CASI01	2	5	44.44%
2006KIMB01	2	5	41.67%
2011KOGL01	2	5	40.00%
2006ORLA01	5	12	39.58%
2010WIDO01	2	6	37.50%
2006BUUS01	7	33	35.86%
2010WANG68	2	6	33.33%
2006BITE01	2	5	33.33%
2011ENGB02	1	3	33.33%
2009ROST01	1	9	33.33%
2011WICA01	1	3	33.33%
2010TIAN03	1	3	33.33%
2009ARAM01	1	3	33.33%
2010WUIF01	1	3	33.33%
2010RAMA10	2	4	33.33%
2004FONN01	1	7	33.33%
2009KOZA01	1	4	33.33%
2009NOVI02	1	4	33.33%
2007STRE01	3	7	30.00%
2010MICH03	2	7	29.17%
2005KOCZ01	11	33	28.73%
2008HINL01	2	6	27.78%
2007LUCH02	4	31	26.11%
2008AURO01	14	44	25.28%
2007HUGH01	10	30	25.11%
2011ROHM01	1	4	25.00%
2009AGUS01	1	4	25.00%
2009PUTR07	1	3	25.00%
2008OLLE01	1	5	25.00%
2010REHA01	1	4	25.00%
2008VENK01	1	3	25.00%
2010RICH03	1	3	25.00%
2010YUGI02	1	5	25.00%
2007ROKA01	1	3	25.00%
2011CHAN10	1	4	25.00%
2008HANG01	1	6	25.00%
2003HARD01	4	16	25.00%
2008MCKN01	1	3	25.00%
2003POCH01	3	11	25.00%
2010AZAR01	1	3	25.00%
2010SWAR01	1	6	25.00%
2010DONA01	2	8	25.00%
2009HORM02	1	4	25.00%
2004CHAN01	1	5	25.00%
2010HARI01	1	4	25.00%
2006BURN01	1	10	25.00%
2008TAKA01	2	10	25.00%
2007YUGU01	1	4	25.00%
2009POOK01	1	4	25.00%
2009LIAN03	7	21	24.62%
2007BOUR01	2	12	24.00%
2006GUZE01	3	10	22.92%
2005AKKE01	2	47	22.86%
2009KOUR01	1	5	20.00%
2011FAUZ02	1	5	20.00%
2009YANG06	1	5	20.00%
2010RANI01	1	5	20.00%
2007LIME01	1	21	20.00%
2011MANS02	1	5	20.00%
2004LOLE01	10	47	19.84%
2005BOUC01	1	5	16.67%
2010BOON01	1	5	16.67%
2009YANG31	1	4	16.67%
2009BARB01	1	5	16.67%
2010DAVI06	1	6	16.67%
2009FEAN01	2	9	16.67%
2008MAPE01	2	9	16.67%
2007DANY01	1	6	16.67%
2010ANDE03	1	6	16.67%
2006BYUN01	1	4	16.67%
2010CULL01	1	11	16.67%
2009OKAY01	2	12	16.67%
2010ESPI01	1	5	16.67%
2009PETI01	3	15	16.67%
2010KARY02	1	4	16.67%
2003WINO01	1	8	16.67%
2008VELA01	1	4	16.67%
2010SMIR01	1	5	16.67%
2007SHIR01	2	16	16.67%
2009LASS01	1	7	16.67%
2011SAKO01	1	6	16.67%
2004MAOT02	7	48	14.87%
2008ZHAN13	3	12	14.29%
2008SEPP01	2	14	13.33%
2009GIOR01	1	6	12.50%
2007WAPP01	1	7	12.50%
2010GIRO01	1	5	12.50%
2008BERG04	2	13	12.50%
2007BRIT01	1	5	12.50%
2008LAUR01	3	17	12.50%
2006BARL01	1	7	12.50%
2008LOPE03	1	5	12.50%
2010GRAN02	1	5	12.50%
2010PERE01	1	5	12.50%
2008TURN02	1	11	12.50%
2005LEVI01	1	7	12.50%
2007YUNQ01	5	19	12.27%
2008VARG01	2	17	12.14%
2006TSAO01	2	17	11.67%
2008SKAR01	1	15	11.11%
2009XUAN03	1	15	11.11%
2010BENT01	2	15	11.11%
2009LEAN01	1	9	11.11%
2006YOUN03	3	24	10.86%
2006ROBA01	3	22	10.71%
2009ARSA01	3	21	10.71%
2007YUAL01	3	15	10.00%
2009ANAM01	1	13	10.00%
2009SWEE01	1	7	10.00%
2010CARN01	2	15	10.00%
2007JIPT01	3	18	10.00%
2008TROM01	1	9	10.00%
2008CIRN01	4	29	9.72%
2005LODA01	3	16	9.71%
2008BARA01	4	29	9.70%
2005REYN01	3	46	9.15%
2010PAUL02	1	9	8.33%
2008PUTH01	1	8	8.33%
2006BONN01	1	6	8.33%
2005ZOLN01	4	28	8.33%
2009WANG21	1	7	8.33%
2008YOUN02	1	16	8.33%
2008BUCS01	1	11	8.33%
2009ADIW01	1	11	8.33%
2005GREE02	1	13	8.33%
2007LIBI01	1	9	8.33%
2007KORZ01	1	11	8.33%
2008WONE01	1	12	8.33%
2008SMIT01	2	20	7.14%
2010DESJ01	1	10	7.14%
2004CHAN04	5	61	6.80%
2009WANG62	1	7	6.67%
2009SAEZ01	1	8	6.67%
2007COMP01	1	17	6.67%
2006GALE01	4	44	6.43%
2009CHAN15	1	12	6.25%
2007AGUA01	1	11	6.25%
2007LOPE01	1	9	6.25%
2006FRAN01	1	9	6.25%
2005KOSE01	1	9	6.25%
2007ZHAN03	1	12	6.25%
2009SHEP01	2	19	6.06%
2007HESS01	2	38	5.71%
2008WEST02	2	24	5.56%
2003MAKI01	1	19	5.56%
2005SUSE01	1	12	5.00%
2007XUYU01	1	25	5.00%
2007LUCH01	1	14	5.00%
2007BLAC01	1	12	5.00%
2007CINO01	1	20	5.00%
2007HOHU01	1	10	5.00%
2008ZHUA01	2	40	4.76%
2005HSUA01	1	19	4.76%
2008MIZU01	1	17	4.17%
2008CAOP01	1	15	4.17%
2006DZOA03	2	43	4.05%
2007GUIM01	1	22	4.00%
2007SUNT01	1	23	4.00%
2008COUR01	4	66	3.59%
2007PAPA01	1	17	3.33%
2007ADSU01	1	23	3.33%
2007FUBO01	1	22	3.13%
2003BURT01	3	60	2.86%
2004KRIG01	1	28	2.78%
2006NORS01	1	32	2.22%
2006GARR01	1	38	2.08%
2005BATI01	1	29	1.67%
2004ZAMO01	1	53	1.30%
```




*bf solvers (ranked by success):*
success = 3/3 solved per round (no DNF and no DNS) (i.e. successful round)
top 10



Spoiler





```
personId	success	rounds	accuracy
2004GALL02	36	65	50.04%
2007HABE01	14	17	70.83%
2008AURO01	14	44	25.28%
2005KOCZ01	11	33	28.73%
2007HUGH01	10	30	25.11%
2004LOLE01	10	47	19.84%
2006BUUS01	7	33	35.86%
2004MAOT02	7	48	14.87%
2009LIAN03	7	21	24.62%
2004CHAN04	5	61	6.80%
```




*bf solvers (ranked by accuracy):*
success = *2*/3 solved per round (one DNF or DNS) (i.e. successful round)
excluding competitors with 0%



Spoiler





```
personId	success	rounds	accuracy
2011ALLU01	1	1	100.00%
2010ESTR01	2	2	100.00%
2011PUGH01	1	1	100.00%
2005FERN01	1	1	100.00%
2010MLLE02	1	1	100.00%
2005KOHN01	1	1	100.00%
2011JIAN15	1	1	100.00%
2006DEPE01	1	1	100.00%
2010ADRI01	1	1	100.00%
2006GERH01	1	1	100.00%
2010LESA01	1	1	100.00%
2006JAIW01	1	1	100.00%
2010SUJI02	2	2	100.00%
2007BAUT01	3	3	100.00%
2011DESM01	1	1	100.00%
2007HABE01	17	17	100.00%
2011LESM01	1	1	100.00%
2007KOIK01	1	1	100.00%
2011WIBO01	2	2	100.00%
2007MINH01	1	1	100.00%
2010CHEN62	1	1	100.00%
2007RAMI01	2	2	100.00%
2010HWAN02	1	1	100.00%
2007SEUN02	2	2	100.00%
2010MARK05	1	1	100.00%
2007TING01	1	1	100.00%
2010RAMA10	4	4	100.00%
2008BUMS01	1	1	100.00%
2010YAMA04	1	1	100.00%
2008DELU01	1	1	100.00%
2011CHEC01	2	2	100.00%
2008HARR03	2	2	100.00%
2011GOTT03	1	1	100.00%
2008LIBI01	1	1	100.00%
2011KANA02	1	1	100.00%
2008LIOU01	1	1	100.00%
2011LONG02	1	1	100.00%
2008PEIX01	2	2	100.00%
2011SYAH02	1	1	100.00%
2008PEPK01	1	1	100.00%
2011YAOK01	1	1	100.00%
2008PROK01	2	2	100.00%
2010BADR01	1	1	100.00%
2008SHAN03	1	1	100.00%
2010CHUN04	1	1	100.00%
2008TALA01	1	1	100.00%
2010HARY01	1	1	100.00%
2008WERM01	1	1	100.00%
2010KURN03	1	1	100.00%
2008XUZU01	1	1	100.00%
2010LIUR02	1	1	100.00%
2009AYAL01	1	1	100.00%
2010MARU01	1	1	100.00%
2009BAVE01	1	1	100.00%
2010RADI02	1	1	100.00%
2009BOUL03	1	1	100.00%
2010RICH03	3	3	100.00%
2009CHAO03	1	1	100.00%
2010UCHA01	1	1	100.00%
2009CHUE01	2	2	100.00%
2010ZHAN36	1	1	100.00%
2009DICK01	1	1	100.00%
2011CHAP01	1	1	100.00%
2009FORS01	1	1	100.00%
2011CHOI02	4	4	100.00%
2009HAMO01	1	1	100.00%
2011EFRA01	1	1	100.00%
2009JOHN08	1	1	100.00%
2011HIDA03	1	1	100.00%
2009KOZA01	4	4	100.00%
2011KAHA01	1	1	100.00%
2009LEON06	1	1	100.00%
2011KHOD01	1	1	100.00%
2009MONE01	1	1	100.00%
2011LISI02	1	1	100.00%
2009MONS01	1	1	100.00%
2011PADM01	1	1	100.00%
2011ZAWA01	1	1	100.00%
2011SWAR01	2	2	100.00%
2009SANG02	3	3	100.00%
2011WANG30	1	1	100.00%
2009SHMA01	1	1	100.00%
2011XUZH02	1	1	100.00%
2009SUNM01	1	1	100.00%
2009THEO01	1	1	100.00%
2009NINH01	1	1	100.00%
2007ENDR01	9	10	91.67%
2007STRE01	6	7	90.00%
2008CASI01	4	5	88.89%
2007GOTA01	6	8	86.67%
2004GALL02	57	65	85.15%
2006BONN01	4	6	83.33%
2009BATT02	4	5	83.33%
2009OKAY01	10	12	83.33%
2007STAW01	4	5	83.33%
2006GUZE01	7	10	81.25%
2009LIAN03	15	21	79.55%
2009LEAN01	6	9	75.56%
2005KOCZ01	23	33	75.27%
2010KUSU02	3	5	75.00%
2009ROST01	6	9	75.00%
2006ORLA01	9	12	75.00%
2008PHEL01	3	5	75.00%
2010HARI01	3	4	75.00%
2009AGUS01	3	4	75.00%
2007QIAN01	2	3	75.00%
2010MARI02	2	3	75.00%
2010MICH03	5	7	75.00%
2010SANC04	2	3	75.00%
2011CHAN10	3	4	75.00%
2011ZHUK01	3	4	75.00%
2009OLSS01	2	3	75.00%
2009BJOR01	8	13	74.07%
2008VARG01	13	17	73.57%
2006BUUS01	22	33	72.32%
2010MARK03	5	7	71.43%
2006TABU02	9	14	70.48%
2005HSUA01	14	19	70.48%
2009KUBO01	4	7	70.00%
2003HARD01	10	16	68.75%
2006KIMB01	3	5	66.67%
2009ARAM01	2	3	66.67%
2007DANY01	3	6	66.67%
2009WANG83	2	3	66.67%
2010HONG01	3	5	66.67%
2010RAIH01	2	4	66.67%
2006BYUN01	2	4	66.67%
2008LEED01	2	3	66.67%
2008NGOW01	2	4	66.67%
2005VANH01	2	4	66.67%
2010BACH02	2	5	62.50%
2009ANAM01	7	13	62.50%
2004CHAN01	3	5	62.50%
2004LOLE01	33	47	61.51%
2010HANS01	3	7	60.00%
2006JANG01	3	5	60.00%
2010RANI01	3	5	60.00%
2008SEPP01	10	14	60.00%
2011KOGL01	3	5	60.00%
2008REYE04	2	7	58.33%
2007WAPP01	4	7	58.33%
2005BOUC01	3	5	58.33%
2010LIAN06	2	9	56.25%
2009ADIW01	6	11	55.00%
2006BARL01	4	7	54.17%
2008BERG04	7	13	54.17%
2007BOUR01	7	12	52.67%
2007LUCH02	16	31	51.94%
2007YUAL01	8	15	51.67%
2007HUGH01	19	30	50.89%
2009PETI01	10	15	50.79%
2003MORG01	1	2	50.00%
2011SOAR01	1	2	50.00%
2010SIEM01	1	3	50.00%
2007WEST02	1	2	50.00%
2006SEUN02	1	2	50.00%
2008FURU01	1	6	50.00%
2007LAIR01	1	2	50.00%
2008SEPT01	1	3	50.00%
2007ROKA01	2	3	50.00%
2008SOML01	1	2	50.00%
2010ALFA04	1	2	50.00%
2008TRAN05	1	4	50.00%
2010GODO02	1	2	50.00%
2007BERG01	1	2	50.00%
2010LIAN03	1	6	50.00%
2008VORJ01	2	4	50.00%
2008CALA01	1	2	50.00%
2008WAIC01	1	5	50.00%
2010WIBO01	1	2	50.00%
2008WANG06	1	2	50.00%
2011LARS02	1	2	50.00%
2008ZABO01	1	2	50.00%
2010ADHA01	3	6	50.00%
2009ADIA01	1	2	50.00%
2010ANDE03	3	6	50.00%
2008HAKO01	1	2	50.00%
2010COOK01	1	3	50.00%
2008BERG01	1	2	50.00%
2007STER01	2	3	50.00%
2008JUKK01	1	3	50.00%
2008LIYA02	2	3	50.00%
2004ROUA01	1	2	50.00%
2010LIJI02	1	4	50.00%
2009BEER01	2	6	50.00%
2010PRAJ01	1	2	50.00%
2007CHEN06	1	2	50.00%
2010ROJA01	1	2	50.00%
2009BUNP01	1	4	50.00%
2010SWAR01	3	6	50.00%
2009CAST06	2	3	50.00%
2010WONG01	1	2	50.00%
2009CHAN15	6	12	50.00%
2011HAFI01	1	2	50.00%
2009COLO03	5	10	50.00%
2011SARN01	1	2	50.00%
2009DINI01	1	2	50.00%
2005THON01	1	2	50.00%
2009FLUG01	1	2	50.00%
2010ADHI02	1	2	50.00%
2009HONG04	1	2	50.00%
2010ALWA01	1	2	50.00%
2009HUDI01	2	3	50.00%
2010ARDH01	1	2	50.00%
2009JAMS01	1	2	50.00%
2010BOLL01	1	2	50.00%
2009JIAN03	2	4	50.00%
2010FATH01	1	2	50.00%
2009JOON01	1	2	50.00%
2010GOHI02	1	2	50.00%
2009KOTH01	1	2	50.00%
2010HIDA01	2	4	50.00%
2007CHEN07	1	2	50.00%
2010HUAN01	1	2	50.00%
2009LASS01	4	7	50.00%
2008NERA01	1	2	50.00%
2009LIJI02	1	2	50.00%
2007TAMB01	4	8	50.00%
2009LIUE01	1	2	50.00%
2010MAKA01	1	2	50.00%
2005VALD01	2	4	50.00%
2010NGUY38	1	2	50.00%
2011YUAN05	1	2	50.00%
2008OLLE01	2	5	50.00%
2005WALL01	1	2	50.00%
2010REHA01	2	4	50.00%
2011ZHAN36	1	2	50.00%
2010RUGA01	1	3	50.00%
2011ANGG03	1	2	50.00%
2010SITT01	1	3	50.00%
2011ARDI03	1	2	50.00%
2010WANG68	3	6	50.00%
2011ATRI01	2	4	50.00%
2010WILK01	1	2	50.00%
2011CHEN03	1	2	50.00%
2010YUNI01	1	2	50.00%
2011ERLA01	1	2	50.00%
2011GRIT01	1	2	50.00%
2011ARIF01	1	2	50.00%
2009RYAB01	1	2	50.00%
2011BARA01	1	2	50.00%
2009SHAO05	1	3	50.00%
2011CHOI01	2	4	50.00%
2009SHEE01	2	3	50.00%
2011FAHM01	1	2	50.00%
2011VENK02	1	2	50.00%
2011HABI01	1	2	50.00%
2007MOKR01	1	3	50.00%
2008CHEN10	1	3	50.00%
2009SIKL01	2	3	50.00%
2011OBLA01	1	2	50.00%
2009SMIT03	1	2	50.00%
2011SHAH01	1	2	50.00%
2006OOKU02	1	4	50.00%
2011SUOJ01	1	2	50.00%
2009YAND01	1	2	50.00%
2008CUST01	1	4	50.00%
2009YANG31	3	4	50.00%
2009SIHA01	1	2	50.00%
2009MAUL01	2	4	50.00%
2011YULI01	1	2	50.00%
2009NATE02	1	2	50.00%
2011ZHOU01	1	2	50.00%
2008AURO01	32	44	49.17%
2006TSAO01	10	17	48.89%
2005LUCZ01	5	11	48.33%
2007JIPT01	12	18	47.67%
2008WEST02	12	24	47.06%
2009ARSA01	11	21	46.43%
2004CHAN04	21	61	46.32%
2007LUCH01	8	14	45.83%
2008TAKA01	4	10	45.83%
2007SHIR01	7	16	45.83%
2009THIE02	3	7	45.00%
2003POCH01	5	11	45.00%
2008BARA01	18	29	44.85%
2007SUNT01	7	23	44.67%
2008HASH02	2	6	44.44%
2007LIBI01	4	9	44.44%
2005PEER01	2	5	44.44%
2010BENT01	8	15	44.44%
2006JORG01	2	5	44.44%
2007WATA02	2	5	44.44%
2008HINL01	3	6	44.44%
2007KORZ01	4	11	43.33%
2007YUNQ01	14	19	43.18%
2004MAOT02	22	48	43.13%
2009OLSO01	3	10	42.86%
2009LOOS01	4	9	42.50%
2007ADSU01	10	23	42.00%
2007LIME01	7	21	41.90%
2003WINO01	3	8	41.67%
2004FONN01	2	7	41.67%
2009WANG43	2	9	41.67%
2009QIAO03	4	7	41.67%
2009ROCH01	4	7	41.67%
2008PUTH01	3	8	41.67%
2009FEAN01	4	9	41.67%
2010YUGI02	2	5	41.67%
2009MYSH01	3	7	41.67%
2005AKKE01	15	47	41.13%
2008ZHAN13	7	12	40.48%
2005ZOLN01	7	28	40.28%
2010BENI02	2	5	40.00%
2011TRON02	2	5	40.00%
2011MANS02	2	5	40.00%
2009YANG06	2	5	40.00%
2009KOUR01	2	5	40.00%
2010CARN01	7	15	40.00%
2005ANGO01	3	10	40.00%
2009PLIT01	2	5	40.00%
2008TURN02	4	11	39.29%
2009ZHAN31	3	6	38.89%
2005REYN01	16	46	38.70%
2009XUAN03	5	15	38.41%
2006CORR01	3	11	38.33%
2007COMP01	7	17	38.33%
2010WIDO01	2	6	37.50%
2011ZALE02	3	8	37.50%
2005LEVI01	3	7	37.50%
2010DONA01	3	8	37.50%
2008LEEF01	2	9	37.50%
2010GIRO01	3	5	37.50%
2009GIOR01	3	6	37.50%
2008MORE02	4	12	37.50%
2007BLAC01	3	12	35.00%
2007LUND01	7	22	34.67%
2009DIEC01	6	17	34.29%
2005BATI01	10	29	33.89%
2008LAUR01	7	17	33.33%
2011AQUI01	1	3	33.33%
2008JIAO01	2	6	33.33%
2007FEHE01	2	4	33.33%
2009WANG62	5	7	33.33%
2011WICA01	1	3	33.33%
2008CHUC02	3	7	33.33%
2011HUAN10	1	3	33.33%
2009KLIN01	1	3	33.33%
2011PUME01	1	3	33.33%
2009YAUR01	1	3	33.33%
2010SOUZ01	1	3	33.33%
2008DONG06	4	13	33.33%
2007LIUH01	1	3	33.33%
2008LIMP01	2	5	33.33%
2009TIRA01	4	12	33.33%
2006WANG04	1	7	33.33%
2011KERN02	1	3	33.33%
2010BELO01	1	3	33.33%
2011NATU01	1	3	33.33%
2009CHEN45	1	3	33.33%
2011SERV03	1	3	33.33%
2008CHEN13	1	3	33.33%
2010SMIR01	2	5	33.33%
2010BOON01	2	5	33.33%
2010TIAN03	1	3	33.33%
2008LAMH01	2	5	33.33%
2008COOK01	1	3	33.33%
2010WUIF01	1	3	33.33%
2010CHOR01	1	3	33.33%
2010ZHAO11	1	3	33.33%
2011ENGB02	1	3	33.33%
2008RODR01	1	6	33.33%
2008ROST01	1	5	33.33%
2011GRZY01	1	3	33.33%
2008VELA01	2	4	33.33%
2007LUJI01	3	7	33.33%
2011HORI01	2	6	33.33%
2008ABAN01	1	4	33.33%
2009OLIV04	1	3	33.33%
2010GUOX01	1	3	33.33%
2011KOWA01	1	3	33.33%
2010KARY02	2	4	33.33%
2011MOLL01	1	3	33.33%
2010LENG01	2	4	33.33%
2011NUGR02	1	3	33.33%
2006BIEN01	1	4	33.33%
2011SAKO01	2	6	33.33%
2010OMUL02	1	3	33.33%
2011SULI01	1	3	33.33%
2009GUOS01	1	3	33.33%
2006BITE01	2	5	33.33%
2007DAEP01	1	3	33.33%
2009NOVI02	1	4	33.33%
2009LUOX01	1	4	33.33%
2006GARR01	12	38	33.19%
2008GUOJ01	3	9	32.50%
2009SHIN02	6	13	32.14%
2008CAOP01	7	15	31.94%
2005GREE02	4	13	31.67%
2008LINT01	4	12	31.67%
2008POTR01	5	15	31.25%
2005KOZK01	3	15	31.25%
2003MAKI01	5	19	31.11%
2008ZHUA01	14	40	30.79%
2007PAPA01	6	17	30.00%
2004NOOR01	3	15	30.00%
2007HOHU01	3	10	30.00%
2009YINM01	2	7	29.17%
2008NIEL01	4	13	28.75%
2006YOUN03	8	24	28.57%
2005BAUM01	6	18	28.33%
2007HESS01	12	38	28.15%
2008CIRN01	12	29	27.78%
2004ROUX01	2	7	27.78%
2006WONG01	3	11	27.78%
2009CRUZ04	2	6	27.78%
2007DUSS01	6	22	26.34%
2007XUYU01	7	25	26.03%
2008SKAR01	4	15	25.40%
2007LOPE01	4	9	25.00%
2010HONG12	1	3	25.00%
2011CASA01	1	4	25.00%
2006MERT01	1	3	25.00%
2008HANG01	1	6	25.00%
2010BHAV01	1	3	25.00%
2007AGUA01	3	11	25.00%
2010HERR02	1	3	25.00%
2009GORY01	1	4	25.00%
2009GIOS01	1	4	25.00%
2009PUTR07	1	3	25.00%
2006SHEN01	1	3	25.00%
2010MUHA02	2	5	25.00%
2009SIUN01	1	3	25.00%
2008BLOH02	1	4	25.00%
2010AZAR01	1	3	25.00%
2010PAUL02	3	9	25.00%
2009MAGN02	1	4	25.00%
2010PERE01	2	5	25.00%
2007AKUT01	1	3	25.00%
2010PULC01	1	4	25.00%
2010GRAN02	2	5	25.00%
2011TUBR01	1	4	25.00%
2008DENI01	1	3	25.00%
2007LISI02	2	6	25.00%
2009POOK01	1	4	25.00%
2008MCKN01	1	3	25.00%
2008SOUL01	2	7	25.00%
2009XUEL01	1	4	25.00%
2011JOVI01	1	4	25.00%
2008VENK01	1	3	25.00%
2010HAND01	1	3	25.00%
2011ROHM01	1	4	25.00%
2009BEVA01	1	4	25.00%
2010GEIG01	1	3	25.00%
2007FARE01	1	4	25.00%
2010WIJA03	1	3	25.00%
2009CHAT03	1	3	25.00%
2007YUGU01	1	4	25.00%
2008KAPI01	1	6	25.00%
2009LLAN01	2	7	25.00%
2009YICH01	1	3	25.00%
2003KNIG01	1	4	25.00%
2009CASA01	1	4	25.00%
2006BURN01	1	10	25.00%
2008ZHUJ01	1	4	25.00%
2008MAND01	1	4	25.00%
2009HORM02	1	4	25.00%
2008LEME01	4	12	24.44%
2007CINO01	7	20	24.29%
2007PERG01	2	18	24.00%
2009SHEP01	7	19	23.74%
2008LINE01	4	17	23.33%
2010CULL01	2	11	22.92%
2008SMIT01	6	20	22.86%
2008TROM01	2	9	22.50%
2007FIDE01	5	17	21.96%
2006ROBA01	6	22	21.43%
2007GUIM01	6	22	21.17%
2006JOHA01	2	8	20.83%
2009ELIN01	3	14	20.37%
2007GOUL01	5	35	20.26%
2009DENG01	2	7	20.00%
2008ORTE02	2	6	20.00%
2006EIDE01	2	7	20.00%
2005CHEN02	1	6	20.00%
2003AKIM01	1	8	20.00%
2011FAUZ02	1	5	20.00%
2007DJIA01	2	10	20.00%
2009SWEE01	2	7	20.00%
2009SULE01	3	11	19.44%
2007FUBO01	5	22	19.38%
2008COUR01	20	66	18.91%
2007ORTR01	2	9	18.75%
2004KRIG02	4	20	18.75%
2006DZOA03	6	43	18.65%
2008KEAR01	3	11	18.33%
2005KWON01	3	17	18.33%
2003BURT01	17	60	18.06%
2007ALEX01	3	12	17.86%
2009CHRI03	3	18	17.50%
2007POIN01	1	5	16.67%
2011RIGG03	1	6	16.67%
2010WANG07	2	7	16.67%
2010DAVI06	1	6	16.67%
2007SAHA01	1	4	16.67%
2006LECK01	1	6	16.67%
2010ESPI01	1	5	16.67%
2008SHAN01	1	4	16.67%
2009CUIH01	1	4	16.67%
2008KAOC01	1	4	16.67%
2010ADHI01	2	7	16.67%
2008SMIT04	2	13	16.67%
2009BAKK01	1	6	16.67%
2008SOLD01	1	5	16.67%
2006DZOA02	1	7	16.67%
2009BALT02	1	8	16.67%
2010MAHE02	1	4	16.67%
2009FAIS01	2	8	16.67%
2010MANC01	1	4	16.67%
2008HALL02	1	4	16.67%
2009FEIF01	1	4	16.67%
2008WONE01	2	12	16.67%
2010ZAKI01	1	6	16.67%
2007NAKA03	1	4	16.67%
2003MORR01	1	4	16.67%
2008BALL02	1	6	16.67%
2009XIAT02	1	5	16.67%
2008HEJJ01	1	4	16.67%
2006MIYA01	1	4	16.67%
2010CHAN14	1	4	16.67%
2007CHAN06	1	9	16.67%
2010CHOK01	1	5	16.67%
2007LICH01	1	4	16.67%
2008XIAN01	1	5	16.67%
2009MOSK01	1	4	16.67%
2008YOUN02	2	16	16.67%
2010KOHL02	1	5	16.67%
2005VALD02	1	5	16.67%
2009BARB01	1	5	16.67%
2010ESTU01	2	8	16.67%
2008MAPE01	2	9	16.67%
2009TEEP01	1	5	16.67%
2008BONO01	3	19	15.63%
2004KRIG01	5	28	15.28%
2009DIMP01	2	14	14.29%
2006KRUE01	4	21	14.00%
2005WOIT01	2	13	14.00%
2006GALE01	8	44	13.83%
2009CONT01	2	15	13.39%
2006ARAK01	4	24	13.33%
2009LOHU01	2	13	13.33%
2008WUKU01	2	14	13.33%
2008OMYO01	2	9	13.33%
2007BODO01	2	12	13.33%
2007MOSE02	3	13	13.33%
2009ZHAO05	1	6	12.50%
2007BRIT01	1	5	12.50%
2010GONZ03	1	6	12.50%
2010SEID01	1	9	12.50%
2007ESTE01	1	5	12.50%
2008LOPE03	1	5	12.50%
2008MHLS01	1	8	12.50%
2006MOND01	1	10	12.50%
2010HUYN01	1	5	12.50%
2007ZHON01	1	6	12.50%
2010WANS01	1	6	12.50%
2007SHUF01	1	6	12.50%
2007WEIW01	1	5	12.50%
2004CHAM01	3	11	12.50%
2009KASE02	1	5	12.50%
2004ZAMO01	7	53	12.12%
2005SUSE01	2	12	11.67%
2008ZIMM01	3	17	11.54%
2007JAME01	2	21	11.46%
2007ZHAN03	2	12	11.25%
2008TAIC01	1	7	11.11%
2007OMUR01	1	6	11.11%
2008WRIG02	1	7	11.11%
2007CHAT01	1	5	11.11%
2008ALPI01	1	5	11.11%
2008DHAN01	1	6	11.11%
2007WEIN01	2	12	11.11%
2008SANT01	2	9	11.11%
2008DARG01	1	6	11.11%
2008MIZU01	2	17	10.83%
2006TABU01	3	16	10.71%
2004PONS01	1	7	10.00%
2008SAJI01	1	6	10.00%
2009THIE03	1	7	10.00%
2010KAPK01	1	7	10.00%
2007CHAN07	2	8	10.00%
2010LICH02	1	6	10.00%
2005SIMO01	1	11	10.00%
2007LENO01	3	11	10.00%
2008WITG01	1	7	10.00%
2009KONI03	1	7	10.00%
2005LODA01	3	16	9.71%
2009SEVE01	2	21	9.70%
2007POLI01	4	24	9.55%
2009ZEMD01	2	17	8.47%
2008BRAN01	3	25	8.46%
2008HACK01	1	10	8.33%
2006MOIT01	1	7	8.33%
2008MERL01	1	7	8.33%
2008CONG01	1	7	8.33%
2009WANG21	1	7	8.33%
2010BREC01	1	12	8.33%
2007THOM02	1	6	8.33%
2006WRIG01	1	6	8.33%
2008PAWL03	1	7	8.33%
2008BUCS01	1	11	8.33%
2009CADM01	1	8	8.33%
2009CHEN50	1	6	8.33%
2007JAKU01	1	20	8.33%
2008ASIS01	1	6	8.33%
2006CUDZ01	1	7	8.33%
2006NORS01	3	32	7.78%
2008SEAR01	2	22	7.29%
2010DESJ01	1	10	7.14%
2007LEMO01	2	26	6.94%
2009SAEZ01	1	8	6.67%
2008YANG09	1	9	6.67%
2007NELS02	1	10	6.67%
2006ARAK02	1	10	6.67%
2008MONT04	1	12	6.67%
2005KOSE01	1	9	6.25%
2006FRAN01	1	9	6.25%
2009BRUS01	2	27	5.16%
2009LEVR01	1	12	5.00%
2009NEIT01	1	20	5.00%
2008DIEW01	1	15	5.00%
2007PERD01	1	19	5.00%
2008KLUN01	1	12	4.17%
2008ERBI01	1	16	3.57%
2003DENN01	1	27	2.86%
2007COHE01	1	39	2.00%
```




*bf solvers (ranked by success):*
success = *2*/3 solved per round (one DNF or DNS) (i.e. successful round)
top 20



Spoiler





```
personId	success	rounds	accuracy
2004GALL02	57	65	85.15%
2004LOLE01	33	47	61.51%
2008AURO01	32	44	49.17%
2005KOCZ01	23	33	75.27%
2004MAOT02	22	48	43.13%
2006BUUS01	22	33	72.32%
2004CHAN04	21	61	46.32%
2008COUR01	20	66	18.91%
2007HUGH01	19	30	50.89%
2008BARA01	18	29	44.85%
2003BURT01	17	60	18.06%
2007HABE01	17	17	100.00%
2007LUCH02	16	31	51.94%
2005REYN01	16	46	38.70%
2005AKKE01	15	47	41.13%
2009LIAN03	15	21	79.55%
2005HSUA01	14	19	70.48%
2007YUNQ01	14	19	43.18%
2008ZHUA01	14	40	30.79%
2008VARG01	13	17	73.57%
```




*SQL for anyone who cares:*


Spoiler





```
use test;

SELECT
    r.personId,
    r.year,
    success,
    rounds
FROM
(
    SELECT
        personId,
        year,
        COUNT(*) as rounds
    FROM
        results INNER JOIN competitions ON results.competitionId = competitions.id
    WHERE
        eventId = '333bf'
    AND
        formatId = '3'
    GROUP BY
        personId,
        year
) AS r LEFT OUTER JOIN
(
    SELECT
        personId,
        year,
        COUNT(*) as success
    FROM
        results INNER JOIN competitions ON results.competitionId = competitions.id
    WHERE
        eventId = '333bf'
    AND
        formatId = '3'
    AND
        value1 > 0
    AND
        value2 > 0
    AND
        value3 > 0
    GROUP BY
        personId,
        year
) as s ON r.personId = s.personId AND r.year = s.year
GROUP BY
    personId,
    year
ORDER BY
    personId ASC,
    year DESC LIMIT 10000;
```




EDIT: Just to clarify: the 2/3 split is combined with 3/3.

*bf solvers for 2011 (ranked by accuracy):*
success = 3/3 solved per round (no DNF and no DNS) (i.e. successful round)
excluding those < 50% accuracy



Spoiler





```
personId	success	rounds	accuracy
2007HABE01	8	8	100.00%
2010MLLE02	1	1	100.00%
2010HWAN02	1	1	100.00%
2011KANA02	1	1	100.00%
2007GOTA01	1	1	100.00%
2010LIUR02	1	1	100.00%
2010SANC04	1	1	100.00%
2009BOUL03	1	1	100.00%
2011LONG02	1	1	100.00%
2011ZAWA01	1	1	100.00%
2011XUZH02	1	1	100.00%
2007HUGH01	6	9	66.67%
2010RAMA10	2	3	66.67%
2007ENDR01	3	5	60.00%
2004GALL02	11	22	50.00%
2007JIPT01	3	6	50.00%
2009PETI01	3	6	50.00%
2008BERG04	2	4	50.00%
2008TAKA01	2	4	50.00%
2011CHOI02	2	4	50.00%
2010AZAR01	1	2	50.00%
2011CHEC01	1	2	50.00%
2009PUTR07	1	2	50.00%
2011YULI01	1	2	50.00%
2011ZHAN36	1	2	50.00%
2010SWAR01	1	2	50.00%
2008VENK01	1	2	50.00%
2011ARDI03	1	2	50.00%
2009KUBO01	1	2	50.00%
2011OBLA01	1	2	50.00%
2009POOK01	1	2	50.00%
2010ADHI02	1	2	50.00%
```




Tim.


----------



## keyan (Dec 18, 2011)

Suggestion:

Possible formats for blindfolded events: Best of 3, Mean of 3
Preferred format for final rounds: Best of 3

Rankings don't change, people can choose to carry on with current DNFy styles, but there is also a mean result recorded. Benefits are that this is backwards compatible. Drawbacks are that it requires people to not consider a number on a list to be vitally important (see 2x2 single debate).


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 18, 2011)

keyan said:


> Suggestion:
> 
> Possible formats for blindfolded events: Best of 3, Mean of 3
> Preferred format for final rounds: Best of 3



If it's best of 3 and someone gets all three, should they still get a mean in the database (i.e. only round ranking is determined by format)?
If so, what would be done with past rounds with 3 solves? (Fewer solves?)


----------



## keyan (Dec 18, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> If it's best of 3 and someone gets all three, should they still get a mean in the database (i.e. only round ranking is determined by format)?
> If so, what would be done with past rounds with 3 solves? (Fewer solves?)


My wording was bad. I'm saying that rounds of best of 3 should have an average calculated, but that rankings can still be based off of best single. So that nothing we do now changes except that a new score is created. The "winner" of a round as shown on the WCA page is the same. Past competitions with three solves can have an average calculated, but rankings would be unchanged. Competitions with fewer solves would be unaffected.


----------



## roundy (Jan 4, 2012)

the harder sequence : the best 3 of 5 attempt,then average the 3 attempts < 5 attempt , get rid of the best one and the worst one ,average 3 < mean of 3
at least success/attemp: 3/5 4/5 3/3 
the success rate is y : 6*y^5-15*y^4+10*y^3 5*y^4-4*y^5 y^3 
if success rate is 90%: 99.14% 91.85% 72.9%
if success rate is 80%: 94.21% 73.73% 51.2%
if success rate is 60%: 68.26% 33.70% 21.6%
if success rate is 40%: 31.74% 8.7% 6.4%
if success rate is 25%: 10.35% 1.5625% 1.5625%
if success rate is 20%: 5.79% 0.67% 0.8%
if success rate is 10%: 0.86% 0.046% 0.1%


----------



## keyan (Jan 4, 2012)

Seeing the event success rates in Tim's stats post, and in relation to roundy's post above, here are some other BLD stats. 

Overall success rate for all competitors that have at least one success: 8390 / 24815 = 0.33810195446303
Competitors without any successes are disregarded on the possibility that they can't actually solve. (the Buck rule) 

2011 overall success rate for all competitors that have at least one success: 2873 / 7805 = 0.36809737347854 

And looking at top competitors, success rate of all solves from rounds containing solves in the top 100 solves: 133 / 221 = 0.601810 

With roundy's numbers above, top competitors would only be getting a third of averages of 5. Overall, only single digit percentages would have successful averages. That would be a pretty ugly change. Any thoughts on my previous suggestion? (Make an average score, but continue to give competition rankings based off of single.)

Thanks to Baiqiang for the stats.


----------

