[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Game theory of spotting?

To: k1ttt@arrl.net, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Game theory of spotting?
From: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:49:49 EST
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
A couple more:
1.  Spotting everything has been pushed by some of the biggest  multi-multis 
as a good thing to do. It amounts to welfare for the rich, by  letting these 
M/M's pick off the occasional new CQer while they at the same time  sit on 
their run frequency. This is in part why K3LR or KC1XX can be  on 14150.2 at 
start of the contest and still be there 47 hours later.
2.  I think there is a significant number of people on CW who are  marginally 
proficient at CW. The spots let them make a lot more qsos, especially  with 
high speed guys, than would be possible otherwise. This of course also  helps 
the spotted stations, and is a good thing for all.
73  -  Jim  K8MR
In a message dated 12/23/2007 9:55:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
k1ttt@arrl.net writes:

Oh yeah,  lots of theory and not much analysis I think.  There are  many
different thoughts on spotting.  And its not a zero sum game in  many

Things to consider in the spotting game:

1. a  real spot for someone may slow them down if they are not good enough  to
handle the pileup.

2. a real spot for someone may help them if  they can handle it or they were
calling without enough stations to  work

3. some nodes filter spots by time/frequency.  So many spots  for a single
station on the same frequency may get filtered out as dupes,  in which case
frequent spotting of the same station doesn't help or  hurt.

4. some users filter spots by origin or spotted station.   i.e. many
stateside users only look at spots from their own call area, so  spots from
outside their call area make no difference.  This is one of  the motivating
factors for spotting with fake callsigns, you can target the  spot audience a
bit by picking your fake call properly.  This also  means that stateside
spotters for stateside stations (intra club  cheerleaders), may not be
helping as much as they think as some dx stations  also filter out stateside
spoters so they don't see them.

5. some  nodes also filter spots by origin, so ditto above for even  more

6. spotting stations you can't work can alert them that  you are calling if
they are on the network.

7. spotting stations you  can't work can alert bigger stations to call them
to get their attention  for you so they listen in your direction.

8. spotting stations that are  dupes on a barely open band (like 10m now) can
alert other ops that there  is propagation and help attract them to the band.

9. picking a cq  frequency just above or below a rare dx station that has
been spotted can  get you more attention than otherwise as stations tune off
the rare guy  after working him or giving up... or it can give you more qrm.

10.  busted spots (intentional or otherwise) can result in loss of rate for
the  spotted station as callers who are dupes show up and call without
verifying  the callsign.

11. busted spots (intentional or otherwise) can result in  NIL's for the real
station if he logs the callers and they log a completely  wrong callsign.
This is a trap that I think the JT's that have been  spotting completely
different calls to attract attention to themselves, if  they don't identify
enough to make sure the callers log THEIR callsign  instead of the spotted
callsign, they lose!

12. busted spots  (intentional or otherwise) that are one-off may still get
credit for the  real station during log checking.

13. not verifying the callsign of a  spotted station when you work them is a
gamble.  Most spots are  probably ok, but some percentage are bad... that has
to be weighted against  the penalty for a busted call, the time it takes to
work the station, and  how often they are identifying.

There are probably more, these are  just ones off the top of my head.

David Robbins  K1TTT

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com  [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of  Dave@KA1N.CN
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 02:49
> To:  cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Game theory of  spotting?
> As fascinating as the cheating discussion is (and  it could only be better,
> if there were gratuitous naming of names and  calls as well as legal
> threats), as someone with a passing interest in  game theory, I wonder if
> any of the more capable on the list have done  any analysis of the
> ramifications of spotting someone on packet as it  now stands.  We know
> that packet changes the character of  contests, but can we be sure HOW it
> changes the contest as a whole and  as well as individual strategies.
> In the old days, spots on  packet were meant to help out fellow members of
> a club or team.   This was easy to understand.  Now, they serve some other
> purpose  in contesting.  But, it also seems that we now have access to  lots
> of data which would show potential motivations and rewards for  spotting.
> I imagine that there are all sorts of "learning"  going on as the contest
> progresses.  Is there an incentive to  provide incorrect spots?  Is there
> an incentive to spot someone  without working them?  My intuition is that
> most of the  "cheerleading" spots don't really help, but I might be wrong.
>  Any ideas?
> 73,
>  Dave/KA1NCN
> _Dave@ka1n.cn_ (mailto:Dave@ka1n.cn) 

**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>