[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Contest Equalization and Maximization

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contest Equalization and Maximization
From: "Robert L. Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:47:12 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hi Matt,

We already have this contest, it is the WPX contest, and has been
my favorite contest since the mid-1970's.

For North America:

Point differences depending on freq. band used for the qso
Point differences depending for US vs NA vs outside of NA
Time limits for SO - 36 hours
Multiplier concentration in US, Europe and Asia

I have loved this contest because of the wildly variable strategy
and have NEVER operated the same way twice.  Point maximization
wins this contest not just qso maxization.  Low bands count more
vs high bands, etc., and you never know much low-band prop. you are
going to get with all the daylight since it is NOT a winter contest.

If you guess "wrong" on the off-times, you are screwed, not to mention
the fact that propagation is so variable and often unpredictable, especially in 

Luck is a factor along with constantly changing strategy and constant
decisionmaking, plus needing to work everyone.  I work harder in WPX
than in many other contests.

As an example, here is a typical decision I am looking at at 2221z on Saturday

1) Do I go to 40 to work EU for 6 pointers and close in US (mults) (1 point)?
2) Do I stay on 20 to catch a marginal JA/Asian (3 points) opening for prefixes 
and midwest US (1 point)?
3) Do I try 15 for a quick run of US (prefixes) (1 point), SA/CA and maybe 
a few JA's/Pacific (3 points)?

The permutations are endless and VERY taxing to consider, because it is hard to 
which was the "best" decision for that minute since you can't replay it again!  
I estimate
the potential points per minute (points/q x new mults) and consider the 
liklihood of
finding a clear freq. (almost nil).  There is TENSION in EVERY MINUTE of the 
when you operate this way, and that is just with using ONE radio.  :-)  I don't 
have time to think about who might be operating in my category, nor frankly do 
even care.

Yes, the BIG stations can sit there and just run guys, but that is not what I 
do - it 
would bore me to death!

My competition is with myself and maximizing the points in EVERY MINUTE
of the contest.  There is no tougher competition than making every minute 
a "sub-contest" and then starting over in the following minute, and the best 
part is that it doesn't matter who else is operating or where they are
operating from.  I am only concerned with how I did in the PREVIOUS minute 
how I am doing in THIS minute (2222z) and what should I be doing in the NEXT 
minute (2223z).

I like the ARRLDX very much also, but IMO we do not need
an ARRLWPX contest.  Vive la difference!

Bob KQ2M



Matt, NQ6N wrote:

What if we created a contest with rules that made the operator of a big gun
station have to think carefully about whether continuing with a 250q/hour
run was really the best strategic option?  What if more points could be
gained by maximizing other aspects of station performance or operator skill?
 In my opinion, it would be incredible if we could create a contest with a
set of rules that allowed for winning strategies other than simple
rate-maximization.  This might have the side-effect of revealing that
different station arrangements, geographies, and operator skills had
unexpected strengths.  If this could be done in a way that preserved the
most FUN aspects of contesting, then the contest would likely draw
significant participation quickly become a favorite.

CQ-Contest mailing list

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