:) I have to speak up here as I just can't calmly read a sentence:
"I also don't believe that "assistance" really helps you increase your
score."
We are talking about box scores here. Stations who have good antennas and
skills. Yes, there are hundreds of small pistols who don't even realize that
submit scores in wrong category using packet.
For a box score SOAB SO2R station packet cluster adds easily 20% or more to
the score. It is obvious. You don't spend time on "chasing spots" more than
you would with ordinary S&P. The operation will change from ordinary smooth
S&P to almost completely jumping on spots. There are a plenty which don't
have any pile up, especially by the end of the contest. SOAB can easily
afford not jumping into huge P5 pile up. There are a plenty of easy mults to
log. This EI on 160m gives as many points.
I have posted this to some people, but I will do again as I want to get rid
of this myth.
ES5TV was operating CQWW CW 09 contest SOAB ASSISTED (first time in life in
CQWW) and made 3,700 QSOs and 783 mults (170 zones, 613 DXCC). Yes, indeed,
that is at least 25-30% addition to my score compared to if I had been
non-assisted. I don't think the QSO count would have changed. That is over
150 mults more than any world top 20 stations (maximum DXCC 485 there),
whatever their QSO count is (several over 7,000 QSOs).
In CQWW SSB 09 the difference between 1st and 2nd place (me from 4O3A)
claimed scores in EU is ca 3-4%. I can guarantee I would have made at least
20% higher score with packet not only clearly winning but blowing away EU
record. Those 100 more multipliers are really easy to be collected with
packet. And it is especially important for high rate guys who can't afford
too much tuning with 2nd Radio.
It is hard for me to understand why some people bring occasionally up the
anecdotal evidence of non-assisted guys historically beating assisted. Of
course they overcome this 20% difference with their locations and stations
given the prestige of the category and effort put into it. How come anyone
can seriously think that comparison tells us anything about the effect of
packet to the score...
Another myth is that packet is useless because of too much busted calls. !?
This is ridiculous. Statistically the errors are rare and an intelligent
operator has no problem figuring out what is going on and listen for the
correct call.
Btw, KE1FO compared SB mults to TS6A who was DX MM of somewhat expedition
style. Of course they have rather low mult count. Heavyweights like DF0HQ,
etc, beat them noticeably in mults.
Sorry for being a bit emotional on that:)
73
Tonno
ES5TV
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alfred Frugoli
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:11 AM
To: Bill Tippett
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
Bill,
Again, really? I'm not buying it in either theory, or looking at the mult
totals. For a top SOSB entrant, I would expect to see totals similar to a
MM because just like a MM, a SOSB entrant can be on that band for 48 hours
straight, working the weird short small openings that are not worth a SOAB
entrant chasing. In fact, the chart I just posted on my blog (
http://wp.me/pdJH2-1y) using CQWW SSB 2007 results shows that the world
winner SOSB entrants (who cannot use assistance) matched or beat the world
winner MM (who can use assistance) in mults. In reverse, I don't see the
SOAB being able to chase all those weird openings on all 6 contest bands and
still be able to keep the rate up on the primary band. I don't believe that
SOAB mult totals will ever rival those of SOAB or MM entries, even with lots
of assistance. Big MM stations have all 6 bands going during many hours of
the contest. Unless we start having SO6R stations, we're not going to see
SOAB mult totals at the level of MM entrants.
I also don't believe that "assistance" really helps you increase your score.
I think it does help you increase your DXCC and WAZ totals. Unless you've
got the antenna farm that KC1XX, K3LR or W3LPL have, once it's on packet,
you're too late, you're fighting the pile, not working the mult on the 1st
call and moving on to keep the rate up. A local skimmer might make a bigger
difference in the CW part of the event since you're seeing the "spot" before
others who get it on the "cluster", but we already have skimmer spots being
fed into the cluster network.
73 de Al, KE1FO
-----
Check out my Amateur Radio Contesting blog at ke1fo.wordpress.com.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> N6TJ wrote:
>
> > (3) Of course, major crutches like packet and skimmers will make all
> past
> > records null and void. Single Operator - Assisted multiplier totals
> will
> > soon rival those of the Multi-multi submittals.
>
>
> KE1FO replied:
>
> > Really?
> > Seems like the numbers show that for the most part you're going to work
> the
> most mults by working the most q's, which you don't do when you're hunting
> down mults on packet. And even if you do work more mults by using packet,
> you won't work as many q's as the unassisted guy.
>
> Jim is correct about **multiplier** totals, although there
> is some truth in your latter comment regarding total score. I speak
> from personal experience in several SOSB/10 entries where a
> competitor consistently had 10m multiplier totals rivalling
> KC1XX/W3LPL/K3LR (N6TJ's premise). Even with that assistance, I was
> still able to beat him because of more QSO points. He was later
> reclassified to SOA (or totally removed) once the log checkers were
> on to him. It doesn't take rocket science to know something is fishy
> when an "unassisted" single op posts multiplier totals close to the Big 3.
>
> However, I do believe it would be easy to augment scores
> using spots only for rare mults. It would still require experience
> to know which might be worthy of chasing rather than simply having
> them come to you.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|