Hi Pedro.
I have attempted to comment in your blog post with no luck.
Your analysis is not useful to prove who has cheated and who has not.
Statistics here do not solve the problem, at least in the way you outlined
your analysis.
Contest organizers would have used that approach for a long time if it was
useful. But that is not the case.
You cannot determine who was assisted and who was not based on QSO and
multiplier totals. It is totally different than that.
Cheaters know what to do and how to do it in some cases. They would take
unfair advantage in a way that in your charts they wouldn't be spotted at
all.
That has been happening for years and that has been hurting contest results
adjudication and even WRTC qualifying runs for a long time.
I will not explain here how cheaters are detected, but it is certainly not
using the method you used in your article.
Stats are useful under certain circumstances, not in this case, even less
when it comes to validating power levels. That is why the distinction
between LP and HP will not work either.
Candidate WRTC ops should be forced to qualify in SOAB(A) HP. That reduces
to of the hardest to detect possibilities of cheating (Power beyond the
entry category limit and unclaimed assistance).
In twenty six years of contesting, I've seen it all. And we all continue to
see fishy stuff.
Martin, LU5DX
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Colla <pedro_colla@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I'm an avid contester, and I've a practical zero chance to qualify for
> WRTC on my zone (SA2) ; still I do use the WRTC criteria to define the
> strategy for each of the contest I do participate.
> So when I read carefully the rules I indeed find out that some of the
> changes erodes my chances while others actually enhance them; quite a few
> are actually neutral.
> Then I witnessed the heated debate and the closed arguments, but only few
> of them I found were actually anchored in data.
> In the first place, from all the eligible contesting population fewer than
> 5% are actually serious contenders for the WRTC; so somehow 95% of the
> contesting population are largely unaffected by it.
> A close second comes with the fact that WRTC actually is a meta-rule to
> set the framework to classify for a particular event (no matter how
> desirable and prestigiuous it might be), the provisions about
> assisted/non-assisted or power or so/multi doesn't really touch a bit the
> classification in the underlying contests; so people can happily won their
> category at any given contest despite the points earned towards WRTC.
> And the third is that after carefully reading both the english and german
> announcements from the WRTC committed I failed to actually grasp any clue
> in support of the notion that they are running a poll towards the final
> ruleset; it has all the aesthetics of an announcement, a final one
> (specially, if my weak german serves me well, in the german version).
> So I believe there are little data to support the notion that this ruleset
> would change the contesting landscape for the next two years.
> Finally, my 2 cents on the assisted vs. non-assisted debate. I'd ran on
> the suggestion of an early poster that the performance of QSO vs. Mult in
> any given contest for assisted and non-assisted would "spot" cheaters,
> citing using the 3830 reflector data on CQ WW for that.
> My math/statistical background make irresistible to verify that and I
> actually ran this analysis, and repeated it for other contest. The results
> for the CQ WW as once despicted in the 3830 reflector for the SO AB HP
> assisted and non-assisted can be seen in this link (it's a virus-free JPG
> file).
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4PlCJ6yGfB4/VH8-Nj2r3uI/AAAAAAAAC00/kQInnMHBkEc/s1600/CQWWCW_2014_Performance.jpg
> The graph can visually tell, and this can be confirmed by more rigorous
> data processing with MiniTab (an statistical analysis package) the
> following:
> Assisted are stronger on multipliers whilst Non-assisted are stronger on
> QSO, outliers and out-of-this-world operators the rest of us trades one for
> the other.Non-assisted (red) in the Assisted zone (blue) also inherit the
> multiplier focus in detriment of the qso focus, so their gain is relative
> if any.The dispersion in the population makes the attempt to qualify as
> "cheaters" the red ones in the blue zone with any degree of confidence,
> it's just not statistically sound as an approach.A sizeable proportion of
> the population applies for SO AB but actually had a dominant behaviour in
> one band and thus their multiplier performance converges into the single
> banders.
> Hope it help to the debate.
> From myself I'm already looking forward to see what strategies makes more
> sense under the new WRTC rules to magnify the little I have and to mitigate
> the most I don't.
> 73 de Pedro LU7HZ/LT7H
>
>
> Dr. Pedro E. Colla
> Va.Belgrano-Ciudad de Cordoba
> Cordoba- Argentina
> "Que el hombre sepa que el hombre puede.".A.Barragán, Expedición Atlantis..
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
