[CQ-Contest] Game theory of spotting?

[Felipe J Hernandez]

Dave,


Im not sure If Im addressing your question, but I remember that CT1BOH posted a very interesting 
email in which cheerleeading was analized and its impact on scores...
If I can recall, it said that spotted stations had somewhere around 20-30% advantage over non spotted ones..

Felipe
NP4Z

  

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave at KA1N.CN 
  To: cq-contest at contesting.com 
  Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 10:48 PM
  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 at ka1n.cn 

  .
  _______________________________________________
  CQ-Contest mailing list
  CQ-Contest at contesting.com
  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest