T1_M0
Member
I'm gonna start a 3BLD race to sub x. Format of this is little unclear, because 3BLD (and bigBLD) in general or in competitions is whole different than any other event. When you base your results in a single rather than average, you really only need one success out of three. On the other hand, average could measure one's consistency better. The question is: which one measures one's real level better?
First I'm starting a poll and when I have some votes about the best format, I'll start the race. The format can of course be changed in later rounds if some option is found out to be more popular.
OPTIONS
#1 Every week, 3 rounds are held (i.e 1a, 1b, 1c). Every round you do a mean of 3 and only the best attempt is count. You set your goal to sub-x and you need to get sub-x single 5 rounds in a row (if you start from 1a, you would graduate in round 2b with 5 successes). No average is count, measures one's competition performance. If you get one failed round, you will lose your streak (not so good thing).
#2 Every week, 3 rounds are held. So you do a mean of 3 three times per week, just like in the option 1. The best single is count from every round. However, the rounds are not considered to be individual. You take mean/average out of the three singles you get (1 from every round) and that is your score for that week. This allows some worse rounds for you, but you still can get the average sub x. You'll need at least 3 weeks to graduate. This is my personal preference.
#3 Every week, you do an average of 12. You count the average of 50% the attempts, so 6 DNF:s are allowed. The average of the best 6 is your score for the week, that has to be sub x for 3 weeks in a row. This format can measure one's consistency better, because you need to have 50% successes instead of 33%. So more attempts are count towards the final result. Slightly more work with counting the results.
Please vote your favourite, and we can get this race going. If you choose "other", please clarify in the comments, which would be your suggestion for the format. You can freely discuss the formats in the comments.
First I'm starting a poll and when I have some votes about the best format, I'll start the race. The format can of course be changed in later rounds if some option is found out to be more popular.
OPTIONS
#1 Every week, 3 rounds are held (i.e 1a, 1b, 1c). Every round you do a mean of 3 and only the best attempt is count. You set your goal to sub-x and you need to get sub-x single 5 rounds in a row (if you start from 1a, you would graduate in round 2b with 5 successes). No average is count, measures one's competition performance. If you get one failed round, you will lose your streak (not so good thing).
#2 Every week, 3 rounds are held. So you do a mean of 3 three times per week, just like in the option 1. The best single is count from every round. However, the rounds are not considered to be individual. You take mean/average out of the three singles you get (1 from every round) and that is your score for that week. This allows some worse rounds for you, but you still can get the average sub x. You'll need at least 3 weeks to graduate. This is my personal preference.
#3 Every week, you do an average of 12. You count the average of 50% the attempts, so 6 DNF:s are allowed. The average of the best 6 is your score for the week, that has to be sub x for 3 weeks in a row. This format can measure one's consistency better, because you need to have 50% successes instead of 33%. So more attempts are count towards the final result. Slightly more work with counting the results.
Please vote your favourite, and we can get this race going. If you choose "other", please clarify in the comments, which would be your suggestion for the format. You can freely discuss the formats in the comments.
Last edited:
sure
