Indiana 2013

Noahaha said:
Everyone has an accent. The only people who don't seem to have accents are the people who talk just like you. From my perspective you have a heavy French accent.
Click to expand...


Eh, I don't really. I've been all over the states, so I don't talk like I'm from minnesota.. I have a a mix of everything. I kind of adapt to the accents around me too.
 
I suppose it's my turn for DYK's:

DYK...
I was unsuccessful at scaring Chris Olson when driving to the venue
He was actually so relaxed he took a picture of my speedometer
I seriously dislike my personal bubble being invaded
Asserting so makes me an a**hole according to Justin Rausch (bizarro)
I'm now the 2 time winner of "Officially the best Hughey Nickname"
Mike created an average "place" for each competitor determined by their place in each event they competed in, and I beat Anthony overall
And I didn't podium at all but Anthony did three times
I still didn't beat Breckone (Brechon) at 2x2
But I did beat Kit (at 2x2), so he owes me dinner!
I actually forgot this at least twice during the day
But he kept opening his mouth about it not realizing I had forgotten about it
Brechon is seriously afraid of me
He also isn't sure if he's afraid of my dog or not
Even though everybody loved my dog
Even Olson, who is barely taller than my dog
I apparently still have a long way to go in 2x2
 
Coolster01 said:
WOW! I got a PB average of 5: 1:55.00, 2:09.00, 1:49.84, 1:56.75, 1:48.88 = 1:53.86. So mad it wasn't recorded, but hopefully next time! Yes, finally!

And, of course, 1:48.88 did beat my goal. Yes again!
Click to expand...

I was sitting next to you when you freaked out about the third solve. It would have been a lot funnier if it hadn't made me mess up.
 
A number of people have asked about the ranking system I used for the prizes for overall results. I believe Chris Krueger was the one who quickly observed it is essentially an average percentile - an average over your percentile ranks in the events that you competed in. The formula we used was actually this:
(sum over events competed in of ((rank of the person for a given event) / (number of competitors for that event))) / (number of events competed in)

If there were multiple rounds, the final round was used for the ranking of those people who made the final, the first round placement used for the rest, but for all of those, the number of competitors for that event was the number of competitors in the first round.

The actual ranks and scores for everyone are given below, so you can see how you did:
  1. Austin Moore 0.064887
  2. Lucas Etter 0.149258
  3. Andrew Kang 0.169761
  4. John Brechon 0.174564
  5. David Ludwig 0.214158
  6. Chris Tran 0.218794
  7. Brennan Arnold 0.233656
  8. Rami Sbahi 0.235560
  9. Nathan Dwyer 0.254216
  10. Christopher Olson 0.258504
  11. James Hildreth 0.259857
  12. Corey Sakowski 0.284200
  13. James LaChance 0.290712
  14. Sam Nave 0.291917
  15. Jared Benson 0.302356
  16. Walker Welch 0.315360
  17. Anthony Brooks 0.327824
  18. Chris Krueger 0.349615
  19. Trevor Mahoney 0.356695
  20. Michael DeLaRosa 0.359300
  21. Tolik Borisov 0.370937
  22. Mike Hughey 0.396025
  23. CJ Sheng 0.411299
  24. Daniel Garcia 0.413761
  25. Jim Mertens 0.415640
  26. Hongfei Tian 0.420499
  27. Elliott Ross 0.423901
  28. Sydney Weaver 0.430269
  29. Dylan Laudenschlager 0.436170
  30. Ryan DeLine 0.442085
  31. Chris Braiedy 0.460364
  32. Daniel King 0.471337
  33. Ilkyoo Choi 0.473331
  34. Nakai Velasquez 0.483892
  35. Brandon Mikel 0.501651
  36. Ayman Hussein 0.512122
  37. Trevor Spitzley 0.531926
  38. Carson Penticuff 0.558439
  39. Evan Brown 0.562590
  40. Kit Clement 0.573339
  41. Michael Czerpak 0.578554
  42. Kalib Walling 0.589961
  43. Cooper Bossert 0.592047
  44. Jack Engledow 0.593539
  45. Kevin Voor 0.598583
  46. Cameron Dowless 0.618578
  47. Andy Evans 0.619616
  48. Joshua Sampson 0.630320
  49. Benjamin Skoning 0.630721
  50. Praval Telagi 0.638428
  51. Jackson Carroll 0.639206
  52. Richard Tran 0.649325
  53. Jack Haviland 0.649984
  54. Christopher Resendiz 0.664375
  55. Brandon Haynes 0.670735
  56. Yasser Alsilwadi 0.688226
  57. Jacob Naranjo 0.688466
  58. Nathan Garner 0.688895
  59. Kevin Tatooles 0.709950
  60. Daniel Kottenstette 0.710177
  61. Justin Rausch 0.733766
  62. Abraham Levine 0.751501
  63. Michael Conard 0.753133
  64. Scott Guenard 0.755572
  65. Jacob Galloway 0.760040
  66. Eli DeLaRosa 0.770887
  67. Bobby Krupa 0.776655
  68. Megan Le 0.777288
  69. Marie Hughey 0.780099
  70. Sam Wyckoff 0.790088
  71. Young Kim 0.797052
  72. Michael Womack 0.800516
  73. Quentin Mounts 0.808511
  74. Collin Guenard 0.815906
  75. Carson Brown 0.829657
  76. Brandon Kesner 0.829787
  77. Ryan Crum 0.834036
  78. Hannah Phipps 0.836203
  79. Dae San Kim 0.850372
  80. Ben Crum 0.861702
  81. Ian Phipps 0.864624
  82. Kaleb Vicary-Rzab 0.878179
  83. Caden Hines 0.886611
  84. Tyler Gross 0.893617
  85. Rebecca Hughey 0.895823
  86. Kelsey Vicary 0.928516
  87. Ross Vardaman 0.929943
  88. Keegan Fischer 0.935713
  89. Adam Earnst 0.936170
  90. Dana Conard 0.946809
  91. Danielle Harrison 0.956668
  92. Gloria Hughey 0.968085
  93. Humberto Velasquez 0.978723
  94. Rachel Hughey 0.989362
  95. Dave Haviland 1.000000

I'm very happy with how this came out - it gave some pretty good solvers who are never quite able to make a podium to be recognized for their achievements. It seems like this formula isn't a bad way to do an overall ranking, but if you have suggestions for an alternative, it might be interesting to hear them.
 
Last edited:
SirWaffle said:
Well shoot. That is a bit of a buzz kill knowing I only won because of no shows......
Click to expand...

I'm happy that you won. I was actually figuring that the cubes would probably last until 30th place due to no-shows, but almost everyone in the top 30 stayed through awards, which was really nice. Sorry for the people just below you, though.
 
Mike Hughey said:
It seems like this formula isn't a bad way to do an overall ranking, but if you have suggestions for an alternative, it might be interesting to hear them.
Click to expand...

I don't have any specific suggestions, but it seems to me that people are penalized for trying to compete in more events (unless they're good at every event), which to me goes against the spirit of WCA competitions. For example, had I only competed in Clock, I would have had first choice at the puzzles. I don't personally care myself, but I don't like the idea that people are persuaded to compete in fewer events under this percentile system. But maybe you like this as an organizer. :p

Not knowing the system beforehand, I think it did a good job of recognizing cubers for a good overall performance, but if this stays the same for 2014, I feel like some people may only sign up for a handful of events with the intent of winning that award. I'm probably making a bigger deal out of this than necessary though, it is just a few puzzles, after all.
 
I don't see why people care so much about this...it's not like the prize was $1,000. Mike tried to do something to give people a little extra prize. I really don't think people would start dropping 4+ events just to get a 3x3...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
[Official] Lucas Etter 9.12 3x3 average (Indiana 2013)
2
Replies
22
Views
4,022
lucascube
L
Tito_H
1x1 Indiana Jones' mysterious wooden cube2
Replies
4
Views
605
Tito_H
Tito_H
Tito_H
1x1 Indiana Jones' mysterious wooden cube
Replies
4
Views
774
Tito_H
Tito_H
Tito_H
1x1 Indiana Jones' Special Dice cube
Replies
1
Views
570
Tito_H
Tito_H
u Cube
Indiana Winter 2019!
Replies
0
Views
683
u Cube
u Cube
Back
Top