--- title: CLRG Scoring Analyzed date: 2022-10-09 tags: - clrg stylesheets: - toys.css scripts: - scorecard.mjs --- Let's take a look how how CLRG does its scoring! *With math!* ## How CLRG Scoring Works As I am given to understand, the scoring works like so: 1. Adjudicators give you a "raw score": a real number between 0 and 100 2. The scoring system ranks each dancer per adjudicator, based on raw scores 3. These rankings are mapped into "award points" 4. All of a dancer's award points are summed 5. Final ranking is determined by comparing total award points ## Raw Scoring The way raw scores translate into rankings and award points is a little confusing, so I've made a little tool you can play with to get a feel for how it works. Essentially, it's a way of normalizing places to an adjudicator: score weights are only relative to the judge that assigns them. Adjudicator A can assign scores between 80 and 100; adjudicator B can assign scores between 1 and 40; and they'll both have a first, second, third, fourth place, etc. These places then get translated into award points. ## Award Points Award points are handed out based on ranking against other dancers for that adjudicator. I obtained these values from a FeisWorx results page for my kid:
RankingAward Points
If there's a 2-way, 3-way, or n-way tie, all tied dancers get the average of the next 2, 3, or n award points, and the next 2, 3, or n rankings are skipped. ## What's with these values? At first glance, the award points look like the output of an exponential function. {{
}} In an effort to figure out where these numbers came from, I ran some curve fitting against the data. Here's the best I could come up with: | Ranking range | Award Points Function | Type of function | | --: | --: | --- | | 1 - 11 | 100 * x^-0.358 | Exponential | | 12 - 50 | 51 - x | Linear | | 51 - 60 | 14.2 - 0.46x + 0.00385x | Polynomial | | 61 - 100 | 1 - x/100 | Linear | If you, dear reader, are a mathematician, I would love to hear your thoughts on why they went with this algorithm. There are a few points to note here: * 1st place is a *huge deal*. Disproportionately huge. * Places 2-10 are similarly big deals compared to places 3-11. * Places 12-50 operate the way most people probably assume ranking works: linearly. * Places 51-60 fit best to a second degree polynomial, but it doesn't matter much for differences of hundreths of a point. This section is *really weird*, mathematically. * Places 61-100 are all less than 1 point. If you're a judge trying to tank a top dancer, anywhere in this range is equivalent to anywhere else. ## Consequences of Exponential Award Points Playing around with this, I've found a few interesting consequences of the exponential growth in the top 11 places. ### 1st place is super important 1st place is weighted so heavily that one judge could move a 5th place dancer into 2nd.
Alice Bob Carol
Adj. 1
Adj. 2
Adj. 3
Award Points
Ranking
You can adjust these values to get a better feel for how scoring works. ### Tanking a high-ranked dancer is another way to cheat Because of that exponential curve, a low ranking from a single judge can carry a lot of weight.
Alice Bob Carol
Adj. 1
Adj. 2
Adj. 3
Award Points
Ranking
### Being in 1st provides a nice buffer Try playing around with Alice's rankings with Adjudicators 2 and 3 here. She has to get ranked a lot lower before her overall ranking starts going down.
Alice Bob Carol Dave Erin
Adj. 1
Adj. 2
Adj. 3
Award Points
Ranking