ESR question

[cliveb]

In the CONGU handbook, clause 23.13 states "each chronological pair of ESRs in each calendar year is considered independently of the next or previous pair; there is no compounding of scores".

Now: a player has had two qualifying scores of CSS-4, which means the ESR calculation is triggered. But there were 20 other qualifying scores in between, so no change to HCP.

Does clause 23.13 mean that those two good scores are now dealt with? Suppose the player scores CSS-6 in his very next round - will an ESR be calculated using the second -4 and the immediately following -6, or does this new -6 score constitute the first of the next pair, and an ESR will only be calculated if there is yet another good score?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Once the ESR is triggered it starts from scratch again

Another ESR used to be triggered if another good score came in but was changed recently

So now the next good score will be used as the first marker

 

[cliveb]

Once the ESR is triggered it starts from scratch again

Another ESR used to be triggered if another good score came in but was changed recently

So now the next good score will be used as the first marker

OK thanks.

I have to say it seems a bit weird that two stonking rounds close together don't give an ESR because there happened to be another good round several months previously, but there you go...

 

[rulefan]

"each chronological pair of ESRs in each calendar year is considered independently of the next or previous pair; there is no compounding of scores".

That's it exactly. Low scores are considered in pairs. Processed with appropriate adjustment and forgotten until a new pair come along.

 

[rosecott]

Another seeming anomaly in the system is the calendar year restriction. A player can have a -4 or better round in the last week in December (we play qualifiers all year round) and another in the first week in January and there is no resulting ESR. I only twigged this when it happened to one of our players and thought there must be some mistake when an ESR was not applied.

 

[Foxholer]

That's it exactly. Low scores are considered in pairs. Processed with appropriate adjustment and forgotten until a new pair come along.

That seems daft!

 

[rulefan]

That seems daft!

Having made one ESR adjustment in (say) May, why should a single super score in September trigger another ESR adjustment?

Does there have to be a formula which takes account of the time between scores, the number and frequency of intervening scorse, whether his handicap is going up or down? There are too many possibilities for an automatic adjustment. Compounding was being seen as too punitive. Incidentally, what would you do if a fourth came up a week later?

 

[duncan mackie]

Having made one ESR adjustment in (say) May, why should a single super score in September trigger another ESR adjustment?

Does there have to be a formula which takes account of the time between scores, the number and frequency of intervening scorse, whether his handicap is going up or down? There are too many possibilities for an automatic adjustment. Compounding was being seen as too punitive. Incidentally, what would you do if a fourth came up a week later?

I think there's some confusion here!

If you look closely at the original post it references 2 seperate scores of -4, separated by another 20 Q scores, followed by a score of -6.

To my mind the missing element is that the first score of -4 was never an ESR score, and the 2 scores of -4 never constituted an ESR pair.

The second is live, the -6 within the appropriate period pairs it and should create an ESR 'pair', trigger a handicap adjustment and are no longer active ie a further pair are now required to trigger a further ESR.

 

[rulefan]

You are of course correct. I completely missed the intervening series of 20 (ie more than 10)

 

[cliveb]

I think there's some confusion here!

If you look closely at the original post it references 2 seperate scores of -4, separated by another 20 Q scores, followed by a score of -6.

To my mind the missing element is that the first score of -4 was never an ESR score, and the 2 scores of -4 never constituted an ESR pair.

The second is live, the -6 within the appropriate period pairs it and should create an ESR 'pair', trigger a handicap adjustment and are no longer active ie a further pair are now required to trigger a further ESR.

Not quite. The -4 back in April was the first of a pair. The second -4 did trigger an ESR, but because there were 20 intervening Q scores, the ESR was a reduction of 0. HDID unambiguously states "Exceptional Scoring Reduction, adjustment 0".

The subsequent -6 is hypothetical at this stage. I was just asking what would happen. From other answers, it now appears that it would become the first of the next pair, waiting for another good score to trigger a second ESR.

What surprises me is that two good scores close together (the second -4 and the -6) wouldn't result in an ESR just because there happens to have been another good score months previously.

 

[Foxholer]

What surprises me is that two good scores close together (the second -4 and the -6) wouldn't result in an ESR just because there happens to have been another good score months previously.

That's what I meant by describing it as 'daft' in my earlier post!

The latest 'exceptional score' should continue to be 'active' - as the first of a next pair!

 

[duncan mackie]

Not quite. The -4 back in April was the first of a pair. The second -4 did trigger an ESR, but because there were 20 intervening Q scores, the ESR was a reduction of 0. HDID unambiguously states "Exceptional Scoring Reduction, adjustment 0".

The subsequent -6 is hypothetical at this stage. I was just asking what would happen. From other answers, it now appears that it would become the first of the next pair, waiting for another good score to trigger a second ESR.

What surprises me is that two good scores close together (the second -4 and the -6) wouldn't result in an ESR just because there happens to have been another good score months previously.

Indeed, studying the manual it references 10 or more for column 3, and only 4 paired with only 6 gives an ESR of 0

So it comes back to a spread of over 10 scores really dilutes the statistical relevance of such scores

The end.

 

[Foxholer]

Indeed, studying the manual it references 10 or more for column 3, and only 4 paired with only 6 gives an ESR of 0

So it comes back to a spread of over 10 scores really dilutes the statistical relevance of such scores

The end.

It may/certainly dilute the statistical relevance of a connection between that 'pair' of scores, but it doesn't do anything to the relevance of the latest 'exceptional' score! At least not when another 'exceptional' score occurs within a couple more rounds!

That's why I believe that, certainly in cases where a 0 ESR is determined, the latest ES should stay active as the first of a (potential) pair. It's also arguable that it should continue anyway, but Congu must have had reason(s) to modify the original model - at least if that's what happened.

 

[duncan mackie]

It may/certainly dilute the statistical relevance of a connection between that 'pair' of scores, but it doesn't do anything to the relevance of the latest 'exceptional' score! At least not when another 'exceptional' score occurs within a couple more rounds!

That's why I believe that, certainly in cases where a 0 ESR is determined, the latest ES should stay active as the first of a (potential) pair. It's also arguable that it should continue anyway, but Congu must have had reason(s) to modify the original model - at least if that's what happened.

The answer to that one lies in the matching of the AR and Rosecotts earlier observation regarding wiped years.

The latest (hypothetical) -6 is either going to find a pair, or remain live at the next AR for the committee to consider against all the evidence for any change they feel appropriate.

Personally I feel that the dilution through the change made (with the introduction of pairs, rather than rolling pairs) combined with the column 3 'clearance' approach is an over reaction; but suspect it was a price to bring Unions who didn't like the ESR at all into the party.

It's not going to change now, so its basically back to committees for the next 17 months

 

[Foxholer]

The answer to that one lies in the matching of the AR and Rosecotts earlier observation regarding wiped years....

Indeed, a 'year' should be AR to AR, so that such anomolies don't happen!

...
Personally I feel that the dilution through the change made (with the introduction of pairs, rather than rolling pairs) combined with the column 3 'clearance' approach is an over reaction; but suspect it was a price to bring Unions who didn't like the ESR at all into the party.
...

Wasn't it only the Scots that didn't like it - so it didn't apply to them? Are they 'happy' with it, and signed up to it, now (that it's 'broken')?