Small field CSS

[FairwayDodger]

Had a competition couple of days ago, small field of 6. Conditions were tricky, on a Sat medal would usually produce a CSS of SSS or SSS+1. As 3 of us were within buffer it meant CSS went to SSS-1, which is just not right IMO. So my playing partner will go up .1 even though he shot SSS+1. What this highlights is for a small field it distorts the "normal" CSS so i probably won't play in the comp when a small field is likely.

So in conclusion, i say bring on the new handicap system ASAP.

As someone who often plays in small field competitions I agree the small field CSS doesn't really work. HOWEVER, CSS cannot go below SSS in these calculations.

 

[duncan mackie]

As someone who often plays in small field competitions I agree the small field CSS doesn't really work. HOWEVER, CSS cannot go below SSS in these calculations.

SSS shh- don't stop a good argument with such discrepancies...

 

[srixon 1]

Had a competition couple of days ago, small field of 6. Conditions were tricky, on a Sat medal would usually produce a CSS of SSS or SSS+1. As 3 of us were within buffer it meant CSS went to SSS-1, which is just not right IMO. So my playing partner will go up .1 even though he shot SSS+1. What this highlights is for a small field it distorts the "normal" CSS so i probably won't play in the comp when a small field is likely.

So in conclusion, i say bring on the new handicap system ASAP.

It's .1, not the end of the world.

 

[scubascuba3]

As someone who often plays in small field competitions I agree the small field CSS doesn't really work. HOWEVER, CSS cannot go below SSS in these calculations.

Where in CONGU manual does it say that? The small field table doesn't show that. The results where generated by computer, even says small field so should take this into account?

 

[rosecott]

Where in CONGU manual does it say that? The small field table doesn't show that. The results where generated by computer, even says small field so should take this into account?

Look at the table.

 

[scubascuba3]

Look at the table.

If you looked at the table (B) you'll see that it's all scores over buffer. Based on that the table doesn't apply. You know otherwise?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Where in CONGU manual does it say that? The small field table doesn't show that. The results where generated by computer, even says small field so should take this into account?

Sorry, it turns out that only if small field of 5 or less can CSS not go under SSS. Congu must consider 6 to be statistically significant!

 

[rulefan]

Sorry, it turns out that only if small field of 5 or less can CSS not go under SSS. Congu must consider 6 to be statistically significant!

They have to draw a line somewhere.
What is a small field? 5, 6, 7, 9, x?

My garden I suppose.

 

[scubascuba3]

Sorry, it turns out that only if small field of 5 or less can CSS not go under SSS. Congu must consider 6 to be statistically significant!

Any idea where it says that? Table B only refers to 9 and below

 

[FairwayDodger]

Any idea where it says that? Table B only refers to 9 and below

It's in the manual, under css calculation I think. Sorry, I read it this morning but didn't note exactly which page.

 

[scubascuba3]

It's in the manual, under css calculation I think. Sorry, I read it this morning but didn't note exactly which page.

No record of it so I'll assume its made up

 

[Deleted member 15344]

No record of it so I'll assume its made up

18.5 - within the manual details the CSS should be equal to SSS when 5 or fewer players

 

[DCB]

No record of it so I'll assume its made up

Yep, CONGU made it up and for good measure included it within their Manual.

Wind your neck in and be a bit more civil when people give you an answer to your questions, whether you realise it or not, your answers have a very arrogant attitude. Be a little more thoughtful in your posting style in future and don't belittle answers that don't suit you.

 

[scubascuba3]

Yep, CONGU made it up and for good measure included it within their Manual.

Wind your neck in and be a bit more civil when people give you an answer to your questions, whether you realise it or not, your answers have a very arrogant attitude. Be a little more thoughtful in your posting style in future and don't belittle answers that don't suit you.

The problem is on these forums some people are not very helpful, they say things like:
"So, on a normal comp day, if half the field buffered, what would you expect the CSS to be ?" i.e. attempting to be clever with a trick question.
Or
"Look at the table" very helpful thanks

They say things as if they are fact:
"CSS cannot go below SSS in these calculations" if you aren't sure there is no point blagging.

DCB you have a history of being unhelpful, so I'm not particularly interested in your view. I'd be happy to put you on ignore if i knew how to.

 

[DCB]

I rest my case 😉

 

[duncan mackie]

The problem is on these forums some people are not very helpful, ....
DCB you have a history of being unhelpful, so I'm not particularly interested in your view. I'd be happy to put you on ignore if i knew how to.

In a bid to be helpful...

You have to be in full site mode, click on the individuals name to go to their profile. On the left are a number of options, and about half way down is the ignore one.

However, it's possible you can't ignore a moderator - I don't know because I've never tried.

 

[FairwayDodger]

No record of it so I'll assume its made up

What a moronic reply, good luck getting help in the future. Certainly won't be from me.

 

[scubascuba3]

In a bid to be helpful...

You have to be in full site mode, click on the individuals name to go to their profile. On the left are a number of options, and about half way down is the ignore one.

However, it's possible you can't ignore a moderator - I don't know because I've never tried.

Thank you it might come in useful