1st Annual BowlingBoards.com Virtual Tour!!!

[noeymc]

ive only bowled in 3 of the houses i bowled in and it doesnt really matter just depends on who bowled on the lanes before u

[Mike White]

ive only bowled in 3 of the houses i bowled in and it doesnt really matter just depends on who bowled on the lanes before u

Or in the case of Temecula, how bizarre the oil machine is setup.

[Mudpuppy]

My vote on the issue is tournament April-September and the "wild card" (play-in) if tied has to bowl twice. There should be an option to allow a wild card, if one exists, to forfeit if they don't want to bowl twice. I think that resolves any and all issues.

[Mike White]

The averages and handicaps for this month are:

ASLAN: 146; 66 pins.


California Physical Pairings:

ASLAN vs. MWHITE: Pairing optional at Foothill Lanes or Arlington Lanes.
Although, MWhite has specifically removed his home lanes of Arlington from his center list specifically to avoid me, so "no thanks".

Current Wild Card Entry* Standings
Most Improved Average: Current Leader: Mudpuppy 190.63 to 200.50.

A couple of calculations:

Your Games: 144 + 134 + 135 = 413

Your first month average 154 * 3 = 462, or if your first month average was 156 * 3 = 468.

Now calculate your 2nd month average, using 154, it is 462 + 413 = 875, 875 / 6 = 145.83, drop fraction to 145
using 156 for the first month, it is 468 + 413 = 881, 881 / 6 = 146.83, drop fraction to 146.

So did you forget to drop fraction again, or did you decide to use 156 as your first month average?

As for dropping Arlington, you know it was to achieve the same freedom of scheduling as anyone else free of physical pairing.

Avoiding you was just an added bonus.

When you calculate most improved, you drop fractions from the starting average, but you use factions for the current average to break ties.

It should be Most Improved Average: Current Leader: Mudpuppy 190 to 200.50 : 10.50.

Rule 54a. Most Improved Bowler Award

USBC 2013 14 Rulebook

Oh and a side note, had you followed the recommendation of when bowling against a absent bowler, bowl against your own average -10, (assuming your average was 154) you would have won 1 point the first month.

[Mudpuppy]

A couple of calculations:

Your Games: 144 + 134 + 135 = 413

Your first month average 154 * 3 = 462, or if your first month average was 156 * 3 = 468.

Now calculate your 2nd month average, using 154, it is 462 + 413 = 875, 875 / 6 = 145.83, drop fraction to 145
using 156 for the first month, it is 468 + 413 = 881, 881 / 6 = 146.83, drop fraction to 146.

So did you forget to drop fraction again, or did you decide to use 156 as your first month average?

As for dropping Arlington, you know it was to achieve the same freedom of scheduling as anyone else free of physical pairing.

Avoiding you was just an added bonus.

When you calculate most improved, you drop fractions from the starting average, but you use factions for the current average to break ties.

It should be Most Improved Average: Current Leader: Mudpuppy 190 to 200.50 : 10.50.

Rule 54a. Most Improved Bowler Award

USBC 2013 14 Rulebook

Oh and a side note, had you followed the recommendation of when bowling against a absent bowler, bowl against your own average -10, (assuming your average was 154) you would have won 1 point the first month.

I agree Mike you should be able to have the freedom of scheduling as anyone else. That was not the intention of how it was set up - The intention was to have as many physical pairings as possible. But I understand what you mean. It is always better to go bowl when the alley is not busy. Much more comfortable and less stressful. Personally I wish there was 5 or 6 people bowling in this in Michigan so I could do physical pairings. I think the inconvenience factor is far outweighed by the fun factor of bowling with other people.

I am not real clear on this average calculation. The way I understood things is you have a starting average - 1 number. i.e. 100. But that is independent of your established average going forward. So say I come into THS league "x" the first week of bowling. The rule is you use your book average from last year - say 100 for this example - and after 3 games you establish an average. So then I bowl 100-150-100 for a series of 350. My new average would be 116. That was my understanding - is this not accurate? This is how every league I have ever been on has done. Typically, with a 30 week season, your average is established after 9 games (3 weeks of bowling) but like on my every other Saturday it is only 15 weeks so it was established after 3 games. I just want to be clear on how this is done and that everyone agrees it is correct.

[Mike White]

I agree Mike you should be able to have the freedom of scheduling as anyone else. That was not the intention of how it was set up - The intention was to have as many physical pairings as possible. But I understand what you mean. It is always better to go bowl when the alley is not busy. Much more comfortable and less stressful. Personally I wish there was 5 or 6 people bowling in this in Michigan so I could do physical pairings. I think the inconvenience factor is far outweighed by the fun factor of bowling with other people.

I am not real clear on this average calculation. The way I understood things is you have a starting average - 1 number. i.e. 100. But that is independent of your established average going forward. So say I come into THS league "x" the first week of bowling. The rule is you use your book average from last year - say 100 for this example - and after 3 games you establish an average. So then I bowl 100-150-100 for a series of 350. My new average would be 116. That was my understanding - is this not accurate? This is how every league I have ever been on has done. Typically, with a 30 week season, your average is established after 9 games (3 weeks of bowling) but like on my every other Saturday it is only 15 weeks so it was established after 3 games. I just want to be clear on how this is done and that everyone agrees it is correct.

You're not clear because Aslan invented a rule for averages.

Lets take my scores, because I happen to know them.

My Starting average was 192.

My scores were 221, 160, 182 for a 563 scratch series.

According to Aslan's invented rule, my 2nd month average uses scores of 192, 192, 192, 221, 160, 182 for a total of 1139. 1139 / 6 = 189.

The real world tournies would have used 192 for all the sessions.

Leagues would have used 192 for the first 3 sessions, or 187 for the first and 2nd session

[Aslan]

A couple of calculations:

So did you forget to drop fraction again, or did you decide to use 156 as your first month average?

The thing is...I don't remember. See, orignally I had a 146 average using the median between the two leagues. I agreed to change it based on "games bowled" and since the lower average league was less games...the average went up to I "think" 156...or 154. However, I checked the scoresheets and the games weren't what I thought...and the average rounded down for the higher league was 165 not 166...so it either resulted in it going from 154 to 156 or from 156 to 154. Whatever it is NOW...is what it is and is accurate.

Most people's averages or handicap only changed 1 pin when correcting for games and averaging. Mine changed more because the one league I bowled in was so much shorter (10-13 weeks) versus the other league. I think my average went from 146 to 156 to 154 and back to 156 by the time I corrected it for games, averages, etc... But I don't recall. I know it went down after last month's scores...I think to 149 or 146 or something. Now that everything is locked in and calculated the same way...it shouldn't be an issue here on out.

When you calculate most improved, you drop fractions from the starting average, but you use factions for the current average to break ties.

It should be Most Improved Average: Current Leader: Mudpuppy 190 to 200.50 : 10.50.

Rule 54a. Most Improved Bowler Award

USBC 2013 14 Rulebook

I will keep that in mind going forward.

Oh and a side note, had you followed the recommendation of when bowling against a absent bowler, bowl against your own average -10, (assuming your average was 154) you would have won 1 point the first month.

Thats okay. I drew who I drew and needed to beat him...and I didn't. That April performance didn't deserve any points.

I agree Mike you should be able to have the freedom of scheduling as anyone else. That was not the intention of how it was set up - The intention was to have as many physical pairings as possible. But I understand what you mean. It is always better to go bowl when the alley is not busy. Much more comfortable and less stressful. Personally I wish there was 5 or 6 people bowling in this in Michigan so I could do physical pairings. I think the inconvenience factor is far outweighed by the fun factor of bowling with other people.

I keep explaining that to him. The tour was originally a tournament. The rules were based on physical pairing. When it changed to a "virtual tour"...some of the old rules lingered. And the idea was ALWAYS that in all possible ways...we wanted to encourage (or even mandate) bowling other people in person and that there is a value to that. Names with faces, community, score verification, etc... Unfortunately, when it switched to "virtual", it ended up being almost a "penalty" to be physically paired. Early on, that penalty was alleviated by getting more "choice" in your center...but that got minimized when we reduced the center list to 6.

I am not real clear on this average calculation. The way I understood things is you have a starting average - 1 number. i.e. 100. But that is independent of your established average going forward. So say I come into THS league "x" the first week of bowling. The rule is you use your book average from last year - say 100 for this example - and after 3 games you establish an average. So then I bowl 100-150-100 for a series of 350. My new average would be 116. That was my understanding - is this not accurate? This is how every league I have ever been on has done. Typically, with a 30 week season, your average is established after 9 games (3 weeks of bowling) but like on my every other Saturday it is only 15 weeks so it was established after 3 games. I just want to be clear on how this is done and that everyone agrees it is correct.

You're not clear because Aslan invented a rule for averages.

Lets take my scores, because I happen to know them.

My Starting average was 192.

My scores were 221, 160, 182 for a 563 scratch series.

According to Aslan's invented rule, my 2nd month average uses scores of 192, 192, 192, 221, 160, 182 for a total of 1139. 1139 / 6 = 189.

The real world tournies would have used 192 for all the sessions.

Leagues would have used 192 for the first 3 sessions, or 187 for the first and 2nd session

TRUE. But Mike left out the "why" I invented a new way to figure averages. It is the way it is...because we have a TOUR that is very SHORT. In a standard league or Tour...scores are generated on a weekly basis for over 20 weeks. That gives you a sample size of over 20 which is large enough to establish averages. We have 7 games to establish an average. If we didn't factor in a person's entering average into the calculation...theoretically...a person that bowls a 300 series in week 1....would slaughter the competition for at least 2-3 weeks before his/her average re-couped. That would leave only 3-4 weeks before the Tour ends. In the same way...a person coming out of the gate hot...would be dominated for the next 2-3 weeks. Using the person's entry average as a "week"...keeps their averages "grounded" in such a short format. It should eliminate or vastly reduce any sandbagging activities. Many leagues use carryover averages nowadays for that reason. They have bowlers come in from other houses..."establish" a 135 average....sandbag all season...then take home $600-$800 in sweeps. I didn't want anyone with a 180 average, bowling a 90 average in week 1...then punching their ticket almost automatically into the championship tournament.

Another way to do it would have been to use established averages all tour long...but given the potentially lower than average scores when bowling at unfamiliar houses...I thought that unfair to those that get crummy center draws.

[Mudpuppy]

Got it - on the average front. Makes sense to me. Kind of takes into account best of both worlds and evens things out overall. Based on your explanation that seems fair. I just have never seen it done that way.

[bowl1820]

I didn't want anyone with a 180 average, bowling a 90 average in week 1...then punching their ticket almost automatically into the championship tournament.
.

Instead of coming up with a new way to figure averages, You could have just used a "0"pin Drop Rule. So the bowler's average would never drop below their entering average.

Then if the 180 average bowler sandbagged a 90 average the first week it wouldn't help and would likely cost them the win for that month.

[Aslan]

Instead of coming up with a new way to figure averages, You could have just used a "0"pin Drop Rule. So the bowler's average would never drop below their entering average.

I "could" have…had I:

A) Known that was a "thing".
B) Not been concerned about the person that might bowl way HIGH in round 1.
C) Not wanted to be creative.

God…bowlers are like people in nursing homes. God forbid Wheel of Fortune isn't on at 7:00PM and then Walker Texas Ranger….the whole world will collapse!! Maybe people see MY way and it starts a new trend??? Ever think of that??