Just happened upon this and this.
I remember the first time I was introduced to infinite bounce. It was in a school quiz, conducted by college students. We were told that it was the only fair way to play, that it could be (and had been) mathematically proven to be fairer than the standard direct/pass system.
Admittedly, my experience with quizzes conducted on the infinite bounce pattern been has been good (most shady and/or blatantly rigged quizzes, tend to use the direct/pass pattern) for the most part. Still, the system seems arbitrary. Here's why -
One argument for infinite bounce is that it eliminates the scoring bias for direct questions, and ensures that the team which answers the most questions, wins. Agreed. But could this not also be ensured by letting all questions - direct or pass, carry equal marks?
Another argument for infinite bounce is that it introduces randomness in the order of questions, and hence eliminates rigging. This seems a bit fishy. E.g. if the QM is reading out the questions, what is to stop him/her from picking the question to suit the team? One (again, not fool-proof) way to introduce randomness is to let the teams select their own questions, from a given set. Again, this could be implemented in any sort of quiz, not just an infinite bounce one.
The most common (and the most surprising) argument for infinite bounce, is that it ensures that each team has the opportunity to answer the same number of questions. As someone who has sat through several quizzes, watching questions getting passed this way and that, only to be eaten up by the God-like quizzers sitting two teams away, while the lucky team to their side gets first dibs on the next question, I have my reservations. While it may be more efficient for quizzes with 8-10 teams (as the wiki mentions), for Delhi quizzes, with their meagre turnout, it may well be inertia that prevents us from changing.
Please share your views. Also, if someone knows of a proof, please post a link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Infinite Bounce
Just happened upon this and this.
I remember the first time I was introduced to infinite bounce. It was in a school quiz, conducted by college students. We were told that it was the only fair way to play, that it could be (and had been) mathematically proven to be fairer than the standard direct/pass system.
Admittedly, my experience with quizzes conducted on the infinite bounce pattern been has been good (most shady and/or blatantly rigged quizzes, tend to use the direct/pass pattern) for the most part. Still, the system seems arbitrary. Here's why -
One argument for infinite bounce is that it eliminates the scoring bias for direct questions, and ensures that the team which answers the most questions, wins. Agreed. But could this not also be ensured by letting all questions - direct or pass, carry equal marks?
Another argument for infinite bounce is that it introduces randomness in the order of questions, and hence eliminates rigging. This seems a bit fishy. E.g. if the QM is reading out the questions, what is to stop him/her from picking the question to suit the team? One (again, not fool-proof) way to introduce randomness is to let the teams select their own questions, from a given set. Again, this could be implemented in any sort of quiz, not just an infinite bounce one.
The most common (and the most surprising) argument for infinite bounce, is that it ensures that each team has the opportunity to answer the same number of questions. As someone who has sat through several quizzes, watching questions getting passed this way and that, only to be eaten up by the God-like quizzers sitting two teams away, while the lucky team to their side gets first dibs on the next question, I have my reservations. While it may be more efficient for quizzes with 8-10 teams (as the wiki mentions), for Delhi quizzes, with their meagre turnout, it may well be inertia that prevents us from changing.
Please share your views. Also, if someone knows of a proof, please post a link.
I remember the first time I was introduced to infinite bounce. It was in a school quiz, conducted by college students. We were told that it was the only fair way to play, that it could be (and had been) mathematically proven to be fairer than the standard direct/pass system.
Admittedly, my experience with quizzes conducted on the infinite bounce pattern been has been good (most shady and/or blatantly rigged quizzes, tend to use the direct/pass pattern) for the most part. Still, the system seems arbitrary. Here's why -
One argument for infinite bounce is that it eliminates the scoring bias for direct questions, and ensures that the team which answers the most questions, wins. Agreed. But could this not also be ensured by letting all questions - direct or pass, carry equal marks?
Another argument for infinite bounce is that it introduces randomness in the order of questions, and hence eliminates rigging. This seems a bit fishy. E.g. if the QM is reading out the questions, what is to stop him/her from picking the question to suit the team? One (again, not fool-proof) way to introduce randomness is to let the teams select their own questions, from a given set. Again, this could be implemented in any sort of quiz, not just an infinite bounce one.
The most common (and the most surprising) argument for infinite bounce, is that it ensures that each team has the opportunity to answer the same number of questions. As someone who has sat through several quizzes, watching questions getting passed this way and that, only to be eaten up by the God-like quizzers sitting two teams away, while the lucky team to their side gets first dibs on the next question, I have my reservations. While it may be more efficient for quizzes with 8-10 teams (as the wiki mentions), for Delhi quizzes, with their meagre turnout, it may well be inertia that prevents us from changing.
Please share your views. Also, if someone knows of a proof, please post a link.
1 comment:
-
Debasish said...
-
"As someone who has sat through several quizzes, watching questions getting passed this way and that, only to be eaten up by the God-like quizzers sitting two teams away, while the lucky team to their side gets first dibs on the next question, I have my reservations."
Consider the scenario if you were in a Direct Passing quiz and the God-like quizzers were again two teams away. Let order be
A -> B -> GOD -> D [could be DD ;)] -> You
In Direct Passing,
Q1. A passes. B passes. God Answers.
Q2. B passes. God Answers.
Q3. God Answers.
Three questions gone and you haven't even got a chance yet.
God - 30. You - 0.
In infinite bounce
Q1. God answers.
Q2. Either D answers in which case you get the next one or D misses and you get a shot at it.
I think Infinite Bounce is better than Direct-Passing [infinitely so? :)] but it does have it's problems too and till we find a better AND more-acceptable-to-all solution, Infinite Bounce is the way to go. -
Saturday, March 29, 2008 1:32:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"As someone who has sat through several quizzes, watching questions getting passed this way and that, only to be eaten up by the God-like quizzers sitting two teams away, while the lucky team to their side gets first dibs on the next question, I have my reservations."
Consider the scenario if you were in a Direct Passing quiz and the God-like quizzers were again two teams away. Let order be
A -> B -> GOD -> D [could be DD ;)] -> You
In Direct Passing,
Q1. A passes. B passes. God Answers.
Q2. B passes. God Answers.
Q3. God Answers.
Three questions gone and you haven't even got a chance yet.
God - 30. You - 0.
In infinite bounce
Q1. God answers.
Q2. Either D answers in which case you get the next one or D misses and you get a shot at it.
I think Infinite Bounce is better than Direct-Passing [infinitely so? :)] but it does have it's problems too and till we find a better AND more-acceptable-to-all solution, Infinite Bounce is the way to go.
Post a Comment