|
A few years back, when the Orca DX Club (B.C.) was dominating the Traveling Trophy competition, there was some grumbling that the VEs get an unfair advantage in four of the ten Traveling Trophy contests: they can work the US (but not VE) hams for points in the CQ WW and CQ WPX contests, whereas we can work the VE (but not the US) hams for points.
This was brought to mind this weekend as I saw some Canadians camped-out on 160m, running the USA, while we dug deep to eke out 17 QSOs on that band.
Looking into things after the contest, I found:
There are about 779K hams in the US, vs about 68K hams in Canada (and about 60K hams in Mexico). So it works out that we can get credit for working about 13% of the hams in North America, while Canadians can get credit for working about 92% of the hams in North America.
I looked at the public logs from last year's CQWW CW contest, and found an effort that was similar to our effort last year: VE6SV claimed a score of 4.6M in the M-S category (with 217/529 QSOs on 160m/80m), while Alex and I claimed a score of 4.7M in that category (with 27/145 QSOs on 160m/80m).
Of the 4014 QSOs in the VE6SV log (before a few dozen dupes were removed), there were 2523 QSOs with hams in the lower 48 US states, or 63% of their QSOs. In CQWW, same-continent QSOs count 2 points in North America, as opposed to 3 points for intercontinental QSOs. So this 63% of QSOs works out to about 53% of their total CQWW score - due to working their neighbors across the border.
Of the 3085 in our log last year (before dupes were removed), there were 170 QSOs with our brethren in the provinces, or 5.5% of our total Qs. Given the point differential for intra- vs inter-continental QSOs, this works out to 4.5% of our total CQWW score.
A flip side is that VEs don't make any progress on their multiplier count by working US stations. Although VE6SV had 130% of our QSO count last year, they had only 92% of our multiplier count. That, with their preponderance of 2 point QSOs, gave us the edge in the final scoring.
Different contests have different tilts to the playing field, e.g., due to scoring rules or geographic peculiarities. But it's interesting to get a sense of what the tilt actually is, in this largest of all CW contests.
|
|
|
Grumble? I plain out said it as I accepted our trophy up in enemy territory. No wonder they interrogated me at the border in to enemy territory.
VE7UF was on line this weekend for a M/2 effort and 7.5 mil points. I’ll send out the break down in my post contest club report, this weekend - which also is the ARRL 160 CW event.
Thanks Bill, for doing the math. At least in CQ WPX we get a point for US stations so it keeps it a little closer.
73 Andy KE7AUB
On Nov 28, 2022, at 8:07 PM, Bill, K2PO <bill@...> wrote:
A few years back, when the Orca DX Club (B.C.) was dominating the Traveling Trophy competition, there was some grumbling that the VEs get an unfair advantage in four of the ten Traveling Trophy contests: they can work the US (but not VE) hams for points in the CQ WW and CQ WPX contests, whereas we can work the VE (but not the US) hams for points.
This was brought to mind this weekend as I saw some Canadians camped-out on 160m, running the USA, while we dug deep to eke out 17 QSOs on that band.
Looking into things after the contest, I found:
There are about 779K hams in the US, vs about 68K hams in Canada (and about 60K hams in Mexico). So it works out that we can get credit for working about 13% of the hams in North America, while Canadians can get credit for working about 92% of the hams in North America.
I looked at the public logs from last year's CQWW CW contest, and found an effort that was similar to our effort last year: VE6SV claimed a score of 4.6M in the M-S category (with 217/529 QSOs on 160m/80m), while Alex and I claimed a score of 4.7M in that category (with 27/145 QSOs on 160m/80m).
Of the 4014 QSOs in the VE6SV log (before a few dozen dupes were removed), there were 2523 QSOs with hams in the lower 48 US states, or 63% of their QSOs. In CQWW, same-continent QSOs count 2 points in North America, as opposed to 3 points for intercontinental QSOs. So this 63% of QSOs works out to about 53% of their total CQWW score - due to working their neighbors across the border.
Of the 3085 in our log last year (before dupes were removed), there were 170 QSOs with our brethren in the provinces, or 5.5% of our total Qs. Given the point differential for intra- vs inter-continental QSOs, this works out to 4.5% of our total CQWW score.
A flip side is that VEs don't make any progress on their multiplier count by working US stations. Although VE6SV had 130% of our QSO count last year, they had only 92% of our multiplier count. That, with their preponderance of 2 point QSOs, gave us the edge in the final scoring.
Different contests have different tilts to the playing field, e.g., due to scoring rules or geographic peculiarities. But it's interesting to get a sense of what the tilt actually is, in this largest of all CW contests.
|
|
|
Tree
Looking forward to the Andy report. I must admit that making sure my score was high enough to be higher than the same placed score from the other clubs was in the back of my mind as I tried to find gaps in my busy schedule to operate.
Sorting the 3830 scores by club seems to show that all three clubs were out in force. It's great to see the activity.
Grumble? I plain out said it as I accepted our trophy up in enemy territory. No wonder they interrogated me at the border in to enemy territory.
VE7UF was on line this weekend for a M/2 effort and 7.5 mil points. I’ll send out the break down in my post contest club report, this weekend - which also is the ARRL 160 CW event.
Thanks Bill, for doing the math. At least in CQ WPX we get a point for US stations so it keeps it a little closer.
73 Andy KE7AUB
On Nov 28, 2022, at 8:07 PM, Bill, K2PO < bill@...> wrote:
A few years back, when the Orca DX Club (B.C.) was dominating the Traveling Trophy competition, there was some grumbling that the VEs get an unfair advantage in four of the ten Traveling Trophy contests: they can work the US (but not VE) hams for points in the CQ WW and CQ WPX contests, whereas we can work the VE (but not the US) hams for points.
This was brought to mind this weekend as I saw some Canadians camped-out on 160m, running the USA, while we dug deep to eke out 17 QSOs on that band.
Looking into things after the contest, I found:
There are about 779K hams in the US, vs about 68K hams in Canada (and about 60K hams in Mexico). So it works out that we can get credit for working about 13% of the hams in North America, while Canadians can get credit for working about 92% of the hams in North America.
I looked at the public logs from last year's CQWW CW contest, and found an effort that was similar to our effort last year: VE6SV claimed a score of 4.6M in the M-S category (with 217/529 QSOs on 160m/80m), while Alex and I claimed a score of 4.7M in that category (with 27/145 QSOs on 160m/80m).
Of the 4014 QSOs in the VE6SV log (before a few dozen dupes were removed), there were 2523 QSOs with hams in the lower 48 US states, or 63% of their QSOs. In CQWW, same-continent QSOs count 2 points in North America, as opposed to 3 points for intercontinental QSOs. So this 63% of QSOs works out to about 53% of their total CQWW score - due to working their neighbors across the border.
Of the 3085 in our log last year (before dupes were removed), there were 170 QSOs with our brethren in the provinces, or 5.5% of our total Qs. Given the point differential for intra- vs inter-continental QSOs, this works out to 4.5% of our total CQWW score.
A flip side is that VEs don't make any progress on their multiplier count by working US stations. Although VE6SV had 130% of our QSO count last year, they had only 92% of our multiplier count. That, with their preponderance of 2 point QSOs, gave us the edge in the final scoring.
Different contests have different tilts to the playing field, e.g., due to scoring rules or geographic peculiarities. But it's interesting to get a sense of what the tilt actually is, in this largest of all CW contests.
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 7:21 AM Tree < tree@...> wrote: Looking forward to the Andy report. I must admit that making sure my score was high enough to be higher than the same placed score from the other clubs was in the back of my mind as I tried to find gaps in my busy schedule to operate.
Sorting the 3830 scores by club seems to show that all three clubs were out in force. It's great to see the activity.
Grumble? I plain out said it as I accepted our trophy up in enemy territory. No wonder they interrogated me at the border in to enemy territory.
VE7UF was on line this weekend for a M/2 effort and 7.5 mil points. I’ll send out the break down in my post contest club report, this weekend - which also is the ARRL 160 CW event.
Thanks Bill, for doing the math. At least in CQ WPX we get a point for US stations so it keeps it a little closer.
73 Andy KE7AUB
On Nov 28, 2022, at 8:07 PM, Bill, K2PO < bill@...> wrote:
A few years back, when the Orca DX Club (B.C.) was dominating the Traveling Trophy competition, there was some grumbling that the VEs get an unfair advantage in four of the ten Traveling Trophy contests: they can work the US (but not VE) hams for points in the CQ WW and CQ WPX contests, whereas we can work the VE (but not the US) hams for points.
This was brought to mind this weekend as I saw some Canadians camped-out on 160m, running the USA, while we dug deep to eke out 17 QSOs on that band.
Looking into things after the contest, I found:
There are about 779K hams in the US, vs about 68K hams in Canada (and about 60K hams in Mexico). So it works out that we can get credit for working about 13% of the hams in North America, while Canadians can get credit for working about 92% of the hams in North America.
I looked at the public logs from last year's CQWW CW contest, and found an effort that was similar to our effort last year: VE6SV claimed a score of 4.6M in the M-S category (with 217/529 QSOs on 160m/80m), while Alex and I claimed a score of 4.7M in that category (with 27/145 QSOs on 160m/80m).
Of the 4014 QSOs in the VE6SV log (before a few dozen dupes were removed), there were 2523 QSOs with hams in the lower 48 US states, or 63% of their QSOs. In CQWW, same-continent QSOs count 2 points in North America, as opposed to 3 points for intercontinental QSOs. So this 63% of QSOs works out to about 53% of their total CQWW score - due to working their neighbors across the border.
Of the 3085 in our log last year (before dupes were removed), there were 170 QSOs with our brethren in the provinces, or 5.5% of our total Qs. Given the point differential for intra- vs inter-continental QSOs, this works out to 4.5% of our total CQWW score.
A flip side is that VEs don't make any progress on their multiplier count by working US stations. Although VE6SV had 130% of our QSO count last year, they had only 92% of our multiplier count. That, with their preponderance of 2 point QSOs, gave us the edge in the final scoring.
Different contests have different tilts to the playing field, e.g., due to scoring rules or geographic peculiarities. But it's interesting to get a sense of what the tilt actually is, in this largest of all CW contests.
|
|
|
