| |
BGonline.org Forums
Nacbracs
Posted By: Matt Ryder In Response To: Nacbracs (Nack Ballard)
Date: Monday, 28 December 2009, at 6:31 a.m.
Hi Nack,
The problem with writing nacbracs in hundredths or quasi-hundredths is that it is in direct conflict with writing them in thousandths.
I considered this problem, which is why in my original post I suggested starting the ordinal scale at 0, as follows:
0.Tied: 0.00 – 0.01
1.Barely wrong or Very close: 0.01 – 0.02
2.Marginally wrong or Close: 0.02 – 0.03
3.Wrong, or Mistake: 0.03 - 0.06
4.Blunder: 0.06 - 0.10
5.Whopper: 0.10 - 0.20
6.Double whopper: >0.20
With that scale, I'd notate your example [$=U S2 D3] as
[$0 U0 S2 D3]
The use of zeroes should clearly signal that the B/W scale is used here. Assuming such a system caught on, I expect readers would become familiar with the convention that if the numbers are all in the range 0-6, they should ordinarily expect the B/W scale. In the very rare circumstance where you want to use the thousandths of a point convention and all the numbers are in the unlikely range 0 through 6, you could notate as follows:
[$ U1 S2 D3]
This might be a tad confusing in the beginning, but I'm sure with some careful explanation initially it would be a snap for all the very smart folks who'd be inclined to use it.
Assuming you have a list of close picks, it might be useful to employ your "=" convention as follows:
[$0=U=R Z2=S D3]
This would imply that the Slot, Up and Run plays are all in the range 0.00 – 0.01. The Reverse Split and Split plays are in the range 0.02 – 0.03. The Down play is in the range 0.03 - 0.06.
Note that it's possible to illustrate equality ("=") here for categories other than just 'Tied'.
I would tend to resist the term "quasi-hundredths" to describe the increments of such a scale, as only the first three members of the set really fit the description. The scale should be understood as ordinal, not cardinal.
As before, I have no enthusiasm for creating a break-away 'dialect' of nacbracs. If these ideas (or something similar) were "sanctioned" by yourself and added to the corpus, I would make use of the convention. My thoughts are offered to you as mere suggestions for your consideration, and you are quite welcome to ignore them if you don't see their merit.
Cheerio,
Matt.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.