The statistical modeling is interesting, but in many ways the philosophical question of whether VVBs are good, bad, or indifferent isn't really dependent on an "objective" mathematical model. It's dependent on where, on the continuum between "totally unfair because of the increased possibility of statistically anomalous results" and "simply part of the luck of the draw, and an expected part of the game", players perceive the VVB to fall. VVBs have fallen out of favor in most formats because players began to express severe dissatisfaction with them a few years back. ACF has never used them; NAQT stopped using them after the first year because so many players expressed such dislike for them. (We didn't take a formal survey; we just decided to stop using VVBs, and there seemed to be great rejoicing.) Most invitationals haven't used VVBs for years. The psychology of "perceived fairness" is an interesting field; sometimes the solution to a problem that people perceive as the most fair is also mathematically supportable, and sometimes it isn't. I'm not disparaging anyone's mathematical efforts; I think it's great that there's so much interest in modeling the effect of VVBs! I also can take or leave VVBs as a player, and find it much easier as a writer and editor to work within the restrictions of the standard 30-pointer. So, I don't have any interest in either reviving or reviling the VVB. I just think that there are multiple factors at work in the selection pressures that have driven the VVB nearly extinct. Julie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST