okansas.blogspot.com Occassional thoughts about orienteering |
Thursday, April 28, 2005 How would you know if the strategy was good?The comments from yesterday's post bring up an interesting issue -- how would you know if Nordberg's strategy was good?The answer is simple in concept. If Nordberg's strategy of taking the lead and breaking away increased the probability that his team would win, it is a good strategy. If you had a bunch of data you'd be in better shape to answer the question. How many teams win if they are behind at the end of the Long Night? I don't have the time or results lists to really look at it carefully. But, I took a quick look at the Tio Mila results pages for 8 years between 1995 and 2005. Here are how the winning teams stood at the end of the Long Night: 1, 8, 1, 25, 5, 4, 11, and 7. You don't have to be in the lead at the end of the Long Night to win, but it looks like it helps. Another way to think about strategy is to ask -- Does the strategy seem obviously bad? If Petr Losman had tried to break away from Tore Sandvik, perhaps taking a different route on a long leg, would that have been a good strategy? Probably not. Losman's best chance was almost certainly to stay right on Sandvik's back and try to out run him on the finish chute. Another way to think about a strategy is to ask -- Does the strategy increase the team's options? Being alone in the lead clearly increases the options. If the guy who ran after Nordberg wanted to go out alone, he could. But if he wanted someone to run with, all he had to do was wait. Obviously I haven't thought about this very much, but I'm sure there are lots of other ways to think about strategies. I suspect that most of the systematic approaches to thinking about the strategy will lead you to conclude that Nordberg's approach was sound. But a sound strategy isn't always enough. Kristiansand OK didn't win. But, failing to win doesn't mean the strategy was wrong. posted by Michael | 7:35 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
|
||||