Forums >General Running>2018 in 2018 Game Individual signup open for one more week
It's Tuesday every day
Also, there is one chance during the year (around June) to reset your goal for the year. So, if you were too aggressive, you get a chance to take it back. If you were *way too* conservative, you'll be politely requested to revise your goal upward. But it's still optional. --CH
I don't have any first hand experience obviously. But in the end the team that does most sandbagging will win. Lets assume the algorythm is accurate and all teams start at 100 as a goal. Then any team will only be able to win if the preset goal was understated?
And I read somewhere that one team had this crazy guy who logged 160 mpw for an extended period of time. This shouldn't really mean anything if it was foreseeable?
Anyways - I am in. I did 900km this year and am currently out for an injury. I aim for 20km per week or 1100km/690miles in 2018.
HM: 1:47 (9/20) I FM: 3:53:11 (9/23)
2024 Goals: run a FM & HM + stay healthy!
As far as the goal, I find it easier to look at it weekly. The formula used is (yearly goal/365)*7.
Since the teams are randomly chosen & goals are stated individually before the teams are formed, I'm not sure how you could have a team where everyone has intentionally set low goals. You also have to take into account that a number of people are training for goal races throughout the year, so if you get multiple people with goal races in the same time frame, team mileage will likely take a hit.
I think IR/LOA is used differently. But since it's on the forum, it's all out in the open. I don't think it is abused, I just think people use it differently.
I have no clue about the algorythm used, but the races during the year should even out at the end of the year - this should only be a seasonal effect similar to the winter vs. summer etc.
I don't know exactly how the teams are composed but I would guess that this system benefits teams that have many low to mid mileage runners. It is a lot likelier that those have underestimated their progression. High mileage runners are much better at estimating their yearly performance. And they are probably also much closer to their max. potential. Hence I would probably prefer to have a group with 5 runners @ 20mpw instead of one @100mpw.
Can't wait.
She laughs at me......
The results are posted for everyone in the game to see, so if someone was sandbagging it would be out there for all to see.
At the end of week 46 11/6/17 - 11/12/17 we had 179 runners on teams. This is the count of runners on each team that have met their yearly goals.
#1 2
#2 1
#3 4
#4 3
#5 3
#6 2
#7 1
#8 1
#9 1
#10 1
I don't see any mass sandbagging.
I have no clue about the algorythm used, but the races during the year should even out at the end of the year - this should only be a seasonal effect similar to the winter vs. summer etc. I don't know exactly how the teams are composed but I would guess that this system benefits teams that have many low to mid mileage runners. It is a lot likelier that those have underestimated their progression. High mileage runners are much better at estimating their yearly performance. And they are probably also much closer to their max. potential. Hence I would probably prefer to have a group with 5 runners @ 20mpw instead of one @100mpw. Can't wait.
Do you trust Eric? He built the game.
probably not fast enough
We had a 2:19 marathon in the 2017 Game last week. In case anyone might be interested.
Is it on week 47? Did I overlook it?
As I said before, the game is for motivation, NOT prizes. It's fun to win, of course. Or, to be on a team doing well from week to week. But, there is no real glory in winning an internet game. We all just want motivation to run.
If you must know, the teams who have won the most in the last 2 years have a mix of runners' mileage. The thing that makes a successful team is not "how many miles generally everybody runs", but "how dedicated and consistent are the runners on the team." And, there is absolutely no way to know that ahead of time. (Well, I guess Eric COULD ask everyone to post their log from the last 3 years, or something like that.....)
Again, it's for encouragement. Take it that way, and it's a good thing. Take winning too seriously, and it takes the benefit away from it. At least that's my experience. I live in a situation where many many people depend on me to listen to them, and sometimes that's a 24/7 situation. Running CAN'T be first. The people around me are more important than winning any game with strangers who I will likely never meet. But, my running and my fitness in general helps me to function according to the needs in my life. So, motivation to run is a positive or me. That's why I do it, and that's why I like the game.
As far as signing up, there will be a thread about that coming soon, and it will be more direct than "Reply in this thread..." So, look for that.
The thing that makes a successful team is not "how many miles generally everybody runs", but "how dedicated and consistent are the runners on the team."
+1 to this. I think communication also plays a role--who is tapering, has life getting in the way, has no obligations so can run more, etc.
Week 45.
If you must know, the teams who have won the most in the last 2 years have a mix of runners' mileage. The thing that makes a successful team is not "how many miles generally everybody runs", but "how dedicated and consistent are the runners on the team."
+2. Or, if it's not what makes a team successful, since I don't really have the data to support this, it at least makes a team more fun to be on. There is nothing more annoying than people who sign up then blow the thing off. Of course injuries and life things happen, but there's really no excuse for just chronically forgetting to post, and lack of communication. I remember the RWOL game had a "nag list"; usually the same people would show up. You just hope that people who sign up will take some responsibility. On RA, it really could not be any easier to participate. For those of us who already log here, you literally have to do nothing. And if for some reason you don't, it takes 5 minutes once a week to log your miles. Or if you did not run, take those 5 minutes to send a brief explanatory PM to your team captain. Please.
Dave
delicate flower
Remember that week we lost by one mile because that guy didn't post his miles and didn't answer our messages? Good times.
<3
I started the 2018 group.
Here.
Of course I trust him but thats pretty faulty logic here.
Do you trust Donald? He's building that wall!
I'm sorry for whatever role I may have played if this thread isn't all positive. But I do have a few thoughts to add.
This game is not perfect. No game is. In every game, experience does offer advantages. The imperfections in this game, to me, are:
1- The regular season schedule isn't perfectly balanced. In other words, not all teams compete with all the other teams the same number of times.
2- No system for dealing with injuries will satisfy everyone. Whatever is done will seem to favor one team over another. Thus, this literally CAN'T be fixed
3- There is no way to seed the players so that all the teams end up perfectly fair, with an equal chance of victory. In other words, there will always be a few runners who choose to play, in hopes that the motivation of team encourages them to run more, when they are new to running. And, these are more prone to discouragement. So, a team with a few more of these has a lesser chance. But no good way exists to spread these out. And, some runners simply get juiced by competition more than others. To make it totally "FAIR" Eric would have to make along questionaire, and then his algorithm to decide who is on which team would be very complicated.
The new poster asking questions actually has a valid point, to wit:
If a team happens to have 4 runners with 20-25 mile goals, it's far more likely that each of them runs 5 miles over in a given week than it is for 1 70 mile runner to run 85-90. So, in that way, the mid-range runners seem to have an advantage.
However, that might balance out in this way:
The 70 mile/wk runner is far less likely to put down a succession of 40 mile weeks, simply because the 70 mile/wk runner obviously has been running a long time, and knows his year's schedule and his body's abilities (or, hers, of course). The 20 mile/wk runner could be new, and even guessing 20/wk is more than they really can handle.
So, in that way, maybe it balances out.
Whatever. As I often say, "Just run."