Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
FLM entry weighted against club runners??
Bod
✭✭✭
This year we had 11 runners miss out on the ballot, most of them reasonable 3-4hr standard but a couple in the 5hr category. Only one person i know of got straight in. Last year was a similar ratio with 9 rejections.
If the 'normal' chances are one in four then we are doing particularly badly. Is it because Club runners are biased against, maybe becasue they get a second chance with their club? Or maybe the odds of getting in at 3-4hrs is twice as bad as at 5hrs?
I don't expect we'll ever know how they choose the ballot places since it may lead to a lot of 3:30 runners putting down 7 hours. However, it would be nice to get a little reassurance that their methods are fair
If the 'normal' chances are one in four then we are doing particularly badly. Is it because Club runners are biased against, maybe becasue they get a second chance with their club? Or maybe the odds of getting in at 3-4hrs is twice as bad as at 5hrs?
I don't expect we'll ever know how they choose the ballot places since it may lead to a lot of 3:30 runners putting down 7 hours. However, it would be nice to get a little reassurance that their methods are fair
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Also, at my club, the rate is a good bit higher than that, for what it's worth. And the probability is nearer 1 in 5 too, I think.
Quite a few people come up with theories (like the one about not putting down 4 hours expected time because too many people do that) but the FLM people say it's random and there's really nothing that could be considered evidence to the contrary, so you may as well believe it.
Must do work now.
12 rejects.
I'm with Swerve - I really don't think its worth their time trying to analyse the entry be it by sex, time, age, club membership or postcode.
First 'X thousand' they pick are randomly spread enough.
- about 6 or 7 in via the ballot
- and only 5 people after the 3 club places, where it's a requirement to be considered that you have to have been rejected in the ballot
(- and another 6 or so GFA)
So can't see any bias against club runners.
This one is done to death, every year.
Lots accusations of unfairness, conspiracy theories, etc.
People don't like not getting in.
Just got to face that if it's about 1:5 against getting in, simply based on numbers of places available vs. number or people applying for them, then there's a fair chance of not getting in.
Why not do another marathon instead ?
Seriously, the only rumour which I believe is that the ballot takes place after entries have been split according to predicted finish time (as marked on the outside of the envelope) so that the organisers have some control of the distribution of finish times. Draw your own conclusions.
I still reckon random is as good as any.
What would be the point of discriminating against club runners? The chances of getting in through a club place are also pretty slim.
Dave Bedford was on there saying that they'd had 98,000 UK entries for 20,000 places. So less than a 1 in 5 chance of getting in.
I guess my 12 people were all just really unlucky then.
((and it's a better than 1 in 5 chance, just))
Mmmm... statistics..... :-)
Ta for working it out - I knew some bright spark would !