1. Anonymous asked: have you updated your analysis on par11 vs. hiho recently? Your game times are significantly longer in your 2009 analysis than are actual.

    How so, measured in number of rallies? I have not revisited the simulation since. The study was intended to compare the relative game/match length against the HiHo scoring system. It was never intended to simulate game times in minutes, but rather measured by the number of rallies played under both systems (relatively, not absolutely).

    If you would care to elaborate on your observation, then perhaps I could offer a better discussion. Do you have data?

  2. Comparing the PAR-11 against the HiHo-9 Scoring for Squash →

    Summary statistics of simulated squash games in Matlab between two theoretical players of varying skill levels comparing the Point-A-Rally (PAR) scoring system against the Hi-Ho scoring system. The mini-experiment was suggested by Mohan during the time US-Squash was making the transition at the state level.

    “What I noticed that’s interesting is the likelihood of the weaker player winning when the dominant player is between 50-60% stronger than the weaker one. I suspected that the PAR system would be more favorable to the weaker opponent (I think I might have hinted this in my email to Rip on the PAR system earlier).”

    Results: parComparison.pdf
    Matlab Source Code: comparePARSystem.m
    Excel Workbook: parComparison.zip

  3. Henry Bender with Ramy Ashour (Egyptian Squash Prodigy)

    Henry Bender with Ramy Ashour (Egyptian Squash Prodigy)