Chapter 038 - 2015.03.31

XAP-IT does NOT eliminate current sports -

• but it could evolve how present sports are done .

Think about mental engagement and challenge.

XAP-IT adds more of this -

• for both the competitor and the spectator.

XAP-IT is more about 'performance prediction' -

• than actual performance results.

It challenges both the athlete and spectator -

• to predict near-future performance outcomes.

Think about scoring points based on two factors:

• 1) 'normalized' performance

• 2) predicted 'actual' performance

Actual performance is the real measurement without adjustment.

Normalized performance is an adjustment made -

• because of physical venue factors or competitor attribute difference.

Normalization can be done because of differences like:

• venue:

  • temperature

  • elevation

• competitor:

  • age

  • gender

  • novice vs. professional

  • height

  • weight

  • BMI

XAP-IT assumes ALL minds are equal -

• and NEVER makes adjustments -

  • because of mental differences.

The 'mental performance' component -

• within the context of physical competition -

  • is really what is being challenged -

    • within both competitors and spectators.

This concept was discovered accidentally -

• out of necessity during athletic training routine.

I was looking for something to -

• with my mind -

  • while physically training.

I was X-C skiing around a short loop course on my personal property.

The loop was only about a quarter mile in length.

It however had several challenging sections and obstacles.

Dangerous during certain days of the winter.

Mental adjustments were always necessary -

• depending on the conditions.

One challenge I came up with was -

• predicting the seconds indicator on my watch -

  • when I crossed a particular point in the loop.

I imagined a game that would award points -

• based on how close or far away from the prediction -

  • that actually resulted.

Bonus points for nailing the actual to the prediction.

Penalty points for being off the prediction.

The challenge required me to know -

• my own athletic capabilities -

  • across the full duration -

    • which was one hour.

We grow tired and weaker as we push -

• across long durations of time.

NOT only physically -

• but also mentally.

Mental prediction error shows up more when we are tired.

Understanding of reality of all factors -

• understanding historical performance -

  • understanding surprise and change factors -

    • are all key factors within XAP-IT Sports.

I imagined not only the athlete being challenged these ways -

• but also the spectators -

  • in a new form of 'sports gambling' -

    • that would more deeply engage the spectator -

      • in the entirety of the challenge -

        • NOT just the overall outcome -

          • of the physical component.

Then there's always the issue of physical difference...

Totally separately -

• and years before -

  • as a triathlete -

    • I discovered great inequity -

      • in certain competition structures.

I set out to find a solution that would -

• fix the issue of:

  • inequity in race component

  • inequity between physical athletes.

I wanted to normalize -

• 'create equity between' -

  • the three components of a triathlon -

    • making each perfectly weighted.

I wanted to normalize athletes themselves -

• so All could compete against one another -

  • independent of age or gender or shape and size.

A solution was created using real data.

I was able to normalize both:

• the three components of a triathlon

• all athletes re:

  • age

  • gender

The results changed who would have been declared the winner -

• as the format as presented -

  • gave great advantage to high performing -

    • bikers and runners -

      • over high performing swimmers.

The test case race skewed things far more than normal triathlons do.

This particular race was called 20-20-20.

It measured total distance accumulated -

• from 20 minutes at each event.

So obviously the strongest biker -

• would have great advantage.

But with my normalization solution -

• each of the three components could be made -

  • perfectly equal in scoring toward combined -

    • overall assessment.

I did a similar thing with age and gender -

• creating graphs that established normalization curves.

Now instead of breaking out:

• the two genders

• 5-year increment age groups -

  • everyone could be put into a single competition -

    • with a single winner -

      • to be identified.

This normalization has since been -

• included in XAP-IT.

As for the spectator competition -

• it's simple...

Who scores the most points for predicting various outcomes?

Using my one hour ski loop challenge -

• as an example.

Predicting the competitor score:

• overall

• each loop

• then overall winner after applying normalization.

With XAP-IT almost anyone can compete against anyone else.

But XAP-IT goes a step further -

• and imagines competitions that allow performance:

  • at different times

  • at different locations

  • with different venue factors.

With XAP-IT -

• now there's much more flexibility and opportunity.

Imagine sporting events happening across a week or month or year's time.

Where competitors need NOT travel all over the world.

They can compete at their local venue.

Imagine all performances being scheduled and recorded.

Imagine a difference between:

• being played by a spectator player vs.

• only being experienced as a spectator viewer.

Playing MUST happen in real time -

• whereas experiencing can happen anytime.

Someone experiencing a performance can still play -

• but NOT for any $$$ stakes.

[I'll pause for now.]

Here's an old online XAP-IT slideshow that -

• may reveal more detail to 'you'.

[maybe more coming, especially if smart questions are asked]