Slinging.org Forum
https://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl
General >> General Slinging Discussion >> Optimal rate of failure to improve.
https://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1699788361

Message started by Tomas on Nov 12th, 2023 at 6:26am

Title: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Tomas on Nov 12th, 2023 at 6:26am
Time to humble myself.
To achieve the rate of failure described in this clip I'm going to have to shorten the distance, shorten the sling and define a larger target than I'm used to aiming for.
Anyone else want to join in an compare results and timeline?

https://youtu.be/81shDwRwD8U?si=P4BhlWfZrJlbYVos

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by IronGoober on Nov 12th, 2023 at 4:20pm
I'll definitely give this a go. I've wondered if more successes would translate to faster learning, but instead have defaulted to the other direction where I have very few successes and lots of failures. This is also kind of interesting, because that means for a standard balearic target, the optimal hit rate for maximum mental plasticity is essentially as good as I can manage, ( 8/10 to 9/10 dianas).†  So, I either need to focus on precision more than power or decrease distance, or both.

It will be interesting to see if there is faster progress.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Sarosh on Nov 13th, 2023 at 3:10am
my problem with big targets has always been that I can't carry them to practice. I might be using a 20cm target as a reference and visualize a balearic target around it. I think a hit on the visualized diana but a miss on the actual 20cm target can be taken as a success by the mind. I think the reverse can also be done, using a big target and visualising a smaller point on it and feeling like everything except a center hit is a failure. but using a smaller target and visualizing a bigger one has a better resolution than the reverse.
before a competition I would train at the same conditions as the comp. if i could

P.S. :
same applies to 100m practice or further, hitting the vertical is a small success, being within 2m front or back of the target is a bigger success, 0.5m almost feels like success.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by joe_meadmaker on Nov 14th, 2023 at 10:00pm
With this practice technique I think you would almost need to put focus only on diana hits.† Maybe start at something extremely close like 5 meters and see if 8 of 10 can be achieve for a long run (maybe a 100-Round).† If it's going well, the distance could even be increased during the round.

I do have a concern with this.† At 13m (with tennis balls), I certainly don't have an 85% hit rate.† Based on a number of 100-Rounds, I'd put my average around 7 of 10 on target and 20-25% dianas.† If I moved closer to get the ration better, obviously the target will be easier to hit.† Is it possible that bad throws which hit the target at close range, but would not at a farther distances, will teach bad habits?† Maybe counting only dianas would negate that, but it's something I was thinking about.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by JudoP on Nov 16th, 2023 at 7:33am
The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12552-4.pdf

I have only scanned it but am sceptical that you should take 15% at face value, at least not applied to all endevours. The results appear to be generated primarily from neural nets (AI) and then applied to a monkey learning model. That said, there's a lot to explore here and an interesting conversation to have about how we train in slinging and measure success in training.

I will say in slinging pretty much every throw you make can be assessed in terms of deviation from desired trajectory, and not just a binary hit/miss. I think we can make a differentiation here between success/failure rate and feedback generally. In this paper success/failure IS the feedback, but I don't believe this is the case for almost all complex real world endevours.

Think how differently you are likely to train if you were placed in a dark environment and could only hear the results of your throws- quadro, diana or miss (a bit like this years international!). I think in this case I would prefer to tune my hit rate to be higher, balancing out positive and negative feedback. I certainly wouldn't choose to aim for a tiny target and only get feedback for perfect throws with everything else categorised as a miss. However, for slinging in normal conditions? ...the approach is different. If I can see where my shot goes, I can aim for a point and get graded feedback on every single shot. The choice of diana and quadro size (effectively the definition of success and failure) may have psychological impacts, but it doesn't actually provide much better feedback than aiming at a point on a wall and seeing how far off your shots land.

In a sense I think this paper is more about the quality and balance of feedback, rather than whatever we define as success/failure.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by IronGoober on Nov 17th, 2023 at 11:48am
Good points JudoP. Whether one evaluates each throw in more depth as you suggest, or you just count success/failure, I think what this makes me want to try is something where I am much more often successful at my general goal than I have been in the past.† But I think you make some good points.

I tried this training method (aiming for 8/10 throws to be hits) for one session, and it did make me feel much better about my slinging abilities, having hit my target so often. So I will say that it builds confidence in the least (from very limited data, tbh).† But whether or not it will continue to improve my skills remains to be seen.† I would certainly suggest trying it.

What I did was just go to about 12m instead of 13, and when I started missing, I would sling with less force until I was dialed in. By slinging with less force, I could maintain that feeling of being dialed in for quite a few throws (like 4 to 6 vs my usual 2 or 3). It was a good feeling.† There definitely could be something to this style of training, I'm going to continue to try it for a while.† I know "throw with less force" seems like a no-brainer to most people, but I just really love hitting my target with a near full power throw, so I sling mostly at high force/effort levels. It's just too fun not to. But I guess I'll be trying some extended sessions at lower force to see if it can drive a faster improvement rate and will have to forego the excellent feeling of smacking a diana as hard as I can.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Blindsquirrel on Nov 18th, 2023 at 2:29am
.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Morphy on Nov 19th, 2023 at 5:54pm
I always did the opposite. Any target I hit more than say 25% I would decrease in size.

But these days I wonder if larger targets are in themselves part of the problem.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by IronGoober on Nov 20th, 2023 at 5:21pm

Morphy wrote on Nov 19th, 2023 at 5:54pm:
But these days I wonder if larger targets are in themselves part of the problem.


To be fair, I did soda cans for years... I'm not where I want to be in terms of consistency (and that is a pretty small target). I think that some sort of target that is bigger than a soda can but smaller than a balearic cuadro (120cm) is probably a good happy medium for being able to see and track progress. I think tracking progress is part of the mental battle. Because if you just aim at a small target, you forget the hundreds of misses and only remember the hits. Then the next day, you could be much more consistent, but not hit your small target, but feel like you've been a failure.† †

I certainly think that this is worth a try and think that having multiple people try it and report back their results is the only way to determine whether or not something along these lines (i.e. the 85% method) is going to be effective.†

So, come on, Morphy, don't be a sourpuss, make your target bigger! (and feel like a superhero in the process!)

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Morphy on Nov 21st, 2023 at 5:41pm
Im not against the idea entirely, just thinking out loud. I will give it a try when I go slinging again.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by blargslap on Nov 22nd, 2023 at 5:58pm
Iíve been thinking about this one for a bit, trying to recall my learning curve from absolute noob to where Iím at.

Iíve used a variety of different targets, slings and ammo; and each of those seem to affect my success in some way.

I went from a point where just getting in front of me was success, and got to where Iím at now where I can hit 2.5 ft board 3/10 times at 13m. (Not great i know  ;D )

I noticed my consistency slowly drawing in, instead of randomly missing, I now notice when I do miss said board, itís always either 1-3Ē above or to the left. I realised this when instead of aiming for the ďDianaĒ, (2.5Ē) i aimed to the right of the board and got a clean hit. Iím trying to still train myself to hit where I look, but itís slow progress. I think being able to quantify your improvement,, whether itís small or large is more important, as youíll be able to focus on what to adjust; instead of just missing or hitting.

Interesting stuff though guys!

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Blindsquirrel on Nov 22nd, 2023 at 7:36pm
.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Sarosh on Nov 23rd, 2023 at 5:33pm
@ Blindsquirrel

I didn't get the reasoning. why is the diana 50 and not 30cm with 1m square? and why 13m and not 20/30m.

I have used degrees to track practice but it's very impractical because you get feedback much later. that's how I would do it scientifically though

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Blindsquirrel on Nov 24th, 2023 at 12:16am
.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Sarosh on Nov 24th, 2023 at 2:44am
I think the huberman podcast has a lot of good advice which are more important than this "15%". I do wonder how they came up with the 120cm probably has to do something with 4ft which ends up similar size to the archery target.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by Morphy on Nov 25th, 2023 at 5:48pm
@Blindsquirrel - Squirrel, cant speak for anyone else but nothing youve said offends me. I like straight talk brother. If thats your thoughts on it by all means speak your mind. We dont all have to agree with each other here all the time. Things stagnate if we dont speak out.

Title: Re: Optimal rate of failure to improve.
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Nov 29th, 2023 at 9:09am

Tomas wrote on Nov 12th, 2023 at 6:26am:
Time to humble myself.
To achieve the rate of failure described in this clip I'm going to have to shorten the distance, shorten the sling and define a larger target than I'm used to aiming for.
Anyone else want to join in an compare results and timeline?

https://youtu.be/81shDwRwD8U?si=P4BhlWfZrJlbYVos


Ok,  but why do you need to change 3 things  simultaneously to achieve this metric?  Maybe try changing one at a time?

Iím specifically interested in why you think a shorter sling would improve accuracy.  Assuming the same ammo, short slings have a higher natural frequency, which means your timing needs to be more precise to be accurate.

Slinging.org Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.