Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
Fatman_x takes the 2010 TAZD; computation of complete standings in progress.
Posted By: skrumgaer at 6:51 PM, Saturday January 1, 2011 EST
Here are Fatman_x's final stats:
1631 22% 16% 13% 12% 10% 11% 11% 22535 Fatman_x
Olkainry38 did not play any additional games after Dec 21.
Here were the two leaders on Dec 21:
1591 22% 16% 13% 13% 10% 11% 11% 21975 Fatman_x
0894 22% 20% 16% 13% 11% 08% 07% 21798 olkainry38
The November scores are below. They were recomputed when I found I had been using the 2009 datum instead of the 2010 datum.
The Test Against Zero Datum (TAZD) is a weighted sum of the squares of the differences between a player's percentage profile and the profile of a typical player with a zero score, adjusted according to the square root of the number of games played. If you would like to enter the cumulative TAZD competition for 2010, reply to this thread in the account that you want to enter.
In 2010, the cumulative TAZD began in April, because some January, February, and March profiles had corrupted percentages.
A minimum of sixty regular games per month was required.
Entries show number of games, percentages, and player name.
A minimum of 540 regular games played was required to remain in the standings as of December 31.
Here are the end of November standings with the new datum.
0815 22% 20% 16% 13% 11% 09% 07% 20192 olkainry38
1324 22% 16% 13% 13% 10% 13% 11% 19645 Fatman_x
0886 21% 18% 18% 13% 11% 08% 07% 19382 the full monte
1612 15% 19% 16% 14% 14% 11% 07% 17412 Xar
2297 18% 15% 14% 15% 13% 13% 10% 17190 Fonias
1282 19% 15% 14% 14% 13% 13% 09% 14698 ProxyCheater
1089 19% 16% 12% 15% 13% 12% 09% 14359 ZIGIBOOM
1817 16% 18% 12% 10% 11% 13% 16% 14038 cool g
0731 18% 22% 12% 10% 08% 11% 16% 14010 leeroy jenkins
1810 19% 14% 12% 12% 13% 15% 12% 13270 caesar-blue
2990 13% 11% 11% 08% 09% 10% 34% 12928 noamlang1
0519 21% 15% 18% 11% 12% 08% 12% 12080 chaiNblade
1597 19% 14% 09% 09% 10% 13% 24% 11916 greekboi
0769 22% 14% 09% 13% 13% 13% 14% 11355 dasfury
1054 18% 14% 13% 13% 12% 11% 15% 09627 yellowfin
0698 17% 15% 10% 13% 14% 14% 13% 06707 speciale528
0662 17% 14% 12% 12% 13% 13% 15% 06340 AlexBallDrop
1122 11% 15% 15% 14% 11% 12% 18% 05785 pooch723
1625 16% 12% 11% 10% 12% 15% 22% 06512 kendawg
0613 14% 11% 17% 11% 11% 15% 16% 04945 vIRGI
1631 22% 16% 13% 12% 10% 11% 11% 22535 Fatman_x
Olkainry38 did not play any additional games after Dec 21.
Here were the two leaders on Dec 21:
1591 22% 16% 13% 13% 10% 11% 11% 21975 Fatman_x
0894 22% 20% 16% 13% 11% 08% 07% 21798 olkainry38
The November scores are below. They were recomputed when I found I had been using the 2009 datum instead of the 2010 datum.
The Test Against Zero Datum (TAZD) is a weighted sum of the squares of the differences between a player's percentage profile and the profile of a typical player with a zero score, adjusted according to the square root of the number of games played. If you would like to enter the cumulative TAZD competition for 2010, reply to this thread in the account that you want to enter.
In 2010, the cumulative TAZD began in April, because some January, February, and March profiles had corrupted percentages.
A minimum of sixty regular games per month was required.
Entries show number of games, percentages, and player name.
A minimum of 540 regular games played was required to remain in the standings as of December 31.
Here are the end of November standings with the new datum.
0815 22% 20% 16% 13% 11% 09% 07% 20192 olkainry38
1324 22% 16% 13% 13% 10% 13% 11% 19645 Fatman_x
0886 21% 18% 18% 13% 11% 08% 07% 19382 the full monte
1612 15% 19% 16% 14% 14% 11% 07% 17412 Xar
2297 18% 15% 14% 15% 13% 13% 10% 17190 Fonias
1282 19% 15% 14% 14% 13% 13% 09% 14698 ProxyCheater
1089 19% 16% 12% 15% 13% 12% 09% 14359 ZIGIBOOM
1817 16% 18% 12% 10% 11% 13% 16% 14038 cool g
0731 18% 22% 12% 10% 08% 11% 16% 14010 leeroy jenkins
1810 19% 14% 12% 12% 13% 15% 12% 13270 caesar-blue
2990 13% 11% 11% 08% 09% 10% 34% 12928 noamlang1
0519 21% 15% 18% 11% 12% 08% 12% 12080 chaiNblade
1597 19% 14% 09% 09% 10% 13% 24% 11916 greekboi
0769 22% 14% 09% 13% 13% 13% 14% 11355 dasfury
1054 18% 14% 13% 13% 12% 11% 15% 09627 yellowfin
0698 17% 15% 10% 13% 14% 14% 13% 06707 speciale528
0662 17% 14% 12% 12% 13% 13% 15% 06340 AlexBallDrop
1122 11% 15% 15% 14% 11% 12% 18% 05785 pooch723
1625 16% 12% 11% 10% 12% 15% 22% 06512 kendawg
0613 14% 11% 17% 11% 11% 15% 16% 04945 vIRGI
|
montecarlo wrote
at 10:34 AM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST sorry, was on vacation.
skrum, i understand that it takes more "skill" to click twice than to click once. BUT, the true measure of skill, in kdice, as defined by Ryan, the creator of the game, is as follows: 1st is best, 7th is worst. positive points are good, negative points are bad. the ONLY time that having a greater number of 7ths is better, is if you are earning more points for those 7ths (i.e. dom). this is not my argument, this is Ryan's argument. it is the way he designed the game. dont fool yourself into naming skills that are contrary to the way the game has been designed. again, two simple rules: 1st > 2nd > 3rd > 4th > 5th > 6th > 7th + points = good, - points = bad according to these two simple rules, the TAZD does not measure kdice skill. (skill as defined by Ryan, the game creator). |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 1:08 PM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST Ryan has developed two systems for earning points: regular games and tournaments. The skill sets for the two are different. There has been no showing that a point in a regular game is equivalent in skill to a point in a tournament. Also, points are given for money donations, memberships, and, most recently, friend boosts.
Go by the actions, not the words, of the Designer. |
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 1:25 PM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST im only talking about points earned in the TAZD calc, skrum. points for tourneys, memberships, facebook friends, etc, are NOT included.
so back to my main point that you tried to skirt: there are only two ways to earn points in the TAZD: placement and dom. which still hold true to my two assumptions (aka Ryan's definition of skill for tazd calcs): 1) 1st > 2nd > 3rd > 4th > 5th > 6th > 7th 2) positive points are good, negative points are bad. |
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 1:31 PM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST according to these metrics, defined by Ryan, and agreed upon by everyone else ive talked to excluding solely you, a monkey has negative skill, and should never, under any circumstance, be considered a more skillful player than someone who tries to win the game, or earn points.
TAZD, in its current form, rewards the monkey , calls him skillful, which is against the truth structure that Ryan has set up in kdice. in the end the monkey will have 0 points, and will have 100% 7ths (assuming we train him to click sit in and flag out). according to Ryan kdice rule number one, 7th < all, therefore the monkey is the worst. according to kdice rule number two, 0 points is the worst possible result after 1,000 games, so the monkey is worst of all. again, these are Ryan's definitions, not mine. these are kdice definitions, not mine. according to the current form of tazd, that same monkey will win the yearly tazd, hands down. you will brand him the most skillful player. but the reality is, as vermont has stated, that the monkey is simply the player that deviates the most from the zero datum. that is all that tazd measures. it does not accurately reflect skill, as defined by Ryan/kdice. again, it is EXTREMELY simple to tweak the tazd in a way such that it WILL measure Ryan/kdice-defined skill. it is also EXTREMELY logical to make that tweak so that the metric will measure Ryan-defined skill. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 2:03 PM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST Also, I have been awarded a "+", by none other than Ryan himself, for my stat work. He must have thought it has value.
|
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 2:10 PM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST No earlier than post 158 I indicated a method for tweaking the TAZD against lowballing: putting a 48% cap on the number of sevenths. Those who want to competed for the lowball TAZD I can use the untweaked TAZD which I called the TABAM (Test Against Bad-Add Monkey). But maybe I should call it the MONkey Tazd Equivalent, or MONTE.
|
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 2:22 PM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST none of us are questioning its value, skrum. in fact, we have all complimented you on all the effort you have done. we are just pointing out the one gaping hole in your algorithm, and we are eager that you fix it.
|
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 2:49 PM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST the 48% cap removes this particular monkey from exploiting tazd. but i could train another one to try to get 6th every game, and i would expect him to be successful 96+% of the time. so then you put a cap on 6th percentages. then i could train one to do it for 5th percentages even, and probably he could get 5th 80+% of the time, so you then put a cap on 5th percentages.
but isnt the more logical correction to simply make 5th, 6th, and 7th negative additions to the tazd instead of positive? i understand your point that in some places it is more skillful to take 7th place, or 6th, or 5th, instead of vying for a better placement. but my experience leads me to believe that the vast majority of the time, it is wiser to try for higher placement instead of taking 5/6/7. this comes back to our original complaint about your argument how the tazd measures skill. lets consider two players. one that exactly represents the zero datum, and one that has the same percentages, except he has 5% more 7ths, and 5% less 1sts. i hope i dont need to justify to you that 99.99+% of the time, the better player is the one who has the zero datum. he outplayed the other player, and got 5% more 1sts, and 5% less 7ths, with everything else the same. but, as you can see, the TAZD pronounces the second player the more skillful of the two. can you justify how the second player is more skilled (according to Ryan's definition of skill, which is reflected in total points, not counting membership/friends/tourneys)? this case shows how TAZD is just a measure of deviation, NOT skill (as defined by Ryan). to make it a a reflection of skill as defined by Ryan, you just make 5/6/7th place finishes be negative deviations, and 1/2/3rd place finishes be positive deviations. this tweak passes the common sense test. the current TAZD implementation does not pass the common sense test, and rewards the LESS skillful player. |
|
superxchloe wrote
at 3:15 PM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST monte: would you throw the 4th percentages out or group with 5th-7th since 4th is usually - points?
|
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 3:27 PM, Tuesday January 11, 2011 EST in the past ive said just throw them out, but i could understand the logic to calling them negative. also in the past, ive suggested weighting each placement differently. like weight 1sts highest, and then 7ths, etc... resembling the point distribution on a 0 table. what do you think?
|
