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
|
superxchloe wrote
at 10:40 AM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST Do we all agree that 'skill' in this instance is 'being good at kdice'?
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 10:58 AM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST finally we get down to the real root of the matter: what is SKILL?
according to skrum: deviation from the zero datum. any deviation, whatsoever. whether a good deviation or a bad deviation. doing worse than the zero datum takes skill. according to everyone, literally, everyone else, including Ryan: 1st > 2nd > 3rd > 4th > 5th > 6th > 7th. or, winning. or, doing better than others. it seems we are at an impasse. and therefore, it seems that we should all hopelessly abandon skrums implementation of TAZD. you cant say that we havent tried to use logic with him. weve tried to be gentle, weve tried to be sarcastic, weve tried to be blunt. nothing works. the man will not listen. therefore our best plan, methinks, is to tweak his TAZD calc ourselves so that it DOES reflect what the rest of humanity calls skill, and not the senseless definition that skrum has presented us. maybe rename it TAZD+ (test against zero datum, but only with positive deviations, not negative). |
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 11:23 AM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST I'm working on it with kakku, monte. :)
|
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 12:04 PM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST btw chloe, i was thinking about the different weightings for the different placements... and perhaps im just confusing myself, but im back to saying just drop the 4th place altogether. 1st place deviations will be weighted the most because the zero datum has the lowest percentage of 1st places. so you dont need to inflate them any more.
... right? (*scratching head*) |
|
Vermont wrote
at 12:27 PM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST I agree that fourths should basically be break-even, or perhaps slightly negative. We can run a first pass that way and adjust the results if we find some weird consequences.
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 12:47 PM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST Right, Monte. Because of the zero datum, having 25% firsts is better than having 25% seconds, which is better than 25% thirds etc etc. I'll talk to kakku about fourths.
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 1:24 PM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST Vermont, don't show your ignorance. The decathlon has 10 events, but skill for one event may overlap another. Factor analysis identifies four basic skills. Take a look at this paper (powerpoint viewer required):
math.usask.ca/.../2007/​Section%2011%20Factor%20Analysis.ppt |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 1:26 PM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST Somehow the full cite didn't get in. The full cite is
http://math.usask.ca/~laverty/S346%20(2008)/2007/Section%2011%20Factor%20Analysis.ppt |
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 1:27 PM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST *cough* Do we all agree that 'skill' in this instance is 'being good at kdice'?
|
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 1:42 PM, Wednesday January 12, 2011 EST No.
Skill can also involve "having fun playing kdice". My percentage profile is of the "dromedary" shape (fewer seconds than firsts or thirds). Not many dromedaries make it to the top 100, so dromedaries may not be as "good" as others in playing kdice. But it doesn't mean they have less fun. I think that the winner needs to work for his win, so I will often attack him while for points' sake it would better for me to stay quiet. I also like to punish trucers, propose counters to 1-2 flags, and to open up big stacks of someone else if I am pressed too hard by someone. Also, if I have a bad start, why not put it to use by screwing someone else over? |
