Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
grandgnu, olkainry38, 1st.skyler win 2011 TAZD*
Posted By: Vermont at 10:34 AM, Thursday April 12, 2012 EDT
Here are some additional scoring systems to the TAZD, including TAZD*, ASRm, and ASR. They are all preferable to base TAZD because they reward skill rather than just deviance from a defined middle point.
Specifically, a win (first place) could actually make your TAZD score go DOWN. In all the other systems it would make your score increase (or stay the same due to rounding.)
There are other issues with the TAZD that have been hilighted in the forum numerous times already.
Kudos to chloe for pulling all this together and publishing all her formulae and results. Due to the shortcomings of the plain TAZD, part of what goes on needs to be kept secret, but it's not the case with these. Security through obscurity is not necessary.
Here's Chloe's post, plus rankings:
Just say so if you'd like to join. If you have any questions about calculations or anything, just ask, and I'll happily answer. Suggestions are also always welcome and listened to. In fact! Monte recently suggested normalising the percentage profiles so everyone is on even footing- since not everyone's percentage profiles add to the same number. It's a small change, but it's an important one in my opinion.
An average of 35 games per month are required.
Unless someone specifically requests otherwise, I'll also include everyone in the yearly TAZD*. So far, I've included everyone with sufficient games that joined up to June. I'll add in the later entries soon. If you'd like to be removed, just say so, and I'll take you out no questions asked.
420 games minimum, 2400 games max bonus
Final standings, sorted by TAZD*:
ASRm ASR TAZD* Name
1.85 1096 28447 grandgnu
2.00 1639 23607 olkainry38
1.43 3465 22097 1st.skyler
1.46 2421 21374 Mercantile
1.31 2687 21307 kdiceplaya!
1.70 1719 19583 Mazaman
1.36 1653 19332 stakaboo
1.72 4303 19273 montecarlo
1.26 2474 18691 Lady Lite
1.72 0820 18559 masticore
1.40 8004 17820 Fonias
1.48 1136 17635 DrunkDaShiVa
1.26 3420 17021 Gurgi
1.29 3248 16598 dottir
1.22 1767 15354 cool g
0.89 2351 15331 chaiNblade
1.09 3709 14989 dirtyrolls
1.13 0534 14673 BAMMBI
1.38 2094 14563 Loobee
1.46 0493 14330 Xar
1.09 1609 14316 Az_Balu
1.26 1121 14285 ehervey
1.23 3678 13670 dasfury
1.23 1822 13631 charliedontsurf
1.14 1317 13372 Randomperfection
1.27 1219 13102 caesar-blue
0.63 -0030 12124 THRILLHO
1.18 0377 10911 Crazy Smurf
1.00 1082 10788 greekboi
1.07 0234 10059 ji-jo
1.13 0372 09926 TheBetterYodel
1.06 0396 09274 toad92
1.28 0089 08793 Kibble95
1.14 0068 07885 skrumgaer
1.01 -0205 07740 pooch723
1.02 0678 04874 Simon
0.93 -0041 04471 CCSKAOT
0.38 -0174 03302 joejoewhoa
http://bit.ly/v4mNPe
I got un-dumb and changed from manually summing products to using the SUMPRODUCT function in excel, but google docs apparently can't handle fixed references in its SUMPRODUCT calculation, hence the #VALUE! errors. Everything works fine in the original excel document, which I'd be happy to email to anyone who wants it.
Specifically, a win (first place) could actually make your TAZD score go DOWN. In all the other systems it would make your score increase (or stay the same due to rounding.)
There are other issues with the TAZD that have been hilighted in the forum numerous times already.
Kudos to chloe for pulling all this together and publishing all her formulae and results. Due to the shortcomings of the plain TAZD, part of what goes on needs to be kept secret, but it's not the case with these. Security through obscurity is not necessary.
Here's Chloe's post, plus rankings:
Just say so if you'd like to join. If you have any questions about calculations or anything, just ask, and I'll happily answer. Suggestions are also always welcome and listened to. In fact! Monte recently suggested normalising the percentage profiles so everyone is on even footing- since not everyone's percentage profiles add to the same number. It's a small change, but it's an important one in my opinion.
An average of 35 games per month are required.
Unless someone specifically requests otherwise, I'll also include everyone in the yearly TAZD*. So far, I've included everyone with sufficient games that joined up to June. I'll add in the later entries soon. If you'd like to be removed, just say so, and I'll take you out no questions asked.
420 games minimum, 2400 games max bonus
Final standings, sorted by TAZD*:
ASRm ASR TAZD* Name
1.85 1096 28447 grandgnu
2.00 1639 23607 olkainry38
1.43 3465 22097 1st.skyler
1.46 2421 21374 Mercantile
1.31 2687 21307 kdiceplaya!
1.70 1719 19583 Mazaman
1.36 1653 19332 stakaboo
1.72 4303 19273 montecarlo
1.26 2474 18691 Lady Lite
1.72 0820 18559 masticore
1.40 8004 17820 Fonias
1.48 1136 17635 DrunkDaShiVa
1.26 3420 17021 Gurgi
1.29 3248 16598 dottir
1.22 1767 15354 cool g
0.89 2351 15331 chaiNblade
1.09 3709 14989 dirtyrolls
1.13 0534 14673 BAMMBI
1.38 2094 14563 Loobee
1.46 0493 14330 Xar
1.09 1609 14316 Az_Balu
1.26 1121 14285 ehervey
1.23 3678 13670 dasfury
1.23 1822 13631 charliedontsurf
1.14 1317 13372 Randomperfection
1.27 1219 13102 caesar-blue
0.63 -0030 12124 THRILLHO
1.18 0377 10911 Crazy Smurf
1.00 1082 10788 greekboi
1.07 0234 10059 ji-jo
1.13 0372 09926 TheBetterYodel
1.06 0396 09274 toad92
1.28 0089 08793 Kibble95
1.14 0068 07885 skrumgaer
1.01 -0205 07740 pooch723
1.02 0678 04874 Simon
0.93 -0041 04471 CCSKAOT
0.38 -0174 03302 joejoewhoa
http://bit.ly/v4mNPe
I got un-dumb and changed from manually summing products to using the SUMPRODUCT function in excel, but google docs apparently can't handle fixed references in its SUMPRODUCT calculation, hence the #VALUE! errors. Everything works fine in the original excel document, which I'd be happy to email to anyone who wants it.
|
Vermont wrote
at 10:50 AM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST skrum, players with different percentages can of course have differing abilities.
However, if a statistic is attempting to rate skill based on the percentages (and number of games played) then an increase in firsts should never, ever, make that skill ranking go down. Explaining it away by pointing to things that the statistic expressly does NOT take into account only weakens your argument. If the stat is based on percentages, and someone gets a first which increases that percentage, any rational skill ranking - based on percentages - should increase. Everyone understands this except you. You haven't been able to explain it away, ignore it, or obfuscate it. Everyone recognizes that getting a first means your skill ranking should NOT go DOWN, which can easily happen with the TAZD, which is why you have to secretly alter the results. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 11:34 AM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Verms:
You are assuming the consequent. You have a belief that a win is always evidence of skill, and it isn't. I have already given one counterexample: a player who is trying to qualify for a tournament too late and racks up too many sevenths before he gets his win. Winning a poker hand by successfully completing a draw to an inside straight is not an example of good play. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 12:09 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Under that scenario, when a player gets that first win, their skill ranking should go up, no? You only explained why a player _might_ prefer a seventh, but have still not explained why any skill ranking should ever decrease after a player gets a win. This is only a single example which you can't explain, many others have been posted time and time again.
At the end of the day, TAZD only measures deviation from a pre-defined norm and not skill. If you want to admit that you define skill as being that deviation, that would settle the discussion. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 12:21 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST If the pre-defined norm is a good measure of no skill, then any deviation from that norm is a skill.
|
|
grandgnu wrote
at 12:22 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Skrum, what are the different animals and which one am I?
|
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 12:35 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST The different animals are:
The lion (or Sphinx) whose firsts are highest percentage, then seconds, then thirds, etc., The hyena, whose seconds are highest, The dromedary, who has lower seconds than firsts and thirds, and The horse, who has high firsts and a swayback figure in the middle places and a high number of sevenths. Your profile is a dromedary, but almost like a lion. The more typical dromedary has about the same levels of firsts and thirds. A dromedary is unlikely to settle for second but fight 1/3. In your case, since you have a strategy of stabbing, you will not fight 1/3 as often if your propensity to stab has been anticipated. My typical profile is a dromedary, but this year, since the introduction of 4-stack tables, I have been playing exclusively 4-stack and my profile has been moving away from the dromedary shape. For 4-stack tables, there may be a whole separate menagerie of creatures that will evolve. |
|
|
grandgnu wrote
at 12:42 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST Damn, I was hoping to be a snake.
|
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 1:45 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST "If the pre-defined norm is a good measure of no skill, then any deviation from that norm is a skill."
Great, thank you for finally acknowledging that what you consider skill is merely deviation. Again, no one here but you thinks getting an additional win (first) means a skill ranking should go down. But, since a win could decrease your "deviation," your TAZD could go down. Patently non-nonsensical for a skill rating, but not for a deviation rating. At the end of the day, TAZD tests skill in deviating, not skill in doing well at kdice. TAZD* takes the direction of the deviation into account, and therefore alleviates all the problems of the TAZD. It's no wonder that you have to secretly alter the results for the TAZD. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 5:55 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST I have not secretly altered the results for the TAZD. The childproofing has never had to kick in, not yet at least. If it kicks in, I will publish the result in the standings with a special recognition of the child's gaming skill. After all, gaming a system is a skill. Why spend all the effort to game a system and not get recognition for your skill?
I have said that the zero datum has some skill content because it contains some good players temporarily down on their luck. I can construct a better zero datum if I remove from it players with the new level rating above a certain value. Perhaps you can help by suggesting a threshold value of level that signifiies goodness, or at least non-noobness. But constructing the new datum would take a lot of work because each member's stats would have to be accessed one at a time to ascertain that player's level. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 5:57 PM, Thursday December 22, 2011 EST The word "member" means a member of the zero datum pool, not a kdice member.
|
