This may be my 1-am-after-two-exams-one-dress-rehearsal-and-a-research-paper brain talking but I've no idea what that last sentence means.

This is how my profile would look (except that currently I don't have enough games):

141 12% 16% 22% 17% 18% 10% 04% 136 5580 skrumgaer

The new quantity 136 is the adjusted number of games played given that my Jan stats added up to 95%, my Feb stats to 96%, and my March stats to 97%.

I changed the post to say that sum-of-percentages weighted number of games is used to normalize the mean yearly percentages.

My brain must have been addled a little last night too. Since I normalized the percentages, I would overnormalize if I also adjusted the multiplier, so I went back to the regular square root of games multiplier. So my profile would look like this:

141 12% 16% 22% 17% 18% 10% 04% 5691 skrumgaer

so, you're normalising the percentage profiles per monte's suggestion? so everyone has "even footing" due to truncation.

Not completely. I am dividing the game-weighted twelve-month sum of percentages by the twelve-month sum of "truncated games" instead of normalizing each month first. So, for the numbers I gave, my unnormalized percentages for Jan, Feb, and Mar were 97, 96, and 95. My number of games were

Not completely. I am dividing the game-weighted twelve-month sum of percentages by the twelve-month sum of "truncated games" instead of normalizing each month first. So, for the numbers I gave, my unnormalized percentages for Jan, Feb, and Mar were 97, 96, and 95. My number of games were 48, 64, and 29. My "truncated games" were 46.56, 61.44, and 27.55, for a total of 135.55. I used the square root of 135.55 as the divisor in the final formula for the TAZD instead of my actual number of games of 141.

The results are likely a little bit different than normalizing each month's percentages first then taking the game weighted sum, but I have been too busy to do all the formula changes that would be required. On the other hand, there has not been a rush of entrants, so I might have time to do it before people start signing up.

Not completely. I am dividing the game-weighted twelve-month sum of percentages by the twelve-month sum of "truncated games" instead of normalizing each month first. So, for the numbers I gave, my unnormalized percentages for Jan, Feb, and Mar were 97, 96, and 95. My number of games were 48, 64, and 29. My "truncated games" were 46.56, 61.44, and 27.55, for a total of 135.55. I used the square root of 135.55 as the divisor in the final formula for the TAZD instead of my actual number of games of 141.

The results are likely a little bit different than normalizing each month's percentages first then taking the game weighted sum, but I have been too busy to do all the formula changes that would be required. On the other hand, there has not been a rush of entrants, so I might have time to do it before people start signing up.

Somehow the rest of my post got cut off. What I meant to say was I used the square root of "truncated" games (using Ryan's percentages) as the divisor instead of the actual number of games. In my case, 139.55 games instead of 141 games.

Add me cause I'm fucking awesome, ty